Religious Ideas can be anything you imagine them to be.

[Dontaskme]

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power.
We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religious thought, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both logic and faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Steve Eley

[Nick_A]

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power.
We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religious thought, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both logic and faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Steve Eley

Quite true. Religious ideas can be anything you imagine them to be. It is also true of mathematical ideas. So religious and mathematical ideas can be either true or fantasy.

A seeker of truth has to learn how to verify why 2+2 equals 4 in matters of quantity but not necessarily so in matters of quality. A seeker of truth has to become able to distinguish fantasy from reality in religious ideas. But how many know how to begin and what is necessary to become capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy? Now many even know what is meant by eyes to see and ears to hear? That is the problem.

Matthew 13

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

[Nick_A]

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power.
We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religious thought, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both logic and faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Steve Eley

Quite true. Religious ideas can be anything you imagine them to be. It is also true of mathematical ideas. So religious and mathematical ideas can be either true or fantasy.

A seeker of truth has to learn how to verify why 2+2 equals 4 in matters of quantity but not necessarily so in matters of quality. A seeker of truth has to become able to distinguish fantasy from reality in religious ideas. But how many know how to begin and what is necessary to become capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy? Now many even know what is meant by eyes to see and ears to hear? That is the problem.

Matthew 13

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

[Age]

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power.
We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religious thought, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both logic and faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Steve Eley

Quite true. Religious ideas can be anything you imagine them to be. It is also true of mathematical ideas. So religious and mathematical ideas can be either true or fantasy.

A seeker of truth has to learn how to verify why 2+2 equals 4 in matters of quantity but not necessarily so in matters of quality. A seeker of truth has to become able to distinguish fantasy from reality in religious ideas. But how many know how to begin and what is necessary to become capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy?

At least one, consciously. All the rest sub or un-consciously.

Now many even know what is meant by eyes to see and ears to hear?

At least one, consciously. All the rest sub or un-consciously.

There is an even deeper meaning below eyes to see and ears to hear, and that is using your 'eyes to hear' and your 'ears to see'. "But first things first", as they say.

That is the problem.

It is only a 'problem' until it is solved/answered, (just like ALL 'problems' are).

Once you have the solution to ALL of Life's so called 'problems', then you have thee ANSWER to Life, Itself.

Life truly IS simple and easy.

Matthew 13

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power.
We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religious thought, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both logic and faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Steve Eley

Nah, the above is very amateurish.

There is a fine difference between imaginations and ideas [philosophical].
Imaginations are restricted to empirical things, i.e. can be proven at least by Science.
An invisible pink unicorns [horse with a single horn] is possible to be imagined because all the variables are empirically possible albeit not probable.
One can imagine a god as a monkey 1 billion light years away and this is an empirical possibility subject to real evidences to justify it as real.

Ideas [philosophical] are what can be thought of but they cannot be related to the empirical at all.
We can think of a square-circle but no such thought can be realized as empirical at all. Thus there is no way one can imagine a square-circle.

It is the same with an omni-whatever God, the "omni" factor is beyond the empirical, thus the the omni-God is a philosophical idea never an imagination.

It is the same as the ultimate no-self in the absolute sense, this is also beyond imagination, thus a philosophical idea and is a transcendental illusion. Thus your delusion in insisting no-self, no me, and the likes is real.

[Dontaskme]

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power.
We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religious thought, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both logic and faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Steve Eley

Nah, the above is very amateurish.

There is a fine difference between imaginations and ideas [philosophical].
Imaginations are restricted to empirical things, i.e. can be proven at least by Science.
An invisible pink unicorns [horse with a single horn] is possible to be imagined because all the variables are empirically possible albeit not probable.
One can imagine a god as a monkey 1 billion light years away and this is an empirical possibility subject to real evidences to justify it as real.

Ideas [philosophical] are what can be thought of but they cannot be related to the empirical at all.
We can think of a square-circle but no such thought can be realized as empirical at all. Thus there is no way one can imagine a square-circle.

