OUGHT from IS is Possible

[Veritas Aequitas]

You even start this post with; "From the empirical evidence ...", and, " 'we' establish ...". It is like, within your own head, you have ALREADY concluded EVERY thing, for EVERY one, and if any one disagrees or says any thing opposing what you BELIEVE to true, then you will proceed with some thing like; "You are ignorant of or to such and such".

Just for your information, just because some one does not agree with you, then that does NOT make them ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness. They MAY have or be any or all of these, but NOT necessarily so. Just maybe they are RIGHT and you are WRONG. Have you EVER considered that FACT?

I have already demonstrated the basis of relying on empirical evidence to derive a specific ought from is, i.e. No Human Shall Kill Another Human.
Where is your justified counter to this?
What you tried is merely a deflection.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then that MUST BE true.

Nope, I did not say that.

To put in perspective;

• 1. Opinions are merely personal subjective thoughts without proofs.
  2. Beliefs are personal views with personal justifications and conviction.
  3. Knowledge are personal beliefs as in 2 that are justified as true within an objective framework of knowledge, e.g. scientific knowledge.

My hypothesis 'no human will want to be killed' is objective and can be tested [read up and do a poll for all humans] and the answer will be the same, i.e. for all humans 'no human will want to be killed' except for the mentally ill.

I admit, no real test has been done on the above hypothesis.
Even if we rely on common sense, we can be certain [99.9%] of the answer.
From observations and reading, it is noted no person in the ordinary sense will want to be killed [exception is the mentally ill]
Thus if we were to do the test scientifically, the confidence level of expecting the expected result is very high.
It is not impossible to do a proper research in the above hypothesis.

When I remark ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness that is supported by explanation.
A delusion is a persistent belief something is true despite having no justified evidence.

An exceptional example of a 'persistent belief of some thing being true despite have ABSOLUTELY NO justified evidence' IS 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

I say, 'you', veritas aequitas, are delusional, and this is because 'you' are a mental illness. This is based on facts. Therefore, I MUST BE Correct because I based this on empirical evidence and supported this on logical valid, sound arguments. Now, based on your logic either I MUST BE correct because I followed "your logic" exactly as you do, OR, I could be wrong, which MEANS that you could be wrong also.

Now, you pick which one is CORRECT.

Note I have presented my proof "God is an impossibility to be real" here,
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
So far, there are no convincing counter to my argument.

This is true of theists who had never provided any proofs nor justified reason 'God exists'.

Are you completely and utterly STUPID? I have told you enough times ALREADY that from the definition that you have provided I can SHOW how and why that God could be or is actually True, Right, and Justified.

You, however, have NOT even been able to see, hear, or recognize this statement, let alone be consciously aware of it.

I will TRY again. I am NOT a "theist" in any way, shape, nor from BUT I can provide proof AND justified reasons that 'God exists' and WHEN you decide WHAT definition for 'God' that you want to USE, THEN I can do what I say here. Just inform me when you HAVE a definition and are ready.

You are the stupid one to insist.

Since you are stupid to insist, OK for this sake, I define God as a square-circle.
Prove and justify the above exists as real?

From my personal perspective, I would define God as not a real thing but an illusion driven and emerging from the minds of theists to soothe their existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are people who want to be killed, individuals in locked-in syndrome. There are individuals who like to kill. Why not make the code of laws in terms of what these people want?

Note I mentioned in the above, the following exceptions;

• If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

Note the extreme case where a person volunteered to be killed and be eaten by a cannibal.
Humans being human, inevitably there will be exceptions and it is critical we recognized them for what they are.


Here is how an effective moral and ethics system will work.

The target set within the system is ZERO humans to be killed by another human.
Being humans it is likely the target ZERO killing of a human by another human will be achieved or if achieved in a certain period will be sustained permanently.

In reality, there will be humans who want to be killed, then the number will constitute a variance [the moral gap] from the absolute standard, and thus provide the basis for humanity to find ways to prevent people from wanting to be killed by another human.
Other without an absolute target, there is no fixed point for humanity to improve towards.

