New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Sculptor]

Note my improved argument re why god is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument:

Why God must be absolutely Perfect

• i. All humans are programmed with an innate unavoidable existential crisis that generate terrible primal cognitive dissonance.
  ii. The critical task for all humans is to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
  iii. For theists [major types], the only balm to soothe the cognitive dissonance is an absolutely perfect God.

It is impossible for God to exists as real

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

Note:
The next 3 posts below are critical to the OP.

Every single line in that (ahem!) "argument" is false.

[bahman]

Excuse me for being blunt, but I'm just telling it how I think it is (and I'm fairly sure). You are only a partial and distorted human mind, and the parts you are based on are overused, and you don't function very well. How I think it usually happens is that you're more like based in the neocortex and are an empathetic being, but the other one in your head is more centered around the brainstem and is more like a psychopath, so it will screw with you.

I think psychopathy is sort of a failsafe mechanism, a secondary "being" that's usually completely dormant, but can take over when the frontal lobes get damaged. But in schizophrenia there is no frontal lobe damage but other damages, and both the frontal-lobe being (you) and the psychopathic being can be active at the same time.

Best course of action for you may be to try to destroy this other being, and then re-assimilate the brain/mind parts it was using. Schizophrenia is often caused by brain inflammation in my non-big-pharma opinion btw, and the most common cause of that seems to be food allergies so you could also take a food allergy test imo.

Thanks for the elaboration. I was aware of a part of me that functions separately. Your explanation however does not disprove spirituality. I cannot prove it either. We have to wait and see.

I don't even know what you mean by spirituality. Also, we can never prove a negative. My explanation shows that, throughout human history, people who thought they talked to God probably simply talked to another part of themselves.

Yes. That is a possibility but we cannot argue that spiritual beings were not involved in those experiences. By spirituality, I mean that aspect of reality that deals with God, soul, and the like.

If there's real spirituality, it may probably be of a much higher form than this.

What do you mean with higher?

[bahman]

The argument is valid, i.e. deductively logically.

No, it is not valid. You have to change P2 yet you have to show that P2 is correct.

What you are refuting is the argument is not sound. Note the difference between valid and sound.

No. Your argument is neither valid nor sound.

My argument is modus tollens, i.e.
If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P."
We will leave it at that.

I have to justify why P1 is true.
I have done that here;
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

As for P2, you agreed God and Soul are not covered within the ambit of Science.

You are actually arguing my P1 is not true.
P1. What exist as most real is verifiable "ONLY" by the scientific FSR-FSK.

What you are insisting is there are other models [FSR-FSK] that can verify what exist as real or most real.

I have asked you, what other models [FSR-FSK] other than science can verify what is most real?
You have not provided any credible answers to my question.
You mentioned 'mathematics' and 'logic' which is not relevant.

You are not relying on your first-person-experience [highly subjective] as the most reliable model to verify what is really real. This is not possible because what is highly subjective cannot be objectively real.

Si,
P1. What exist as most real is verifiable [ONLY] by the scientific FSR-FSK.

Prove my P1 is wrong, then I will agree my argument whilst valid is not sound.

We have been through this. Logic, spirituality, and theology are other sources of knowing the truth. Moreover, that is you who should prove that P1 is correct.

Logic, spirituality, and theology are other sources of knowing the truth, but that is only within their specific model or Framework and System of Reality [FSR].
But what is true within the specific model or FSR may not be really-REAL.
To verify and verified what is true is really-real we need specific model or Framework and System of Reality [FSR].

The ONLY* [or the most realistic] FSK to verify and justify what is really-REAL is the human-based scientific FSR-FSK subject to its weaknesses and limitations. There is no better FSR at present to verify what is really-real.
* definitely not in the Scientism sense.

I have justified P1 here;
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

It definitely has a cause, i.e. Neuro-psychologically. When certain sets of neuron are triggered, they generate a sense of spirituality leading to a sensing of God, e.g.

