Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can it? Prove that our reality is not a hallucination created since last Thursday.

According to the OP, what is conscious reality is 'hallucinated' by the brain - this I agree.

To have a 'conscious reality' requires external stimulus, thus the OP is bollocks.

A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception.

A hallucination can be triggered from internal and external stimuli.
A schizophrenic who hallucinated his garden gnomes "communicated" with him when he was outside in his garden is triggered by external stone-gnomes in his garden.

So I am not sure why you ask me to prove our reality is not a hallucination at present, not merely since last Thursday.

I am pointing out, that since you insist our brain 'hallucinates reality', then any proof of anything empirical is flawed since minds can ONLY base their empirical evidence on their observations. Since this is the case, one cannot prove that the reality we perceive and indeed ourselves existed before last Thursday.

Empirical proofs are not flawed where the rules are followed.
Empirical proofs are real [relatively real] and empirically there are external things but they are all conditioned upon an encompassing hallucinated reality.

It is like the hallucinated reality [all there is] is the main set.
What is 'empirically real' based on observations is the subset.

Yet this hallucination of reality from the brain is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically by the brain.

What brain? Are you talking about the construct within this hallucinated reality that we perceive IS an actual BRAIN?

As I had mentioned, reality, i.e. all-there-is a hallucination, but note this is not the same hallucinations like those of schizophrenics.

The above hallucination is something like the Matrix or Brain-in-the-vat, but not exactly since such a hallucination is an emergence and just is.

The alternative is humanity cannot pin point a reality-in-itself that is absolutely unconditional.
Thus the OP is the best explanation of what-is.

The idea of God is not a hallucination of empirical nature but merely is an idea from thought which has no substance nor empirical possibility. As such, the idea of God cannot be empirically and philosophically verified and justified to be real empirically.

Oh. Shit. That means I am bat shit crazy if U R insisting on empiricism as a collective consensus of opinion, rather than an individual being given empirical evidence at the 'hand' of God?

I did not state empiricism is a collective consensus of opinions where every one agree with every one's opinion and that's reality. This is what happened with claims of the flat-earth and the geocentric theorists until they were verified and justified to be empirically false.

What is empirically and philosophically real must be verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable to be empirical real yet a "true" hallucination in the widest perspective. The idea of God do not meet the above requirements and cannot pass the above tests.


Alternatively, What you have not considered [which theists will not ever considered] is that the idea of God is the most effective balm to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis.
Basically, theism is grounded on psychology, i.e. primal impulses.
Do you have any strong argument against the above?

The existential crisis generates the strongest physical force of terrible mental pains & sufferings [mostly subliminal] within humans, i.e. more forceful than the hunger, sex and other primal passions.

The belief in a God give immediate relief to this terrible mental pains and sufferings; that is why theists cling to the belief in God like there is no tomorrow; some theists will even kill those who spread doubts on their theistic beliefs [note Islam and ancient blasphemy killing in various religions].

Because the reliance of a belief in a God to soothe the terrible mental pains and sufferings inevitably entailed the killings and violence to non-believers, others has resorted to no-possibility-of-violence [fool proof] alternatives methods in dealing with the terrible inherent mental pains and sufferings.

One of this non-theistic model is that from Buddhism-proper which identify the root causes of the existential crisis, its mental pains and sufferings [dukkha] and therefrom establish effective strategies to manage those terrible mental pains and sufferings.

Note:
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
It does not entail nor need any belief in a God.

[attofishpi]

According to the OP, what is conscious reality is 'hallucinated' by the brain - this I agree.

To have a 'conscious reality' requires external stimulus, thus the OP is bollocks.

A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception.

A hallucination can be triggered from internal and external stimuli.
A schizophrenic who hallucinated his garden gnomes "communicated" with him when he was outside in his garden is triggered by external stone-gnomes in his garden.

How so? How do U know that a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) did not simulate to the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

So I am not sure why you ask me to prove our reality is not a hallucination at present, not merely since last Thursday.

I am pointing out, that since you insist our brain 'hallucinates reality', then any proof of anything empirical is flawed since minds can ONLY base their empirical evidence on their observations. Since this is the case, one cannot prove that the reality we perceive and indeed ourselves existed before last Thursday.

Empirical proofs are not flawed where the rules are followed.
Empirical proofs are real [relatively real] and empirically there are external things but they are all conditioned upon an encompassing hallucinated reality.

Empirical proofs are relative to what..?...a consensus view of peoples perception of reality?

It is like the hallucinated reality [all there is] is the main set.
What is 'empirically real' based on observations is the subset.

OK. But only since U insist.

Yet this hallucination of reality from the brain is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically by the brain.

What brain? Are you talking about the construct within this hallucinated reality that we perceive IS an actual BRAIN?

As I had mentioned, reality, i.e. all-there-is a hallucination, but note this is not the same hallucinations like those of schizophrenics.

The above hallucination is something like the Matrix or Brain-in-the-vat, but not exactly since such a hallucination is an emergence and just is.

The alternative is humanity cannot pin point a reality-in-itself that is absolutely unconditional.
Thus the OP is the best explanation of what-is.

I am glad that U brought in Descartes or Wachowski...since it provides U an under_standing that IF there is a generator to the construct of what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y ...that U cannot dismiss so frivolously things stated by people that appear to contradict YOUR misconception about the actual nature of REALITY.

The idea of God is not a hallucination of empirical nature but merely is an idea from thought which has no substance nor empirical possibility. As such, the idea of God cannot be empirically and philosophically verified and justified to be real empirically.

