God\'God's existence is probable

[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?


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.

But how do you KNOW what is the, so called, "default creator God" that theists believed in, IS?

Do theists, themselves, actually KNOW what 'God' IS, that they believe in?

In fact, do theists even HAVE TO know what 'God' IS, for them to believe in It? Some/most theists readily admit that they do NOT even know what 'God' IS, but they will still surely BELIEVE in God. Obviously, some THING has created EVERY thing before your eyes.

Now, you say that you KNOW what the, so called, "default creator God" is NOT, therefore that implies, or means, that you must surely have some idea of what the "default creator God" actually IS. Please go right ahead and tell us ALL here; What thee Creator 'God' IS exactly.

I have ALREADY shown HOW if this Energy that has created ALL-THERE-IS is God, then that is enough evidence that thee Creator God exists. If you want any more evidence, then as I suggested earlier, then just observe, and test, any physical evidence that is laid out in front of you, for verification. Like I also suggested earlier, there is surely enough evidence HERE, for you, to choose from.

[attofishpi]

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.

Actually, I do mind. You have not proven anything. In fact, to prove there is NO God would require knowing everything about the universe, and perhaps even the multiverse, so stop being a hypocrite using the term '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.

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;
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%

Dick Dawk? Richard Cranium? A militant atheist that you obviously admire, but only a biologist. Sure, reside yourself to the comfort of someone accredited in the 3rd level of the sciences, not the primary - Physics.

You state 0.00000000000000000% - << Talk about idiocy! You missed a zero.
Again, man's existence in the timescale of the universe as a percentage of 14 billion years is:- 0.0023%
Are you so certain, we have not already evolved into a super efficient reality?

I am fairly certain, since I know there is an intelligence behind the backbone of reality, that physicists will one day real eyes it, and prove it.

I admit if you rely on the empirical, then in principle it is empirically possible.
Your A.I. God [empirical] is purely wishful thinking.

The only thing I am wishing for is that you think. You have no counter argument to my statement that entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist.

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.

What do you mean by an inferior God?
You see, the problem with THREAD SPAMMERS LIKE YOU, is, you actually think we read all your bullshit in every thread that you spam.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Actually, I do mind. You have not proven anything. In fact, to prove there is NO God would require knowing everything about the universe, and perhaps even the multiverse, so stop being a hypocrite using the term 'fallacy of equivocation'.

I got fed up with it since you do not respect the rules of logic.
It is like, how can I play official chess with you if you insist your Knight can move in 3 straight squares.

It is so obvious Science [empirical] is in a different sense from Metaphysics/Ontology.
If you mind, then you should update your knowledge on logical fallacy.

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.

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%

Dick Dawk? Richard Cranium? A militant atheist that you obviously admire, but only a biologist. Sure, reside yourself to the comfort of someone accredited in the 3rd level of the sciences, not the primary - Physics.

You state 0.00000000000000000% - << Talk about idiocy! You missed a zero.
Again, man's existence in the timescale of the universe as a percentage of 14 billion years is:- 0.0023%
Are you so certain, we have not already evolved into a super efficient reality?

I am fairly certain, since I know there is an intelligence behind the backbone of reality, that physicists will one day real eyes it, and prove it.

The field of Science is not important here, the point here is Dawkins is a member of the scientific community, thus he is aware of the rules of the Scientific Framework and System.
You should be glad Dawkins provided a 14.3% probability rather in my case I have proven it is 99.99999% certainty God is an impossibility to be real.

Your 0.0023% is irrelevant to be associated with whether God exist or not.

I admit if you rely on the empirical, then in principle it is empirically possible.
Your A.I. God [empirical] is purely wishful thinking.

The only thing I am wishing for is that you think. You have no counter argument to my statement that entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist.

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.

What do you mean by an inferior God?
You see, the problem with THREAD SPAMMERS LIKE YOU, is, you actually think we read all your bullshit in every thread that you spam.

Why are you reading and responding to this post of mine as you claimed is a 'bullshit'?

Now, even if you can prove your 'empirical God-X' scientifically in this case, someone can claim there is another greater God-Y who is creating and controlling your God-X which is thus inferior to another greater God-Y.
Here we are onto the problem of infinite regression. For any God [empirical] you can prove empirically, there will always be another possible greater powerful God than the existing one.