It is the same with an omni-whatever God, the "omni" factor is beyond the empirical, thus the the omni-God is a philosophical idea never an imagination.

It is the same as the ultimate no-self in the absolute sense, this is also beyond imagination, thus a philosophical idea and is a transcendental illusion. Thus your delusion in insisting no-self, no me, and the likes is real.

There is no empirical thing or experience KNOWN without human conceptual language/knowledge to inform of such phenomena. Outside of that phenomena unique to the hominid brain...aka the world of imagination and hallucination, no KNOWN thing or experience ever happens.

When you say''... there is no way one can imagine a square-circle....'' well sure enough, you just DID...so the square circle exists in that sense, in the imagined idea of it. Of course the idea of a square circle cannot exist as a fixed 'known' empirical object. Because all KNOWN objective concepts are fixed, in the sense that a square can never be a circle and a circle can never be a square, but a 'square circle' can be imagined nonetheless, literally 'everything' is all inclusive within the mind including pink unicorns.

The 'square circle' idea is an experience in association with it's meaning to what is being KNOWN, so it exists in that sense, but obviously not in an empirical fixed objective sense...but it exists nonetheless because if some thing can be thought about then it exists.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power.
We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religious thought, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both logic and faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Steve Eley

Nah, the above is very amateurish.

There is a fine difference between imaginations and ideas [philosophical].
Imaginations are restricted to empirical things, i.e. can be proven at least by Science.
An invisible pink unicorns [horse with a single horn] is possible to be imagined because all the variables are empirically possible albeit not probable.
One can imagine a god as a monkey 1 billion light years away and this is an empirical possibility subject to real evidences to justify it as real.

Ideas [philosophical] are what can be thought of but they cannot be related to the empirical at all.
We can think of a square-circle but no such thought can be realized as empirical at all. Thus there is no way one can imagine a square-circle.

It is the same with an omni-whatever God, the "omni" factor is beyond the empirical, thus the the omni-God is a philosophical idea never an imagination.

It is the same as the ultimate no-self in the absolute sense, this is also beyond imagination, thus a philosophical idea and is a transcendental illusion. Thus your delusion in insisting no-self, no me, and the likes is real.

There is no empirical thing or experience KNOWN without human conceptual language/knowledge to inform of such phenomena. Outside of that phenomena unique to the hominid brain...aka the world of imagination and hallucination, no KNOWN thing or experience ever happens.

When you say''... there is no way one can imagine a square-circle....'' well sure enough, you just DID...so the square circle exists in that sense, in the imagined idea of it. Of course the idea of a square circle cannot exist as a fixed 'known' empirical object. Because all KNOWN objective concepts are fixed, in the sense that a square can never be a circle and a circle can never be a square, but a 'square circle' can be imagined nonetheless, literally 'everything' is all inclusive within the mind including pink unicorns.

The 'square circle' idea is an experience in association with it's meaning to what is being KNOWN, so it exists in that sense, but obviously not in an empirical fixed objective sense...but it exists nonetheless because if some thing can be thought about then it exists.

You are very thick in the skull on this.

You cannot grasp what I meant by, one can think of a square-circle but you cannot imagine a square-circle, try it, you will never be able to bring such an image [necessary for imagination] into your mind.
Note imagination necessitate 'images'.
Where can you ever produce an image of a square-circle, you cannot even draw it out.

So only the thought of such an impossible thing exists but not the image and definitely on in real terms.

[Dontaskme]

Where can you ever produce an image of a square-circle, you cannot even draw it out.

All images come from the same place, namely the imageless. A drawn image has no existence, it's just an empty image appearing within the imageless. What is the point of asking such stupid questions about ideas that cannot exist empirically? and notice that empirically, things are KNOWN as an idea only, but never actually physically seen, because again, any 'thing' seen is the 'looked upon' by that which cannot look at itself...So the seer's whole existence is only possible in association with an object...aka the ''looked upon'' so both subject and object have to be simultaneously present in the exact same instant, each giving birth to the other and KNOWN INSTANTLY one with the knowing.