In reality, there will also be people who like or are driven by some internal impulse to kill another human. This will automatically fall within the mental illness category as exceptions.
But nevertheless the number of humans who killed because of mental illness or other reasons can be compared against the ZERO humans to be killed by another human.
This again will generate a variance i.e. a moral gap to be closed via continuous improvements.

The above is the effective and advantage of establishing a secular ought from empirical "is"
as merely a guide [no enforcement] for continuous improvement in morality and ethics.

[Age]

I have already demonstrated the basis of relying on empirical evidence to derive a specific ought from is, i.e. No Human Shall Kill Another Human.
Where is your justified counter to this?
What you tried is merely a deflection.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then that MUST BE true.

Nope, I did not say that.

To put in perspective;

• 1. Opinions are merely personal subjective thoughts without proofs.
  2. Beliefs are personal views with personal justifications and conviction.
  3. Knowledge are personal beliefs as in 2 that are justified as true within an objective framework of knowledge, e.g. scientific knowledge.

These are just your own personal views, opinions, beliefs, and/or assumptions.

My hypothesis 'no human will want to be killed' is objective and can be tested [read up and do a poll for all humans] and the answer will be the same, i.e. for all humans 'no human will want to be killed' except for the mentally ill.

Your hypothesis HAS BEEN tested. The result is in - the hypothesis HAS BEEN falsified.

I admit, no real test has been done on the above hypothesis.
Even if we rely on common sense, we can be certain [99.9%] of the answer.
From observations and reading, it is noted no person in the ordinary sense will want to be killed [exception is the mentally ill]
Thus if we were to do the test scientifically, the confidence level of expecting the expected result is very high.
It is not impossible to do a proper research in the above hypothesis.

YET you reach a result and come to conclusion BEFORE you even do the test, which would not be usual for a person like you. You base every thing off of your ALREADY held BELIEFS anyway. What is actual true and right has no bearing on a person like you.

When I remark ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness that is supported by explanation.
A delusion is a persistent belief something is true despite having no justified evidence.

An exceptional example of a 'persistent belief of some thing being true despite have ABSOLUTELY NO justified evidence' IS 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

I say, 'you', veritas aequitas, are delusional, and this is because 'you' are a mental illness. This is based on facts. Therefore, I MUST BE Correct because I based this on empirical evidence and supported this on logical valid, sound arguments. Now, based on your logic either I MUST BE correct because I followed "your logic" exactly as you do, OR, I could be wrong, which MEANS that you could be wrong also.

Now, you pick which one is CORRECT.

Note I have presented my proof "God is an impossibility to be real" here,
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812
So far, there are no convincing counter to my argument.

Note, you are completely and utterly incapable of SEEING any counter argument, as I have been continually SAYING, POINTING OUT, and SHOWING.

Also, as I have ALREADY pointed out you are, because of your BELIEFS, incapable of SEEING and HEARING what it is that I have been saying.

This is true of theists who had never provided any proofs nor justified reason 'God exists'.

Are you completely and utterly STUPID? I have told you enough times ALREADY that from the definition that you have provided I can SHOW how and why that God could be or is actually True, Right, and Justified.

You, however, have NOT even been able to see, hear, or recognize this statement, let alone be consciously aware of it.

I will TRY again. I am NOT a "theist" in any way, shape, nor from BUT I can provide proof AND justified reasons that 'God exists' and WHEN you decide WHAT definition for 'God' that you want to USE, THEN I can do what I say here. Just inform me when you HAVE a definition and are ready.

You are the stupid one to insist.

Since you are stupid to insist, OK for this sake, I define God as a square-circle.

Prove and justify the above exists as real?

Okay, I acknowledge and admit that YOU have got me. I, obviously, can not provide proof AND justified reasons that YOUR defined 'square-circle God exists'. Therefore, you have out witted me. I am STUPID, and you are CLEVER and SMART.

However, what I have been SAYING is clearly written and what I have meant is clearly obvious, AND, what is also obvious in our interactions is your continual refusal to acknowledge and stick to your originally provided definition of what 'God' is. Some might say that this just SHOWS how much you fear being proven WRONG.

