Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:15 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
There is chaos within it but it is not spontaneous but simply a consequences of how phenomena operates
What is actually called chaos is not really chaos as such as that is simply a description of human minds
Chaos is actually very ordered but to the human eye it does not appear ordered at all hence the name
Agreed

Chaos is multiplicity and complexity. You can have particles spontaneously pop into and out of a vaccuum, but it is the same repition of particles occurring that necessitates a pattern. The same occurs for what comes out of the unconscious as well.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

HereToDiscuss wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:53 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:09 pm The Universe is perfect in the sense that it is ALL THAT EXISTS and so it is complete and absolute
A single eternal and infinite entity with everything working in perfect harmony to everything else
Nothing within it operates entirely independently of anything else because it is all interconnected

There is chaos within it but it is not spontaneous but simply a consequences of how phenomena operates
The Universe simply is and by virtue of this is as perfect as anything can be because there is nothing else
I do not get you. You seem to suggest that the Universe has to be perfect by saying that the reason it is perfect is because it is all that exists and therefore complete/absolute-which means that Universe, if it exists, is always perfect. But then you go on to mention it being harmonious, which seem to conflict with your previous statement because; if it is perfect a priori, what reason is there to even infer that it is perfect by using a posteriori argument?

Then, at last, you say that "The universe is as perfect as anything can be because there is nothing else." After thinking what you said for an hour, i think that you're just confusing things with each other. The statement "The universe is as perfect as anything can be." seems to concern harmony: A bear can be perfect in it's own right, music and humans can be perfect in their own right too. It is simply the harmony that makes the Universe perfect. But that doesn't follow from "There is nothing else.", which seem to suggest that you mean that the Universe's perfectness can't be lower than that of it's components since anything that increases the perfectness of a thing inside the Universe also increases the perfectness of the Universe. But that, even if true, doesn't justify your statement and also holds true for an imperfect Universe. Can you please, by using clear and well-written sentences, explain it?

Also, in order to understand you better, please tell me which of the following statements you agree with:

"'Universe is perfect.' is an a priori statement."

"A non-harmonious universe is not perfect."


Maybe i'm just reading too much into a post that is simply meant to be an emotional assertion -"I feel that it is perfect."- instead of a philosophical statement, especially since the writing is very unclear and seems to be emotion-driven.
If the universe contains alot things, including then concept of perfection with this concept being a reflection of the universe (ie a part), then the universe both contains perfection and reflects it.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

The Universe is a natural entity so is also perfect in the sense that it is not designed
Anything natural is perfect by default therefore the Universe is most perfect indeed

The only things that are known not to be perfect are those designed and created by the human mind
Everything else is entirely natural as it all came into existence without it being designed and created
surreptitious57
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by surreptitious57 »

surreptitious57 wrote:
The only things that are known not to be perfect are those designed and created by the human mind
Everything else is entirely natural as it all came into existence without it being designed and created
One could say however that the designs and creations of human minds are natural for they only use what already exists in Nature
As every artificial object that has been designed and created will be composed of atoms that the Universe is itself composed from
There is therefore nothing that is entirely artificial - artificial things are simply matter that has been manipulated in a certain way

The artificial devices for example that we are using to communicate with each other operate on the principles of quantum mechanics
The very same quantum mechanics that exists at the sub atomic level and was responsible for the Big Bang nearly I4 billion years ago
Everything is therefore connected to everything else - either directly or indirectly - this is one of the fundamental truths of Existence

Another fundamental truth is that Existence has always and will always exist because it is both infinite and eternal
Another fundamental truth is that while Existence is infinite and eternal only the absolute NOW can be experienced
And so something that is natural and infinite and eternal has to by default be perfect too - it cannot be anything else

When the Sun finally goes red giant in 5 billion years then all the artificial designs and creations of human beings will return to their natural state
After that happens there will be no evidence the human species ever existed - it will all have be destroyed by the natural energy of the dying Sun

Everything comes from Nature and therefore everything is perfect - even if only indirectly so - this is yet another fundamental truth of Existence
This is simply how things are and always have been and always will be - Existence simply IS - that is reality explained in as few words as possible
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4871
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
You keep repeating your Philosophical Realist stance but note there a very strong opposing view to your stance
i e the philosophical anti realist views where there are many variations

Rather than repeating your Philosophical Realist stance you should understand [ not necessarily agree ] the
philosophical anti realist views [ mine is as Kants ] and counter why their views are not tenable and yours is
The Philosophical Realist position is subjective opinion not absolute truth
So other positions on the nature of reality should therefore be considered
The above is odd.
As I had stated yours is the Philosophical Realist's position.
However you don't seem to consider the philosophical anti-realist's position.

The Philosophical Realist's [PR] did not claim theirs is the absolute truth but merely an objective truth. They claim that is the only objective truth.
The problem of their claim is that objective truth is only valid within one paradigm of mind-independent existence.
What the PR do not consider is the other paradigm of mind interdependent existence of things.

The philosophical anti-realists [of Kant et. al.] accept both paradigms, mind independent things and mind interdependent things.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4871
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
Age wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:36 am Are you joking?

By your, so called, "logic" here; That the unicorn is impossible to exist are real is one example representing all empirical things. This is beyond logic. This is just plain ridiculousness. Unless of course you mean some other thing?
It is possible for a unicorn [if define as horse with a single horn] to exists because the variables concern are empirically possible.
What do you mean by, 'empirically possible'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am This is a matter of awaiting for the empirical evidence to justify it.
To me, you appear to be using the word 'empirical' in two opposing ways.
I have already provided you a definition of what is empirical.
  • EMPIRICAL:
    : originating in or based on observation or experience.
    -empirical data
    2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
    -an empirical basis for the theory
    3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
    -empirical laws
    4: of or relating to empiricism
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
  • Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

    In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
    wiki
If you do not agree with the above, what is your definition, else we can deliberate on others.

Empirically possible means whatever that is unknown that can be defined as empirical.
The issue is, if a thing is unknown, the question is whether it is empirically possible or not?
I can speculate dogs exist in a planet 100 million light years away because all the variables here are empirical elements.

