Age: God is ALL of Physical and MIND

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is Age's definition of God.

God, just like the Universe, It is made up of two parts:
1. A physical visible part. And,
2. An invisible part.

'God', in the physical sense, is every physical thing.
'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is the Mind.

You have to define what is 'spiritual sense'.
If you associate human experience of feelings, emotion, awe and the likes, these are all scientifically based -A.

All the above elements in bold and spiritual as in A, they all can be explained by Science which has never ever associated them with the term 'God'.

If the above are the only elements then your definition of God is ridiculous. Re Occam it would more justifiable to explain those elements you have used from the scientific perspective.

Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

[Skepdick]

Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.

Define "being" and "agency" without falling into circularities. The best you can do is end up with a Pantheistic metaphysic.

There's nothing outrageous or contemptuous about equating God to Universe to ALL.

If you are a complexity theorist, ALL is the highest of the complexity classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)
And a Computer which can answer ALL questions in ALL complexity classes is called an Oracle machine.

The reason this conceptual/abstract super-powerful machine is NOT called God is because scientists are prudent, and understand idiots like you get triggered by the word 'God' and fall into circular/mystical thinking rather than abstract reasoning.

[Age]

Here is Age's definition of God.

God, just like the Universe, It is made up of two parts:
1. A physical visible part. And,
2. An invisible part.

'God', in the physical sense, is every physical thing.
'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is the Mind.

You have to define what is 'spiritual sense'.

If I HAVE TO, then, for now, the 'spiritual sense' is 'that' what is invisible to the human eyes but is able to cause or create, and also 'that' what is in relation to when words like 'Spirit' or 'Spiritual' are used.

If you associate human experience of feelings, emotion, awe and the likes, these are all scientifically based -A.

This has NOTHING whatsoever, at the moment, to do with my definition for the word 'God'.

All the above elements in bold and spiritual as in A, they all can be explained by Science which has never ever associated them with the term 'God'.

Who cares?

You are so far off track it is amusing to watch how much further you could go.

If the above are the only elements then your definition of God is ridiculous.

If it is to you, then that is PERFECT, for me.

Also, remember ANY definition of 'God' other than 'God is an impossibility to be real' is ridiculous to you.

Re Occam it would more justifiable to explain those elements you have used from the scientific perspective.

Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

So what? I am NOT a "theist" nor a "wikipedia". Some one asked for my definition of the word 'God'. I gave them MY definition.

Also, MY definition is related to a Being also.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.

Define "being" and "agency" without falling into circularities. The best you can do is end up with a Pantheistic metaphysic.

There's nothing outrageous or contemptuous about equating God to Universe to ALL.

If you are a complexity theorist, ALL is the highest of the complexity classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)
And a Computer which can answer ALL questions in ALL complexity classes is called an Oracle machine.

The reason this conceptual/abstract super-powerful machine is NOT called God is because scientists are prudent, and understand idiots like you get triggered by the word 'God' and fall into circular/mystical thinking rather than abstract reasoning.

Are you that ignorant?

The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe.
Read this again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is Age's definition of God.

God, just like the Universe, It is made up of two parts:
1. A physical visible part. And,
2. An invisible part.

'God', in the physical sense, is every physical thing.
'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is the Mind.

You have to define what is 'spiritual sense'.

If I HAVE TO, then, for now, the 'spiritual sense' is 'that' what is invisible to the human eyes but is able to cause or create, and also 'that' what is in relation to when words like 'Spirit' or 'Spiritual' are used.

Thus your 'God' is a being [entity] that has agency to cause and create.
This is what I had shown below

Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

So what? I am NOT a "theist" nor a "wikipedia". Some one asked for my definition of the word 'God'. I gave them MY definition.

Also, MY definition is related to a Being also.

Thus your 'God' is a Being [entity] that has agency to cause and create.

Throughout the evolution of the concept/idea of God, there are two main categories of God, i.e.

• 1. The empirical conceptual God based on crude reason.
  2. The God of Pure Reason

1. The empirical conceptual God based on crude reason.
From the early days of our primitive ancestors, they believe in an empirical concept of God, i.e. God is viewed in terms of a larger agency in terms of the Sun, Moon, Mountains, the Bearded Man in the Sky, human-liked aliens in a Matrix state, and other empirical related concepts.

Such a concept of God is possible to be empirical real and possible.
It can be confirmed when theists bring the empirical evidence for verification.
But to date, no one has been able to bring any empirical evidence for empirical verification to prove their empirical-related God exists.

Whatever is claimed to be empirically-based, it is empirically possible.
Thus an empirical-related God is empirically possible, but the empirical attributes given to such a God is near impossible to realize empirically, i.e. the possibility is 0.000000000...01%.