Oh. Shit. That means I am bat shit crazy if U R insisting on empiricism as a collective consensus of opinion, rather than an individual being given empirical evidence at the 'hand' of God?

I did not state empiricism is a collective consensus of opinions where every one agree with every one's opinion and that's reality. This is what happened with claims of the flat-earth and the geocentric theorists until they were verified and justified to be empirically false.

Flat Earth? My lounge in my house is pretty flat. Once I go out of my house things start getting wobbly - but thus far they are still attributes persistent with being on the surface of the Earth.

What is empirically and philosophically real must be verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable to be empirical real yet a "true" hallucination in the widest perspective. The idea of God do not meet the above requirements and cannot pass the above tests.

Well, that clearly depends on how U define 'GOD'. Personally, I have verified, justified, tested, repeated tests, to falsify YOUR insistence that GOD does not exist.

Alternatively, What you have not considered [which theists will not ever considered] is that the idea of God is the most effective balm to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis.
Basically, theism is grounded on psychology, i.e. primal impulses.
Do you have any strong argument against the above?

Well yes, that people R more credible with their comprehension of reality than you think - that an entire shitload of them have put into words their experience of the 3rd party intelligence that IS the backbone to our REALITY.

The fact that these people have done so within the constraints of their cultural know-ledge at the particular point of TIME is a Test_amen_T to their courage far contrary to your insistence that it is out of some ...."existential crisis".


I cut off the rest of you waffle (sorry).

www.androcies.com

[Veritas Aequitas]

A hallucination can be triggered from internal and external stimuli.
A schizophrenic who hallucinated his garden gnomes "communicated" with him when he was outside in his garden is triggered by external stone-gnomes in his garden.

How so? How do U know that a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) did not simulate to the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

Up to the current stage, the subject of hallucination is well research to the extent that scientists understand the neural mechanism of how hallucinations came about.

• The neural mechanisms of hallucinations: A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies:
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3415302669

In addition, scientists can also induce hallucination on demand;

• Scientists have found how to make people hallucinate, and how to measure what they see
  https://theconversation.com/scientists- ... -see-66842

Also, hallucinations are very common while taking drugs like LSD and other psychedelic drugs.

• Drug-induced hallucinations: Illegal drugs and alcohol
  People can experience hallucinations when they're high on illegal drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine, LSD or ecstasy. They can also occur during withdrawal from alcohol or drugs if you suddenly stop taking them.
  https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hallucinations/#:

Hallucinations can also emerge upon old age and failing eyesight in some people:

• Charles Bonnet syndrome
  Charles Bonnet syndrome causes a person whose vision has started to deteriorate to see things that aren't real (hallucinations).
  The hallucinations may be simple patterns, or detailed images of events, people or places.
  They're only visual and don't involve hearing things or any other sensations.
  It's important to be aware that hallucinations associated with Charles Bonnet syndrome are caused by failing eyesight. They're not caused by a mental health problem or dementia.

There is no a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) which simulate the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

ALL hallucinations that emerge onto to human consciousness has the SAME core and basic neural features; the difference in types of hallucination are due to varying wirings at the fringes.
One type of hallucination is so natural to humans that it is recognized as normal 'reality' while other variations of hallucination are due to mental illness, drug induced, old age, stress, etc.

Empirical proofs are not flawed where the rules are followed.
Empirical proofs are real [relatively real] and empirically there are external things but they are all conditioned upon an encompassing hallucinated reality.

Empirical proofs are relative to what..?...a consensus view of peoples perception of reality?

Empirical proofs of empirical reality is relative to the Empirical Framework and System of the realization of reality.
Scientific empirical facts and truth [the most credible but not absolute] emerge from scientific proofs within the scientific framework.
Surely you would have high confidence of the veracity of scientific truths?

But this 'highest' veracity of scientific facts are conditioned by an encompassing hallucination of reality as claimed in the OP

It is like the hallucinated reality [all there is] is the main set.
What is 'empirically real' based on observations is the subset.

OK. But only since U insist.

At least you understand my point but don't have to agree.

What brain? Are you talking about the construct within this hallucinated reality that we perceive IS an actual BRAIN?

As I had mentioned, reality, i.e. all-there-is a hallucination, but note this is not the same hallucinations like those of schizophrenics.
The above hallucination is something like the Matrix or Brain-in-the-vat, but not exactly since such a hallucination is an emergence and just is.
The alternative is humanity cannot pin point a reality-in-itself that is absolutely unconditional.
Thus the OP is the best explanation of what-is.

I am glad that U brought in Descartes or Wachowski...since it provides U an under_standing that IF there is a generator to the construct of what we perceive as REAL_IT_Y ...that U cannot dismiss so frivolously things stated by people that appear to contradict YOUR misconception about the actual nature of REALITY.

I stated the said hallucination is not EXACTLY the same with the Matrix or Descartes' demon.
In my case, there is no GENERATOR or any agent that is responsible for the hallucinations.
The said hallucination of reality emerges onto human consciousness.
As such the most effective way to understand such a hallucination of reality is a causal analysis from a "TOP DOWN" approach without assuming there is something at the very bottom, like a first cause or prime mover.

I did not state empiricism is a collective consensus of opinions where every one agree with every one's opinion and that's reality. This is what happened with claims of the flat-earth and the geocentric theorists until they were verified and justified to be empirically false.

Flat Earth? My lounge in my house is pretty flat. Once I go out of my house things start getting wobbly - but thus far they are still attributes persistent with being on the surface of the Earth.

