God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

[Eodnhoj7]

A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I posted this thread;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316&p=379628&hil ... ty#p379628

Thus reality - all-there-is in one perspective is a hallucination or illusion as argued above.
But note illusions come in many types and in various degrees along a continuum.

In general there are empirical related illusion and transcendental illusions.
Empirical related illusions can be verified empirically and philosophically.
A 'mirage' of an oasis in the middle of a desert can be verified empirically whether it is real empirically or not.
An empirical oasis, albeit a meta-illusion, can be verified to be empirically real or false.

On the other hand, God as a transcendental illusion is based on Pure Reasoning i.e. based on thoughts only which cannot be verified empirically to be real at all.

Note again,
God is an Impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

God as a transcendental illusion is based on Pure Reasoning i.e. based on thoughts only which cannot be verified empirically to be real at all.

You are right about "empirically". However if God transcends reason/unreason then God is not any sort of illusion but transcends also reason/unreason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

God as a transcendental illusion is based on Pure Reasoning i.e. based on thoughts only which cannot be verified empirically to be real at all.

You are right about "empirically".

However if God transcends reason/unreason then God is not any sort of illusion but transcends also reason/unreason.

Point is theists are using their Pure Reason to pseudo-reason that God is not an illusion but transcend reason and unreason.

Point is 'pure reason' is very naked [empty of reality], raw and crude which has the tendency to jump to conclusion quickly based on some rickety syllogism. This tendency as I had argued is driven by some existential crisis.

The principle of 'cause and effect' is very basic and obvious within empiricism.

But pure reason relies on the cause-effect in jumping to a hasty conclusion into la la land, i.e. there is a final-cause without any solid justification.
Note this thread;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'

This is why Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason came up with severe criticisms of Plato, the Theologians [Schoolmen], and theists who jumped to the conclusion "God exists as real" without solid justifications.

[Age]

A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

Since WHEN has there been a definition of 'God', which, supposedly, includes "all that exists"?

From what I am observing here, you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions.

By the way, you are FAILING. See, the very reason WHY I define 'God', in the physical sense, as the physical Universe, itself, was so to overcome what 'you' are now 'trying to' insist here is true, and which 'you' are 'trying to' argue for.

[Age]

I posted this thread;

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316&p=379628&hil ... ty#p379628

Thus reality - all-there-is in one perspective is a hallucination or illusion as argued above.
But note illusions come in many types and in various degrees along a continuum.

In general there are empirical related illusion and transcendental illusions.
Empirical related illusions can be verified empirically and philosophically.

How EXACTLY do 'you' 'verify' an 'illusion'?

A 'mirage' of an oasis in the middle of a desert can be verified empirically whether it is real empirically or not.

Are you NOT YET AWARE that, by definition, a 'mirage' is ALREADY KNOWN. Therefore, there IS and would be ABSOLUTELY NO use in even attempting to verify a 'mirage'. That is; If one is seeing a 'mirage', then there is NOTHING to verify.

However, if one is NOT YET SURE if they are seeing a 'mirage' or not, then that is a WHOLE OTHER MATTER.

An empirical oasis, albeit a meta-illusion, can be verified to be empirically real or false.

On the other hand, God as a transcendental illusion is based on Pure Reasoning i.e. based on thoughts only which cannot be verified empirically to be real at all.

And 'you' KNOW this HOW, EXACTLY?

Also, is this ABSOLUTELY True AND Correct FOREVER MORE?

Oh, and by the way, if 'God' is an empirical 'Thing', then, OBVIOUSLY, God can BE verified empirically to be REAL, and True.

Therefore, what 'you' consistently 'try to' INSIST is true here will ALWAYS FAIL.

