Eternal Life is a Falsehood

[attofishpi]

God is only an impossibility by the attributes that you have defined to it.

Not all theists believe God created the universe. Not all theists believe God is omniscient and omnipotent. Not all theists believe God is entirely benevolent...not all believe in Heaven and Hell etc etc..

And may I add, not all 'theists' believe. I have known this entity to exist since '97, apparently, according to another atheist some time ago on this forum, that makes me gnostic.

I have agreed an empirical based God is a possibility awaiting verification, justification and confirmation with empirical evidences.

However an ontological God which the majority of theists [90% are Abrahamic and others] which by default will end up with is an impossibility as I had argued in the OP I had raised.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In YOUR OWN words, in as clearly and as succinctly as you can, PLEASE define WHAT an empirical based God would entail, and, WHAT an ontological God would entail, to YOU (and the difference between the two also if you like). I have asked you numerous times before for this, but to NO avail. However, I thought I would give it a TRY once more, anyway.

Yeah, he confused the shite out of me on that one too, but I couldn't be bothered dealing with it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Read your post again.
You are the one who claimed 'God is a by-product of evolution'.

Now you seem to be changing tune to assert 'evolution is a by-product of God'?
If you insist God exists as real, then I have countered that with
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I am completely aware of what has been said, and no you did not counter anything considering God by definition is beyond necessity and can in effect be nothing yet still exist. This has been covered in two threads already.

More to the point:

1. God creates evolution, as a law mirroring how God moves.
2. God exists through this creation, ie law as strictly a set of movements, where this law creates God.
3. God creates God through creation which creates God; hence God exists through God because of a synthetic nature where God joins God to God by creating, with this creation canceling out void through pure being.

God is a creative process.

Your first premise is wrong because you simply God exists without proofs.

Your premise is wrong because there is not universal definition for proof and it is based upon structure alone. All structured phenomenon, whether of abstract or empirical nature, exist as proof. Empirical proof is subject to interpretation, hence is strictly an observation of empirical structure, abstract structure and a structure connecting the two.

In simpler terms the empirical and abstract must be connected, but this connection shows a simultaneous separation considering only individual parts can be connected. Hence every "proof" of God has a dual antithetical proof.

Hence one can have two arguments, one as a proof of God and the other against God, and under the premise the argument maintains itself through some degree of self referential form and function, both arguments can be true.

The dualism of the argument that God both exists and does not exist observes God as both being and beyond being. This is considering the antithetical argument cannot exist on it's own terms without a theatrical, but the thetical can be observed without the antithetical.

[surreptitious57]

Do you agree the fundamental of theism is psychological and not that there is already a pre existing God waiting to be believed

Religion was invented to overcome the fear of death but you cannot be afraid of something you are never going to experience
There is no need to create an imaginary heaven because the ending of all suffering that occurs after death is heaven anyway

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is only an impossibility by the attributes that you have defined to it.

Not all theists believe God created the universe. Not all theists believe God is omniscient and omnipotent. Not all theists believe God is entirely benevolent...not all believe in Heaven and Hell etc etc..

And may I add, not all 'theists' believe. I have known this entity to exist since '97, apparently, according to another atheist some time ago on this forum, that makes me gnostic.

I have agreed an empirical based God is a possibility awaiting verification, justification and confirmation with empirical evidences.

However an ontological God which the majority of theists [90% are Abrahamic and others] which by default will end up with is an impossibility as I had argued in the OP I had raised.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In YOUR OWN words, in as clearly and as succinctly as you can, PLEASE define WHAT an empirical based God would entail, and, WHAT an ontological God would entail, to YOU (and the difference between the two also if you like). I have asked you numerous times before for this, but to NO avail. However, I thought I would give it a TRY once more, anyway.

An empirical based God is one that is comprised on empirical elements only which can then be proved empirically there upon when the empirical evidence are produced to verify it empirically. As such an empirical based God whilst has not been proven empirically is nevertheless empirically possible.

• Example of an empirical based God ranges from
  "the Bearded Man in the Sky" to
  'an anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in or
  to a matrix like anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in.

An ontological God is a god that lacks empirical elements, i.e. ontological being e.g.
God is a being than which no greater can exist - that of St. Anselm and Descartes.

[attofishpi]

I have agreed an empirical based God is a possibility awaiting verification, justification and confirmation with empirical evidences.

However an ontological God which the majority of theists [90% are Abrahamic and others] which by default will end up with is an impossibility as I had argued in the OP I had raised.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In YOUR OWN words, in as clearly and as succinctly as you can, PLEASE define WHAT an empirical based God would entail, and, WHAT an ontological God would entail, to YOU (and the difference between the two also if you like). I have asked you numerous times before for this, but to NO avail. However, I thought I would give it a TRY once more, anyway.

