New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever is ASSUMED by science as in classical science is not critical to science. Many scientists do not give a damm with assumptions in Science.

The main focus on science is based critically on the available direct evidences that is to be verified and justified via the human-based scientific FSK.

[Atla]

Whatever is ASSUMED by science as in classical science is not critical to science. Many scientists do not give a damm with assumptions in Science.

The main focus on science is based critically on the available direct evidences that is to be verified and justified via the human-based scientific FSK.

Given that phenomena are unreliable too, in fact the posited noumenal world as explored by science is far more reliable than phenomena, what to you is NOT an illusion?

[Iwannaplato]

The Big Bang is a speculated theory without direct evidence, as such, its objectivity would be rated relatively much lower that evidence justified theories, say 20/100 in contrast to 'oxygen is a gas at room temperature' at say 80/100 objectivity.

I think it would be good for you to explain the difference between direct evidence and (presumably) indirect evidence. With examples.

Also speculated theory, at least in the context of science, is an oxymoron. That could be your point. But a theory in science isn't just speculation, at least within that FSK, which you consider the best FSK (science).
Especially since you contrast this with 'oxygen is a gas at room temperature' with is evidence justified.
Both conclusions are evidence justified. So, you need to show how the latter, which isn't really a theory, about oxygen is direct while the other is indirect. I mean, even the word 'oxygen' is tied together with conclusions that are indirect, as far as I can tell.

Another way to ask this is Do you really think there is a consensus in science around the Big Bang while there is no evidence-based justification?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The scientific theory 'oxygen is a gas at room temperature' can be repeated tested at present by anyone with direct evidences within the science-chemistry-FSK to confirm its conclusion.

The Big-Bang Theory cannot be repeated.
The Big Bang Theory is inferred from indirect evidences within the science-physics-cosmology FSK.

The earliest and most direct observational evidence of the validity of the theory are the expansion of the universe according to Hubble's law (as indicated by the redshifts of galaxies), discovery and measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of light elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). More recent evidence includes observations of galaxy formation and evolution, and the distribution of large-scale cosmic structures,[87] These are sometimes called the "four pillars" of the Big Bang models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang# ... l_evidence

Because the Big Bang Theory is inferred from indirect evidences within the science-physics-cosmology FSK, it will have a lesser degree of reliability, credibility and objectivity in contrast to the science-chemistry-FSK which can be tested repeatedly with direct evidences.

[Iwannaplato]

The scientific theory 'oxygen is a gas at room temperature' can be repeated tested at present by anyone with direct evidences within the science-chemistry-FSK to confirm its conclusion.

1) It'd be good if you actually defined 'direct' and 'indirect'. I say this because I think a) these are not two discrete categories but range on a spectrum not only of degree but of type and b) I don't think there's anything direct in your example. We don't directly know that oxygen is in whatever chamber we are using. We can't see it. We have to through some kind of process to collect and purify it. Perhaps then to check to make sure it is oxygen. Temperature is measured via devices. And then perception is mediated.

The Big-Bang Theory cannot be repeatedT.

This is a distinction, yes. But you presented is as 'speculation' without evidence justification. It would be very odd for anything to reach the label of 'theory' in science to not be based on evidence and justification.

The Big Bang Theory is inferred from indirect evidences within the science-physics-cosmology FSK.

Yes, I think it is an inferred conclusion based on evidence. My point was certainly not that the BBT is direct, just that things that seem direct are not direct. Perhaps they are more direct, but it's not a binary schema.

Because the Big Bang Theory is inferred from indirect evidences

The evidence is not indirect, but it's a less direct contact with the event.

within the science-physics-cosmology FSK, it will have a lesser degree of reliability, credibility and objectivity in contrast to the science-chemistry-FSK which can be tested repeatedly with direct evidences.

Based on what FSK?

I'm not saying that The BBT is as direct (though I wonder even about that choice of term) as the fact that oxygen is room temperature etc. (I don't think we would call that latter a theory). I just think none of this is direct and it is not binary but some kind of matter of degree. Also that The BBT is not 'speculation' at least not in any binary sense, nor do I think it lacks evidence or justification. And the evidence is current, even if the event is not.

You might even want to ask yourself: if Space & Time are Not Mind-Independent
then what is this directness based on.

