New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Iwannaplato]

The monotheistic God is arrived via the one-up rationalization to ensure greater or fool proof assurances to resolve the internal cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
In this case, the monotheistic God is claimed to be absolutely perfect explicitly or implied subliminally.

This is to avoid infinite regression, questioned on who created their God or charged with a Matrix God.

1) Here you are talking about the motivations for believing in one God. IOW you are asserting that you know why polytheisms, for example, were succeeded by monotheisms on the individual motivational level.

Demonstrate that is the FSK of your choice.

2) Now there are countertrends. The has been in the last few decades in the West an upsurge of interest and adherance to polytheisms, indigenous inspired shamanist based belief systems - with, for example, distinct male and female deities. Hinduism, even in its polytheistic versions attracts follows in both the East and West. How could this happen?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note: I have mentioned before, whenever I refer to ChatGPT it is the general view and not an authoritative views, just like that of Wikipedia.
To increase credibility of one's references, one has to rely on more specific authoritative and credible sources, even ChatGPT will recommend that.

The distinct positive point with ChatGPT is it surveyed all data available on the internet and therefore give its general information based on sufficient completeness.

As an AI language model, I don't have real-time data or the ability to browse the internet. However, based on my knowledge up until September 2021, there was NO significant ongoing trend indicating a widespread movement towards polytheism in recent years.

It is important to note that religious beliefs and practices can vary significantly across different regions and cultures. While polytheistic beliefs are still followed by some communities and individuals around the world, the dominant religious trends globally tend to be monotheistic or non-religious.

That being said, societal and religious trends can change over time, and it's possible that new movements or shifts in belief systems have emerged since my last update. To gain a more accurate understanding of current trends regarding polytheism, it would be advisable to consult more recent sources or conduct surveys or studies specifically focused on this topic.

If anyone insist there is a trend towards polytheism from monotheism, where is the credible sources.

Note there are >8 billion people on Earth.
If there are merely a few hundreds moving towards polytheism since 2019 up to now, that is hardly credible? Just don't pull a fast one base on guesswork.

If there are really more people moving towards polytheism from monotheism it is positive for me, i.e. there would be no greatest Islamic God to command believers to kill all non-believers where warranted.

[Age]

My point was, what human-based FSK can provide the most realistic truths other than the scientific FSK.
You agree mathematics is an abstract tool, thus cannot give truths that are realistic.

Yes.

Logic is also a tool that provide a systematic approach to arrive at a conclusion.
If all the premises within logic are true, the conclusion is true but not necessary realistic.

That depends on what the premises are about. If the premises are about reality and they are shown to be true then the conclusion is true and necessary and it tells us something about reality.

If the premises are about reality, they have to be proven to be realistic in the first place.
The most credible, reliable and objectivity of reality is from the human-based scientific FSK.

But the so-called ' human-based scientific "fsk" ' CLAIMED that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, that the Universe began, and is expanding'. Whereas OTHER animals may well have KNOWN better all along. So, what are you basing your OWN SUBJECTIVE view that the most credible, reliable and objective view of reality is from 'you', human beings, on here, EXACTLY?

Are you SURE that there is NO 'bias' here?

To assess the real_ness, we still need to rely on a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.
So, what FSK is more credible, reliable and objective than science in terms of realistic truths?
Surely, it cannot be mathematics and logic as explained above?
Thus, at PRESENT, the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective

Science is dealing with physical things. Physical things do not exhaust everything.

If your 'physical' is related to Physicalism, note this;

Physicalism is closely related to materialism, and has evolved from materialism with advancements in the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms "physicalism" and "materialism" are often used interchangeably, but can be distinguished based on their philosophical implications.

Physicalism encompasses: matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things, as described by physics and other sciences, as part of the physical in a monistic sense.

From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure. Nevertheless, they are still considered physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

The above exhaust everything that is physical [as defined above] that is possible in reality [as-there-is].