So only the thought of such an impossible thing exists but not the image and definitely on in real terms.

You forget that images are actually empty although apparently and seeming appear very real and full.
A drawn image is a representation of an idea, it has no existence outside of the idea..what is an idea? I've no idea.

You mistake the images on the imageless screen for reality. In real reality the imageless screen is what's real, everything else is an illusory transient perishable apparition upon/within it.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where can you ever produce an image of a square-circle, you cannot even draw it out.

All images come from the same place, namely the imageless. A drawn image has no existence, it's just an empty image appearing within the imageless. What is the point of asking such stupid questions about ideas that cannot exist empirically? and notice that empirically, things are KNOWN as an idea only, but never actually physically seen, because again, any 'thing' seen is the 'looked upon' by that which cannot look at itself...So the seer's whole existence is only possible in association with an object...aka the ''looked upon'' so both subject and object have to be simultaneously present in the exact same instant, each giving birth to the other and KNOWN INSTANTLY one with the knowing.

So only the thought of such an impossible thing exists but not the image and definitely on in real terms.

You forget that images are actually empty although apparently and seeming appear very real and full.
A drawn image is a representation of an idea, it has no existence outside of the idea..what is an idea? I've no idea.

You mistake the images on the imageless screen for reality. In real reality the imageless screen is what's real, everything else is an illusory transient perishable apparition upon/within it.

You are lost thus simply bleat.

If you see an apple you can imagine an image of an apple in your mind.
Look at an apple, then close your eyes and imagine the apple in your head.
Where the hell did I say the apple imagined in the head/mind is the real apple.
The real apple is the one I can take by my hand and eat it.

But the fact is you cannot imaging an image of a square-circle because it is impossible to exist as real. One can think about it e.g. talk about a square-circle in words but never in term of an image.

The 'God' [Nature] that you think exists is like a square-circle, it is impossible to exist as real and thus cannot be imagined.
One can think and talk about and entity that is ominpotent, omnipresence, omniscient, omni-whatever, but one cannot imagine such an entity at all because such an entity is impossible to exists as real nor can it be put into an image.
It is the same as the ground of the non-dual-I you are spouting about, such an entity or thing cannot exists as real.

Again why you are insisting a one-sided "that" is real is due to psychology and in your case, you need to consult a psychiatrist on it.

[Dontaskme]

Again why you are insisting a one-sided "that" is real is due to psychology and in your case, you need to consult a psychiatrist on it.

OK, I'll consult my brain later tonight when it's quiet. I'll ask it loads of questions about the conditioned psychological state it is supposed to be in and I'll report back with the results tomorrow, but I'm not banking on getting any concrete answers, just be aware of that.

Meanwhile, your other response to me is right, within your own understanding, but that doesn't mean it'll make sense to this one here, as I have my own views as to how I understand things formed of my own direct experience. And so based on direct experience every view is right. All sides are real within the one that is directly experiening that view as it is appearing real to that one...that one doesn't take sides, it's stuck on it's own side...but ironically allows all sides to exist, unless it really does believe only in it's own onesidedness, which it often does as it's usually attached to it's own side.

Bye for now, until the next time we meet, except two minds never ever meet up, nor ever saw the other, but that's another long story.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again why you are insisting a one-sided "that" is real is due to psychology and in your case, you need to consult a psychiatrist on it.

OK, I'll consult my brain later tonight when it's quiet. I'll ask it loads of questions about the conditioned psychological state it is supposed to be in and I'll report back with the results tomorrow, but I'm not banking on getting any concrete answers, just be aware of that.