Certainly not some 'distance' in time or space 'out there'. What is direct vs. indirect if Time and Space are coterminal with minds?

[seeds]

Note your strawman.
I stated
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.
The critical word here is 'real' as defined in the OP above.

The onus in on you to prove your god is real, which I argued is impossible.

What, exactly, is my strawman???

You don't seem to understand what the word "strawman" (or strawman fallacy) actually means.

According to Wiki:

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Well, the actual argument (or question) under discussion is whether or not God is empirically "real."

In which case, it is obvious to everyone (except you, of course) that you are attacking a strawman that, as I stated earlier, you have erected out of the "...hollow stems and fibers of an ill-conceived (as in fallacious) syllogism..."

What I am getting at is that you can beat the stuffings out of your strawman until the cows come home and it will have no bearing or relevance with respect to the actual question under discussion.

As I had explained above,
my argument was toward the conclusion,
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.
But instead you are insisting on your own argument and mine is false.

Yes, and as I explained above, you keep demonstrating that you don't understand how a strawman fallacy works.

I'm not the one creating fallacious strawmen and then attacking them; you are.

Furthermore, as with the word "strawman," you also don't seem to understand what the word "real" means.

Like all dutiful materialists, you associate the word "real" with that which can be verified via the senses and especially via scientific modalities. However, even the physicists are admitting that they don't know what 95% of the universe is made of.

And in parallel with that "dark energy/dark matter" issue is one of my favorite quotes from physicist and author, Nick Herbert...

The entire visible universe, what Bishop Berkeley called "the mighty frame of the world," rests ultimately on a strange quantum kind of being no more substantial than a promise.

The point is, my dear V, is that if the entire universe is founded upon a substance that is "...no more substantial than a promise..." then what the heck are you referring to when you use the word "real"?

Now if you just add to that the fact that physicists are also proclaiming that what you are calling "real" is comprised of approximately 99.99% empty space, then the word "real" becomes even more tenuous.

And the ultimate point is that if puny little humans can't even figure out what 95% of the universe is made of, then it's no surprise that they cannot figure out what the substance of life, mind, consciousness, and God, is made of.
_______

What wrong with a real 99.99 empty space that can be verified and justified?
Btw, how do you know what is 100% of space to assess that 99.99%.

Sorry, but those questions aren't coherent enough for me to form a proper response.

However, even the physicists are admitting that they don't know what 95% of the universe is made of.

Which physicists and are there many?

You're kidding, right?

How about we start with (presumably) all of the physicists at NASA.

From the NASA Science website:

"...everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe..."
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... 0universe.

And this little ditty from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology website:

"...All the material we can see is just a small fraction of the universe. The rest, a full 95 percent, is invisible and mysterious..."
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/events/201 ... %20energy.

Even if that the case, that is not Science.
Science is focused on what is real as far as scientific verifiable evidence can support their conclusions as conditioned upon the scientific-FSK.

What an utterly nonsensical thing to say.

And you expect to be taken seriously? Tisk...tisk...tisk.

The point is that "science" can only verify (as in measure) the so-called "realness" of 5% of the universe,...

(something that has been deemed to be created from a substance that is "...no more substantial than a promise...")

...while the remaining 95% is a mystery.

You claim to know God exists, but you [& theists] are not able to bring direct evidence of God for verification and justification to confirm it is real.

We've had this conversation before, and I have already explained to you that any sort of irrefutable (verifiable) proof of the existence of God and that of the continuation of our lives after death could have an adverse effect on (as in destroy) the integrity of the "dream-like" illusion of the universe...

...(an illusion, mind you, that has been specifically designed to awaken our eternal souls into existence).

In other words, if it were irrefutably verified that the universe is constructed from the living fabric of God's mind, then the "realness" of the universe might be exposed as not being quite as "real" as it has fooled you into thinking. And that what is "truly real" (and more desirable) is the higher dimension of reality that exists above and outside of the "holographic-like" features of this temporary "bubble of reality" (again, God's mind) that we are momentarily held within...



What I am getting at, at least as to how it pertains to your obsessing over (and misunderstanding of) what the word "real" actually means, is that the phenomenal structures of the universe...

(i.e., the stars and planets, along with our bodies and brains, etc.)