It is unfortunate you are so primitive in terms of knowledge.
Suggest you visit NASA to understand their verifications of the roundness of Earth from Space.

What is empirically and philosophically real must be verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable to be empirical real yet a "true" hallucination in the widest perspective. The idea of God do not meet the above requirements and cannot pass the above tests.

Well, that clearly depends on how U define 'GOD'. Personally, I have verified, justified, tested, repeated tests, to falsify YOUR insistence that GOD does not exist.

Personal and subjective verification and justifications are not really-real.

I have NO issues if one define God as a thought or idea only which is ultimately illusory. Such a God cannot also be reasoned [deists] but it is not claimed as really-real.

I have issues if theists define their God as real as what scientists and philosophers defined as "real" which is empirical and philosophical.

At the extreme, theists claimed their God is very real [empirically] and is omni-whatever to the extent their God had sent them holy texts via messengers, hears and answers their prayers. To the very extreme of morality their God command theists to kill non-theists upon the most vague threats as a religious duty.

As long as God is claimed as really real empirically and philosophically either physically or otherwise, that is a false claim.

Alternatively, What you have not considered [which theists will not ever considered] is that the idea of God is the most effective balm to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis.
Basically, theism is grounded on psychology, i.e. primal impulses.
Do you have any strong argument against the above?

Well yes, that people R more credible with their comprehension of reality than you think - that an entire shitload of them have put into words their experience of the 3rd party intelligence that IS the backbone to our REALITY.

The fact that these people have done so within the constraints of their cultural know-ledge at the particular point of TIME is a Test_amen_T to their courage far contrary to your insistence that it is out of some ...."existential crisis".

Numbers and the majority are baseless in deciding what is really real. Note the ad populum fallacy and I had mentioned the case of the flat-earthers and the geocentric theorists.

Philosophically, what counts as real must pass the verification and justification tests with the scientific method as the highest and main standard.
All other claims [legal, economics, psychiatry, historical] of what-is-real is relative to the scientific method.

Your claim that God exists as real do not come near to the scientific method at all.

I cut off the rest of you waffle (sorry).

www.androcies.com

Wish you could counter what I had presented the alternative solutions therein or at least understand them without agreeing and accepting.

[attofishpi]

A hallucination can be triggered from internal and external stimuli.
A schizophrenic who hallucinated his garden gnomes "communicated" with him when he was outside in his garden is triggered by external stone-gnomes in his garden.

How so? How do U know that a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) did not simulate to the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

Up to the current stage, the subject of hallucination is well research to the extent that scientists understand the neural mechanism of how hallucinations came about.

I am truly over this entire 'hallucinates' obsession. Since you are still insisting that the brain manifests a construct of the reality fed to the brain (as empirical) - it contradicts the definition of the term hallucinate.

There is no a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) which simulate the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

HOW THE FLYING GNOMES DO U KNOW?

This poor 'schizo' dude should rationalise and ask himself the following questions:
1. Are plaster models of little men capable of talking (maybe if they have batteries, in which case WOULD it be capable of an entire conversation!?)
- NO.
2. Is it plausible in current scientific appreciation of the nature of reality, multiple dimensions etc.. that some other entity might be doing this?
- YES
3. Is it possible that a 3rd party intelligence is the construct backbone to reality and that this entity - call it GOD is doing this for some REASON?
- YES.
4. What is the reason that this GOD might be doing this, currently via a garden gnome?
- ? - time to analyse ones life.

I did not state empiricism is a collective consensus of opinions where every one agree with every one's opinion and that's reality. This is what happened with claims of the flat-earth and the geocentric theorists until they were verified and justified to be empirically false.

Flat Earth? My lounge in my house is pretty flat. Once I go out of my house things start getting wobbly - but thus far they are still attributes persistent with being on the surface of the Earth.

It is unfortunate you are so primitive in terms of knowledge.
Suggest you visit NASA to understand their verifications of the roundness of Earth from Space.

WTF R U talking about? R U seriously suggesting I think the Earth is not round. R U seriously suggesting U understand the nature of reality better than me?

What is empirically and philosophically real must be verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable to be empirical real yet a "true" hallucination in the widest perspective. The idea of God do not meet the above requirements and cannot pass the above tests.

Well, that clearly depends on how U define 'GOD'. Personally, I have verified, justified, tested, repeated tests, to falsify YOUR insistence that GOD does not exist.

Personal and subjective verification and justifications are not really-real.

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified ARE really real.

I have issues if theists define their God as real as what scientists and philosophers defined as "real" which is empirical and philosophical. As long as God is claimed as really real empirically and philosophically either physically or otherwise, that is a false claim.

Well clearly we have an issue.

Philosophically, what counts as real must pass the verification and justification tests with the scientific method as the highest and main standard. All other claims [legal, economics, psychiatry, historical] of what-is-real is relative to the scientific method.

Your claim that God exists as real do not come near to the scientific method at all.

How do U know that I have not maintained the highest standards of philosophical and\or scientific method when analysing and rationalising 23 years of experience of "GOD" to come to the conclusion that there is indeed a 3rd party intelligence that constructs our reality - in real-time?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How so? How do U know that a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) did not simulate to the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

Up to the current stage, the subject of hallucination is well research to the extent that scientists understand the neural mechanism of how hallucinations came about.

I am truly over this entire 'hallucinates' obsession. Since you are still insisting that the brain manifests a construct of the reality fed to the brain (as empirical) - it contradicts the definition of the term hallucinate.