If your "Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.

Here we can CLEARLY SEE how one's OWN VERY SUBJECTIVE VIEW of 'things' affects what 'it' BELIEVES is true, and then WHEN BELIEF SETS IN, then as can be CLEARLY SEEN here 'confirmation bias' SETS IN FURTHER, ending up in a DOWNHILL SPIRAL.

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real.
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

1. I have shown above that the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective in enabling realistic truths, i.e. to confirm what is really-real.
2. It is impossible for science to deal with the absolute [e.g. God].
3. Therefore, it is impossible for the absolute perfect God to be real [scientifically].

Again, given the fact that science cannot deal with absolute entities then your second premise does not follow. You need a separate argument for P2 to show that it is true.

Note my point above;
If your "Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.

Because the scientific FSK covering all of reality, is the most credible, reliable and objective to confirm reality, any thing claimed to be beyond the ambit of the scientific FSK is impossible to be real.

Theists claim God exists solely based on faith [no proofs] which cannot be scientific [empirical].
Since the scientific FSK is the only basis to assess the truths that are real,
it is impossible for God [faith-based] to exists as real [empirically].

Again, what you are going to do when you do not have an argument in favor or against something?

My principle;
Whatever is claimed to exists as real, is a fact, true, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a human based FSR-FSK. note 'human-based].
All arguments can be framed within a FSR-FSK. The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

IF a claim cannot be framed within a FSR-FSK, then we should remain silent on it till eternity.

How credible are such knowledge?
To assess how credible, reliable and objective in terms of reality, any truth claims will need to be compared with the Standard, which is the scientific FSK.

I have argued elsewhere, if the science FSK [empirical] is rated as a standard at 100/100 reality and objectivity, theism which is based on faith, would be rated at 0.01/100.
For the typical spirituality based on "spirits", at most it will be rated at 1/100.

These percentages are mostly claims. I would like to mention that science at the current level, the standard model, is not complete yet since it suffers from anomalies.

Yes, the scientific-FSK when deliberated rationally has loads of weaknesses, limitations, can be abused.
As Popper had stated, scientific truths at best are mere polished conjectures [hypothesis].
Who would deny the above?

But as I had said, despite its weaknesses and limitations, the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable, and objective among all other FSKs.
You have not answers what other FSKs is better than the scientific-FSK, other than stating mathematics and logic which are not relevant to the point.

In this case, we have to accept the scientific-FSK enable the best sense of what-is-real since there is no other better.
To insist there is something beyond what the scientific-FSK is supposed to cover [nb: Physicalism above] is jumping into the no-man's-land of illusion and thus delusional.
Nevertheless, even if what is beyond science is impossible, it can still be thought in mind as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

The above percentages are meant to be rough relative comparisons not of exact precisions.
When the scientific-FSK based on the empirical is the standard 100/100, then theism based on faith [unprovable] must be at the other end of the spectrum.
Would you insist theism has the same or near credibility, reliability and objectivity to that of science?
The economic FSK with its economic facts can be rated at around 80/100, the legal facts, say 60/100, and so on.

[Age]

Note: I have mentioned before, whenever I refer to ChatGPT it is the general view and not an authoritative views, just like that of Wikipedia.
To increase credibility of one's references, one has to rely on more specific authoritative and credible sources, even ChatGPT will recommend that.

The distinct positive point with ChatGPT is it surveyed all data available on the internet and therefore give its general information based on sufficient completeness.

AND, following on from this so-called "logic", if 'chatgpt' was around when the current and general information was that the sun really does revolve around the earth or that the earth is actually flat, then 'chatgpt' would tell you that the sun really does revolve around the earth or that the earth is actually flat, and then there would be some IDIOTS or IMBECILES who would then USE 'chagpt' as some form of 'authoritarian' or 'credible' source, which when LOOKED AT, from a distance, is even MORE Truly IDIOTIC and ABSURD and it FIRST appeared to be.

