New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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

Descartes and his 'dualism' had been refuted to the shit-bin.

What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
This is the real empirical living person a human can really see, touch, smell, hear, taste and have a theory-of-mind of.

There is no permanent "I-AM" apart from the physical self.
There is nothing personal or personal identify in a corpse.

[Iwannaplato]

Those are good points, Iwannaplato.

Unfortunately,...

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

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

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

Sure, he may say that. But there are a number of problems with that. Some theisms do not have transcendant or wholly transcendant deities. And in fact most religions have strong empirical components. Physical encounters, physical miracles and changes, communication that is heard. Note: I am not arguing that this constitutes evidence. What I am saying is that there in an empirical componant even though for convenient reasons this is ignored. So, we cannot rule out that at some point technology develops to a point where evidence could be gathered. Further, ruling out via deduction has a mixed history in science. We couldn't have particles that were also waves. That was deduced away until evidence came in. We would have and did deduce away things that are taken for granted in qm.

But most important his claim is general. What we do not have evidence for cannot be real. Not what we do not have evidence for we don't need to consider real.

If he is going to move to empiricism to defend his position that what we don't have evidence for is not real, there's a problem, because now he's making a claim not based on empiricism. He has no emprical evidence a deity cannot be real.

[seeds]

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

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

Descartes and his 'dualism' had been refuted to the shit-bin.

Just because a bunch of like-minded materialistic knuckleheads have agreed upon something that amounts to the foolish proposition that there is no difference between the phenomenal features of a "dream" and that of the "dreamer" of the dream,...

...doesn't mean they are right and have successfully refuted the mind/body problem.

Hmmm,...that kind of reminds me of one of the extremely rare times that one of the wannabe philosophers on this very forum once stated something that actually made sense. Here's what he said...

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Furthermore, setting aside the dualism implied in the mind/body problem, I suggest that the ultimate example of dualism can be seen in the obvious fact that our minds are separate from each other.

And if you doubt that, then I'm thinking of a number between one and one million. Can you tell me what it is? I promise to let you know if you get it right.

What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
This is the real empirical living person a human can really see, touch, smell, hear, taste and have a theory-of-mind of.

I have never seen such a tortured mishmash of confused and contradictory nonsense.

It is utterly ridiculous of you to conflate the "I-Think" (the Cartesian) aspect of the inner reality of our minds with that of the human body.

As you did with your misapprehension of the "allegorical" nature of my "Oh the Irony" soap opera, you are once again demonstrating just how superficial your materialistic philosophy truly is.

There is no permanent "I-AM" apart from the physical self.
There is nothing personal or personal identify in a corpse.

How can one person be so wrong about the deeper mysteries of reality?

Oh yeah, I just remembered that this is all coming from "twin number two".
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Descartes and his 'dualism' had been refuted to the shit-bin.

Just because a bunch of like-minded materialistic knuckleheads have agreed upon something that amounts to the foolish proposition that there is no difference between the phenomenal features of a "dream" and that of the "dreamer" of the dream,...

...doesn't mean they are right and have successfully refuted the mind/body problem.

Hmmm,...that kind of reminds me of one of the extremely rare times that one of the wannabe philosophers on this very forum once stated something that actually made sense. Here's what he said...

Making statements do not mean you are right.

Furthermore, setting aside the dualism implied in the mind/body problem, I suggest that the ultimate example of dualism can be seen in the obvious fact that our minds are separate from each other.

And if you doubt that, then I'm thinking of a number between one and one million. Can you tell me what it is? I promise to let you know if you get it right.

What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
This is the real empirical living person a human can really see, touch, smell, hear, taste and have a theory-of-mind of.

I have never seen such a tortured mishmash of confused and contradictory nonsense.
It is utterly ridiculous of you to conflate the "I-Think" (the Cartesian) aspect of the inner reality of our minds with that of the human body.

As you did with your misapprehension of the "allegorical" nature of my "Oh the Irony" soap opera, you are once again demonstrating just how superficial your materialistic philosophy truly is.

There is no permanent "I-AM" apart from the physical self.
There is nothing personal or personal identify in a corpse.

How can one person be so wrong about the deeper mysteries of reality?

