Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

[Veritas Aequitas]

So if this is a hallucinations, conscious reality. surely that means we are experiencing something? And if we are hallucinating , surely that means we are perceiving a reality that is not what we should be perceiving. We must be under the influence of something? So basically how can every living being be sharing the same influence?

At the core ALL humans has a generic DNA and RNA.
Why are all human heads above the shoulders and neck but not between the groin area between legs.

Just as the above is a physical standard, there are some mental properties that are generic and fundamental to all human beings, e.g. hunger, sexual impulses and cognitions [in this case hallucinations].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empiricism can prove reality within the empirical framework via probability, can change or whatever.
If empiricism prove a person will die when knocked directly by a fast moving bus, would you argue against that truth/reality?

Probability necessitates not just a lack of consistency, but necessarily observes not just a continuum for it to be proven true but effectively the non actualized state of the probability to be actualized eventually given a long enough of a continuum, thus necessitating Divinity.

Empiricism proves that people knocked directly by a fast moving bus most of the time die, while sometimes surviving. All it does is argue that people both live and die when struck by a bus.

You did not get the point.

Here is a more obvious example;
Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?

The fact is empirical knowledge [repeatable, testable, verifiable, etc.] whilst is a hallucination in one perspective and is not 100% certain, its predictability will give you a higher probability of survival and net-positive in various critical situations.

On the other hand the claims of a God existing can be proven to be real at all!

The emergence of an idea God [illusion] is basically a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your brain to understand why you pine for a God.

[Dontaskme]

The emergence of an idea God [illusion] is basically a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your brain to understand why you pine for a God.

Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your assumed ''thought stream'' to understand why you pine for an entity aka an emergence of an idea aka the ''thought form'' of a (person) namely, an illusion, who has a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis ?

Unless you can with accuracy and precision pin down the exact location of this so called entity aka an ''emergence of an idea (person)'' who has a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis ?

... then all your words are just empty nothings, synonymous to the mind of dreamsacpe, which is pure fantasy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The emergence of an idea God [illusion] is basically a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your brain to understand why you pine for a God.

Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your assumed ''thought stream'' to understand why you pine for an entity aka an emergence of an idea aka the ''thought form'' of a (person) namely, an illusion, who has a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis ?

Unless you can with accuracy and precision pin down the exact location of this so called entity aka an ''emergence of an idea (person)'' who has a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis ?

... then all your words are just empty nothings, synonymous to the mind of dreamsacpe, which is pure fantasy.

I know what is in my brain/mind that is driving my views, i.e. it is empathy and compassion for humanity in view of the terrible sufferings that is committed by a percentile of theists who are at one end of the continuum of the idea of the Absolute, aka God.

There is no entity involved in this case.

What is needed is for theists and nondualists like you to understand you are being deceived by your own mind as Defensive Mechanism to think of the idea of oneness, absolute or God as something real to soothe an existential crisis.
You are being deceived by your brain/mind to believe in an Absolute/Oneness or God like this example and you keep denying it.

[Dontaskme]

I know what is in my brain/mind that is driving my views, i.e. it is empathy and compassion for humanity in view of the terrible sufferings that is committed by a percentile of theists who are at one end of the continuum of the idea of the Absolute, aka God.

There is no entity involved in this case.

What is needed is for theists and nondualists like you to understand you are being deceived by your own mind as Defensive Mechanism to think of the idea of oneness, absolute or God as something real to soothe an existential crisis.
You are being deceived by your brain/mind to believe in an Absolute/Oneness or God like this example and you keep denying it.

It is clear you refuse to shift from your rigid set of belief structures that are informing you that there is brain that belongs to you, but this you that you believe to exist is an illusory idea superimposed by the appearance of mind upon your real self which has no identity. So there is nothing there that can deceive you, except the false belief there is in the form of an appearance.

The you is the non-physical empty awareness in which the fullness of mind makes an appearance as a concept.

The non-physical cannot experience itself as a physical object, and the physical can never be non-physical. So there is a problem here when you say you have got a brain and that brain can deceive you. For you are non-physical awareness within which the non-physical mind comes out to play playing tricks upon itself, it's the grand illusion that cannot be known except to itself only, there is nothing that can be known to exist outside of that arena except what is projected, put there by the mind itself albeit illusory appearances that have no actual substance or reality whatsoever, except as believed conceptual fantasy.

