Phenomenology

[Fairy]

For any thought to be realistic or possibly realistic its umbilical cord must be connected to the empirical world, if not, it is going beyond to la la land. Despite being unrealistic, venturing into la la land has psychological advantages, like how a fictitious Santa Claus is useful to parents, children and business.

There are loads of psychological reasons why individual humans like to extend beyond the empirical world and that of possible experience. This is driven by the terrible existential crisis which is natural in the majority of humans.

Cut out the middle man ( thought) to arrive at source directly. You cant die. You are already what you think death is.

Human, just like Santa, is a conceptual fictional character too. In this conception. You cannot see this because God preordained you to be blind to the obvious. But you are totally free to open your eyes to the infinity of your being. To see the light in all it’s glory appear to you. It’s all you.

Before your fictional name, you are unborn infinity. After birth unborn infinity remains same, because birth and death are synonymous with a dream. The dream is real. The illusion is real. Existence had to exist. Because existence cannot not exist.

You talk about an existential crisis, and yet nowhere in reality is having such an experience. It’s a fiction. Reality has never done you any injustice. When you understand God, all fiction and fear is dissolved.

You cannot prove non existence, or death is real. But existence is blindly self evident, irrefutably without doubt or error.

The empirical world is not out-there outside of you. The empirical world out-there is inside of you.

[Age]

For 2500 years, philosophers* had not been above to nail what is fundamental to reality.
* including Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, and the like.

This is why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution that it make more sense for objects to be grounded on the human conditions rather reality is grounded on things-in-themselves absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Do you have any justification reality exists absolutely independent of the human conditions?
Try??
There is no way you can do it other than rely on speculations using the your human conditions within the collective human conditions.

Do you have any justification reality exists absolutely as relative finite human conditions?

Relatively is baked into the very fabric of reality. Relative beliefs of wrong and right being absolute are absurd.

I did not use 'absolutely' but that reality [all there is] is relative to finite human conditions.

If we take reality [all there is], i.e. the whole cosmology of the universe and human therein, their reality can only be justified empirically by the scientific framework and system, physics, chemistry and biology. To do philosophy, we need to ground on scientific world;

What a Truly idiotic and stupid thing to say, and claim.

The so-called, 'scientific world', has led you human beings astray on quite some number of occasions, and 'it', still, is, in the days when this is being written. For example, there are quite a number of people, in the so-called 'scientific world', who, still, believe, and who, still, insist, that the Universe begun, and is expanding.

So, once more, 'I' will suggest that you human beings seek out, obtain, and gain the irrefutable proof, before you even begin to start wanting to claim things.

To do so-called 'philosophy' you human beings certainly do not need to ground on 'scientific world', at all? And, because most of you human beings do not get fully informed on the 'scientific world', you tend to just accept whatever 'those' in 'that world' say, and claim.

Also, you do not 'do philosophy'. you either have a love-of-learning, or you do not.

The answers to the Truly meaningful questions, in Life, or the Truth of things, is not actually grounded on the 'scientific world', because if they were founded on the 'scientific world', only, then 'this' would explain why it is taking you human beings so, so long to 'catch up', HERE.

'Philosophy', being the 'love-of-wisdom', is grounded upon always being curios, and, upon always consistently wanting to learn. And, uncovering and knowing Right, from Wrong, and, Truths, from Falsehoods, is actually found in 'logical reasoning', instead, and not upon the 'empirical scientific world', actually.

Meaningful answers, and Truths, in Life, come from 'logical reasoning', and not from materialistic matter, itself.

If you 'think' and speculate, there is more to the above, that is only a thought which has to come from humans individually or collectively.
Unless such thoughts can be verified to actual empirical reality, it remain a speculation, and if it is related to possible experience, it is an illusion.

• Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.

Which explains why you have missed, and misunderstood, so much, here.

Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

But it does not matter one iota. If 'confirmation bias' has 'entered', then it does not matter how thorough an experiment is, nor how many experiments are made, the 'conclusion' will be 'doctored', even if unknowingly or unwittingly.

All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

'This' goes to show and prove just how blind 'this one' can be at times.

How many times throughout human history has so-called 'definite knowledge', which would be claimed to be, 'belonging to science', has ended up being False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect?