Your quickness here now to provide an obviously absurd definition of what 'God' is, just shows your inabilities and your insecurities of your own self.

From my personal perspective, I would define God as not a real thing but an illusion driven and emerging from the minds of theists to soothe their existential crisis.

If you define God as not a real thing, then this is because you are completely blinded by your own BELIEFS and distorted by your own assumptions.

This God MUST be not a real thing. But this is NOT how most people define the word 'God'. Nothing more needs to be said.

[bahman]

There are people who want to be killed, individuals in locked-in syndrome. There are individuals who like to kill. Why not make the code of laws in terms of what these people want?

Note I mentioned in the above, the following exceptions;

• If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

Note the extreme case where a person volunteered to be killed and be eaten by a cannibal.
Humans being human, inevitably there will be exceptions and it is critical we recognized them for what they are.


Here is how an effective moral and ethics system will work.

The target set within the system is ZERO humans to be killed by another human.
Being humans it is likely the target ZERO killing of a human by another human will be achieved or if achieved in a certain period will be sustained permanently.

In reality, there will be humans who want to be killed, then the number will constitute a variance [the moral gap] from the absolute standard, and thus provide the basis for humanity to find ways to prevent people from wanting to be killed by another human.
Other without an absolute target, there is no fixed point for humanity to improve towards.

In reality, there will also be people who like or are driven by some internal impulse to kill another human. This will automatically fall within the mental illness category as exceptions.
But nevertheless the number of humans who killed because of mental illness or other reasons can be compared against the ZERO humans to be killed by another human.
This again will generate a variance i.e. a moral gap to be closed via continuous improvements.

The above is the effective and advantage of establishing a secular ought from empirical "is"
as merely a guide [no enforcement] for continuous improvement in morality and ethics.

So you agree that your argument is based on what the majority wants? The point I was making is that the majority is then the majority wants rather than the majority oughts. There is a gap between wants and oughts.

[Skepdick]

• If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

Note the extreme case where a person volunteered to be killed and be eaten by a cannibal.
Humans being human, inevitably there will be exceptions and it is critical we recognized them for what they are.
...
The above is the effective and advantage of establishing a secular ought from empirical "is"
as merely a guide [no enforcement] for continuous improvement in morality and ethics.

It doesn't sound like your "new" system is any different to the system we already have in place. All of your ideas are encoded in law and Jurisprudence covers the philosophy of law-making.

Murder is already illegal. But we allow for euthanasia.

If you aren't proposing any actual changes to the existing system, then what are you really selling? A book?

[Veritas Aequitas]

• If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

Note the extreme case where a person volunteered to be killed and be eaten by a cannibal.
Humans being human, inevitably there will be exceptions and it is critical we recognized them for what they are.
...
The above is the effective and advantage of establishing a secular ought from empirical "is"
as merely a guide [no enforcement] for continuous improvement in morality and ethics.

It doesn't sound like your "new" system is any different to the system we already have in place. All of your ideas are encoded in law and Jurisprudence covers the philosophy of law-making.

Murder is already illegal. But we allow for euthanasia.

If you aren't proposing any actual changes to the existing system, then what are you really selling? A book?

Jurisprudence refer to laws of government which are imposed and enforceable on the people where those who do not comply are punished accordingly.

Note I stated in my post,

• The above is the effective[ness] and advantage of establishing a secular ought from empirical "is" as merely a guide [no enforcement] for continuous improvement in morality and ethics.

The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is totally different from the Philosophy of Jurisprudence [politics].
The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics main focus is on the development of the Moral Quotient [MQ] of the individual within assistance from humanity at a team.

Note Kant's categorical imperative no.1;

• Act only according to that maxim whereby you [as an individual] can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

In the Philosophy of Morality and Ethic, the individual establishes his/her own 'oughts' and s/he is the law-maker, judge, jury and correctional officer at the same time which is all happening within the person's brain and mind.
Each individual human will do the same things leveraged upon the universal laws which is the same for all.

For the individual to "will" maxim as a universal law and self-govern, obviously there must be development of the individual's faculty of morality and ethics in the individual's brain and mind. This is expected of all individual[s] of the same mind acting as a team.