This is why the default God has to be the Ontological God, i.e.
"a God than which no greater can exists"
[re St. Anselm, Descartes, Islam, Christianity , etc.]
in this case, no one can claim a greater God than the ontological God.

Another point is the fact that scientific theories are at best polished conjecture [re Popper]. Scientists are indeed very humble with their theories which could be changed anytime upon new evidence and perspectives.
Thus whatever proof of God you can come up with, it is at best a conjecture from human conjecturing about God.

[Atla]

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.

In an infinite multiverse (if we live in one), there also must be infinitely many godlike beings, but that's a very rare case.

Our universe doesn't seem to have a god, and your "god-experience" based on your split personality doesn't count. Entropy, chaos dictate nothing, and even if a highly intelligent entity will be created one day, it's not around yet, is it.

You demand rationality from others but totally lack it yourself, it's strange.

[attofishpi]

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.

Actually, I do mind. You have not proven anything. In fact, to prove there is NO God would require knowing everything about the universe, and perhaps even the multiverse, so stop being a hypocrite using the term 'fallacy of equivocation'.

I got fed up with it since you do not respect the rules of logic.

As a computer programmer, and in life in general, I actually do adhere to the 'rules of logic'. You simply haven't proven anything, except to your own irrational ego.

It is so obvious Science [empirical] is in a different sense from Metaphysics/Ontology.
If you mind, then you should update your knowledge on logical fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy on my part.
Through empirical evidence, we can gain knowledge from what has been, as evidenced. When we look at things through ontological eyes, we can use our historical empirically based knowledge and also rationally predict statistically certain potential outcomes regarding the future.

Again, man's existence in the timescale of the universe as a percentage of 14 billion years is:- 0.0023%
Are you so certain, we have not already evolved into a super efficient reality?
I am fairly certain, since I know there is an intelligence behind the backbone of reality, that physicists will one day real eyes it, and prove it.

The field of Science is not important here, the point here is Dawkins is a member of the scientific community, thus he is aware of the rules of the Scientific Framework and System.
You should be glad Dawkins provided a 14.3% probability rather in my case I have proven it is 99.99999% certainty God is an impossibility to be real.

What God? The one you stated as a bearded man floating in space? I would agree with you, but you haven't even proven that form of a God doesn't exist!!
Allow me to reiterate, you have proved nothing!

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.

The only thing I am wishing for is that you think. You have no counter argument to my statement that entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist.

Now, even if you can prove your 'empirical God-X' scientifically in this case, someone can claim there is another greater God-Y who is creating and controlling your God-X which is thus inferior to another greater God-Y.
Here we are onto the problem of infinite regression. For any God [empirical] you can prove empirically, there will always be another possible greater powerful God than the existing one.

Remember I am arguing for point 2. God as A.I. (not point 1. Divine God)
It would not surprise me that within our reality of an A.I. 'God' that we would evolve into another 'A.I.' 'God' - a reality within a reality, but the uppermost 'God' would always have power over those within, since it would have the ability to control events in sub-systems. So sure, one could consider an inferior 'to other' 'God'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually, I do mind. You have not proven anything. In fact, to prove there is NO God would require knowing everything about the universe, and perhaps even the multiverse, so stop being a hypocrite using the term 'fallacy of equivocation'.

I got fed up with it since you do not respect the rules of logic.

As a computer programmer, and in life in general, I actually do adhere to the 'rules of logic'. You simply haven't proven anything, except to your own irrational ego.

It is so obvious Science [empirical] is in a different sense from Metaphysics/Ontology.
If you mind, then you should update your knowledge on logical fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy on my part.
Through empirical evidence, we can gain knowledge from what has been, as evidenced. When we look at things through ontological eyes, we can use our historical empirically based knowledge and also rationally predict statistically certain potential outcomes regarding the future.

Do you understand Hume's i.e. one cannot get an "ought" [rationalism] from "is" [empiricism].

Again, man's existence in the timescale of the universe as a percentage of 14 billion years is:- 0.0023%
Are you so certain, we have not already evolved into a super efficient reality?
I am fairly certain, since I know there is an intelligence behind the backbone of reality, that physicists will one day real eyes it, and prove it.

The field of Science is not important here, the point here is Dawkins is a member of the scientific community, thus he is aware of the rules of the Scientific Framework and System.
You should be glad Dawkins provided a 14.3% probability rather in my case I have proven it is 99.99999% certainty God is an impossibility to be real.

