New: It is Impossible for God to be Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your above is a strawman.

Read this in the OP;

Here is my improved argument re why a necessary absolutely perfect God is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument.

This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

Okay.

Then what you seem to be implying now, is that it is indeed possible for God to be real, just not perfect.

I have another argument for the impossibility of God-in-general based on Kant's arguments;

1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
2. All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument,
3. It is impossible to prove God exists as real at all.

In reference to premise #2 in this new syllogism, explain how all arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument.

By the way, even though it appears as if premise #2 is nonsense, I do happen to agree with conclusion #3.
_______

Kant argued other than the ontological arguments, all other argument fall within the Cosmological and Physico-Theological argument.
The cosmological argument cover all sorts that is related to experience, e.g. the whole of the universe that is possible to be experienced.
From there it is inevitable the cosmological argument deceptively slip in the ontological argument.
It is the same with the only other physico-theological which rely on the cosmological argument which then has to rely on the ontological.

[seeds]

Your above is a strawman.

Read this in the OP;

Here is my improved argument re why a necessary absolutely perfect God is impossible to be real [empirically].
The other Argument.

This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

Okay.

Then what you seem to be implying now, is that it is indeed possible for God to be real, just not perfect.

I have another argument for the impossibility of God-in-general based on Kant's arguments;

1. It is impossible to prove God exists as real based on the Ontological Argument,
2. All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument,
3. It is impossible to prove God exists as real at all.

In reference to premise #2 in this new syllogism, explain how all arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument.

By the way, even though it appears as if premise #2 is nonsense, I do happen to agree with conclusion #3.
_______

Kant argued other than the ontological arguments, all other argument fall within the Cosmological and Physico-Theological argument.
The cosmological argument cover all sorts that is related to experience, e.g. the whole of the universe that is possible to be experienced.
From there it is inevitable the cosmological argument deceptively slip in the ontological argument.
It is the same with the only other physico-theological which rely on the cosmological argument which then has to rely on the ontological.

I can't make head nor tail of that garbled reply.

Come on now, V, can't you explain your position any better than that?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay.

Then what you seem to be implying now, is that it is indeed possible for God to be real, just not perfect.


In reference to premise #2 in this new syllogism, explain how all arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument.

By the way, even though it appears as if premise #2 is nonsense, I do happen to agree with conclusion #3.
_______

Kant argued other than the ontological arguments, all other argument fall within the Cosmological and Physico-Theological argument.

The cosmological argument cover all sorts that is related to experience, e.g. the whole of the universe that is possible to be experienced.

From there it is inevitable the cosmological argument deceptively slip in the ontological argument.

It is the same with the only other physico-theological which rely on the cosmological argument which then has to rely on the ontological.

I can't make head nor tail of that garbled reply.

Come on now, V, can't you explain your position any better than that?
_______

In this case, it is garbled only to your garbled mind.

This might make sense.

Did Kant actually say that "All arguments for the existence of God are reducible to the Ontological Argument" or did he only say that those based on a specific principle that God is the most realest thing there is (ens realissimum) reduce thus?

As I have informed, Kant's approach is based on 'completeness' and 'systematicity'.

Kant categories of 'ontological' 'Cosmological' and physico-theological cover all-there-is.

1. The physico-teological cover all particulars, individuals, & human related variables

2. The Cosmological cover the whole Universes [Cosmos] that can experienced via the empirically possible.

3. The ontological cover all "existence" that can be thought of.

The above cover the full range of whatever approach the existence of God is claimed from.
Thus all claims of God exists are covered within 1, 2 and 3 wherein the ontological is explicit or implicitly embedded in 1 & 2.

[Veritas Aequitas]

@seeds

This may also be relevant to your claim of God on a individual and personal basis;

But if all facts are based on frameworks and systems of knowledge, and nothing can be deemed true or false if you're operating outside of that framework and system of knowledge, then all I have to do is declare a FSK where 'God exists as Real' is true - or, more briefly for the native english speakers, "God Exists".

I call my FSK the He-Man Women Haters Club, and the first axiom of this FSK is God Exists.

I have discussed the above many times.

A FSRC [FSK, a sub] is not confined with ONE subject or a loose mob of subjects.
Rather a FSRC is conditioned upon a collective of subjects upon an explicit or implicit constitution, rules, conditions, processes, and other necessary elements.

Thus, 'YOUR' personal subjective belief do not qualify as a FSRC and it is 100% subjective and not objective of varying degrees within a continuum from 1 to 99.9% objectivity.

At present there many FSRC in existence but they all have varying degrees of objectivity.
see: Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?p=676756&hilit=weight#p676756

I have demonstrated, the scientific FSRC has the highest degree of credibility and objectivity, thus is taken as the golden standard and indexed say at 100/100 where all FSRC are contrasted.

At present there are already loads of theological FSRC where the first axiom of this FSK is God Exists.
But when assessed the credibility and objectivity of these theological-FSRC, their credibility and objectivity is rated at not higher 0.1 credibility objectivity which can be said to be near zero reality, credibility & objectivity.
Alternatively we can also rate the theological FSRC at 99.9% falsity, subjective or unrealistic.

The point is, whatever the FSRC, it has some kind of pragmatic usefulness to certain of humans as part of its community.
As such whatever the decisions taken, they must be qualified to the known variables of the FSRC.