This is why I stated, to sustain an efficient Moral and Ethics system, the Moral Quotient [MQ] of the majority -preferable all - need to be increased to 10,000 or more, if say the present average MQ is 100.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are people who want to be killed, individuals in locked-in syndrome. There are individuals who like to kill. Why not make the code of laws in terms of what these people want?

Note I mentioned in the above, the following exceptions;

• If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

Note the extreme case where a person volunteered to be killed and be eaten by a cannibal.
Humans being human, inevitably there will be exceptions and it is critical we recognized them for what they are.


Here is how an effective moral and ethics system will work.

The target set within the system is ZERO humans to be killed by another human.
Being humans it is likely the target ZERO killing of a human by another human will be achieved or if achieved in a certain period will be sustained permanently.

In reality, there will be humans who want to be killed, then the number will constitute a variance [the moral gap] from the absolute standard, and thus provide the basis for humanity to find ways to prevent people from wanting to be killed by another human.
Other without an absolute target, there is no fixed point for humanity to improve towards.

In reality, there will also be people who like or are driven by some internal impulse to kill another human. This will automatically fall within the mental illness category as exceptions.
But nevertheless the number of humans who killed because of mental illness or other reasons can be compared against the ZERO humans to be killed by another human.
This again will generate a variance i.e. a moral gap to be closed via continuous improvements.

The above is the effective and advantage of establishing a secular ought from empirical "is"
as merely a guide [no enforcement] for continuous improvement in morality and ethics.

So you agree that your argument is based on what the majority wants? The point I was making is that the majority is then the majority wants rather than the majority oughts. There is a gap between wants and oughts.

You are still stuck with duality.
I agreed in the common sense perspective, the majority wants cannot be the majority's oughts.
But we are not dealing with common sense but the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics perspective.
If you don't shift perspective from common sense & rigid duality to the Moral perspective, then you are equivocating.

Note the Philosophy principles involved in this case is with reference to Hume's problem of 'no ought can be derived from is' but you have to take note, Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times] resolved that problem.

What I have proved [as justified] is how to reconcile the majority's 'want' to an individual's 'ought' to facilitate and enable positive results for morality. In this specific instance, it is related to the killing of a human being by another.

• Note in the case of Quantum Physics where a thing can be either a particle or a wave.
  If one is stuck with Newtonian and Einstein's Physics, they will insist a thing cannot be a particle and a wave, i.e. Law of Non-Contradiction.
  However Quantum Physicists [Bohr et. al] were able to reconcile the contradictory states to a workable state that had produced results.

I am doing the same, just a thing cannot be a wave and particle, a "want" [is] cannot be an "ought" but,
just a the wave/particle dichotomy can be resolved productively, the is/ought dichotomy can be reconciled productively for morality and ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, what I have been SAYING is clearly written and what I have meant is clearly obvious, AND, what is also obvious in our interactions is your continual refusal to acknowledge and stick to your originally provided definition of what 'God' is. Some might say that this just SHOWS how much you fear being proven WRONG.

Your quickness here now to provide an obviously absurd definition of what 'God' is, just shows your inabilities and your insecurities of your own self.

From my personal perspective, I would define God as not a real thing but an illusion driven and emerging from the minds of theists to soothe their existential crisis.

If you define God as not a real thing, then this is because you are completely blinded by your own BELIEFS and distorted by your own assumptions.

This God MUST be not a real thing. But this is NOT how most people define the word 'God'. Nothing more needs to be said.

You are insisting on a straw man.

How can you insist I agree with theist's definition of God when I have proven God is an impossibility to be real?
This is ridiculous.

I have provided my personal definition of God [see above] you then give all sorts of excuses.

I have at least one advantage over you, i.e. I was a theist [pantheist] and defended theism [aggressively but tenuously] for a long time so I know what behind my theism then. The final conclusion is theism is driven by some 'threatening' psychology within.