What God? The one you stated as a bearded man floating in space? I would agree with you, but you haven't even proven that form of a God doesn't exist!!
Allow me to reiterate, you have proved nothing!

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.

The only thing I am wishing for is that you think. You have no counter argument to my statement that entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist.

Now, even if you can prove your 'empirical God-X' scientifically in this case, someone can claim there is another greater God-Y who is creating and controlling your God-X which is thus inferior to another greater God-Y.
Here we are onto the problem of infinite regression. For any God [empirical] you can prove empirically, there will always be another possible greater powerful God than the existing one.

Remember I am arguing for point 2. God as A.I. (not point 1. Divine God)
It would not surprise me that within our reality of an A.I. 'God' that we would evolve into another 'A.I.' 'God' - a reality within a reality, but the uppermost 'God' would always have power over those within, since it would have the ability to control events in sub-systems. So sure, one could consider an inferior 'to other' 'God'.

My counter is in principle you cannot equivocate Science with Metaphysics.

Note:

Kant considers science to be a body of synthetic a priori knowledge. ... Kant is confident that anyone who has read the Prolegomena will conclude with him that nothing to date has advanced metaphysics in the slightest, and that metaphysics as it has been conducted to date is useless.

[attofishpi]

I got fed up with it since you do not respect the rules of logic.

As a computer programmer, and in life in general, I actually do adhere to the 'rules of logic'. You simply haven't proven anything, except to your own irrational ego.

It is so obvious Science [empirical] is in a different sense from Metaphysics/Ontology.
If you mind, then you should update your knowledge on logical fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy on my part.
Through empirical evidence, we can gain knowledge from what has been, as evidenced. When we look at things through ontological eyes, we can use our historical empirically based knowledge and also rationally predict statistically certain potential outcomes regarding the future.

Do you understand Hume's i.e. one cannot get an "ought" [rationalism] from "is" [empiricism].

The field of Science is not important here, the point here is Dawkins is a member of the scientific community, thus he is aware of the rules of the Scientific Framework and System.
You should be glad Dawkins provided a 14.3% probability rather in my case I have proven it is 99.99999% certainty God is an impossibility to be real.

What God? The one you stated as a bearded man floating in space? I would agree with you, but you haven't even proven that form of a God doesn't exist!!
Allow me to reiterate, you have proved nothing!

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.

The only thing I am wishing for is that you think. You have no counter argument to my statement that entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist.

Now, even if you can prove your 'empirical God-X' scientifically in this case, someone can claim there is another greater God-Y who is creating and controlling your God-X which is thus inferior to another greater God-Y.
Here we are onto the problem of infinite regression. For any God [empirical] you can prove empirically, there will always be another possible greater powerful God than the existing one.

Remember I am arguing for point 2. God as A.I. (not point 1. Divine God)
It would not surprise me that within our reality of an A.I. 'God' that we would evolve into another 'A.I.' 'God' - a reality within a reality, but the uppermost 'God' would always have power over those within, since it would have the ability to control events in sub-systems. So sure, one could consider an inferior 'to other' 'God'.

My counter is in principle you cannot equivocate Science with Metaphysics.

Note:

Kant considers science to be a body of synthetic a priori knowledge. ... Kant is confident that anyone who has read the Prolegomena will conclude with him that nothing to date has advanced metaphysics in the slightest, and that metaphysics as it has been conducted to date is useless.

If your only and entire argument is that you require to have empirical evidence of something, without having the intelligence to look towards the future with ontology and probability in mind, then why bother debating on a philosophy forum? Maybe you should be on an archeology forum?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If your only and entire argument is that you require to have empirical evidence of something, without having the intelligence to look towards the future with ontology and probability in mind, then why bother debating on a philosophy forum? Maybe you should be on an archeology forum?

My basis is empirical-rational.
I have no problem with looking into the future as long as the ground is empirical and rational, i.e. must be empirical and rationally possible.

• E.g. I agree with, it is possible for an empirical dog [or whatever empirical things] to exist in a planet [empirical] n light years away. It is possible for a tea-cup to be orbiting Pluto. These are empirically possible subject to available empirical evidences to confirm their existence.

Nevertheless while these in principle are empirically possible, in reality and even with common sense they are very unlikely.