But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Bertrand Russell (p. xiii)[/list]

Who cares what 'this one' human being has said, or claimed?

If it can not back up and support 'its claim', irrefutably so, then what it claimed is just another unsubstantiated claim to add to your growing list.

For any thought to be realistic or possibly realistic its umbilical cord must be connected to the empirical world, if not, it is going beyond to la la land. Despite being unrealistic, venturing into la la land has psychological advantages, like how a fictitious Santa Claus is useful to parents, children and business.

Not that you ever would, because you are incapable of, please explain how "santa claus" is, supposedly, 'useful' to parents, and children, exactly.

Obviously, the people of businesses take advantages when they can 'sell' things. As the only reason for people to own businesses is to take money from 'others' and to make 'monetary profits'.

There are loads of psychological reasons why individual humans like to extend beyond the empirical world and that of possible experience. This is driven by the terrible existential crisis which is natural in the majority of humans.

LOL, once again, 'this one' 'tries' to 'project' what it used to do, on to and in to 'others'.

LOL The majority of you human beings do not have any so-called 'terrible existential crisis', at all. However, obviously you had 'that kind of existential crisis' "yourself", "immanuel can", but 'this' in no way at all means that others have.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For any thought to be realistic or possibly realistic its umbilical cord must be connected to the empirical world, if not, it is going beyond to la la land. Despite being unrealistic, venturing into la la land has psychological advantages, like how a fictitious Santa Claus is useful to parents, children and business.

There are loads of psychological reasons why individual humans like to extend beyond the empirical world and that of possible experience. This is driven by the terrible existential crisis which is natural in the majority of humans.

Cut out the middle man ( thought) to arrive at source directly. You cant die. You are already what you think death is.
Human, just like Santa, is a conceptual fictional character too. In this conception. You cannot see this because God preordained you to be blind to the obvious. But you are totally free to open your eyes to the infinity of your being. To see the light in all it’s glory appear to you. It’s all you.
Before your fictional name, you are unborn infinity. After birth unborn infinity remains same, because birth and death are synonymous with a dream. The dream is real. The illusion is real. Existence had to exist. Because existence cannot not exist.
You talk about an existential crisis, and yet nowhere in reality is having such an experience. It’s a fiction. Reality has never done you any injustice. When you understand God, all fiction and fear is dissolved.
You cannot prove non existence, or death is real. But existence is blindly self evident, irrefutably without doubt or error.
The empirical world is not out-there outside of you. The empirical world out-there is inside of you.

You are too presumptuous. You declared God exists without providing justification that God exists as real, then proceed to ground your arguments [of reality] based on something unproven or unjustified to be real.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

In more details from a Kantian perspective:
Your claims collapse because they commit the same fundamental error Kant exposed:
they treat pure subjective intuitions as if they were objective cognition.

Let me address your statements systematically and briefly.

1. “Cut out the middleman (thought) to arrive at the source directly.”
There is no “cutting out” thought.
All human cognition operates through the categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition (space/time).
To say “arrive at the source directly” is simply to mistake a feeling or inner intuition for an insight into reality itself.
That is precisely the metaphysical delusion Kant warns against.

2. “You can’t die. You are unborn infinity.”
Claims about a timeless, deathless “infinite self” are not knowledge.
They are noumenal fantasies masquerading as insight.
They cannot be given in possible experience,
and therefore cannot be known or asserted objectively.

Kant’s point:
We can think such ideas, but
we cannot know them, because knowledge requires empirical conditions.
Without empirical intuition, this is poetry—not cognition.

3. “God preordained you to be blind, you can open your eyes to infinity…”
These are theological posits, not arguments.
None of this answers any epistemic question:
What is the condition under which we can know something?
Invoking God’s decrees explains nothing; it simply relocates the assertion into dogma.

4. “Birth and death are a dream. Illusion is real. Existence had to exist…”
This is self-contradictory:
If illusion is real, the concept of “real” is emptied of meaning.
If birth/death are dreams, you must explain how you know this given that all knowledge depends on empirical conditions.

Kant’s critical point:
You cannot make claims about the noumenal while standing inside the phenomenal and using phenomenal categories.