Note again,
God is an Impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Note ONCE MORE, 'you' are a LONG WAY OFF from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

The reason WHY 'you' are SO FAR OFF is BECAUSE 'you' are SO CLOSED. And, 'you' are SO CLOSED because 'you' can only LOOK FROM and SEE 'things' from your OWN ALREADY gained and held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which some are, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

[Age]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

God as a transcendental illusion is based on Pure Reasoning i.e. based on thoughts only which cannot be verified empirically to be real at all.

You are right about "empirically".

However if God transcends reason/unreason then God is not any sort of illusion but transcends also reason/unreason.

Point is theists are using their Pure Reason to pseudo-reason that God is not an illusion but transcend reason and unreason.

And, people like 'you', "veritas aequitas", (whatever you want to call "yourselves") are using your OWN, so called, "pure reason" to pseudo-reason that God is an illusion.

The reason 'you' do this "veritas aequitas" is the EXACT SAME reason WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, no matter if you call "yourselves" "theists" or "atheists" or ANY thing in between, is BECAUSE of your OWN ALREADY gained and held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which 'you' ALL strongly HOLD ONTO.

As I have PREVIOUSLY SAID while 'you' have and hold onto these BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, you are INCAPABLE of SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.

Point is 'pure reason' is very naked [empty of reality], raw and crude which has the tendency to jump to conclusion quickly based on some rickety syllogism.

LOL and what you say here is ACTUALLY EVIDENCED and PROVEN above, by the ACTUAL WORDS under the label "veritas aequitas".

This tendency as I had argued is driven by some existential crisis.

And as I have POINTED OUT and MENTIONED, PREVIOUSLY, you can, what you call, "argue" ABSOLUTELY ANY thing. HOWEVER only, and I mean ONLY, a 'sound, valid argument' is WORTHY of being LOOKED AT, and EXPRESSED and shared. This is because ONLY a 'sound, valid argument' is IRREFUTABLY True and FACTUAL.

EVERY other "argument" is usually ONLY just shared ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or they are just ONLY ATTEMPTS at expressing 'that', which is ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

The principle of 'cause and effect' is very basic and obvious within empiricism.

Agreed. Now could you just EXPLAIN this to those of 'you', human beings, who think or BELIEVE that there was a beginning, like a big bang, or some OTHER Creator, to Everything.

If you could EXPLAIN this, so that it was AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, then human beings, like 'you', would STOP believing that they ALREADY have and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

But pure reason relies on the cause-effect in jumping to a hasty conclusion into la la land, i.e. there is a final-cause without any solid justification.

And 'you', "veritas aequitas" provide some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of this 'jumping to hasty conclusions' into, what you call, 'la la land'.

Note this thread;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'

YES, literally take note of that thread, as there are some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of the one known as "veritas aequitas" 'jumping to VERY hasty conclusions'.

This is why Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason came up with severe criticisms of Plato, the Theologians [Schoolmen], and theists who jumped to the conclusion "God exists as real" without solid justifications.

And YET here 'we' are with the one known as "veritas aequitas" who has CONCLUDED, wholeheartedly and without ABSOLUTELY ANY doubt AT ALL, that "God does NOT exist as real', and has done this without one iota of ANY True justification, let alone with ANY solid justification.

[Eodnhoj7]

A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

Since WHEN has there been a definition of 'God', which, supposedly, includes "all that exists"?

From what I am observing here, you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions.

By the way, you are FAILING. See, the very reason WHY I define 'God', in the physical sense, as the physical Universe, itself, was so to overcome what 'you' are now 'trying to' insist here is true, and which 'you' are 'trying to' argue for.

Since the definition of God as omnipresent mandates God as connected through all being under observation. You are what you percieve and God is All in All.

God as the physical universe itself is not only your underlying belief and assumption but "you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions" in this case a belief in matter as a thing in itself.

God would be matter self referencing itself through various shapes and forms, matter is self referencing and as self referential has a degree of consciousness. The totality of matter, with matter being the foundation of being, necessitates God, as all being (with all being being material), being material or rather matter itself.

"By the way, you are FAILING"

[Eodnhoj7]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:



You are right about "empirically".