But if I were to speculate a square-circle exists anywhere, it is not empirically possible at all, i.e. being a contradiction. This is a non-starter for any empirical possibility.

The IDEA of God is not empirically possible because it is merely a thought arising from a transcendental illusion.
Point is while there are empirical evidence of dogs, thus an empirical element, there are no empirical grounding for the thought of God.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am However to insist an absolutely perfect unicorn as real exists would be impossible because 'absolutely perfect' it not applicable to empirical things.
Now, to you, what are 'empirical things'?

You really do seem somewhat very confused about the word 'empirical'.

How do you define the word 'empirical'?

But what it boils down to now is it appears you start a thread with the title above, but then just claim that there can not be any perfect thing forever more EVER anyway. Is this correct?

If, to you, there can not be any perfect thing EVER, then that is PERFECTLY okay and fine, with me.
Note my definition of empirical above and what are empirically things.

Man is an empirical being because man can be empirically justified.

However the absolutely perfect man is only an ideal, there is no way an absolutely perfect man can be empirical. It is only an ideal like Plato's forms, ideas and universals.
Can you prove an empirically absolute perfect man exists?

If the above is not possible, it would worst and impossible to prove,
"the absolutely perfect non-empirical God is possible."

I mentioned elsewhere, relative and condition perfection is possible. For example, a 100/100 score in an objective test is a perfect score but that is subject to some predetermined answers. The term 'perfect' is often used very loosely.
If, to you, there can not be any perfect thing EVER, then that is PERFECTLY okay and fine, with me.
Then why are you insisting on an absolute perfect God as real?

I do not accept 'absolute perfection' i.e. totally unconditional, as possible to be real [empirical + philosophical].
The ultimate God is always ontological, i.e. of absolute, totally unconditional perfection, thus such a God is impossible to be real and realizable [empirical + philosophical].
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4871
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am

And I have SHOWN you one thing. But you will NOT LOOK AT It.

That is; Thee Universe.

How many times do I have to tell you.
You have mentioned that many times but that is your assertion without any justification.
I do NOT have to 'justify' the Universe, Itself. The Universe IS justified by Its own Self. By just being HERE NOW in ALL of Its ABSOLUTE beauty and PERFECTION the Universe, to me anyway, IS ALREADY JUSTIFIED.

....
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am You are selfish is caring only for your existential and emotional need but don't give a damn [insufficient empathy] to the evil and violent consequences you and the likes that is dumped on humanity.
You appear to be drifting further and further away from what we WERE discussing.

It seems like you are running out of ideas of how you could "justify" your BELIEFS anymore, and so are just grasping at any thing at all, which you think will help you.
Nope I am not running out of ideas but full of ideas.
I have shown your ideas are impossible to be real and in addition I extended to explain why you insist they are real when they are merely illusions.
Thus why you are insisting the impossible as possible is due to psychology.

Hume did the same in explaining why causality is taken for granted, i.e. that is due to psychology.
Kant implied the same, i.e. why people insist God is real when it is impossible to be real, is due to psychology.
Hume and Kant could not dig deeper because the research on psychology then was not deep and extensive during their time.

Your post is too long [wasting my time] and this is because you are so ignorant on the various points.

You do not understand what is empirical, which should be basic within philosophy.

You asked such basic question is 'what is scientifically justified'.
It is anything that is justified within the objective Scientific Method and accepted the respective peer. This is so basic!

I mentioned I will bring your claim for reputable scientists to test. That is just a saying. I could care less until you prove your theory. The normal approach is, the onus is on you to present to reputable to test your theory of any positive claims.

I believe the rest of your questions are covered by my recent definitions and explanations.
If not, tell me which point I have missed out that is critical to you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4871
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am Therefore The-Whole-Universe is impossible to be real.
Wait a minute. BEFORE you JUMP to such a conclusion, let us LOOK AT your "argument" first.

P1. Parts of the Universe are 'empirical possible'. (I still do NOT know what you mean by 'empirically possible'.)
P2. The Whole Universe that 'IS' absolutely perfect can not be an 'empirical concept'. (I still do NOT know what you mean by 'an empirical concept')
C. Therefore, The-Whole-Universe is impossible to be real.

WHY is The Whole Universe written with Capitals?

WHY can parts of the whole Universe be 'empirically possible', but the whole Universe, Itself, can NOT be 'empirically possible' (whatever 'empirically possible' means)?

WHY do you say; "The Whole Universe (in Capitals) that 'IS' absolutely perfect"? Either the Universe IS 'absolutely perfect' or It is NOT.

And now, WHY do you say The Whole 'absolutely perfect' Universe can not be an 'empirical concept'? Are you 'trying to' suggest that human beings can not conceive of an absolutely perfect Universe?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am One can think of an absolutely perfect Whole-Universe but it is impossible to real and realizable.
What evidence OR proof do you have to justify this claim you make here?

Also, If one can conceive of an absolutely perfect, so called, Whole-Universe, then WHY could that Whole-Universe NOT be an 'empirical concept'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am One limitation is there is no way to verify a Whole-Universe because humans cannot stand out of the Whole-Universe to take an independent view to justify its existence.
If a Universe exists, which It OBVIOUSLY does, then one does NOT have to "stand outside" of the Universe to take an "independent view" to KNOW that the whole Universe exists. If 'you' exist, then the whole Universe also obviously exists.

What is also obvious is:
A part of some thing can not exist while the rest of it does not exist.

If a part of the Universe is existing, then so is the rest of the whole of the Universe.

Whatever IS existing is the WHOLE of It. Unless, of course, you can SHOW otherwise?

If some thing IS existing, then that, in and of itself, VERIFIES its existence.

Therefore, IF the Universe IS existing, which It IS, then, that by itself, verifies that the whole of the Universe is existing.

Could it get anymore simple and straightforward than that?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 amIt is worst if anyone were to try to justify whether the Whole-Universe is absolute perfect or not.
In your attempt to 'try to' "justify" your own ALREADY (very strongly held) BELIEFS you are fooling yourself ONLY.

