Philosophy Now Forum

I have argued that "it is Impossible for God to exists as Real"
God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

God is not a real entity but merely a Psychological Derivative there arises from various mental disturbances, e.g. mental illnesses, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, stress, and the likes.

One of the mental illness that can induce a sense of God as real is Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and this phenomenon has been very well researched.

I have often linked this in support of my point re TLE;
How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc

Doing a Google Search re Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and God produced 21,900 hits.

As such, it one is rational one cannot simply discount the above research that Temporal Epilepsy could cause one to have a sense of God and therefore believe God is real.
If there are no solid counter to the above, then God is likely to be a psychological Derivative from the perspective of TLE.

Note:
The above is merely one cause, there are many other causes that drive one to have a sense of God and therefrom believe God is real.

Doing a Google Search re Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and God produced 21,900 hits.
https://scholar.google.com.my/scholar?h ... +God&btnG=
Here are some samples. Even if 50% of the above is very relevant, it is already very telling that theists cannot simply dismiss the very possibility.

• “God has sent me to you”: Right temporal epilepsy, left prefrontal psychosis
  S Arzy, R Schurr - Epilepsy & Behavior, 2016 - Elsevier
  Religious experiences have long been documented in patients with epilepsy, though their
  exact underlying neural mechanisms are still unclear. Here, we had the rare opportunity to …
  
  Save Cite Cited by 23 Related articles All 10 versions
  Toward a psychobiology of transcendence: God in the brain
  AJ Mandell - The psychobiology of consciousness, 1980 - Springer
  … Chatrian, GE, & Chapman, WP Electrographic study of the amygdaloid region with
  implanted electrodes in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. In ER Ramey & DS O’Doherty (Eds.), …
  Save Cite Cited by 244 Related articles
  
  Sudden religious conversions in temporal lobe epilepsy
  K Dewhurst, AW Beard - The British Journal of Psychiatry, 1970 - cambridge.org
  … on God, and this belief is the basis of his euphoria. Boven stresses the intensified piety of
  the epileptic … Mabille (i88g) discusses religious hallucina tions associated with epilepsy, and …
  Save Cite Cited by 305 Related articles All 5 versions
  
  Searching for God in the Brain
  D Biello - Scientific American Mind, 2007 - JSTOR
  … of his patients who have temporal lobe epilepsy to listen to a … “God,” elicited an unusually
  large emotional response in these patients, indicating that people with temporal lobe epilepsy …
  Save Cite Cited by 58 Related articles
  
  [BOOK] Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes]
  P McNamara - 2006 - books.google.com
  … Similar processes have been found in people with epilepsy, which Hippocrates called the …
  It is not the goal of neurotheology to prove or disprove the existence of God, but to understand …
  Save Cite Cited by 140 Related articles All 3 versions
  
  [PDF] free.fr
  Sudden religious conversions in temporal lobe epilepsy
  K Dewhurst, AW Beard - Epilepsy & Behavior, 2003 - epilepsybehavior.com
  … on God, and this belief is the basis of his euphoria. Boven stresses the intensified piety of the
  … he is God. When reviewing the incidence of psychosis arising from temporal lobe epilepsy, …
  Save Cite Cited by 50 Related articles All 8 versions
  [PDF] oup.com
  
  God, theologian and humble neurologist
  A Coles - 2008 - academic.oup.com
  … If neurology is to reclaim some credibility in the interdisciplinary dialogue on humanity's God
  experience, it could do a lot worse that revisit the ecstatic seizures of temporal lobe epilepsy…
  Save Cite Cited by 13 Related articles All 2 versions
  
  The" God module" and the complexifying brain
  AC Rausch - Zygon, 2000 - elibrary.ru
  … God module" in the human brain derive from the fact that epileptic seizures in the left temporal
  … described as an experience of the presence of God. The brain area involved has been …
  Save Cite Cited by 40 Related articles All 5 versions
  
  The “God module” and the complexifying brain
  C Rausch Albright - Zygon®, 2000 - Wiley Online Library
  … God module” in the human brain derive from the fact that epileptic seizures in the left temporal
  … described as an experience of the presence of God. The brain area involved has been …
  Save Cite Cited by 5 Related articles
  [PDF] psu.edu
  
  Spirituality and religion in epilepsy
  O Devinsky, G Lai - Epilepsy & Behavior, 2008 - Elsevier
  … how many other religious figures could have had epilepsy. For example, Moses’ experience
  … heard God’s voice. A medical explanation might attribute his experience to a temporal lobe …
  Save Cite Cited by 294 Related articles All 8 versions

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:00 am I have argued that "it is Impossible for God to exists as Real"
God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

God is not a real entity but merely a Psychological Derivative there arises from various mental disturbances, e.g. mental illnesses, brain damage, hallucinogens, various drugs, stress, and the likes.