This is metaphysical projection, not reasoning.

5. “Existence is blindly self-evident…”
Existence is not a predicate.
Kant annihilated that idea in the Critique of Pure Reason.
To say “existence is self-evident” is a tautology.
It adds nothing to knowledge.

6. “The empirical world outside is inside you.”
This is simply idealism without critique.
Kant already dismantled this position:
The empirical world is empirically real.
Our representation of it is transcendentally conditioned.
Saying “the world is inside you” conflates conditions of representation with objects represented—a category mistake.

Summary:
Your position confuses what can be thought with what can be known.
Kant’s distinction is decisive:

• Thought without intuition is empty.
  Intuition without concepts is blind.

Your claims about infinite unborn being, illusion-as-real, and the inside-world are not grounded in any possible experience, nor do they satisfy the criteria of objective cognition.

They are subjectively meaningful ideas, but not objectively valid knowledge.
If you want to assert them as truths rather than personal metaphors, you must show:

• The conditions under which they can be known.
  How they meet the requirements of possible experience.
  How they avoid category-mistakes about noumenon vs phenomenon.

So far, you’ve provided assertions, not arguments.

[Fairy]

For any thought to be realistic or possibly realistic its umbilical cord must be connected to the empirical world, if not, it is going beyond to la la land. Despite being unrealistic, venturing into la la land has psychological advantages, like how a fictitious Santa Claus is useful to parents, children and business.

There are loads of psychological reasons why individual humans like to extend beyond the empirical world and that of possible experience. This is driven by the terrible existential crisis which is natural in the majority of humans.

Cut out the middle man ( thought) to arrive at source directly. You cant die. You are already what you think death is.
Human, just like Santa, is a conceptual fictional character too. In this conception. You cannot see this because God preordained you to be blind to the obvious. But you are totally free to open your eyes to the infinity of your being. To see the light in all it’s glory appear to you. It’s all you.
Before your fictional name, you are unborn infinity. After birth unborn infinity remains same, because birth and death are synonymous with a dream. The dream is real. The illusion is real. Existence had to exist. Because existence cannot not exist.
You talk about an existential crisis, and yet nowhere in reality is having such an experience. It’s a fiction. Reality has never done you any injustice. When you understand God, all fiction and fear is dissolved.
You cannot prove non existence, or death is real. But existence is blindly self evident, irrefutably without doubt or error.
The empirical world is not out-there outside of you. The empirical world out-there is inside of you.

You are too presumptuous. You declared God exists without providing justification that God exists as real, then proceed to ground your arguments [of reality] based on something unproven or unjustified to be real.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

In more details from a Kantian perspective:
Your claims collapse because they commit the same fundamental error Kant exposed:
they treat pure subjective intuitions as if they were objective cognition.

Let me address your statements systematically and briefly.

1. “Cut out the middleman (thought) to arrive at the source directly.”
There is no “cutting out” thought.
All human cognition operates through the categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition (space/time).
To say “arrive at the source directly” is simply to mistake a feeling or inner intuition for an insight into reality itself.
That is precisely the metaphysical delusion Kant warns against.

2. “You can’t die. You are unborn infinity.”
Claims about a timeless, deathless “infinite self” are not knowledge.
They are noumenal fantasies masquerading as insight.
They cannot be given in possible experience,
and therefore cannot be known or asserted objectively.

Kant’s point:
We can think such ideas, but
we cannot know them, because knowledge requires empirical conditions.
Without empirical intuition, this is poetry—not cognition.

3. “God preordained you to be blind, you can open your eyes to infinity…”
These are theological posits, not arguments.
None of this answers any epistemic question:
What is the condition under which we can know something?
Invoking God’s decrees explains nothing; it simply relocates the assertion into dogma.

4. “Birth and death are a dream. Illusion is real. Existence had to exist…”
This is self-contradictory:
If illusion is real, the concept of “real” is emptied of meaning.
If birth/death are dreams, you must explain how you know this given that all knowledge depends on empirical conditions.

Kant’s critical point:
You cannot make claims about the noumenal while standing inside the phenomenal and using phenomenal categories.

This is metaphysical projection, not reasoning.