This one here WILL and HAS said just about ANY 'thing' in the hope that there might be some 'thing' that 'it' could USE to 'TRY TO' give 'its', UNCHANGEABLE and UNSUPPORTABLE, BELIEFS just some sort of CREDIBILITY.

But to NO AVAIL.

As an AI language model, I don't have real-time data or the ability to browse the internet. However, based on my knowledge up until September 2021, there was NO significant ongoing trend indicating a widespread movement towards polytheism in recent years.

It is important to note that religious beliefs and practices can vary significantly across different regions and cultures. While polytheistic beliefs are still followed by some communities and individuals around the world, the dominant religious trends globally tend to be monotheistic or non-religious.

That being said, societal and religious trends can change over time, and it's possible that new movements or shifts in belief systems have emerged since my last update. To gain a more accurate understanding of current trends regarding polytheism, it would be advisable to consult more recent sources or conduct surveys or studies specifically focused on this topic.

If anyone insist there is a trend towards polytheism from monotheism, where is the credible sources.

Note there are >8 billion people on Earth.
If there are merely a few hundreds moving towards polytheism since 2019 up to now, that is hardly credible? Just don't pull a fast one base on guesswork.

If there are really more people moving towards polytheism from monotheism it is positive for me, i.e. there would be no greatest Islamic God to command believers to kill all non-believers where warranted.

[bahman]

My point was, what human-based FSK can provide the most realistic truths other than the scientific FSK.
You agree mathematics is an abstract tool, thus cannot give truths that are realistic.

Yes.

Logic is also a tool that provide a systematic approach to arrive at a conclusion.
If all the premises within logic are true, the conclusion is true but not necessary realistic.

That depends on what the premises are about. If the premises are about reality and they are shown to be true then the conclusion is true and necessary and it tells us something about reality.

If the premises are about reality, they have to be proven to be realistic in the first place.
The most credible, reliable and objectivity of reality is from the human-based scientific FSK.

No, the most reliable form of knowledge is not human-based scientific FSK.

To assess the real_ness, we still need to rely on a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.
So, what FSK is more credible, reliable and objective than science in terms of realistic truths?
Surely, it cannot be mathematics and logic as explained above?
Thus, at PRESENT, the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective

Science is dealing with physical things. Physical things do not exhaust everything.

If your 'physical' is related to Physicalism, note this;

Physicalism is closely related to materialism, and has evolved from materialism with advancements in the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms "physicalism" and "materialism" are often used interchangeably, but can be distinguished based on their philosophical implications.

Physicalism encompasses: matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things, as described by physics and other sciences, as part of the physical in a monistic sense.

From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure. Nevertheless, they are still considered physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

The above exhaust everything that is physical [as defined above] that is possible in reality [as-there-is].

If your "Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.

Yes, I am talking about God, soul, and the like.

• P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real.
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.

1. I have shown above that the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective in enabling realistic truths, i.e. to confirm what is really-real.
2. It is impossible for science to deal with the absolute [e.g. God].
3. Therefore, it is impossible for the absolute perfect God to be real [scientifically].

Again, given the fact that science cannot deal with absolute entities then your second premise does not follow. You need a separate argument for P2 to show that it is true.

Note my point above;
If your "Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.

Because the scientific FSK covering all of reality, is the most credible, reliable and objective to confirm reality, any thing claimed to be beyond the ambit of the scientific FSK is impossible to be real.

No, scientific FSK does not cover all reality.

Theists claim God exists solely based on faith [no proofs] which cannot be scientific [empirical].
Since the scientific FSK is the only basis to assess the truths that are real,
it is impossible for God [faith-based] to exists as real [empirically].

Again, what you are going to do when you do not have an argument in favor or against something?

My principle;
Whatever is claimed to exists as real, is a fact, true, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a human based FSR-FSK. note 'human-based].
All arguments can be framed within a FSR-FSK. The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

IF a claim cannot be framed within a FSR-FSK, then we should remain silent on it till eternity.