Israeli doctors watch epileptic’s brain while he ‘sees God’
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-s ... -epilepsy/

As I believe, in your case, it could be due to mild Temporal Epilepsy which is evident and supported by tons of research.

Otherwise, you believe God tweaked your [the chosen ones] brain to make you see or experience God?

See this thread;
Listing of Causes in Experiencing God
viewtopic.php?t=40346
It is more likely that your experience of God is from one of the listed causes [all verifiable by the scienfific FSK], than insisting God exists as really real without proofs.

As I mentioned, my experiences are coherent. I talk with them like other human beings. Given the fact that I am my brain, I cannot fool myself being not aware of what I am doing. This sort of experience has a cause that could not be me or my brain. They just see neural activity when there is such an experience.
What you are suggesting is that a set of neurons play evil trying to fool me. That means that there is another conscious agent who resides inside my brain. A set of neurons could not do that.

The idea of an evil demon [or homunculus] fooling you would be a strawman.

The fact is evolution is lying to humans to ensure they survive to ensure the preservation of the species and life, e.g. the larger Sun at sunset is to facilitate survival, the same color is darker in the shade or a snake for a piece of rope are also illusions to facilitate survival, and many other illusions are necessary to facilitate survival.

Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what’s really there | Donald Hoffman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SL-j1XoDms&t=682s

In all humans there is a certain set of neurons that are necessary to facilitate survival but and in your case [& the like], is deviated to deceive you to believe in a God that is real when there is such real God at all in reality.
The deception by evolution of the idea of God as real [actually an illusion] is the most critical deception and critically necessary to facilitate survival for the majority. There is no better and immediate alternative to theism for the majority.

I said what should have said. Perhaps someone else can help us.

[Atla]

Thanks for the elaboration. I was aware of a part of me that functions separately. Your explanation however does not disprove spirituality. I cannot prove it either. We have to wait and see.

I don't even know what you mean by spirituality. Also, we can never prove a negative. My explanation shows that, throughout human history, people who thought they talked to God probably simply talked to another part of themselves.

Yes. That is a possibility but we cannot argue that spiritual beings were not involved in those experiences. By spirituality, I mean that aspect of reality that deals with God, soul, and the like.

If there's real spirituality, it may probably be of a much higher form than this.

What do you mean with higher?

Not this childish nonsense

[bahman]

I don't even know what you mean by spirituality. Also, we can never prove a negative. My explanation shows that, throughout human history, people who thought they talked to God probably simply talked to another part of themselves.

Yes. That is a possibility but we cannot argue that spiritual beings were not involved in those experiences. By spirituality, I mean that aspect of reality that deals with God, soul, and the like.

If there's real spirituality, it may probably be of a much higher form than this.

What do you mean with higher?

Not this childish nonsense

How do you know that is nonsense? You said that you cannot prove negative. Therefore, we can never know whether there were spiritual beings involved in the past or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The idea of an evil demon [or homunculus] fooling you would be a strawman.

The fact is evolution is lying to humans to ensure they survive to ensure the preservation of the species and life, e.g. the larger Sun at sunset is to facilitate survival, the same color is darker in the shade or a snake for a piece of rope are also illusions to facilitate survival, and many other illusions are necessary to facilitate survival.

Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what’s really there | Donald Hoffman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SL-j1XoDms&t=682s

In all humans there is a certain set of neurons that are necessary to facilitate survival but and in your case [& the like], is deviated to deceive you to believe in a God that is real when there is such real God at all in reality.
The deception by evolution of the idea of God as real [actually an illusion] is the most critical deception and critically necessary to facilitate survival for the majority. There is no better and immediate alternative to theism for the majority.

I said what should have said. Perhaps someone else can help us.

I suggest you need to research and dig deeper into what is really-real and why humans are naturally inclined to believe in a God due to psychological reasons.

I have no issue with anyone who is a theist as long as they know what they are really doing., i.e. to soothe the terrible cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

Where there is ignorance of the above, theists could end up with a God which condone the extermination of the human species.

[seeds]

How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc

I'm afraid that you and the video have got it backwards, V.