5. “Existence is blindly self-evident…”
Existence is not a predicate.
Kant annihilated that idea in the Critique of Pure Reason.
To say “existence is self-evident” is a tautology.
It adds nothing to knowledge.

6. “The empirical world outside is inside you.”
This is simply idealism without critique.
Kant already dismantled this position:
The empirical world is empirically real.
Our representation of it is transcendentally conditioned.
Saying “the world is inside you” conflates conditions of representation with objects represented—a category mistake.

Summary:
Your position confuses what can be thought with what can be known.
Kant’s distinction is decisive:

• Thought without intuition is empty.
  Intuition without concepts is blind.

Your claims about infinite unborn being, illusion-as-real, and the inside-world are not grounded in any possible experience, nor do they satisfy the criteria of objective cognition.

They are subjectively meaningful ideas, but not objectively valid knowledge.
If you want to assert them as truths rather than personal metaphors, you must show:

• The conditions under which they can be known.
  How they meet the requirements of possible experience.
  How they avoid category-mistakes about noumenon vs phenomenon.

So far, you’ve provided assertions, not arguments.

Prove Kant exists for real? It’s just the same assertion. This must be God denying the existence of God.

[Age]

For any thought to be realistic or possibly realistic its umbilical cord must be connected to the empirical world, if not, it is going beyond to la la land. Despite being unrealistic, venturing into la la land has psychological advantages, like how a fictitious Santa Claus is useful to parents, children and business.

There are loads of psychological reasons why individual humans like to extend beyond the empirical world and that of possible experience. This is driven by the terrible existential crisis which is natural in the majority of humans.

Cut out the middle man ( thought) to arrive at source directly. You cant die. You are already what you think death is.
Human, just like Santa, is a conceptual fictional character too. In this conception. You cannot see this because God preordained you to be blind to the obvious. But you are totally free to open your eyes to the infinity of your being. To see the light in all it’s glory appear to you. It’s all you.
Before your fictional name, you are unborn infinity. After birth unborn infinity remains same, because birth and death are synonymous with a dream. The dream is real. The illusion is real. Existence had to exist. Because existence cannot not exist.
You talk about an existential crisis, and yet nowhere in reality is having such an experience. It’s a fiction. Reality has never done you any injustice. When you understand God, all fiction and fear is dissolved.
You cannot prove non existence, or death is real. But existence is blindly self evident, irrefutably without doubt or error.
The empirical world is not out-there outside of you. The empirical world out-there is inside of you.

You are too presumptuous. You declared God exists without providing justification that God exists as real, then proceed to ground your arguments [of reality] based on something unproven or unjustified to be real.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

And, you declared God does not exist without providing justification that God does not exist as real, then you proceed to ground your attempt at an argument [of reality] based on some thing unproved and unjustified to be real.

As shown and proved in 'the link' you just quoted and posted, once more.

In more details from a Kantian perspective:
Your claims collapse because they commit the same fundamental error Kant exposed:
they treat pure subjective intuitions as if they were objective cognition.

Let me address your statements systematically and briefly.

1. “Cut out the middleman (thought) to arrive at the source directly.”
There is no “cutting out” thought.
All human cognition operates through the categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition (space/time).
To say “arrive at the source directly” is simply to mistake a feeling or inner intuition for an insight into reality itself.
That is precisely the metaphysical delusion Kant warns against.

2. “You can’t die. You are unborn infinity.”
Claims about a timeless, deathless “infinite self” are not knowledge.
They are noumenal fantasies masquerading as insight.
They cannot be given in possible experience,
and therefore cannot be known or asserted objectively.

Kant’s point:
We can think such ideas, but
we cannot know them, because knowledge requires empirical conditions.
Without empirical intuition, this is poetry—not cognition.

3. “God preordained you to be blind, you can open your eyes to infinity…”
These are theological posits, not arguments.
None of this answers any epistemic question:
What is the condition under which we can know something?
Invoking God’s decrees explains nothing; it simply relocates the assertion into dogma.

4. “Birth and death are a dream. Illusion is real. Existence had to exist…”
This is self-contradictory:
If illusion is real, the concept of “real” is emptied of meaning.
If birth/death are dreams, you must explain how you know this given that all knowledge depends on empirical conditions.