So it is you who are being deceived by your own belief that there exists such an entity known as a theist or a nondualist that can somehow own a Defensive Mechanism to think of the idea of oneness, absolute or God as something real to soothe an existential crisis.
The brain which is just the mind cannot deceive any thing, no more that the word water is the water... it can no more deceive you than a gnome can deceive you, for you are empty awareness, the mind is an appearance in you, the mind deceives itself as an illusory appearance ...in you but not you. Nothing ever happened to awareness.

As for Karma the bad action that is done in the name of ego which is the false sense of identification is instant, because there is no such thing as an ego in the first place so all Karma is instantaneous.

You harm yourself as dust thrown against the wind comes back to the thrower ~ Buddha.

''Nothing kills a man faster than his own head"

Have no mind to harm and all is ever perfect.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

Empiricism can prove reality within the empirical framework via probability, can change or whatever.
If empiricism prove a person will die when knocked directly by a fast moving bus, would you argue against that truth/reality?

Probability necessitates not just a lack of consistency, but necessarily observes not just a continuum for it to be proven true but effectively the non actualized state of the probability to be actualized eventually given a long enough of a continuum, thus necessitating Divinity.

Empiricism proves that people knocked directly by a fast moving bus most of the time die, while sometimes surviving. All it does is argue that people both live and die when struck by a bus.

You did not get the point.

Here is a more obvious example;
Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?

The fact is empirical knowledge [repeatable, testable, verifiable, etc.] whilst is a hallucination in one perspective and is not 100% certain, its predictability will give you a higher probability of survival and net-positive in various critical situations.

On the other hand the claims of a God existing can be proven to be real at all!

The emergence of an idea God [illusion] is basically a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your brain to understand why you pine for a God.

The is the point thought, empiricism because of its probabilistic nature, proves that the rock can be dropped and not kill the person (rock can glance off from person moving: paralyze, break shouldler...whatever) but because it is probabilistic this necessitates that .x amount of the time a rock of that magnitude can fall and not kill the person. People have fell from airplanes, miles above the earth, and lived.

Probability argues, fundamentally, that everything its possible due to the actual nature of the probability (1/4 or 25% success rate) existing through a potential actuality that is formless. Probability is fundamentally an observation of how formlessness gives precedence to form.


Your logic fails you. The definition of God requires God as beyond existence, with proof fundamentally defined as "existence".


Considering God as "beyond existence", necessitates God as "beyond proof", God cannot be proven and the question is a fault in logic. Considering existence occurs through God, existence can be proof of God in the respect that God is "existence" but is not limit to it.

God fundamentally equates to proof in these respects, and we are left with the question as to the nature of proof as fundamentally being a framework. From framework we can observe that a framework occuring through a framework results in a continuum of frameworks. This gives definition to God as infinite.

However, while framework may be composed of and composing further frameworks, we are left with the question of what is a framework. The repitition of limits as a form of symmetry can suffice, or in simpler terms symmetry/equilibrium/balance/etc.

Here we are stuck with an entropy in language as while these definitions may mean the same thing, they are fundamentally composing each other in this manner. Hence even language exists as this continuous nature of framework.

So what we understand of framework is limits as a continuum, with the framework being composed of limits as complex limits. These complex limits, act as limits in themselves, with the foundational nature of the limit being "directed movement" as a form of repitition where infinite repitition results in a continuum that fundamentally is absolute and stable.

In these respects God as Existence is God as Limit as the foundation of not just existence but existence itself.


God cannot be proven except through the framework of the proof itself, the scientific method in this case, considering this framework is both composed of and composed the very limits which it manifests through as the scientific method is a continuum through circular and linear reason with all axioms being points of origin in themselves.



In simpler terms...you want proof of God? Look at the scientific method itself.

[Davyboi]

Quick question, if our conscious reality is an illusion, then everything we experience,think, is just a dream then, there is no difference between the mundane daily chores, work etc. And spiritual views, everything we think is a lie then..just a specific individual view point. So everyones reality is just a hallucinations so everyones experience reality, holds as much as the next person. There experiences are just as valid .