2. The God of Pure Reason
After being cornered [a]theists and own doubts, theists the impossibility of an empirical-related-God and existential desperation, theists resorted to a God of Pure Reason, i.e. the ultimate ontological God defined as;
-the real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

Such a God is empty of any empirical elements but merely based on Pure Reason.
Note, in this case it not the conceptual God but God as an idea* [empty of an empirical base] * = philosophical idea.
I have proven such a God is an impossibility to be real.
Such a God is a non-starter, thus 100% impossibility.

[Skepdick]

Are you that ignorant?

Clearly you are, given your inability to read between the lines and see the parallels between ideas with equivalent consequences despite their diverging narratives.

You seem to think that re-descriptions and characterisations of reality have an effect on reality.

The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe.
Read this again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

You still haven't defined "being" and "agency", so let me help you:

Being. noun. the quality or state of having existence.
Agency. noun. the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power

From both a Pantheistic and a Physicist perspective the universe is a being and it has agency. Obviously - because the universe exists and has the capacity of acting (causality) and exerting power (energy).

So go ahead and explain to me how theism, pantheism and physics are consequentially different IN PRACTICE given that they all externalise agency and power?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you that ignorant?

Clearly you are, given your inability to read between the lines and see the parallels between ideas with equivalent consequences despite their diverging narratives.

You seem to think that re-descriptions and characterisations of reality have an effect on reality.

The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe.
Read this again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

You still haven't defined "being" and "agency", so let me help you:

Being. noun. the quality or state of having existence.
Agency. noun. the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power

From a Pantheistic perspective the universe is a being and it has agency. Obviously - because the universe exists and has the capacity of acting (causality) and exerting power (energy).

So go ahead and explain to me how theism and pantheism are consequentially different IN PRACTICE.

Re bold above, that is exactly in accordance to my definition of God given earlier, i.e. God is a Being with agency.
Generally every definition related to God [theism, panentheism, pantheism, deism] imply 'Being' and 'agency'. 'Agency' in this case, imply some kind of conscious intent on the part of the agent in contrast to the concept of spontaneous emergence.

Within Panentheism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
there is an implication of God's agency and the original intent, otherwise there is no manifestations of God, i.e. whatever is created and subsequently distanced from God.

My focus on the concept of God is with the following;
As stated above,
"The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe."

Yes, Being and Agency also imply causality.
But causality is a psychological subjective thing as Hume argued is based on customs, habits and constant conjunction, thus cannot be an independent objective fact.

[Skepdick]

'Agency' in this case, imply some kind of conscious intent on the part of the agent

You can't define 'intent' and 'consciousness' either without falling into circularities, let alone ascribing or denying the universe having such properties.

It's just a narrative.

in contrast to the concept of spontaneous emergence.
....
But causality is a psychological subjective thing as Hume argued is based on customs, habits and constant conjunction, thus cannot be an independent objective fact.

Spontaneity and emergence are also psychologically subjective. Objectivity is psychologically subjective. Facts are psychologically subjective.

It is trivial to assume a position of extreme subjectivism. As it is trivial to assume one of extreme objectivism. Neither is of any consequence to the universe itself.

You are forever stuck practicing metaphysics, even when you pretend otherwise.


Science offers the boldest metaphysics of the age. It is a thoroughly human construct, driven by the faith that if we dream, press to discover, explain, and dream again, thereby plunging repeatedly into new terrain, the world will somehow come clearer and we will grasp the true strangeness of the universe.--Edward O. Wilson

[Age]

Here is Age's definition of God.


You have to define what is 'spiritual sense'.

If I HAVE TO, then, for now, the 'spiritual sense' is 'that' what is invisible to the human eyes but is able to cause or create, and also 'that' what is in relation to when words like 'Spirit' or 'Spiritual' are used.

Thus your 'God' is a being [entity] that has agency to cause and create.

Yes. That is exactly what I had alluded to earlier.

This is what I had shown below

Hang on, it was YOU who accused me and wrote;
If the above [my definition] are the only elements, then your definition of God is ridiculous.

Then you wrote:
Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.

To which I replied:
MY definition [of God] is related to a Being also.

But now you want to say and write:
This is what I had shown below.

Answer me this; Are you actually following what is going on here?

I have ALREADY replied to what you ACCUSED me of, and had shown, ages ago that you were WRONG, as MY definition of God is ALSO related to a Being. Yet you now want to say that 'this is what YOU had shown'.

Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

So what? I am NOT a "theist" nor a "wikipedia". Some one asked for my definition of the word 'God'. I gave them MY definition.