Oh yeah, I just remembered that this is all coming from "twin number two".
_______

I have never adopted materialism [refuted by Berkeley] nor physicalism from philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I had just raised this OP;
viewtopic.php?t=40366
Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win ... challenge/

The anti-philosophical-realism [anti-materialism] (Kantian) view is; while human minds or empirical selves appeared to be physically independent from one another from the kindergarten common sense and conventional sense perspective, ultimately they CANNOT be absolutely independent from one another.

Thus;
What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified and justified objectively by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.

What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
This is the real empirical living person a human can really see, touch, smell, hear, taste and have a theory-of-mind of.

I have never seen such a tortured mishmash of confused and contradictory nonsense.
It is utterly ridiculous of you to conflate the "I-Think" (the Cartesian) aspect of the inner reality of our minds with that of the human body.

You are the one who is confused.

In Descartes' "I Think therefore I AM".
The ultimate inner reality of Descartes is the "I AM" i.e. the permanent self [soul] within that can survive physical death.

The "I Think" i.e. the thinking processes of the self that is empirically verifiable. To think one need the brain and human body.
I mentioned "theory-of-mind" which refer to mind and consciousness thus I did not confine the human self to merely the physical human body.
Without the mind and consciousness, the human body is merely a corpse.

[seeds]

I have never adopted materialism [refuted by Berkeley] nor physicalism from philosophical realism.

If you have never adopted materialism or physicalism, and if you refuse to believe in the existence of any sort of higher creative intelligence being responsible for the creation of the planet we are standing on,...

...then please provide us with your own personal theory as to how the unfathomable order of the universe came about?

I had just raised this OP;
viewtopic.php?t=40366
Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win ... challenge/

The anti-philosophical-realism [anti-materialism] (Kantian) view is; while human minds or empirical selves appeared to be physically independent from one another from the kindergarten common sense and conventional sense perspective, ultimately they CANNOT be absolutely independent from one another.

Earlier you insisted that...

Descartes and his 'dualism' had been refuted to the shit-bin.

Aww, come on now, V, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself by referring to your mind in such a vulgar manner.

Anyway, how so?

If dualism has been refuted, then describe for me the ontological nature of its alternative.

Furthermore, considering the fact that reality is made up of an incalculable number of separate (autonomous) minds whose inner (subjectively-based) workings are, in essence, like the inner-workings of (theorized) parallel universes that are inaccessible to each other,...

...then how is that not, for all practical purposes, the ultimate support for the argument that reality is dualistic in nature?

Again, what is the alternative to dualism?

Thus;
What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified and justified objectively by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.

Go ahead, V, show me how the "dreamer" of a dream, indeed, a lucid dreamer, for example, who can allegedly grab hold of the infinitely malleable fabric of its own inner being and willfully shape it into anything it "desires" (a tropical island paradise, for example),...

...show me how such an inaccessible (almost "ghost-like") entity can be "...verified and justified objectively by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK..."?

And if you suggest that brain scanning equipment such as electroencephalograms (EEGs) or fMRI machines are doing just that, then you are a fool.

Indeed, you might as well be suggesting that humans have created machines that can peer into the inner reality of a parallel universe (if such exists), or objectively verify the existence of a Kantian noumenon.

What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
This is the real empirical living person a human can really see, touch, smell, hear, taste and have a theory-of-mind of.

I have never seen such a tortured mishmash of confused and contradictory nonsense.

It is utterly ridiculous of you to conflate the "I-Think" (the Cartesian) aspect of the inner reality of our minds with that of the human body.

You are the one who is confused.

In Descartes' "I Think therefore I AM".
The ultimate inner reality of Descartes is the "I AM" i.e. the permanent self [soul] within that can survive physical death.

Yes, and that is something that I believe is true, whereas you, on the other hand, believe is false.

Other than the fact that one of us is wrong, I see no confusion there.

The "I Think" i.e. the thinking processes of the self that is empirically verifiable. To think one need the brain and human body.

No, V (and here is where you reveal your confusion), for it is the "I Am" that does the thinking, not the brain or body, and will continue to do so after the body...

(like some cosmic version of "placental afterbirth")

...is abandoned via the process of what we call "death"...