[Age]

However, what I have been SAYING is clearly written and what I have meant is clearly obvious, AND, what is also obvious in our interactions is your continual refusal to acknowledge and stick to your originally provided definition of what 'God' is. Some might say that this just SHOWS how much you fear being proven WRONG.

Your quickness here now to provide an obviously absurd definition of what 'God' is, just shows your inabilities and your insecurities of your own self.

From my personal perspective, I would define God as not a real thing but an illusion driven and emerging from the minds of theists to soothe their existential crisis.

If you define God as not a real thing, then this is because you are completely blinded by your own BELIEFS and distorted by your own assumptions.

This God MUST be not a real thing. But this is NOT how most people define the word 'God'. Nothing more needs to be said.

You are insisting on a straw man.

How can you insist I agree with theist's definition of God when I have proven God is an impossibility to be real?
This is ridiculous.

It may well be true that you have proven to YOUR SELF that God is an impossibility to be real. But what is truly ridiculous is that you actually BELIEVE that you have ACTUALLY proven that God is an impossibility to be real, and proven this forever more for EVERY one. This makes this even MORE RIDICULOUS.

If you were NOT so TIED UP in your own BELIEFS, then you would realize and have ALREADY SEEN that I do NOT insist that you agree with ANY definition for the word 'God'. All I have been asking for is for you to provide a definition for the word 'God', especially considering that it is YOU who is making the claim: God is an impossibility to be real.

SEE, most people who claim some thing are usually able to define the words they use. They do this so they justify the claims they are making.

You are NOT able to provide any definition for the word 'God', other than the ridiculous claim that "God is an impossibility to be real".

This is all you can do, so why do we not just leave it at this?

I have provided my personal definition of God [see above] you then give all sorts of excuses.

You can BELIEVE any thing you want, and then SEE whatever you want to SEE, but IF you are distorted things, then really that is all you are doing.

Remember I have not done any thing to excuse and that it is YOU who is unable to provide an actual definition for the word 'God'.

I have at least one advantage over you, i.e. I was a theist [pantheist] and defended theism [aggressively but tenuously] for a long time so I know what behind my theism then.

If 'you' think that that is an advantage, then you might be sadly mistaken.

The final conclusion is theism is driven by some 'threatening' psychology within.

And thee Truth IS; that is NOT 'the' final conclusion, although it may be 'your' final conclusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Age you worthless hump. He just told you off for a straw man argument, and then showed you why his own argument is a straw man. If you were competent you would bury him. The pair of you are absolutely useless bastards.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It may well be true that you have proven to YOUR SELF that God is an impossibility to be real. But what is truly ridiculous is that you actually BELIEVE that you have ACTUALLY proven that God is an impossibility to be real, and proven this forever more for EVERY one. This makes this even MORE RIDICULOUS.

I have explained to you the path to knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs, e.g. scientific knowledge, is from 1. OPINIONS to 2. BELIEFS to 3. KNOWLEDGE.

Beliefs are personal proofs of the individual's conviction based on reason, from crude to refine.
So there is nothing wrong nor ridiculous in "you have proven to YOUR SELF that God is an impossibility to be real."
Obviously I need to have a 99.9% conviction my proof is solidly argued as I had done so. So far no one has provided any convincing counter to my argument.

I did not claim my proof is knowledge [yet] and is accepted by anyone or many at this point in time.
But what is critical here is YOU have not been able to counter my proof 'God is an impossibility to real'.
You can revisit the thread and show me, where you have countered my argument convincingly?

If you were NOT so TIED UP in your own BELIEFS, then you would realize and have ALREADY SEEN that I do NOT insist that you agree with ANY definition for the word 'God'. All I have been asking for is for you to provide a definition for the word 'God', especially considering that it is YOU who is making the claim: God is an impossibility to be real.

Hey! in the thread 'God is an Impossibility' I was very precise with 'MY' [the] definition of God as defined by theist. It from their definition that I proved 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

SEE, most people who claim some thing are usually able to define the words they use. They do this so they justify the claims they are making.

That is why when we critique the argument of others in making their claims, we critiqued based on the definition they provided and argued why their definition and argument cannot be true or real.
One important point is, both parties must understand [not accept as own] the definition imputed into the argument of theists.
It is ridiculous to provide my own definition in such a case where I am not making a positive [objective] claim.
What I have done is to prove, 'God is possible to be real' is a non-starter.