Also, MY definition is related to a Being also.

Thus your 'God' is a Being [entity] that has agency to cause and create.

Yes, correct.

Throughout the evolution of the concept/idea of God, there are two main categories of God, i.e.

Not that it is of any importance to me, but I will read it, and reply.

But will you read, see, answer, and reply to this question: Who cares what has previously transpired throughout human evolution about 'God'? Those definitions, or far more accurately the perceived meanings and definitions behind those concepts/ideas has obviously not really gotten us anywhere peacefully, now has it?

This thread, which, by the way, YOU STARTED, is about MY definition for the word 'God', which is what I want to LOOK AT, and discuss, in THIS thread.

If you want to LOOK AT and discuss previous, or other, definitions of 'God', then go right ahead and START a thread about those ones.

Or, use those definitions to prove some thing. But to just keep re-mentioning them is NOT achieving any thing, especially when they are mentioned coming from a completely twisted and distorted concept from there real definition and meaning.

• 1. The empirical conceptual God based on crude reason.
  2. The God of Pure Reason

1. The empirical conceptual God based on crude reason.
From the early days of our primitive ancestors,

'you', veritas aequitas, when you wrote this are but just another one of OUR 'primitive ancestors.

they believe in an empirical concept of God, i.e. God is viewed in terms of a larger agency in terms of the Sun, Moon, Mountains, the Bearded Man in the Sky, human-liked aliens in a Matrix state, and other empirical related concepts.

Such a concept of God is possible to be empirical real and possible.
It can be confirmed when theists bring the empirical evidence for verification.
But to date, no one has been able to bring any empirical evidence for empirical verification to prove their empirical-related God exists.[/quote]

Yet here I am giving you ALL the empirical evidence that I could must up for you, that is; thee whole Universe, Itself, for empirical verification to prove that MY emipiral-related God exists, which you can clearly observe and experience, well enough of It any way, yet you still insist that no one has been able to bring ANY empirical evidence.

This leads back to what I said earlier about 'you', veritas aequitas, that is; 'you' are a person who BELIEVES that they already know what the truth is, 'you' are completely blinded by your OWN beliefs that you are completely incapable of HEARING or SEEING any evidence at all, which is put before you that contradicts your OWN BELIEFS. As I sated earlier: Even the whole Universe could NOT provide enough evidence for you.

I am defining 'God' as ALL visible physical matter. You can use absolutely any or all pieces of these visible physical particles of matter to confirm what I say. Yet you can not see them.

Whatever is claimed to be empirically-based, it is empirically possible.
Thus an empirical-related God is empirically possible, but the empirical attributes given to such a God is near impossible to realize empirically, i.e. the possibility is 0.000000000...01%.

So, what you are more or less saying is: Any or ALL of the physical and visible matter that makes up the Universe, Itself, is NOT enough actual empirical evidence, for you, to realize empirically that 'THAT' is exactly what 'God' actually IS, correct?

Are you even aware of what MY definition for the word 'God' is?

You sure do NOT come across as though you do.

2. The God of Pure Reason
After being cornered [a]theists and own doubts, theists the impossibility of an empirical-related-God and existential desperation, theists resorted to a God of Pure Reason, i.e. the ultimate ontological God defined as;
-the real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.

Such a God is empty of any empirical elements but merely based on Pure Reason.
Note, in this case it not the conceptual God but God as an idea* [empty of an empirical base] * = philosophical idea.
I have proven such a God is an impossibility to be real.
Such a God is a non-starter, thus 100% impossibility.

Yes I KNOW what your BELIEF is here. You have informed me enough times already.

I have also inferred that the ONLY person that you have proven that 'God is an impossibility to be real' is to YOU ONLY.

If anyone else agrees with YOUR logic and reasoning, then that is perfectly fine with me. But just continually saying that you have proven some thing, does NOT mean that you actually have proven any thing to any one other than your own self. For the True FACT IS you have NOT proven any such thing at all to me.

The ONLY thing that you are proving to me is just how illogical and irrational your beliefs and thinking REALLY ARE.

[Age]

Are you that ignorant?

Clearly you are, given your inability to read between the lines and see the parallels between ideas with equivalent consequences despite their diverging narratives.

You seem to think that re-descriptions and characterisations of reality have an effect on reality.

The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe.
Read this again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

You still haven't defined "being" and "agency", so let me help you:

Being. noun. the quality or state of having existence.
Agency. noun. the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power

From a Pantheistic perspective the universe is a being and it has agency. Obviously - because the universe exists and has the capacity of acting (causality) and exerting power (energy).

So go ahead and explain to me how theism and pantheism are consequentially different IN PRACTICE.