If you listen to the video, you will note the delusional patient who experienced and thought god is real was cured of his delusions by psychiatric counselling and medicine to control his temporal epilepsy...

How can that be backward, it is forward towards reality.

Come on now, V, it's a simple proposition.

Brains don't create delusions of God (as per the video title), no, brains are wired ("designed") to help hide the fact that God is real and truly exists.

Indeed, your own brain is a perfect example of the efficacy of that wiring.

To view the situation from the perspective of a highly metaphorical thought experiment...

...Imagine the poor guy in the video being likened to a video game character who, through some strange glitch in the game's software, somehow acquires consciousness and suddenly realizes that his entire phenomenal world is nothing more than programmed pixels taking place on a monitor.

I'm talking about a monitor that resides in a higher context of reality that exists above and outside of the game --> all of which is absolutely true --> which also includes the existence of a "Programmer" of the game (another truth).

However, when he expresses these - true and accurate - revelations to the other (non-conscious) characters in the video game, they, having no cognizance of their world being a computer game,...

...immediately spring into action with their psychiatric counselling and medicines (i.e., software correcting patches) in an effort to "cure" the wayward video game character by getting him realigned with the game's base programming, and thus back to believing that the video game is the "real" world and that there is no "Programmer" residing in a higher context of reality - above and outside of the game.

Like I said, the video you provided has things backwards (as in reverse of the truth).

To clarify what I'm getting at, what I am suggesting is that loosely similar to the unconscious characters in the video game, our brains have been programmed...

(as in "designed" by using an extreme attenuation of our overall awareness)

...to make us believe that this "pixel-based" ("holographic-like") world we are presently experiencing is "real" when, in truth, it is an illusion.

And therefore, instead of thinking that...

"...altered states of consciousness & hallucinations due to mental illness, stress, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, etc..."

...give us false delusions of the existence of God, in truth, they are responsible for the "glitches in the software" that allow some of us to experience hazy glimpses of the higher context of reality (and the higher level of wakefulness) that resides above and outside of the illusion.

Now I realize that you're just going to grumble and scoff at all of this,...

...however, your constant insistence on the "impossibility of God to be real," combined with your inability to see the illusion for what it really is, makes it quite obvious to me that you are not only a living/breathing example of one of the non-conscious characters in my video game thought experiment,...

...but you also appear to be "twin number two" in the fanciful little soap opera I created in an alternate thread.

Here's a copy of the first and third episodes starring you, again, as "twin number two"...

_______

Welcome to this first episode of - "Oh the Irony" - brought to you by the makers of Remington rifles.

< cue the organ music...

In this initial episode of - "Oh the Irony" - we are listening to the unborn Swanson twins, telepathically communicating with each other while still in their mother's womb:

• Twin one: "I wonder what mom looks like?"
  
  Twin two: "What mom? I don't see any mom around here."
  
  Twin one: "But I can somehow sense her presence."
  
  Twin Two: "That's just your imagination playing tricks on you. There is no mom."
  
  Twin one: "But..."
  
  Twin two: "There are no buts about it. The only things that exist are the two of us, this watery substance, and that impenetrable barrier that surrounds us. So, tell me, genius, where is this mom you speak of? Prove her existence to me."
  
  Twin one: "How can I prove her existence to you?"
  
  Twin two: "If this imaginary "mom" truly exists, then why doesn't she reveal herself to us?"
  
  Twin one: "I don't know why. Perhaps she has a good reason?"
  
  Twin two: "You're insane. Again, there is no mom. Trust me because I am way smarter than you because I rely on the obvious truth and facts."
  
  Twin one: "Well, can we at least agree to disagree?"
  
  Twin two: "No! You are clearly a victim of wishful thinking. Again, trust me when I say - there is no mom!!!"

Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of - "Oh the Irony" - brought to you by the makers of Tide laundry detergent ("...for those pesky blood stains..."), and Schlitz beer...