Again, that is not true. The human scientific FSK is not the most credible, reliable, and objective. I already mentioned that the best form of human scoentific knowledge, the standard model, is not anomaly free. So we do not have a complete model of reality.

How credible are such knowledge?
To assess how credible, reliable and objective in terms of reality, any truth claims will need to be compared with the Standard, which is the scientific FSK.

I have argued elsewhere, if the science FSK [empirical] is rated as a standard at 100/100 reality and objectivity, theism which is based on faith, would be rated at 0.01/100.
For the typical spirituality based on "spirits", at most it will be rated at 1/100.

These percentages are mostly claims. I would like to mention that science at the current level, the standard model, is not complete yet since it suffers from anomalies.

Yes, the scientific-FSK when deliberated rationally has loads of weaknesses, limitations, can be abused.
As Popper had stated, scientific truths at best are mere polished conjectures [hypothesis].
Who would deny the above?

But as I had said, despite its weaknesses and limitations, the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable, and objective among all other FSKs.
You have not answers what other FSKs is better than the scientific-FSK, other than stating mathematics and logic which are not relevant to the point.

In this case, we have to accept the scientific-FSK enable the best sense of what-is-real since there is no other better.
To insist there is something beyond what the scientific-FSK is supposed to cover [nb: Physicalism above] is jumping into the no-man's-land of illusion and thus delusional.
Nevertheless, even if what is beyond science is impossible, it can still be thought in mind as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

The above percentages are meant to be rough relative comparisons not of exact precisions.
When the scientific-FSK based on the empirical is the standard 100/100, then theism based on faith [unprovable] must be at the other end of the spectrum.
Would you insist theism has the same or near credibility, reliability and objectivity to that of science?
The economic FSK with its economic facts can be rated at around 80/100, the legal facts, say 60/100, and so on.

Human scientific knowledge is not complete. Period.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the premises are about reality, they have to be proven to be realistic in the first place.
The most credible, reliable and objectivity of reality is from the human-based scientific FSK.

No, the most reliable form of knowledge is not human-based scientific FSK.

No, scientific FSK does not cover all reality.

Human scientific knowledge is not complete. Period.

Mathematics and logic which you mentioned, they are not more superior in terms of credibility, reliability and objective with regards to the scientific-FSK verification of reality.

As such you have not answered, what is more credible than the scientific FSR-FSK in terms of the verification of reality?

Physicalism is ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

The above exhaust everything that is physical [as defined above] that is possible in reality [as-there-is].

If your "Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.

Yes, I am talking about God, soul, and the like.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

[bahman]

If the premises are about reality, they have to be proven to be realistic in the first place.
The most credible, reliable and objectivity of reality is from the human-based scientific FSK.

No, the most reliable form of knowledge is not human-based scientific FSK.

No, scientific FSK does not cover all reality.

Human scientific knowledge is not complete. Period.

Mathematics and logic which you mentioned, they are not more superior in terms of credibility, reliability and objective with regards to the scientific-FSK verification of reality.

As such you have not answered, what is more credible than the scientific FSR-FSK in terms of the verification of reality?

Aren't you trying to prove that God is not real using logic?

The above exhaust everything that is physical [as defined above] that is possible in reality [as-there-is].

If your "Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.

Yes, I am talking about God, soul, and the like.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

No, the journey toward God, soul, and the like starts from within. You cannot find them under the microscope or watch them by a telescope! It is a matter of personal experience. I have experienced God, soul of my father, and the like since more than ten years by now.

[FlashDangerpants]

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

This is the worst arg VA has ever written. I have never seen even him reach such a low as this.

[Iwannaplato]

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

This is the worst arg VA has ever written. I have never seen even him reach such a low as this.

I literally shook my head when I read that. He can on occasion do much better than that and it also contradicts things he's said before about various FSKs, ones he considers unreliable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, the most reliable form of knowledge is not human-based scientific FSK.