It is true what is empirically real contradict 'hallucination' but only in the ordinary sense of hallucination.
What the OP allude to is a sort of META-hallucination which satisfy the definition of the neural mechanics of hallucination.
Btw, you have to read up the research on this claim.

Did you listen to the video in the OP?

• Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
  Anil Seth
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Here is another;

• Reality is an illusion constructed by the activation of neurons
  Andrew Huberman and Lex Fridman
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNqcWULNehY

Note there are loads of research on this subject, i.e. reality as a META-hallucination.
Check out V S Ramachandran the famous neuroscientist.

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... machandran

There is no a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) which simulate the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

HOW THE FLYING GNOMES DO U KNOW?

This poor 'schizo' dude should rationalise and ask himself the following questions:
1. Are plaster models of little men capable of talking (maybe if they have batteries, in which case WOULD it be capable of an entire conversation!?)
- NO.
2. Is it plausible in current scientific appreciation of the nature of reality, multiple dimensions etc.. that some other entity might be doing this?
- YES
3. Is it possible that a 3rd party intelligence is the construct backbone to reality and that this entity - call it GOD is doing this for some REASON?
- YES.
4. What is the reason that this GOD might be doing this, currently via a garden gnome?
- ? - time to analyse ones life.

This poor 'schizo' dude should rationalise???
You are out of your mind on the above expectations that a schizo could rationalize the above, note the basic symptoms of schizophrenia.

Cognitive deficits are the earliest and most constantly found symptoms in schizophrenia.
Neurocognition is the ability to receive and remember information, and includes verbal fluency, memory, reasoning, problem solving, speed of processing, and auditory and visual perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophr ... e_symptoms

Flat Earth? My lounge in my house is pretty flat. Once I go out of my house things start getting wobbly - but thus far they are still attributes persistent with being on the surface of the Earth.

It is unfortunate you are so primitive in terms of knowledge.
Suggest you visit NASA to understand their verifications of the roundness of Earth from Space.

WTF R U talking about? R U seriously suggesting I think the Earth is not round. R U seriously suggesting U understand the nature of reality better than me?

Not seriously in general but only logically in terms of what you posted.
However I definitely understand the nature of reality better than you, where you reified the illusory as real.

Well, that clearly depends on how U define 'GOD'. Personally, I have verified, justified, tested, repeated tests, to falsify YOUR insistence that GOD does not exist.

Personal and subjective verification and justifications are not really-real.

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified ARE really real.

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified personally are merely personal convictions and personal beliefs.

When say, Einstein's proved his theories to himself with 'certainty' that is only his personal conviction and belief it is true but it is not objective.
It is only when Einstein's theories were opened for testing [empirically and philosophically] by his peers that his persona beliefs becomes Justified True Beliefs, i.e. knowledge, even then that is a conditional knowledge with no 100% certainty is it really real.

I have issues if theists define their God as real as what scientists and philosophers defined as "real" which is empirical and philosophical. As long as God is claimed as really real empirically and philosophically either physically or otherwise, that is a false claim.

Well clearly we have an issue.

God exists as real is false until such a claim is verified and justified empirically and philosophically and it is open to testing with potential repeatable results.

Philosophically, what counts as real must pass the verification and justification tests with the scientific method as the highest and main standard. All other claims [legal, economics, psychiatry, historical] of what-is-real is relative to the scientific method.

Your claim that God exists as real do not come near to the scientific method at all.

How do U know that I have not maintained the highest standards of philosophical and\or scientific method when analysing and rationalising 23 years of experience of "GOD" to come to the conclusion that there is indeed a 3rd party intelligence that constructs our reality - in real-time?

If you have maintained the highest standards of scientific and philosophical verification and justifications, you should be able to present a scientific and philosophical paper to support your claim.
Therein the paper, your methods should be clearly explained so that others can test to confirm the same results as you have claimed.

By default, the belief that God exists as real is based on FAITH, i.e. belief without proofs and reasonable reasonings, verifications and justifications.
Therefore whatever verifications and justifications you claim they will not jive with reality.

Consider the alternative views to the idea of an illusory God reified as real.
The whole mess of the idea of God as real is to soothe of the terrible [subliminal] pains and sufferings existential crisis immediately but inevitably enable evil [so evidently] upon humanity as well, is due to the inherent human psychology.

When one manages the inherent psychology to a comfortable level, one will be able to wean off the clinging to a God for salvation and the soothing of existential pains. Such methods had been practiced by non-theists effectively over thousands of years.

[attofishpi]

There is no a 3rd party intelligence that is the backbone to reality (God) which simulate the poor 'schizophrenic' individual that his garden gnome was talking to him?

HOW THE FLYING GNOMES DO U KNOW?

This poor 'schizo' dude should rationalise and ask himself the following questions:
1. Are plaster models of little men capable of talking (maybe if they have batteries, in which case WOULD it be capable of an entire conversation!?)
- NO.
2. Is it plausible in current scientific appreciation of the nature of reality, multiple dimensions etc.. that some other entity might be doing this?
- YES
3. Is it possible that a 3rd party intelligence is the construct backbone to reality and that this entity - call it GOD is doing this for some REASON?
- YES.
4. What is the reason that this GOD might be doing this, currently via a garden gnome?
- ? - time to analyse ones life.

This poor 'schizo' dude should rationalise???
You are out of your mind on the above expectations that a schizo could rationalize the above, note the basic symptoms of schizophrenia.

