God is an Impossibility

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas wrote

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

But on the other hand:

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." - Simone Weil ...

Rubbish or profundity? Naturally I'm in the minority supporting Simone.

Your above are merely statements which are unjustified.
In addition, the first one is a contradicting statement.
You have not directly address any of my premises.

[Nick_A]

Veritas wrote

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

But on the other hand:

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." - Simone Weil ...

Rubbish or profundity? Naturally I'm in the minority supporting Simone.

Your above are merely statements which are unjustified.
In addition, the first one is a contradicting statement.
You have not directly address any of my premises.

I quoted you from your OP. Do you now claim it is unjustified?

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?

You are just not open to the depth of Simone's remark in relation to what you wrote.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas wrote

But on the other hand:

Rubbish or profundity? Naturally I'm in the minority supporting Simone.

Your above are merely statements which are unjustified.
In addition, the first one is a contradicting statement.
You have not directly address any of my premises.

I quoted you from your OP. Do you now claim it is unjustified?

How can you claim quoting OP = justification of your claim?
You have to counter each of my premises in the syllogism to show they are false, thus the following conclusion is false.

[Nick_A]

Your above are merely statements which are unjustified.
In addition, the first one is a contradicting statement.
You have not directly address any of my premises.

I quoted you from your OP. Do you now claim it is unjustified?

How can you claim quoting OP = justification of your claim?
You have to counter each of my premises in the syllogism to show they are false, thus the following conclusion is false.

You assert that absolute perfection is impossible. God is said to be absolutely perfect. By definition God must be impossible.

Simone asserts that only the impossible is possible for God. God then must be impossible since the possible is limited to the laws of time and space. What if the act of creation is impossible and not limited to the laws of time and space as we know them? Does this mean you agree with Simone?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I quoted you from your OP. Do you now claim it is unjustified?

How can you claim quoting OP = justification of your claim?
You have to counter each of my premises in the syllogism to show they are false, thus the following conclusion is false.

You assert that absolute perfection is impossible. God is said to be absolutely perfect. By definition God must be impossible.

Simone asserts that only the impossible is possible for God. God then must be impossible since the possible is limited to the laws of time and space. What if the act of creation is impossible and not limited to the laws of time and space as we know them? Does this mean you agree with Simone?

If,
Simone asserts that only the impossible is possible for God,
then God must be absolutely perfect to do that, thus P2,
but because of P1,
therefore God is an impossibility.

[Nick_A]

How can you claim quoting OP = justification of your claim?
You have to counter each of my premises in the syllogism to show they are false, thus the following conclusion is false.

You assert that absolute perfection is impossible. God is said to be absolutely perfect. By definition God must be impossible.

Simone asserts that only the impossible is possible for God. God then must be impossible since the possible is limited to the laws of time and space. What if the act of creation is impossible and not limited to the laws of time and space as we know them? Does this mean you agree with Simone?

If,
Simone asserts that only the impossible is possible for God,
then God must be absolutely perfect to do that, thus P2,
but because of P1,
therefore God is an impossibility.

You don't get it since you limit yourself to inductive bottom up reason which is based on duality you've expressed in a syllogism.

The concept of possibility for you must include the concept of impossibility. Duality is essential for creation. However God is NOW.

Creation exists so is an expression of duality. God IS as opposed to existing. That which IS is a unity impossible for the process of creation requiring duality. God is both perfect and impossible for the process of creation. The process of existence then takes place within NOW which is perfect and impossible for existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You assert that absolute perfection is impossible. God is said to be absolutely perfect. By definition God must be impossible.

Simone asserts that only the impossible is possible for God. God then must be impossible since the possible is limited to the laws of time and space. What if the act of creation is impossible and not limited to the laws of time and space as we know them? Does this mean you agree with Simone?

If,
Simone asserts that only the impossible is possible for God,
then God must be absolutely perfect to do that, thus P2,
but because of P1,
therefore God is an impossibility.

You don't get it since you limit yourself to inductive bottom up reason which is based on duality you've expressed in a syllogism.

The concept of possibility for you must include the concept of impossibility. Duality is essential for creation. However God is NOW.

Creation exists so is an expression of duality. God IS as opposed to existing. That which IS is a unity impossible for the process of creation requiring duality. God is both perfect and impossible for the process of creation. The process of existence then takes place within NOW which is perfect and impossible for existence.

Note,

ALL humans and their activities [physical and mental] are dualistic
The claim of God being monistic is a human activity [mental].
God is ultimately dualistic.

You are only making a claim that God is beyond dualism.
A claim is useless unless you can provide evidences and justified arguments.