One of the mental illness that can induce a sense of God as real is Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and this phenomenon has been very well researched.

I have often linked this in support of my point re TLE;
How Our Brain Creates Delusion Of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrmxjaJu0bc

Doing a Google Search re Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and God produced 21,900 hits.

As such, it one is rational one cannot simply discount the above research that Temporal Epilepsy could cause one to have a sense of God and therefore believe God is real.
If there are no solid counter to the above, then God is likely to be a psychological Derivative from the perspective of TLE.

Note:
The above is merely one cause, there are many other causes that drive one to have a sense of God and therefrom believe God is real.

Sophmoric.
Epileptic seizures can make one thing all sorts of real things are present: music, lights, objects, people. That parts of the brain can give one certain experiences when there is a problem does not mean in the slightest that the things experiences can now be dismissed. And, in fact, most of the things one experienced in seizure are real, but often not present at that time. Such as music or images. One should wonder WHY the brain has a tendency to have this kind of experience, if anything.

And then most people having religious experiences have done things like meditate which he is so fond of (and yes I know he views Buddhism as better because they do not interpret these experiences the way theists do).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:00 am I have argued that "it is Impossible for God to exists as Real"

Sounds like if you are unable to understand something, then it doesn’t exist.

If God is defined as the creator of the physical universe, then God cannot possibly be a physical element of the universe, because that view would by definition be circular and lead to infinite regress.

Besides that, a psychological view on the matter is obviously merely conjectural.

Concerning the human brain, we do not possess a copy of its axiomatic construction logic and therefore we cannot claim anything provable about it.

We can generally not conduct reproducible experimental tests on the human brain either. Therefore, claims about the human brain are not particularly scientific either.

The idea that God would be a physical being is precluded by the very definition of the term. As I have argued above, psychology does not add any useful insight whatsoever to the matter.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:00 am I have argued that "it is Impossible for God to exists as Real"

Sounds like if you are unable to understand something, then it doesn’t exist.

Your singular statement without justifying your point indicate your thinking in THIS CASE is too shallow and narrow. Else, prove it is otherwise by providing sound justifications.

To understand something as existing it must be verifiable and justifiable within a credible Framework and System of Reality [FSK].

The idea of God cannot be understood as real because it cannot be verified and justified as real within a credible FSK.

Existence [is] is never a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula to connect the subject/object with the predicate.
Thus "God exists" has no real sense at all.

What is proper is to state,
God exists as X [predicate].
That predicate must be justifiable and verifiable within a credible FSK.

If I merely state @$%@# exists,
and @$%@# is inside your house now seeing everything you do,
would you accept that?
Surely you will want me to prove it with real evidences to justify it is real.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:36 am If God is defined as the creator of the physical universe, then God cannot possibly be a physical element of the universe, because that view would by definition be circular and lead to infinite regress.

As I had stated, the scientific model [at present] is the most reliable/credible basis for truths, facts and knowledge, i.e. the physical [as defined by science which include the unseen gravity, quarks etc.]

If your model of truths, facts and knowledge of God [non-physical] is not of near equivalence to the scientific model [the standard] then your Got is not true, factual nor of knowledge, thus it is likely to be an illusion.
Note if your God is non-physical, then it cannot be verified by science or a model of near equivalence to the scientific model.

Show me what model of knowledge, truths and fact are you relying upon which is on near equivalence to the scientific model?

As Kant had justified, the idea of God is a deception by the faculty of Pure Crude Reason. This is necessary to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.
This is justified via all the behaviors of theists throughout the history of mankind, i.e. thus psychological.

Besides that, a psychological view on the matter is obviously merely conjectural.

The psychological view is justified based on empirical evidences. Note the tons of research in linking the idea of God with temporal epilepsy.
There are other tons of research that indicate the idea of God is psychological.

Concerning the human brain, we do not possess a copy of its axiomatic construction logic and therefore we cannot claim anything provable about it.

We can generally not conduct reproducible experimental tests on the human brain either. Therefore, claims about the human brain are not particularly scientific either.

What kind of thinking is this?
You are insulting your own intelligence on this.
Suggest you research more about the physical human brains and its activities and functions.

The idea that God would be a physical being is precluded by the very definition of the term. As I have argued above, psychology does not add any useful insight whatsoever to the matter.