[Veritas Aequitas]

Probability necessitates not just a lack of consistency, but necessarily observes not just a continuum for it to be proven true but effectively the non actualized state of the probability to be actualized eventually given a long enough of a continuum, thus necessitating Divinity.

Empiricism proves that people knocked directly by a fast moving bus most of the time die, while sometimes surviving. All it does is argue that people both live and die when struck by a bus.

You did not get the point.

Here is a more obvious example;
Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?

The fact is empirical knowledge [repeatable, testable, verifiable, etc.] whilst is a hallucination in one perspective and is not 100% certain, its predictability will give you a higher probability of survival and net-positive in various critical situations.

On the other hand the claims of a God existing can be proven to be real at all!

The emergence of an idea God [illusion] is basically a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your brain to understand why you pine for a God.

The is the point thought, empiricism because of its probabilistic nature, proves that the rock can be dropped and not kill the person (rock can glance off from person moving: paralyze, break shouldler...whatever) but because it is probabilistic this necessitates that .x amount of the time a rock of that magnitude can fall and not kill the person. People have fell from airplanes, miles above the earth, and lived.

Probability argues, fundamentally, that everything its possible due to the actual nature of the probability (1/4 or 25% success rate) existing through a potential actuality that is formless. Probability is fundamentally an observation of how formlessness gives precedence to form.


Your logic fails you. The definition of God requires God as beyond existence, with proof fundamentally defined as "existence".

Whatever you argue you have not answer my question,

Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?

or
Would you jump from an airplane without a parachute from 30,000 feet?

Considering God as "beyond existence", necessitates God as "beyond proof", God cannot be proven and the question is a fault in logic. Considering existence occurs through God, existence can be proof of God in the respect that God is "existence" but is not limit to it.

God fundamentally equates to proof in these respects, and we are left with the question as to the nature of proof as fundamentally being a framework. From framework we can observe that a framework occuring through a framework results in a continuum of frameworks. This gives definition to God as infinite.

However, while framework may be composed of and composing further frameworks, we are left with the question of what is a framework. The repitition of limits as a form of symmetry can suffice, or in simpler terms symmetry/equilibrium/balance/etc.

Here we are stuck with an entropy in language as while these definitions may mean the same thing, they are fundamentally composing each other in this manner. Hence even language exists as this continuous nature of framework.

So what we understand of framework is limits as a continuum, with the framework being composed of limits as complex limits. These complex limits, act as limits in themselves, with the foundational nature of the limit being "directed movement" as a form of repitition where infinite repitition results in a continuum that fundamentally is absolute and stable.

In these respects God as Existence is God as Limit as the foundation of not just existence but existence itself.

I am unable to grasp your point.
Note there are many perspectives to what is claimed as 'God' i.e. from the empirical to the ontological.

God cannot be proven except through the framework of the proof itself, the scientific method in this case, considering this framework is both composed of and composed the very limits which it manifests through as the scientific method is a continuum through circular and linear reason with all axioms being points of origin in themselves.

In simpler terms...you want proof of God? Look at the scientific method itself.

If as you state above, God can be proven through the framework of the proof itself, then show proofs via the scientific method in this case?

[Eodnhoj7]

You did not get the point.

Here is a more obvious example;
Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?

The fact is empirical knowledge [repeatable, testable, verifiable, etc.] whilst is a hallucination in one perspective and is not 100% certain, its predictability will give you a higher probability of survival and net-positive in various critical situations.

On the other hand the claims of a God existing can be proven to be real at all!

The emergence of an idea God [illusion] is basically a desperate psychological response to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Reflect on your own psychology and what is going on inside your brain to understand why you pine for a God.

The is the point thought, empiricism because of its probabilistic nature, proves that the rock can be dropped and not kill the person (rock can glance off from person moving: paralyze, break shouldler...whatever) but because it is probabilistic this necessitates that .x amount of the time a rock of that magnitude can fall and not kill the person. People have fell from airplanes, miles above the earth, and lived.

