God\'God's existence is probable

[attofishpi]

There is no clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists, and scientific inquiry.

Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Stop making out that science contradicts the validity of God\'God's existence.

[attofishpi]

Science is empirical rational based

God is a metaphysical and transcendental based entity

Metaphysics is something that is totally beyond Science

Why theists are forcing the transcendental God into the empirical box is due to psychology

There is no clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists, and scientific inquiry.

Btw, do you understand the fallacy of equivocation or conflation of different perspectives?

As I had explained there are two main issues regarding the idea of God, i.e.

• 1. Empirical based God
  2. Ontological God

For the empirical based God, e.g. the bearded man in the sky, yes it is possible for science to verify it, but then bring the evidence to justify an empirical God. This is the 1/7 possible God of Richard Dawkins.
But the empirical God is a sort of inferior and useless God when cornered.

So humans has to come up with an ontological God, i.e. the all powerful God who created the whole universe and can do anything.
The Transcendental, Metaphysical & Ontological God cannot be equivocated with empirical Science.

Why do you feel you the right to put words into the mouths of theists?
Answer: Because then you can continue to argue with your own fallacy about God\'God', and attempt to profess that you are reasonable.

Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Stop making out that science contradicts the validity of God\'God's existence.

As long as you are using Science to justify an ontological God, you are caught in the fallacy of equivocation.

You are the one chasing your own tale of equivocation.
You have not addressed my statement regarding point 2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists, and scientific inquiry.

Btw, do you understand the fallacy of equivocation or conflation of different perspectives?

As I had explained there are two main issues regarding the idea of God, i.e.

• 1. Empirical based God
  2. Ontological God

For the empirical based God, e.g. the bearded man in the sky, yes it is possible for science to verify it, but then bring the evidence to justify an empirical God. This is the 1/7 possible God of Richard Dawkins.
But the empirical God is a sort of inferior and useless God when cornered.

So humans has to come up with an ontological God, i.e. the all powerful God who created the whole universe and can do anything.
The Transcendental, Metaphysical & Ontological God cannot be equivocated with empirical Science.

Why do you feel you the right to put words into the mouths of theists?
Answer: Because then you can continue to argue with your own fallacy about God\'God', and attempt to profess that you are reasonable.

Note this is a PHILOSOPHICAL forum.
I have the right to present my views and you have the right/choice to respond with philosophical arguments, not complains.

Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Stop making out that science contradicts the validity of God\'God's existence.

As long as you are using Science to justify an ontological God, you are caught in the fallacy of equivocation.

You are the one chasing your own tale of equivocation.
You have not addressed my statement regarding point 2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

I thought I have presented my argument why [by implications].

• P1. It is a fallacy to equivocate an ontological God with Science.
  P2. Entropy is a scientific concept
  C1. Therefore entropy [scientific] cannot dictate on an ontological God [transcendental / metaphysical].

If God is created by "us" this should be obvious.
So where is the empirical evidence?

I had argued;

• The idea of God is created by 'humans' [theists] as a psychological tool to deal with an inherent existential crisis.
  The idea of God [practiced in general] is responsible for loads of evil and violent acts [besides good] since it emerged within humanity.
  Therefore if we can replace God [a psychological tool] with fool proofs psychological tools to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis, then there will be no more God-related evil and violent acts.

Note the above have been done with non-theistic methods, so why not look at these alternatives and improve them to be fool proof.

[attofishpi]

You are the one chasing your own tale of equivocation.
You have not addressed my statement regarding point 2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

I thought I have presented my argument why [by implications].

• P1. It is a fallacy to equivocate an ontological God with Science.
  P2. Entropy is a scientific concept
  C1. Therefore entropy [scientific] cannot dictate on an ontological God [transcendental / metaphysical].

If God is created by "us" this should be obvious.

No, it shouldn't.
And with great reason, since entropy is a nasty factor in the scheme of things, this 'God' would leave great doubt about its existence, it would not leave empirical evidence.
Do you understand its reasoning? I doubt that.
If useful energy is in short supply, then only those that follow, perhaps 10 commandments have the right to reincarnate and make use of further energy.
If God's existence was obvious, then everyone (that is intelligent) would behave. Fact is, 666 has a reason when it comes to this entity and energy of man.

So where is the empirical evidence?