...are about as "real" as the chess pieces in this laser hologram...



Or, better yet, about as real as the three-dimensional features of that vivid dream you may have had last night.

The problem is that you are just not conscious enough (not awake enough) to see-through the illusion's facade to the point of realizing that your body is simply a highly ordered and more highly resolved version of one of those chess pieces in the above hologram.

However, humanity's inability to recognize this grand (holographic-like) illusion for what it really is (again, the interior subjective arena of a higher Being's personal mind), is all part of the design, for it is essential that "true reality" is kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely and thus empty the planet of the physiological means by which, again, new eternal souls (God's literal offspring) are awakened into existence.

Why you are insisting God exists as real even without any direct evidence it is real is because you need the thought of God to soothe the terrible primal inherent cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis as a default of evolution.

Come on now, V, are you really so dense and so closed-minded that just because you personally have not experienced any reason to believe in the existence of God, it therefore means that nobody else has experienced a reason to believe?

To test the above thesis, try to genuinely reject God exists as real for a day or even an hour, you will feel a sudden cold turkey and perhaps shivers.

Good grief, and here I thought that your earlier comment about theories involving dark energy and dark matter having nothing to do with "science" was nonsensical, yet here you've topped that with this utterly ridiculous "shivers" comment.

I'm not sure why, but such a naive and unsophisticated sounding suggestion caused me to picture you as being an old Bedouin camel herder typing on a laptop in some God forsaken middle eastern desert.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

What wrong with a real 99.99 empty space that can be verified and justified?
Btw, how do you know what is 100% of space to assess that 99.99%.

Sorry, but those questions aren't coherent enough for me to form a proper response.

We know 71% of Earth's surface is covered with water because we know what is 100% of the Earth's surface.
Because space is infinite, how can you ever know what is 100% of space to compare what is 99.9%.
It is just like the common saying 'humans are only using 15% of their brain at present' but what is that 100% the 15% is percentage of?

As such your 99.99 empty space is merely table talk, but with a sensitive issue like 'God exists as real' we need more precision than that.

How about we start with (presumably) all of the physicists at NASA.

From the NASA Science website:

"...everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe..."
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... ark-energy

And this little ditty from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology website:

"...All the material we can see is just a small fraction of the universe. The rest, a full 95 percent, is invisible and mysterious..."
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/events/201 ... -universe/

Even if that the case, that is not Science.
Science is focused on what is real as far as scientific verifiable evidence can support their conclusions as conditioned upon the scientific-FSK.

What an utterly nonsensical thing to say.

And you expect to be taken seriously? Tisk...tisk...tisk.

The point is that "science" can only verify (as in measure) the so-called "realness" of 5% of the universe,...

(something that has been deemed to be created from a substance that is "...no more substantial than a promise...")

...while the remaining 95% is a mystery.

As I had stated, to speculate on what is 100% is not scientific.

What is essentially scientific is based on what empirical evidences that can be verified and justified to support to scientific conclusions within the scientific method [FSK].
From the above justified conclusions, scientists can make predictions, but scientists will recognize that predictions are empirically likely or possible, and they do not claim they are real until the evidences are made available for verification, justification and confirmation it is scientifically real.

Note I defined what is real above,
viewtopic.php?p=647892#p647892

You claim to know God exists, but you [& theists] are not able to bring direct evidence of God for verification and justification to confirm it is real.

We've had this conversation before, and I have already explained to you that any sort of irrefutable (verifiable) proof of the existence of God and that of the continuation of our lives after death could have an adverse effect on (as in destroy) the integrity of the "dream-like" illusion of the universe...

Again,
Note I defined what is real above,
viewtopic.php?p=647892#p647892
So, prove your God is real, i.e. really real.

...(an illusion, mind you, that has been specifically designed to awaken our eternal souls into existence).

You can speculate till your cows come home.
Again, what is real is as defined in the OP;
viewtopic.php?p=647892#p647892

In other words, if it were irrefutably verified that the universe is constructed from the living fabric of God's mind, then the "realness" of the universe might be exposed as not being quite as "real" as it has fooled you into thinking. And that what is "truly real" (and more desirable) is the higher dimension of reality that exists above and outside of the "holographic-like" features of this temporary "bubble of reality" (again, God's mind) that we are momentarily held within...