Meanwhile, your other response to me is right, within your own understanding, but that doesn't mean it'll make sense to this one here, as I have my own views as to how I understand things formed of my own direct experience. And so based on direct experience every view is right. All sides are real within the one that is directly experiening that view as it is appearing real to that one...that one doesn't take sides, it's stuck on it's own side...but ironically allows all sides to exist, unless it really does believe only in it's own onesidedness, which it often does as it's usually attached to it's own side.

Bye for now, until the next time we meet, except two minds never ever meet up, nor ever saw the other, but that's another long story.

"And so based on direct experience every view is right."

How can that be so?
How can any one rely on their direct experiences and insist their own conclusion relating to Science is right?
Can someone insist Earth is 20 million miles from the Sun, while others may insist, 10, 50, 80 million mile and a million people come up with a million different answers?
See how ridiculous you statement above will lead you to.

[Dontaskme]

"And so based on direct experience every view is right."

How can that be so?

In relation to religious ideas about God, people are right, because people will always hold to the God of their own unique understanding what feels right for them. Some call God other things like consciousness, isness, beingness, or even nothingness...it's each to their own right way of understanding that makes sense to them. That's what I mean, but you seem to like going off on your own wild tangents making out that everyone else is mad because they are not following your tangents, when it's you that's really the mad one for not staying on the same track as everybody else.

Can someone insist Earth is 20 million miles from the Sun, while others may insist, 10, 50, 80 million mile and a million people come up with a million different answers?
See how ridiculous you statement above will lead you to.

But my statement has got nothing to do with measuring distances from one object to another, what the heck is 20 miles south of the earth got anything to do with having right views about God?
I don't give a toss how far the earth is away from the sun, so I wouldn't even make that comparison statement anyway. Logic informs me that to know such knowledge one would have to physically leave the earth with a very large measuring tape, with one end securely anchored to the earth and the other end touching the sun. As of yet, I have no idea how such a feat would be possible...so I'm really not interested in such trivial knowledge. It's not like I can physically get myself from the earth to the sun and measure the distance myself just to obtain actual proof by having first hand direct knowledge as to whether the exact true accurate measurement is right or not, I couldn't care less...I am only interested in what is right now, what feels right here and now within my own direct experience.

For example, one of the things that would be right is when I'm hungry I eat, and when I need a poo I go to the toilet. That's what I mean about being right. I know right here and now that it is right to go to the toilet when I need a poo, and I know it is right that when you eat, your hunger pains go away...and I know it is right that water feels wet....that's what I mean by everyone is right with what they know empirically.

However I cannot empirically measure who knows and experiences all this known phenomena...except to label it something, and that's what I'm getting at.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"And so based on direct experience every view is right."

How can that be so?

In relation to religious ideas about God, people are right, because people will always hold to the God of their own unique understanding what feels right for them. Some call God other things like consciousness, isness, beingness, or even nothingness...it's each to their own right way of understanding that makes sense to them. That's what I mean, but you seem to like going off on your own wild tangents making out that everyone else is mad because they are not following your tangents, when it's you that's really the mad one for not staying on the same track as everybody else.

Can someone insist Earth is 20 million miles from the Sun, while others may insist, 10, 50, 80 million mile and a million people come up with a million different answers?
See how ridiculous you statement above will lead you to.

But my statement has got nothing to do with measuring distances from one object to another, what the heck is 20 miles south of the earth got anything to do with having right views about God?
I don't give a toss how far the earth is away from the sun, so I wouldn't even make that comparison statement anyway. Logic informs me that to know such knowledge one would have to physically leave the earth with a very large measuring tape, with one end securely anchored to the earth and the other end touching the sun. As of yet, I have no idea how such a feat would be possible...so I'm really not interested in such trivial knowledge. It's not like I can physically get myself from the earth to the sun and measure the distance myself just to obtain actual proof by having first hand direct knowledge as to whether the exact true accurate measurement is right or not, I couldn't care less...I am only interested in what is right now, what feels right here and now within my own direct experience.