However if God transcends reason/unreason then God is not any sort of illusion but transcends also reason/unreason.

Point is theists are using their Pure Reason to pseudo-reason that God is not an illusion but transcend reason and unreason.

And, people like 'you', "veritas aequitas", (whatever you want to call "yourselves") are using your OWN, so called, "pure reason" to pseudo-reason that God is an illusion.

The reason 'you' do this "veritas aequitas" is the EXACT SAME reason WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, no matter if you call "yourselves" "theists" or "atheists" or ANY thing in between, is BECAUSE of your OWN ALREADY gained and held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which 'you' ALL strongly HOLD ONTO.

As I have PREVIOUSLY SAID while 'you' have and hold onto these BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, you are INCAPABLE of SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.

Point is 'pure reason' is very naked [empty of reality], raw and crude which has the tendency to jump to conclusion quickly based on some rickety syllogism.

LOL and what you say here is ACTUALLY EVIDENCED and PROVEN above, by the ACTUAL WORDS under the label "veritas aequitas".

This tendency as I had argued is driven by some existential crisis.

And as I have POINTED OUT and MENTIONED, PREVIOUSLY, you can, what you call, "argue" ABSOLUTELY ANY thing. HOWEVER only, and I mean ONLY, a 'sound, valid argument' is WORTHY of being LOOKED AT, and EXPRESSED and shared. This is because ONLY a 'sound, valid argument' is IRREFUTABLY True and FACTUAL.

EVERY other "argument" is usually ONLY just shared ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or they are just ONLY ATTEMPTS at expressing 'that', which is ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

The principle of 'cause and effect' is very basic and obvious within empiricism.

Agreed. Now could you just EXPLAIN this to those of 'you', human beings, who think or BELIEVE that there was a beginning, like a big bang, or some OTHER Creator, to Everything.

If you could EXPLAIN this, so that it was AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, then human beings, like 'you', would STOP believing that they ALREADY have and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

But pure reason relies on the cause-effect in jumping to a hasty conclusion into la la land, i.e. there is a final-cause without any solid justification.

And 'you', "veritas aequitas" provide some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of this 'jumping to hasty conclusions' into, what you call, 'la la land'.

Note this thread;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'

YES, literally take note of that thread, as there are some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of the one known as "veritas aequitas" 'jumping to VERY hasty conclusions'.

This is why Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason came up with severe criticisms of Plato, the Theologians [Schoolmen], and theists who jumped to the conclusion "God exists as real" without solid justifications.

And YET here 'we' are with the one known as "veritas aequitas" who has CONCLUDED, wholeheartedly and without ABSOLUTELY ANY doubt AT ALL, that "God does NOT exist as real', and has done this without one iota of ANY True justification, let alone with ANY solid justification.

Provide an example of an argument which is not grounded in an assumption, or rather that which imprints itself upon the psyche.

[Age]

A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

Since WHEN has there been a definition of 'God', which, supposedly, includes "all that exists"?

From what I am observing here, you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions.

By the way, you are FAILING. See, the very reason WHY I define 'God', in the physical sense, as the physical Universe, itself, was so to overcome what 'you' are now 'trying to' insist here is true, and which 'you' are 'trying to' argue for.

Since the definition of God as omnipresent mandates God as connected through all being under observation.

'Being omnipresent' also relates to 'being present', that is; in relation to what is 'being observed'. SEE, what is observed is physical matter, and since, according to 'you', God is mandated to be connected through all being under observation, then this STILL fits PERFECTLY with what I have observed and with 'That', which UNIFIES and EXPLAINS ALL-OF-THIS.

Your definition of, and for the, word 'God' here STILL fits PERFECTLY, with what 'God' ACTUALLY IS. Which is NOT "all that exists".

If, and when, you become curious ENOUGH, then you ALSO will SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this'.

You are what you percieve and God is All in All.