What I am getting at, at least as to how it pertains to your obsessing over (and misunderstanding of) what the word "real" actually means, is that the phenomenal structures of the universe...

(i.e., the stars and planets, along with our bodies and brains, etc.)

...are about as "real" as the chess pieces in this laser hologram...

Or, better yet, about as real as the three-dimensional features of that vivid dream you may have had last night.

The problem is that you are just not conscious enough (not awake enough) to see-through the illusion's facade to the point of realizing that your body is simply a highly ordered and more highly resolved version of one of those chess pieces in the above hologram.

However, humanity's inability to recognize this grand (holographic-like) illusion for what it really is (again, the interior subjective arena of a higher Being's personal mind), is all part of the design, for it is essential that "true reality" is kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely and thus empty the planet of the physiological means by which, again, new eternal souls (God's literal offspring) are awakened into existence.

The above is mere blabbering on something illusory [of the extreme kind].
I have raised many threads on 'what is real in one perspective is an illusion in another', e.g.
Is Reality an Illusion? Donald Hoffman
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39218

NOTE THIS;

We Are All Hallucinating All The Time
"In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality."

As such, hallucinations are on a continuum in parallel to reality.
Your claim of God [cannot be proven but merely on faith] is on the other negative extreme of hallucination, while that of science [empirical] are more on the positive extreme.

Why you are insisting God exists as real even without any direct evidence it is real is because you need the thought of God to soothe the terrible primal inherent cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis as a default of evolution.

Come on now, V, are you really so dense and so closed-minded that just because you personally have not experienced any reason to believe in the existence of God, it therefore means that nobody else has experienced a reason to believe?

I was a theists for a long time [no regrets] till I graduated from it to non-theism.
I have told you before I have had experienced many altered states of consciousness since very young, in meditation sessions, then, thought I was in contact or within God.

There are many causes that triggered people to experience what they "think' is God or they are the son-of-God; e.g. temporal epilepsy, various mental illness, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, stress, etc.
Your experience of God is more likely to be one of the above and DEFINITELY not that God is a real thing.

To test the above thesis, try to genuinely reject God exists as real for a day or even an hour, you will feel a sudden cold turkey and perhaps shivers.

Good grief, and here I thought that your earlier comment about theories involving dark energy and dark matter having nothing to do with "science" was nonsensical, yet here you've topped that with this utterly ridiculous "shivers" comment.

I'm not sure why, but such a naive and unsophisticated sounding suggestion caused me to picture you as being an old Bedouin camel herder typing on a laptop in some God forsaken middle eastern desert.
_______

Your above deflecting comments are associated with the subliminal pains of cognitive dissonances to express the above in such mode.
Hey, isn't that basic Science, i.e. to test and experience it yourself.

I have no problem putting myself in a "state of believing in God" without experiencing a 'cold turkey' because I was there before and had graduated from it and left it behind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Blue Arrow is the REALITY-GAP.
As such in this case, there is no literal direct contact with reality by the experiencer of 'reality'.



The use of 'direct' and 'indirect' [or whatever terms are appropriate] with reference to scientific conclusions is to differentiate those that that can be tested repeatedly at present
from
those that that cannot be repeatedly tested. e.g. Big Bang, Origin of Evolution, abiogenesis, origin of homo-sapiens

[Atla]

I imagine VA as this ex-religious-fanatic, who still has an extremely fanatical mind, and has to work 24/7 to keep it at bay. VA is sitting next to a table, but will never dare to admit anymore, that a table really could be there. The moment he does, GOD also appears next to him and starts screaming "WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN MEEE?"

[Iwannaplato]

The Blue Arrow is the REALITY-GAP.
As such in this case, there is no literal direct contact with reality by the experiencer of 'reality'.

You are the one using the terms direct and indirect. And if you are using them non-literally, then why not use an appropriate metaphor instead of a misleading one?

The use of 'direct' and 'indirect' [or whatever terms are appropriate] with reference to scientific conclusions is to differentiate those that that can be tested repeatedly at present
from
those that that cannot be repeatedly tested. e.g. Big Bang, Origin of Evolution, abiogenesis, origin of homo-sapiens

Sure, I can agree there is a distinction. But, again, you're not getting theories in science without justification or evidence.
and then...

within the science-physics-cosmology FSK, it will have a lesser degree of reliability, credibility and objectivity in contrast to the science-chemistry-FSK which can be tested repeatedly with direct evidences.