For example, one of the things that would be right is when I'm hungry I eat, and when I need a poo I go to the toilet. That's what I mean about being right. I know right here and now that it is right to go to the toilet when I need a poo, and I know it is right that when you eat, your hunger pains go away...and I know it is right that water feels wet....that's what I mean by everyone is right with what they know empirically.

However I cannot empirically measure who knows and experiences all this known phenomena...except to label it something, and that's what I'm getting at.

You do not understand and cannot different between what is highly subjective opinions, personal beliefs and knowledge.

Anyone can claim what they believe is right but that could be an opinion, illusion, or beliefs,
which may not be rightly 'right' i.e. which is
-morally good, justified, or acceptable.
google dictionary.

One can simply claim a proposition to be right in the rational sense until it is justified and acceptable. E.g. the gnomes that the schizo claimed to be real cannot be 'right'.
A personal opinion and belief of what is right to the person is not a justified right until it is justified with evidence.

Whatever one feel is right is never always right until it is justified by evidence and testing.

[Age]

"And so based on direct experience every view is right."

How can that be so?

In relation to religious ideas about God, people are right, because people will always hold to the God of their own unique understanding what feels right for them. Some call God other things like consciousness, isness, beingness, or even nothingness...it's each to their own right way of understanding that makes sense to them. That's what I mean, but you seem to like going off on your own wild tangents making out that everyone else is mad because they are not following your tangents, when it's you that's really the mad one for not staying on the same track as everybody else.

Can someone insist Earth is 20 million miles from the Sun, while others may insist, 10, 50, 80 million mile and a million people come up with a million different answers?
See how ridiculous you statement above will lead you to.

But my statement has got nothing to do with measuring distances from one object to another, what the heck is 20 miles south of the earth got anything to do with having right views about God?
I don't give a toss how far the earth is away from the sun, so I wouldn't even make that comparison statement anyway. Logic informs me that to know such knowledge one would have to physically leave the earth with a very large measuring tape, with one end securely anchored to the earth and the other end touching the sun. As of yet, I have no idea how such a feat would be possible...so I'm really not interested in such trivial knowledge. It's not like I can physically get myself from the earth to the sun and measure the distance myself just to obtain actual proof by having first hand direct knowledge as to whether the exact true accurate measurement is right or not, I couldn't care less...I am only interested in what is right now, what feels right here and now within my own direct experience.

For example, one of the things that would be right is when I'm hungry I eat, and when I need a poo I go to the toilet. That's what I mean about being right. I know right here and now that it is right to go to the toilet when I need a poo, and I know it is right that when you eat, your hunger pains go away...and I know it is right that water feels wet....that's what I mean by everyone is right with what they know empirically.

However I cannot empirically measure who knows and experiences all this known phenomena...except to label it something, and that's what I'm getting at.

You do not understand and cannot different between what is highly subjective opinions, personal beliefs and knowledge.

From what you, yourself, write you also appear very confused about these things as well.

Just about each time you 'try to' explain and justify things, you end up contradicting some thing you have said previously.

Anyone can claim what they believe is right but that could be an opinion, illusion, or beliefs,
which may not be rightly 'right' i.e. which is
-morally good, justified, or acceptable.
google dictionary.

One can simply claim a proposition to be right in the rational sense until it is justified and acceptable. E.g. the gnomes that the schizo claimed to be real cannot be 'right'.

Why can they not be right? Just because you call the one claiming 'gnomes are real' a "schizo"? Is that the only thing you are basing 'right' and 'wrong' off of?

A personal opinion and belief of what is right to the person is not a justified right until it is justified with evidence.

How do you KNOW what has been justified right, with evidence, to "another" person?

By the way, you have and hold personal opinions, assumptions, and beliefs, which are obviously ridiculously ludicrous false, wrong, and incorrect, but, to you, you have already justified them with evidence.

So, although some thing might be a "justified right", to you, it is NOT a 'justified right' in the True sense.

Whatever one feel is right is never always right until it is justified by evidence and testing.