_______

_______

Welcome back to this third episode of - "Oh the Irony" - where after nine months of telepathically arguing with each other, the Swanson twins' world is about to undergo a dramatic change...

• Twin one: Uh-oh, there's something strange going on...
  
  Twin two: What now?
  
  Twin one: Are you blind? All of that watery substance that surrounded us has drained out through that tiny opening in the all-encompassing barrier. And look, the opening seems to be a narrow tunnel leading to some kind of light.
  
  Twin two: Right, and I suppose that tunnel leads to that higher dimension of reality and the invisible "mom" you mentioned a while back? You delusional idiot, how many times do I have to tell you that there is no higher dimension of reality? Now go back to sleep.
  
  Twin one: You go back to sleep. I'm going to investigate that tunnel.
  
  Twin two: Fine. Good luck getting your big fat head through that skinny little opening in order to investigate some silly fantasy you've dreamed up. I, on the other hand, being the wisest of the two of us, am staying here where things are real. Humpff!!!,..a "tunnel leading to a light" and a nonexistent "mom." How in the world is that knucklehead my twin?

And thus ends another episode of - "Oh the Irony" - brought to you by the makers of the morning after pill ("...because I'm just too busy enjoying the gift of life..."), and the health-conscious makers of Embassy cigarettes...


_______

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc

I'm afraid that you and the video have got it backwards, V.

If you listen to the video, you will note the delusional patient who experienced and thought god is real was cured of his delusions by psychiatric counselling and medicine to control his temporal epilepsy...

How can that be backward, it is forward towards reality.

Come on now, V, it's a simple proposition.

Brains don't create delusions of God (as per the video title), no, brains are wired ("designed") to help hide the fact that God is real and truly exists.

You are begging the question,
you merely assumed God is real and truly exists without proofs,
then insist no brain are wired to hid that assumed real God.

Point is what is real must be verified and justified as really real.
What is really real is the apple you can pluck, smell, feel, then eat for its nutrition.
An imaginary apple in thought is not really real, but because the concept of an apple is empirical it is possible to be real.
What is really real must be verified and justified within a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSR is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.

Your assumed God is merely an thought, i.e. an intelligible object, thus cannot be empirical.
Since your thought-God is not empirical it is impossible and cannot be verified and justified as really real.

Indeed, your own brain is a perfect example of the efficacy of that wiring.

To view the situation from the perspective of a highly metaphorical thought experiment...

...Imagine the poor guy in the video being likened to a video game character who, through some strange glitch in the game's software, somehow acquires consciousness and suddenly realizes that his entire phenomenal world is nothing more than programmed pixels taking place on a monitor.

I'm talking about a monitor that resides in a higher context of reality that exists above and outside of the game --> all of which is absolutely true --> which also includes the existence of a "Programmer" of the game (another truth).

However, when he expresses these - true and accurate - revelations to the other (non-conscious) characters in the video game, they, having no cognizance of their world being a computer game,...

...immediately spring into action with their psychiatric counselling and medicines (i.e., software correcting patches) in an effort to "cure" the wayward video game character by getting him realigned with the game's base programming, and thus back to believing that the video game is the "real" world and that there is no "Programmer" residing in a higher context of reality - above and outside of the game.

Like I said, the video you provided has things backwards (as in reverse of the truth).

To clarify what I'm getting at, what I am suggesting is that loosely similar to the unconscious characters in the video game, our brains have been programmed...

(as in "designed" by using an extreme attenuation of our overall awareness)

...to make us believe that this "pixel-based" ("holographic-like") world we are presently experiencing is "real" when, in truth, it is an illusion.

And therefore, instead of thinking that...

"...altered states of consciousness & hallucinations due to mental illness, stress, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, etc..."

...give us false delusions of the existence of God, in truth, they are responsible for the "glitches in the software" that allow some of us to experience hazy glimpses of the higher context of reality (and the higher level of wakefulness) that resides above and outside of the illusion.

Now I realize that you're just going to grumble and scoff at all of this,...