Based on what FSK is this conclusion drawn?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In general in terms of the best within each FSK, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective FSK.
However, there are various degrees of objectivity within the various sub-FSKs of the scientific FSK.

In ranking the various FSKs we are assigning values for comparison and this based on the human-based axiological FSK with its principles.

Why Science in general is rated the most objective is based on the following criteria;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

For example, when the science-chemistry claim water is general composed on Hydrogen and Oxygen, its conclusion is open to anyone to test it and repeatedly the resultant will be the same answers.
Who [rational person] in the world would deny the above specific scientific fact?
If anyone were to dispute water in general composed on hydrogen and oxygen gas with distrust, the Science-chemistry FSK will imply within its rules, 'go and test' it yourself, if wrong it will reject the claim.
These day, even lower grade school kids can confirm such a claim.

When we claimed that the scientific FSK is reliable, credible and objective, it must be qualified to the specific or certain group scientific claims.
For example just because it is generally acceptable science is credible, we cannot generalize that scientific studies in say covid, climate, nutrition sciences must be reliable without questions.

1. Scientists are among the most trusted groups in society, though many value practical experience over expertise - Pew

The Pew research FSK is a reasonable FSK which is acceptable within its defined limitations.
What FSK decides whether the Pew or other researched polling are reliable?

Unless one refer to God which is a theistic-FSK [the least objectivity] there is no final FSK to judge all FSKs.
As such there is some sort of coherence within all reasonable FSKs to enable one to have sufficient confidence to rely and apply the resultant claims of each FSK subject to its given limitations.

[Iwannaplato]

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

So if we follow the link we find a list of qualities that may or may not fit an FSK or line of inquiry:

1. Objectivity
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Reliability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness

Those are potential qualities that some methodology might fit (better or worse) than others. But 1) who determines that this is the way to judge FSKs and compare them? 2) How do we determine (for example) the reliability of FSKs? Or to make a finer question: how do we test this and come up with a result? especially given that different FSKs are making claims of different kinds. And do we use science itself to test science itself regarding reliability? And if there are objective moral facts, why is it better to be ethically neutral? and other questions arise. But the main one is: is this an FSK - using that list to determine which FSK is best - and wouldn't it then be the best most credible FSK and how do we know that? How did we test this FSK?

When we claimed that the scientific FSK is reliable, credible and objective, it must be qualified to the specific or certain group scientific claims.
For example just because it is generally acceptable science is credible, we cannot generalize that scientific studies in say covid, climate, nutrition sciences must be reliable without questions.

It seems to me the scientific FSK entails being open to questions and not just in some fields or some conclusions.

1. Scientists are among the most trusted groups in society, though many value practical experience over expertise - Pew

The Pew research FSK is a reasonable FSK which is acceptable within its defined limitations.

Here we have the second approach to determining which FSK is the most credible - which is a form of testing public opinion. IOW it is cataloguing beliefs.

Notice that the military is trusted, overall, in that chart, as much as science.

Now for me that result makes me wonder what value the Pew research is beyond finding out which professions people trust, with an unclear definition of 'trust' itself.

What FSK decides whether the Pew or other researched polling are reliable?

Unless one refer to God which is a theistic-FSK [the least objectivity] there is no final FSK to judge all FSKs.

Actually, in practical terms, I think most people work from their own estimation of the best FSK and judge the other FSKs from that FSK, with the usual hypocrisies and the common situation where people have several favorite FSKs, often used in different situations.

As such there is some sort of coherence within all reasonable FSKs to enable one to have sufficient confidence to rely and apply the resultant claims of each FSK subject to its given limitations.

I don't know what that sentence means.

And I do understand an issue not quite said here by you, nor by me: if we had an FSK that evaluates FSKs wouldn't that need yet another FSK to evaluate it?

But I think the issue needs to be raised: if we have to have an FSK to achieve knowledge and objectivity, then ranking FSKs AS IF from some objective POV has a problem, I think, at least. It seems to open the door to other non-FSK based assessments or determinations of truth. Or to put that another way: it seems rather intuitive.