Do you agree that 'IF' there is a 'God' a person can be given empirical evidence of its existence, to the exclusion of being able empirically prove it to others? ...and do you now understand the reason Y?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are the one chasing your own tale of equivocation.
You have not addressed my statement regarding point 2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

I thought I have presented my argument why [by implications].

• P1. It is a fallacy to equivocate an ontological God with Science.
  P2. Entropy is a scientific concept
  C1. Therefore entropy [scientific] cannot dictate on an ontological God [transcendental / metaphysical].

If God is created by "us" this should be obvious.

No, it shouldn't.
And with great reason, since entropy is a nasty factor in the scheme of things, this 'God' would leave great doubt about its existence, it would not leave empirical evidence.
Do you understand its reasoning? I doubt that.
If useful energy is in short supply, then only those that follow, perhaps 10 commandments have the right to reincarnate and make use of further energy.
If God's existence was obvious, then everyone (that is intelligent) would behave. Fact is, 666 has a reason when it comes to this entity and energy of man.

You got to get a better grip in understanding the fallacy of equivocation;

In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.
-Wiki

This is a nuance situation.
I have stated many times, the perspective of Science and the perspective of metaphysics are of different senses in respect of an ontological God.
It does not follow if your premises are in different senses.
Note I stated 'ontological' God.

Do you understand the difference between an ontological God and an empirical God?

So where is the empirical evidence?

Do you agree that 'IF' there is a 'God' a person can be given empirical evidence of its existence, to the exclusion of being able empirically prove it to others? ...and do you now understand the reason Y?

Yes, if only if you argue your God is empirical based.
If you claim your God is "that bearded man in the sky", then yes, if such a God exists, then it can be proven empirical if empirical evidences are produced to justify it via empirical testing and verifications.
The question is, Where is the evidences?

If you claim your God is an empirical being like the pervasive energy [of Physics] creating the things in the universe, then bring the empirical evidence?

But note, an empirical God is a useless inferior God when counter-claimed by others.
Nevertheless, the final point is, bring the evidence to prove your empirical God for empirical testing and verification.

[attofishpi]

You gotta start again sunshine, cos when you impel quotes that I don't state I get very annoyed. If you are gonna quote me, you use my name...it is attofishpi

You are the one chasing your own tale of equivocation.
You have not addressed my statement regarding point 2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

I thought I have presented my argument why [by implications].

• P1. It is a fallacy to equivocate an ontological God with Science.
  P2. Entropy is a scientific concept
  C1. Therefore entropy [scientific] cannot dictate on an ontological God [transcendental / metaphysical].

If God is created by "us" this should be obvious.

No, it shouldn't.
And with great reason, since entropy is a nasty factor in the scheme of things, this 'God' would leave great doubt about its existence, it would not leave empirical evidence.
Do you understand its reasoning? I doubt that.
If useful energy is in short supply, then only those that follow, perhaps 10 commandments have the right to reincarnate and make use of further energy.
If God's existence was obvious, then everyone (that is intelligent) would behave. Fact is, 666 has a reason when it comes to this entity and energy of man.

So where is the empirical evidence?

Do you agree that 'IF' there is a 'God' a person can be given empirical evidence of its existence, to the exclusion of being able empirically prove it to others? ...and do you now understand the reason Y?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You gotta start again sunshine, cos when you impel quotes that I don't state I get very annoyed. If you are gonna quote me, you use my name...it is attofishpi

If you get annoyed in such a case it is a weakness that is detrimental to your own health. I believe this is a liability for some theists.
I don't like to discuss with people who are easily annoyed, it is my choice.
My focus is always on the quality of the discussion and arguments.

What I had missed out was the Wiki quote, now corrected.
Hey, you understand the Principle of Charity in philosophy discussions?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[attofishpi]

You gotta start again sunshine, cos when you impel quotes that I don't state I get very annoyed. If you are gonna quote me, you use my name...it is attofishpi

If you get annoyed in such a case it is a weakness that is detrimental to your own health.
I don't like to discuss with people who are easily annoyed, it is my choice.
My focus is always on the quality of the discussion and arguments.

What quality if you HAVE NOT got the intelligence to use my name 'attofishpi' when quoting me?