Re bold above, that is exactly in accordance to my definition of God given earlier, i.e. God is a Being with agency.
Generally every definition related to God [theism, panentheism, pantheism, deism] imply 'Being' and 'agency'. 'Agency' in this case, imply some kind of conscious intent on the part of the agent in contrast to the concept of spontaneous emergence.

Within Panentheism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
there is an implication of God's agency and the original intent, otherwise there is no manifestations of God, i.e. whatever is created and subsequently distanced from God.

My focus on the concept of God is with the following;
As stated above,
"The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe."

And as I said previously; I can SHOW how God is True, Right and Justified, when the REASONABLE definitions of are provided.

Since, the physical Universe is a part of God, and add that part with the Being part of God, then God is sustaining the Universe, right HERE and right NOW, which in truth is ALL-THERE-IS really is anyway.

The misconception that the Universe WAS created, and then that was it, does not need to shown as wrong. Obviously the Universe is still Creating, or is still in Creation, HERE-NOW.

The Universe is obviously changing and becoming anew, all of the time.

Yes, Being and Agency also imply causality.
But causality is a psychological subjective thing as Hume argued is based on customs, habits and constant conjunction, thus cannot be an independent objective fact.

Causality is obviously NOT an independent nor separate thing.

There is NO thing that is completely independent, nor completely separate, from any thing else.

Cause belongs with effect. The two go together. There can not be one without the other.

Cause and effect OBVIOUSLY can NOT have a beginning nor a start, and so goes on forever and always. Just like the Universe did not have a start, and goes on forever.

The Universe (or God) is Creating, Itself, HERE-NOW, forever and always, changing and evolving, things are ending but also becoming anew, all the time. It is this constant-changing, and out with the old and in with the new, HOW the Universe/God Creates EVERY thing, which is just Its Self, and how It sustains Itself.

The constant interaction of physical things creates enough energy to keep sustaining Its Self, and to keep Creating It Self.

God created the Universe. But God is NOT separate from the Universe and God has NOT stopped Creating the Universe/Itself. God is Creating the Universe, and through evolution God is evolving into a Self-conscious Being, which is just One who is Truly Aware of them Self. In order to accomplish this, an intelligent enough species has to evolve into being first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Clearly you are, given your inability to read between the lines and see the parallels between ideas with equivalent consequences despite their diverging narratives.

You seem to think that re-descriptions and characterisations of reality have an effect on reality.

You still haven't defined "being" and "agency", so let me help you:

Being. noun. the quality or state of having existence.
Agency. noun. the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power

From a Pantheistic perspective the universe is a being and it has agency. Obviously - because the universe exists and has the capacity of acting (causality) and exerting power (energy).

So go ahead and explain to me how theism and pantheism are consequentially different IN PRACTICE.

Re bold above, that is exactly in accordance to my definition of God given earlier, i.e. God is a Being with agency.
Generally every definition related to God [theism, panentheism, pantheism, deism] imply 'Being' and 'agency'. 'Agency' in this case, imply some kind of conscious intent on the part of the agent in contrast to the concept of spontaneous emergence.

Within Panentheism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
there is an implication of God's agency and the original intent, otherwise there is no manifestations of God, i.e. whatever is created and subsequently distanced from God.

My focus on the concept of God is with the following;
As stated above,
"The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe."

And as I said previously; I can SHOW how God is True, Right and Justified, when the REASONABLE definitions of are provided.

Since, the physical Universe is a part of God, and add that part with the Being part of God, then God is sustaining the Universe, right HERE and right NOW, which in truth is ALL-THERE-IS really is anyway.

The misconception that the Universe WAS created, and then that was it, does not need to shown as wrong. Obviously the Universe is still Creating, or is still in Creation, HERE-NOW.

The Universe is obviously changing and becoming anew, all of the time.

Yes, Being and Agency also imply causality.
But causality is a psychological subjective thing as Hume argued is based on customs, habits and constant conjunction, thus cannot be an independent objective fact.

Causality is obviously NOT an independent nor separate thing.

There is NO thing that is completely independent, nor completely separate, from any thing else.

Cause belongs with effect. The two go together. There can not be one without the other.

Cause and effect OBVIOUSLY can NOT have a beginning nor a start, and so goes on forever and always. Just like the Universe did not have a start, and goes on forever.

The Universe (or God) is Creating, Itself, HERE-NOW, forever and always, changing and evolving, things are ending but also becoming anew, all the time. It is this constant-changing, and out with the old and in with the new, HOW the Universe/God Creates EVERY thing, which is just Its Self, and how It sustains Itself.

The constant interaction of physical things creates enough energy to keep sustaining Its Self, and to keep Creating It Self.

