God\'God's existence is probable

[Logik]

Why would I google other peoples ideas?

Because there's no point in re-inventing the wheel.

Are you implying you are too stupid to provide an adequate argument upon a philosophy forum?

Are you implying you can re-invent the wheel better?

[attofishpi]

Why would I google other peoples ideas?

Because there's no point in re-inventing the wheel.

My argument is not with you, and by quoting me the way you have puts everything out of context..

Its not reinventing a wheel - a link has a lot of ideas that may not necessarily be the point of view of the one that posted the link. So one should, especially on a philosophy forum, project their ideas in a succinct way that they construct, from their own minds construct.

Are you implying you are too stupid to provide an adequate argument upon a philosophy forum?

Are you implying you can re-invent the wheel better?

Drilling for an argument I see, in a way that lacks wit.

[Logik]

Its not reinventing a wheel - a link has a lot of ideas that may not necessarily be the point of view of the one that posted the link.

Or it may be the point of view of the one who posted it. Else - why would they post it? You second-guess people's ability to decide whose views they agree with.

So one should, especially on a philosophy forum, project their ideas in a succinct way that they construct, from their own minds construct.

So... reinventing the wheel.

Drilling for an argument I see, in a way that lacks wit.

Hardly trying to be witty. Merely observing that original ideas are few and far in between. Whereas repackaged old ideas are abundant.

[attofishpi]

Its not reinventing a wheel - a link has a lot of ideas that may not necessarily be the point of view of the one that posted the link.

Or it may be the point of view of the one who posted it. Else - why would they post it? You second-guess people's ability to decide whose views they agree with.

So one should, especially on a philosophy forum, project their ideas in a succinct way that they construct, from their own minds construct.

So... reinventing the wheel.

Drilling for an argument I see, in a way that lacks wit.

Hardly trying to be witty. Merely observing that original ideas are few and far in between. Whereas repackaged old ideas are abundant.

Hey, let's have a philosophy forum where people just post links to opposing views. Real fucking intelligent.

[Logik]

Hey, let's have a philosophy forum where people just post links to opposing views. Real fucking intelligent.

I thought philosophy was the love of wisdom? There's nothing wise about paraphrasing and regurgitating 5000 year old ideas/perspectives.

Old ideas in new drab (words) are still old ideas.

[attofishpi]

Hey, let's have a philosophy forum where people just post links to opposing views. Real fucking intelligent.

I thought philosophy was the love of wisdom? There's nothing wise about paraphrasing and regurgitating 5000 year old ideas/perspectives.

Exactly, so post your own ideas or fuck off from the forum. If they happen to coincide with previous philosophers well kudos, apparently many of mine have, but I would never read others ideas before forming my own, I consider it mere pollution.
In other words, you haven't analysed life enough through your own eyes, if you read other ideas before developing your own.

[Logik]

Exactly, so post your own ideas or fuck off from the forum. If they happen to coincide with previous philosophers well kudos,

Kudos for re-discovering the wheel?

I would never read others ideas before forming my own

For a wannabe philosopher that's not very wise. Starting from first principles every time will take you at least 5000 years to cover all philosophical ground.

I don't think you have that long to live...

[attofishpi]

I would never read others ideas before forming my own

For a wannabe philosopher that's not very wise.

Training ones own brain to think for itself is not very wise?
Why is your pseudonym a homophone to logic? You really do not espouse wisdom.

[Logik]

Training ones own brain to think for itself is not very wise?

If training one's mind to think was a competitive sport then philosophy is the special olympics of equivocation and contrarianism.

Applied sciences are far better in that regard. When you play language games it's difficult to recognise when you've broken the made-up rules of logic/reason. With applied sciences you know when you screw up - mistakes have consequences.

Positive and negative feedback loops...

Why is your pseudonym a homophone to logic? You really do not espouse wisdom.

Because the username "logic" was already taken.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you have enough comprehension of the goings on of sub-atomic matter to truly state that God\'God' is impossible?

Point is I do not need to have expert knowledge of sub-atomic matter to prove God is an impossibility.
What I've done is to use reason to prove God is an impossibility to to be real, i.e.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Ah, now there is Point 1 of your thread spamming downfall. The fact that you could not prove anything on one thread, resulted in you spamming threads all over the forum and now you expect me to read other threads that you have spammed!
Understand this first and foremost.