Indeed, the body and brain are merely the means by which the "I Am" (the eternal soul) is awakened into existence.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have never adopted materialism [refuted by Berkeley] nor physicalism from philosophical realism.

If you have never adopted materialism or physicalism, and if you refuse to believe in the existence of any sort of higher creative intelligence being responsible for the creation of the planet we are standing on,...

...then please provide us with your own personal theory as to how the unfathomable order of the universe came about?

What is so critical that we need to [must] know how the unfathomable order of the universe came about from a first cause, i.e. God.

Will individuals die immediately or humanity be extinct because they are ignorant of the above?
Nope!
Why you and other theists are desperate to jump to the conclusion 'God did it' is due to your need to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

At present the most reliable, credible and objective claims of how the Universe began is the Theory of the Big Bang from the human based Science-Physics-Cosmological FSK.
However science do not declare this theory with certainty but rather it is the best guess and will change subject to new evidences.
In addition, scientific truths at best are merely polished conjectures or hypothesis [Popper].
No scientist will even claim scientific truth are the absolute final truths.

As for the known order of the universe at present, they are constructed by humans.
Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40248

I had just raised this OP;
viewtopic.php?t=40366
Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win ... challenge/

The anti-philosophical-realism [anti-materialism] (Kantian) view is; while human minds or empirical selves appeared to be physically independent from one another from the kindergarten common sense and conventional sense perspective, ultimately they CANNOT be absolutely independent from one another.

Earlier you insisted that...

Descartes and his 'dualism' had been refuted to the shit-bin.

Aww, come on now, V, you shouldn't be so hard on yourself by referring to your mind in such a vulgar manner.

Anyway, how so?

If dualism has been refuted, then describe for me the ontological nature of its alternative.

Furthermore, considering the fact that reality is made up of an incalculable number of separate (autonomous) minds whose inner (subjectively-based) workings are, in essence, like the inner-workings of (theorized) parallel universes that are inaccessible to each other,...

...then how is that not, for all practical purposes, the ultimate support for the argument that reality is dualistic in nature?

Again, what is the alternative to dualism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%8 ... or_dualism
Arguments against dualism

• Arguments from causal interaction
  Argument from physics
  Argument from brain damage
  Argument from biological development
  Argument from neuroscience
  Argument from simplicity

what is the alternative to dualism?
As I had stated, what is most credible and objectively really-real is conditioned upon the human based scientific FSK.

[Flannel Jesus]

At present the most reliable, credible and objective claims of how the Universe began is the Theory of the Big Bang from the human based Science-Physics-Cosmological FSK.

So at present, the most reliable, credible and objective claim about how the universe began is a philosophical realist claim. Fascinating.

[Veritas Aequitas]

[

Thus;
What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified and justified objectively by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.

Go ahead, V, show me how the "dreamer" of a dream, indeed, a lucid dreamer, for example, who can allegedly grab hold of the infinitely malleable fabric of its own inner being and willfully shape it into anything it "desires" (a tropical island paradise, for example),...

...show me how such an inaccessible (almost "ghost-like") entity can be "...verified and justified objectively by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK..."?

And if you suggest that brain scanning equipment such as electroencephalograms (EEGs) or fMRI machines are doing just that, then you are a fool.

Indeed, you might as well be suggesting that humans have created machines that can peer into the inner reality of a parallel universe (if such exists), or objectively verify the existence of a Kantian noumenon.

You can personally verified the dreamer of your dreams.
The dreamer is of course 'you' the empirical person which can be verified by the scientific-biology FSK.

Scientists can infer the dreams are activated by neural activities in the brain in a living person with a FMRI; a corpse do not report dreams nor are there brain activities that represent the process of dreaming in a person.
What are the neural mechanisms and physiological functions of dreams?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0222003182#

The dreaming process can be observed via an fMRI, but for you to counter that to peering into a parallel universe is very immature philosophically.

Again there is nothing critical with associating 'dreams' and the dreamer with theism.

What is really real is the empirical-self of the person, the "I-Think".
This can be verified by the human-based scientific FSR-FSK.
This is the real empirical living person a human can really see, touch, smell, hear, taste and have a theory-of-mind of.

I have never seen such a tortured mishmash of confused and contradictory nonsense.