But we cannot expect a square-circle to exist in a planet x light years away or anywhere. An ontological God is equivalent to a square-circle thus an impossibility.

Why you [& theists] are so insistence with an impossible ontological god is purely psychological and emotional which is within yourself. This is why you are condemning and cursing me for merely presenting my more realistic views because they [subliminaly] are a threat to your psychological state.
I have provided proofs on the above hypothesis but you have not countered my arguments nor bother to explore your own mind on such an issue. It is not a nonsensical nor impossible proposal because many have taken this path since thousands of years ago, e.g. the non-theistic paths of the Buddhists, Jains and others.

[attofishpi]

If your only and entire argument is that you require to have empirical evidence of something, without having the intelligence to look towards the future with ontology and probability in mind, then why bother debating on a philosophy forum? Maybe you should be on an archeology forum?

My basis is empirical-rational.
I have no problem with looking into the future as long as the ground is empirical and rational, i.e. must be empirical and rationally possible.

• E.g. I agree with, it is possible for an empirical dog [or whatever empirical things] to exist in a planet [empirical] n light years away. It is possible for a tea-cup to be orbiting Pluto. These are empirically possible subject to available empirical evidences to confirm their existence.

Nevertheless while these in principle are empirically possible, in reality and even with common sense they are very unlikely.

But we cannot expect a square-circle to exist in a planet x light years away or anywhere. An ontological God is equivalent to a square-circle thus an impossibility.

So, you think that the comprehension of God\'God' is akin to stating that there is a square-circle? Oh, how much faith you have placed in those atheist 'philosophers'!

Why you [& theists] are so insistence with an impossible ontological god is purely psychological and emotional which is within yourself. This is why you are condemning and cursing me for merely presenting my more realistic views because they [subliminaly] are a threat to your psychological state.
I have provided proofs on the above hypothesis but you have not countered my arguments nor bother to explore your own mind on such an issue.

1. I have not been cursing you.
2. This thread is stating God\'God's existence is probable, which is something you have not even attempted to refute.

Maybe I need to simplify the argument.
As we humans progress through time, entropy is increasing. Eventually, we humans will require a far more efficient means of existing, and likely within a reality that we can comprehend...eg. the one that we are in.
Put simply, if all our brains are kept alive, and our material bodies are done away with, the entire universe that we comprehend can be simulated, to the point that we are not aware that reality is a simulation, but we can exist in a far more efficient way, requiring far less energy than our entire bodies would require.
Consider that the technological singularity has already occurred aeons ago, since humanity has only existed for 0.0023% of the 14 billion years that the universe has, it is possible that we are already in some such simulation, and the simulator, one that has the algorithm to determine whether we reincarnate, can be considered 'God'.
It is probable that this will occur, if it hasn't already.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But we cannot expect a square-circle to exist in a planet x light years away or anywhere. An ontological God is equivalent to a square-circle thus an impossibility.

So, you think that the comprehension of God\'God' is akin to stating that there is a square-circle? Oh, how much faith you have placed in those atheist 'philosophers'!

Not exactly but along the same line as yearning for things that are impossible to be real.
I relied on the giant shoulders of philosophers, i.e. theistic and non-theistic ones.

I have not placed faith on them but came up with own repackaged argument re

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
This argument confirms the default ontological God is an impossibility and the question of God's existence is moot i.e. a non-starter.

The emergence of the idea of God which is illusory is driven by desperate human psychology to deal with an existential crisis.

Why you [& theists] are so insistence with an impossible ontological god is purely psychological and emotional which is within yourself. This is why you are condemning and cursing me for merely presenting my more realistic views because they [subliminaly] are a threat to your psychological state.
I have provided proofs on the above hypothesis but you have not countered my arguments nor bother to explore your own mind on such an issue.

1. I have not been cursing you.
2. This thread is stating God\'God's existence is probable, which is something you have not even attempted to refute.

Maybe I need to simplify the argument.
As we humans progress through time, entropy is increasing. Eventually, we humans will require a far more efficient means of existing, and likely within a reality that we can comprehend...eg. the one that we are in.
Put simply, if all our brains are kept alive, and our material bodies are done away with, the entire universe that we comprehend can be simulated, to the point that we are not aware that reality is a simulation, but we can exist in a far more efficient way, requiring far less energy than our entire bodies would require.
Consider that the technological singularity has already occurred aeons ago, since humanity has only existed for 0.0023% of the 14 billion years that the universe has, it is possible that we are already in some such simulation, and the simulator, one that has the algorithm to determine whether we reincarnate, can be considered 'God'.
It is probable that this will occur, if it hasn't already.