Probability argues, fundamentally, that everything its possible due to the actual nature of the probability (1/4 or 25% success rate) existing through a potential actuality that is formless. Probability is fundamentally an observation of how formlessness gives precedence to form.


Your logic fails you. The definition of God requires God as beyond existence, with proof fundamentally defined as "existence".

Whatever you argue you have not answer my question,

Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?

or
Would you jump from an airplane without a parachute from 30,000 feet?

Considering God as "beyond existence", necessitates God as "beyond proof", God cannot be proven and the question is a fault in logic. Considering existence occurs through God, existence can be proof of God in the respect that God is "existence" but is not limit to it.

God fundamentally equates to proof in these respects, and we are left with the question as to the nature of proof as fundamentally being a framework. From framework we can observe that a framework occuring through a framework results in a continuum of frameworks. This gives definition to God as infinite.

However, while framework may be composed of and composing further frameworks, we are left with the question of what is a framework. The repitition of limits as a form of symmetry can suffice, or in simpler terms symmetry/equilibrium/balance/etc.

Here we are stuck with an entropy in language as while these definitions may mean the same thing, they are fundamentally composing each other in this manner. Hence even language exists as this continuous nature of framework.

So what we understand of framework is limits as a continuum, with the framework being composed of limits as complex limits. These complex limits, act as limits in themselves, with the foundational nature of the limit being "directed movement" as a form of repitition where infinite repitition results in a continuum that fundamentally is absolute and stable.

In these respects God as Existence is God as Limit as the foundation of not just existence but existence itself.

I am unable to grasp your point.
Note there are many perspectives to what is claimed as 'God' i.e. from the empirical to the ontological.

God cannot be proven except through the framework of the proof itself, the scientific method in this case, considering this framework is both composed of and composed the very limits which it manifests through as the scientific method is a continuum through circular and linear reason with all axioms being points of origin in themselves.

In simpler terms...you want proof of God? Look at the scientific method itself.

If as you state above, God can be proven through the framework of the proof itself, then show proofs via the scientific method in this case?

The empirical example is faulty, as it must be kept in the context of empirical nature of reality, a 50x50x50 rock of 1000 pounds does not fall unless unless it is rolled off of a hill (in which case people can survive mudslides and cave ins of mines) or dropped from a building. Considering no-one builds a building with that much rock (except with the pyramids) and concrete blocks that big are rarely poured, no empirical test has proven what happens considering no constant framework of the rock repeatedly dropped on the head of a man occurs.

We know through logic that the man will be killed, but this is based on absolute conditions necessitating a causal structure where no variables can be left out; hence the incident already happened. However as a causal argument, where the incident exists not just without any interfering variables but in itself is the variable in the respect that it happened before, we are left with causality as an absolute occurrence with the framework of interpetation being the variable.

If truth as constant, exists as causal, then the framework itself is a probabilistic variable and science is empirical experiments are inherently random. Hence the falling rock killing the man, as a causal argument, is left to a probabilistic framework as to whether the rock could be dropped on the man to begin with.

As to the dropping of the rock or falling from the plane, if I hit an object with x amount of force and survive does it matter considering people have survived both cave in and falling from planes?

Your point is moot.


Now you have not provide recourse to my statement, if God is beyond existence and this is an inherent element within the definition of God, but proof is limited to existence as a framework of existence with the framework itself being existence (so that existence and framework are inseperable), then the definition of God is beyond proof where any proof as inseparable framework-existence dualism necessitates the nature of proof being proof of God in the respect:

1) Proof is a framework-existence, with this framework-existence occurring as the axiom (self-evidence).

2) The axiom is dually subjective and objective, hence all proof contains a subjective nature which has no form or function since it is not defined and objectivity having both form and function as it is defined.

3) Proof has a dually subjective and objective nature, hence proof is a without definition due to its subjective nature, and acts as a defined continuum due to the objective definition continuing through the subjective state.

Proof is a continuum, further reflecting a definition of God, give me proof of a finite phenomenon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The empirical example is faulty, as it must be kept in the context of empirical nature of reality, a 50x50x50 rock of 1000 pounds does not fall unless unless it is rolled off of a hill (in which case people can survive mudslides and cave ins of mines) or dropped from a building. Considering no-one builds a building with that much rock (except with the pyramids) and concrete blocks that big are rarely poured, no empirical test has proven what happens considering no constant framework of the rock repeatedly dropped on the head of a man occurs.