If the Universe, Itself, is NOT absolutely perfect, to you, then what is It?

To you;

WHY is the whole of the Universe NOT absolute? And,

WHY is the whole Universe NOT perfect?

Are you starting to NOTICE that you have NOT yet SHOWN any actual evidence NOR proof for this, and all you have REALLY SHOWN is just your ALREADY held BELIEFS?
When you propose the WHOLE-UNIVERSE you are implying a 100% totally complete thing which is merely a thought only thus empirically impossible.
Show me how is this empirically possible?

You can think of a Universe that is absolutely perfect, but that is an idea only and is an illusion.
As such because it is only an idea and an ideal, is impossible to be empirical thus no grounds to be real.

Whatever empirical can exists as real but when one claim an empirical thing as absolutely perfect that is stretching too far toward impossibility.
I have given an example of the empirical man which can be scientifically justified [even with common sense] but there is no way the absolutely-ideal-perfect-man can exists as real. Show me one existing real man who is absolutely-ideal-perfect-man?

I have given other examples such an absolute perfect circle, perfect marble, and perfect-anything-empirical, such things are impossible to exist as real [can be verified empirically].

I have to say again, why you are unable to accept my counter and insist the absolutely perfect real Universe exists is due to unstable psychological within your psyche. This is the same for insisting absolutely perfect real God exists.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:35 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Whatever actually exists is meaningless from the philosophical perspective
Whatever actually exists is a statement about reality and so is therefore true regardless of any philosophical interpretation
Reality is objective and mind independent so is not conditional on human knowledge - most of it would not exist if it were.
Where reality is concerned you have to be precise with the related empirical thing[s].
The term 'whatever' is too loose because it could include non-empirical things.
How could the WORD 'whatever' be "to loose" in relation to the term 'whatever ACTUALLY exists ...?

If a non-empirical thing does NOT exist, then OBVIOUSLY it is NOT included in the term, which starts off; 'whatever actually exists ...'. Therefore, the WORD 'whatever' obviously could NEVER include non-empirical things that do NOT exist. I do NOT see how you could see the exact opposite.

Do you purposely NOT see some things or ONLY see things that you WANT to see, on purpose? Or, do you really not notice that you do this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:35 am
Things that are discovered do not come into existence upon point of discovery - they were already in existence as mind independent objects
Things that are known to exist are a sub set [ a very very infinitesimal sub set ] of every thing that exists because human knowledge is finite
I agree it is common sense, i.e. empirical realism, that there are mind-independent object out there. The oncoming train on the track I am standing on is independent of my mind out there, thus I will jump of the train.

But to the philosophical anti-realist whatever is independent of one mind at one level is co-dependent at another level.

Note Philosophical Realism;
  • In metaphysics, [Philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

    Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

    Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views.
    -wiki
Your view is that of the philosophical realist as above.
However there is the opposing non-realist view.

You keep repeating your Philosophical Realist stance, but note there a very strong opposing view to your stance, i.e. the philosophical anti-realist views where there are many variations.

Rather than repeating your Philosophical Realist stance, you should understand [not necessary agree] the philosophical anti-realists views [mine is as Kant's] and counter why their views are not tenable and your is.
If you get familiar with Kant, you will understand how reality emerged as external & independent to the human mind but yet at a meta-level is conditioned upon the human conditions at the same time.

The Universe existed before human beings and will carry on existing after human beings - so its mind independent objective existence is
not conditional on human knowledge - there is therefore zero requirement for something to exist beyond the actual fact of its existence

Something which is known by something else to exist must exist but something which exists does not have to be known to exist by something else
As mentioned the above is the common sense philosophical realist views all humans are evolved with at the fundamental level.
But there are higher philosophical views to what-is-reality you need to familiar with [whether agree or not] .

In a very deeper philosophical reflection, Bertrand Russell encountered the following dilemma,
- perhaps there is no real table out there at all!

Russell concluded with the following resignation;
  • Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
Do you think you are better than Russell in insisting in your stance above without qualifications?
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

HereToDiscuss wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:08 pm
Age wrote: Thee Universe no matter how imperfect It IS claimed to be, is in REALITY PERFECT, which can easily be shown when the Universe, Itself, is just viewed and observed from the Truly OPEN Mind.
What makes a perfect universe perfect?
In one word; 'you'.
HereToDiscuss wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:08 pmOr, in other words: By what standard is the universe perfect?
The ability to create EVERY thing.

The ability to exist.

The ability of life.
HereToDiscuss wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:08 pm Untill you lay out the criteria, the term seems meaningless to me.
Fair enough.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
It is possible for a unicorn [if define as horse with a single horn] to exists because the variables concern are empirically possible.
What do you mean by, 'empirically possible'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am This is a matter of awaiting for the empirical evidence to justify it.
To me, you appear to be using the word 'empirical' in two opposing ways.
I have already provided you a definition of what is empirical.
  • EMPIRICAL:
    : originating in or based on observation or experience.
    -empirical data
    2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
    -an empirical basis for the theory
    3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
    -empirical laws
    4: of or relating to empiricism
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
  • Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

    In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
    wiki
If you do not agree with the above, what is your definition, else we can deliberate on others.

Empirically possible means whatever that is unknown that can be defined as empirical.
Well that does not make any sense to me, considering what you have written above about how you define the word 'empirical'.

If 'empirical' is something/information, which originated, was based, or relied ON or FROM observation or experience, then absolutely any thing could be 'empirical', with enough time. Therefore, 'empirically possible' would just mean absolutely any thing/information that could be POSSIBLY gained ON or FROM 'observation' or 'experience'.

'you', "veritas aequitas", obviously do NOT know what things/information could be gained or verified ON or FROM what WILL BE observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE. Therefore, you have NO way of knowing what can be defined as 'empirical' from what is 'unknown' to 'you' now.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' have NO way of knowing what things/information will be obtained from what is observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe issue is, if a thing is unknown, the question is whether it is empirically possible or not?
That is a question but if it is an issue or not, is another matter. But, if a thing is unknown to 'you' now, then how would you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future, forever more?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amI can speculate dogs exist in a planet 100 million light years away because all the variables here are empirical elements.
Just because you can 'speculate' does in NO way mean that you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future.