Kant’s critical point:
You cannot make claims about the noumenal while standing inside the phenomenal and using phenomenal categories.

This is metaphysical projection, not reasoning.

5. “Existence is blindly self-evident…”
Existence is not a predicate.
Kant annihilated that idea in the Critique of Pure Reason.
To say “existence is self-evident” is a tautology.
It adds nothing to knowledge.

6. “The empirical world outside is inside you.”
This is simply idealism without critique.
Kant already dismantled this position:
The empirical world is empirically real.
Our representation of it is transcendentally conditioned.
Saying “the world is inside you” conflates conditions of representation with objects represented—a category mistake.

Summary:
Your position confuses what can be thought with what can be known.
Kant’s distinction is decisive:

• Thought without intuition is empty.
  Intuition without concepts is blind.

Your claims about infinite unborn being, illusion-as-real, and the inside-world are not grounded in any possible experience, nor do they satisfy the criteria of objective cognition.

They are subjectively meaningful ideas, but not objectively valid knowledge.
If you want to assert them as truths rather than personal metaphors, you must show:

• The conditions under which they can be known.
  How they meet the requirements of possible experience.
  How they avoid category-mistakes about noumenon vs phenomenon.

So far, you’ve provided assertions, not arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove Kant exists for real? It’s just the same assertion. This must be God denying the existence of God.

Kant [a human being] existed as real just as you are existing as a real human being.
This can be verified within the scientific-biology framework and system.

How can you prove God exists as real?
What framework and system would you be relying on to prove god exists as real?

[Fairy]

Prove Kant exists for real? It’s just the same assertion. This must be God denying the existence of God.

Kant [a human being] existed as real just as you are existing as a real human being.
This can be verified within the scientific-biology framework and system.

How can you prove God exists as real?
What framework and system would you be relying on to prove god exists as real?

For a human being to be known to exist for real it would first have to be observed as an object.

Can the observed, observe? Can an object observe itself?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove Kant exists for real? It’s just the same assertion. This must be God denying the existence of God.

Kant [a human being] existed as real just as you are existing as a real human being.
This can be verified within the scientific-biology framework and system.

How can you prove God exists as real?
What framework and system would you be relying on to prove god exists as real?

For a human being to be known to exist for real it would first have to be observed as an object.
Can the observed, observe? Can an object observe itself?

The observed human being can observe its empirical self which is the real thing.
Personal observations is subjective, thus unreliable.

To establish reality of a living human being, the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system.
If you think, one lab is not reliable, then get the testing from 100 credible laboratories.

Still not convinced a human being observer can be known to be real?

[Fairy]

Kant [a human being] existed as real just as you are existing as a real human being.
This can be verified within the scientific-biology framework and system.

How can you prove God exists as real?
What framework and system would you be relying on to prove god exists as real?

For a human being to be known to exist for real it would first have to be observed as an object.
Can the observed, observe? Can an object observe itself?

The observed human being can observe its empirical self which is the real thing.
Personal observations is subjective, thus unreliable.

To establish reality of a living human being, the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system.
If you think, one lab is not reliable, then get the testing from 100 credible laboratories.

Still not convinced a human being observer can be known to be real?

So are you now saying a laboratory is the observer of a human being?

Does a laboratory have eyesight? I’m talking about the seer, not the thing seen. Can the seen, see?

[Fairy]

Kant [a human being] existed as real just as you are existing as a real human being.
This can be verified within the scientific-biology framework and system.

How can you prove God exists as real?
What framework and system would you be relying on to prove god exists as real?

For a human being to be known to exist for real it would first have to be observed as an object.
Can the observed, observe? Can an object observe itself?

Personal observations is subjective, thus unreliable.

To establish reality of a living human being, the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system.
If you think, one lab is not reliable, then get the testing from 100 credible laboratories.

Still not convinced a human being observer can be known to be real?

The aperture of consciousness is the dynamic structural opening through which consciousness frames, perceives, and interacts with reality. It is not a substance, nor a subject; it is not the self, the ego, or the personality.