God created the Universe. But God is NOT separate from the Universe and God has NOT stopped Creating the Universe/Itself. God is Creating the Universe, and through evolution God is evolving into a Self-conscious Being, which is just One who is Truly Aware of them Self. In order to accomplish this, an intelligent enough species has to evolve into being first.

Your argument above is very premature.

You started your argument with;

• 1. God exists
  2. The physical universe is part of God
  3. That part is sustained by god
  4. Therefore God exists

You begin your argument without proving premise 1.
Your argument is circular, i.e. your conclusion is already in your premise 1.

The best way to prove God exists is to bring direct evidence to justify God exists.
Note 'exist' is not a predicate, but there in an implicate predicate that follows exist.

• X exists as [predicate].

Ever since the emergence of the idea of God, no one has brought forth direct evidence to prove God exists as real.

I had argued the idea of God [whilst an illusion] is a critical necessity to deal with the terrible existential crisis and the arising existential pains. To give up such a belief will released these existential pains, thus the subliminal drives of theists invoking a defense mechanism to insist God is real. Some theists will even kill to defend their theism.
The real cause for theists belief in God is purely psychological and in some cases medical.

The psychological reason for belief in theism is proven by non-theistic Buddhism relying on psychological approach to deal the existential crisis, thus avoiding theism and its evil and violent potentials.

Hume had already argued the fundamental of causality is psychological, i.e of customs, habits and constant conjunction. From this, the idea of God as the first and ultimate cause of creation, if false. We should focus on the actual root cause, i.e. the psychological factors that lead to the conclusions of causality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Throughout the evolution of the concept/idea of God, there are two main categories of God, i.e.

Not that it is of any importance to me, but I will read it, and reply.

But will you read, see, answer, and reply to this question: Who cares what has previously transpired throughout human evolution about 'God'?
Those definitions, or far more accurately the perceived meanings and definitions behind those concepts/ideas has obviously not really gotten us anywhere peacefully, now has it?

This thread, which, by the way, YOU STARTED, is about MY definition for the word 'God', which is what I want to LOOK AT, and discuss, in THIS thread.

If you want to LOOK AT and discuss previous, or other, definitions of 'God', then go right ahead and START a thread about those ones.

Or, use those definitions to prove some thing. But to just keep re-mentioning them is NOT achieving any thing, especially when they are mentioned coming from a completely twisted and distorted concept from there real definition and meaning.

As I had shown above your argument of God exists is circular.

Such a concept of God is possible to be empirical real and possible.
It can be confirmed when theists bring the empirical evidence for verification.
But to date, no one has been able to bring any empirical evidence for empirical verification to prove their empirical-related God exists.

Yet here I am giving you ALL the empirical evidence that I could must up for you, that is; thee whole Universe, Itself, for empirical verification to prove that MY empirical-related God exists, which you can clearly observe and experience, well enough of It any way, yet you still insist that no one has been able to bring ANY empirical evidence.

One of Kant argument is there cannot be such a thing as "a whole Universe" i.e. empirical perfection is an impossibility. Shown me how it is possible without the involvement of the subject[s] in consensus.
It is possible for the other unseen parts of the Universe to be justified, but currently such a possibility is 0.00000..001% which is almost impossible.

This leads back to what I said earlier about 'you', veritas aequitas, that is; 'you' are a person who BELIEVES that they already know what the truth is, 'you' are completely blinded by your OWN beliefs that you are completely incapable of HEARING or SEEING any evidence at all, which is put before you that contradicts your OWN BELIEFS. As I sated earlier: Even the whole Universe could NOT provide enough evidence for you.

I am defining 'God' as ALL visible physical matter. You can use absolutely any or all pieces of these visible physical particles of matter to confirm what I say. Yet you can not see them.

I NEVER insist know what is the absolute truth, i.e. a truth that is independent of the subject[s] in consensus in accord with a specific framework.
I know the truth about human nature and psychology. In this case, it is the psychology of how theists insisting and clinging to a belief in God based on faith.

Whatever is claimed to be empirically-based, it is empirically possible.
Thus an empirical-related God is empirically possible, but the empirical attributes given to such a God is near impossible to realize empirically, i.e. the possibility is 0.000000000...01%.

So, what you are more or less saying is: Any or ALL of the physical and visible matter that makes up the Universe, Itself, is NOT enough actual empirical evidence, for you, to realize empirically that 'THAT' is exactly what 'God' actually IS, correct?

Are you even aware of what MY definition for the word 'God' is?

You sure do NOT come across as though you do.

Your definition of God is as you have stated in the OP and the argument as framed above in my earlier post.