Your claim God dealt with the impossibility is self-defeating.
Note the typical impossibilities posed for a God to perform, i.e. can God create a square-circle, an object so heavy God cannot carry, and the likes.

The only possibility for God is merely as a thought for fantasizing to relieve and soothe an inherent existential crisis pulsating within the brain and the self. Take some deep breaths and reflect on my propositions from the psychological perspectives.

[Nick_A]

Veritas

You are only making a claim that God is beyond dualism.
A claim is useless unless you can provide evidences and justified arguments.

The claim is that God is pure consciousness. Consciousness IS. It is a quality of being. Contents of consciousness which comprise the universe are normally thought of as the result of the interactions of the two forces of duality. I know it as three forces but that is another matter.

Anyhow, contents of consciousness or the manifestation of Platonic forms exists within pure consciousness or NOW by definition a quality of being Plotinus called ONE.

The wise IMO neither believe or deny but become open to conscious contemplation which opens the mind and makes freedom from habitual thoughts and noesis possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas

You are only making a claim that God is beyond dualism.
A claim is useless unless you can provide evidences and justified arguments.

The claim is that God is pure consciousness. Consciousness IS. It is a quality of being. Contents of consciousness which comprise the universe are normally thought of as the result of the interactions of the two forces of duality. I know it as three forces but that is another matter.

Anyhow, contents of consciousness or the manifestation of Platonic forms exists within pure consciousness or NOW by definition a quality of being Plotinus called ONE.

The wise IMO neither believe or deny but become open to conscious contemplation which opens the mind and makes freedom from habitual thoughts and noesis possible.

Yet another unjustified claim.

"The claim is that God is pure consciousness."
How can you substantiate the above claim when we have not understood what is consciousness? Note the hard problem of consciousness.

Note the clue, where many have claimed to have had experiences of God and were cured by administration of the appropriate drugs prescribed by psychiatrists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
The average theists has some similar but a very milder form of such a state. Many theists have self-cured themselves to become non-theists to lessen one psychological burden.

[Nick_A]

Veritas

You are only making a claim that God is beyond dualism.
A claim is useless unless you can provide evidences and justified arguments.

The claim is that God is pure consciousness. Consciousness IS. It is a quality of being. Contents of consciousness which comprise the universe are normally thought of as the result of the interactions of the two forces of duality. I know it as three forces but that is another matter.

Anyhow, contents of consciousness or the manifestation of Platonic forms exists within pure consciousness or NOW by definition a quality of being Plotinus called ONE.

The wise IMO neither believe or deny but become open to conscious contemplation which opens the mind and makes freedom from habitual thoughts and noesis possible.

Yet another unjustified claim.

"The claim is that God is pure consciousness."
How can you substantiate the above claim when we have not understood what is consciousness? Note the hard problem of consciousness.

Note the clue, where many have claimed to have had experiences of God and were cured by administration of the appropriate drugs prescribed by psychiatrists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
The average theists has some similar but a very milder form of such a state. Many theists have self-cured themselves to become non-theists to lessen one psychological burden.

The following is my understanding of the Absolute introduced by Plotinus. How can I prove something that is not confined to our universe. I can study it and consciously contemplate it and see the logic of how the the ONE produces nous and the levels of creation which comprise our universe. It isn't a matter of belief or denial but of having the need to understand which invites conscious contempltion

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/#SH2a

a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The following is my understanding of the Absolute introduced by Plotinus. How can I prove something that is not confined to our universe. I can study it and consciously contemplate it and see the logic of how the the ONE produces nous and the levels of creation which comprise our universe. It isn't a matter of belief or denial but of having the need to understand which invites conscious contempltion

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/#SH2a

a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

Note your;

Nick_A:How can I prove something that is not confined to our universe.
In the above you are assuming that something exists when you have not proven its existence.
Thereafter you succumb to confirmation bias of irrational excuses to ensure that 'something' exists.

By right you need to admit you are merely assuming God exists and the idea 'God exists' is merely a speculation until justifiable evidences are available. In below I will show any evidence for God is an impossibility because God is merely a philosophical idea and not a concept.

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus,

Note I present the difference between "idea" versus "concept" in this OP;
Concept versus Idea
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25483

A 'concept' is by default linked to something that is empirically proven or empirically possible.
We can easily agree to the concept of a tree [we had evolved with] which can be empirically proven.
Now I can speculate 'trees' exist in a planet a light year away. This is not an issue because planets and trees are empirically possible things. The only issue is to bring the empirical evidence to justify it.

An idea [philosophical] is never linked to any proven empirical things nor it is empirically possible. Thus there is no way a philosophical idea can ever be reconciled with empirical-rationally based humans.
Note Kant stated there are ONLY 3 transcendental philosophical ideas, i.e. God [in various labels], the independent Soul, & the Universe as a Whole.

