Age: The Ontological God is Possible to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

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!!

What is there to trap.
Theists would assign the omni-stuff to an ontological God.
If they do not assign those omni-attributes, it is still an ontological God.

I have not rewritten any rules of ontology.
The ontological God is an entity than which no greater can be conceived of and it is independent of its creations.

I don't agree with an ontological brain-in-VAT god.
If you claim such an ontological God is artificial intelligence, then such an ontological god must be of perfect or of omni-intelligence than which no greater exists.
Since this has an element of being ontological thus implied of perfection, such a god of the brain-in-VAT cannot be real.

However if you are thinking of artificial intelligence from a human-liked-alien 100 million light years away programming and constructing the brain-in-VAT, then such a god is not ontological because all element herein are empirically possible.
In this case because there is no certainty in the empirical, we have not choice but to assign a token possibility it could exist as real out there.
This token possibility would be like 0.0000000--0001% possibility to be real.
Otherwise the onus on whoever made the claim to produce the empirical evidence for testing to confirm it is real.

One classic case is that of Richard Dawkins who is confined to the empirical scientific world. Thus he had no choice but to assign a token 1/7 possibility God could exists as real but he associated it is as likely for Apollo the Greek God to exists as real which is not probable in his views.

However from the philosophical perspective we argue on the basis of the ontological God which I have demonstrated is impossible to exists at all, thus a non-starter.

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.
It is similar to Hume's claim that causality, i.e. cause and effect is basically psychological of customs, habits and constant conjunction which ultimately is reducible to the existential crisis.

[attofishpi]

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!!

What is there to trap.

Somebody extremly naive (U).

Theists would assign the omni-stuff to an ontological God.
If they do not assign those omni-attributes, it is still an ontological God.

Yes, and you agreed to the omni attributes I defined as God:-

---- 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.

I have not rewritten any rules of ontology.

...as if you could!

The ontological God is an entity than which no greater can be conceived of and it is independent of its creations.

NO. That is your definition, contradicting your previous agreement of my definition.

I don't agree with an ontological brain-in-VAT god.

Of course you don't!! Even though I ontologically proved it could exist and you agreed to it prior to comprehending what it was! (A.I.)

If you claim such an ontological God is artificial intelligence, then such an ontological god must be of perfect or of omni-intelligence than which no greater exists.

What a load of bollocks - where do you get this drivel - Dick Dork?

One classic case is that of Richard Dawkins who is confined to the empirical scientific world. Thus he had no choice but to assign a token 1/7 possibility God could exists as real but he associated it is as likely for Apollo the Greek God to exists as real which is not probable in his views.

You are so simple of mind. You truly should be care.fool to base your faith on Dick Dork who has made a mint out of simple minded short-sighted atheists.

Mmm base your faith on reality to an evolutionary biologist over physicists??

However from the philosophical perspective we argue on the basis of the ontological God which I have demonstrated is impossible to exists at all, thus a non-starter.

Which I have successfully refuted, since you agreed that my Artificial Intelligence was God. (prior to comprehending that I was defining an AI)

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.

Really?
What crisis are we all suffering from?

You are suffering from the illusion that reality is not a convoluted apparition.

Something way beyond the comprehension of a biologist

- you need to dig somewhat deeper into physics before you can categorically state - "GOD IS IMPLAUSIBLE"

[Veritas Aequitas]

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!!

What is there to trap.

Somebody extremly naive (U).

Theists would assign the omni-stuff to an ontological God.
If they do not assign those omni-attributes, it is still an ontological God.

Yes, and you agreed to the omni attributes I defined as God:-

---- 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.

I have not rewritten any rules of ontology.

...as if you could!

The ontological God is an entity than which no greater can be conceived of and it is independent of its creations.

NO. That is your definition, contradicting your previous agreement of my definition.

I don't agree with an ontological brain-in-VAT god.

Of course you don't!! Even though I ontologically proved it could exist and you agreed to it prior to comprehending what it was! (A.I.)

If you claim such an ontological God is artificial intelligence, then such an ontological god must be of perfect or of omni-intelligence than which no greater exists.

What a load of bollocks - where do you get this drivel - Dick Dork?

One classic case is that of Richard Dawkins who is confined to the empirical scientific world. Thus he had no choice but to assign a token 1/7 possibility God could exists as real but he associated it is as likely for Apollo the Greek God to exists as real which is not probable in his views.

You are so simple of mind. You truly should be care.fool to base your faith on Dick Dork who has made a mint out of simple minded short-sighted atheists.

Mmm base your faith on reality to an evolutionary biologist over physicists??

However from the philosophical perspective we argue on the basis of the ontological God which I have demonstrated is impossible to exists at all, thus a non-starter.

Which I have successfully refuted, since you agreed that my Artificial Intelligence was God. (prior to comprehending that I was defining an AI)

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.

Really?
What crisis are we all suffering from?