An empirical based God is one that is comprised on empirical elements only which can then be proved empirically there upon when the empirical evidence are produced to verify it empirically. As such an empirical based God whilst has not been proven empirically is nevertheless empirically possible.

• Example of an empirical based God ranges from
  "the Bearded Man in the Sky" to
  'an anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in or
  to a matrix like anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in.

An ontological God is a god that lacks empirical elements, i.e. ontological being e.g.
God is a being than which no greater can exist - that of St. Anselm and Descartes.

So you not understand that an 'empirical based God' actually would be the result of an ontological study of God?

ontology
Noun.
1. the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence

empirical
Adjective.
1. derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"

[Veritas Aequitas]

In YOUR OWN words, in as clearly and as succinctly as you can, PLEASE define WHAT an empirical based God would entail, and, WHAT an ontological God would entail, to YOU (and the difference between the two also if you like). I have asked you numerous times before for this, but to NO avail. However, I thought I would give it a TRY once more, anyway.

An empirical based God is one that is comprised on empirical elements only which can then be proved empirically there upon when the empirical evidence are produced to verify it empirically. As such an empirical based God whilst has not been proven empirically is nevertheless empirically possible.

• Example of an empirical based God ranges from
  "the Bearded Man in the Sky" to
  'an anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in or
  to a matrix like anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in.

An ontological God is a god that lacks empirical elements, i.e. ontological being e.g.
God is a being than which no greater can exist - that of St. Anselm and Descartes.

So you not understand that an 'empirical based God' actually would be the result of an ontological study of God?

ontology
Noun.
1. the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence

empirical
Adjective.
1. derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"

Dictionary definitions are not effective in this case.
You need to understand the terms 'metaphysics' and 'ontology' and the philosophical issues more thoroughly and deeply.

Note the term 'meta_physics', beyond Physics which directly empirical and indirectly empirical.
Once we go beyond empirical physics, then there are greater doubts whether what is beyond Physics is empirical or not.
'Ontology' is a more distant subject [subset] away from metaphysics, thus you cannot jump to the conclusion it is empirical.

I hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?

[surreptitious57]

I hold the philosophical beliefs what is ontological cannot exist in reality and is definitely non empirical

Ontology is the nature of physical reality so to say it cannot exist in reality is completely nonsensical
It does not have to reference God and simply refers to that what is [ what ever it might actually be ]

Ontology cannot be scientific because science only investigates observable phenomena and has nothing to say about reality
But it would however be ontological to say the Universe is composed only of energy or matter and is therefore materialistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

I hold the philosophical beliefs what is ontological cannot exist in reality and is definitely non empirical

Ontology is the nature of physical reality so to say it cannot exist in reality is completely nonsensical
It does not have to reference God and simply refers to that what is [ what ever it might actually be ]

Ontology cannot be scientific because science only investigates observable phenomena and has nothing to say about reality
But it would however be ontological to say the Universe is composed only of energy or matter and is therefore materialistic

But???
It would be more appropriate to say,
Thesis: Scientifically, the Universe is compose only of energy.
In this case, there is a Scientific Framework and System [SFS] to support the above thesis which is conditioned by that SFS.

In the case of ontology, what Framework and System is one dependent on.
Ontology is related to the ultimate substance or essence of reality.

Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

Yes, Ontology cannot be Scientific.
Scientists are also chasing for an ultimate matter, and if they find it, it cannot only be scientific and not ontological.

The ontologist is searching for an ultimate matter which in meta-Physics, i.e. beyond Science. This is an impossibility. Whatever answers is ontologically speculated, generally "God exists" it merely has a psychological basis.

[attofishpi]

An empirical based God is one that is comprised on empirical elements only which can then be proved empirically there upon when the empirical evidence are produced to verify it empirically. As such an empirical based God whilst has not been proven empirically is nevertheless empirically possible.

• Example of an empirical based God ranges from
  "the Bearded Man in the Sky" to
  'an anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in or
  to a matrix like anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in.

An ontological God is a god that lacks empirical elements, i.e. ontological being e.g.
God is a being than which no greater can exist - that of St. Anselm and Descartes.

So you not understand that an 'empirical based God' actually would be the result of an ontological study of God?

ontology
Noun.
1. the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence

empirical
Adjective.
1. derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"

Dictionary definitions are not effective in this case.
You need to understand the terms 'metaphysics' and 'ontology' and the philosophical issues more thoroughly and deeply.