You are NOT able to provide any definition for the word 'God', other than the ridiculous claim that "God is an impossibility to be real".

This is all you can do, so why do we not just leave it at this?

Straw man again.
I say again, in the mentioned thread therein, I introduced the finest definition of God as defined by theists.

I have provided my personal definition of God [see above] you then give all sorts of excuses.

You can BELIEVE any thing you want, and then SEE whatever you want to SEE, but IF you are distorted things, then really that is all you are doing.

Remember I have not done any thing to excuse and that it is YOU who is unable to provide an actual definition for the word 'God'.

The onus is on you to show my argument is not logical and rational.

I have at least one advantage over you, i.e. I was a theist [pantheist] and defended theism [aggressively but tenuously] for a long time so I know what behind my theism then.

If 'you' think that that is an advantage, then you might be sadly mistaken.

Obviously this is an advantage over you and other [a]theist.
More so when I have provided a solid argument backed by an explanation why theists cling to a falsehood [like children to Santa and other similar beliefs of falsehoods].

The final conclusion is theism is driven by some 'threatening' psychology within.

And thee Truth IS; that is NOT 'the' final conclusion, although it may be 'your' final conclusion.

My point is without doubts.

Note;

• 1. No statement about whatever can happen without a living human, the brain and mind, i.e. psychology.
  2. 'God exists' is a statement
  3. Therefore God exists is psychological.

You can claim as a realist, things [whatever] are independent of the human brain and mind.
This is so obvious, we see a space [10 feet] between that man and the table.
Therefore the table [things] are independent of the human brain and mind.

But the above is based on common sense and low level knowledge but it will not pass when scrutiny by more refined philosophy.

The philosophical anti-realists disagree and dispute the realists' claim of that objects are independent of the brain/mind are not absolute.
Rather humans are the co-creator of reality, i.e. reality is interdependent with the human mind.

What is ultimate is;
even the claim 'reality is independent of mind' inevitably has to involve the human mind to conclude it.
There is no escape to this fact.

[Age]

Age you worthless hump. He just told you off for a straw man argument, and then showed you why his own argument is a straw man. If you were competent you would bury him. The pair of you are absolutely useless bastards.

But I have NEVER even suggested that I am competent in any thing.

If I recall correctly I have actually admitted previously that I am useless at communicating. I have, relatively speaking, absolutely NO education, and I certainly do not know of any thing that is taught in philosophy schools.

I profess to knowing extremely little about things that are educationally taught. In fact besides a scarecrow I do not even know what a 'straw man' is. I would literally have to find a source somewhere to tell me what 'a straw man' means.

Also, I do not want to bury any one. I like what is shown and revealed from our discussions.

I am not here to show and reveal just what is right, but, instead, to find a way, which will show and reveal just what is right itself.

[Age]

It may well be true that you have proven to YOUR SELF that God is an impossibility to be real. But what is truly ridiculous is that you actually BELIEVE that you have ACTUALLY proven that God is an impossibility to be real, and proven this forever more for EVERY one. This makes this even MORE RIDICULOUS.

I have explained to you the path to knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs, e.g. scientific knowledge, is from 1. OPINIONS to 2. BELIEFS to 3. KNOWLEDGE.

Beliefs are personal proofs of the individual's conviction based on reason, from crude to refine.
So there is nothing wrong nor ridiculous in "you have proven to YOUR SELF that God is an impossibility to be real."

Once again, it may well be not wrong nor ridiculous to YOUR SELF, "what you have proven to YOUR self". But, obviously, what one proves to them self may be totally and absolutely wrong AND ridiculous to actual Truth and Reality.

Obviously I need to have a 99.9% conviction my proof is solidly argued as I had done so. So far no one has provided any convincing counter to my argument.

