Seeds: Twins - No Mom - No God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had argued with Seeds that to claim God exists as really real, God must be verified and justified as really real within a credible, reliable and objective FSK.

You missed out my critical point, thus you did not counter it;

• Point is what is real must be verified and justified as really real.
  What is really real is the apple you can pluck, smell, feel, then eat for its nutrition.

Here is his counter;

"...How many times do I have to point out to you that any sort of verifiable (empirical) proof of the existence of God and of the existence of life after death,...

...could cause humans to seek-out the afterlife prematurely, and thus strip the earth of the means (i.e., human bodies) by which God awakens new eternal souls into existence?...

...And that is one of the primary reasons why any sort of irrefutable proof of life after death must be kept hidden from us.

Below is how Seeds prove his God exists as hidden somewhere and only revealed to a select few like him;
viewtopic.php?p=636373#p636373

In this initial episode of - "Oh the Irony" - we are listening to the unborn Swanson twins, telepathically communicating with each other while still in their mother's womb:

• Twin one: "I wonder what mom looks like?"
  
  Twin two: "What mom? I don't see any mom around here."
  
  Twin one: "But I can somehow sense her presence."
  
  Twin Two: "That's just your imagination playing tricks on you. There is no mom."
  
  Twin one: "But..."
  
  Twin two: "There are no buts about it. The only things that exist are the two of us, this watery substance, and that impenetrable barrier that surrounds us. So, tell me, genius, where is this mom you speak of? Prove her existence to me."
  
  Twin one: "How can I prove her existence to you?"
  
  Twin two: "If this imaginary "mom" truly exists, then why doesn't she reveal herself to us?"
  
  Twin one: "I don't know why. Perhaps she has a good reason?"
  
  Twin two: "You're insane. Again, there is no mom. Trust me because I am way smarter than you because I rely on the obvious truth and facts."
  
  Twin one: "Well, can we at least agree to disagree?"
  
  Twin two: "No! You are clearly a victim of wishful thinking. Again, trust me when I say - there is no mom!!!"

The above analogy is ridiculous, absurd and has no sense of reality.
In reality, a fetus [single or twins] do not has self-awareness in the prenatal stage in the womb.
Even the born will only acquire self-awareness only after 7 years of age.

Anyone 'buying' the above argument to prove God exists and is hidden for the majority?

[Dontaskme]

It's just basic common sense.

The ''You'' namely, a known 'label' in this conception conceived by the mind, has no biological father or mother.

Show me your mind, and I'll show you mine.

[seeds]

Below is how Seeds prove his God exists as hidden somewhere and only revealed to a select few like him;
viewtopic.php?p=636373#p636373

In this initial episode of - "Oh the Irony" - we are listening to the unborn Swanson twins, telepathically communicating with each other while still in their mother's womb:

• Twin one: "I wonder what mom looks like?"
  
  Twin two: "What mom? I don't see any mom around here."
  
  Twin one: "But I can somehow sense her presence."
  
  Twin Two: "That's just your imagination playing tricks on you. There is no mom."
  
  Twin one: "But..."
  
  Twin two: "There are no buts about it. The only things that exist are the two of us, this watery substance, and that impenetrable barrier that surrounds us. So, tell me, genius, where is this mom you speak of? Prove her existence to me."
  
  Twin one: "How can I prove her existence to you?"
  
  Twin two: "If this imaginary "mom" truly exists, then why doesn't she reveal herself to us?"
  
  Twin one: "I don't know why. Perhaps she has a good reason?"
  
  Twin two: "You're insane. Again, there is no mom. Trust me because I am way smarter than you because I rely on the obvious truth and facts."
  
  Twin one: "Well, can we at least agree to disagree?"
  
  Twin two: "No! You are clearly a victim of wishful thinking. Again, trust me when I say - there is no mom!!!"

The above analogy is ridiculous, absurd and has no sense of reality.
In reality, a fetus [single or twins] do not has self-awareness in the prenatal stage in the womb.
Even the born will only acquire self-awareness only after 7 years of age.

