Philosophy Now Forum

When theists claim their God exists as real, they are relying firstly on emotional blind faith without credible justifications. The point is this is very effective as a consonance [balm] to soothe the inherent primal cognitive dissonance [terrible subliminal mental pains] driven by an existential crisis to seek salvation.

When cornered with the need for rationality to justify their claim "God exists as real" theists will resort to supposed-scientific-evidences to justify their claim. This is because it is commonly recognized scientific facts based on the scientific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] are the most credible and trustworthy at present.

Recently there were claims that Dawkins and Hitchen believe they may be evidence for the existence of God, i.e. based on the Fine Tuning Argument [FTA];
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A

Whatever the fine-tuning claims they are scientific facts conditioned upon the human-made framework and system [FSR].
BUT, whatever are scientific facts based on human made FSR, at best they are polished conjectures and entangled with the human conditions.
The fine tuning principles fundamental based on the Big Bang is not the most credible of scientific facts in contrast the very repeatable 'water is H2O'.

The argument for the FTA would be something like this;

• 1. Fine Tuning exist [empirical, scientific, polished conjectures]
  2. Fine tuning not by chance but by design [no justification]
  3. So a Designer is required and only God can design such fine tunings
  4. Therefore God exist [transcendental]

Point 2 and 3 are flimsy when countered against the emergence top-down approach argument.
If one resort to 3 that is a bottom-up begging the question claim.

My above argument may not be the typical FTA but whichever the FTA,
there is an equivocation fallacy.
One cannot equivocate and conflate empirical scientific facts [human based conjectures] with the theistic transcendental [independent of human] claim 'God exists'.

Even if this is possible where we ignored empirical-transcendent equivocation, on that basis the conclusion 'God exists' is at best a polished conjecture, thus cannot be ultimately real as a supposed God should be. In addition, the FTA is not based on scientific facts which are of the most credible polished conjecture.

As such, the hypothesis 'God exists' still need to be verified, justified, tested and repeatedly confirm with empirical evidences which is an impossibility for such a claim.

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

Instead of insisting God exists as real [condoning and complicit to all the terrible theistic related evils and horrors], theists need to reflect on human evolutionary psychology and their own psychology, i.e.
recognizing their insistence that God exists as real [actually is illusory], is merely a very effective consonance [balm] to soothe the inherent primal cognitive dissonance [terrible subliminal mental pains] driven by an existential crisis to seek salvation.

Non-existence coincides with nothing.

Since there is only what is something, what is not something is nothing.

However, the Whole is not something, it just can't be!
Thus, paradoxically, the Whole = Nothingness.

Being is not something, it is behind every something, but it is not something.
So that: Being = Nothingness.

Being does not exist, Being is!
----
If we mean by Being "God", then God does not exist, God is.

That's all?

For nothing!

That God is Good ... it depends only on you.

I have never seen anything that just existed without someone having to create it so how can this universe come into being without someone creating it. As long as science is concerned it has not reached a point where it can justify the existence of God along with many other questions. If you think about your life you will see how every moment of your life was beautifully connected to each other it can not be just a coincidence. The best way to find out about the existence of God is to look into different religions and read their books If you find all your answers in one holy book it means that this is the true religion. But if you find doughts in all books then you can conclude that God does not exist (which it does obviously.) So the question should not be whether God exists or not the question should be who He is. And at the end of the day it is better to believe that the God exists it make life much more meaningful and easy in a way. And when you die if there is after life you win but even if its not you will return to nothingness there's nothing to lose if you believe God exists.

Annette Campbell wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:21 pm And at the end of the day it is better to believe that the God exists it make life much more meaningful and easy in a way. And when you die if there is after life you win but even if its not you will return to nothingness there's nothing to lose if you believe God exists.

But there is nothing more precious than the Truth.

For the simple reason that Being is the same Truth.

And wanting to believe in something that has no foundation is nothing more than superstition.

Superstition is the only true blasphemy.
That is, the claim to know the Truth!

And if I do it for convenience, I am trying to deceive myself.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 1:16 pm

Annette Campbell wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:21 pm And at the end of the day it is better to believe that the God exists it make life much more meaningful and easy in a way. And when you die if there is after life you win but even if its not you will return to nothingness there's nothing to lose if you believe God exists.

But there is nothing more precious than the Truth.

For the simple reason that Being is the same Truth.

And wanting to believe in something that has no foundation is nothing more than superstition.

Superstition is the only true blasphemy.
That is, the claim to know the Truth!

And if I do it for convenience, I am trying to deceive myself.

Is what you said here, 'the Truth', or NOT?

Also, what happens when one KNOWS thy Self, then, according to 'your logic' here, then they WOULD KNOW 'the Truth', and thus COULD CLAIM to KNOW 'the Truth', LITERALLY, WITHOUT deceiving "them" 'self', correct?

If no, WHY NOT?

bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:00 am Non-existence coincides with nothing.