LOL you STILL do NOT get it. The reason WHY no one has provided any convincing counter to your "argument" is because there is absolutely NOTHING that could counter your so called "argument". Your "argument" is based off and from your own ALREADY held BELIEFS, and as I keep saying: There is NOTHING that can counter a strongly held BELIEF. Even the Universe, Itself, can NOT provide any thing to a human being, which opposes their BELIEFS.

I did not claim my proof is knowledge [yet] and is accepted by anyone or many at this point in time.
But what is critical here is YOU have not been able to counter my proof 'God is an impossibility to real'.

But I have NOT even attempted to counter what you claim YET.

I have just said that I COULD. That is; When, and IF, you ever provide me with a definition for the word 'God', which you say, 'is an impossibility to be real'. You then provided a completely ridiculous definition, but in doing so you proved that what I was claiming was WRONG. So, I now have to word things differently to see if you would provide a reasonable definition and not just ANY definition.

You can revisit the thread and show me, where you have countered my argument convincingly?

Just to make it completely clear: I HAVE NEVER EVEN TRIED TO COUNTER YOUR, so called, "ARGUMENT".

One reason I have NOT is because I like the way YOUR "argument" stands right now. The absurdity and ridiculousness of your argument, as it stands right now, shows and reveals more than I ever could. Your "argument" speaks for its own self.

If you were NOT so TIED UP in your own BELIEFS, then you would realize and have ALREADY SEEN that I do NOT insist that you agree with ANY definition for the word 'God'. All I have been asking for is for you to provide a definition for the word 'God', especially considering that it is YOU who is making the claim: God is an impossibility to be real.

Hey! in the thread 'God is an Impossibility' I was very precise with 'MY' [the] definition of God as defined by theist. It from their definition that I proved 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

So, WHY can you NOT just repeat 'that' definition here in this thread? Why has it been so hard to just do this?

SEE, most people who claim some thing are usually able to define the words they use. They do this so they justify the claims they are making.

That is why when we critique the argument of others in making their claims, we critiqued based on the definition they provided and argued why their definition and argument cannot be true or real.

And is this WHY you will NOT reveal the definition that you want to use for the word 'God' here in this thread?

One important point is, both parties must understand [not accept as own] the definition imputed into the argument of theists.

Okay, so once again, what definition do YOU want to impute in and use?

You choose the definition, then I will SEE if I can counter your "argument".

It is ridiculous to provide my own definition in such a case where I am not making a positive [objective] claim.

So, is it NOT ridiculous, to make a claim that some thing does NOT exist and can NOT be real, but NEVER to actually define what this THING is, which you claim and say that you have argued for that can not be real?

You have also missed my point. I do NOT care what definition you give. I do not care who the definition comes from. I just want to KNOW what definition you are using, which you then formulated YOUR "argument" upon.

What I have done is to prove, 'God is possible to be real' is a non-starter.

And just to make it clear, besides YOU, who else have you proven this to?

You are NOT able to provide any definition for the word 'God', other than the ridiculous claim that "God is an impossibility to be real".

This is all you can do, so why do we not just leave it at this?

Straw man again.

Because I have been accused of being a "worthless hump" and a "useless bastard" (whatever they actually mean) for not burying you for some scarecrow or some man made out of straw thing, I looked up what the word 'straw man' refers to. There are a few different definitions given. So, now I am none the wiser. Therefore, when you use the word 'straw man' what is the actual definition that you are referring to, or want to use?

I just hope we now do NOT go through the exact same thing has we have been.

I say again, in the mentioned thread therein, I introduced the finest definition of God as defined by theists.

I do not ever recall you using the 'finest' word previously, not that it really matters.

But anyway, and we have gone over this enough times already, I asked you if you are going to use that definition, and you said that it is NOT your definition. Just to make it clear. I understand that it is NOT your definition, BUT is it the definition that you WANT TO USE, when you say; God is an impossibility to be real?

I have provided my personal definition of God [see above] you then give all sorts of excuses.

You can BELIEVE any thing you want, and then SEE whatever you want to SEE, but IF you are distorted things, then really that is all you are doing.

Remember I have not done any thing to excuse and that it is YOU who is unable to provide an actual definition for the word 'God'.

The onus is on you to show my argument is not logical and rational.