We know through logic that the man will be killed, but this is based on absolute conditions necessitating a causal structure where no variables can be left out; hence the incident already happened. However as a causal argument, where the incident exists not just without any interfering variables but in itself is the variable in the respect that it happened before, we are left with causality as an absolute occurrence with the framework of interpetation being the variable.

If truth as constant, exists as causal, then the framework itself is a probabilistic variable and science is empirical experiments are inherently random. Hence the falling rock killing the man, as a causal argument, is left to a probabilistic framework as to whether the rock could be dropped on the man to begin with.

As to the dropping of the rock or falling from the plane, if I hit an object with x amount of force and survive does it matter considering people have survived both cave in and falling from planes?

Your point is moot.

You still have not answer my questions?

• Whatever you argue you have not answer my question,
  
  Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?
  
  or
  Would you jump from an airplane without a parachute from 30,000 feet?

Note I qualified "...be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground"
Answer the above questions and don't eel around.

My point is this;
I agree empirical knowledge cannot be absolutely certain and independent of the human conditions.
Any normal person with common sense would have answer 'No'.
What is critical with empirical knowledge is, generally it enable predictions that are most likely to be true and thus could ensure a greater possibility of survival for humans.

On the other hand the idea of God or Absolute is based on faith [no proofs nor reason] and has directly been responsible for hundreds of million killed in the name of theism.

Note this;

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2018/03/18 ... n-history/

The Muslims conquest of India stretch over 1000+ years.
Even if we discount the above by 50% the number is still horrendous.

All the above terrible evil is based on a lie, i.e. a transcendental illusion of the brain/mind which has no actuality.
I have argued the idea of God or Absolute arise from terrible psychological impulses within the brain/mind to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
The terrible psychological impulses that compel one to theism can also be responsible for theists committing terrible evil and violent acts.
If you don't make any reservations for theism, you are indirectly implicit to all the terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone theists.

Now you have not provide recourse to my statement, if God is beyond existence and this is an inherent element within the definition of God, but proof is limited to existence as a framework of existence with the framework itself being existence (so that existence and framework are inseperable), then the definition of God is beyond proof where any proof as inseparable framework-existence dualism necessitates the nature of proof being proof of God in the respect:

1) Proof is a framework-existence, with this framework-existence occurring as the axiom (self-evidence).

2) The axiom is dually subjective and objective, hence all proof contains a subjective nature which has no form or function since it is not defined and objectivity having both form and function as it is defined.

3) Proof has a dually subjective and objective nature, hence proof is a without definition due to its subjective nature, and acts as a defined continuum due to the objective definition continuing through the subjective state.

If you push God beyond 'existence' i.e. is or being, then such an entity is an ungrounded FAKE thing. a non-existing thing.

I have argued 'existence' is not a predicate.
'Existence' is merely "is" which is a copula that connect a subject/object with a predicate.

Can you see how stupid it is ignore the term 'existence' as in

• God exists
  God is ..

and merely state 'God' without any predicates.

Proof is a continuum, further reflecting a definition of God, give me proof of a finite phenomenon.

Yes proof is a continuum of degree of truths.
As for your idea of God you have to provided any reliable proofs at all.

give me proof of a finite phenomenon

of what finite phenomenon??
Gravity, energy, lightning, a rock?

Note I have already proven to you the reliability and utility of the existence of a 50x50x50 1000 tonnes rock in the above.

[Eodnhoj7]

The empirical example is faulty, as it must be kept in the context of empirical nature of reality, a 50x50x50 rock of 1000 pounds does not fall unless unless it is rolled off of a hill (in which case people can survive mudslides and cave ins of mines) or dropped from a building. Considering no-one builds a building with that much rock (except with the pyramids) and concrete blocks that big are rarely poured, no empirical test has proven what happens considering no constant framework of the rock repeatedly dropped on the head of a man occurs.