Anyone 'buying' the above argument to prove God exists and is hidden for the majority?

Come on now, V, have you no comprehension of the meaning of the word "allegory"?

Dictionary:

allegory
noun
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Psychology Today:

...an allegory is a complete narrative that seems to be about one thing but is actually about another...

Wiki:

Writers and speakers typically use allegories to convey (semi-) hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey. Many allegories use personification of abstract concepts.

I already knew that you are a hardcore materialist whose imagination is landlocked within the impermeable barrier of a tightly closed mind.

However, witnessing you interpret my little soap opera in such a literal way, as opposed to seeing it as pure allegory for something larger, is bringing into sharp focus the shallowness with which you view reality.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Below is how Seeds prove his God exists as hidden somewhere and only revealed to a select few like him;
viewtopic.php?p=636373#p636373

In this initial episode of - "Oh the Irony" - we are listening to the unborn Swanson twins, telepathically communicating with each other while still in their mother's womb:

• Twin one: "I wonder what mom looks like?"
  
  Twin two: "What mom? I don't see any mom around here."
  
  Twin one: "But I can somehow sense her presence."
  
  Twin Two: "That's just your imagination playing tricks on you. There is no mom."
  
  Twin one: "But..."
  
  Twin two: "There are no buts about it. The only things that exist are the two of us, this watery substance, and that impenetrable barrier that surrounds us. So, tell me, genius, where is this mom you speak of? Prove her existence to me."
  
  Twin one: "How can I prove her existence to you?"
  
  Twin two: "If this imaginary "mom" truly exists, then why doesn't she reveal herself to us?"
  
  Twin one: "I don't know why. Perhaps she has a good reason?"
  
  Twin two: "You're insane. Again, there is no mom. Trust me because I am way smarter than you because I rely on the obvious truth and facts."
  
  Twin one: "Well, can we at least agree to disagree?"
  
  Twin two: "No! You are clearly a victim of wishful thinking. Again, trust me when I say - there is no mom!!!"

The above analogy is ridiculous, absurd and has no sense of reality.
In reality, a fetus [single or twins] do not has self-awareness in the prenatal stage in the womb.
Even the born will only acquire self-awareness only after 7 years of age.

Anyone 'buying' the above argument to prove God exists and is hidden for the majority?

Come on now, V, have you no comprehension of the meaning of the word "allegory"?

Dictionary:

allegory
noun
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Psychology Today:

...an allegory is a complete narrative that seems to be about one thing but is actually about another...

Wiki:

Writers and speakers typically use allegories to convey (semi-) hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey. Many allegories use personification of abstract concepts.

I already knew that you are a hardcore materialist whose imagination is landlocked within the impermeable barrier of a tightly closed mind.

However, witnessing you interpret my little soap opera in such a literal way, as opposed to seeing it as pure allegory for something larger, is bringing into sharp focus the shallowness with which you view reality.
_______

Whichever mode you use, i.e. allegorical, metaphorical or parable, it must ultimately be possible for it to be verified and justified as real objectively.

So don't resort the above unless you can show the means for it to be verified and justified as real objectively.

[seeds]

Whichever mode you use, i.e. allegorical, metaphorical or parable, it must ultimately be possible for it to be verified and justified as real objectively.

For the umpteenth x umpteenth x umpteenth time, V, no!!!,...

...not if the allegory comes with the warning that any sort of objective verification of its ultimate meaning could be detrimental to the very purpose for which the universe was created.

As I have discussed with you on a prior occasion,...

...if you can just try to imagine that if the empirically verifiable proof of the existence of God and of the afterlife came in the form of an actual doorway through-which we could all literally see our departed friends and loved ones, still alive in a wondrous new form and setting, summoning us to join them,...

...then, again, do you honestly believe that these folks...



...or anyone else, for that matter, would hesitate walking through that door?

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the above explanation is so difficult for you to, not necessarily believe, but to at least accept as being a plausible reason for why the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Now if you respond to this by, once again, demanding that I provide you with empirically verifiable proof for what I have been suggesting,...