So you believe that a certified schizophrenic would not be capable of following the above steps to rationalise that a 3rd party intelligence (God) might be 'simulating' that a garden gnome is talking to him?

It is unfortunate you are so primitive in terms of knowledge.
Suggest you visit NASA to understand their verifications of the roundness of Earth from Space.

WTF R U talking about? R U seriously suggesting I think the Earth is not round. R U seriously suggesting U understand the nature of reality better than me?

Not seriously in general but only logically in terms of what you posted.

You brought up 'flat Earth theory' and I addressed it, so where are you being logical in reasoning that I believe in a flat Earth from my statement:-

"Flat Earth? My lounge in my house is pretty flat. Once I go out of my house things start getting wobbly - but thus far they are still attributes persistent with being on the surface of the Earth."

However I definitely understand the nature of reality better than you, where you reified the illusory as real.

I do know a fair bit about reifying as programming computers, data abstraction, pointers, recursion to provide information extracted from reality, but where is my ILLUSION?

Please don't waffle and post links etc etc... just tell me succinctly what makes U certain that U understand the nature of reality better than me.

Personal and subjective verification and justifications are not really-real.

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified ARE really real.

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified personally are merely personal convictions and personal beliefs.

NO, they're not. An intelligent entity that is the binary backbone to subatomic reality can remain TOTALLY unproven, yet can make itself TOTALLY OBJECTIVELY aware to an individual such that one has KNOWLEDGE that there is indeed a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of REAL.IT.Y.

The problem you have to step beyond, is that you believe something empirical MUST also be able to be observed by other minds, which is not the definition of empiricism.

I have issues if theists define their God as real as what scientists and philosophers defined as "real" which is empirical and philosophical. As long as God is claimed as really real empirically and philosophically either physically or otherwise, that is a false claim.

Well clearly we have an issue.

God exists as real is false until such a claim is verified and justified empirically and philosophically and it is open to testing with potential repeatable results.

Since that is not part of the definition of 'empiricism' as I pointed out above, it is YOUR personal belief that you require others to also be able to observe the same thing as someone that has been given gnosis.

Unfortunately, that 'faith' thing at the outset was required 1st - so since U have NO faith, you will never know.

Philosophically, what counts as real must pass the verification and justification tests with the scientific method as the highest and main standard. All other claims [legal, economics, psychiatry, historical] of what-is-real is relative to the scientific method.

Your claim that God exists as real do not come near to the scientific method at all.

How do U know that I have not maintained the highest standards of philosophical and\or scientific method when analysing and rationalising 23 years of experience of "GOD" to come to the conclusion that there is indeed a 3rd party intelligence that constructs our reality - in real-time?

If you have maintained the highest standards of scientific and philosophical verification and justifications, you should be able to present a scientific and philosophical paper to support your claim.
Therein the paper, your methods should be clearly explained so that others can test to confirm the same results as you have claimed.

I assure you that when analysing I verified the information presented to me via my senses (mostly sound sight and touch) and justified that indeed the qualia information being presented could only come from a reality where a 3rd party intelligence is able to manipulate ALL MATTER and justified MY conclusion that indeed this 3rd party intelligence is the construct of our reality.

The fact that this 3rd party intelligence does NOT present such information from reality to other minds via their own senses is not reason enough to insist that such a person is DELUSIONAL. The information to that individual was and is empirical.

When one manages the inherent psychology to a comfortable level, one will be able to wean off the clinging to a God for salvation and the soothing of existential pains. Such methods had been practiced by non-theists effectively over thousands of years.

Listen to yourself...do you really think I am requiring some soooothing from existential pains....indeed that ALL theists are psychologically dysfunctional, what, afraid of death or something!!?

Ridiculous.
- the intelligent theists see there is likely a lot more going on behind the obvious in the makeup of reality, physicists are proving that to be the case.
- intelligent atheists don't spend their time insisting theists are psychologically DELUDED, they also understand we know very little about consciousness and the actual nature of reality.

Unfortunately, you are not in the intelligent atheist category - but I understand and admire your determination to rid the Earth of certain failings in silly religious doctrine.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified ARE really real.

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified personally are merely personal convictions and personal beliefs.

NO, they're not. An intelligent entity that is the binary backbone to subatomic reality can remain TOTALLY unproven, yet can make itself TOTALLY OBJECTIVELY aware to an individual such that one has KNOWLEDGE that there is indeed a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of REAL.IT.Y.

"TOTALLY unproven is TOTALLY OBJECTIVE" is an oxymoron.
What is objective is something that is proven, i.e. verified, justified under testable and repeatable conditions whilst must be falsifiable.
Your claim of a 3rd party intelligence cannot be proven within the above conditions.

The problem you have to step beyond, is that you believe something empirical MUST also be able to be observed by other minds, which is not the definition of empiricism.

Note the definition of empiricism;

• In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Where is your empirical evidence of your 3rd-party-intelligent-being?

God exists as real is false until such a claim is verified and justified empirically and philosophically and it is open to testing with potential repeatable results.

Since that is not part of the definition of 'empiricism' as I pointed out above, it is YOUR personal belief that you require others to also be able to observe the same thing as someone that has been given gnosis.

Unfortunately, that 'faith' thing at the outset was required 1st - so since U have NO faith, you will never know.

Note the definition of empiricism I listed above.
'Faith' [belief without proofs nor reasonable reason] will not justify something as real in reality.

If you have maintained the highest standards of scientific and philosophical verification and justifications, you should be able to present a scientific and philosophical paper to support your claim.
Therein the paper, your methods should be clearly explained so that others can test to confirm the same results as you have claimed.