Since there is only what is something, what is not something is nothing.

However, the Whole is not something, it just can't be!

And 'It' just can NOT be nothing EITHER.

But what 'It' IS, is IRREFUTABLE.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:00 am Thus, paradoxically, the Whole = Nothingness.

ONLY in some VERY DISTORTED and TWISTED thinking.

bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:00 am Being is not something, it is behind every something, but it is not something.
So that: Being = Nothingness.

Being does not exist, Being is!
----
If we mean by Being "God", then God does not exist, God is.

That's all?

WHY did you put a question mark after your remark and CLAIM here?

bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:00 am For nothing!

That God is Good ... it depends only on you.

Here we have another GREAT EXAMPLE of one who is LOOKING FOR just about ANY thing that they hope they could use to back up and support what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

Annette Campbell wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:21 pm I have never seen anything that just existed without someone having to create it so how can this universe come into being without someone creating it.
As long as science is concerned it has not reached a point where it can justify the existence of God along with many other questions.
If you think about your life you will see how every moment of your life was beautifully connected to each other it can not be just a coincidence.
The best way to find out about the existence of God is to look into different religions and read their books.
If you find all your answers in one holy book it means that this is the true religion.
But if you find doughts in all books then you can conclude that God does not exist (which it does obviously.)
So the question should not be whether God exists or not the question should be who He is.

And at the end of the day it is better to believe that the God exists it make life much more meaningful and easy in a way.
And when you die if there is after life you win but even if its not you will return to nothingness there's nothing to lose if you believe God exists.

Note my thread,
The Emergence of Theism and Solutions
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35074

While theism is the most effective solution to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonance at present [only, but not the future] it is a double-edged blade that has contributed to much terrible evils throughout the history of mankind since it emerged.
Note the inquisitions, the jihadist terrorists, and has the potential to exterminate the human species when jihadists get their hands of cheaply available WMDs.

As such, given the ongoing terrors by religionists, humanity must recognize the potential threats by theism and find alternatives to wean off theism.

As I had posted in the linked above, there are already non-theistic alternatives, so we should look at them,
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Humanity do not have to insist on the religion of Buddhism & the likes, but rather tap its essential elements and combine with others to promote a non-theistic self-development strategy to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonances.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 6:26 am

Annette Campbell wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:21 pm I have never seen anything that just existed without someone having to create it so how can this universe come into being without someone creating it.
As long as science is concerned it has not reached a point where it can justify the existence of God along with many other questions.
If you think about your life you will see how every moment of your life was beautifully connected to each other it can not be just a coincidence.
The best way to find out about the existence of God is to look into different religions and read their books.
If you find all your answers in one holy book it means that this is the true religion.
But if you find doughts in all books then you can conclude that God does not exist (which it does obviously.)
So the question should not be whether God exists or not the question should be who He is.

And at the end of the day it is better to believe that the God exists it make life much more meaningful and easy in a way.
And when you die if there is after life you win but even if its not you will return to nothingness there's nothing to lose if you believe God exists.

Note my thread,
The Emergence of Theism and Solutions
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35074

While theism is the most effective solution to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonance at present [only, but not the future] it is a double-edged blade that has contributed to much terrible evils throughout the history of mankind since it emerged.
Note the inquisitions, the jihadist terrorists, and has the potential to exterminate the human species when jihadists get their hands of cheaply available WMDs.

As such, given the ongoing terrors by religionists, humanity must recognize the potential threats by theism and find alternatives to wean off theism.

As I had posted in the linked above, there are already non-theistic alternatives, so we should look at them,
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Humanity do not have to insist on the religion of Buddhism & the likes, but rather tap its essential elements and combine with others to promote a non-theistic self-development strategy to deal with the inherent cognitive dissonances.

Noted!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:36 am When theists claim their God exists as real

If we define "real" as meaning "an element in the physical universe", then theists do not claim this. God is defined as the creator of the physical universe. Therefore, the idea that God would be physical, is a circular view. Theists never claimed that God created himself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:36 am they are relying firstly on emotional blind faith without credible justifications.

Pure Reason itself is also defined as "blind", i.e. without making use of sensory input. Furthermore, since Aristotle, we know that all logic has a foundationalist starting point:

Wikipedia on "foundationalism" wrote: Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

The construction logic of an axiomatic system cannot be justified by the system itself. Therefore, the complete lack of credible justification for its axioms is a necessity. If there exists any underlying justification for an axiom, then such axiom is simply invalid.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:36 am When cornered with the need for rationality to justify their claim "God exists as real" theists will resort to supposed-scientific-evidences to justify their claim.

That view is totally wrong because theists do not seek to justify their views by supplying experimental test reports. There does not exist a religion that claims to have obtained or justified its scriptures by experimental testing.