We know through logic that the man will be killed, but this is based on absolute conditions necessitating a causal structure where no variables can be left out; hence the incident already happened. However as a causal argument, where the incident exists not just without any interfering variables but in itself is the variable in the respect that it happened before, we are left with causality as an absolute occurrence with the framework of interpetation being the variable.

If truth as constant, exists as causal, then the framework itself is a probabilistic variable and science is empirical experiments are inherently random. Hence the falling rock killing the man, as a causal argument, is left to a probabilistic framework as to whether the rock could be dropped on the man to begin with.

As to the dropping of the rock or falling from the plane, if I hit an object with x amount of force and survive does it matter considering people have survived both cave in and falling from planes?

Your point is moot.

You still have not answer my questions?

• Whatever you argue you have not answer my question,
  
  Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?
  
  or
  Would you jump from an airplane without a parachute from 30,000 feet?

Note I qualified "...be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground"
Answer the above questions and don't eel around.

My point is this;
I agree empirical knowledge cannot be absolutely certain and independent of the human conditions.
Any normal person with common sense would have answer 'No'.
What is critical with empirical knowledge is, generally it enable predictions that are most likely to be true and thus could ensure a greater possibility of survival for humans.

On the other hand the idea of God or Absolute is based on faith [no proofs nor reason] and has directly been responsible for hundreds of million killed in the name of theism.

Note this;

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2018/03/18 ... n-history/

The Muslims conquest of India stretch over 1000+ years.
Even if we discount the above by 50% the number is still horrendous.

All the above terrible evil is based on a lie, i.e. a transcendental illusion of the brain/mind which has no actuality.
I have argued the idea of God or Absolute arise from terrible psychological impulses within the brain/mind to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
The terrible psychological impulses that compel one to theism can also be responsible for theists committing terrible evil and violent acts.
If you don't make any reservations for theism, you are indirectly implicit to all the terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone theists.

Now you have not provide recourse to my statement, if God is beyond existence and this is an inherent element within the definition of God, but proof is limited to existence as a framework of existence with the framework itself being existence (so that existence and framework are inseperable), then the definition of God is beyond proof where any proof as inseparable framework-existence dualism necessitates the nature of proof being proof of God in the respect:

1) Proof is a framework-existence, with this framework-existence occurring as the axiom (self-evidence).

2) The axiom is dually subjective and objective, hence all proof contains a subjective nature which has no form or function since it is not defined and objectivity having both form and function as it is defined.

3) Proof has a dually subjective and objective nature, hence proof is a without definition due to its subjective nature, and acts as a defined continuum due to the objective definition continuing through the subjective state.

If you push God beyond 'existence' i.e. is or being, then such an entity is an ungrounded FAKE thing. a non-existing thing.

I have argued 'existence' is not a predicate.
'Existence' is merely "is" which is a copula that connect a subject/object with a predicate.

Can you see how stupid it is ignore the term 'existence' as in

• God exists
  God is ..

and merely state 'God' without any predicates.

Proof is a continuum, further reflecting a definition of God, give me proof of a finite phenomenon.

Yes proof is a continuum of degree of truths.
As for your idea of God you have to provided any reliable proofs at all.

give me proof of a finite phenomenon

of what finite phenomenon??
Gravity, energy, lightning, a rock?

Note I have already proven to you the reliability and utility of the existence of a 50x50x50 1000 tonnes rock in the above.

I am flattered you typed so much, but all your points have been addressed already and found illogical and subject to a myriad of fallacies.

Let's get to the point:

You do understand it is irrational to ask for proof without some definition for proof. What is proof?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The empirical example is faulty, as it must be kept in the context of empirical nature of reality, a 50x50x50 rock of 1000 pounds does not fall unless unless it is rolled off of a hill (in which case people can survive mudslides and cave ins of mines) or dropped from a building. Considering no-one builds a building with that much rock (except with the pyramids) and concrete blocks that big are rarely poured, no empirical test has proven what happens considering no constant framework of the rock repeatedly dropped on the head of a man occurs.