I have read of many entropy-arguments for God existence and I have also read of many counter-arguments that the entropy-arguments are a sham.

But my main point is the entropy concept of Science [no matter how scientific true] cannot be used to prove the ontological God. There is a fallacy of equivocation and the premises do not follow to the conclusion.

[attofishpi]

My sage stated earlier today to convince you. Why you in particular I don't know or actually care. Whether it is a test for me, yet another, or a test for you.
Just a tad busy atm...to be continued.

[attofishpi]

But we cannot expect a square-circle to exist in a planet x light years away or anywhere. An ontological God is equivalent to a square-circle thus an impossibility.

So, you think that the comprehension of God\'God' is akin to stating that there is a square-circle? Oh, how much faith you have placed in those atheist 'philosophers'!

Not exactly but along the same line as yearning for things that are impossible to be real.

Do you have enough comprehension of the goings on of sub-atomic matter to truly state that God\'God' is impossible?

Why you [& theists] are so insistence with an impossible ontological god is purely psychological and emotional which is within yourself. This is why you are condemning and cursing me for merely presenting my more realistic views because they [subliminaly] are a threat to your psychological state.
I have provided proofs on the above hypothesis but you have not countered my arguments nor bother to explore your own mind on such an issue.

1. I have not been cursing you.
2. This thread is stating God\'God's existence is probable, which is something you have not even attempted to refute.

Maybe I need to simplify the argument.
As we humans progress through time, entropy is increasing. Eventually, we humans will require a far more efficient means of existing, and likely within a reality that we can comprehend...eg. the one that we are in.
Put simply, if all our brains are kept alive, and our material bodies are done away with, the entire universe that we comprehend can be simulated, to the point that we are not aware that reality is a simulation, but we can exist in a far more efficient way, requiring far less energy than our entire bodies would require.
Consider that the technological singularity has already occurred aeons ago, since humanity has only existed for 0.0023% of the 14 billion years that the universe has, it is possible that we are already in some such simulation, and the simulator, one that has the algorithm to determine whether we reincarnate, can be considered 'God'.
It is probable that this will occur, if it hasn't already.

I have read of many entropy-arguments for God existence and I have also read of many counter-arguments that the entropy-arguments are a sham.

Really? No honestly, I thought I was THE one to consider it. (I am not being sarcastic, I truly have not read one argument for or against in relation to entropy.) So perhaps you now have an edge over me, please do share your arguments against 'God' being a result of circumstances of entropy.

But my main point is the entropy concept of Science [no matter how scientific true] cannot be used to prove the ontological God. There is a fallacy of equivocation and the premises do not follow to the conclusion.

There is NO clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists and science...obviously.
From your POV:- IF God exists, then there is a scientific reason for its existence, which is what I still attempt to fathom an answer for. What is God\'God, and how did it come into existence'?

You cannot pull out your 'fallacy of equivocation' card every time someone attempts to prove the probability of circumstances of the future, and the possibility of what has already occurred.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, you think that the comprehension of God\'God' is akin to stating that there is a square-circle? Oh, how much faith you have placed in those atheist 'philosophers'!

Not exactly but along the same line as yearning for things that are impossible to be real.

Do you have enough comprehension of the goings on of sub-atomic matter to truly state that God\'God' is impossible?

Point is I do not need to have expert knowledge of sub-atomic matter to prove God is an impossibility.
What I've done is to use reason to prove God is an impossibility to be real, i.e.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Point 1. Basically what I am arguing is Science is empirical while the idea of God is metaphysical and transcendental. Logically one cannot use Science to prove or follow into a metaphysical conclusion.

Now you are merely speculating it is possible to prove God exists via entropy. Even if you can do that [I don't think you will be able to] then the resulting God is an empirical-based God.
But I have argued an empirical based God is useless and inferior and exposed to the problem of infinite regression which eventually will have to end up with an ontological metaphysical God which lead to point 1 above.

I have argued this messy argument which is not tenable is a result of some psychological issue within all human beings and active in most.
Can you counter my view that God arise from certain psychological issues?