You are clearly using a wrong definition for "scientific evidence" and you fail to recognize that the only acceptable form of scientific evidence is the experimental test report.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:36 am to soothe the inherent primal cognitive dissonance [terrible subliminal mental pains] driven by an existential crisis to seek salvation

Religious spirituality, i.e. liturgy and prayer, is deemed by religious people to have mentally healing benefits.

Furthermore, given the preassumed connection between mental and physical health, spirituality is also deemed to indirectly have physical health benefits.

Healing often requires motivation.

Ask the question to any medical practioner and he will confirm that the patient's motivation is a very important issue. If the patient refuses to fight, we are much more likely to lose him.

Therefore, your demotivating approach to spirituality, religious or otherwise, is damaging to other people. If someone believes that yoga or meditation will help him to find strength, I prefer to encourage this person to indeed do that.

By being negative about spirituality, you are not helping or motivating others. You are rather facilitating their demise by demotivating them.

I believe that motivating other people to succeed in overcoming challenges, is morally preferable. Discrediting the sources of inspiration that help people through the difficulties of life, is simply abject behavior.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:36 am When theists claim their God exists as real

If we define "real" as meaning "an element in the physical universe", then theists do not claim this. God is defined as the creator of the physical universe. Therefore, the idea that God would be physical, is a circular view. Theists never claimed that God created himself.

That is why I claimed that the 'real' that theists claimed for their God is not realistic, thus it is illusory, i.e. a reified illusion.
It is only logical and rational that the creator [if any] of the physical universe must be grounded on the physical, else it does not follow.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:36 am they are relying firstly on emotional blind faith without credible justifications.

Pure Reason itself is also defined as "blind", i.e. without making use of sensory input.

I have been saying all along theists have been relying on the impulse of their 'pure reason' to reify an illusory God, i.e. based on blind faith.

Furthermore, since Aristotle, we know that all logic has a foundationalist starting point:

The construction logic of an axiomatic system cannot be justified by the system itself. Therefore, the complete lack of credible justification for its axioms is a necessity. If there exists any underlying justification for an axiom, then such axiom is simply invalid.

Note 'what is real' must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality[FSR]
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable to represent reality, where its pros outweigh it cons and contributing utility to the progress of mankind.
There is no need for axioms in science which is based on empirical evidences [physical-scientific] and intersubjective consensus of humans.

If your model in claiming God is real is not anywhere near science, then it is not realistic and thus illusory which is based on 'pure reason'.
How else?

That view is totally wrong because theists do not seek to justify their views by supplying experimental test reports. There does not exist a religion that claims to have obtained or justified its scriptures by experimental testing.

You are clearly using a wrong definition for "scientific evidence" and you fail to recognize that the only acceptable form of scientific evidence is the experimental test report.

You seem ignorant on this?
Note one of the theists' best argument for God is the Fine Tuning Argument [are you aware of this?] where the evidence of 'fine tuning' is heavily relied upon from science.

Religious spirituality, i.e. liturgy and prayer, is deemed by religious people to have mentally healing benefits.

Furthermore, given the preassumed connection between mental and physical health, spirituality is also deemed to indirectly have physical health benefits.

Healing often requires motivation.

Ask the question to any medical practioner and he will confirm that the patient's motivation is a very important issue. If the patient refuses to fight, we are much more likely to lose him.

Therefore, your demotivating approach to spirituality, religious or otherwise, is damaging to other people. If someone believes that yoga or meditation will help him to find strength, I prefer to encourage this person to indeed do that.

By being negative about spirituality, you are not helping or motivating others. You are rather facilitating their demise by demotivating them.

I believe that motivating other people to succeed in overcoming challenges, is morally preferable. Discrediting the sources of inspiration that help people through the difficulties of life, is simply abject behavior.

I have always state that religion [theistic and non-theistic] is a very critical necessity for the majority of people AT PRESENT [not future] given their current very unstable psychological states.
In addition, I believe Christianity [being overriding pacifist] is the most optimal religion at present [not future].

Theism is critical necessary for the majority [>75% of people are theists] to soothe the terrible mental pains and sufferings due to an inherent cognitive dissonance arising from an existential crisis.

But based on current trends, the cons of theism are outweighing its pros, thus the need to wean off religions toward the future.

I have never advocated getting rid of religions immediately but rather we must take steps to gradually wean off religions [theistic 1st -especially Islam, then non-theistic] to be replaced by fool-proof self-developments approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable cognitive dissonances.

This weaning process might take few generations, 75, 100, 150, 200 or more years, but we must start the discussion now [which has already taken place too slowly thus the need to expedite it].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am That is why I claimed that the 'real' that theists claimed for their God is not realistic, thus it is illusory, i.e. a reified illusion.
It is only logical and rational that the creator [if any] of the physical universe must be grounded on the physical, else it does not follow.