If God is a physical being, then God can be verified and justified by a credible model of knowledge, facts and truths, of which the scientific model is the most reliable.
So far and it is impossible for science to justify a God as typically defined with its omni-whatever qualities.

Show me why psychology does not add any useful insight whatsoever to the matter when I have directed you to the research done as in the OP.

The general point is all indications of God in the history of mankind is reducible to the brain and mind.
Whenever a theist claim God exists, it is always with reference to his thinking, feelings, faith, emotions, etc. but never to any solid justification based on a credible model of truth, facts and knowledge.

The extreme is theists will even resort to killing anyone [a psychological reaction] who threatened their idea of God existing as real. This is so evident and is one reason that points to God as a psychological derivative.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑ Else, prove it is otherwise by providing sound justifications.

What I said is based on possibility, the possibility that in the future you can realize that your reasoning was wrong, was incorrect, so, what I said doesn't need to be proved: it is a possibility that nobody can deny. You have no way to guarantee that in any future errors will never be found in your reasoning.
This has already happened in the past: people who thought their ideas were absolutely correct, but later it was discovered they were wrong. If it happened in the past, nothing is able to prevent it from happening in the future. Nobody is able to master the future. So, what I said remains true: you have no way to guarantee that what you can't understand does not exist.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑ Else, prove it is otherwise by providing sound justifications.

What I said is based on possibility, the possibility that in the future you can realize that your reasoning was wrong, was incorrect, so, what I said doesn't need to be proved: it is a possibility that nobody can deny. You have no way to guarantee that in any future errors will never be found in your reasoning.
This has already happened in the past: people who thought their ideas were absolutely correct, but later it was discovered they were wrong. If it happened in the past, nothing is able to prevent it from happening in the future. Nobody is able to master the future. So, what I said remains true: you have no way to guarantee that what you can't understand does not exist.

Humans has conceived God from eons ago and humans has been trying to prove God exists but has failed in all occasions.

What I have been trying to show is, to prove God exists as real is trying to prove a square-circle exists. It is a non-starter now and in the future.

Evidences are pointing to the very likelihood the idea of God is merely a psychological derivative hastily jumped upon by the self relying on Crude Pure Reasons to soothe the very painful cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.
It is so obvious, when a person merely believed in a God, viola! all his existential pains vanished immediately with a great sense of relief.
All the elements of a god are pointed into this direction.

As stated in the my previous post;
The general point is all indications of God in the history of mankind is reducible to the brain and mind.
Whenever a theist claim God exists, it is always with reference to his thinking, feelings, faith, emotions, etc. [thus psychological] but never to any solid justification based on a credible model of truth, facts and knowledge.

The extreme is theists will even resort to killing anyone [a psychological reaction] who threatened their idea of God existing as real. This is so evident and is one reason that points to God as a psychological derivative.

However note, the Buddhists realized this >2500 years ago and switched paradigm to the non-theistic approach to deal with the terrible cognitive dissonances, i.e. dukkha,
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

• Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
  Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.
The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea.
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm

Since the idea of god as real is a non-starter, there is no hope at all for 'god as real' to be discovered in the future.
rather, what is most realistic is,
there is no an increasing greater % of theists compared to the past years since 1000 years ago and this is the trend.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:53 am However note, the Buddhists realized this >2500 years ago and switch paradigm to the non-theistic approach to deal with the terrible cognitive dissonances, i.e. dukkha,
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

So, for thousands of years Buddhists had an answer VA respects, but this was NOT demonstrated in the West, or by Western scientific standards not in the East either. So, were Buddhists irrational for practicing Buddhism? They had not demonstrated it was true. In the Middle of the 1900s in the West someone could just poo poo Buddhists' claims about the benefits and effects of Buddhist practice. Those irrational Asians and Asianphile Westerners. But lo,
it turns out after thousands of years one can confirm, via scientific research, some of the claims.

We really don't know what else will go through a similar process.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:53 am ... now and in the future.
...
there is no hope at all for 'god as real' to be discovered in the future.

So, you think you master the future! You think that if something cannot happen in the future according to your understanding, then it definitely can never happen. This is perfectly in line with what I said previously: you think that if you cannot understand something, then it doesn't exist.

It looks like the real reason why you think God is not real is because you think you are god.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:26 am If your model of truths, facts and knowledge of God [non-physical] is not of near equivalence to the scientific model [the standard]
Note if your God is non-physical, then it cannot be verified by science or a model of near equivalence to the scientific model.
Show me what model of knowledge, truths and fact are you relying upon which is on near equivalence to the scientific model?