No, scientific FSK does not cover all reality.

Human scientific knowledge is not complete. Period.

Mathematics and logic which you mentioned, they are not more superior in terms of credibility, reliability and objective with regards to the scientific-FSK verification of reality.

As such you have not answered, what is more credible than the scientific FSR-FSK in terms of the verification of reality?

Aren't you trying to prove that God is not real using logic?

I am using critical thinking, logic and rationality.

I had argued what is most real is confined to the scientific FSK.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the credible FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

Btw, do you have a problem with the validity and understanding [not necessary agree with] the above arguments based on what we have discussed so far.

Yes, I am talking about God, soul, and the like.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

No, the journey toward God, soul, and the like starts from within. You cannot find them under the microscope or watch them by a telescope! It is a matter of personal experience. I have experienced God, soul of my father, and the like since more than ten years by now.

As I had argued the most credible, reliable, and objective basis of reality is the human-based FSR-FSK at present.
You have not answer what other FSK is more objective than the scientific FSK [not mathematics nor logic].

In the above you are relying on a very subjective first person experience which cannot be credible, reliable and objective.
Show me evidence where a first person experience is credible, reliable and objective.

Personal experiences of god could be due to many reasons, i.e. altered states of consciousness & hallucinations due to mental illness, stress, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, etc.

There are many people who claimed the experience God but has the rationality to seek psychiatric help to cure them of their hallucinations of God.
see:
How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc

If your experience is a one-time episode, it could be due to stress or some drug. But if you have regular experiences of god without any causes you know, it would be advisable to seek psychiatric help like the person in the above video.

The only way to confirm what is real is to verify and justified whatever the claim via the most credible, reliable and objective FSR-FSK, i.e. the scientific-FSK.

[bahman]

Mathematics and logic which you mentioned, they are not more superior in terms of credibility, reliability and objective with regards to the scientific-FSK verification of reality.

As such you have not answered, what is more credible than the scientific FSR-FSK in terms of the verification of reality?

Aren't you trying to prove that God is not real using logic?

I am using critical thinking, logic and rationality.

I had argued what is most real is confined to the scientific FSK.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the credible FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

Btw, do you have a problem with the validity and understanding [not necessary agree with] the above arguments based on what we have discussed so far.

Yes, I have problems with 1 and 2.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

No, the journey toward God, soul, and the like starts from within. You cannot find them under the microscope or watch them by a telescope! It is a matter of personal experience. I have experienced God, soul of my father, and the like since more than ten years by now.

As I had argued the most credible, reliable, and objective basis of reality is the human-based FSR-FSK at present.
You have not answer what other FSK is more objective than the scientific FSK [not mathematics nor logic].

In the above you are relying on a very subjective first person experience which cannot be credible, reliable and objective.
Show me evidence where a first person experience is credible, reliable and objective.

Personal experiences of god could be due to many reasons, i.e. altered states of consciousness & hallucinations due to mental illness, stress, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, etc.

There are many people who claimed the experience God but has the rationality to seek psychiatric help to cure them of their hallucinations of God.
see:
How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc

If your experience is a one-time episode, it could be due to stress or some drug. But if you have regular experiences of god without any causes you know, it would be advisable to seek psychiatric help like the person in the above video.

The only way to confirm what is real is to verify and justified whatever the claim via the most credible, reliable and objective FSR-FSK, i.e. the scientific-FSK.

Oh yeah, psychiatric. Let me breathe.

[FlashDangerpants]

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

This is the worst arg VA has ever written. I have never seen even him reach such a low as this.

I literally shook my head when I read that. He can on occasion do much better than that and it also contradicts things he's said before about various FSKs, ones he considers unreliable.

Normally he makes an effort and the only real problem is that he is shit, so he tries very hard but fails very badly. This one was VA phoning it in, showing that when he gets lazy there are actually new levels of worseness for him to explore. I might be excited to see that, it's like watching a circus explode.