Thus the idea of ONE [absolute, God and the likes] by Plotinus is meaningless because it can never ever have meanings of reality with human beings.

The only meaning the ONE [aka Absolute, God, BEING, and the likes] can have is a psychological meaning that has psychological utility to those who believe in such an idea [which is a transcendental illusion].

It is undeniable thoughts as merely a pure thought can influence a person psychologically to the highest degree. God is one of such thought which by default is based on faith [grace] and not on proofs nor reason.

At the worst the psychological clinging to a God by the majority [in a range of degrees] lend indirect psychological support to SOME theists killing non-theists in God's name.

Take a few deep breaths and reflect on what is going on inside your brain when you think of the idea of God.

[Nick_A]

Veritas

By right you need to admit you are merely assuming God exists and the idea 'God exists' is merely a speculation until justifiable evidences are available. In below I will show any evidence for God is an impossibility because God is merely a philosophical idea and not a concept.

For some reason many years ago I became more and more concerned with the meaning and purpose of our universe and me within it. It seemed foolish to assume there is no objective purpose for a universe of such intricacy and magnitude.

I discovered esoteric Christianity and the writings of those like Plotinus which have provided a universal skeleton I am invited to verify through efforts of conscious attention and impartial self knowledge.

So even though I cannot prove the ONE by literal reason I can feel its power:

Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6).

Now I must ask you if you believe you are capable of the experience of noesis or limited to either reason or fantasy? Here are four levels of cognitive reason according to Plato. A person's direct apprehension of their source would come by noesis rather than discursive reason

• noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
• dianoia (discursive thought)
• pistis (belief or confidence)
• eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

You seem to limit yourself to dianoia and deny your potential to experience noesis as described. Naturally then you could never experience your connection to your source. Do you limit yourself in this way?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas

By right you need to admit you are merely assuming God exists and the idea 'God exists' is merely a speculation until justifiable evidences are available. In below I will show any evidence for God is an impossibility because God is merely a philosophical idea and not a concept.

For some reason many years ago I became more and more concerned with the meaning and purpose of our universe and me within it. It seemed foolish to assume there is no objective purpose for a universe of such intricacy and magnitude.

Actually it is foolish to assume "it seemed foolish to assume there is no objective purpose for a universe ..."
I have raised such question as "what is the meaning & purpose of the universe and humans' role in it" but there is no basis for me to hypothesize there is a 'real' purpose especially one that is in relation to a God that exists as real.

From Critical Thinking I understands 'God is an Impossibility' [OP] as such is moot for me to link God to any meaning and purpose of the universe.

I also understand "your some reasons" as with others & mine [in the past] why you are concerned with the meaning and purpose of the universe. Why it is so, is due to an active inherent existential crisis [zombie parasites] that create Angst and compels the brain/mind to seek relief where for the majority [me-in-the-past included] ended up with theism and religion.

One lesser example of seeking relief is that of the intrinsic sexual tension. DNA wise ALL humans are programmed to experience sexual tensions after puberty in various forms and degrees. Somehow the sexual person is compelled to seek relief for the associated 'pains' in trying out various methods. Some would rely on sexual fantasies for sexual reliefs.

Somehow the fantasy of a God-believed-as-real is the best solution as an immediate relief for the existential crisis and its associated pains. This fantasy of God is via faith, i.e. no proofs nor sound reasoning.

I discovered esoteric Christianity and the writings of those like Plotinus which have provided a universal skeleton I am invited to verify through efforts of conscious attention and impartial self knowledge.

The fact is once theists have clung to a belief that is giving them relief over existential pains, they will not be giving up that belief easily and will find all sorts of explanations and excuses driven by confirmations bias to protect that belief of theism.
That is what you are doing in adopting esoteric Christianity, Plotinus, and the likes.

So even though I cannot prove the ONE by literal reason I can feel its power:

Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6).

Now I must ask you if you believe you are capable of the experience of noesis or limited to either reason or fantasy? Here are four levels of cognitive reason according to Plato. A person's direct apprehension of their source would come by noesis rather than discursive reason

• noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
• dianoia (discursive thought)
• pistis (belief or confidence)
• eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

You seem to limit yourself to dianoia and deny your potential to experience noesis as described. Naturally then you could never experience your connection to your source. Do you limit yourself in this way?

Note your "feel" and the basis of that is psychological and manifesting from the existential crisis.
I do have intuitive thoughts that jumped suddenly out from nowhere and I experience that very often, that is one reason how I had raised so many threads.
Whatever the source of thoughts, they must be filtered via critical thinking and the all encompassing philosophy-proper to arrive at justified and sound conclusions.