ALL adult human beings can speculate on things. In fact, ALL adult human beings most likely do speculate on, many, things. But, sadly, those human beings usually speculate on things, or ASSUME things, based solely upon their own previous experiences. Worse still adult human beings make speculations based from their OWN BELIEFS, of which some of them are Truly distorted, from 'reality'.

Speculating on dogs existing on another planet is just that; a speculation, which has NO bearing at all on what is possible or not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amBut if I were to speculate a square-circle exists anywhere, it is not empirically possible at all, i.e. being a contradiction. This is a non-starter for any empirical possibility.
How do you KNOW that a square-circle exists anywhere?

The Universe is a little bit bigger than where most human beings have traversed.

Have you traveled EVERY where? Do you KNOW square-circles do NOT exist EVERY where.

Is it possible that there is a planet SOME where, where dogs exist who have the intelligence of the human animal, but are far more advance and have some things called 'square-circles'?

If it is possible for the dog animal to exist on a planet 100 million light years away from that planet where the human animal exists, then what I said above could also be possible, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe IDEA of God is not empirically possible because it is merely a thought arising from a transcendental illusion.
And the evidence that God is only an illusion is based on 'what', besides your BELIEFS, exactly?

You keep saying things as though you have proven some thing, but you NEVER actually prove any thing.

If human beings are NEVER perfect, as you say they are, then 'you', being a human being, could be absolutely WRONG about 'God is not empirically possible', correct?

Or, is it only "other" human beings who are NOT perfect, but 'you' ARE perfect, and that that is HOW you KNOW, 100% for sure, that what you say you have "proved" IS True, Right, and Correct?

Why is, what is conditioned upon 'you', "veritas aequitas", and your experiences meant to be PERFECTLY True, but what is conditioned by other human experiences can not be perfect?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amPoint is while there are empirical evidence of dogs, thus an empirical element, there are no empirical grounding for the thought of God.
Some one could just now say; What planet do you live on?

And, some would get it and some would not. But each to their own.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am However to insist an absolutely perfect unicorn as real exists would be impossible because 'absolutely perfect' it not applicable to empirical things.
Now, to you, what are 'empirical things'?

You really do seem somewhat very confused about the word 'empirical'.

How do you define the word 'empirical'?

But what it boils down to now is it appears you start a thread with the title above, but then just claim that there can not be any perfect thing forever more EVER anyway. Is this correct?

If, to you, there can not be any perfect thing EVER, then that is PERFECTLY okay and fine, with me.
Note my definition of empirical above and what are empirically things.
What are 'empirically things' ARE just 'what you say are', from YOUR perspective.

And, if any one SEES absurdly differently, then they are "mentally ill", to you, correct?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amMan is an empirical being because man can be empirically justified.
That is, AFTER the observation or experience then this it true.

By the way the same applies to the woman of that animal species also.

'you', human beings, can be observed AND experienced.

Now, what about "other" Spiritual Beings? Have you EVER observed or experienced any "other" Spiritual Being, or ONLY the 'empirical man being'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amHowever the absolutely perfect man is only an ideal, there is no way an absolutely perfect man can be empirical.
Well, I for one, have CERTAINLY NEVER observed NOR experienced a 'perfect man' nor even a 'perfect woman'. But that is NO way means that, FOREVER MORE, a 'perfect man or perfect woman' could never be a possibility.

Even IF a 'perfect man, or woman' is only an ideal, OBVIOUSLY ideals CAN and DO come to be a reality. Therefore, ALL ideals COULD be a POSSIBILITY, some time in the future, obviously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amIt is only an ideal like Plato's forms, ideas and universals.
Can you prove an empirically absolute perfect man exists?
When this is written, are you joking?

If no, then my answer is NO I can not prove a 'perfect man, nor a perfect woman' exists. However, and if we want to delve deeper into philosophy, then ALL female bodies, like ALL male bodies are PERFECT, exactly how they ARE.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amIf the above is not possible, it would worst and impossible to prove,
"the absolutely perfect non-empirical God is possible."
But to prove The Perfect Empirical God Exists IS VERY, VERY EASY indeed.

Just LOOK AT the Universe, Itself.

Or, in other words, just observe or experience the Life you HAVE ,and the Existence that 'you' are IN, HERE NOW.

Then, if you are LOOKING FROM the Truly OPEN Mind perspective, then you will SEE the ABSOLUTE PERFECTION of ALL-THERE-IS. 'you', being HERE, is living proof of this PERFECTION.

However, if you are LOOKING FROM the CLOSED brain perspective, then you will see only 'that' what you want to SEE. 'your' BELIEFS will make sure of this.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amI mentioned elsewhere, relative and condition perfection is possible. For example, a 100/100 score in an objective test is a perfect score but that is subject to some predetermined answers. The term 'perfect' is often used very loosely.
To me, a score of 100 out of 100 of a human made up and constructed test is NOT a perfect score. To me, those tests are just done to subdue and make "other" human beings follow a particular path in Life. 'you', human beings, are NOT perfect, so, even as you say, Humans are never perfect, and, whatever is conditioned upon human experience cannot be perfect. Therefore, those tests, which are conditioned upon human experience can NOT be perfect also. So, a score of 100 out of 100 of some human being made up test could be argued to be LESS than perfect.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 am
If, to you, there can not be any perfect thing EVER, then that is PERFECTLY okay and fine, with me.
Then why are you insisting on an absolute perfect God as real?
Because IF an absolute perfect God could be real, THEN an absolute perfect God existing, as real, IS POSSIBLE.

You say this is NOT possible. I just like to remain OPEN ALWAYS, and to do so is to NOT say some thing is IMPOSSIBLE.

Only the CLOSED ones insist some thing is an IMPOSSIBILITY to be real.

Also, the absolute perfect God IS real. What It just IS, is just NOT consciously KNOWN yet by most human beings.