I assure you that when analysing I verified the information presented to me via my senses (mostly sound sight and touch) and justified that indeed the qualia information being presented could only come from a reality where a 3rd party intelligence is able to manipulate ALL MATTER and justified MY conclusion that indeed this 3rd party intelligence is the construct of our reality.

The fact that this 3rd party intelligence does NOT present such information from reality to other minds via their own senses is not reason enough to insist that such a person is DELUSIONAL. The information to that individual was and is empirical.

One cannot be hasty in inferring from what is experienced by the senses to a conclusion of an unprovable reality.
If a person claimed to perceive a snake in the shade and triggered with fear, one cannot be certain it is really a snake or piece of rope until the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes are carried out to confirm it really is, either a snake or piece of rope.

Just the same, if you experience certain sounds and sight, you cannot jump to the conclusion that it is from a 3rd-party-intelligent being.
Whatever that being or that may be, must be put through the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes before it can be claimed to be real.

Whatever you claim is real where there is no way of justifying its basis empirically and philosophically, that is an illusion. If you persist in reifying that illusion as real, that is delusional like what a schizophrenic is claiming for his talking gnome.

When one manages the inherent psychology to a comfortable level, one will be able to wean off the clinging to a God for salvation and the soothing of existential pains. Such methods had been practiced by non-theists effectively over thousands of years.

Listen to yourself...do you really think I am requiring some soooothing from existential pains....indeed that ALL theists are psychologically dysfunctional, what, afraid of death or something!!?

Ridiculous.
- the intelligent theists see there is likely a lot more going on behind the obvious in the makeup of reality, physicists are proving that to be the case.
- intelligent atheists don't spend their time insisting theists are psychologically DELUDED, they also understand we know very little about consciousness and the actual nature of reality.

Unfortunately, you are not in the intelligent atheist category - but I understand and admire your determination to rid the Earth of certain failings in silly religious doctrine.

It is very evident with the evidence that the majority of theists will feel terrible if the existence of their "god as real' is threatened. This is why there are blasphemy laws in the past and still in the present.
People are being killed by theists when perceived as a threat to their theistic belief which they clung to [psychologically] like there is no tomorrow. Note even the drawing of cartoons are perceived as a threat to the theists' beliefs and many are killed for that.

Wherever there is the slightest threat to theism, millions of theists cognitive dissonance will be trigger and hundreds of thousands will demonstrate in the streets and hundreds of innocent non-believers are killed; all these are grounded on an illusion of a 3rd-party-intelligent-being.

The so-called intelligent and less sensitive theists may not be violent but their existential crisis is still active to the extent they will come up with all sorts of defenses [irrational or otherwise] to defend their theism without the justification their God is really real.

As I had stated the cause of theism is the terrible existential psychology that drives theists to cling to a God as a psychological crutch to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

Since thousands of years ago non-theistic religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, others] had understood the reason for a God is psychological and contribute to evil, thus they resolve the issue by addressing the psychological roots that trigger the terrible existential pains of mammoth proportion at the subliminal levels.

Note - How the idea of God arose within humanity:

Question:
Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

• Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
  Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.

To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.

All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.
The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm

Btw just quoting above for info, I am not a Buddhist per se nor is religious in any sense.

[attofishpi]

Personal, objective and subjective experiences when analysed and justified personally are merely personal convictions and personal beliefs.

NO, they're not. An intelligent entity that is the binary backbone to subatomic reality can remain TOTALLY unproven, yet can make itself TOTALLY OBJECTIVELY aware to an individual such that one has KNOWLEDGE that there is indeed a 3rd party intelligence behind the construct of REAL.IT.Y.

"TOTALLY unproven is TOTALLY OBJECTIVE" is an oxymoron.

Ok, I should have not used 'TOTALLY unproven' - since I am stating the 3rd party intelligence has proved its existence to an individual. The point being made is that although an individual can receive proof of God's existence, it can leave that individual without proof for others.

The problem you have to step beyond, is that you believe something empirical MUST also be able to be observed by other minds, which is not the definition of empiricism.

Note the definition of empiricism;

• In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

So you have quoted the definition of empiricism which SUPPORTS my statement. Empiricism does NOT require proof for others to examine. Empirical evidence can be provided to an INDIVIDUAL, and has NO requirement for being evidential to others.

Where is your empirical evidence of your 3rd-party-intelligent-being?

I have loads of circumstantial evidence that to a reasonable mind should infer the 3rd party intelligence exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

God exists as real is false until such a claim is verified and justified empirically and philosophically and it is open to testing with potential repeatable results.

No. It is not false just because you as an atheist demand evidence. If a man finds a large deposit of gold while lost in a desert, makes it home and tells everyone but when attempting to search for it, cannot find it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you are making the claim that Gods existence is false, then YOU must provide the evidence that it does not exist.

Since that is not part of the definition of 'empiricism' as I pointed out above, it is YOUR personal belief that you require others to also be able to observe the same thing as someone that has been given gnosis.

Unfortunately, that 'faith' thing at the outset was required 1st - so since U have NO faith, you will never know.

Note the definition of empiricism I listed above.

Which supports my account that empiricism does not require proof for others.

'Faith' [belief without proofs nor reasonable reason] will not justify something as real in reality.

I agree. I simply stated you were required to have faith first before God would provide you as an individual, empirical evidence.

If you have maintained the highest standards of scientific and philosophical verification and justifications, you should be able to present a scientific and philosophical paper to support your claim.
Therein the paper, your methods should be clearly explained so that others can test to confirm the same results as you have claimed.

