What is the need for God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Square-circle is possible in reality in non-Ecludian geometry. What is your reason that God cannot be real?

I have mentioned this before.

What is 'real' is objective, fundamentally empirical [Science] and supported by the philosophical [knowledge, critical thinking, rationality and wisdom].

Square-circle is possible in reality in non-Ecludian geometry.

Square-circle cannot be real as defined above.
Square-circle as defined within non-Ecludian geometry is merely a thought.
It is the same as the perfect circle or circular object in general Geometry which is merely a thought but can never be real [as defined].

Non-Ecludian geometry is not a logical impossibility. Therefore, it could be real in a universe, of course not ours.

Yes, is logical possible within Non-Ecludian geometry [as defined], therefore impossible to be real [as defined].
If you proposed another 'universe' then there will be another and another, so where do you end. This tjere is a universe that encompasses all the multiple universes.

What is your reason that God cannot be real?

I think we have discussed that in this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

What if you define God as the creator?

If God the creator, then who create this 'creator' and so on, i.e. ending with an infinite regression.

Since you are trying all sorts of approach to get to what you want [so far I have show it is impossible], why don't you turn around and focus on yourself and ask why are you doing all this, i.e. chasing the impossible. If you dig deep into yourself you will get the answer, i.e. it is all about internal existential psychology.

[bahman]

I have mentioned this before.

What is 'real' is objective, fundamentally empirical [Science] and supported by the philosophical [knowledge, critical thinking, rationality and wisdom].


Square-circle cannot be real as defined above.
Square-circle as defined within non-Ecludian geometry is merely a thought.
It is the same as the perfect circle or circular object in general Geometry which is merely a thought but can never be real [as defined].

Non-Ecludian geometry is not a logical impossibility. Therefore, it could be real in a universe, of course not ours.

Yes, is logical possible within Non-Ecludian geometry [as defined], therefore impossible to be real [as defined].
If you proposed another 'universe' then there will be another and another, so where do you end. This tjere is a universe that encompasses all the multiple universes.

The possibilities are endless.

What is your reason that God cannot be real?

I think we have discussed that in this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

What if you define God as the creator?

If God the creator, then who create this 'creator' and so on, i.e. ending with an infinite regression.

Since you are trying all sorts of approach to get to what you want [so far I have show it is impossible], why don't you turn around and focus on yourself and ask why are you doing all this, i.e. chasing the impossible. If you dig deep into yourself you will get the answer, i.e. it is all about internal existential psychology.

There is no infinite regress involved if Go is the first cause/uncaused cause. Even we are are uncaused cause when we decide.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Things are either logically possible or impossible. God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible. Something which is logically possible could exist without a need for a creator because it is possible. The universe, however, cannot be eternal so nothing is necessary state of affair. The process of nothing to something, therefore, is possible since something is possible.

Logic is what humans use to test the validity of inference so as come to a more truthful understanding of our universe. Whatever is possible or impossible came long before humans ever existed, let alone coin the idea to test for truth.

So it would seem that as to the age old god of our past, man has created him to quell their fears, and as a force against injustice, if they can convince everyone do buy into the deception; so they can have control instead of them being controlled?

If there really is such a creator, we may find it one day.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Non-Ecludian geometry is not a logical impossibility. Therefore, it could be real in a universe, of course not ours.

Yes, is logical possible within Non-Ecludian geometry [as defined], therefore impossible to be real [as defined].
If you proposed another 'universe' then there will be another and another, so where do you end. There should be [edited] a universe that encompasses all the multiple universes.

The possibilities are endless.

What if you define God as the creator?

If God the creator, then who create this 'creator' and so on, i.e. ending with an infinite regression.

Since you are trying all sorts of approach to get to what you want [so far I have show it is impossible], why don't you turn around and focus on yourself and ask why are you doing all this, i.e. chasing the impossible. If you dig deep into yourself you will get the answer, i.e. it is all about internal existential psychology.

There is no infinite regress involved if God is the first cause/uncaused cause. Even we are are uncaused cause when we decide.

Logically, there is an infinite regression, but it is theists and others who forced a 'first cause' or 'uncaused cause' to stop the infinite regression due to psychological reasons.

Note Hume argued, ultimately there is no logical connection between cause and effect.
Why there is a 'cause' for any 'effect' is merely psychological, i.e. due to habits, customs brought about by observations of perceived constant-conjunctions.