Note scientists has only known and verified a limited number of parts of an infinite unknown.
If what you know is so little, how can you claim, there is a totality that is God which is a being and has agency.

It is also possible [0.000--001%] the reality that you are experiencing now and speculating of the 'Universe,' could be a program by a dog-like alien some light years away using a machine to generate a Matrix-like-state with humans as participants.

If anyone else agrees with YOUR logic and reasoning, then that is perfectly fine with me. But just continually saying that you have proven some thing, does NOT mean that you actually have proven any thing to any one other than your own self. For the True FACT IS you have NOT proven any such thing at all to me.

The ONLY thing that you are proving to me is just how illogical and irrational your beliefs and thinking REALLY ARE.

You missed my point if you think I have proven something objective.
What I have proven is,
what you as a limited human being insist, i.e. God exists are a real being with agency, is a non-starter. Point is you cannot even start of proper argument for it without being circular. Therefore 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

If you insist your God is empirical based, then bring the empirical evidence.
Since you define your empirical God is the WHOLE Universe, this is an impossible concept thus a non-starter.

[Age]

Re bold above, that is exactly in accordance to my definition of God given earlier, i.e. God is a Being with agency.
Generally every definition related to God [theism, panentheism, pantheism, deism] imply 'Being' and 'agency'. 'Agency' in this case, imply some kind of conscious intent on the part of the agent in contrast to the concept of spontaneous emergence.

Within Panentheism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
there is an implication of God's agency and the original intent, otherwise there is no manifestations of God, i.e. whatever is created and subsequently distanced from God.

My focus on the concept of God is with the following;
As stated above,
"The majority of theists [Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others] which is 80% of all humans believed God is a being with agency that created and sustain the Universe."

And as I said previously; I can SHOW how God is True, Right and Justified, when the REASONABLE definitions of are provided.

Since, the physical Universe is a part of God, and add that part with the Being part of God, then God is sustaining the Universe, right HERE and right NOW, which in truth is ALL-THERE-IS really is anyway.

The misconception that the Universe WAS created, and then that was it, does not need to shown as wrong. Obviously the Universe is still Creating, or is still in Creation, HERE-NOW.

The Universe is obviously changing and becoming anew, all of the time.

Yes, Being and Agency also imply causality.
But causality is a psychological subjective thing as Hume argued is based on customs, habits and constant conjunction, thus cannot be an independent objective fact.

Causality is obviously NOT an independent nor separate thing.

There is NO thing that is completely independent, nor completely separate, from any thing else.

Cause belongs with effect. The two go together. There can not be one without the other.

Cause and effect OBVIOUSLY can NOT have a beginning nor a start, and so goes on forever and always. Just like the Universe did not have a start, and goes on forever.

The Universe (or God) is Creating, Itself, HERE-NOW, forever and always, changing and evolving, things are ending but also becoming anew, all the time. It is this constant-changing, and out with the old and in with the new, HOW the Universe/God Creates EVERY thing, which is just Its Self, and how It sustains Itself.

The constant interaction of physical things creates enough energy to keep sustaining Its Self, and to keep Creating It Self.

God created the Universe. But God is NOT separate from the Universe and God has NOT stopped Creating the Universe/Itself. God is Creating the Universe, and through evolution God is evolving into a Self-conscious Being, which is just One who is Truly Aware of them Self. In order to accomplish this, an intelligent enough species has to evolve into being first.

Your argument above is very premature.

And you BELIEVE that your so called "argument" is VERY mature, right?

You started your argument with;

• 1. God exists
  2. The physical universe is part of God
  3. That part is sustained by god
  4. Therefore God exists

If that is how you read my so called "argument", which for your information I have NEVER even formulated an argument yet, then either;

I have written completely incorrectly. Or,
You have completely read incorrectly.

So, which one do you propose is more correct and right?

I am NOT here to provide an argument, yet. This is YOUR thread. NOT mine.

The Truth, according to you, is; that anything for 'God existing' is a complete non-starter anyway correct?

All I did is just replied to the question asked of me: What do you mean by 'God'?, and then added onto it, when replies are made.

I could ask you the same question: What do you mean by 'God'? and wait for a response. But I shall NOT ask that, AGAIN.

You begin your argument without proving premise 1.
Your argument is circular, i.e. your conclusion is already in your premise 1.

Just so I am CLEAR: I did NOT make any argument. All I did was explain what I mean when I use the word 'God', which is some thing that you can not really do, remember?

The best way to prove God exists is to bring direct evidence to justify God exists.

So, according to your logic and advice now the best way to prove God exists is to bring direct evidence to JUSTIFY God exists?