The actual Truth is to be able to say IF some thing is POSSIBLE to be real or not, then one would have to first KNOW what that thing actually IS. Otherwise, what are they saying is NOT possible. For example, I could say an 'ogd' is NOT an impossibility to be real, or, I could say an 'ogd' is possible to be real. But either way, what IS 'it' that I am saying is or is not possible to be real? IF you have absolutely NO idea, then WHY join in the discussion?

I do not accept 'absolute perfection' i.e. totally unconditional, as possible to be real [empirical + philosophical].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amREALLY? I would have NEVER have guessed that. (That was complete and utter SARCASM, in case any one was NOT sure).
As I have been stating for a while now; All you have really doing here is just expressing YOUR own BELIEFS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe ultimate God is always ontological, i.e. of absolute, totally unconditional perfection, thus such a God is impossible to be real and realizable [empirical + philosophical].
If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE TRUE, correct?

For surely YOUR own BELIEFS would NOT lie to you, also correct?
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am
You have mentioned that many times but that is your assertion without any justification.
I do NOT have to 'justify' the Universe, Itself. The Universe IS justified by Its own Self. By just being HERE NOW in ALL of Its ABSOLUTE beauty and PERFECTION the Universe, to me anyway, IS ALREADY JUSTIFIED.

....
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am You are selfish is caring only for your existential and emotional need but don't give a damn [insufficient empathy] to the evil and violent consequences you and the likes that is dumped on humanity.
You appear to be drifting further and further away from what we WERE discussing.

It seems like you are running out of ideas of how you could "justify" your BELIEFS anymore, and so are just grasping at any thing at all, which you think will help you.
Nope I am not running out of ideas but full of ideas.
That is PERFECT then.

I would LOVE to SEE your ideas. Do you have any new ones?

And are these 'new ideas' or 'ideals' possible?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amI have shown your ideas are impossible to be real
Have you REALLY?

If yes, then who did you SHOW this to?

At the moment of when you read this, how many would say that you have shown my ideas are impossible to be real?

Also, what idea of mine is that exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amand in addition I extended to explain why you insist they are real when they are merely illusions.
Did you explain why? Or, did you just 'try to' explain why?

There is obviously a huge difference between the two.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amThus why you are insisting the impossible as possible is due to psychology.
Name one thing that is 'insisted', which is NOT due to psychology?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amHume did the same in explaining why causality is taken for granted, i.e. that is due to psychology.
Name one thing, which is thought, that is NOT due to psychology.

While you are at it name one thing, which is thought or felt internally, that is NOT due to psychology.

In fact, why not just tell us what 'psychology' is exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amKant implied the same, i.e. why people insist God is real when it is impossible to be real, is due to psychology.
Again, what could be 'insisted' that is NOT due to psychology?

Hume and Kant could not dig deeper because the research on psychology then was not deep and extensive during their time.[/quote]

But that is NO reason to stop digging deeper.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amYour post is too long [wasting my time] and this is because you are so ignorant on the various points.
Okay and fair enough.

Obviously if I am "so ignorant" on various points, then there is NO use in SHOWING how I am being "so incredibly ignorant" of what "you KNOW".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amYou do not understand what is empirical, which should be basic within philosophy.
But what is 'philosophy' to you?

What is 'basic with philosophy', to me, is NOTHING like what it is, to you.

Also, WHY do you ASSUME I do not understand some thing?

Is your ASSUMPTION based solely on the fact that I asked you to define some thing, or was that ASSUMPTION made due to some other factor?

If it is the latter, then what was that factor?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amYou asked such basic question is 'what is scientifically justified'.
It is anything that is justified within the objective Scientific Method and accepted the respective peer. This is so basic!
Oh yeah I SEE just how "basic" it is now.

'What is scientifically justified' is 'any thing' that is justified with the objective scientific method and accepted by the respective peer. This explains FULLY just how 'climate change' is "scientifically justified" to be TRUE and NOT TRUE, all at the EXACT SAME time.

'scientifically justified' is SO BASIC that just about ANY one can use that term as though it actually means some thing in the days, of when this is written.

Would it also be such a "basic question" to now ask; Which side of what is so called "scientifically justified" do you BELIEVE I should 'listen to', 'accept', and/or 'follow AND believe' now? The 'side' that you also pick and are on? Or, the other side"? Or, a combination of both, deciding what I think and see? Should I use MY VIEWS to decide or should I ALWAYS SEE things as you do? Because you do come across as though you wholeheartedly BELIEVE that EVERY thing you say is 100% absolutely True, Right, and Correct.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amI mentioned I will bring your claim for reputable scientists to test. That is just a saying. I could care less until you prove your theory. The normal approach is, the onus is on you to present to reputable to test your theory of any positive claims.
But I do NOT have a 'theory'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:48 amI believe the rest of your questions are covered by my recent definitions and explanations.
If not, tell me which point I have missed out that is critical to you.
NOTHING is 'critical to me'. But you have MISSED just about ALL of what I have been getting at and SHOWING, which is; The power of the BELIEF-system, which has completely entrenched 'you' to only be able to SEE things from one particular perspective.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am Therefore The-Whole-Universe is impossible to be real.
Wait a minute. BEFORE you JUMP to such a conclusion, let us LOOK AT your "argument" first.

P1. Parts of the Universe are 'empirical possible'. (I still do NOT know what you mean by 'empirically possible'.)
P2. The Whole Universe that 'IS' absolutely perfect can not be an 'empirical concept'. (I still do NOT know what you mean by 'an empirical concept')
C. Therefore, The-Whole-Universe is impossible to be real.

WHY is The Whole Universe written with Capitals?

WHY can parts of the whole Universe be 'empirically possible', but the whole Universe, Itself, can NOT be 'empirically possible' (whatever 'empirically possible' means)?

WHY do you say; "The Whole Universe (in Capitals) that 'IS' absolutely perfect"? Either the Universe IS 'absolutely perfect' or It is NOT.