...then you will be officially demonstrating to any hapless soul who is bored enough to actually read the posts in this thread, that you are a complete and total idiot.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whichever mode you use, i.e. allegorical, metaphorical or parable, it must ultimately be possible for it to be verified and justified as real objectively.

For the umpteenth x umpteenth x umpteenth time, V, no!!!,...

...not if the allegory comes with the warning that any sort of objective verification of its ultimate meaning could be detrimental to the very purpose for which the universe was created.

As I have discussed with you on a prior occasion,...

...if you can just try to imagine that if the empirically verifiable proof of the existence of God and of the afterlife came in the form of an actual doorway through-which we could all literally see our departed friends and loved ones, still alive in a wondrous new form and setting, summoning us to join them,...

...then, again, do you honestly believe that these folks...



...or anyone else, for that matter, would hesitate walking through that door?

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the above explanation is so difficult for you to, not necessarily believe, but to at least accept as being a plausible reason for why the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Now if you respond to this by, once again, demanding that I provide you with empirically verifiable proof for what I have been suggesting,...

...then you will be officially demonstrating to any hapless soul who is bored enough to actually read the posts in this thread, that you are a complete and total idiot.
_______

"why the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely."

The above is the most silly reason I have come across as a defense for theism.

Show me proofs and references if this a common defense of theism?

[seeds]

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the above explanation is so difficult for you to, not necessarily believe, but to at least accept as being a plausible reason for why the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

The above is the most silly reason I have come across as a defense for theism.

What an astounding coincidence! That is precisely what "twin number two” from my allegory would say.

You keep demanding empirically verifiable proof for the existence of God, yet you obviously haven't given the slightest bit of thought to the issue of how such proof might affect how humans view the universe.

Furthermore [T2], instead of calling my suggestion silly, how about you simply answer the question I asked you?

Here it is again:

If you can just try to imagine that if the empirically verifiable proof of the existence of God and of the afterlife came in the form of an actual doorway through-which we could all literally see our departed friends and loved ones, still alive, and in a wondrous new form and setting, summoning us to join them,...

...then, again, do you honestly believe that these folks...



...or anyone else, for that matter, would hesitate walking through that door?
_______

It's a simple question, V.

Answer it!!!

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Show me proofs and references if this a common defense of theism?

Clearly, what I am offering is not a "...common defense of theism..."

In other words, and I cannot be absolutely certain of this, but from what I can tell, it is an original proposal that I first offered up in the book I published in 2008, titled:

“The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to the Secret of the Universe”...

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical....The sheer amounts of time and thought that went into this book are breathtaking. The author is equally at ease with words and images: his talent for metaphor extends to a talent for metaphorical visuals. The illustrations both supplement and illuminate the text, and add a great deal to the book..."

— Quoted from a judge in the 16th Annual Writer's Digest International Self-Published Book Awards
_______

The point is that, unlike your method of argumentation, I have no authorities to appeal to, who (and let’s not kid ourselves) are nothing more than fallible humans, just like you and I, who haven’t the slightest clue if their biased and speculative theories are true or not.

However, seeing how it is obvious that neither our ancestors nor our contemporaries in the fields of science and spirituality have resolved the mystery of reality in any mutually agreed upon way, then all I am doing is...

“...thinking outside of the box...”

...in the hope of making a little progress toward the goal of, if not unveiling the ultimate truth of reality in any empirically verifiable way,...

(which I keep insisting is forbidden)

...then at least in the formulation of a new "material/spiritual paradigm" that makes more sense than the old (and failing) paradigm.

I'm talking about an "old material/spiritual paradigm" where one side consists of a load of ancient mythological horse crap that has humanity divided up into warring tribes whose incompatible belief systems have us on the brink of destroying each other,...

...while the other side of the old paradigm consists of a bunch of materialistic/atheistic fools who actually believe in the ridiculous notion that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of "CHANCE."

I tell you what, V, just for funzies, let's pretend that this Venn diagram...



...is a representation of the old and new paradigms I've been talking about.