What does the term "real" mean in this context? If it means "physical" then the idea that God would be a physical being is inconsistent with the definition of God as the creator of everything that is physical. It is obvious that the creator of everything that is physical cannot be physical himself, because that proposition would be circular. By definition, God is not physical. However, that does not mean in any way that God would not exist.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am I have been saying all along theists have been relying on the impulse of their 'pure reason' to reify an illusory God, i.e. based on blind faith.

There is nothing wrong with Pure Reason. Algebra is also Pure Reason. What would there be wrong with algebra?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am Note 'what is real' must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality[FSR]

Algebra is "real", depending on what the term "real" means. However, algebra has absolutely no connection with (physical) reality. So, what would there be wrong with algebra?

Wikipedia on 'abstraction in mathematics' wrote: Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected.

Conversely, if a proposition has any unsevered connection with the physical universe, then this proposition is not legitimate (pure) mathematics. Furthermore, as elaborated in model theory and mathematical logic, mathematics has a very precise notion of (logical) truth which is completely divorced from the notion of truth, i.e. fact, in the physical universe. Unlike science, mathematics is Pure Reason. Last but not least, your Framework and System of Reality, i.e. science, is simply not possible without the use of mathematics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable to represent reality, where its pros outweigh it cons and contributing utility to the progress of mankind.

The vast majority of propositions about the physical universe or its history cannot be experimentally tested. For example, what experimental test do you propose to justify the proposition that the Battle of the Frigidus River took place in September 394 between the Eastern and the Western Roman empire?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am There is no need for axioms in science which is based on empirical evidences [physical-scientific] and intersubjective consensus of humans.

Without making use of Arithmetic Theory, science is not possible. Arithmetic Theory is entirely axiomatic. The primary tool used in science to express its propositions and maintain consistency amongst these, is mathematics. Science cannot be done without mathematics. Even though science does not rest on axioms about the physical universe, it heavily relies on axioms about numbers, sets, functions, combinators, and an entire host of other abstract, non-physical objects.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am If your model in claiming God is real is not anywhere near science, then it is not realistic and thus illusory which is based on 'pure reason'.
How else?

Mathematics does not need science.

On the contrary, the scientific method, i.e. experimental test reports, are completely and utterly rejected as evidence in mathematics.

Modern mathematics is indeed Pure Reason. Modern mathematics is certainly not "realistic" and it could indeed be illusory. However, how do you explain in that case that science is not possible without modern mathematics? Why does science use such illusory system? By the way, if you are not good at mathematics, you will generally fail at science as well. That is how far and how deep "the illusion" goes.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am Note one of the theists' best argument for God is the Fine Tuning Argument [are you aware of this?] where the evidence of 'fine tuning' is heavily relied upon from science.

Religious arguments are exclusively based on axiomatically reasoning from scripture. I personally reject all other types of reasoning in theology. If you are not reasoning from scripture, then you are not doing religion. In that case, you are doing something else.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am I have always state that religion [theistic and non-theistic] is a very critical necessity for the majority of people AT PRESENT [not future] given their current very unstable psychological states.

Agreed. Taking away spirituality will merely lead to damaging mental health. I do not see anything good coming from that. If someone does not feel comfortable with religious spirituality, or some particular version of it, then at least consider doing something like yoga or meditation. I personally think that religious spirituality is the real thing. Still, things like yoga may also be beneficial.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am But based on current trends, the cons of theism are outweighing its pros, thus the need to wean off religions toward the future.

In order to replace it by what exactly? We have the mental health of an entire world population to consider. Taking away options, is not the solution.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am I have never advocated getting rid of religions immediately but rather we must take steps to gradually wean off religions [theistic 1st -especially Islam, then non-theistic] to be replaced by fool-proof self-developments approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable cognitive dissonances.

Islam works absolutely fine as a religion. Just like in other major religions, there are absolutely no problems with the spiritual part in Islam, i.e. liturgy and prayer. They work absolutely fine. In terms of moral theory, i.e. religious jurisprudence ("al fiqh"), Islamic law is in my impression, even superior to other moral theories. Its epistemic method is staunchly axiomatic from scripture. When reading religious advisories in Islamic jurisprudence, I am very often convinced that the advisory does indeed necessarily follow from scripture.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am That is why I claimed that the 'real' that theists claimed for their God is not realistic, thus it is illusory, i.e. a reified illusion.
It is only logical and rational that the creator [if any] of the physical universe must be grounded on the physical, else it does not follow.

What does the term "real" mean in this context? If it means "physical" then the idea that God would be a physical being is inconsistent with the definition of God as the creator of everything that is physical. It is obvious that the creator of everything that is physical cannot be physical himself, because that proposition would be circular. By definition, God is not physical. However, that does not mean in any way that God would not exist.

I have argued whatever exists are real must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR].
The scientific FSR [also mathematical] is the most reliable.
If you insists God can exists as real, then your FSR must be of near equivalence to the scientific FSR which is based on physicalism.
As such it follow your God must be physical re physicalism.
Note Physicalism;

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.