And now, WHY do you say The Whole 'absolutely perfect' Universe can not be an 'empirical concept'? Are you 'trying to' suggest that human beings can not conceive of an absolutely perfect Universe?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am One can think of an absolutely perfect Whole-Universe but it is impossible to real and realizable.
What evidence OR proof do you have to justify this claim you make here?

Also, If one can conceive of an absolutely perfect, so called, Whole-Universe, then WHY could that Whole-Universe NOT be an 'empirical concept'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 am One limitation is there is no way to verify a Whole-Universe because humans cannot stand out of the Whole-Universe to take an independent view to justify its existence.
If a Universe exists, which It OBVIOUSLY does, then one does NOT have to "stand outside" of the Universe to take an "independent view" to KNOW that the whole Universe exists. If 'you' exist, then the whole Universe also obviously exists.

What is also obvious is:
A part of some thing can not exist while the rest of it does not exist.

If a part of the Universe is existing, then so is the rest of the whole of the Universe.

Whatever IS existing is the WHOLE of It. Unless, of course, you can SHOW otherwise?

If some thing IS existing, then that, in and of itself, VERIFIES its existence.

Therefore, IF the Universe IS existing, which It IS, then, that by itself, verifies that the whole of the Universe is existing.

Could it get anymore simple and straightforward than that?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:09 amIt is worst if anyone were to try to justify whether the Whole-Universe is absolute perfect or not.
In your attempt to 'try to' "justify" your own ALREADY (very strongly held) BELIEFS you are fooling yourself ONLY.

If the Universe, Itself, is NOT absolutely perfect, to you, then what is It?

To you;

WHY is the whole of the Universe NOT absolute? And,

WHY is the whole Universe NOT perfect?

Are you starting to NOTICE that you have NOT yet SHOWN any actual evidence NOR proof for this, and all you have REALLY SHOWN is just your ALREADY held BELIEFS?
When you propose the WHOLE-UNIVERSE you are implying a 100% totally complete thing
Are you asking me or telling me?

Either way, when I use the word 'whole' in relation to some thing, then I usually if not ALWAYS am referring to the 100% total of that complete thing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amwhich is merely a thought only thus empirically impossible.
So, to you, absolutely EVERY thing, which is a 'thought' only, is 'empirically impossible', correct?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then what are you saying and meaning here?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amShow me how is this empirically possible?
Show you how what is 'empirically possible'?

To me, 'empirical' means 'that' what is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. So, absolutely ANY thing physical is at least possible to be 'empirical'.

Now IF you are asking me to show you how the Universe, Itself, is possible to observed or experienced, then ME putting 'you' within, and being a part of, the Universe, Itself, IS SHOWING 'you' how 'this', Universe, is possible to be 'empirical' AND 'empirically tested AND verified' to being REAL and EXISTING. Since 'you' were created I have been giving you the Universe, Itself, to observe AND experience.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amYou can think of a Universe that is absolutely perfect, but that is an idea only and is an illusion.
If you say so AND BELIEVE, then it MUST BE SO, to you, correct?

I am NOT here to force you nor make you SEE any thing. I am also NOT here to convince you of any thing.

You just asked for evidence, and I have just been giving 'you' THEE EVIDENCE since you were CREATED and came INTO Existence, Itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amAs such because it is only an idea and an ideal, is impossible to be empirical thus no grounds to be real.
Does this "logic" also apply to YOUR ideas and ideals also? Or, are your ideas and ideals possible to be 'empirical', thus grounds to be real?

You did, after all, tell us quite clearly that you are "full of ideas" and "not running out of ideas".

So, either ALL ideas and ideals are IMPOSSIBLE to be 'empirical', as you appear to be saying above. Or, ONLY EVERY one "else's" ideas and ideals are IMPOSSIBLE to be 'empirical' and YOURS ARE NOT. So, which one is it?

Your answers here OR your avoidance either way will expose a Truth.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amWhatever empirical can exists as real but when one claim an empirical thing as absolutely perfect that is stretching too far toward impossibility.
But "stretching to far TOWARD impossibility" still is NOT impossibility.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amI have given an example of the empirical man which can be scientifically justified [even with common sense] but there is no way the absolutely-ideal-perfect-man can exists as real. Show me one existing real man who is absolutely-ideal-perfect-man?
I can SHOW you as many perfect male bodies as there are male bodies, but I can NOT show you one perfect human being, let alone one of the male gendered body.

I had already 'tried to' explain how ridiculous your example here was BECAUSE just because some thing does NOT exist to one human being that OBVIOUSLY does NOT meant that it is NOT possible to exist, in the future.

If your logic was correct, then NOTHING new would ever come to be real and exist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amI have given other examples such an absolute perfect circle, perfect marble, and perfect-anything-empirical, such things are impossible to exist as real [can be verified empirically].
And I have already wrote in reply to YOUR examples.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:03 amI have to say again, why you are unable to accept my counter and insist the absolutely perfect real Universe exists is due to unstable psychological within your psyche. This is the same for insisting absolutely perfect real God exists.
But insisting what is within 'you', that is; your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what IS True, Right, and Correct, then that is due to completely STABLE psychological factors, am I correct?

I wonder how many "others" NOTICE the absolutely coincidental factor that what is in agreement with "veritas aequitas" is PERFECTLY NORMAL, but what is in disagreement or opposition with "veritas aequitas" IS PERFECTLY AB or SUB NORMAL.

Also, what are the chances that one, with this "coincidental pysche and behavior" is also the one that is completely OBLIVIOUS to this completely OBVIOUS fact as well?

It is like the two go 'hand-in-hand' together.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4871
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:35 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:47 am

Whatever actually exists is a statement about reality and so is therefore true regardless of any philosophical interpretation
Reality is objective and mind independent so is not conditional on human knowledge - most of it would not exist if it were.
Where reality is concerned you have to be precise with the related empirical thing[s].
The term 'whatever' is too loose because it could include non-empirical things.
How could the WORD 'whatever' be "to loose" in relation to the term 'whatever ACTUALLY exists ...?