We know through logic that the man will be killed, but this is based on absolute conditions necessitating a causal structure where no variables can be left out; hence the incident already happened. However as a causal argument, where the incident exists not just without any interfering variables but in itself is the variable in the respect that it happened before, we are left with causality as an absolute occurrence with the framework of interpetation being the variable.

If truth as constant, exists as causal, then the framework itself is a probabilistic variable and science is empirical experiments are inherently random. Hence the falling rock killing the man, as a causal argument, is left to a probabilistic framework as to whether the rock could be dropped on the man to begin with.

As to the dropping of the rock or falling from the plane, if I hit an object with x amount of force and survive does it matter considering people have survived both cave in and falling from planes?

Your point is moot.

You still have not answer my questions?

• Whatever you argue you have not answer my question,
  
  Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?
  
  or
  Would you jump from an airplane without a parachute from 30,000 feet?

Note I qualified "...be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground"
Answer the above questions and don't eel around.

My point is this;
I agree empirical knowledge cannot be absolutely certain and independent of the human conditions.
Any normal person with common sense would have answer 'No'.
What is critical with empirical knowledge is, generally it enable predictions that are most likely to be true and thus could ensure a greater possibility of survival for humans.

On the other hand the idea of God or Absolute is based on faith [no proofs nor reason] and has directly been responsible for hundreds of million killed in the name of theism.

Note this;

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2018/03/18 ... n-history/

The Muslims conquest of India stretch over 1000+ years.
Even if we discount the above by 50% the number is still horrendous.

All the above terrible evil is based on a lie, i.e. a transcendental illusion of the brain/mind which has no actuality.
I have argued the idea of God or Absolute arise from terrible psychological impulses within the brain/mind to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
The terrible psychological impulses that compel one to theism can also be responsible for theists committing terrible evil and violent acts.
If you don't make any reservations for theism, you are indirectly implicit to all the terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone theists.

Now you have not provide recourse to my statement, if God is beyond existence and this is an inherent element within the definition of God, but proof is limited to existence as a framework of existence with the framework itself being existence (so that existence and framework are inseperable), then the definition of God is beyond proof where any proof as inseparable framework-existence dualism necessitates the nature of proof being proof of God in the respect:

1) Proof is a framework-existence, with this framework-existence occurring as the axiom (self-evidence).

2) The axiom is dually subjective and objective, hence all proof contains a subjective nature which has no form or function since it is not defined and objectivity having both form and function as it is defined.

3) Proof has a dually subjective and objective nature, hence proof is a without definition due to its subjective nature, and acts as a defined continuum due to the objective definition continuing through the subjective state.

If you push God beyond 'existence' i.e. is or being, then such an entity is an ungrounded FAKE thing. a non-existing thing.

I have argued 'existence' is not a predicate.
'Existence' is merely "is" which is a copula that connect a subject/object with a predicate.

Can you see how stupid it is ignore the term 'existence' as in

• God exists
  God is ..

and merely state 'God' without any predicates.

Proof is a continuum, further reflecting a definition of God, give me proof of a finite phenomenon.

Yes proof is a continuum of degree of truths.
As for your idea of God you have to provided any reliable proofs at all.

give me proof of a finite phenomenon

of what finite phenomenon??
Gravity, energy, lightning, a rock?

Note I have already proven to you the reliability and utility of the existence of a 50x50x50 1000 tonnes rock in the above.

I am flattered you typed so much, but all your points have been addressed already and found illogical and subject to a myriad of fallacies.

Let's get to the point:

You do understand it is irrational to ask for proof without some definition for proof. What is proof?

The point is you have not answered my questions.

Yes, all proofs of reality must processed within a defined framework and system which is encompassed by philosophy-proper.
The most reliable defined framework and system is that of Science which is supported by philosophy-proper.

Whatever cannot be proven is FAKE!

I understand whatever is fake can be thought of and useful, e.g. Santa Claus, lies, etc.. It is the same with the idea of God which is FAKE but nevertheless useful as a psychological crutch to soothe very painful [subliminal] impulses within one's psyche.

[Eodnhoj7]

You still have not answer my questions?

• Whatever you argue you have not answer my question,
  
  Would you allow a 1000-tons 50x50x50 feet cube of rock be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground?
  
  or
  Would you jump from an airplane without a parachute from 30,000 feet?