Yet you believe, feel, and claim that 'God is an impossibility to be real' and you still have absolutely NO evidence to justify this claim of yours. Or, if you do, then you certainly have NOT produced any here, in this forum, that I have yet SEEN.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In relation to religious ideas about God, people are right, because people will always hold to the God of their own unique understanding what feels right for them. Some call God other things like consciousness, isness, beingness, or even nothingness...it's each to their own right way of understanding that makes sense to them. That's what I mean, but you seem to like going off on your own wild tangents making out that everyone else is mad because they are not following your tangents, when it's you that's really the mad one for not staying on the same track as everybody else.



But my statement has got nothing to do with measuring distances from one object to another, what the heck is 20 miles south of the earth got anything to do with having right views about God?
I don't give a toss how far the earth is away from the sun, so I wouldn't even make that comparison statement anyway. Logic informs me that to know such knowledge one would have to physically leave the earth with a very large measuring tape, with one end securely anchored to the earth and the other end touching the sun. As of yet, I have no idea how such a feat would be possible...so I'm really not interested in such trivial knowledge. It's not like I can physically get myself from the earth to the sun and measure the distance myself just to obtain actual proof by having first hand direct knowledge as to whether the exact true accurate measurement is right or not, I couldn't care less...I am only interested in what is right now, what feels right here and now within my own direct experience.

For example, one of the things that would be right is when I'm hungry I eat, and when I need a poo I go to the toilet. That's what I mean about being right. I know right here and now that it is right to go to the toilet when I need a poo, and I know it is right that when you eat, your hunger pains go away...and I know it is right that water feels wet....that's what I mean by everyone is right with what they know empirically.

However I cannot empirically measure who knows and experiences all this known phenomena...except to label it something, and that's what I'm getting at.

You do not understand and cannot different between what is highly subjective opinions, personal beliefs and knowledge.

From what you, yourself, write you also appear very confused about these things as well.

Just about each time you 'try to' explain and justify things, you end up contradicting some thing you have said previously.

Anyone can claim what they believe is right but that could be an opinion, illusion, or beliefs,
which may not be rightly 'right' i.e. which is
-morally good, justified, or acceptable.
google dictionary.

One can simply claim a proposition to be right in the rational sense until it is justified and acceptable. E.g. the gnomes that the schizo claimed to be real cannot be 'right'.

Why can they not be right? Just because you call the one claiming 'gnomes are real' a "schizo"? Is that the only thing you are basing 'right' and 'wrong' off of?

A personal opinion and belief of what is right to the person is not a justified right until it is justified with evidence.

How do you KNOW what has been justified right, with evidence, to "another" person?

By the way, you have and hold personal opinions, assumptions, and beliefs, which are obviously ridiculously ludicrous false, wrong, and incorrect, but, to you, you have already justified them with evidence.

So, although some thing might be a "justified right", to you, it is NOT a 'justified right' in the True sense.

Whatever one feel is right is never always right until it is justified by evidence and testing.

Yet you believe, feel, and claim that 'God is an impossibility to be real' and you still have absolutely NO evidence to justify this claim of yours. Or, if you do, then you certainly have NOT produced any here, in this forum, that I have yet SEEN.

My argument and conclusion is in the OP supported by later posts.
Do you have any sound counter to my premises.
You have tried on P1 but failed.

I have mentioned it is possible for an empirical-based God to exists but this is subjected to availability of evidence.
If one stated his God is that bearded man in the sky who had created the Universe, then bring evidence of that bearded man so that the bearded man can be tested to confirm he is God or not.

However note my point, all claims of empirical-based God will ultimately be reduced toward the ontological God unless the theist is satisfy with an inferior God. Even then, one need to bring the empirical evident to justify the existence of such an empirical God.

Re human nature and in general, for any empirical God there will be room for an empirical God that is greater than the God that is claimed. This generate an infinite regression where only an ontological [absolutely perfect] God can stop the infinite regression.

But the absolutely perfect ontological God cannot possibly exist as real.