Age: The Ontological God is Possible to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real.

Age, show you proof the ontological God is possible to be real?
Define what is real and the ontological-God before you proceed.

Others [for or against] can contribute to the above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posting.

[Age]

Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real.

Age, show you proof the ontological God is possible to be real?

Name how any thing FOREVER MORE could NOT be a possibility, then you have countered what is logically and rationally ALREADY been proven. That is; with time absolutely any thing is POSSIBLE.

Define what is real and the ontological-God before you proceed.

But I have asked you to define what God is previously, which you insist is an impossibility to be real, but you refuse to define It and so will NOT do it. But, now you expect me to do what you can not and will not do. So, WHY should I define what is real and 'the ontological-God'?

I do NOT even have a definition for an 'ontological-God'. I just KNOW any thing is POSSIBLE to be real, with enough time.

Others [for or against] can contribute to the above.

BUT there is NO rational "for or against".

There is only one Truth, and so what IS It?

Either, forever more, some thing could become a possibility, which has not yet been noticed.

Or, forever more, some thing could NEVER become a possibility.

If any one insists it is the latter, then that person would NEED to explain how they KNOW what WILL happen and be possible, forever more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also, NOTE you keep MISSING IT.
By the way, the ontological God has also ALREADY been proven to be possible to be real.

Age, show you proof the ontological God is possible to be real?

Name how any thing FOREVER MORE could NOT be a possibility, then you have countered what is logically and rationally ALREADY been proven. That is; with time absolutely any thing is POSSIBLE.

Define what is real and the ontological-God before you proceed.

But I have asked you to define what God is previously, which you insist is an impossibility to be real, but you refuse to define It and so will NOT do it. But, now you expect me to do what you can not and will not do. So, WHY should I define what is real and 'the ontological-God'?

I do NOT even have a definition for an 'ontological-God'. I just KNOW any thing is POSSIBLE to be real, with enough time.

Others [for or against] can contribute to the above.

BUT there is NO rational "for or against".

There is only one Truth, and so what IS It?

Either, forever more, some thing could become a possibility, which has not yet been noticed.

Or, forever more, some thing could NEVER become a possibility.

If any one insists it is the latter, then that person would NEED to explain how they KNOW what WILL happen and be possible, forever more.

I don't have to provide my own definition of God because I am not claiming God exists.

However the definition for the ontological God by theists, e.g. St. Anselm is;

"God is a being-B than which no greater can be conceived"

The above being-B entail the quality of absolute perfection.
If not, then there will be other beings that re greater than being-B.

What is real is grounded on the empirical + philosophical critical thinking.
As I have proven God as an absolute perfection is at best an idea and do not have any empirical grounding + critical thinking.
Therefore it is impossible for God to be real.

Why theists insist God is real despite God being a transcendental illusion is due to their pyschological factors.

[attofishpi]

Why theists insist God is real despite God being a transcendental illusion is due to their pyschological factors.

What are the attributes required of an entity you'd accept as 'God'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why theists insist God is real despite God being a transcendental illusion is due to their pyschological factors.

What are the attributes required of an entity you'd accept as 'God'?

I am not-a-theist, I am indifferent to any attributes for a God.

What I can do is to present the definition of God by theists.

It is noted the definitions of God can be exhaustive and cover the following with its correspondence weightage [my guess] of proof;

• 1. Ontological God - 80%
  2. Cosmological - 15%
  3. Physio-Theological - 4%
  4. Other Empirical basis - 0.0000001%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The above will cover all possible definition and attributes of God assigned by theists [not me].

If theists can provide justified evidence to establish Justified True Beliefs God exists, then I will accept God is real.

[attofishpi]

Why theists insist God is real despite God being a transcendental illusion is due to their pyschological factors.

What are the attributes required of an entity you'd accept as 'God'?

I am not-a-theist, I am indifferent to any attributes for a God.

What I can do is to present the definition of God by theists.

It is noted the definitions of God can be exhaustive and cover the following with its correspondence weightage [my guess] of proof;

• 1. Ontological God - 80%
  2. Cosmological - 15%
  3. Physio-Theological - 4%
  4. Other Empirical basis - 0.0000001%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The above will cover all possible definition and attributes of God assigned by theists [not me].

If theists can provide justified evidence to establish Justified True Beliefs God exists, then I will accept God is real.

You are quizzing people about God - so it comes down to you to provide a definition, attributes, of the entity you claim is/or isn't in existence.