I have already highlighted and shown you the defect in your logic, the fallacy of equivocation.
The problem is your skull is too thick to understand you are committing a fallacy.

The argument is HERE and in THIS thread.

Everything that should be your point of view and my point of view and understand, should be clarified HERE, in this thread.
No expactance should be made that one should read from external links.

In this case you are an intellectual retard.
Referencing from all relevant sources in supporting of one's argument is essential and critical.

Point 1. Basically what I am arguing is Science is empirical while the idea of God is metaphysical and transcendental. Logically one cannot use Science to prove or follow into a metaphysical conclusion.
Now you are merely speculation it is possible to prove God exists via entropy. Even if you can do that [I don't think you will be able to] then the resulting God is an empirical-based God.
But I have argued an empirical based God is useless and inferior and exposed to the problem of infinite regression which eventually will have to end up with an ontological metaphysical God which lead to point 1 above.
I have argued this messy argument which is not tenable is a result of some psychological issue within all human beings and active in most.
Can you counter my view that God arise from certain psychological issues?

Hey. Let me tell you, everthing we comprehend as humans is our psychological issue!

Explain what you mean by an empirical God being useless and inferior?

I have already explained in an earlier post in THIS THREAD.

If you agree everything you comprehend as human is a psychological issue, why are you not considering your comprehended idea of God from a psychological perspective to the individual and yourself?

Really? No honestly, I thought I was THE one to consider it. (I am not being sarcastic, I truly have not read one argument for or against in relation to entropy.) So perhaps you now have an edge over me, please do share your arguments against 'God' being a result of circumstances of entropy.

You can google this very easily.

Why would I google other peoples ideas? Are you implying you are too stupid to provide an adequate argument upon a philosophy forum?
Obviously you are (by implication), so why are you here?

Where relevant I have provided my argument.
In this case re 'Entropy and God' which is VERY common, it is more convenient to google and I have provided some initial links already.

There is NO clash between my knowing that God\'God' exists and science...obviously.
From your POV:- IF God exists, then there is a scientific reason for its existence, which is what I still attempt to fathom an answer for. What is God\'God, and how did it come into existence'?

You cannot pull out your 'fallacy of equivocation' card every time someone attempts to prove the probability of circumstances of the future, and the possibility of what has already occurred.

A metaphysical/transcendental or ontological God cannot be empirically possible in the future.

Why?

Science versus Metaphysics [ontology] is like apples versus oranges, oil versus water, and the likes.

I believe you are very blurr on this. You have to get a better grip on the fallacy of equivocation where the fundamental of it is the Law of NonContradiction, i.e.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

[attofishpi]

Point is I do not need to have expert knowledge of sub-atomic matter to prove God is an impossibility.
What I've done is to use reason to prove God is an impossibility to to be real, i.e.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Ah, now there is Point 1 of your thread spamming downfall. The fact that you could not prove anything on one thread, resulted in you spamming threads all over the forum and now you expect me to read other threads that you have spammed!
Understand this first and foremost.

I have already highlighted and shown you the defect in your logic, the fallacy of equivocation.
The problem is your skull is too thick to understand you are committing a fallacy.

Yes, I do have a thick skull, protecting a brain that is super intelligent. What you need to do is prove where any of my reasoning is irrational, and within this thread.

The argument is HERE and in THIS thread.

Everything that should be your point of view and my point of view and understand, should be clarified HERE, in this thread.
No expactance should be made that one should read from external links.

In this case you are an intellectual retard.
Referencing from all relevant sources in supporting of one's argument is essential and critical.

Except you have not clarified ONE point as yet as to your side of the argument. On a forum one is expected to provide their own verbatim as to their own arguments. It is not expected that the other party have to trawl through copious amounts of links to external sites.
If you haven't the intelligence to argue your points within the thread, then don't bother being here as most of the members of this forum that have been here for many years expect you to use your own knowledge without external links.

Point 1. Basically what I am arguing is Science is empirical while the idea of God is metaphysical and transcendental. Logically one cannot use Science to prove or follow into a metaphysical conclusion.