In this case, if there is no cause, how can there be a "first cause" or 'uncaused cause'.

[Age]

Yes, is logical possible within Non-Ecludian geometry [as defined], therefore impossible to be real [as defined].
If you proposed another 'universe' then there will be another and another, so where do you end. There should be [edited] a universe that encompasses all the multiple universes.

The possibilities are endless.

If God the creator, then who create this 'creator' and so on, i.e. ending with an infinite regression.

Since you are trying all sorts of approach to get to what you want [so far I have show it is impossible], why don't you turn around and focus on yourself and ask why are you doing all this, i.e. chasing the impossible. If you dig deep into yourself you will get the answer, i.e. it is all about internal existential psychology.

There is no infinite regress involved if God is the first cause/uncaused cause. Even we are are uncaused cause when we decide.

Logically, there is an infinite regression, but it is theists and others who forced a 'first cause' or 'uncaused cause' to stop the infinite regression due to psychological reasons.

Note Hume argued, ultimately there is no logical connection between cause and effect.
Why there is a 'cause' for any 'effect' is merely psychological, i.e. due to habits, customs brought about by observations of perceived constant-conjunctions.

In this case, if there is no cause, how can there be a "first cause" or 'uncaused cause'.

Obviously there can not be a first cause nor an uncaused cause, but there is still a constant cause and effect.

Why do you ask, IF there is no cause? Of course there is a cause. How do you think EVERY thing gets created?

And what do you mean by a 'cause' for any 'effect' is merely psychological?

EVERY physical thing is obviously caused by some thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The possibilities are endless.



There is no infinite regress involved if God is the first cause/uncaused cause. Even we are are uncaused cause when we decide.

Logically, there is an infinite regression, but it is theists and others who forced a 'first cause' or 'uncaused cause' to stop the infinite regression due to psychological reasons.

Note Hume argued, ultimately there is no logical connection between cause and effect.
Why there is a 'cause' for any 'effect' is merely psychological, i.e. due to habits, customs brought about by observations of perceived constant-conjunctions.

In this case, if there is no cause, how can there be a "first cause" or 'uncaused cause'.

Obviously there can not be a first cause nor an uncaused cause, but there is still a constant cause and effect.

Why do you ask, IF there is no cause? Of course there is a cause. How do you think EVERY thing gets created?

And what do you mean by a 'cause' for any 'effect' is merely psychological?

EVERY physical thing is obviously caused by some thing.

I suggest you update yourself with Hume on causality.

[Age]

Logically, there is an infinite regression, but it is theists and others who forced a 'first cause' or 'uncaused cause' to stop the infinite regression due to psychological reasons.

Note Hume argued, ultimately there is no logical connection between cause and effect.
Why there is a 'cause' for any 'effect' is merely psychological, i.e. due to habits, customs brought about by observations of perceived constant-conjunctions.

In this case, if there is no cause, how can there be a "first cause" or 'uncaused cause'.

Obviously there can not be a first cause nor an uncaused cause, but there is still a constant cause and effect.

Why do you ask, IF there is no cause? Of course there is a cause. How do you think EVERY thing gets created?

And what do you mean by a 'cause' for any 'effect' is merely psychological?

EVERY physical thing is obviously caused by some thing.

I suggest you update yourself with Hume on causality.

I suggest you OPEN your self up to REALITY.

You are so BLIND you can not even answer the most simplistic of clarifying questions. For example you are completely incapable of just explaining what you mean when you assert some thing.

What you have proposed here is WRONG, so obviously you can NOT explain what you mean. If there was some truth to what you have said, then obviously you would be able to explain it.

Instead you tell me to update what some "hume" thing said. Suggesting "others" to read some thing, which you believe is some sort of evidence, but which is obviously just some thing that just confirms your biases, will NOT achieve what you hope for.

Cause and effect is NOT merely psychological, OBVIOUSLY. This has ALREADY been proven to be True.

You can NOT explain what you mean, therefore what you say is just your BELIEFS only.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Today there is no need for the idea of gods/god for a great many that are indeed wise, understanding the past and current human condition/s. But for those that have neglected to combine philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, chemistry (including biochemistry) and cultural anthropology, to name but a few that illuminate the understanding of which I speak, unfortunately still require their illusory gods/god. So to believe in such imaginary being/s is only for the ignorant! May their illusory god/s rest their ignorant souls. So in their case ignorance is seemingly bliss.