...however, your constant insistence on the "impossibility of God to be real," combined with your inability to see the illusion for what it really is, makes it quite obvious to me that you are not only a living/breathing example of one of the non-conscious characters in my video game thought experiment,...

...but you also appear to be "twin number two" in the fanciful little soap opera I created in an alternate thread.
_______

As I had stated we are interested in what is really-real not some unreal God which cannot be proven to be really-real.

Did you read this OP?
Listing of Causes in Experiencing God
viewtopic.php?t=40346

The causes of people experiencing a divine presence identified as God is all in the brain.
It is very likely why you insist God is real when God is merely an illusion is from one of the listed causes.

[seeds]

Come on now, V, it's a simple proposition.

Brains don't create delusions of God (as per the video title), no, brains are wired ("designed") to help hide the fact that God is real and truly exists.

You are begging the question,

you merely assumed God is real and truly exists without proofs,...

And as always, you have "assumed" that just because God has not proven his (her/its) existence to you, that it is therefore impossible that God may have proven his (her/its) existence to others (like me, for example ).

Since your thought-God is not empirical it is impossible and cannot be verified and justified as really real.

How many times do I have to point out to you that any sort of verifiable (empirical) proof of the existence of God and of the existence of life after death,...

...such as, for example, that which could be obtained by looking through the trans-dimensional doorway that I've mentioned in other threads,...



...could cause humans to seek-out the afterlife prematurely, and thus strip the earth of the means (i.e., human bodies) by which God awakens new eternal souls into existence?

Do you honestly think that these humans...



...would hesitate to walk through that "trans-dimensional doorway" if an empirically proven (as in guaranteed) better state of existence awaited them on the other side?

Of course they wouldn't hesitate, and neither would any other rational human on earth.

You're a fool if you believe otherwise.

And that is one of the primary reasons why any sort of irrefutable proof of life after death must be kept hidden from us.

Look, V, you have to try and realize that, as far as I'm concerned, everything you say to me; every passionate and heartfelt argument you make in your effort to convince everyone of the "impossibility of God to be real,"...

...is coming from the extremely ironic perspective of "twin number two" as portrayed in my "Oh the Irony" soap opera, with me being "twin number one."

Now, of course - of course - you are going to respond to all of this with your usual nonsense involving the ridiculous accusation of me being under the influence of...

"...the terrible cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis..."

To which I will respond by saying that I expect nothing less from the ironic (and closed-minded) blathering's of, again, "twin number two" who vehemently denies the existence of his very own "mom" because he is simply too dumb (too unconscious) to realize that he is momentarily suspended within his mother's womb.

And, of course, the analogy is that even after our initial birth, we all continue to be momentarily suspended within the even greater "WOMB" of our ULTIMATE "MOM".

"AS BELOW, SO ABOVE"



Indeed, as I have proclaimed so many times before, the truth of reality cannot get any more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than that which sees the event of death as being nothing more than a final "contraction and push" that will deliver (birth) our souls out of God's "Cosmic Womb"...

(in other words, literally out of this universe)

...and into a higher context of reality where God, and that of our true form and ultimate purpose, will finally be revealed to us.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Come on now, V, it's a simple proposition.

Brains don't create delusions of God (as per the video title), no, brains are wired ("designed") to help hide the fact that God is real and truly exists.

You are begging the question,

you merely assumed God is real and truly exists without proofs,...

And as always, you have "assumed" that just because God has not proven his (her/its) existence to you, that it is therefore impossible that God may have proven his (her/its) existence to others (like me, for example ).

Since your thought-God is not empirical it is impossible and cannot be verified and justified as really real.

How many times do I have to point out to you that any sort of verifiable (empirical) proof of the existence of God and of the existence of life after death,...

...such as, for example, that which could be obtained by looking through the trans-dimensional doorway that I've mentioned in other threads,...

...could cause humans to seek-out the afterlife prematurely, and thus strip the earth of the means (i.e., human bodies) by which God awakens new eternal souls into existence?

Do you honestly think that these humans...