Where is the quality of the discussion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You gotta start again sunshine, cos when you impel quotes that I don't state I get very annoyed. If you are gonna quote me, you use my name...it is attofishpi

If you get annoyed in such a case it is a weakness that is detrimental to your own health.
I don't like to discuss with people who are easily annoyed, it is my choice.
My focus is always on the quality of the discussion and arguments.

What quality if you HAVE NOT got the intelligence to use my name 'attofishpi' when quoting me?

Where is the quality of the discussion?

It is very normal practice and of convenience [99% of posters do it] to indicate the name and reference of the post only in the first quotation.
As for the subsequent quotes, surely you know it is yours when you read your own writings. It is too troublesome to copy the reference to every quote and in some cases that can be 20 times.

[attofishpi]

I thought I have presented my argument why [by implications].

• P1. It is a fallacy to equivocate an ontological God with Science.
  P2. Entropy is a scientific concept
  C1. Therefore entropy [scientific] cannot dictate on an ontological God [transcendental / metaphysical].

If God is created by "us" this should be obvious.

No, it shouldn't.
And with great reason, since entropy is a nasty factor in the scheme of things, this 'God' would leave great doubt about its existence, it would not leave empirical evidence.
Do you understand its reasoning? I doubt that.
If useful energy is in short supply, then only those that follow, perhaps 10 commandments have the right to reincarnate and make use of further energy.
If God's existence was obvious, then everyone (that is intelligent) would behave. Fact is, 666 has a reason when it comes to this entity and energy of man.

You got to get a better grip in understanding the fallacy of equivocation;

It is a pretty easy to understand concept so stop bloating yourself on big words. I am not interested in debating semantics.

In a philosophical debate where one states something is a fallacious equivocation, as is the case with you regarding my statement, then it is up to you to prove it so.
Simply stating that entropy is a scientific concept and demanding one to only regard 'God' as ontological, doesn't negate that God is\will likely exist, and remove all comprehension as to its PROBABLE existence. (check the thread title)

So, back to you, again:-
You have not addressed my statement point:-
2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

[Age]

Do you understand the difference between an ontological God and an empirical God?

From YOUR perspective, NO I do not.

What is the difference between an ontological God and an empirical God, from YOUR perspective?

So where is the empirical evidence?

Do you agree that 'IF' there is a 'God' a person can be given empirical evidence of its existence, to the exclusion of being able empirically prove it to others? ...and do you now understand the reason Y?

Yes, if only if you argue your God is empirical based.
If you claim your God is "that bearded man in the sky", then yes, if such a God exists, then it can be proven empirical if empirical evidences are produced to justify it via empirical testing and verifications.
The question is, Where is the evidences?

If you claim your God is an empirical being like the pervasive energy [of Physics] creating the things in the universe, then bring the empirical evidence?

What do you mean by; "then bring the empirical evidence?"

If God is a Being, like the Energy [of Physics] that is creating the Universe, then, obviously, the EVIDENCE is RIGHT HERE before you.

If God is the energy that is creating the Universe, then the Universe that you are in, and which you created you, is the actual EVIDENCE.

How could It be brought to you, especially when It is ALL around you staring you in the face.

Also, how much MORE evidence do you NEED? Surely the WHOLE Universe is enough evidence, even for you, veritas.

Because of the way you LOOK AT and SEE things, you are just unable to SEE the FOREST [God] for the trees [that is; you, that thinking and beliefs within that body.]

But note, an empirical God is a useless inferior God when counter-claimed by others.
Nevertheless, the final point is, bring the evidence to prove your empirical God for empirical testing and verification.

If Energy is Creating the Universe, then you can pick absolutely ANY piece of physical matter as evidence that you like to test for verification.

There I have brought evidence for you. Are you now going to LOOK AT it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you understand the difference between an ontological God and an empirical God?

From YOUR perspective, NO I do not.

What is the difference between an ontological God and an empirical God, from YOUR perspective?

Do you agree that 'IF' there is a 'God' a person can be given empirical evidence of its existence, to the exclusion of being able empirically prove it to others? ...and do you now understand the reason Y?

Yes, if only if you argue your God is empirical based.
If you claim your God is "that bearded man in the sky", then yes, if such a God exists, then it can be proven empirical if empirical evidences are produced to justify it via empirical testing and verifications.
The question is, Where is the evidences?

If you claim your God is an empirical being like the pervasive energy [of Physics] creating the things in the universe, then bring the empirical evidence?

What do you mean by; "then bring the empirical evidence?"