You are suffering from the illusion that reality is not a convoluted apparition.

Something way beyond the comprehension of a biologist

- you need to dig somewhat deeper into physics before you can categorically state - "GOD IS IMPLAUSIBLE"

Your above is all bollocks, straw-man[s] and nothing substantial.

I have never agreed that your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.
If you have misunderstood my point, I'll say again,
I do no agree your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.

Not sure if you are a theist, agnostic or [a]theist.
I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.
DNA wise all humans are infected a 'zombie parasite' that drives theists to believe in the illusory God and [a]theists to non-theistic beliefs.
One basis point to lead one to further research is 'Angst'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angst
which is explored by Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Martin Heidegger, Freud and others.

[Dontaskme]

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.

Is a theist real?

DNA wise all humans are infected a 'zombie parasite' that drives theists to believe in the illusory God and [a]theists to non-theistic beliefs.

Are [a]theists real?

One basis point to lead one to further research is 'Angst'.

Is 'Angst' real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.

Is a theist real?

DNA wise all humans are infected a 'zombie parasite' that drives theists to believe in the illusory God and [a]theists to non-theistic beliefs.

Are [a]theists real?

One basis point to lead one to further research is 'Angst'.

Is 'Angst' real?

You are so lost.
As suggested many times, go and get the right medication.

[Dontaskme]

Are [a]theists real?

[A] THEIST IS IMPLAUSIBLE

[attofishpi]

I have never agreed that your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.
If you have misunderstood my point, I'll say again,
I do no agree your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.

So you are contrdicting yourself when you agreed to my below definition as defining God:-

---- 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.

..and then I stated that you are a brain-in-a-vat and that God is an artifial intelligence.

Are those 3 definitions of God, not enough anymore?

Not sure if you are a theist, agnostic or [a]theist.

Apparently the closest thing that fits is 'gnostic'.

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.

Nah.
You are the one with the crisis, you want to be militant about your atheism but as proven here, you are inept of rebuttal.

[Dontaskme]

You are so lost.
As suggested many times, go and get the right medication.

I don't know if you've ever tried medicating garden gnomes VA, but logic informs they are usually pretty unresponsive to treatment for their imaginary existence.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have never agreed that your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.
If you have misunderstood my point, I'll say again,
I do no agree your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.

So you are contradicting yourself when you agreed to my below definition as defining God:-

---- 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.

..and then I stated that you are a brain-in-a-vat and that God is an artifial intelligence.

Are those 3 definitions of God, not enough anymore?

Do you acknowledge the Principle of Charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Despite my clarification of my actual position, you still want to go back to your own misinterpretations.

Btw, I agreed to your basis [the way you want it to be] of your own definition of God, it does not mean I'd agreed with and accepted your definition as true.
It is like I understand your the basis you are defining what is God, but it does not mean I agreed with and accepted your definition as true.
As not-a-theist there is no way I will ever agree with and accept your definition of God as real is true.

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.

Nah.
You are the one with the crisis, you want to be militant about your atheism but as proven here, you are inept of rebuttal.

Yes I am also embedded with the existential crisis but understand it well enough to avoid falling into its deceptions of deluding me in believing God [illusory] exists as real.

I have proven God is an impossibility to be real, here;
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Suggest you provide your counter argument to the above.
That is my main contention, this thread is merely a side-show to counter Age's ridiculous claims.

[Dontaskme]

I have proven God is an impossibility to be real

Is I real?

[attofishpi]

I have never agreed that your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.
If you have misunderstood my point, I'll say again,
I do no agree your "Artificial Intelligence was God" in the ontological sense.

So you are contradicting yourself when you agreed to my below definition as defining God:-

---- 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.

..and then I stated that you are a brain-in-a-vat and that God is an artifial intelligence.

Are those 3 definitions of God, not enough anymore?

Do you acknowledge the Principle of Charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Is it the one that states, Veritas is trying really really hard to confirm his faith in Dick Dawk?

Despite my clarification of my actual position, you still want to go back to your own misinterpretations.

Oh! That silly bit where you agreed to my definition of God.

Btw, I agreed to your basis [the way you want it to be] of your own definition of God, it does not mean I'd agreed with and accepted your definition as true.
It is like I understand your the basis you are defining what is God, but it does not mean I agreed with and accepted your definition as true.

No. Its more like...you agreed with the definition I provided of God, but now that you realise you are a brain-in-a-vat and God is an Artificial Intelligence WHICH IS PLAUSIBLE you er ....don't accept it.

As not-a-theist there is no way I will ever agree with and accept your definition of God as real is true.

Good boy, you stick to your atheism, maybe one day you will get a badge. Maybe one day, even from Dick Dork himself - THE most deluded over-educated in all the wrong things, naive idiot may one day pin it on your lapel.

I have argued why theists resorted to the idea of God [illusion] is due to the inherent existential crisis within the individual.

Nah.