...would hesitate to walk through that "trans-dimensional doorway" if an empirically proven (as in guaranteed) better state of existence awaited them on the other side?

Of course they wouldn't hesitate, and neither would any other rational human on earth.

You're a fool if you believe otherwise.

And that is one of the primary reasons why any sort of irrefutable proof of life after death must be kept hidden from us.

Look, V, you have to try and realize that, as far as I'm concerned, everything you say to me; every passionate and heartfelt argument you make in your effort to convince everyone of the "impossibility of God to be real,"...

...is coming from the extremely ironic perspective of "twin number two" as portrayed in my "Oh the Irony" soap opera, with me being "twin number one."

Now, of course - of course - you are going to respond to all of this with your usual nonsense involving the ridiculous accusation of me being under the influence of...

"...the terrible cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis..."

To which I will respond by saying that I expect nothing less from the ironic (and closed-minded) blathering's of, again, "twin number two" who vehemently denies the existence of his very own "mom" because he is simply too dumb (too unconscious) to realize that he is momentarily suspended within his mother's womb.

And, of course, the analogy is that even after our initial birth, we all continue to be momentarily suspended within the even greater "WOMB" of our ULTIMATE "MOM".

"AS BELOW, SO ABOVE"


Indeed, as I have proclaimed so many times before, the truth of reality cannot get any more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than that which sees the event of death as being nothing more than a final "contraction and push" that will deliver (birth) our souls out of God's "Cosmic Womb"...

(in other words, literally out of this universe)

...and into a higher context of reality where God, and that of our true form and ultimate purpose, will finally be revealed to us.
_______

You missed out my critical point, thus you did not counter it;

• Point is what is real must be verified and justified as really real.
  
  What is really real is the apple you can pluck, smell, feel, then eat for its nutrition.
  
  An imaginary apple in thought is not really real, but because the concept of an apple is empirical, it is possible to be real.
  An illusory object as thought like God is not empirically possible, thus impossible to be verified and justified as real.
  
  What is really real must be verified and justified within a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSR is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.

You are giving silly excuses why your God must be hidden and cannot be revealed.
Any small kid can made whatever claim and give the above excuses.
It is so common since the past and at present, many had relied on the above excuses to insist their claims of illusory entities exist as real. Unfortunately there are many who are quick to believe in such nonsense when driven by and desperate to soothe thos terrible cognitive dissonances.

I have not insisted the scientific FSR is the most credible, reliable and objective at present is absolutely perfect in realizing reality at present, but what other mode [FSK] [mathematics and logic aside] of realizing reality is better than the scientific FSK?

At present, there is NO better mode [FSK] of realizing reality than the human-based, empirically-based scientific FSK. Show me if there is one.

There are many causes that trigger theists to have a sense of divine presence.
Listing of Causes in Experiencing God
viewtopic.php?t=40346

The causes of people experiencing a divine presence identified as God is all in the brain.
It is very likely why you insist God is real when God is merely an illusion is from one of the listed causes.

[seeds]

You missed out my critical point, thus you did not counter it;

• Point is what is real must be verified and justified as really real.
  
  What is really real is the apple you can pluck, smell, feel, then eat for its nutrition.

You have got to be kidding me, V.

The ultimate point you are constantly attempting to make is that because there is no empirically verifiable evidence for God's existence, it therefore means that God cannot be a "real" entity.

However, my counter to that argument was this...

"...How many times do I have to point out to you that any sort of verifiable (empirical) proof of the existence of God and of the existence of life after death,...

...could cause humans to seek-out the afterlife prematurely, and thus strip the earth of the means (i.e., human bodies) by which God awakens new eternal souls into existence?...

...And that is one of the primary reasons why any sort of irrefutable proof of life after death must be kept hidden from us.

Now, you may not agree with it, but it nevertheless is a "counter" to your so-called "critical point."

Anyway, thank you "twin number two" ["T2"] (viewtopic.php?p=653325#p653325)...