If I state God has the following attributes:-
omniscient: All knowing about us humans and our reality up to the current point in time.
omnipresent: Is the backbone to the reality we humans comprehend.
omnipotent: Has total power over the reality we humans comprehend.

Do you agree, at least those attributes would be required to be defined as, 'God'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are the attributes required of an entity you'd accept as 'God'?

I am not-a-theist, I am indifferent to any attributes for a God.

What I can do is to present the definition of God by theists.

It is noted the definitions of God can be exhaustive and cover the following with its correspondence weightage [my guess] of proof;

• 1. Ontological God - 80%
  2. Cosmological - 15%
  3. Physio-Theological - 4%
  4. Other Empirical basis - 0.0000001%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The above will cover all possible definition and attributes of God assigned by theists [not me].

If theists can provide justified evidence to establish Justified True Beliefs God exists, then I will accept God is real.

You are quizzing people about God - so it comes down to you to provide a definition, attributes, of the entity you claim is/or isn't in existence.

If I state God has the following attributes:-
omniscient: All knowing about us humans and our reality up to the current point in time.
omnipresent: Is the backbone to the reality we humans comprehend.
omnipotent: Has total power over the reality we humans comprehend.

Do you agree, at least those attributes would be required to be defined as, 'God'?

My point is the ultimate God [ontological] claimed by theists is impossible to exist as real.
As such the question of God is a non-starter.
This is like a square-circle as real is a non-starter.
God is only admissible on a psychological basis of the theists.

I can agree to YOUR above attributes as assigned to your God.
The above 'omni-' attributes are assigned by theists to the ontological God, i.e.
"A God is a being than which no greater can be conceived of" thus having omni-whatever attributes.

[attofishpi]

I am not-a-theist, I am indifferent to any attributes for a God.

What I can do is to present the definition of God by theists.

It is noted the definitions of God can be exhaustive and cover the following with its correspondence weightage [my guess] of proof;

• 1. Ontological God - 80%
  2. Cosmological - 15%
  3. Physio-Theological - 4%
  4. Other Empirical basis - 0.0000001%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The above will cover all possible definition and attributes of God assigned by theists [not me].

If theists can provide justified evidence to establish Justified True Beliefs God exists, then I will accept God is real.

You are quizzing people about God - so it comes down to you to provide a definition, attributes, of the entity you claim is/or isn't in existence.

If I state God has the following attributes:-
omniscient: All knowing about us humans and our reality up to the current point in time.
omnipresent: Is the backbone to the reality we humans comprehend.
omnipotent: Has total power over the reality we humans comprehend.

Do you agree, at least those attributes would be required to be defined as, 'God'?

I can agree to YOUR above attributes as assigned to your God.

Ok.

So you are a brain in a VAT and ALL your perception of reality is via an Artificial Intelligence that is interfaced to your brain. The reason you ARE just a brain in a VAT, is because entropy has caused the original reality to be uninhabitable.

So you are in agreement that the Artificial Intelligence is God?

[Age]

Age, show you proof the ontological God is possible to be real?

Name how any thing FOREVER MORE could NOT be a possibility, then you have countered what is logically and rationally ALREADY been proven. That is; with time absolutely any thing is POSSIBLE.

Define what is real and the ontological-God before you proceed.

But I have asked you to define what God is previously, which you insist is an impossibility to be real, but you refuse to define It and so will NOT do it. But, now you expect me to do what you can not and will not do. So, WHY should I define what is real and 'the ontological-God'?

I do NOT even have a definition for an 'ontological-God'. I just KNOW any thing is POSSIBLE to be real, with enough time.

Others [for or against] can contribute to the above.

BUT there is NO rational "for or against".

There is only one Truth, and so what IS It?

Either, forever more, some thing could become a possibility, which has not yet been noticed.

Or, forever more, some thing could NEVER become a possibility.

If any one insists it is the latter, then that person would NEED to explain how they KNOW what WILL happen and be possible, forever more.

I don't have to provide my own definition of God because I am not claiming God exists.

But you are still claiming some thing as being true, and absolutely TRUE at that.

However the definition for the ontological God by theists, e.g. St. Anselm is;

"God is a being-B than which no greater can be conceived"

Well that God could very easily be possible to be real

The above being-B entail the quality of absolute perfection.
If not, then there will be other beings that re greater than being-B.

This is such a truly unnecessary point to make.