Note the term 'meta_physics', beyond Physics which directly empirical and indirectly empirical.
Once we go beyond empirical physics, then there are greater doubts whether what is beyond Physics is empirical or not.
'Ontology' is a more distant subject [subset] away from metaphysics, thus you cannot jump to the conclusion it is empirical.

There is no 'jumping to a conclusion' on my part. I am stating that an ontological study, consideration, analysis of the metaphysical can eventually lead one to an avenue where empirical evidence is drawn, in the case of your debate - God.

I hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?

I agree, that which is ontological, is not empirical, but to suggest that that which is ontological, after great study and investigation, cannot result in empirical evidence is irrational.

I've never formally studied philosophy, I've occasionally read some material where I have found an interest, but those 'tons' of philosophers that you mentioned I doubt would hold much sway with the likes of Einstein.

Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge, Ideas and Opinions, 1954
By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. ... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.[i/]

[Age]

I have agreed an empirical based God is a possibility awaiting verification, justification and confirmation with empirical evidences.

However an ontological God which the majority of theists [90% are Abrahamic and others] which by default will end up with is an impossibility as I had argued in the OP I had raised.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In YOUR OWN words, in as clearly and as succinctly as you can, PLEASE define WHAT an empirical based God would entail, and, WHAT an ontological God would entail, to YOU (and the difference between the two also if you like). I have asked you numerous times before for this, but to NO avail. However, I thought I would give it a TRY once more, anyway.

An empirical based God is one that is comprised on empirical elements only which can then be proved empirically there upon when the empirical evidence are produced to verify it empirically. As such an empirical based God whilst has not been proven empirically is nevertheless empirically possible.

• Example of an empirical based God ranges from
  "the Bearded Man in the Sky" to
  'an anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in or
  to a matrix like anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in.

An ontological God is a god that lacks empirical elements, i.e. ontological being e.g.
God is a being than which no greater can exist - that of St. Anselm and Descartes.

Thus, I can now see, and understand, WHY you are so confused on this issue.

[Age]

An empirical based God is one that is comprised on empirical elements only which can then be proved empirically there upon when the empirical evidence are produced to verify it empirically. As such an empirical based God whilst has not been proven empirically is nevertheless empirically possible.

• Example of an empirical based God ranges from
  "the Bearded Man in the Sky" to
  'an anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in or
  to a matrix like anthropomorphic being creating the Universe humans lived in.

An ontological God is a god that lacks empirical elements, i.e. ontological being e.g.
God is a being than which no greater can exist - that of St. Anselm and Descartes.

So you not understand that an 'empirical based God' actually would be the result of an ontological study of God?

ontology
Noun.
1. the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence

empirical
Adjective.
1. derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"

Dictionary definitions are not effective in this case.
You need to understand the terms 'metaphysics' and 'ontology' and the philosophical issues more thoroughly and deeply.

Note the term 'meta_physics', beyond Physics which directly empirical and indirectly empirical.
Once we go beyond empirical physics, then there are greater doubts whether what is beyond Physics is empirical or not.
'Ontology' is a more distant subject [subset] away from metaphysics, thus you cannot jump to the conclusion it is empirical.

I hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?

How many "philosophers" do you propose are in a 'ton'?

And, how do you define 'philosopher'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?

How many "philosophers" do you propose are in a 'ton'?

And, how do you define 'philosopher'?

Don't pretend and make yourself look childish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no 'jumping to a conclusion' on my part. I am stating that an ontological study, consideration, analysis of the metaphysical can eventually lead one to an avenue where empirical evidence is drawn, in the case of your debate - God.

Point is, it is impossible to link 'what is ontological' to 'what is empirical'.
When one is anchored on the empirical of definite experience and knowledge [Justified True Beliefs] and speculate therefrom one can always track back to one's grounding.

But to start from ontology one has no grounds to track back [jumping the gun].
However a critical analysis of ontological views is more likely to lead one back to one's own psychology.
The amounts of passions, 'lust' the terrible evil and violence [beside whatever good] from theists in association with theism is a very strong clue for one with insights to explore the link between God and psychology.

I hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?

I agree, that which is ontological, is not empirical, but to suggest that that which is ontological, after great study and investigation, cannot result in empirical evidence is irrational.

Ever since the idea of God emerged thousands of years ago, there has been no proofs God has any empirical reality nor linkage. The arguments against the idea of God is increasing with time. The early arguments for god were very stupid and every new argument for god can be easily topple. The trend is there are more non-theists.
The fact is theism is psychological than empirical.