It is utterly ridiculous of you to conflate the "I-Think" (the Cartesian) aspect of the inner reality of our minds with that of the human body.

You are the one who is confused.

In Descartes' "I Think therefore I AM".
The ultimate inner reality of Descartes is the "I AM" i.e. the permanent self [soul] within that can survive physical death.

Yes, and that is something that I believe is true, whereas you, on the other hand, believe is false.

Other than the fact that one of us is wrong, I see no confusion there.

Note the arguments against dualism above.

The "I Think" i.e. the thinking processes of the self that is empirically verifiable. To think one need the brain and human body.

No, V (and here is where you reveal your confusion), for it is the "I Am" that does the thinking, not the brain or body, and will continue to do so after the body...

(like some cosmic version of "placental afterbirth")

...is abandoned via the process of what we call "death"...

Indeed, the body and brain are merely the means by which the "I Am" (the eternal soul) is awakened into existence.
_______

Strawman.
I did not refer to only 'body and brain' but rather,
I stated the thinking process of humans is related to the human body, brain and most critical self-consciousness.

Note Hume's argument against a permanent self,

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
  Hume denied that humans have an actual conception of the self, positing that we experience only a bundle of sensations, and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of causally-connected perceptions.

The empirical and thinking self is the only real thing; the "I AM" that will exists after physical death is an illusion.
This desperation for a permanent soul is due to your [& theists] need to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present the most reliable, credible and objective claims of how the Universe began is the Theory of the Big Bang from the human based Science-Physics-Cosmological FSK.

So at present, the most reliable, credible and objective claim about how the universe began is a philosophical realist claim. Fascinating.

Philosophical Realists insist reality and things are mind-independent.

When FSK is human-based, i.e. human-body-brain-mind based, it follows deductive, the resulting emerging and realized reality cannot be mind-independent.

Therefore, the Theory of the Big Bang from the human based Science-Physics-Cosmological FSK, cannot be mind-independent.

eta

[Flannel Jesus]

Unless there were minds around to witness the big bang, then the idea that it happened inherently implies it happened in some sort of mind independent way. As far as I know, the scientific proponents of the big bang do not generally suggest there were minds around to witness it

[Skepdick]

Unless there were minds around to witness the big bang, then the idea that it happened inherently implies it happened in some sort of mind independent way. As far as I know, the scientific proponents of the big bang do not generally suggest there were minds around to witness it

The Big Bang is an idea arrived at (by minds) via extrapolation of the evidence that the universe is expanding played out in reverse.

So when a mind synthesizes the idea of the Big Bang and a mind says that the Big Bang was mind independent then... it makes it so?

Mistaking products of human epistemology for ontology is such a peculiar way of thinking.

[Iwannaplato]

Unless there were minds around to witness the big bang, then the idea that it happened inherently implies it happened in some sort of mind independent way. As far as I know, the scientific proponents of the big bang do not generally suggest there were minds around to witness it

A way to word this is to say that the physics FSK related to the Big Bang is a realist one. That's part of the framework.
That doesn't mean they are right. IOW we - the guys mulling at PN - cannot then say, 'and this proves realism correct' or that 'the Big Bang occurred with no human mind present'.
But we can say that VA goes to realist FSKs when it suits an argument, but denies this being allowed she it comes to other arguments. Or better put considers it barbaric and prmitive to use a realist FSK when the person using that is disagreeing with VA.
It's primitive and barbaric to have a realist outlook, say in a discussion of morals. For PH, say, to use a realist FSK in discussion of morals with VA is primitive and barbaric and shows that he is stuck in an evolutionary default.
But if VA uses a realist FSR in a discussion related to theism, it isn't barbaric and primitive for him to use a realist FSK

[Flannel Jesus]

Unless there were minds around to witness the big bang, then the idea that it happened inherently implies it happened in some sort of mind independent way. As far as I know, the scientific proponents of the big bang do not generally suggest there were minds around to witness it