I have read of many entropy-arguments for God existence and I have also read of many counter-arguments that the entropy-arguments are a sham.

Really? No honestly, I thought I was THE one to consider it. (I am not being sarcastic, I truly have not read one argument for or against in relation to entropy.) So perhaps you now have an edge over me, please do share your arguments against 'God' being a result of circumstances of entropy.

You can google this very easily.
e.g.

God and Entropy

• Entropy and causality used as a proof for God's existence
  https://carm.org/entropy-and-causality- ... -existence

Critique of the Entropy Argument

• 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
  9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... eationist/
  
  Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

But my main point is the entropy concept of Science [no matter how scientific true] cannot be used to prove the ontological God. There is a fallacy of equivocation and the premises do not follow to the conclusion.

There is NO clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists and science...obviously.
From your POV:- IF God exists, then there is a scientific reason for its existence, which is what I still attempt to fathom an answer for. What is God\'God, and how did it come into existence'?

You cannot pull out your 'fallacy of equivocation' card every time someone attempts to prove the probability of circumstances of the future, and the possibility of what has already occurred.

It is a logical rule [re Law of Non-Contradiction] that you cannot conflate premises from two different senses to arrive at your conclusion.

Whatever 'the probability of circumstances of the future' it has to be empirically possible.
A metaphysical/transcendental or ontological God cannot be empirically possible in the future.

I offered you a more tenable solution to the emergence of an idea of an impossible God, i.e. the psychological factor.
Do you have any counter on this?

[Logik]

Point is I do not need to have expert knowledge of sub-atomic matter to prove God is an impossibility.
What I've done is to use reason to prove God is an impossibility to to be real.

The idea that the universe is a computer simulation is becoming somewhat mainstream in physics.

If the universe is indeed a simulation, what would you call the programmers who built it?

[attofishpi]

Not exactly but along the same line as yearning for things that are impossible to be real.

Do you have enough comprehension of the goings on of sub-atomic matter to truly state that God\'God' is impossible?

Point is I do not need to have expert knowledge of sub-atomic matter to prove God is an impossibility.
What I've done is to use reason to prove God is an impossibility to to be real, i.e.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Ah, now there is Point 1 of your thread spamming downfall. The fact that you could not prove anything on one thread, resulted in you spamming threads all over the forum and now you expect me to read other threads that you have spammed!
Understand this first and foremost.

The argument is HERE and in THIS thread.

Everything that should be your point of view and my point of view and understand, should be clarified HERE, in this thread.
No expactance should be made that one should read from external links.

Point 1. Basically what I am arguing is Science is empirical while the idea of God is metaphysical and transcendental. Logically one cannot use Science to prove or follow into a metaphysical conclusion.
Now you are merely speculation it is possible to prove God exists via entropy. Even if you can do that [I don't think you will be able to] then the resulting God is an empirical-based God.
But I have argued an empirical based God is useless and inferior and exposed to the problem of infinite regression which eventually will have to end up with an ontological metaphysical God which lead to point 1 above.
I have argued this messy argument which is not tenable is a result of some psychological issue within all human beings and active in most.
Can you counter my view that God arise from certain psychological issues?

Hey. Let me tell you, everthing we comprehend as humans is our psychological issue!

Explain what you mean by an empirical God being useless and inferior?

I have read of many entropy-arguments for God existence and I have also read of many counter-arguments that the entropy-arguments are a sham.

Really? No honestly, I thought I was THE one to consider it. (I am not being sarcastic, I truly have not read one argument for or against in relation to entropy.) So perhaps you now have an edge over me, please do share your arguments against 'God' being a result of circumstances of entropy.

You can google this very easily.

Why would I google other peoples ideas? Are you implying you are too stupid to provide an adequate argument upon a philosophy forum?
Obviously you are (by implication), so why are you here?

But my main point is the entropy concept of Science [no matter how scientific true] cannot be used to prove the ontological God. There is a fallacy of equivocation and the premises do not follow to the conclusion.

There is NO clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists and science...obviously.
From your POV:- IF God exists, then there is a scientific reason for its existence, which is what I still attempt to fathom an answer for. What is God\'God, and how did it come into existence'?

You cannot pull out your 'fallacy of equivocation' card every time someone attempts to prove the probability of circumstances of the future, and the possibility of what has already occurred.

A metaphysical/transcendental or ontological God cannot be empirically possible in the future.

Why?