I assure you that when analysing I verified the information presented to me via my senses (mostly sound sight and touch) and justified that indeed the qualia information being presented could only come from a reality where a 3rd party intelligence is able to manipulate ALL MATTER and justified MY conclusion that indeed this 3rd party intelligence is the construct of our reality.

The fact that this 3rd party intelligence does NOT present such information from reality to other minds via their own senses is not reason enough to insist that such a person is DELUSIONAL. The information to that individual was and is empirical.

One cannot be hasty in inferring from what is experienced by the senses to a conclusion of an unprovable reality.

Is 23 years of analysis of my experience of God hasty?

If a person claimed to perceive a snake in the shade and triggered with fear, one cannot be certain it is really a snake or piece of rope until the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes are carried out to confirm it really is, either a snake or piece of rope.

I agree, what is your point? Should this person turn a torch on?

Just the same, if you experience certain sounds and sight, you cannot jump to the conclusion that it is from a 3rd-party-intelligent being.
Whatever that being or that may be, must be put through the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes before it can be claimed to be real.

I agree, 23 years is not jumping to conclusions though is it?

Whatever you claim is real where there is no way of justifying its basis empirically and philosophically, that is an illusion. If you persist in reifying that illusion as real, that is delusional like what a schizophrenic is claiming for his talking gnome.

No it isn't. Again, you are insisting on proof for everyone, that is inconsistent with the definition of empiricism. God proved its existence to me empirically, I do not need to prove it to anyone.

When one manages the inherent psychology to a comfortable level, one will be able to wean off the clinging to a God for salvation and the soothing of existential pains. Such methods had been practiced by non-theists effectively over thousands of years.

Listen to yourself...do you really think I am requiring some soooothing from existential pains....indeed that ALL theists are psychologically dysfunctional, what, afraid of death or something!!?

Ridiculous.
- the intelligent theists see there is likely a lot more going on behind the obvious in the makeup of reality, physicists are proving that to be the case.
- intelligent atheists don't spend their time insisting theists are psychologically DELUDED, they also understand we know very little about consciousness and the actual nature of reality.

Unfortunately, you are not in the intelligent atheist category - but I understand and admire your determination to rid the Earth of certain failings in silly religious doctrine.

It is very evident with the evidence that the majority of theists will feel terrible if the existence of their "god as real' is threatened.

How else is evidence evidenced?

This is why there are blasphemy laws in the past and still in the present.
People are being killed by theists when perceived as a threat to their theistic belief which they clung to [psychologically] like there is no tomorrow. Note even the drawing of cartoons are perceived as a threat to the theists' beliefs and many are killed for that.

Wherever there is the slightest threat to theism, millions of theists cognitive dissonance will be trigger and hundreds of thousands will demonstrate in the streets and hundreds of innocent non-believers are killed; all these are grounded on an illusion of a 3rd-party-intelligent-being.

The so-called intelligent and less sensitive theists may not be violent but their existential crisis is still active to the extent they will come up with all sorts of defenses [irrational or otherwise] to defend their theism without the justification their God is really real.

As I had stated the cause of theism is the terrible existential psychology that drives theists to cling to a God as a psychological crutch to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

bla bla bla. I guess then I am sooooothed since I know God exists.

Since thousands of years ago non-theistic religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, others] had understood the reason for a God is psychological and contribute to evil, thus they resolve the issue by addressing the psychological roots that trigger the terrible existential pains of mammoth proportion at the subliminal levels.

Note - How the idea of God arose within humanity:

Question:
Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

• Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
  Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong.

To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.

All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration.
The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm

Btw just quoting above for info, I am not a Buddhist per se nor is religious in any sense.

Info? ...all i see there is waffle.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ok, I should have not used 'TOTALLY unproven' - since I am stating the 3rd party intelligence has proved its existence to an individual. The point being made is that although an individual can receive proof of God's existence, it can leave that individual without proof for others.

As I had stated, whatever is "proven" to oneself and is not objective is merely a subjective personal belief or an opinion and that does not qualified as knowledge [Justified True Belief] and is not real nor true.

If you believe God exists personally you can do whatever you want with the idea of God, but only confine those acts to yourself and not to others.
The point is when what the individuals believed is proven to exists as 'real' only to oneself or the likes, such a truth cannot be imposed on others.
Would you accept to be killed when theists who insist their God is real and has commanded to kill you as a non-believer?

The problem you have to step beyond, is that you believe something empirical MUST also be able to be observed by other minds, which is not the definition of empiricism.

Note the definition of empiricism;

• In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

So you have quoted the definition of empiricism which SUPPORTS my statement. Empiricism does NOT require proof for others to examine. Empirical evidence can be provided to an INDIVIDUAL, and has NO requirement for being evidential to others.

That is the problem with theists, they are so clingy to their God that they are unable to think intelligently and rationally. You should have read further in that article I linked.

Note,
The most credible knowledge of reality is scientific truth which is the standard bearer for all types of knowledge of reality.
Scientific truths are based critically on Empiricism and philosophical deliberations.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism#

Scientific Knowledge are verified empirically, justified philosophically.
The critical features of science are testability, repeatability & falsifiability.

Testability and repeatability mean ANYONE can perform the test and the results will be the same as claimed.
The claim that God exists as real is not available for every one to test [empirically and scientifically] and expect the same results.

Note I have proven the existence of God as a real entity is an impossibility;

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

Where is your empirical evidence of your 3rd-party-intelligent-being?