Is a human being conscious, or is consciousness conscious of being a human? A human is seen as a body only. So a human is not the seer, the seer is God. God only sees the body, not the seer. God knows itself as and through its body, as the body is the looked upon, not the looking.

If you don’t believe God is the seer. Then believe you are a human and go to your laboratory and make an eyeball from scratch.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For a human being to be known to exist for real it would first have to be observed as an object.
Can the observed, observe? Can an object observe itself?

The observed human being can observe its empirical self which is the real thing.
Personal observations is subjective, thus unreliable.

To establish reality of a living human being, the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system.
If you think, one lab is not reliable, then get the testing from 100 credible laboratories.

Still not convinced a human being observer can be known to be real?

So are you now saying a laboratory is the observer of a human being?
Does a laboratory have eyesight? I’m talking about the seer, not the thing seen. Can the seen, see?

Come on, don't stoop so low.

"the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system."
You did not get the bolded?
The scientific-biology framework and system would be comprised of a collective of observers, and their conclusions are based on intersubjective consensus grounded upon the collective database of biological knowledge.
The scientific-biology framework and system can confirm whatever human being is real as conditioned upon their constitution, i.e. the scientific method and other biological principles.

To further confirm the empirical self we can rely upon the psychological framework and system which relies heavily from the scientific-biology framework.

To speculate there is a permanent self beyond the empirical self is stepping into la la land.

How do you prove there is an observer self beyond the emprical observers and self?

[Veritas Aequitas]

For a human being to be known to exist for real it would first have to be observed as an object.
Can the observed, observe? Can an object observe itself?

Personal observations is subjective, thus unreliable.

To establish reality of a living human being, the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system.
If you think, one lab is not reliable, then get the testing from 100 credible laboratories.

Still not convinced a human being observer can be known to be real?

The aperture of consciousness is the dynamic structural opening through which consciousness frames, perceives, and interacts with reality. It is not a substance, nor a subject; it is not the self, the ego, or the personality.

Is a human being conscious, or is consciousness conscious of being a human? A human is seen as a body only. So a human is not the seer, the seer is God. God only sees the body, not the seer. God knows itself as and through its body, as the body is the looked upon, not the looking.

If you don’t believe God is the seer. Then believe you are a human and go to your laboratory and make an eyeball from scratch.

It is the same with empirical based consciousness.
First we get confirmation from the scientific biology FS to confirm the human being is real.
Then we revert to the scientific-psychology FS to confirm the empirical human-based consciousness is real.
All these can be tested and repeated to get the same result by anyone.

Point is God cannot be tested empirically and the test repeated by anyone with the same results.
Where is God who can be tested?
God is is only an thought invented by humans, critically necessary to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential crisis of anxieties, dreads and angst.
One can imagines and fantasizes a sexy entity and get pleasure out of it (the imagination). At least, this imagination is likely to have a earthly representation which is real, e.g. a real sexy person, etc. But the idea [not an imagination] of God has not empirical equivalent.


"make an eyeball from scratch"??
Why do I need that?
That is not a good justification for God exists.
It is not impossible to grow human parts in the laboratory at present and this is improving expeditiously.

Scientists Grow Spare Parts for Humans
"https://www.pbs.org/newshour/classroom/ ... for-humans
Regeneration of human body parts has posed a challenge to scientists for generations, but now one group of researchers is closer than ever to developing a way to re-grow human organs and limbs. By using body parts from other animals and revolutionary cell regeneration techniques, scientists are growing human muscles, arteries, veins and even hearts in the lab."

10 years ago, the majority could never imaging AI is possible and be used by the common man.
These days, even children [>5 years old] know what is AI and how to use it.

Btw, there are many arguments for God.
The best argument is the ontological argument, but that failed the empirical reality test.

[Fairy]

The observed human being can observe its empirical self which is the real thing.
Personal observations is subjective, thus unreliable.

To establish reality of a living human being, the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system.
If you think, one lab is not reliable, then get the testing from 100 credible laboratories.

Still not convinced a human being observer can be known to be real?

So are you now saying a laboratory is the observer of a human being?
Does a laboratory have eyesight? I’m talking about the seer, not the thing seen. Can the seen, see?

Come on, don't stoop so low.