Nick-A: "..the meaning and purpose of our universe and me within it"
What you missed out is "the universe within yourself" and the purpose and meanings within your own brain and mind which is psychological. I had advocated exploration to 'know thyself' but you seem to have ignored it which I think is the more foolish thing.

[Nick_A]

Veritas

Note your "feel" and the basis of that is psychological and manifesting from the existential crisis.
I do have intuitive thoughts that jumped suddenly out from nowhere and I experience that very often, that is one reason how I had raised so many threads.
Whatever the source of thoughts, they must be filtered via critical thinking and the all encompassing philosophy-proper to arrive at justified and sound conclusions.

Nick-A: "..the meaning and purpose of our universe and me within it"
What you missed out is "the universe within yourself" and the purpose and meanings within your own brain and mind which is psychological. I had advocated exploration to 'know thyself' but you seem to have ignored it which I think is the more foolish thing.

I have the impression that you believe the human search to experience its source which transcends earthly life is a defect. It would be better if we just lived by critical thinking serving pragmtic concerns. Is this right?

You misunderstand noesis. We all get temporary insights but noesis is something else. It opens the path to universal truths.

Think on this for a moment. Your philosophy seems to deny opening to a quality of thought which transcends critical reason necessary for seekers of truth. Einstein understood the quality of thought and emotion which transcends the limitations of critical thinking. Was he wrong?

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas

Note your "feel" and the basis of that is psychological and manifesting from the existential crisis.
I do have intuitive thoughts that jumped suddenly out from nowhere and I experience that very often, that is one reason how I had raised so many threads.
Whatever the source of thoughts, they must be filtered via critical thinking and the all encompassing philosophy-proper to arrive at justified and sound conclusions.

Nick-A: "..the meaning and purpose of our universe and me within it"
What you missed out is "the universe within yourself" and the purpose and meanings within your own brain and mind which is psychological. I had advocated exploration to 'know thyself' but you seem to have ignored it which I think is the more foolish thing.

I have the impression that you believe the human search to experience its source which transcends earthly life is a defect. It would be better if we just lived by critical thinking serving pragmatic concerns. Is this right?

Nope and wrong.
I believe in general [not you personally] all humans must understand the principles, basis and mechanics of their action, especially their quest to experience its source and whatever.
When people do not understand the principles, basis and mechanics of their actions in this case, then such terrible events of evil and violence happened and will continue to happen;



in addition of other loads of evil and violent acts.

You misunderstand noesis. We all get temporary insights but noesis is something else. It opens the path to universal truths.

Note I was a pantheist for a long time and still continue to meditate [proper] thus has various experiences of altered states of consciousness, so called non-duality, oneness, cosmic consciousness and various. I acknowledge such experiences but I do NOT take them as something special.

There is no such thing as absolute universal truths but only relative truths conditioned upon the human conditions. There is no way you can prove the existence of absolute universal truths that can exists by themselves which are absolute independent of the human conditions
Note the dichotomy of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Think on this for a moment. Your philosophy seems to deny opening to a quality of thought which transcends critical reason necessary for seekers of truth. Einstein understood the quality of thought and emotion which transcends the limitations of critical thinking. Was he wrong?

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

[/quote]
Note Einstein's intuition is still within the human conditions. Thus any thoughts from human intuition are conditioned by humans and they do not appear from nowhere.
Whatever positives from Einstein intuitions they had be justified to be true before acceptance by the scientific community.

In other quotes, Einstein claimed to be a pantheist like Spinoza who do not believe in a personal God. Einstein did not make a scientific claim for this idea of his.

I was once a pantheist and now I realized the God of the pantheist [same but of different degrees] as with other theism is an illusion to soothe an inherent existential crisis within the psyche. The activeness of the existential crisis within a pantheist is very much milder in degree in contrast to the theists with the Abrahamic theists having the highest degree to the extent some will kill others who they perceived [falsely] as a threat to their religious security.

God is an Impossibility.
Theism in whatever forms and degrees is grounded in the psychology of the existential crisis.
Once we understand the principles, basis and mechanics of theism within psychology, then it is possible to mitigate the terrible evil and violent acts from SOME theists who are evil prone and inspired directly by the texts of some religions.

You think you have universal truths but that is PRIMARILY only for your selfish quests to soothe your personal existential crisis. What good has come out of it for humanity in general in contrast against, for example, the positives from empirical Science?

My views are not focus only in the pragmatic but what is to be pragmatic is guided by impossible ideals, e.g. perpetual peace for the World, perfect health, etc. to drive continuous improvements.