I've never formally studied philosophy, I've occasionally read some material where I have found an interest, but those 'tons' of philosophers that you mentioned I doubt would hold much sway with the likes of Einstein.

Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge, Ideas and Opinions, 1954
By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. ... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.[i/]

No doubt Einstein was great but he was limited.
Einstein could not penetrate and he resisted the truths of the more advanced Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein's critique of Hume is very narrow and limited to his relatively 'narrow' perspective of Physics. Thus Einstein's critique of the giants of Philosophy cannot be credible.

[attofishpi]

There is no 'jumping to a conclusion' on my part. I am stating that an ontological study, consideration, analysis of the metaphysical can eventually lead one to an avenue where empirical evidence is drawn, in the case of your debate - God.

Point is, it is impossible to link 'what is ontological' to 'what is empirical'.
When one is anchored on the empirical of definite experience and knowledge [Justified True Beliefs] and speculate therefrom one can always track back to one's grounding.
But to start from ontology one has no grounds to track back [jumping the gun].

I disagree. Ontology is akin to imagination, such that a man thought hey there could be a mechanical method of transport where my horse is no longer required. This man then conceived of the idea of steam to power such a machine, using empirical evidence of the affect that boiling water has to cause pressure within a contained space, hey presto, we have a train.
I'm certain (sorry to resort to this chap again) that Einstein had far reaching metaphysical inquiry to formulate his theories, and of course, eventually most of them were empirically proven.

I hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?

I agree, that which is ontological, is not empirical, but to suggest that that which is ontological, after great study and investigation, cannot result in empirical evidence is irrational.

Ever since the idea of God emerged thousands of years ago, there has been no proofs God has any empirical reality nor linkage. The arguments against the idea of God is increasing with time. The early arguments for god were very stupid and every new argument for god can be easily topple. The trend is there are more non-theists.

Just because I cannot prove this 3rd parties existence to others- the one referred to as 'God', does not mean that I had no empirical evidence provided personally to me. (21yrs worth in fact).
I agree, early arguments for God were generally pathetic, and these days, yes people are turning to atheism in droves, since what was proposed back then was so ridiculous it has permitted the likes of Dawkins, a fucking biologist to further their doubt, rejecting any in depth thought of the nature of reality, the field of phycisists.
Personally, I think the more we discover at the sub-atomic level about its complexity, theories of multiple dimensions\universes, the more I think people should wise up, and reconsider their switch to atheism.

I've never formally studied philosophy, I've occasionally read some material where I have found an interest, but those 'tons' of philosophers that you mentioned I doubt would hold much sway with the likes of Einstein.
Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge, Ideas and Opinions, 1954
By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. ... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.

No doubt Einstein was great but he was limited.
Einstein could not penetrate and he resisted the truths of the more advanced Quantum Mechanics.
Einstein's critique of Hume is very narrow and limited to his relatively 'narrow' perspective of Physics. Thus Einstein's critique of the giants of Philosophy cannot be credible.

Einstein had a 'narrow' perspective of physics! Really? Just because the extremely small perplexed the shit out of him you have drawn that conclusion.
So here are your true colours. You have spent your vocational education on Philosophy, where lets face it, these days has little to offer by way of employment, even within the sciences. So you are left with the few opportunities to make a living - perhaps resorting to the fields of psychology\psychiatry, pondering still over those you call 'the giants of philosophy' no doubt the atheist ilk.
But hey, you get to profess what you have studied upon this very forum, but have you truly given (in this case) the concept of a 'God' in any form a serious analysis, or have you erred to the thoughts of your favourite atheist philosophers, supporting your own belief, that reality has no 'being' behind its construct?
That you comprehend the sub-atomic matter so well, that you still feel justified in deploring theism because its so easy to attack those concepts formulated aeons ago, concepts we both agree are generally ridiculous.

[Age]

I hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?

How many "philosophers" do you propose are in a 'ton'?

And, how do you define 'philosopher'?

Don't pretend and make yourself look childish.

Do NOT pretend WHAT exactly?

And, how do you propose I am making my self look childish?

Do you think that by just asking a question, looking for clarification, makes me look childish?

If yes, then maybe you are relating this back to when a child ask a question like, Then What is God? when an adult says that God created everything.

WHY do you, veritas, think, that by me asking a clarifying question makes me look childish?

If you are able to answer my questions, then just answer them. If, however, you are UNABLE to answer my truly open clarifying questions, then no amount of TRYING TO turn this back on to me, makes YOU look any smarter than what you really are.

If you are ABLE to answer MY questions, then I propose just do so. Otherwise, if you are NOT able to, then by just honestly admit that then you would appear much more intelligent than you are NOW.