If your god is not physical, then it is illusory.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am I have been saying all along theists have been relying on the impulse of their 'pure reason' to reify an illusory God, i.e. based on blind faith.

There is nothing wrong with Pure Reason. Algebra is also Pure Reason. What would there be wrong with algebra?

Pure Reason in relation to theism is crude primal pure reason based on blind faith.
Algebra a branch of mathematics is not based on such 'pure reason' but grounded on mathematics which is ultimately grounded on the empirical. There is no decimal system or numbers if humans has initially look at the fingers.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am Note 'what is real' must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality[FSR]

Algebra is "real", depending on what the term "real" means. However, algebra has absolutely no connection with (physical) reality. So, what would there be wrong with algebra?

See above.

Wikipedia on 'abstraction in mathematics' wrote: Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected.

Surely you are not ignoring the highlighted point above?

Conversely, if a proposition has any unsevered connection with the physical universe, then this proposition is not legitimate (pure) mathematics. Furthermore, as elaborated in model theory and mathematical logic, mathematics has a very precise notion of (logical) truth which is completely divorced from the notion of truth, i.e. fact, in the physical universe. Unlike science, mathematics is Pure Reason. Last but not least, your Framework and System of Reality, i.e. science, is simply not possible without the use of mathematics.

See the highlighted point above. I have always agree mathematics is essential for science.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable to represent reality, where its pros outweigh it cons and contributing utility to the progress of mankind.

The vast majority of propositions about the physical universe or its history cannot be experimentally tested. For example, what experimental test do you propose to justify the proposition that the Battle of the Frigidus River took place in September 394 between the Eastern and the Western Roman empire?

There are degree of credibility from solid scientific facts [water is H20] to scientific theories and scientific speculations.
Parri passu I am referring to the most solid and credible scientific facts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am There is no need for axioms in science which is based on empirical evidences [physical-scientific] and intersubjective consensus of humans.

Without making use of Arithmetic Theory, science is not possible. Arithmetic Theory is entirely axiomatic. The primary tool used in science to express its propositions and maintain consistency amongst these, is mathematics. Science cannot be done without mathematics. Even though science does not rest on axioms about the physical universe, it heavily relies on axioms about numbers, sets, functions, combinators, and an entire host of other abstract, non-physical objects.

I did not disagree the need for mathematics in science and elsewhere.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am If your model in claiming God is real is not anywhere near science, then it is not realistic and thus illusory which is based on 'pure reason'.
How else?

Mathematics does not need science.

On the contrary, the scientific method, i.e. experimental test reports, are completely and utterly rejected as evidence in mathematics.

Modern mathematics is indeed Pure Reason. Modern mathematics is certainly not "realistic" and it could indeed be illusory. However, how do you explain in that case that science is not possible without modern mathematics? Why does science use such illusory system? By the way, if you are not good at mathematics, you will generally fail at science as well. That is how far and how deep "the illusion" goes.

Are you stating your are using pure mathematics to prove the existence of your God?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am Note one of the theists' best argument for God is the Fine Tuning Argument [are you aware of this?] where the evidence of 'fine tuning' is heavily relied upon from science.

Religious arguments are exclusively based on axiomatically reasoning from scripture. I personally reject all other types of reasoning in theology. If you are not reasoning from scripture, then you are not doing religion. In that case, you are doing something else.

That is your personal belief.
However there are many who rely on science to prove the existence of their God which is fallacious.

"axiomatically reasoning from scripture" which are man-made?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am I have always state that religion [theistic and non-theistic] is a very critical necessity for the majority of people AT PRESENT [not future] given their current very unstable psychological states.
In addition, I believe Christianity [being overriding pacifist] is the most optimal religion at present [not future].

Agreed. Taking away spirituality will merely lead to damaging mental health. I do not see anything good coming from that. If someone does not feel comfortable with religious spirituality, or some particular version of it, then at least consider doing something like yoga or meditation. I personally think that religious spirituality is the real thing. Still, things like yoga may also be beneficial.

Agree.
But note the context of the cons of religions outweighing its pros and the relevant time period I mentioned.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am But based on current trends, the cons of theism are outweighing its pros, thus the need to wean off religions toward the future.

In order to replace it by what exactly? We have the mental health of an entire world population to consider. Taking away options, is not the solution.

Note the current trend of non-theism which has expanded exponentially since 100 years ago. Thus there is an indication human nature can change from theism to non-theism.

As such in the near future all theistic religions can be replaced with non-theistic religions, e.g.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

thereafter all religions will need to be weaned off and replaced with fool proof spirituality.

This is possible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology given that theism is so irrational.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 5:38 am I have never advocated getting rid of religions immediately but rather we must take steps to gradually wean off religions [theistic 1st -especially Islam, then non-theistic] to be replaced by fool-proof self-developments approach to deal with the inherent and unavoidable cognitive dissonances.