...for once again proving that you are the perfect example of how the human brain has been purposely wired ("programmed") to attenuate your awareness in such a way as to make you believe that a dimension of reality that is made up of phenomenal features that are alleged to be comprised of 99.99% empty space (such as that apple you mentioned),...

...is "REAL."

I'm talking about the universe being a "dream-like" context of reality that, according to a certain (to use your term) "FSK," is created from a substance that is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

...(as per physicist Nick Herbert's assessment of Werner Heisenberg's Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

So then, ["T2"],...

...without bombarding me with a bunch of references and links to your weak arguments in other threads, or foolishly assuming that your incessant usage of the acronyms "FSK" and "FSR" somehow add power to your lame assertions,...

...would you care to explain to me how a world of phenomenal objects that are allegedly made up of 99.99% empty space and comprised of a substance that is "...no more substantial than a promise..." can be verified and justified as being "really real"?

The point that you cannot seem to understand is that if the so-called "real" apples you keep mentioning...

(which, in truth, are but mere "holographic-like" phantasms emerging from nebulous fields of quantum information)

...are, in fact, only a tiny bit more real than the apples you may have eaten in a vivid dream,...

...then what does the word "real" actually mean?

And even more importantly, why in the world would you assume that these "real apples" you keep mentioning...

(again, holographic-like phantasms)

...would be more real than the conscious observers of these phantasms?

In other words, which is "more real," the dream, or the "dreamer" of the dream?

And that exposes an even deeper layer of problems underlying your theory.

Because if it is "impossible for God to exist as real" because he (she/it) cannot be scientifically verified, then it follows that the "dreamer of dreams"/thinker of thoughts...

(as in the living, self-aware "locus" of our mind and consciousness)

...is also impossible to be real, for there is absolutely no way of empirically verifying the existence of our own "I Am-ness".

Yet, according to our old buddy Descartes (and anyone with an ounce of common sense), there "it" is - awake and aware of its own existence, sitting at the core of our inner-being and willfully shaping mental imaging energy into absolutely anything "it" wishes.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

The ultimate point you are constantly attempting to make is that because there is no empirically verifiable evidence for God's existence, it therefore means that God cannot be a "real" entity.

And apart from the problems you mention is this would mean time dilation could not possibly have been real....until it was demonstrated to be real.
Or quarks, or DNA, or really anything that there was no evidence for...and then there was.

It means that we cannot discover anything new.

Even the experiments that give some support to antirealism were only recently performed. Which means that antirealism could not possibly have been real, until...well, it could be.

[seeds]

The ultimate point you are constantly attempting to make is that because there is no empirically verifiable evidence for God's existence, it therefore means that God cannot be a "real" entity.

And apart from the problems you mention is this would mean time dilation could not possibly have been real....until it was demonstrated to be real.
Or quarks, or DNA, or really anything that there was no evidence for...and then there was.

It means that we cannot discover anything new.

Even the experiments that give some support to antirealism were only recently performed. Which means that antirealism could not possibly have been real, until...well, it could be.

Those are good points, Iwannaplato.

Unfortunately,...

(though it is unlikely that he would word it in this way)

...VA is no doubt going to insist that the things you mentioned can ultimately be discovered through empirical means. And that's because they are all an accessible part of the tangible fabric of the material universe.

Whereas, on the other hand, God's transcendent form, along with the human "I Am-ness" are not a part of the tangible fabric of the universe and are thus beyond the reach of any sort of material measuring devices, which can only detect and measure material phenomena.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed out my critical point, thus you did not counter it;

• Point is what is real must be verified and justified as really real.
  
  What is really real is the apple you can pluck, smell, feel, then eat for its nutrition.

You have got to be kidding me, V.

The ultimate point you are constantly attempting to make is that because there is no empirically verifiable evidence for God's existence, it therefore means that God cannot be a "real" entity.

However, my counter to that argument was this...

"...How many times do I have to point out to you that any sort of verifiable (empirical) proof of the existence of God and of the existence of life after death,...