[Veritas Aequitas]

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 10:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:47 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 4:45 pm
Aren't you trying to prove that God is not real using logic?
I am using critical thinking, logic and rationality.

I had argued what is most real is confined to the scientific FSK.
1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the credible FSK-FSK.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.
Btw, do you have a problem with the validity and understanding [not necessary agree with] the above arguments based on what we have discussed so far.

Yes, I have problems with 1 and 2.

I understand you do not agree with 1 and 2, thus from your perspective is not sound.

But do agree the syllogism is valid deductively whilst not sound nor true to you.
'Valid' deductively means following the rules of logic but not necessary true, thus can be GIGO.

bahman wrote: No, the journey toward God, soul, and the like starts from within. You cannot find them under the microscope or watch them by a telescope! It is a matter of personal experience. I have experienced God, soul of my father, and the like since more than ten years by now.

As I had argued the most credible, reliable, and objective basis of reality is the human-based FSR-FSK at present.
You have not answer what other FSK is more objective than the scientific FSK [not mathematics nor logic].

In the above you are relying on a very subjective first person experience which cannot be credible, reliable and objective.
Show me evidence where a first person experience is credible, reliable and objective.

Personal experiences of god could be due to many reasons, i.e. altered states of consciousness & hallucinations due to mental illness, stress, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, etc.

There are many people who claimed the experience God but has the rationality to seek psychiatric help to cure them of their hallucinations of God.
see:
How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc

If your experience is a one-time episode, it could be due to stress or some drug. But if you have regular experiences of god without any causes you know, it would be advisable to seek psychiatric help like the person in the above video.

The only way to confirm what is real is to verify and justified whatever the claim via the most credible, reliable and objective FSR-FSK, i.e. the scientific-FSK.

bahman wrote: Oh yeah, psychiatric. Let me breathe.

Seriously, if you have experienced God and see your father regularly and very often, then it is advisable you check with psychiatrist or rationalize your way to be more realistic.

You mentioned it happened once and that was 10 years ago.
If you are rational and apply critical thinking, it would be very unintelligent of you to confirm any truth merely on a one-time subjective first-person experience.

Did you see this video?
How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc
research on this, then read and listen to this such info exhaustively.
"God has sent me to you": Right temporal epilepsy, left prefrontal psychosis;
Religious experiences have long been documented in patients with epilepsy, though their exact underlying neural mechanisms are still unclear.

Here, we had the rare opportunity to record a delusional religious conversion in real time in a patient with right temporal lobe epilepsy undergoing continuous video-EEG. In this patient, a messianic revelation experience occurred several hours after a complex partial seizure of temporal origin, compatible with postictal psychosis (PIP). We analyzed the recorded resting-state EEG epochs separately for each of the conventional frequency bands. Topographical analysis of the bandpass filtered EEG epochs revealed increased activity in the low-gamma range (30-40Hz) during religious conversion compared with activity during the patient's habitual state. The brain generator underlying this activity was localized to the left prefrontal cortex. This suggests that religious conversion in PIP is related to control mechanisms in the prefrontal lobe-related processes rather than medial temporal lobe-related processes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27176877/

ETA: Note original retained

[FlashDangerpants]

I am using critical thinking, logic and rationality.

I had argued what is most real is confined to the scientific FSK.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the credible FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

Btw, do you have a problem with the validity and understanding [not necessary agree with] the above arguments based on what we have discussed so far.

Yes, I have problems with 1 and 2.

I understand you do not agree with 1 and 2, thus from your perspective is not sound.

But do agree the syllogism is valid deductively whilst not sound nor true to you.
'Valid' deductively means following the rules of logic but not necessary true, thus can be GIGO.

I'm not sure bahman can pass this test. Would it be bad manners to place a wager on the outcome?

[seeds]

_______



_______