Islam works absolutely fine as a religion. Just like in other major religions, there are absolutely no problems with the spiritual part in Islam, i.e. liturgy and prayer. They work absolutely fine. In terms of moral theory, i.e. religious jurisprudence ("al fiqh"), Islamic law is in my impression, even superior to other moral theories. Its epistemic method is staunchly axiomatic from scripture. When reading religious advisories in Islamic jurisprudence, I am very often convinced that the advisory does indeed necessarily follow from scripture.

I happened to be a reasonable expert on the religion of Islam [studied it full time for almost 3 years].
Point is to be a Muslim one must enter into a contract [covenant] with Allah in exchange for the promised soteriological rewards.
As such, one must complied with all the commands in the constitution of Islam which is the Quran's 6236 verses.
Therein the verses, all contracted Muslims has a duty to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.

True, not all 1.5 billion Muslims are evil-prone but even if 10% of them are evil prone we have 150 millions of them around the world waiting to feast on those evil commands to kill non-believers. The reality of this is SO evident.

It is also a great sin for fallible human[s] to innovate and improvise anything with the Constitution of Islam.

With the above, Morally, Islam is the worst of all religions and the most evil in contrast to Christianity's overriding pacifist maxim 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek, etc.

To avoid being ignorant of the true Islam I recommend you do more research on the religion.
Here is the evil of sharia [you ignorantly believe is "superior"] which I happen to listen to at present.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZSm-krqaHM

In the "Unsheathed Sword", written by Ibn Taymiyyah (d.1328) one finds the punishments against anyone who insults the prophet of Islam. In chapters 1-3 it says clearly that anyone who insults the prophet must be killed, regardless of whether they are Muslim or a non-believer.

Even if they repent, they still must be killed, to which all 4 of the Mujtahid's agreed. So there is no recourse for the guilty party. The Qur'anic support for this punishment can be found in Surah 8:39, according to Lloyd.

Lloyd also suggested that an insult-er can be lashed, but that this would continue until he was dead.

Ibn Qayyim, a student of Ibn Taymiyyah wrote the "Guidance to the Uncertain", where he gave further instructions to Muslims stipulating that Muslims can insult Christians, but not the other way around.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:58 am
What does the term "real" mean in this context? If it means "physical" then the idea that God would be a physical being is inconsistent with the definition of God as the creator of everything that is physical. It is obvious that the creator of everything that is physical cannot be physical himself, because that proposition would be circular. By definition, God is not physical. However, that does not mean in any way that God would not exist.

The 'physical' is a projection of Light. Projections do not see or know Light. Projections are the Light. Reality is ONE self-illuminating phenomena..therefore, projection is always an image of the imageless.

There is no Creator without Creation.
Creation aka Matter creates the Creator in the exact same instance of KNOWING, the only knowing there is.
Matter creates the Creator..and not the other way around...because there is nothing known without the instrument of knowing. . Reality is always One unitary action/function.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. Not that reality is an illusion, it is not - the illusion is the idea there is a creator separate from creation which would imply a separation albeit an impossible breach of what is always and ever this unmoving seamless continuous beginning without an end...aka the eternal now.

.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am If you insists God can exists as real, then your FSR must be of near equivalence to the scientific FSR which is based on physicalism.
As such it follow your God must be physical re physicalism.

I do not believe that the origin of all things physical, is itself physical.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.

I do not believe that numbers or sets would be physical. However, these abstractions do exist. For example:

{ 1, 3 } U { 2, 7 } = { 1, 2, 3, 7 }

The above is a true logic sentence, for reasons of mere string manipulation. The sentence combines two abstractions into a new one. You term that kind of things "illusory", because they have no connection with the physical universe, but I think that "abstract" notions are not necessarily "illusory".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am If your god is not physical, then it is illusory.

Since numbers and sets are not physical, according to your view, they are illusory. I do not believe that numbers are illusory. I believe that they are Platonic abstractions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am Algebra a branch of mathematics is not based on such 'pure reason' but grounded on mathematics which is ultimately grounded on the empirical. There is no decimal system or numbers if humans has initially look at the fingers.

The formalist ontology of mathematics utterly denies this view.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality, but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."[1] According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.

Mathematics is not "ultimately grounded on the empirical". Mathematics is ultimately grounded in string manipulation. Therefore, mathematics is not about the physical universe or anything empirical. In fact, mathematics is not "about" anything at all.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: Are you stating your are using pure mathematics to prove the existence of your God?

I am merely pointing out that all the arguments that you use, and that are generally used by scientism against religion, can also be used against mathematics. However, scientism believers do not dare to attack mathematics. Everything you criticize in religion, is equally well critical about any other axiomatic subject. Therefore, your views are not merely anti-theist. They are anti-axiomatic. You simply reject the legitimacy of Aristotelian foundationalism, without however considering that through mathematics, science depends on foundationalism.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: However there are many who rely on science to prove the existence of their God which is fallacious.