If a non-empirical thing does NOT exist, then OBVIOUSLY it is NOT included in the term, which starts off; 'whatever actually exists ...'. Therefore, the WORD 'whatever' obviously could NEVER include non-empirical things that do NOT exist. I do NOT see how you could see the exact opposite.

Do you purposely NOT see some things or ONLY see things that you WANT to see, on purpose? Or, do you really not notice that you do this?
Again you are very short-sighted.

What you claim 'whatever ACTUALLY exists' is only relative to yourself or a person and may not be a a thing of being justified true belief.

The claim 'whatever ACTUALLY exists' by a schizo or anyone, is only real when justified as true belief under the various framework of knowledge.
In this case "whatever ACTUALLY exists" may comprise of empirical and non-empirical things.
A theist will surely claim 'whatever ACTUALLY exists' include empirical things and God [non-empirical]. God [illusory and non-empirical] in this case has never be proven to exists empirically.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4871
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Age: The Perfect Empirical God Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 am
Age wrote: Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:47 pm What do you mean by, 'empirically possible'?
To me, you appear to be using the word 'empirical' in two opposing ways.
I have already provided you a definition of what is empirical.
  • EMPIRICAL:
    : originating in or based on observation or experience.
    -empirical data
    2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
    -an empirical basis for the theory
    3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
    -empirical laws
    4: of or relating to empiricism
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
  • Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

    In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
    wiki
If you do not agree with the above, what is your definition, else we can deliberate on others.

Empirically possible means whatever that is unknown that can be defined as empirical.
Well that does not make any sense to me, considering what you have written above about how you define the word 'empirical'.

If 'empirical' is something/information, which originated, was based, or relied ON or FROM observation or experience, then absolutely any thing could be 'empirical', with enough time. Therefore, 'empirically possible' would just mean absolutely any thing/information that could be POSSIBLY gained ON or FROM 'observation' or 'experience'.

'you', "veritas aequitas", obviously do NOT know what things/information could be gained or verified ON or FROM what WILL BE observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE. Therefore, you have NO way of knowing what can be defined as 'empirical' from what is 'unknown' to 'you' now.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' have NO way of knowing what things/information will be obtained from what is observed or experienced IN THE FUTURE.
Again you miss the point.
Empirical = grounded on observation + experience.

It is not the case of not knowing what can be defined as 'empirical'.
Point is whatever is unknown but imputed with empirical elements, then is possible to know them empirically upon the production of the evidences.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe issue is, if a thing is unknown, the question is whether it is empirically possible or not?
That is a question but if it is an issue or not, is another matter. But, if a thing is unknown to 'you' now, then how would you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future, forever more?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amI can speculate dogs exist in a planet 100 million light years away because all the variables here are empirical elements.
Just because you can 'speculate' does in NO way mean that you KNOW what is possible or not, in the future.

ALL adult human beings can speculate on things. In fact, ALL adult human beings most likely do speculate on, many, things. But, sadly, those human beings usually speculate on things, or ASSUME things, based solely upon their own previous experiences. Worse still adult human beings make speculations based from their OWN BELIEFS, of which some of them are Truly distorted, from 'reality'.

Speculating on dogs existing on another planet is just that; a speculation, which has NO bearing at all on what is possible or not.
You miss the point again or merely lack the intelligence in this case.

"Speculating on dogs existing on another planet" is empirically possible because all the elements therein are empirical.
So the speculation can be confirmed when dogs are brought back from another planet.

It is the same with scientists speculating there is water in the planet Mars which is a possibility but subject to evidence and confirmation.

However if scientists were to speculate there are square-circle, perfect circles or God on the planet Mars, the speculation is a non-starter or moot because the elements mentioned are non-empirical.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amBut if I were to speculate a square-circle exists anywhere, it is not empirically possible at all, i.e. being a contradiction. This is a non-starter for any empirical possibility.
How do you KNOW that a square-circle exists anywhere?

The Universe is a little bit bigger than where most human beings have traversed.

Have you traveled EVERY where? Do you KNOW square-circles do NOT exist EVERY where.

Is it possible that there is a planet SOME where, where dogs exist who have the intelligence of the human animal, but are far more advance and have some things called 'square-circles'?

If it is possible for the dog animal to exist on a planet 100 million light years away from that planet where the human animal exists, then what I said above could also be possible, correct?
A square-circle is merely a thought, a contradiction and thus non-empirical, i.e. cannot be observed and experienced.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amThe IDEA of God is not empirically possible because it is merely a thought arising from a transcendental illusion.
And the evidence that God is only an illusion is based on 'what', besides your BELIEFS, exactly?

You keep saying things as though you have proven some thing, but you NEVER actually prove any thing.

If human beings are NEVER perfect, as you say they are, then 'you', being a human being, could be absolutely WRONG about 'God is not empirically possible', correct?

Or, is it only "other" human beings who are NOT perfect, but 'you' ARE perfect, and that that is HOW you KNOW, 100% for sure, that what you say you have "proved" IS True, Right, and Correct?

Why is, what is conditioned upon 'you', "veritas aequitas", and your experiences meant to be PERFECTLY True, but what is conditioned by other human experiences can not be perfect?
That God is an illusion is not based solely on my belief but grounded on giant shoulders of the greatest philosophers of all times.

Kant had proven God is an transcendental illusion;
  • 1. All transcendental ideas are transcendental illusions.
    2. The idea of God is a transcendental idea
    3. God is a transcendental illusion.
You will need to read the whole of the Critique of Reason to understand [not necessary agree with] to counter the above argument.
Here is a clue;

  • ALTHOUGH a purely Transcendental Idea is, in accordance with the Original Laws of Reason, a quite necessary product of Reason, its Object, it may yet be said, is something of which we have no Concept. A339
    For in respect of an Object which is adequate to the demands of Reason, it is not, in fact, possible that we should ever be able to Form a Concept of the Understanding, that is, a Concept that allows of being exhibited and intuited in a Possible Experience.
    But we should be better advised and less likely to be misunderstood if we said that although we cannot have any Knowledge of the Object which corresponds to an Idea, we yet have a Problematic Concept of it. B397

    The Transcendental (Subjective) Reality of the Pure Concepts of Reason depends on our having been led to such Ideas by a necessary Syllogism. 1

    There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

    These conclusions [of transcendental ideas] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

    They [transcendental ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
I don't think you have sufficient philosophical intelligence to understand the above, but the point is in there. I challenge you to read the whole of the CPR to give a counter.[]
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amPoint is while there are empirical evidence of dogs, thus an empirical element, there are no empirical grounding for the thought of God.
Some one could just now say; What planet do you live on?