So, what you are essentially saying here is, to 'you', if 'you' perceive 'God' to be the SINNING and the WRONG, which ONLY adult human beings do, then that IS what 'you' ARE. However, if this is Wrong or Incorrect, then PLEASE feel FREE to CORRECT 'me' here.

God as the physical universe itself is not only your underlying belief and assumption but "you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions" in this case a belief in matter as a thing in itself.

LOL 'you' could NOT be ANY FURTHER from what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

SEE, ' 'God' as the physical universe itself' is NOT some thing that I BELIEVE, NOR ASSUME, AT ALL.

That is what I have OBSERVED, which COULD BE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. BUT, I can ACTUALLY back up AND support this VIEW, with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

So, 'you' were COMPLETELY WRONG, AGAIN.

God would be matter self referencing itself through various shapes and forms, matter is self referencing and as self referential has a degree of consciousness.

I have ALREADY AGREED with this.

And, by the way, I can ACTUALLY back this up AND support this with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

The totality of matter, with matter being the foundation of being, necessitates God, as all being (with all being being material), being material or rather matter itself.

Okay, if you say so.

"By the way, you are FAILING"

"FAILING" in 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

Point is theists are using their Pure Reason to pseudo-reason that God is not an illusion but transcend reason and unreason.

And, people like 'you', "veritas aequitas", (whatever you want to call "yourselves") are using your OWN, so called, "pure reason" to pseudo-reason that God is an illusion.

The reason 'you' do this "veritas aequitas" is the EXACT SAME reason WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, no matter if you call "yourselves" "theists" or "atheists" or ANY thing in between, is BECAUSE of your OWN ALREADY gained and held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which 'you' ALL strongly HOLD ONTO.

As I have PREVIOUSLY SAID while 'you' have and hold onto these BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, you are INCAPABLE of SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.

Point is 'pure reason' is very naked [empty of reality], raw and crude which has the tendency to jump to conclusion quickly based on some rickety syllogism.

LOL and what you say here is ACTUALLY EVIDENCED and PROVEN above, by the ACTUAL WORDS under the label "veritas aequitas".

This tendency as I had argued is driven by some existential crisis.

And as I have POINTED OUT and MENTIONED, PREVIOUSLY, you can, what you call, "argue" ABSOLUTELY ANY thing. HOWEVER only, and I mean ONLY, a 'sound, valid argument' is WORTHY of being LOOKED AT, and EXPRESSED and shared. This is because ONLY a 'sound, valid argument' is IRREFUTABLY True and FACTUAL.

EVERY other "argument" is usually ONLY just shared ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or they are just ONLY ATTEMPTS at expressing 'that', which is ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

The principle of 'cause and effect' is very basic and obvious within empiricism.

Agreed. Now could you just EXPLAIN this to those of 'you', human beings, who think or BELIEVE that there was a beginning, like a big bang, or some OTHER Creator, to Everything.

If you could EXPLAIN this, so that it was AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, then human beings, like 'you', would STOP believing that they ALREADY have and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

But pure reason relies on the cause-effect in jumping to a hasty conclusion into la la land, i.e. there is a final-cause without any solid justification.

And 'you', "veritas aequitas" provide some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of this 'jumping to hasty conclusions' into, what you call, 'la la land'.

Note this thread;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'

YES, literally take note of that thread, as there are some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of the one known as "veritas aequitas" 'jumping to VERY hasty conclusions'.

This is why Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason came up with severe criticisms of Plato, the Theologians [Schoolmen], and theists who jumped to the conclusion "God exists as real" without solid justifications.

And YET here 'we' are with the one known as "veritas aequitas" who has CONCLUDED, wholeheartedly and without ABSOLUTELY ANY doubt AT ALL, that "God does NOT exist as real', and has done this without one iota of ANY True justification, let alone with ANY solid justification.

Provide an example of an argument which is not grounded in an assumption, or rather that which imprints itself upon the psyche.