Actually, Einstein would often have a metaphysical idea and eventually prove it empirically, so stop your whining and wimpering.

Now you are merely speculation it is possible to prove God exists via entropy. Even if you can do that [I don't think you will be able to] then the resulting God is an empirical-based God.
But I have argued an empirical based God is useless and inferior and exposed to the problem of infinite regression which eventually will have to end up with an ontological metaphysical God which lead to point 1 above.
I have argued this messy argument which is not tenable is a result of some psychological issue within all human beings and active in most.
Can you counter my view that God arise from certain psychological issues?

Hey. Let me tell you, everthing we comprehend as humans is our psychological issue!

Explain what you mean by an empirical God being useless and inferior?

I have already explained in an earlier post in THIS THREAD.

No you haven't, I certainly don't remember the 'useless' clause being used. Please reiterate.

If you agree everything you comprehend as human is a psychological issue, why are you not considering your comprehended idea of God from a psychological perspective to the individual and yourself?

We are doing that, right here and now are we not?

You can google this very easily.

Why would I google other peoples ideas? Are you implying you are too stupid to provide an adequate argument upon a philosophy forum?
Obviously you are (by implication), so why are you here?

Where relevant I have provided my argument.
In this case re 'Entropy and God' which is VERY common, it is more convenient to google and I have provided some initial links already.

Oh. You are not intelligent enough to take me on - the one you have already labelled a retard?
Provide YOUR counter argument, that is all I am asking for.

A metaphysical/transcendental or ontological God cannot be empirically possible in the future.

Why?

Science versus Metaphysics [ontology] is like apples versus oranges, oil versus water, and the likes.

Actually, no its not. A metaphysical concept can come as an idea to someone and within that someones own reasoning, can eventually lead to empirical evidence that supports that original metaphysical concept.
You really are not very good at this are you?

I believe you are very blurr on this. You have to get a better grip on the fallacy of equivocation where the fundamental of it is the Law of NonContradiction, i.e.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Oh, you are soooooo clever.
All that study of philosophy without the intelligence to comprehend it, and without the nous to take on me using your OWN arguments without external links.

You are the one falling for prey to fallacy of equivocation, by the very fact that you think something considered metaphysically, cannot eventually be proven empirically.

And you dared to call me a RETARD.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah, now there is Point 1 of your thread spamming downfall. The fact that you could not prove anything on one thread, resulted in you spamming threads all over the forum and now you expect me to read other threads that you have spammed!
Understand this first and foremost.

I have already highlighted and shown you the defect in your logic, the fallacy of equivocation.
The problem is your skull is too thick to understand you are committing a fallacy.

Yes, I do have a thick skull, protecting a brain that is super intelligent. What you need to do is prove where any of my reasoning is irrational, and within this thread.

The argument is HERE and in THIS thread.

Everything that should be your point of view and my point of view and understand, should be clarified HERE, in this thread.
No expactance should be made that one should read from external links.

In this case you are an intellectual retard.
Referencing from all relevant sources in supporting of one's argument is essential and critical.

Except you have not clarified ONE point as yet as to your side of the argument. On a forum one is expected to provide their own verbatim as to their own arguments. It is not expected that the other party have to trawl through copious amounts of links to external sites.
If you haven't the intelligence to argue your points within the thread, then don't bother being here as most of the members of this forum that have been here for many years expect you to use your own knowledge without external links.

Point 1. Basically what I am arguing is Science is empirical while the idea of God is metaphysical and transcendental. Logically one cannot use Science to prove or follow into a metaphysical conclusion.

Actually, Einstein would often have a metaphysical idea and eventually prove it empirically, so stop your whining and wimpering.

Hey. Let me tell you, everthing we comprehend as humans is our psychological issue!

Explain what you mean by an empirical God being useless and inferior?

I have already explained in an earlier post in THIS THREAD.

No you haven't, I certainly don't remember the 'useless' clause being used. Please reiterate.

If you agree everything you comprehend as human is a psychological issue, why are you not considering your comprehended idea of God from a psychological perspective to the individual and yourself?

We are doing that, right here and now are we not?