Imagine that the circle on the left represents the old paradigm, and the circle on the right represents the impending new paradigm, and the section in the middle represents our current situation of the chaos that is ensuing as we transition between the two.

Now the way I see it, the role that you are playing in that middle section is that of Shiva (the destroyer), and the role that I am playing is that of Brahma (the creator), and thus, hopefully, when all the dust has settled and the new paradigm is finally in place, then Vishnu will be around to help maintain it.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the above explanation is so difficult for you to, not necessarily believe, but to at least accept as being a plausible reason for why the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

The above is the most silly reason I have come across as a defense for theism.

What an astounding coincidence! That is precisely what "twin number two” from my allegory would say.

You keep demanding empirically verifiable proof for the existence of God, yet you obviously haven't given the slightest bit of thought to the issue of how such proof might affect how humans view the universe.

Furthermore [T2], instead of calling my suggestion silly, how about you simply answer the question I asked you?

Here it is again:

If you can just try to imagine that if the empirically verifiable proof of the existence of God and of the afterlife came in the form of an actual doorway through-which we could all literally see our departed friends and loved ones, still alive, and in a wondrous new form and setting, summoning us to join them,...

...then, again, do you honestly believe that these folks...

...or anyone else, for that matter, would hesitate walking through that door?
_______

It's a simple question, V.

Answer it!!!

(Continued in next post)
_______

In this case, it is an insult to my intelligence for me to answer it.
I suggest you show evidence that verify and justified there is a real "door" in the above sense and case.
In addition, show evidence of any reputable and credible authority that agree to the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Show me proofs and references if this a common defense of theism?

Clearly, what I am offering is not a "...common defense of theism..."

In other words, and I cannot be absolutely certain of this, but from what I can tell, it is an original proposal that I first offered up in the book I published in 2008, titled:

“The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to the Secret of the Universe”...

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical....The sheer amounts of time and thought that went into this book are breathtaking. The author is equally at ease with words and images: his talent for metaphor extends to a talent for metaphorical visuals. The illustrations both supplement and illuminate the text, and add a great deal to the book..."

— Quoted from a judge in the 16th Annual Writer's Digest International Self-Published Book Awards
_______

The point is that, unlike your method of argumentation, I have no authorities to appeal to, who (and let’s not kid ourselves) are nothing more than fallible humans, just like you and I, who haven’t the slightest clue if their biased and speculative theories are true or not.

However, seeing how it is obvious that neither our ancestors nor our contemporaries in the fields of science and spirituality have resolved the mystery of reality in any mutually agreed upon way, then all I am doing is...

“...thinking outside of the box...”

...in the hope of making a little progress toward the goal of, if not unveiling the ultimate truth of reality in any empirically verifiable way,...

(which I keep insisting is forbidden)

...then at least in the formulation of a new "material/spiritual paradigm" that makes more sense than the old (and failing) paradigm.

I'm talking about an "old material/spiritual paradigm" where one side consists of a load of ancient mythological horse crap that has humanity divided up into warring tribes whose incompatible belief systems have us on the brink of destroying each other,...

...while the other side of the old paradigm consists of a bunch of materialistic/atheistic fools who actually believe in the ridiculous notion that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of "CHANCE."

I tell you what, V, just for funzies, let's pretend that this Venn diagram...



...is a representation of the old and new paradigms I've been talking about.

Imagine that the circle on the left represents the old paradigm, and the circle on the right represents the impending new paradigm, and the section in the middle represents our current situation of the chaos that is ensuing as we transition between the two.

Now the way I see it, the role that you are playing in that middle section is that of Shiva (the destroyer), and the role that I am playing is that of Brahma (the creator), and thus, hopefully, when all the dust has settled and the new paradigm is finally in place, then Vishnu will be around to help maintain it.
_______

What you are presenting are merely speculated thoughts without any possibility of verification and justification that whatever-entity called God is really real.
When asked for evidence, you stated it has to be hidden.

Point is what you are speculating [God exists which must be absolutely perfect] is like speculating a square-circle exists, which is a non-starter as far as reality is concerned.