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

Also, EVERY 'thing' which is OBSERVED, or NOTICED, and EXPERIENCED imprints itself upon the 'psyche'. But how much or for how long is another matter.

[Eodnhoj7]

Since WHEN has there been a definition of 'God', which, supposedly, includes "all that exists"?

From what I am observing here, you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions.

By the way, you are FAILING. See, the very reason WHY I define 'God', in the physical sense, as the physical Universe, itself, was so to overcome what 'you' are now 'trying to' insist here is true, and which 'you' are 'trying to' argue for.

Since the definition of God as omnipresent mandates God as connected through all being under observation.

'Being omnipresent' also relates to 'being present', that is; in relation to what is 'being observed'. SEE, what is observed is physical matter, and since, according to 'you', God is mandated to be connected through all being under observation, then this STILL fits PERFECTLY with what I have observed and with 'That', which UNIFIES and EXPLAINS ALL-OF-THIS.

Your definition of, and for the, word 'God' here STILL fits PERFECTLY, with what 'God' ACTUALLY IS. Which is NOT "all that exists".

If, and when, you become curious ENOUGH, then you ALSO will SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this'.

You are what you percieve and God is All in All.

So, what you are essentially saying here is, to 'you', if 'you' perceive 'God' to be the SINNING and the WRONG, which ONLY adult human beings do, then that IS what 'you' ARE. However, if this is Wrong or Incorrect, then PLEASE feel FREE to CORRECT 'me' here.

God as the physical universe itself is not only your underlying belief and assumption but "you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions" in this case a belief in matter as a thing in itself.

LOL 'you' could NOT be ANY FURTHER from what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

SEE, ' 'God' as the physical universe itself' is NOT some thing that I BELIEVE, NOR ASSUME, AT ALL.

That is what I have OBSERVED, which COULD BE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. BUT, I can ACTUALLY back up AND support this VIEW, with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

So, 'you' were COMPLETELY WRONG, AGAIN.

God would be matter self referencing itself through various shapes and forms, matter is self referencing and as self referential has a degree of consciousness.

I have ALREADY AGREED with this.

And, by the way, I can ACTUALLY back this up AND support this with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

The totality of matter, with matter being the foundation of being, necessitates God, as all being (with all being being material), being material or rather matter itself.

Okay, if you say so.

"By the way, you are FAILING"

"FAILING" in 'what', EXACTLY?

Sinning is the absence of God as the limits of Gods existence within a particular context. Sin is the limits of God existence through being thus underlying only that which exists as good. For example rape is bad, but the formation of a child through natural law is a good. The rape is a deficiency within the conception of a child (given a health relationship between parents is a positive in the rearing of a child).


And where are we disagreeing exactly? What is it that I am wrong on and that which you are correct on relative to God's existence? You are assuming your senses are correct if God is strictly physical.

[Eodnhoj7]

And, people like 'you', "veritas aequitas", (whatever you want to call "yourselves") are using your OWN, so called, "pure reason" to pseudo-reason that God is an illusion.

The reason 'you' do this "veritas aequitas" is the EXACT SAME reason WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, no matter if you call "yourselves" "theists" or "atheists" or ANY thing in between, is BECAUSE of your OWN ALREADY gained and held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, which 'you' ALL strongly HOLD ONTO.

As I have PREVIOUSLY SAID while 'you' have and hold onto these BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, you are INCAPABLE of SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.



LOL and what you say here is ACTUALLY EVIDENCED and PROVEN above, by the ACTUAL WORDS under the label "veritas aequitas".



And as I have POINTED OUT and MENTIONED, PREVIOUSLY, you can, what you call, "argue" ABSOLUTELY ANY thing. HOWEVER only, and I mean ONLY, a 'sound, valid argument' is WORTHY of being LOOKED AT, and EXPRESSED and shared. This is because ONLY a 'sound, valid argument' is IRREFUTABLY True and FACTUAL.