And, some would get it and some would not. But each to their own.
Not to each their own in this case. I have stated many times, what count are justified argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amMan is an empirical being because man can be empirically justified.
That is, AFTER the observation or experience then this it true.
By the way the same applies to the woman of that animal species also.
'you', human beings, can be observed AND experienced.
Now, what about "other" Spiritual Beings? Have you EVER observed or experienced any "other" Spiritual Being, or ONLY the 'empirical man being'?
Re 'spiritual being' you have to define precisely what you mean by that.
Whether whatever being or things is claimed to be real, they must be proven empirically via science at the least.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amHowever the absolutely perfect man is only an ideal, there is no way an absolutely perfect man can be empirical.
Well, I for one, have CERTAINLY NEVER observed NOR experienced a 'perfect man' nor even a 'perfect woman'. But that is NO way means that, FOREVER MORE, a 'perfect man or perfect woman' could never be a possibility.

Even IF a 'perfect man, or woman' is only an ideal, OBVIOUSLY ideals CAN and DO come to be a reality. Therefore, ALL ideals COULD be a POSSIBILITY, some time in the future, obviously.
By definition an absolute perfect man or any ideal is an impossibility to be empirically real.
This is because whatever is 'perfect' is always conditional to humans setting the criteria, thus never absolute.
Thus the absolute perfect man is an impossibility.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amIt is only an ideal like Plato's forms, ideas and universals.
Can you prove an empirically absolute perfect man exists?
When this is written, are you joking?

If no, then my answer is NO I can not prove a 'perfect man, nor a perfect woman' exists. However, and if we want to delve deeper into philosophy, then ALL female bodies, like ALL male bodies are PERFECT, exactly how they ARE.
Your intelligence is going south.
Perfect female body like what? 36-24-36?
Whatever is termed 'perfect' the criteria is set by humans, thus cannot be absolutely perfect.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:26 amIf the above is not possible, it would worst and impossible to prove,
"the absolutely perfect non-empirical God is possible."
But to prove The Perfect Empirical God Exists IS VERY, VERY EASY indeed.

Just LOOK AT the Universe, Itself.

Or, in other words, just observe or experience the Life you HAVE ,and the Existence that 'you' are IN, HERE NOW.

Then, if you are LOOKING FROM the Truly OPEN Mind perspective, then you will SEE the ABSOLUTE PERFECTION of ALL-THERE-IS. 'you', being HERE, is living proof of this PERFECTION.

However, if you are LOOKING FROM the CLOSED brain perspective, then you will see only 'that' what you want to SEE. 'your' BELIEFS will make sure of this.
I have stated many times, that,
"LOOKING FROM the Truly OPEN Mind perspective"
is only from YOUR Truly OPEN Mind and personal perspective.
The schizo and mentally ill can make such a claim.
What counts is to bring the actual evidence for empirical verification to confirm it is real.

In any case, absolute perfection is a thought, ideal and illusion thus can never be real.
To me, a score of 100 out of 100 of a human made up and constructed test is NOT a perfect score. To me, those tests are just done to subdue and make "other" human beings follow a particular path in Life. 'you', human beings, are NOT perfect, so, even as you say, Humans are never perfect, and, whatever is conditioned upon human experience cannot be perfect. Therefore, those tests, which are conditioned upon human experience can NOT be perfect also. So, a score of 100 out of 100 of some human being made up test could be argued to be LESS than perfect.
Anything that is 100/100 is generally recognized as 'perfect' but it is merely a conditional or relative perfection. As such such a perfection must always be qualified.

Example you claim the female body is absolutely perfect. This is empirically impossible.
Wherever a female body is claimed to be perfect it is always qualified to some human standards, e.g. Western standard, Eastern, African, this or that culture, this or that period of time, etc.

It cannot be claimed to be less than perfect unless you redefine the criteria.

Because IF an absolute perfect God could be real, THEN an absolute perfect God existing, as real, IS POSSIBLE.

You say this is NOT possible. I just like to remain OPEN ALWAYS, and to do so is to NOT say some thing is IMPOSSIBLE.

Only the CLOSED ones insist some thing is an IMPOSSIBILITY to be real.

Also, the absolute perfect God IS real. What It just IS, is just NOT consciously KNOWN yet by most human beings.
Note the Kant proof I shown above.
The above are merely your wishes but you provide no justified proof nor evidence.
The actual Truth is to be able to say IF some thing is POSSIBLE to be real or not, then one would have to first KNOW what that thing actually IS. Otherwise, what are they saying is NOT possible. For example, I could say an 'ogd' is NOT an impossibility to be real, or, I could say an 'ogd' is possible to be real. But either way, what IS 'it' that I am saying is or is not possible to be real? IF you have absolutely NO idea, then WHY join in the discussion?
This is Meno's Paradox.
This paradox is more against your claim than mine.
If you insist God is a possibility, then you need to know [with justified proof] what God IS.

When I stated a thing is empirically known or possible, we have evidence [at least scientifically] that such a thing exists, e.g. a dog, apples, and other empirical things.

On the other hand, when you claim an absolute perfect God exists, you don't have any proofs and evidence [at least scientifically] for it.

As I have been stating for a while now; All you have really doing here is just expressing YOUR own BELIEFS.
If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE TRUE, correct?

For surely YOUR own BELIEFS would NOT lie to you, also correct?
I have said many times I am not relying on MY personal beliefs but my beliefs are backed up by Science [fundamentally], philosophy, critical thinking and views of great philosophers.
Post Reply