I also think the first evaluation of science, with the list of qualities, seems to present some kind of objective criteria, but I don't think it is objective, nor even clear in how to, for example, compare FSKs. It is a way for those who use science to evaluate their own research/methodologies/conclusions.

[bahman]

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 [all 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.

Actually, I agree with you. But to complete your proof you need to show that P2 is correct!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wrote;

For example, when the science-chemistry claim water is general composed on Hydrogen and Oxygen [H20], its conclusion is open to anyone to test it and repeatedly the resultant will be the same answers.
Who [rational person] in the world would deny the above scientific fact emerging from a human based scientific FSK.

If anyone were to dispute water in general composed on hydrogen and oxygen gas with distrust, the Science-chemistry FSK will imply within its rules, 'go and test' it yourself, if wrong it will reject the claim.
These day, even lower grade school kids can confirm such a claim.

The following are the suggested criteria for ranking of FSKs and there should be more, e.g. testability, accessibility, and others where relevant;

1. Objectivity
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Reliability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness

When we rank the FSKs we should compare their best claims, the number of claims that are credible and whatever is necessary.
In the case of the scientific claims, its best claims are those of the natural sciences [e.g. water (mainly) comprise of H2 O gases], not say cosmology like the Big Bang, abiogenesis, origin of evolutions, climate change, covid19 vaccines and the like.

Scientific fact: Water is H2O in general [ignoring isomers];
If anyone were to doubt the above claim within the conditions of the science-chemistry FSK, it is implied within the constitution of its FSK, that doubters should test it within the conditions of the science-FSK and confirm whether it is true or not.
So far no scientists has rejected the fact that water contain 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.
At present, I am confident, so are many knowledgeable people, the above scientific fact is true.

The above thus meet the following criteria

1. Objectivity*
2. Verifiability*
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Reliability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy*
8. Testability
9. Repeatability*
10. Easy to test
11. Empirical evidence.*

* critical criteria

Public opinion are not the most reliable, but the public would have taken into account the above criteria for a scientific claim that 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers] or the existences of elements of the periodic table.

Note I refer to 'water is H2O' [ignoring isomers] since it is a common one.
There are thousands of other basic natural scientific facts that are similar to 'water is H2O' that meet the above criteria.

In contrast say, a legal fact that X is convicted of murder in a court of law, i.e. a human-based legal FSK.
It is likely that different laws, judges, jury will not make the same judgment, that X will be convicted as a murderer.
As such it cannot be ranked as high as the scientific FSK.

In contrast, say, "God exists" as claimed within a human-based theistic FSK, this claim is based on faith, not empirical evidences, and worst it cannot be tested to be verified.
As such, in contrast to science, it will be rated with a very low credibility, reliability and objectivity.

Military?
This is not related to science at all.
This is the trust that the military will fight for the country, USA in this case. It is not universal like science.
Trust levels could be different for the military of other corrupted countries.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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 [all 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.

Actually, I agree with you. But to complete your proof you need to show that P2 is correct!

I have defined what is real above;

• 2. Reality:
  What is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
  The most credible, reliable and objective at present is the human and empirically-based Scientific-FSK as the standard at 100.
  The lesser credible and objective FSKs are, e.g. the theistic FSK based on faith is merely 0.001 of the standard.
  
  Reality is all-there-is, 'all' includes all person[s] in existence.
  What is real is Empirical Realism [Kantian aka Transcendental Idealism] which is in contrast to Philosophical Realism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  "Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views."
  As such what is real must be empirically verifiable and justifiable plus supported by the finest philosophical reasonings.

Note whatever is claimed to be absolute perfect like a perfect circle, square, triangle, other geometric shapes, perfect pure water, pure gold, CANNOT exists as real [as defined above] at all.
Such perfect merely exist as perfect things in term of numbers and the measurements of the ideals.

Take any supposedly perfect circle, when expanded a million times, it will be exposed with an irregular perimeter of molecules, atoms, quarks and particles. There will be no diameter or radius which is consistent throughout the circle.
Therefore there is no perfect circle that is real [as defined]; it is the same for all other things that are claimed as absolutely real.

The absolute perfection, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent as claimed for a God cannot exist as real [as defined above].

Thus my P2 is justified
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real