Why would I google other peoples ideas? Are you implying you are too stupid to provide an adequate argument upon a philosophy forum?
Obviously you are (by implication), so why are you here?

Where relevant I have provided my argument.
In this case re 'Entropy and God' which is VERY common, it is more convenient to google and I have provided some initial links already.

Oh. You are not intelligent enough to take me on - the one you have already labelled a retard?
Provide YOUR counter argument, that is all I am asking for.

Why?

Science versus Metaphysics [ontology] is like apples versus oranges, oil versus water, and the likes.

Actually, no its not. A metaphysical concept can come as an idea to someone and within that someones own reasoning, can eventually lead to empirical evidence that supports that original metaphysical concept.
You really are not very good at this are you?

I believe you are very blurr on this. You have to get a better grip on the fallacy of equivocation where the fundamental of it is the Law of NonContradiction, i.e.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Oh, you are soooooo clever.
All that study of philosophy without the intelligence to comprehend it, and without the nous to take on me using your OWN arguments without external links.

You are the one falling for prey to fallacy of equivocation, by the very fact that you think something considered metaphysically, cannot eventually be proven empirically.

And you dared to call me a RETARD.

You still don't get it. Do you understand the logical fallacy when one complained metaphorically, we cannot mix 'oranges' with 'apples' in a logical argument?

Your views are that of an intellectual retard is the sense you rejected and denounced references from whatever the sources. It is a standard and imperative in any intellectual academic presentation to present the necessary references from relevant sources. For the thousands of academic books and articles I have read, they all have a bibliography and notes at the end of the article and books.
In the above you even condemn my reference to my own argument made within the forum.

Actually, Einstein would often have a metaphysical idea and eventually prove it empirically, so stop your whining and wimpering.

Nope Einstein had never proposed any metaphysical idea at all.
What Einstein had presented was his self-proven theoretical speculations re Physics and all these are extrapolated from and postulated based on existing scientific theories which are empirical possibilities.

The idea of God is never scientific nor empirically possible.
The idea of God is not even rationally possible, but rather it is pseudo-rational as driven by terrible psychological impulses within the individual.

Einstein believed in a non-personal God like that of Spinoza but he did not claimed his God is empirically possible except that it can be inferred by reason not empiricism.

Btw, you totally ignored my point, the idea of God is driven by one's psychology. When a theist can handle those theistic related psychological impulses maturedly, s/he will be weaned off the idea of God and be freed from its baggage.

[attofishpi]

You still don't get it. Do you understand the logical fallacy when one complained metaphorically, we cannot mix 'oranges' with 'apples' in a logical argument?

Of course I understand your use of a metaphor, what, do you think I am a retard? I am simply stating that you are also fallacious in your insistence that something considered metaphysical can never be empirically proven.

Your views are that of an intellectual retard is the sense you rejected and denounced references from whatever the sources. It is a standard and imperative in any intellectual academic presentation to present the necessary references from relevant sources. For the thousands of academic books and articles I have read, they all have a bibliography and notes at the end of the article and books.
In the above you even condemn my reference to my own argument made within the forum.

All you have done within this thread is post a bunch of links to external sources.
You have not made ONE argument using your own wording. If you actually think that is the way academia operate, I think you need to change schools.

The idea of God is never scientific nor empirically possible.
The idea of God is not even rationally possible, but rather it is pseudo-rational as driven by terrible psychological impulses within the individual.
Einstein believed in a non-personal God like that of Spinoza but he did not claimed his God is empirically possible except that it can be inferred by reason not empiricism.
Btw, you totally ignored my point, the idea of God is driven by one's psychology. When a theist can handle those theistic related psychological impulses maturedly, s/he will be weaned off the idea of God and be freed from its baggage.

Except that I as an individual have be made aware of God\'Gods' existence - over a 20year period of direct and personal evidence.
As I am fully aware that there is a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality, I do believe that one day, and likely via a physicist, this 'God' will be empirically proven to exist.

Getting back on track as per my OP:-
Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Do provide YOUR counter argument to the point 2. A.I. 'God' resulting from the progression of entropy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You still don't get it. Do you understand the logical fallacy when one complained metaphorically, we cannot mix 'oranges' with 'apples' in a logical argument?