If God is a Being, like the Energy [of Physics] that is creating the Universe, then, obviously, the EVIDENCE is RIGHT HERE before you.

If God is the energy that is creating the Universe, then the Universe that you are in, and which you created you, is the actual EVIDENCE.

How could It be brought to you, especially when It is ALL around you staring you in the face.

Also, how much MORE evidence do you NEED? Surely the WHOLE Universe is enough evidence, even for you, veritas.

Because of the way you LOOK AT and SEE things, you are just unable to SEE the FOREST [God] for the trees [that is; you, that thinking and beliefs within that body.]

But note, an empirical God is a useless inferior God when counter-claimed by others.
Nevertheless, the final point is, bring the evidence to prove your empirical God for empirical testing and verification.

If Energy is Creating the Universe, then you can pick absolutely ANY piece of physical matter as evidence that you like to test for verification.

There I have brought evidence for you. Are you now going to LOOK AT it?

If energy [scientific based] is claimed to be God then it is not the default creator God that theists believed in.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, it shouldn't.
And with great reason, since entropy is a nasty factor in the scheme of things, this 'God' would leave great doubt about its existence, it would not leave empirical evidence.
Do you understand its reasoning? I doubt that.
If useful energy is in short supply, then only those that follow, perhaps 10 commandments have the right to reincarnate and make use of further energy.
If God's existence was obvious, then everyone (that is intelligent) would behave. Fact is, 666 has a reason when it comes to this entity and energy of man.

You got to get a better grip in understanding the fallacy of equivocation;

It is a pretty easy to understand concept so stop bloating yourself on big words. I am not interested in debating semantics.

In a philosophical debate where one states something is a fallacious equivocation, as is the case with you regarding my statement, then it is up to you to prove it so.
Simply stating that entropy is a scientific concept and demanding one to only regard 'God' as ontological, doesn't negate that God is\will likely exist, and remove all comprehension as to its PROBABLE existence. (check the thread title)

So, back to you, again:-
You have not addressed my statement point:-
2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

If your statement is;
Entropy [Science] dictates that a 'God' [ontological] will exist eventually.
then there is a fallacy of equivocation.

If your statement is;
Entropy [Science-empirical] dictates that a 'God' [empirical] will exist eventually.
then bring the empirical proofs to justify your God.
If you speculate there is an intelligence [as in the Matrix] where;

It [Matrix] depicts a dystopian future in which reality as perceived by most humans is actually a simulated reality called "the Matrix", created by sentient machines .. .. [for their purposes]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

If that is your speculation, then I can agree it is possible which in our present competence is only 0.000000 ...001% empirically possible.
In such a case, there is no basis to label such intelligence as God, which by default has to be the ontological God.
It is 0.000000 ...001% empirically possible which is equivalent to some sort of crazy science fiction.
The question is, on what grounds can you narrow the possibility %?

When I claimed the idea of God is more psychological than being an independent reality I brought forth the evidence of a wide range of people claiming to have experiences of God, e.g. those with mild and very serious mental illness, brain damage, drugs, hallucination and many other empirical evidences.
Note this one among hundreds;

Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes [epilepsy] and God - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

I agree it is 0.000000 ...001% empirically possible for theory sake, but what empirical clues and evidence have you got to convince anyone that are intelligence species other than humans.

[attofishpi]

You got to get a better grip in understanding the fallacy of equivocation;

It is a pretty easy to understand concept so stop bloating yourself on big words. I am not interested in debating semantics.

In a philosophical debate where one states something is a fallacious equivocation, as is the case with you regarding my statement, then it is up to you to prove it so.
Simply stating that entropy is a scientific concept and demanding one to only regard 'God' as ontological, doesn't negate that God is\will likely exist, and remove all comprehension as to its PROBABLE existence. (check the thread title)

So, back to you, again:-
You have not addressed my statement point:-
2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

If your statement is;
Entropy [Science] dictates that a 'God' [ontological] will exist eventually.
then there is a fallacy of equivocation.

Just because one considers something via ontological reasoning does not mean it is fallacious.

If your statement is;
Entropy [Science-empirical] dictates that a 'God' [empirical] will exist eventually.
then bring the empirical proofs to justify your God.