You are the one with the crisis, you want to be militant about your atheism but as proven here, you are inept of rebuttal.

Yes I am also embedded with the existential crisis but understand it well enough to avoid falling into its deceptions of deluding me in believing God [illusory] exists as real.

I don't give a shit. Just stop giving money and your intelligence to short-sighted arrogant nobs like evolutionary biologists that can't conceive of the concept.

I have proven God is an impossibility to be real, here;
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Nah. You proved nothing - stop banging on about your stupid thread like anyone gives a shit. If you proved something - write a book about it.

You truly think you comprehend the nature of reality, indeed physics to state you have PROOF there is NO GOD!!!???

That is my main contention, this thread is merely a side-show to counter Age's ridiculous claims.

Then may I suggest this one:viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26456
- a far more rational approach.

You made the most ridiculous claim on the entire forum - THAT YOU HAVE PROVED GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE!!
...and even while, still dodging actually defining GOD.

In case you forgot - this is the definition of God that you agreed to (an Artificial Intelligence running us all in a brain-in-a-vat):-
---- 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.

Oh!! The "ontological God" IS possible to be real!!!

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you are contradicting yourself when you agreed to my below definition as defining God:-

---- 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.

..and then I stated that you are a brain-in-a-vat and that God is an artifial intelligence.

Are those 3 definitions of God, not enough anymore?

Do you acknowledge the Principle of Charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Is it the one that states, Veritas is trying really really hard to confirm his faith in Dick Dawk?

Despite my clarification of my actual position, you still want to go back to your own misinterpretations.

Oh! That silly bit where you agreed to my definition of God.

Btw, I agreed to your basis [the way you want it to be] of your own definition of God, it does not mean I'd agreed with and accepted your definition as true.
It is like I understand your the basis you are defining what is God, but it does not mean I agreed with and accepted your definition as true.

No. Its more like...you agreed with the definition I provided of God, but now that you realise you are a brain-in-a-vat and God is an Artificial Intelligence WHICH IS PLAUSIBLE you er ....don't accept it.

As not-a-theist there is no way I will ever agree with and accept your definition of God as real is true.

Good boy, you stick to your atheism, maybe one day you will get a badge. Maybe one day, even from Dick Dork himself - THE most deluded over-educated in all the wrong things, naive idiot may one day pin it on your lapel.

Nah.

You are the one with the crisis, you want to be militant about your atheism but as proven here, you are inept of rebuttal.

Yes I am also embedded with the existential crisis but understand it well enough to avoid falling into its deceptions of deluding me in believing God [illusory] exists as real.

I don't give a shit. Just stop giving money and your intelligence to short-sighted arrogant nobs like evolutionary biologists that can't conceive of the concept.

I have proven God is an impossibility to be real, here;
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Nah. You proved nothing - stop banging on about your stupid thread like anyone gives a shit. If you proved something - write a book about it.

You truly think you comprehend the nature of reality, indeed physics to state you have PROOF there is NO GOD!!!???

That is my main contention, this thread is merely a side-show to counter Age's ridiculous claims.

Then may I suggest this one:viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26456
- a far more rational approach.

You made the most ridiculous claim on the entire forum - THAT YOU HAVE PROVED GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE!!
...and even while, still dodging actually defining GOD.

In case you forgot - this is the definition of God that you agreed to (an Artificial Intelligence running us all in a brain-in-a-vat):-
---- 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.

Oh!! The "ontological God" IS possible to be real!!!

I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

Then may I suggest this one:viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26456
- a far more rational approach.

The above is the same rhetoric you are trying to do here.

[attofishpi]

You made the most ridiculous claim on the entire forum - THAT YOU HAVE PROVED GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE!!
...and even while, still dodging actually defining GOD.

In case you forgot - this is the definition of God that you agreed to (an Artificial Intelligence running us all in a brain-in-a-vat):-
---- 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.

Oh!! The "ontological God" IS possible to be real!!!

I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

...Finally - so you do agree that the "Ontological God" IS Possible to be real!!

[Veritas Aequitas]

You made the most ridiculous claim on the entire forum - THAT YOU HAVE PROVED GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE!!
...and even while, still dodging actually defining GOD.

In case you forgot - this is the definition of God that you agreed to (an Artificial Intelligence running us all in a brain-in-a-vat):-
---- 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.

Oh!! The "ontological God" IS possible to be real!!!

I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did NOT state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

...Finally - so you do agree that the "Ontological God" IS Possible to be real!!

There was an omission;

I'll state again, I only agree to what you agree with and I did NOT state I accepted that definition as true from my perspective.

Note the Principle of Charity within the context of all my previous post and as an [a]theist.

[Atla]

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.

Even Age, the autistic-schizophrenic moron is one step ahead of you here. Though Age is hallucinating and can't bring any evidence for an ontological God, that does NOT mean that an ontological is impossible to be real.

What is actually impossible is proving the non-existence of something, you idiot.