"the observer can be sent to a laboratory to be tested as real within the scientific-biology framework and system."
You did not get the bolded?
The scientific-biology framework and system would be comprised of a collective of observers, and their conclusions are based on intersubjective consensus grounded upon the collective database of biological knowledge.
The scientific-biology framework and system can confirm whatever human being is real as conditioned upon their constitution, i.e. the scientific method and other biological principles.

To further confirm the empirical self we can rely upon the psychological framework and system which relies heavily from the scientific-biology framework.

To speculate there is a permanent self beyond the empirical self is stepping into la la land.

How do you prove there is an observer self beyond the emprical observers and self?

The Observer is formless. Consciousness or Awareness is formless.
How can the formless be tested in a laboratory? And tested for what, exactly?
Isn’t what’s being looked for, tested , already what’s looking?

God is formless. The human is formless. Every thing is made of formless thought. Everything seen is a mirage, an empty reflection of itself, appearing fully formed, albeit illusory form. That’s what truth is. It’s all God.

[Fairy]

“ make an eyeball from scratch"??
Why do I need that?
That is not a good justification for God exists.
It is not impossible to grow human parts in the laboratory at present and this is improving expeditiously.“

———

Okay, then if you think it’s not impossible to grow human parts. Then go one step beyond and see if you can grow a “ Mind”

[Veritas Aequitas]

So are you now saying a laboratory is the observer of a human being?
Does a laboratory have eyesight? I’m talking about the seer, not the thing seen. Can the seen, see?

To speculate there is a permanent self beyond the empirical self is stepping into la la land.
How do you prove there is an observer self beyond the emprical observers and self?

The Observer is formless. Consciousness or Awareness is formless.
How can the formless be tested in a laboratory? And tested for what, exactly?
Isn’t what’s being looked for, tested , already what’s looking?

God is formless. The human is formless. Every thing is made of formless thought. Everything seen is a mirage, an empty reflection of itself, appearing fully formed, albeit illusory form. That’s what truth is. It’s all God.

That is not a valid claim.

The following are formless but can be justified via the scientific-physic system:

• Fields:
  Electromagnetic fields: These fields permeate space and are responsible for electric and magnetic forces. Light itself is an excitation of the electromagnetic field.
  Gravitational fields: As described by general relativity, gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy; the field itself doesn't have a fixed shape but is a condition of space itself.
  Higgs field: This pervasive field is responsible for giving mass to other particles. It exists throughout the vacuum of space even when no Higgs bosons (its associated particle excitations) are present.
  Quantum fields: In quantum field theory, all fundamental particles are seen as excitations (waves) of underlying quantum fields that fill all of space, even the "empty" vacuum.
  
  Waves:
  Light (photons): Photons are particles of light, but they have no rest mass and no fixed size or shape in the conventional sense. They always travel at the speed of light and are better described as waves of energy and momentum.
  Sound waves: Sound is a wave of pressure and displacement in a medium (like air or water), not a material object with a form.
  Gravitational waves: These are ripples in the fabric of spacetime itself, generated by accelerating massive objects (like merging black holes).
  
  Abstract Concepts/Phenomena:
  Space and Time (Spacetime): Space itself has no inherent form in the absence of mass and energy, but is the background stage upon which physics plays out. Time is the dimension that allows for change and decay, and also lacks a physical form.
  Energy and Momentum: These are properties of physical systems and interactions, not tangible objects with a specific shape.
  Virtual particles: These are temporary fluctuations in quantum fields that pop into and out of existence too quickly to be directly observed, and are better described as mathematical disturbances rather than actual "particles" with a form.
  Dark Matter and Dark Energy: These make up about 95% of the universe but their nature is largely unknown; they are currently conceptualized based on their gravitational effects and do not have a known "form".

A human being per se is not formless, it has an empirical physical and psychological self which can be verified via the scientific and psychological FS.
Science-biology can verify you are a real biological person.
Science-psychology can verify you are real formless empirical self, identity, persona.

But if you claim you have a self or soul that can survive physical death or can go to heaven as a physical thing [formless] then, that according to Kant, that is delusional because it existence cannot be proven to be real. It cannot be verified at all.
How can you prove this except making claims based solely on thoughts alone?