I would have thought the best way to PROVE God exists is to just SHOW who and what God actually IS.

If I, for example, wanted to prove that ANY thing exists, then I would suggest that it is much better to just provide proof of the actual thing instead of just providing some thing to "justify" it exits.

Why not just bring the thing "to the table", as they say, instead of just "justifying" it exists?

Note 'exist' is not a predicate, but there in an implicate predicate that follows exist.

• X exists as [predicate].

Ever since the emergence of the idea of God, no one has brought forth direct evidence to prove God exists as real.

No one has had to. The direct evidence is HERE-NOW staring EVERY one in the face.

Note I have NOT even said "God exists". Note, I just said what 'God' means to me.

My perception of what 'God' means could be completely and utterly WRONG. So, I have NOT argued for any thing nor said much else regarding what 'God' means. When what is WRONG in what 'God means to me' is provided, then I will then gain a better view of what 'God means to me'. Until then I wait, and do NOT argue.

Remember that it is just your imagination that has concocted up some "argument" that I have supposedly provided.

I had argued the idea of God [whilst an illusion] is a critical necessity to deal with the terrible existential crisis and the arising existential pains. To give up such a belief will released these existential pains, thus the subliminal drives of theists invoking a defense mechanism to insist God is real. Some theists will even kill to defend their theism.

Some people even kill for a pair of shoes, but just like you are saying, both things are really NOT on topic at all.

The real cause for theists belief in God is purely psychological and in some cases medical.

So it is PURELY psychological but it is also NOT purely psychological because in some cases it is medical. Okay, I better understand YOUR "logic" now.

The psychological reason for belief in theism is proven by non-theistic Buddhism relying on psychological approach to deal the existential crisis, thus avoiding theism and its evil and violent potentials.

I have ALREADY asked you: WHY is ANY approach needed to deal with some thing which is completely false anyway? ANY 'existential crisis' that buddhism sees is just imaginary anyway.

Hume had already argued the fundamental of causality is psychological, i.e of customs, habits and constant conjunction. From this, the idea of God as the first and ultimate cause of creation, if false. We should focus on the actual root cause, i.e. the psychological factors that lead to the conclusions of causality.

Could you repeat your words and beliefs AGAIN. I forget if I have had them before.

[Age]

Throughout the evolution of the concept/idea of God, there are two main categories of God, i.e.

Not that it is of any importance to me, but I will read it, and reply.

But will you read, see, answer, and reply to this question: Who cares what has previously transpired throughout human evolution about 'God'?
Those definitions, or far more accurately the perceived meanings and definitions behind those concepts/ideas has obviously not really gotten us anywhere peacefully, now has it?

This thread, which, by the way, YOU STARTED, is about MY definition for the word 'God', which is what I want to LOOK AT, and discuss, in THIS thread.

If you want to LOOK AT and discuss previous, or other, definitions of 'God', then go right ahead and START a thread about those ones.

Or, use those definitions to prove some thing. But to just keep re-mentioning them is NOT achieving any thing, especially when they are mentioned coming from a completely twisted and distorted concept from there real definition and meaning.

As I had shown above your argument of God exists is circular.

So, you will NEVER just answer my questions directly?

In fact do you even read what I write? Your reply here seems to suggest no.

Also, as I had said, in my reply, to where you allege that you have shown some thing to some "argument" of mine, IS I have not yet given an argument.

Such a concept of God is possible to be empirical real and possible.
It can be confirmed when theists bring the empirical evidence for verification.
But to date, no one has been able to bring any empirical evidence for empirical verification to prove their empirical-related God exists.

Yet here I am giving you ALL the empirical evidence that I could must up for you, that is; thee whole Universe, Itself, for empirical verification to prove that MY empirical-related God exists, which you can clearly observe and experience, well enough of It any way, yet you still insist that no one has been able to bring ANY empirical evidence.

One of Kant argument is there cannot be such a thing as "a whole Universe" i.e. empirical perfection is an impossibility. Shown me how it is possible without the involvement of the subject[s] in consensus.
It is possible for the other unseen parts of the Universe to be justified, but currently such a possibility is 0.00000..001% which is almost impossible.

What are you going on about now?

Was that one of some thing's argument, a sound and valid argument?

If yes, then it is irrefutable.

If, however, it is NOT a sound and valid argument, then who cares what some one supposedly 'TRIED TO' argue.

Just answer logically HOW there could not be such a thing as a 'whole Universe'?

Or better still tell us HOW there could logically only be a 'part Universe'.