On the other hand, I can speculate on anything as long as it is possible to be verified and justified empirically to be real upon the availability of evidence.

I can speculate our universe and humans are a projection of a human-liked entity with 1 million times human intelligence, existing 1 in a planet, 1 million light years away.
The above speculated entity is possible to be real if one can bring the evidence to be verified and justified empirically via the science-FSK. [this is at least theoretically possible but not practical at present]
On the above basis I can speculate anything as possible to be real.
But note, this is subject to infinite regress [who created it as so on ..] while God has to be the First Cause.

[seeds]

It's a simple question, V.

Answer it!!!

In this case, it is an insult to my intelligence for me to answer it.

Or, put another way, because you are so emotionally invested in your little atheistic theory, you dare not apply any critical thought to my questions and proposals for fear of it revealing how shallow your philosophy truly is,...

...which, in turn, might induce terrible pains of cognitive dissonances which could then lead to an existential crisis.

I suggest you show evidence that verify and justified there is a real "door" in the above sense and case.

Like I said earlier...

...if you respond to this by, once again, demanding that I provide you with empirically verifiable proof for what I have been suggesting,...

...then you will be officially demonstrating...that you are a complete and total idiot.

Well, the results are in and you have removed all doubt.

In addition, show evidence of any reputable and credible authority that agree to the above?

Do you even read my replies in their entirety, or do you just skim them?

Here's what I said in the post you just responded to...

The point is that, unlike your method of argumentation, I have no authorities to appeal to, who (and let’s not kid ourselves) are nothing more than fallible humans, just like you and I, who haven’t the slightest clue if their biased and speculative theories are true or not.

Again, you have removed all doubt regarding your mental status.

Well done, T2, well done.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's a simple question, V.

Answer it!!!

In this case, it is an insult to my intelligence for me to answer it.

Or, put another way, because you are so emotionally invested in your little atheistic theory, you dare not apply any critical thought to my questions and proposals for fear of it revealing how shallow your philosophy truly is,...

...which, in turn, might induce terrible pains of cognitive dissonances which could then lead to an existential crisis.

I suggest you show evidence that verify and justified there is a real "door" in the above sense and case.

Like I said earlier...

...if you respond to this by, once again, demanding that I provide you with empirically verifiable proof for what I have been suggesting,...

...then you will be officially demonstrating...that you are a complete and total idiot.

Well, the results are in and you have removed all doubt.

In addition, show evidence of any reputable and credible authority that agree to the above?

Do you even read my replies in their entirety, or do you just skim them?

Here's what I said in the post you just responded to...

The point is that, unlike your method of argumentation, I have no authorities to appeal to, who (and let’s not kid ourselves) are nothing more than fallible humans, just like you and I, who haven’t the slightest clue if their biased and speculative theories are true or not.

Again, you have removed all doubt regarding your mental status.

Well done, T2, well done.
_______

So the only authority we can rely is your personal SUBJECTIVE opinions?

[seeds]

So the only authority we can rely is your personal SUBJECTIVE opinions?

Recall what the judge from the Writer's Digest 16th Annual International Self-Published Book Awards said about my theory (emphasis mine):

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical....

In which case, who, in terms of outside authorities, am I supposed to appeal to for corroboration of what has been deemed to be an "...entirely new mythology..." that very few people have ever heard of?

Now with that being said, I can (and have) provided plenty of ways in which some of the world's religions (especially Christianity) support my claims.*

*(Actually, my claims are more of a support [no, make that a "clarification"] of certain core tenets of Christianity having to do with humans being the "offspring" of God.)

Furthermore, I can (and have) provided the ways in which quantum theory supports the notion that the universe seems to be a "mind-like" phenomenon whose three-dimensional structures appear to have been created from an infinitely malleable "mind-like" substance,...

...thus giving credence to a Berkeleyan (and my "Ultimate Seeds") form of idealism, which proclaims the universe to be the literal "MIND" of a higher Being.

However (as I keep insisting), in the end, none of what I, nor any of the past or present "authorities" (fallible, knucklehead humans) have to say about any of this stuff, is ever going to be allowed to empirically "prove" anything about the ultimate truth of our situation.