Note I qualified "...be dropped directly on you standing on hard ground"
Answer the above questions and don't eel around.

My point is this;
I agree empirical knowledge cannot be absolutely certain and independent of the human conditions.
Any normal person with common sense would have answer 'No'.
What is critical with empirical knowledge is, generally it enable predictions that are most likely to be true and thus could ensure a greater possibility of survival for humans.

On the other hand the idea of God or Absolute is based on faith [no proofs nor reason] and has directly been responsible for hundreds of million killed in the name of theism.

Note this;



The Muslims conquest of India stretch over 1000+ years.
Even if we discount the above by 50% the number is still horrendous.

All the above terrible evil is based on a lie, i.e. a transcendental illusion of the brain/mind which has no actuality.
I have argued the idea of God or Absolute arise from terrible psychological impulses within the brain/mind to soothe an inherent existential crisis.
The terrible psychological impulses that compel one to theism can also be responsible for theists committing terrible evil and violent acts.
If you don't make any reservations for theism, you are indirectly implicit to all the terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone theists.


If you push God beyond 'existence' i.e. is or being, then such an entity is an ungrounded FAKE thing. a non-existing thing.

I have argued 'existence' is not a predicate.
'Existence' is merely "is" which is a copula that connect a subject/object with a predicate.

Can you see how stupid it is ignore the term 'existence' as in

• God exists
  God is ..

and merely state 'God' without any predicates.


Yes proof is a continuum of degree of truths.
As for your idea of God you have to provided any reliable proofs at all.


of what finite phenomenon??
Gravity, energy, lightning, a rock?

Note I have already proven to you the reliability and utility of the existence of a 50x50x50 1000 tonnes rock in the above.

I am flattered you typed so much, but all your points have been addressed already and found illogical and subject to a myriad of fallacies.

Let's get to the point:

You do understand it is irrational to ask for proof without some definition for proof. What is proof?

The point is you have not answered my questions.

Yes, all proofs of reality must processed within a defined framework and system which is encompassed by philosophy-proper.
The most reliable defined framework and system is that of Science which is supported by philosophy-proper.

Whatever cannot be proven is FAKE!

I understand whatever is fake can be thought of and useful, e.g. Santa Claus, lies, etc.. It is the same with the idea of God which is FAKE but nevertheless useful as a psychological crutch to soothe very painful [subliminal] impulses within one's psyche.

How can I answer a hallucination? You tell me it is 99.9 percent hallucination....okay....where is the .01 percent fragment of truth I can address?

The proof is that science is probabilistic due to a variety of variables, as the frameworks determined for testing are also probabilistic.

Well if I cannot prove something then it must be fake, you cannot prove your system of thought is just....empirically...therefore your argument is fake too.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, all proofs of reality must processed within a defined framework and system which is encompassed by philosophy-proper.
The most reliable defined framework and system is that of Science which is supported by philosophy-proper.

Whatever cannot be proven is FAKE!

I understand whatever is fake can be thought of and useful, e.g. Santa Claus, lies, etc.. It is the same with the idea of God which is FAKE but nevertheless useful as a psychological crutch to soothe very painful [subliminal] impulses within one's psyche.

But I proved God within the scientific framework? Testability, reproducibility, falsifiability and all!

Exactly the same way science proved energy.

Premises:
1. Science does not 'prove' anything. Science measures consequences then constructs TESTABLE models which PREDICTS the CONSEQUENCES in terms of prior phenomena (we call this 'causality')

it follows:

2. Science hasn't proven 'energy'. Science measures the consequences (heat, work, etc.) then constructed TESTABLE models which PREDICTS the CONSEQUENCES in terms of a phenomenon we call energy.

Conclusion:

Having constructed a USEFUL model science asserts that energy is 'real'. Energy 'exists' or whatever other metaphysical designation you wish to assign to it.

Soooo, what model would you construct which predicts this consequence we all call 'The Universe' ?

The model 'god' predicts the universe's existence!!!
It is testable by every single human being: the universe exists! Just look all around you!
And it is falsifiable by observing a non-existing universe.

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you suffer an existential crisis veritas?