This leads back to what I said earlier about 'you', veritas aequitas, that is; 'you' are a person who BELIEVES that they already know what the truth is, 'you' are completely blinded by your OWN beliefs that you are completely incapable of HEARING or SEEING any evidence at all, which is put before you that contradicts your OWN BELIEFS. As I sated earlier: Even the whole Universe could NOT provide enough evidence for you.

I am defining 'God' as ALL visible physical matter. You can use absolutely any or all pieces of these visible physical particles of matter to confirm what I say. Yet you can not see them.

I NEVER insist know what is the absolute truth, i.e. a truth that is independent of the subject[s] in consensus in accord with a specific framework.
I know the truth about human nature and psychology. In this case, it is the psychology of how theists insisting and clinging to a belief in God based on faith.

Correct me if I read you wrong but you state: That you NEVER insist that you know what is the absolute truth BUT you say that you know the truth about human nature and psychology. Is this correct?

Whatever is claimed to be empirically-based, it is empirically possible.
Thus an empirical-related God is empirically possible, but the empirical attributes given to such a God is near impossible to realize empirically, i.e. the possibility is 0.000000000...01%.

So, what you are more or less saying is: Any or ALL of the physical and visible matter that makes up the Universe, Itself, is NOT enough actual empirical evidence, for you, to realize empirically that 'THAT' is exactly what 'God' actually IS, correct?

Are you even aware of what MY definition for the word 'God' is?

You sure do NOT come across as though you do.

Your definition of God is as you have stated in the OP and the argument as framed above in my earlier post.

But I have NOT "framed an argument" so MY definition of God could NOT be there nor in there.

Note scientists has only known and verified a limited number of parts of an infinite unknown.

HOW do you KNOW that it is infinite?

And, who cares if only a limited number of parts of a Universe are known and verified?

To you, thee Universe, no matter how much of it is known, exists, correct?

If what you know is so little, how can you claim, there is a totality that is God which is a being and has agency.

Probably more or less the EXACT SAME way that you can claim that 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

I use what I have gained from my past experiences to claim what I do.

So, what do you use to claim what you do?

Also, did I CLAIM that 'there is a totality that is God'?

Or, did I just provide what 'God' means to me?

Do you even recognize and/or know the difference?

It is also possible [0.000--001%] the reality that you are experiencing now and speculating of the 'Universe,' could be a program by a dog-like alien some light years away using a machine to generate a Matrix-like-state with humans as participants.

True, it is possible. Would you like me to list ALL of the other possibilities that COULD exist also?

If anyone else agrees with YOUR logic and reasoning, then that is perfectly fine with me. But just continually saying that you have proven some thing, does NOT mean that you actually have proven any thing to any one other than your own self. For the True FACT IS you have NOT proven any such thing at all to me.

The ONLY thing that you are proving to me is just how illogical and irrational your beliefs and thinking REALLY ARE.

You missed my point if you think I have proven something objective.

I have NEVER though you have proven something objectively.

I have only EVER see you have proven things to your own self.

What I have proven is,
what you as a limited human being insist, i.e. God exists are a real being with agency, is a non-starter.

I have asked you this BEFORE, who have you 'proven' this to?

You did NOT answer BEFORE.

Point is you cannot even start of proper argument for it without being circular. Therefore 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

Therefore, you are SHOWING EXACTLY what I have been pointing out throughout almost all of our discussion. That is; You are NOT open to any thing other than what you ALREADY BELIEVE IS TRUE.

This is because of how the brain works and how the brain is affected by the BELIEF-system.

You BELIEVE that 'God is an impossibility to be real' AND that there is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever that could counter this.

If you insist your God is empirical based, then bring the empirical evidence.
Since you define your empirical God is the WHOLE Universe, this is an impossible concept thus a non-starter.

Okay, if you can not conceive of a that a 'whole Universe' exists, then you MUST have won and I MUST have lost.

So you are the winner, and I am the loser.

Congratulations, you have done well.

[osgart]

Non existence is an impossibility. Therefore since there is a universe it must be infinite and eternal. Why? Because nothing is an impossibility within an existence.

So if existence is infinite and eternal then it is the foundation for things that never occured before, but now do.

The elements that make up us living beings existed in the forever past before our lives became alive. We did not exist but our constitutent elements did.

Since death occurs we have no evidence that life is anything beyond fleeting. So you will have to resort to proof that a God exists based on knowledge currently known.

Evolution itself does not prove or disprove an intelligent agency responsible for life's becoming.

Abiogenesis will not disprove or prove agency neither.

The reality of consciousness cannot be grasped by outside observation.

Science can only work within the physical realm.

Subjective proof will never pass for objective understanding by others.

No matter how hard i try there is no evidence of a God, other then human existence. And if that is all the evidence there is, then naturalism is a distinct possibility.