EVERY other "argument" is usually ONLY just shared ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which OBVIOUSLY could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or they are just ONLY ATTEMPTS at expressing 'that', which is ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.



Agreed. Now could you just EXPLAIN this to those of 'you', human beings, who think or BELIEVE that there was a beginning, like a big bang, or some OTHER Creator, to Everything.

If you could EXPLAIN this, so that it was AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, then human beings, like 'you', would STOP believing that they ALREADY have and KNOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things.



And 'you', "veritas aequitas" provide some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of this 'jumping to hasty conclusions' into, what you call, 'la la land'.



YES, literally take note of that thread, as there are some GREAT and PRIME EXAMPLES of the one known as "veritas aequitas" 'jumping to VERY hasty conclusions'.



And YET here 'we' are with the one known as "veritas aequitas" who has CONCLUDED, wholeheartedly and without ABSOLUTELY ANY doubt AT ALL, that "God does NOT exist as real', and has done this without one iota of ANY True justification, let alone with ANY solid justification.

Provide an example of an argument which is not grounded in an assumption, or rather that which imprints itself upon the psyche.

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

Also, EVERY 'thing' which is OBSERVED, or NOTICED, and EXPERIENCED imprints itself upon the 'psyche'. But how much or for how long is another matter.

The act of imprinting, as accepting a phenomenon for what it is, is assumption.

Anything which is agreed upon by multiple perspectives is in turn assumed by a group, you are assuming group interpretation as correct, your point contradicts itself....again.

[Age]

Since the definition of God as omnipresent mandates God as connected through all being under observation.

'Being omnipresent' also relates to 'being present', that is; in relation to what is 'being observed'. SEE, what is observed is physical matter, and since, according to 'you', God is mandated to be connected through all being under observation, then this STILL fits PERFECTLY with what I have observed and with 'That', which UNIFIES and EXPLAINS ALL-OF-THIS.

Your definition of, and for the, word 'God' here STILL fits PERFECTLY, with what 'God' ACTUALLY IS. Which is NOT "all that exists".

If, and when, you become curious ENOUGH, then you ALSO will SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this'.

You are what you percieve and God is All in All.

So, what you are essentially saying here is, to 'you', if 'you' perceive 'God' to be the SINNING and the WRONG, which ONLY adult human beings do, then that IS what 'you' ARE. However, if this is Wrong or Incorrect, then PLEASE feel FREE to CORRECT 'me' here.

God as the physical universe itself is not only your underlying belief and assumption but "you are just 'trying to' provide some 'thing', which you think, believe, or hope, would back up and support your ALREADY gained and held beliefs and assumptions" in this case a belief in matter as a thing in itself.

LOL 'you' could NOT be ANY FURTHER from what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

SEE, ' 'God' as the physical universe itself' is NOT some thing that I BELIEVE, NOR ASSUME, AT ALL.

That is what I have OBSERVED, which COULD BE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. BUT, I can ACTUALLY back up AND support this VIEW, with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

So, 'you' were COMPLETELY WRONG, AGAIN.

God would be matter self referencing itself through various shapes and forms, matter is self referencing and as self referential has a degree of consciousness.

I have ALREADY AGREED with this.

And, by the way, I can ACTUALLY back this up AND support this with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

The totality of matter, with matter being the foundation of being, necessitates God, as all being (with all being being material), being material or rather matter itself.

Okay, if you say so.

"By the way, you are FAILING"

"FAILING" in 'what', EXACTLY?

Sinning is the absence of God as the limits of Gods existence within a particular context.

Therefore, THE definition of 'God', which, supposedly, includes "all that exists", would NOT WORK within the True and FULL, particular, context.

Sin is the limits of God existence through being thus underlying only that which exists as good. For example rape is bad, but the formation of a child through natural law is a good.

WHAT?

Since when has there been a, so called, "natural law", which has a conception or preconception of 'bad'.