If God is a Being, which no greater can be conceived, then that is WHAT God IS. Full stop.

Now, if you BELIEVE that this 'God' is an impossibility to be real', and you want to prove this, then just do it.

Just SHOW how, FOREVER MORE, this God could NEVER possibly be SHOWN to be real.

What is real is grounded on the empirical + philosophical critical thinking.

'Empirical' is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

How are you going to SHOW to us, that which can be verified by observation or experience, (rather than on your own theory or your own pure logic) that, forever more, 'God being a possibility to be real' is an IMPOSSIBILITY?

As I have proven God as an absolute perfection is at best an idea and do not have any empirical grounding + critical thinking.

I have already SHOWN 'you' thee Universe, which no greater can be conceived, which OBVIOUSLY is already empirically evidenced and thus also verified through observation to be REAL. Now with critical thinking this Truth is realized AND KNOWN, so also PROVEN.

Therefore it is impossible for God to be real.

Lol

You really do live solely in YOUR OWN HEAD, as they say.

You have SHOWN over and over again that it really is impossible for you to SEE any thing other than what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true. Even the physical Universe, Itself, is NOT big enough for you to SEE and OBSERVE.

And you just continually stating and repeating the same things over and over again, as though they are true, is just like what other forms of religious people do. It is also what some insane people also do. Enforcing and reinforcing your OWN BELIEFS onto yourself, keeps you BELIEVING that they are true AND right.

Why theists insist God is real despite God being a transcendental illusion is due to their pyschological factors.

lol

Who the REAL disillusioned one is, which has the obvious and seriously ill psychological factors, can be evidenced and observed here.

To BELIEVE that you KNOW what is an impossibility forever more some would suggest is a very limited or a very seriously disillusioned way of LOOKING AT and SEEING things. A "schizo" personality disorder, some might say.

Why would any one insist that some thing is an impossibility to be real, unless, of course, they actually BELIEVED that they KNOW what the actual Truth IS, forever more?

Why do you insist that forever more God could NEVER be shown to be real?

Do you BELIEVE you KNOW what the future holds, for EVERY one, forever more?

Do you think you KNOW what the actual Truth IS?

Your responses or non responses to my OPEN clarifying questions may reveal more about 'you' then you would really like to share here now.

[Age]

Why theists insist God is real despite God being a transcendental illusion is due to their pyschological factors.

What are the attributes required of an entity you'd accept as 'God'?

I am not-a-theist, I am indifferent to any attributes for a God.

Are you indifferent to the fact that an attribute for God is thee Universe, Itself.

You obviously could NOT then successfully say and accept that God is an impossibility to be real. The very fact that that God is alive and existing HERE NOW could not be refuted, by any one.

What I can do is to present the definition of God by theists.

It is noted the definitions of God can be exhaustive and cover the following with its correspondence weightage [my guess] of proof;

• 1. Ontological God - 80%
  2. Cosmological - 15%
  3. Physio-Theological - 4%
  4. Other Empirical basis - 0.0000001%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The above will cover all possible definition and attributes of God assigned by theists [not me].

But WHY only LOOK AT and USE what "theists" assign and use?

What God IS, is NOT necessarily what 'you', human beings, assign It.

If theists can provide justified evidence to establish Justified True Beliefs God exists, then I will accept God is real.

lol

Why will you only accept God is real if "theists" provide justified evidence? What is wrong with "other's" evidence?

Also, if 'God is an IMPOSSIBILITY to be real', which you say you have already PROVEN to be true, then HOW could you then accept 'God is real'?

Either you HAVE proven some thing or you HAVE NOT. you can NOT have it both ways.

Also, you would have to admit that what you say you have "proven" was not proven at all, REALLY. And are you REALLY prepared to do that?

You even wholeheartedly BELIEVE that 'God to be real' is a 'non-starter', so how could you then accept 'that', which is NOT even able to be 'started' to be real, as then becoming real?

The contradictory nature of this comes across as being very unreal and very unbelievable.

[Skepdick]

However the definition for the ontological God by theists, e.g. St. Anselm is;

"God is a being-B than which no greater can be conceived"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s ... ical_proof

God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist

This is a proof by contradiction. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet.. It is NOT a constructive proof.

If you don't understand the argument I shall paraphrase it.

Anything you can imagine can be trivially imagined to be even greater, by imagining that your imagination exists in reality.
Claiming that you can't conceive of something greater than X is the same as claiming lack of imagination.