A way to word this is to say that the physics FSK related to the Big Bang is a realist one. That's part of the framework.
That doesn't mean they are right. IOW we - the guys mulling at PN - cannot then say, 'and this proves realism correct' or that 'the Big Bang occurred with no human mind present'.
But we can say that VA goes to realist FSKs when it suits an argument, but denies this being allowed she it comes to other arguments. Or better put considers it barbaric and prmitive to use a realist FSK when the person using that is disagreeing with VA.
It's primitive and barbaric to have a realist outlook, say in a discussion of morals. For PH, say, to use a realist FSK in discussion of morals with VA is primitive and barbaric and shows that he is stuck in an evolutionary default.
But if VA uses a realist FSR in a discussion related to theism, it isn't barbaric and primitive for him to use a realist FSK

It definitely seems like a philosophy of convenience rather than any attempt at a consistent world view, that's for sure.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Unless there were minds around to witness the big bang, then the idea that it happened inherently implies it happened in some sort of mind independent way. As far as I know, the scientific proponents of the big bang do not generally suggest there were minds around to witness it

A way to word this is to say that the physics FSK related to the Big Bang is a realist one. That's part of the framework.
That doesn't mean they are right. IOW we - the guys mulling at PN - cannot then say, 'and this proves realism correct' or that 'the Big Bang occurred with no human mind present'.
But we can say that VA goes to realist FSKs when it suits an argument, but denies this being allowed she it comes to other arguments. Or better put considers it barbaric and prmitive to use a realist FSK when the person using that is disagreeing with VA.
It's primitive and barbaric to have a realist outlook, say in a discussion of morals. For PH, say, to use a realist FSK in discussion of morals with VA is primitive and barbaric and shows that he is stuck in an evolutionary default.
But if VA uses a realist FSR in a discussion related to theism, it isn't barbaric and primitive for him to use a realist FSK

It definitely seems like a philosophy of convenience rather than any attempt at a consistent world view, that's for sure.

I presume realist in this case means philosophical-realist.
A p-realist FSR or FSK is ultimately human-based.
You requested I do not qualify my FSK with human-based because that is implied, so I presume you understand the point above.

Btw, I have never rely on a p-realists' FSK.

A human-based p-realists FSR-FSK asserts Philosophical Realism is objective.
Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are mind-independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Since p-realists are unable to prove philosophical realism is real, its degree of objectivity is very low, say 1/100 in contrast to the scientific-FSK as the standard at 100/100

When p-realists claim the Big-Bang is true via the human-based FSK, this is based on the point that is absolutely mind-independent. This is more of being ideological than epistemological.
There is a contradiction because what is grounded in a human-based FSK [i.e. mind-related] cannot be followed with a conclusion that is absolutely mind-independent.
Therefore, that the Big-Bang occurred absolutely mind-independent is false.

To the anti-p_realists [Kantian] the Big-Bang did occur independent of humans in one sense [empirical realism] based on a human-based science-physics-cosmological FSK.
Because it is based on a human-based, it follows deductively, ultimately the origin of the BB is not absolutely mind-independent but somehow related the human conditions in another sense.

Those who [e.g. PH] insist 'Morality is not objective' is relying on an illusion;
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

As such, PH & gang do not have any solid grounds to claim 'Morality is not Objective'.

[Iwannaplato]

Unless there were minds around to witness the big bang, then the idea that it happened inherently implies it happened in some sort of mind independent way. As far as I know, the scientific proponents of the big bang do not generally suggest there were minds around to witness it

A way to word this is to say that the physics FSK related to the Big Bang is a realist one. That's part of the framework.
That doesn't mean they are right. IOW we - the guys mulling at PN - cannot then say, 'and this proves realism correct' or that 'the Big Bang occurred with no human mind present'.
But we can say that VA goes to realist FSKs when it suits an argument, but denies this being allowed she it comes to other arguments. Or better put considers it barbaric and prmitive to use a realist FSK when the person using that is disagreeing with VA.
It's primitive and barbaric to have a realist outlook, say in a discussion of morals. For PH, say, to use a realist FSK in discussion of morals with VA is primitive and barbaric and shows that he is stuck in an evolutionary default.
But if VA uses a realist FSR in a discussion related to theism, it isn't barbaric and primitive for him to use a realist FSK

It definitely seems like a philosophy of convenience rather than any attempt at a consistent world view, that's for sure.

I think it's charitable to say there isn't any attempt, but in any case, agreed.