But if you do not provide a reasonable definition for the word 'God', which you then make an argument from, then what are we to make about that your argument is based off of exactly?

You not providing a definition for the word 'God', other than the definition that 'God is an impossibility to be real', so then YOU, by yourself, are SHOWING that your own argument is not logical and rational.

By just asking you for the definition that you want to impute, and you refusing to do this, then I am just SHOWING, through your words or lack of words, that your argument IS not logical and rational.

If 'you' think that that is an advantage, then you might be sadly mistaken.

Obviously this is an advantage over you and other [a]theist.
More so when I have provided a solid argument backed by an explanation why theists cling to a falsehood [like children to Santa and other similar beliefs of falsehoods].

And thee Truth IS; that is NOT 'the' final conclusion, although it may be 'your' final conclusion.

My point is without doubts.

If your point is without doubts, then there is NOTHING to doubt. You, therefore, MUST BE absolutely True, Right, and Correct, correct?

Note;

• 1. No statement about whatever can happen without a living human, the brain and mind, i.e. psychology.
  2. 'God exists' is a statement
  3. Therefore God exists is psychological.

1. Not true.
2. True.
3. But not necessarily only true.

You can claim as a realist, things [whatever] are independent of the human brain and mind.

Why do you change your claim of 'what I am'?

I have NEVER claimed any thing as a 'realist'.

This is so obvious, we see a space [10 feet] between that man and the table.
Therefore the table [things] are independent of the human brain and mind.

But the above is based on common sense and low level knowledge but it will not pass when scrutiny by more refined philosophy.

The philosophical anti-realists disagree and dispute the realists' claim of that objects are independent of the brain/mind are not absolute.
Rather humans are the co-creator of reality, i.e. reality is interdependent with the human mind.

What is ultimate is;
even the claim 'reality is independent of mind' inevitably has to involve the human mind to conclude it.
There is no escape to this fact.

Were we not discussing your BELIEF that; 'God is an impossibility to be real', and I have been asking you what is the definition that you want to use, or impute, for the word 'God' here, which I have yet to fully ascertain?

If we were discussing these, then WHY now start discussing other matters?

For example; Where did this absurd notion that I am a realist come from, which then led you to start and begin discussing these completely off topic issues here now?

Why the continual misrepresentations of what I have just been actually saying, and then you trying to defeat said misrepresentations?

Why NOT just stick with the issue that I have been pointing out?

[surreptitious57]

I have been asking you what is the definition that you want to use or impute for the word God here which I have yet to fully ascertain

I do not have a definition for God but what is your definition [ if you have one ]
How would you define God to some one who had no understanding of that word

[Veritas Aequitas]

Were we not discussing your BELIEF that; 'God is an impossibility to be real', and I have been asking you what is the definition that you want to use, or impute, for the word 'God' here, which I have yet to fully ascertain?

If we were discussing these, then WHY now start discussing other matters?

For example; Where did this absurd notion that I am a realist come from, which then led you to start and begin discussing these completely off topic issues here now?

Why the continual misrepresentations of what I have just been actually saying, and then you trying to defeat said misrepresentations?

Why NOT just stick with the issue that I have been pointing out?

Note the definition of God as defined by theist in the thread;
God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

"The real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived."

The above encompasses all other definitions of God by theists, i.e. ontological, cosmological, theological, creator, omnipotent, omni-whatever.

Yes, the argument therein is based on my own BELIEFs which are rationally, logically and solidly justified.
Btw, note the various counters raised against my premises in that thread and I have recountered all of them.
Show me something new where any of my premise is wrong?

I have NEVER claimed any thing as a 'realist'.

If you are not a philosophical realist than what is your position?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• In metaphysics, 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.

Theism is at the extreme end of philosophical realism, i.e. God and objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc

Are you then a philosophical anti-realist?
You can not be, because generally the philosophical anti-realist beliefs is the opposite of philosophical realism, i.e.
-God is invented by human mind, not independent beings.
-Objects are not independent of human mind, rather object are interdependent with human minds.

Don't be the usual coward, explain your stance precisely in relation to God and reality.