Natural numbers are not physical. Science cannot contribute anything to the study of natural numbers. No mathematical justification whatsoever, i.e. proof, can be constructed by experimental testing, and the scientific method is completely rejected in mathematics.

On the other hand, since science insists on quantifying by using numbers, the scientific method is not possible without arithmetic theory.

Hence, the scientific method cannot possibly be overall "the standard". In mathematics, the axiomatic method is "the standard". All objects in mathematics are non-physical and cannot be verified by science.

This conclusion is even unrelated to the question whether God exists or not. Scientism is an aberration for many other reasons.

Wikipedia on "scientism" wrote: Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.

Scientism is a view that completely ignores that scientific method is tributary to mathematics and its axiomatic method. Therefore, scientism is a belief that lacks internal consistency.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:53 am ... now and in the future.
...
there is no hope at all for 'god as real' to be discovered in the future.

So, you think you master the future! You think that if something cannot happen in the future according to your understanding, then it definitely can never happen. This is perfectly in line with what I said previously: you think that if you cannot understand something, then it doesn't exist.

It looks like the real reason why you think God is not real is because you think you are god.

You skipped and ignored my point that to prove God exists is like justifying a square-circle can exists as real and it is a non-starter even to think of trying to do so.

Can you show me the possibility that in the future, humans will be able to prove square-circles exist.

It looks like the real reason why you think God is not real is because you think you are god.

This is weird and impossible because I believe a real God is an impossibility.

Note I offered a more realistic justification why theists believe a God exists as real, i.e. it is a necessary psychological derivative to soothe the terrible pains of the cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent existential crisis.
This is very realistic given all the elements [feelings, soteriology, good and evil, etc.] that has been associated with 'god as real'.
Can you show that this proposition is incoherent and not possible at all?

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:26 am If your model of truths, facts and knowledge of God [non-physical] is not of near equivalence to the scientific model [the standard]
Note if your God is non-physical, then it cannot be verified by science or a model of near equivalence to the scientific model.
Show me what model of knowledge, truths and fact are you relying upon which is on near equivalence to the scientific model?

Natural numbers are not physical. Science cannot contribute anything to the study of natural numbers. No mathematical justification whatsoever, i.e. proof, can be constructed by experimental testing, and the scientific method is completely rejected in mathematics.

On the other hand, since science insists on quantifying by using numbers, the scientific method is not possible without arithmetic theory.

Hence, the scientific method cannot possibly be overall "the standard". In mathematics, the axiomatic method is "the standard". All objects in mathematics are non-physical and cannot be verified by science.

This conclusion is even unrelated to the question whether God exists or not. Scientism is an aberration for many other reasons.

I have always mentioned the most credible and reliable model of truths, facts and knowledge is the scientific model and also the mathematical model. However as a matter of convenience I often leave out the mathematical model.

Btw, all mathematical axioms are man-made based on intersubjective consensus. Whatever are mathematical axioms they are abstracted from the physical, not from thin air.

Wikipedia on "scientism" wrote: Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.

Scientism is a view that completely ignores that scientific method is tributary to mathematics and its axiomatic method. Therefore, scientism is a belief that lacks internal consistency.

Nope, scientism does not ignore mathematics but recognized mathematics is essential to science.

So, my question still remained unanswered;

If your model of truths, facts and knowledge of God [non-physical] is not of near equivalence to the scientific model [the standard]
Note if your God is non-physical, then it cannot be verified by science or a model of near equivalence to the scientific model.
Show me what model of knowledge, truths and fact are you relying upon which is on near equivalence to the scientific model [& the mathematical model]?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:19 am Can you show me the possibility that in the future, humans will be able to prove square-circles exist.

I see that for you it is quite impossible to go even just a bit outside the mentality I already described. As I said, it happened already in the past that certain things were thought as absolutely certain and that anything different was impossible to happen in the future, but then their thought proved wrong and what was conceived impossible to happen actually happened. If this happened in the past, nothing prevents it to happen again now and in the future. It seems that for you this is difficult to realize, so you prefer to repeat exactly the same error I described: you think that what is outside your understanding cannot exist and cannot happen in the future.
A square circle is outside your understanding, so you think that, as a consequence, it cannot exist and can never exist in the future. This is exactly what people thought, for example, about the sun rotating around the earth, and the earth conceived as the still center of the universe. You think that now we are more intelligent, we have more scientific and rational data, but this is exactly what they thought in the past: they thought they had reached a high level of knowledge, so that anything unexpected about this was impossible to happen. Now you think exactly the same about your thoughts.
Your mentality is identical to those who condemned Galileo: they thought that what was inconceivable to them was impossible to happen in their present and in their future.