...could cause humans to seek-out the afterlife prematurely, and thus strip the earth of the means (i.e., human bodies) by which God awakens new eternal souls into existence?...

...And that is one of the primary reasons why any sort of irrefutable proof of life after death must be kept hidden from us.

Now, you may not agree with it, but it nevertheless is a "counter" to your so-called "critical point."

Anyway, thank you "twin number two" ["T2"] (viewtopic.php?p=653325#p653325)...

The above is ridiculous argument.
See this
Seeds: Twins - No Mom - No God?
viewtopic.php?t=40372

You can provide more details to justify your ridiculous argument there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...for once again proving that you are the perfect example of how the human brain has been purposely wired ("programmed") to attenuate your awareness in such a way as to make you believe that a dimension of reality that is made up of phenomenal features that are alleged to be comprised of 99.99% empty space (such as that apple you mentioned),...

...is "REAL."

I'm talking about the universe being a "dream-like" context of reality that, according to a certain (to use your term) "FSK," is created from a substance that is...

"...no more substantial than a promise..."

...(as per physicist Nick Herbert's assessment of Werner Heisenberg's Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

So then, ["T2"],...

...without bombarding me with a bunch of references and links to your weak arguments in other threads, or foolishly assuming that your incessant usage of the acronyms "FSK" and "FSR" somehow add power to your lame assertions,...

...would you care to explain to me how a world of phenomenal objects that are allegedly made up of 99.99% empty space and comprised of a substance that is "...no more substantial than a promise..." can be verified and justified as being "really real"?

The point that you cannot seem to understand is that if the so-called "real" apples you keep mentioning...

(which, in truth, are but mere "holographic-like" phantasms emerging from nebulous fields of quantum information)

...are, in fact, only a tiny bit more real than the apples you may have eaten in a vivid dream,...

...then what does the word "real" actually mean?

And even more importantly, why in the world would you assume that these "real apples" you keep mentioning...

(again, holographic-like phantasms)

...would be more real than the conscious observers of these phantasms?

In other words, which is "more real," the dream, or the "dreamer" of the dream?

And that exposes an even deeper layer of problems underlying your theory.

Because if it is "impossible for God to exist as real" because he (she/it) cannot be scientifically verified, then it follows that the "dreamer of dreams"/thinker of thoughts...

(as in the living, self-aware "locus" of our mind and consciousness)

...is also impossible to be real, for there is absolutely no way of empirically verifying the existence of our own "I Am-ness".

Yet, according to our old buddy Descartes (and anyone with an ounce of common sense), there "it" is - awake and aware of its own existence, sitting at the core of our inner-being and willfully shaping mental imaging energy into absolutely anything "it" wishes.
_______

My principle is this:
What is really real is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK.
The most credible, reliable and objective FSR-FSK is the human & empirical based scientific FSK.

To prove God exists as most real, one has to rely on the most credible, reliable and objective FSR-FSK, of which must be the scientific FSR-FSK.
What other FSR-FSK is more credible and objective than the human & empirical based scientific?
It cannot be the theistic FSK which rely on blind faith.

It does not matter even if Science has only realized 0.000001% of the universe.
Anyway, this % do not make sense, because it is begging to question to assume we humans [gnats] know what is 100%.

Rather we should acknowledge what is really real to date as known credibly and objectively via the human & empirical based scientific FSK.
One of the most important purpose of science is its ability to predict and hypothesize the unknown, then to test, verify, justify confirm it repeatable with empirical evidences.
As such, what is unknown [even if it is 99.999999%] in principle must be empirically possible.

But God must be absolutely perfect.
Absolute perfection is impossible empirically.

1. What is most real can only be proven empirically via the scientific FSK.
2. God must exists as absolute perfection.
3. Absolute perfection is impossible empirically.
4. Therefore God is impossible to exists as most real.

The existence of God is a psychological* issue and can only be resolved efficient via psychologically [as in Buddhism] not epistemologically or ontologically.

* note this;
Listing of Causes [physiological & psychological] in Experiencing God
viewtopic.php?t=40346