IF the, so called, "formation of a child" is 'good' or 'bad', then this is ONLY because of what 'you', human beings, think or BELIEVE.

'good' or 'bad' are only views, or 'things', from and of human beings ONLY. For example, 'rape', itself, is NEITHER 'good' NOR 'bad', just like, 'the formation of a child is NEITHER 'good' NOR 'bad'. These 'things' HAPPEN, and HAPPEN NATURALLY.

The rape is a deficiency within the conception of a child (given a health relationship between parents is a positive in the rearing of a child).

If you say so, then okay.

And where are we disagreeing exactly?

For one, where you wrote:
A definition of God includes "all that exists"

I do NOT agree with this. As EXPLAINED above.

What is it that I am wrong on and that which you are correct on relative to God's existence?

'That', which you are (badly worded) "WRONG ON", is by starting a sentence with:
A definition of God includes "all that exists"

And then using 'that' OBVIOUSLY Wrong AND Incorrect definition to 'try to' "back up" and "support" ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else which you want to CLAIM is true.

I suggest that if you want to 'fight' or 'argue' against other human beings, then just use 'that' what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct.

You are assuming your senses are correct if God is strictly physical.

But I am NOT assuming ANY thing AT ALL like this what YOU CLAIM here. I have NEVER EVEN ASSUMED ANY thing AT ALL like this. In fact, I do NOT even agree with ANY thing AT ALL like this.

So, WHY have 'you' ASSUMED what 'you' have, HERE?

I have NEVER even said, let alone meant, ANY thing even remotely close to what you have said here. So, what the 'things' were which caused 'you' to come to ASSUME such a thing as 'you' have here, only 'you' would Truly KNOW.

[Age]

Provide an example of an argument which is not grounded in an assumption, or rather that which imprints itself upon the psyche.

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

Also, EVERY 'thing' which is OBSERVED, or NOTICED, and EXPERIENCED imprints itself upon the 'psyche'. But how much or for how long is another matter.

The act of imprinting, as accepting a phenomenon for what it is, is assumption.

If you SAY SO, and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

And, if this IS CORRECT, and therefore is just YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION, then are you FULLY AWARE that 'ASSUMPTIONS', themselves could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect?

If no, then you are NOW.

NOW, remember that ALL ASSUMPTIONS are based on NOTHING AT ALL but just a GUESS, which ALL guesses can OBVIOUSLY be False, Wrong and/or Incorrect. I have informed 'you', enough times now, that EVERY time 'you' want to INSIST, and ARGUE, that ALL of Y/OUR VIEWS are grounded on ASSUMPTION, then this GUESS of YOURS could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. Therefore, EVERY time you 'try to' INSIST the above 'you' are ALWAYS going to fall into this 'trap' of YOUR OWN MAKING.

Also, BE AWARE that until a view is BACKED UP and SUPPORTED, then it is essentially REMAINS only just an 'assumption', a 'guess', or just a 'theory', AND, by definition, YOUR ASSUMPTION and GUESS here MEANS that it will ALWAYS remain just an 'ASSUMPTION' and a 'GUESS', ONLY.

Therefore, 'you', "eodnhoj7", will ALWAYS REMAIN in YOUR OWN TRAP.

Anything which is agreed upon by multiple perspectives is in turn assumed by a group, you are assuming group interpretation as correct, your point contradicts itself....again.

LOL 'you' have NOT EVEN got CORRECT what I have CLEARLY SAID, in WRITTEN, thus PROVEN WORDS.

I suggest using thee ACTUAL WORDS that I have USED, that is; IF you REALLY WANT to 'try to' use them to argue AGAINST 'me'.

ALSO, and by the way, ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT EVEN ASSUMING what 'you', AGAIN, CLAIM HERE.

Get back to 'me' when either 'you' use MY 'words' CORRECTLY, or when 'you' CLARIFY with 'me' FIRST.