Even far more trivially - this is simply Mathematical induction. For if you can imagine N, you can always imagine N+1.
If you can imagine Infinity (∞) you can also imagine ∞ + 1

[Age]

I am not-a-theist, I am indifferent to any attributes for a God.

What I can do is to present the definition of God by theists.

It is noted the definitions of God can be exhaustive and cover the following with its correspondence weightage [my guess] of proof;

• 1. Ontological God - 80%
  2. Cosmological - 15%
  3. Physio-Theological - 4%
  4. Other Empirical basis - 0.0000001%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The above will cover all possible definition and attributes of God assigned by theists [not me].

If theists can provide justified evidence to establish Justified True Beliefs God exists, then I will accept God is real.

You are quizzing people about God - so it comes down to you to provide a definition, attributes, of the entity you claim is/or isn't in existence.

If I state God has the following attributes:-
omniscient: All knowing about us humans and our reality up to the current point in time.
omnipresent: Is the backbone to the reality we humans comprehend.
omnipotent: Has total power over the reality we humans comprehend.

Do you agree, at least those attributes would be required to be defined as, 'God'?

My point is the ultimate God [ontological] claimed by theists is impossible to exist as real.

We KNOW what your point is. You keep repeating 'this' what you BELIEVE is TRUE. Yet UNPROVEN.

The actual point is the now 'ultimate' God [ontological] claimed by people with the opposite BELIEFS to you is POSSIBLE to exist as real.

The actual Truth is each of 'you', "theists" and "atheists", distorted BELIEFS are actually WRONG.

As such the question of God is a non-starter.
This is like a square-circle as real is a non-starter.
God is only admissible on a psychological basis of the theists.

So, WHY do you also say; If theists can provide justified evidence to establish Justified True Beliefs God exists, then I will accept God is real.

Are you lying when you say; "God is ONLY admissible on a psychological basis of the theists"?

What is the truth, to you, 'God could be real', or, 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

If it is the latter, then how could you accept God is real, as you say you WOULD?

I can agree to YOUR above attributes as assigned to your God.
The above 'omni-' attributes are assigned by theists to the ontological God, i.e.
"A God is a being than which no greater can be conceived of" thus having omni-whatever attributes.

Great, now we are gaining a better idea of what you BELIEVE is not possible to be real. However, those attributes can very easily and very simply be PROVEN to be real AND existing HERE NOW with God.

But NOTHING can be PROVEN to those who BELIEVE otherwise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are quizzing people about God - so it comes down to you to provide a definition, attributes, of the entity you claim is/or isn't in existence.

If I state God has the following attributes:-
omniscient: All knowing about us humans and our reality up to the current point in time.
omnipresent: Is the backbone to the reality we humans comprehend.
omnipotent: Has total power over the reality we humans comprehend.

Do you agree, at least those attributes would be required to be defined as, 'God'?

I can agree to YOUR above attributes as assigned to your God.

Ok.

So you are a brain in a VAT and ALL your perception of reality is via an Artificial Intelligence that is interfaced to your brain. The reason you ARE just a brain in a VAT, is because entropy has caused the original reality to be uninhabitable.

So you are in agreement that the Artificial Intelligence is God?

You missed what I subsequently added [while you were posting]:

• The above 'omni-' attributes are assigned by theists to the ontological God, i.e.
  "A God is a being than which no greater can be conceived of" thus having omni-whatever attributes.

I don't see how the brain in a VAT has anything to do with my argument. I don't believe in such a claim.

I stated, "The above 'omni-' attributes are assigned by theists to the ontological God."
I have argued the ontological God is impossible to be real.

[attofishpi]

I can agree to YOUR above attributes as assigned to your God.

Ok.

So you are a brain in a VAT and ALL your perception of reality is via an Artificial Intelligence that is interfaced to your brain. The reason you ARE just a brain in a VAT, is because entropy has caused the original reality to be uninhabitable.

So you are in agreement that the Artificial Intelligence is God?

I don't see how the brain in a VAT has anything to do with my argument. I don't believe in such a claim.

I stated, "The above 'omni-' attributes are assigned by theists to the ontological God."
I have argued the ontological God is impossible to be real.

The omni stuff is used by atheists far more frequently than theists - because it is so easily refuted, hence why I used it (to trap you).

You confirmed that you agreed to the God as I defined it, and when I explained HOW this God would exist (as an Artificial Intelligence), you are now attempting to rewrite the rules of ontology!!