Ok. Beyond Reasonable Doubt? www.androcies.com

My site needs an update, and I am certainly not stating that the evidence is the empirical evidence that moved me from believing to knowing.
The empirical evidence came from direct experience of the 3rd party entity over the past 21years, provided on a personal basis.
Since knowing I stood back and looked at the anomalies within the English language, and within physical locations on our planet, and eventually created the art and website to convey what a sage had implied to me, over these years.

If you speculate there is an intelligence [as in the Matrix] where;

It [Matrix] depicts a dystopian future in which reality as perceived by most humans is actually a simulated reality called "the Matrix", created by sentient machines .. .. [for their purposes]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

If that is your speculation, then I can agree it is possible which in our present competence is only 0.000000 ...001% empirically possible.
I agree it is 0.000000 ...001% empirically possible for theory sake, but what empirical clues and evidence have you got to convince anyone that are intelligence species other than humans.

We have no agreement. Your statement re sci-fi The Matrix is not what I am suggesting, and you are pulling numbers out of thin air, talk about a fallacy of equivocation - you really are a hypocrite.

Here is a number for you, man's existence as a percentage of a 14 billion year old universe:- 0.0023%

Consider for a moment how many intelligent civilisations are likely to have existed since the universe began, and how much useful resources would have been consumed (converted) and you are left with a probable outcome, that such civilisations would evolve into a super-efficient reality...A.I. 'God', out of necessity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is a pretty easy to understand concept so stop bloating yourself on big words. I am not interested in debating semantics.

In a philosophical debate where one states something is a fallacious equivocation, as is the case with you regarding my statement, then it is up to you to prove it so.
Simply stating that entropy is a scientific concept and demanding one to only regard 'God' as ontological, doesn't negate that God is\will likely exist, and remove all comprehension as to its PROBABLE existence. (check the thread title)

So, back to you, again:-
You have not addressed my statement point:-
2. Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

If your statement is;
Entropy [Science] dictates that a 'God' [ontological] will exist eventually.
then there is a fallacy of equivocation.

Just because one considers something via ontological reasoning does not mean it is fallacious.

The argument is obviously logically fallacious, so it does not follows and thus conclusion is false.
I have proven the default ontological God is an impossible to be real.
If you don't get this, never mind.

If your statement is;
Entropy [Science-empirical] dictates that a 'God' [empirical] will exist eventually.
then bring the empirical proofs to justify your God.

Ok. Beyond Reasonable Doubt? www.androcies.com

My site needs an update, and I am certainly not stating that the evidence is the empirical evidence that moved me from believing to knowing.
The empirical evidence came from direct experience of the 3rd party entity over the past 21years, provided on a personal basis.
Since knowing I stood back and looked at the anomalies within the English language, and within physical locations on our planet, and eventually created the art and website to convey what a sage had implied to me, over these years.

If you speculate there is an intelligence [as in the Matrix] where;

It [Matrix] depicts a dystopian future in which reality as perceived by most humans is actually a simulated reality called "the Matrix", created by sentient machines .. .. [for their purposes]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

If that is your speculation, then I can agree it is possible which in our present competence is only 0.000000 ...001% empirically possible.
I agree it is 0.000000 ...001% empirically possible for theory sake, but what empirical clues and evidence have you got to convince anyone that are intelligence species other than humans.

We have no agreement. Your statement re sci-fi The Matrix is not what I am suggesting, and you are pulling numbers out of thin air, talk about a fallacy of equivocation - you really are a hypocrite.

Here is a number for you, man's existence as a percentage of a 14 billion year old universe:- 0.0023%

Consider for a moment how many intelligent civilisations are likely to have existed since the universe began, and how much useful resources would have been consumed (converted) and you are left with a probable outcome, that such civilisations would evolve into a super-efficient reality...A.I. 'God', out of necessity.

If you are dealing with the empirical and Science, Dawkins is more generous where he provided a 1/7 or 14.3% probability that God can be proven scientifically because he has to conform to his scientific framework of possibility if the basis empirical. Personally for him, the % = 0.00000000000000000%

I admit if you rely on the empirical, then in principle it is empirically possible.

Your A.I. God [empirical] is purely wishful thinking.
I stated based on our existence competence, such a God is empirically possible but very unlikely to exists.
Ultimately, to prove such an empirical God exists, then bring the empirical evidence.

But note, even IF it is proven empirically, I argued an empirical God is an inferior God no theist when cornered [life and death matter] would opt for.