Of course I understand your use of a metaphor, what, do you think I am a retard? I am simply stating that you are also fallacious in your insistence that something considered metaphysical can never be empirically proven.

I say you are the one who is fallacious in your thinking.

I think you have the wrong misconception with the term 'metaphysics.'
Physics is a scientific subject thus imperatively empirical.
What is beyond normal physics is speculative physics which is still empirically possible.

Now, the term 'metaphysics' is meta-physics, i.e. beyond physics.
As stated above, what is beyond physics [normal] is speculative physics.
What is generally understood as metaphysics is also beyond speculative physics, but it is non-empirical, e.g. the non-empirical soul, god and the likes.
If what you think is empirical possible and within the properties of Physics, then that should be speculative physics or physics fiction.

Because metaphysics is deemed to be non-empirical, it cannot be equated nor proven within empirical Science.

Your views are that of an intellectual retard is the sense you rejected and denounced references from whatever the sources. It is a standard and imperative in any intellectual academic presentation to present the necessary references from relevant sources. For the thousands of academic books and articles I have read, they all have a bibliography and notes at the end of the article and books.
In the above you even condemn my reference to my own argument made within the forum.

All you have done within this thread is post a bunch of links to external sources.
You have not made ONE argument using your own wording. If you actually think that is the way academia operate, I think you need to change schools.

Nope I have argued logically and rationally in an overview basis why your conclusion is fallacious, i.e. equivocation.
I have linked to my own argument within this forum i.e. "why God is an impossibility to be real" and supported it with external sources.

The idea of God is never scientific nor empirically possible.
The idea of God is not even rationally possible, but rather it is pseudo-rational as driven by terrible psychological impulses within the individual.
Einstein believed in a non-personal God like that of Spinoza but he did not claimed his God is empirically possible except that it can be inferred by reason not empiricism.
Btw, you totally ignored my point, the idea of God is driven by one's psychology. When a theist can handle those theistic related psychological impulses maturedly, s/he will be weaned off the idea of God and be freed from its baggage.

Except that I as an individual have be made aware of God\'Gods' existence - over a 20 year period of direct and personal evidence.
As I am fully aware that there is a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality, I do believe that one day, and likely via a physicist, this 'God' will be empirically proven to exist.

Note many mad people, those with brain damage, taken drugs/hallucinations, etc. also have direct and personal experiences of God.

• The Temporal Lobes and God
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are tons of evidences to support the above point.

How do you know, your direct experience of God has nothing to do some issues in your brain or the general psychological impulses of the existential crisis?
You need to do research in this area.

Getting back on track as per my OP:-
Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually. It has been an argument of mine - on point 2. 'God' as A.I. ....for many years.
1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

Do provide YOUR counter argument to the point 2. A.I. 'God' resulting from the progression of entropy.

I find you argument above nonsensical, thus I presented my generalized argument, i.e. you cannot equivocate the non-empirical metaphysics with empirical Science.

Rephrasing your point 2;
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us [humans], created in order for us [humans] to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

You did not define 'God' as intended in your argument.
God is generally taken to be the intelligent creator of the whole universe.
How can this fit in with your ridiculous point 2?
You imply God was created by humans, and this human created God who created the universe, humans and an efficient reality AI.

You stated,
"Entropy dictates that a 'God' will exist eventually."
Where is your detailed argument for this?
Since you did not present any convincing argument, thus I provided you links from google and also the related counter-arguments.

Btw, I do not want to waste time on the above ridiculous arguments.

My focus is;

• 1. Empirical Science cannot be equivocated with a non-empirical Metaphysical/ontological God.
  
  2. The emergent of the idea of God is from one's own terrible existential psychology and should be resolved on the basis of such psychology.

[Logik]

Because metaphysics is deemed to be non-empirical, it cannot be equated nor proven within empirical Science.

Gross mis-understanding of science. Science can't prove anything.

The notion of "proof" is only valid within the context of formal logic/mathematics.
If a logical/mathematical statement is proven to follow from some set of axioms then it is called a theorem.

It sounds to me like you insist on "metaphysical theorems". Based on what axioms?