I am sure that these people did not provide a reproducible experimental test report. Hence, their approach is simply not scientific. If you are not experimentally testing anything, you are simply not doing science to begin with. They are also not doing religion, because they are not reasoning from scripture. Again, they are doing something else altogether.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: "axiomatically reasoning from scripture" which are man-made?

Our standard, default arithmetic theory is Peano Arithmetic (PA). Question: is PA man-made? Was PA invented by Giuseppe Peano? Or rather discovered? Does Peano arithmetic consist in "axiomatically reasoning from rules which are man-made"?

What I find disingenuous is that all arguments against religion can also be used against mathematics. However, atheists do not dare to attack mathematics, because they know that they would look ridiculous if they did that.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: This is possible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology given that theism is so irrational.

What would there be irrational about axiomatically reasoning from a set of given rules? It is the same system of formalist string manipulation as in mathematics. In this context, "irrational" would mean "inconsistent". If it is possible to derive the truth of a logic sentence from a theory but also the truth of its negation, then it would be an inconsistent theory.

What is truly irrational, is the failure to understand that axiomatic theories rest on syntactic entailment. It is just the mechanical application of rules. If you do not like the basic construction rules of a particular theory, then just use another theory.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: Therein the verses, all contracted Muslims has a duty to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.

So? If you do not like a particular rule in a theory, then do not use that theory. Use another theory instead.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: True, not all 1.5 billion Muslims are evil-prone but even if 10% of them are evil prone we have 150 millions of them around the world waiting to feast on those evil commands to kill non-believers. The reality of this is SO evident.

I am personally respectful towards the main religions. You will certainly never hear me say horrible things about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Therefore, I am not at risk of reprisals. Furthermore, I am not going to lift a finger to protect people from reprisals when they make obnoxious or even blasphemous remarks about someone else's religion. In the end, all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: It is also a great sin for fallible human[s] to innovate and improvise anything with the Constitution of Islam.

I do not think that anybody has ever asked you to accept Islam as your moral theory. If you do not like football, then feel free to try tennis instead, or yet something else. However, if you go to the football field to harass people who like football, and sh.it-talk their sports, then you may indeed get negative reactions.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: With the above, Morally, Islam is the worst of all religions and the most evil in contrast to Christianity's overriding pacifist maxim 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek, etc.

You probably first need to learn to see through the hypocrisy about violence. If you insist on thoroughly insulting a policeman, no Christian will say anything if this policeman draws a stick and hits the hell out of you. At that point, where is the fake "pacifism"? Furthermore, you should have seen all these so-called pacifists donning a uniform and go to war against the Germans in WWII. Why didn't they "love" them instead? Huh? Suddenly, the "pacifism" was gone! Pacifism is mere b.ull.sh.it and you perfectly well know it.

If people beat the hell out of you because you make obnoxious or blasphemous remarks about other people's religion, then do not count on me to lift a finger. On the contrary, I am just going to be on the floor laughing. You see, I do not have that problem, because I do not make that kind of ugly remarks about religion. If I do not believe in one particular religion, then I just pick another one. Seriously, if you do not like football, then try tennis, for example. Going to the football field and annoying people who like football, is simply bad behavior.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am If you insists God can exists as real, then your FSR must be of near equivalence to the scientific FSR which is based on physicalism.
As such it follow your God must be physical re physicalism.

I do not believe that the origin of all things physical, is itself physical.

The best theory we have so far is the scientific Big Bang where the origin is "physical" as defined below.
The scientific model [& mathematic] is the most reliable at present.
If you don't agree what non-scientific model are you relying upon.
The only possible one for you in this case is a model based on blind faith?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.

I do not believe that numbers or sets would be physical. However, these abstractions do exist. For example:

{ 1, 3 } U { 2, 7 } = { 1, 2, 3, 7 }

The above is a true logic sentence, for reasons of mere string manipulation. The sentence combines two abstractions into a new one. You term that kind of things "illusory", because they have no connection with the physical universe, but I think that "abstract" notions are not necessarily "illusory".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am If your god is not physical, then it is illusory.

Since numbers and sets are not physical, according to your view, they are illusory. I do not believe that numbers are illusory. I believe that they are Platonic abstractions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am Algebra a branch of mathematics is not based on such 'pure reason' but grounded on mathematics which is ultimately grounded on the empirical. There is no decimal system or numbers if humans has initially look at the fingers.

The formalist ontology of mathematics utterly denies this view.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality, but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."[1] According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.

Mathematics is not "ultimately grounded on the empirical". Mathematics is ultimately grounded in string manipulation. Therefore, mathematics is not about the physical universe or anything empirical. In fact, mathematics is not "about" anything at all.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: Are you stating your are using pure mathematics to prove the existence of your God?