Again, what I am doing is "...thinking outside of the box...".

I strongly suggest that you give it a try.

And that's because your current...

"...God is an impossibility to be real..."

...box/shtick is pure and utter horse crap that you have derived from your brazenly illogical syllogisms.

And, yes, I get it that the methodological (scientific) approach to analyzing the universe is the most reliable way of doing things, however, it will never (ever) be able to unequivocally prove your silly nonsense about the impossibility of God being real.

And if you continue to stick by your flawed reasoning on these issues,...

...then playing off of something that Christopher Hitchens once said about televangelist Jerry Falwell, if your mortician were to give you an enema when you die, then we can bury you in a matchbox.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the only authority we can rely is your personal SUBJECTIVE opinions?

Recall what the judge from the Writer's Digest 16th Annual International Self-Published Book Awards said about my theory (emphasis mine):

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical....

In which case, who, in terms of outside authorities, am I supposed to appeal to for corroboration of what has been deemed to be an "...entirely new mythology..." that very few people have ever heard of?

Now with that being said, I can (and have) provided plenty of ways in which some of the world's religions (especially Christianity) support my claims.*

*(Actually, my claims are more of a support [no, make that a "clarification"] of certain core tenets of Christianity having to do with humans being the "offspring" of God.)

Furthermore, I can (and have) provided the ways in which quantum theory supports the notion that the universe seems to be a "mind-like" phenomenon whose three-dimensional structures appear to have been created from an infinitely malleable "mind-like" substance,...

...thus giving credence to a Berkeleyan (and my "Ultimate Seeds") form of idealism, which proclaims the universe to be the literal "MIND" of a higher Being.

However (as I keep insisting), in the end, none of what I, nor any of the past or present "authorities" (fallible, knucklehead humans) have to say about any of this stuff, is ever going to be allowed to empirically "prove" anything about the ultimate truth of our situation.

Again, what I am doing is "...thinking outside of the box...".

I strongly suggest that you give it a try.

And that's because your current...

"...God is an impossibility to be real..."

...box/shtick is pure and utter horse crap that you have derived from your brazenly illogical syllogisms.

And, yes, I get it that the methodological (scientific) approach to analyzing the universe is the most reliable way of doing things, however, it will never (ever) be able to unequivocally prove your silly nonsense about the impossibility of God being real.

And if you continue to stick by your flawed reasoning on these issues,...

...then playing off of something that Christopher Hitchens once said about televangelist Jerry Falwell, if your mortician were to give you an enema when you die, then we can bury you in a matchbox.
_______

The Writer's Digest Annual International Self-Published Book don't give a damn about whether the theme of the book is real or not i.e. fiction is accepted.

The judge's comment "the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical....[/quote][/b]"
the 'mythology' is true but that it is "scientific" [without scientific proofs] is a joke.

• Myth:
  -a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
  -a widely held but false belief or idea.

I did not claim science has proven or will prove my 'God is impossible to be real' is true, rather I am simply relying on simple logic to refute the claim that 'God is real or possible to be real'.

Here is my argument;

• What is REAL must be conditioned upon a human based FSK.
  The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.
  The scientific FSK only deal with the empirical.
  The idea of God [an intelligible thought] is IMPOSSIBLE to be empirical.
  Therefore, it is impossible for God to exists as Real.

Why do theists believe in an impossible God which is an illusion?
Theists rely [subliminally] on God as the immediate balm [a useful illusion] to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonance arising from the evolutionary inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
The issue of God is a psychological not epistemological nor ontological.

You totally ignore the very possible psychological issues related to theism.

[seeds]

Why do theists believe in an impossible God which is an illusion?

The far more pertinent question is...

Why do atheists believe in the even greater impossibility that the unfathomable order of the universe is founded upon the blind and mindless processes of "CHANCE"???

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” — TERENCE MCKENNA

Indeed, V, your "faith" in the creative powers of chance would put to shame the most devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew.
_______