I am merely pointing out that all the arguments that you use, and that are generally used by scientism against religion, can also be used against mathematics. However, scientism believers do not dare to attack mathematics. Everything you criticize in religion, is equally well critical about any other axiomatic subject. Therefore, your views are not merely anti-theist. They are anti-axiomatic. You simply reject the legitimacy of Aristotelian foundationalism, without however considering that through mathematics, science depends on foundationalism.

I had pointed out what is mathematics [regardless of whatever the formalism] it is ultimately reducible to the empirical and the physical on a priori basis.
Note Kant's argument on how Science and Mathematics is possible on a synthetic a priori basis, while metaphysics [ontological] is not possible.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: "axiomatically reasoning from scripture" which are man-made?

Our standard, default arithmetic theory is Peano Arithmetic (PA). Question: is PA man-made? Was PA invented by Giuseppe Peano? Or rather discovered? Does Peano arithmetic consist in "axiomatically reasoning from rules which are man-made"?

Regardless of whatever the mathematics, it is reducible to the empirical a priori.

What I find disingenuous is that all arguments against religion can also be used against mathematics. However, atheists do not dare to attack mathematics, because they know that they would look ridiculous if they did that.

I have not argued against mathematics as possible and real.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: This is possible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology given that theism is so irrational.

What would there be irrational about axiomatically reasoning from a set of given rules? It is the same system of formalist string manipulation as in mathematics. In this context, "irrational" would mean "inconsistent". If it is possible to derive the truth of a logic sentence from a theory but also the truth of its negation, then it would be an inconsistent theory.

What is truly irrational, is the failure to understand that axiomatic theories rest on syntactic entailment. It is just the mechanical application of rules. If you do not like the basic construction rules of a particular theory, then just use another theory.

Theism is irrational to the extent it is like trying to prove a square-circle exists as real.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: Therein the verses, all contracted Muslims has a duty to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.

So? If you do not like a particular rule in a theory, then do not use that theory. Use another theory instead.

Not sure of your point?
What I am concern here is the truth that Islam is inherently evil.
In that sense, don't you have a moral compass that is working?
Any morally competent person should at least critique such evil privately if not openly.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: True, not all 1.5 billion Muslims are evil-prone but even if 10% of them are evil prone we have 150 millions of them around the world waiting to feast on those evil commands to kill non-believers. The reality of this is SO evident.

I am personally respectful towards the main religions. You will certainly never hear me say horrible things about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Therefore, I am not at risk of reprisals. Furthermore, I am not going to lift a finger to protect people from reprisals when they make obnoxious or even blasphemous remarks about someone else's religion. In the end, all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

If done with ugly intentions, then that is not recommended.
But how can you respect an ideology that is so inherently evil.
Philosophically [wisdom wise] you have the onus to know the truth of it and to research to confirm it, now that you are informed of it.

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: It is also a great sin for fallible human[s] to innovate and improvise anything with the Constitution of Islam.

I do not think that anybody has ever asked you to accept Islam as your moral theory. If you do not like football, then feel free to try tennis instead, or yet something else. However, if you go to the football field to harass people who like football, and sh.it-talk their sports, then you may indeed get negative reactions.

Hey! we are doing 'philosophy' here [not tennis nor football] of which the ultimate objective is to optimize the well beings of the individuals and thus humanity.
The Islamic ideology has the potential to exterminate the human species and you don't give a damn?

Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote: With the above, Morally, Islam is the worst of all religions and the most evil in contrast to Christianity's overriding pacifist maxim 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek, etc.

You probably first need to learn to see through the hypocrisy about violence. If you insist on thoroughly insulting a policeman, no Christian will say anything if this policeman draws a stick and hits the hell out of you. At that point, where is the fake "pacifism"? Furthermore, you should have seen all these so-called pacifists donning a uniform and go to war against the Germans in WWII. Why didn't they "love" them instead? Huh? Suddenly, the "pacifism" was gone! Pacifism is mere b.ull.sh.it and you perfectly well know it.

If people beat the hell out of you because you make obnoxious or blasphemous remarks about other people's religion, then do not count on me to lift a finger. On the contrary, I am just going to be on the floor laughing. You see, I do not have that problem, because I do not make that kind of ugly remarks about religion. If I do not believe in one particular religion, then I just pick another one. Seriously, if you do not like football, then try tennis, for example. Going to the football field and annoying people who like football, is simply bad behavior.

The Constitution of Christianity is overridingly pacifist.
A Christian is one who has entered into a contract to comply with the Constitution of Christianity as stipulated in the Gospels of Christ [np where else].

You need to apply rational thinking here.
Anyone [a supposed Christian born or converted into Christianity] who do not comply with the contractual terms cannot be a Christian as per the contract.
When a 'Christian' acted on his own outside what is contracted, one cannot blame Christianity-proper.
If a 'Christian' were to kill another human even his enemies, he is going against the tenets of Christianity since Christianity command a contracted Christian to love all even one's enemies.