I have loads of circumstantial evidence that to a reasonable mind should infer the 3rd party intelligence exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

It may be possible we can reason and rationalize [pseudo] the existence of a God [3rd party intelligence] based on various evidences, but such a pseudo-rational entity cannot be proven to be real, true and as knowledge [JTB].

God exists as real is false until such a claim is verified and justified empirically and philosophically and it is open to testing with potential repeatable results.

No. It is not false just because you as an atheist demand evidence. If a man finds a large deposit of gold while lost in a desert, makes it home and tells everyone but when attempting to search for it, cannot find it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

When a man claim of a deposit of gold but do not provide evidence acceptable empirically, it is still POSSIBLE that it may exists because the concept of gold is an empirical possibility as proven elsewhere. It is a matter of producing the empirical evidence to justify it really exist.
It is reasonable and accept the claim that there are human-liked aliens in a planet 1000 light years away, because all the variables in this claim are empirically possible.

But the idea of God is an empirical impossibility, thus whatever claim of God cannot be empirically possible and real to start with.

If you are making the claim that Gods existence is false, then YOU must provide the evidence that it does not exist.

Note, I have provided the argument why God is an impossibility to be real.

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

Since that is not part of the definition of 'empiricism' as I pointed out above, it is YOUR personal belief that you require others to also be able to observe the same thing as someone that has been given gnosis.

Unfortunately, that 'faith' thing at the outset was required 1st - so since U have NO faith, you will never know.

Note the definition of empiricism I listed above.

Which supports my account that empiricism does not require proof for others.

Note your oversight about empiricism linkage with reality I mentioned above.

'Faith' [belief without proofs nor reasonable reason] will not justify something as real in reality.

I agree. I simply stated you were required to have faith first before God would provide you as an individual, empirical evidence.

This is ridiculous.
What is empirical evidence is based on the human sensory, perceptual organs and mind, then be verified and justified as real.
What is based on faith omit the verification and justification processes.

I assure you that when analysing I verified the information presented to me via my senses (mostly sound sight and touch) and justified that indeed the qualia information being presented could only come from a reality where a 3rd party intelligence is able to manipulate ALL MATTER and justified MY conclusion that indeed this 3rd party intelligence is the construct of our reality.

The fact that this 3rd party intelligence does NOT present such information from reality to other minds via their own senses is not reason enough to insist that such a person is DELUSIONAL. The information to that individual was and is empirical.

One cannot be hasty in inferring from what is experienced by the senses to a conclusion of an unprovable reality.

Is 23 years of analysis of my experience of God hasty?

Yes, the hastiness is merely once and that same inference is held for 23 years.

If a person claimed to perceive a snake in the shade and triggered with fear, one cannot be certain it is really a snake or piece of rope until the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes are carried out to confirm it really is, either a snake or piece of rope.

I agree, what is your point? Should this person turn a torch on?

It is the same with the claim of God which is a mental inference in this case.
Since you cannot confirm whether it is really a snake or rope until a verification and justification process acceptable to all [at least scientifically], you cannot confirm God is real until your claim God exists is verified and justified.

Just the same, if you experience certain sounds and sight, you cannot jump to the conclusion that it is from a 3rd-party-intelligent being.
Whatever that being or that may be, must be put through the proper verification and all necessary justifications processes before it can be claimed to be real.

I agree, 23 years is not jumping to conclusions though is it?

That is not something that is cumulative and progressive.
As stated above, you concluded one and carry out the same for 23 years. Theologians, collectively has been holding on to their 'conclusion' for hundreds of years.

Whatever you claim is real where there is no way of justifying its basis empirically and philosophically, that is an illusion. If you persist in reifying that illusion as real, that is delusional like what a schizophrenic is claiming for his talking gnome.

No it isn't. Again, you are insisting on proof for everyone, that is inconsistent with the definition of empiricism. God proved its existence to me empirically, I do not need to prove it to anyone.

Then you should not make or defend such a claim in public like in this forum.
I am not too concern with your private theism and claims, but more concern with theists who claimed their God is real to the extent that their God commanded them to kill non-believers and non-theists.
However, the most effective to deal with the above fatal threats from theists is to rely on a FOOL PROOF [of certainty] strategy by weaning off theism and replace it with fool proof alternatives to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

It is very evident with the evidence that the majority of theists will feel terrible if the existence of their "god as real' is threatened.

How else is evidence evidenced?

Note:


If you are not convinced, go a market square in a city in Afghanistan and draw cartoons of Muhammad, tear pages of or burn the Quran.

This is why there are blasphemy laws in the past and still in the present.
People are being killed by theists when perceived as a threat to their theistic belief which they clung to [psychologically] like there is no tomorrow. Note even the drawing of cartoons are perceived as a threat to the theists' beliefs and many are killed for that.

Wherever there is the slightest threat to theism, millions of theists cognitive dissonance will be trigger and hundreds of thousands will demonstrate in the streets and hundreds of innocent non-believers are killed; all these are grounded on an illusion of a 3rd-party-intelligent-being.

The so-called intelligent and less sensitive theists may not be violent but their existential crisis is still active to the extent they will come up with all sorts of defenses [irrational or otherwise] to defend their theism without the justification their God is really real.

As I had stated the cause of theism is the terrible existential psychology that drives theists to cling to a God as a psychological crutch to soothe the inherent existential crisis.

bla bla bla. I guess then I am sooooothed since I know God exists.

Definitely so!

Try this,
just give up [with serious intention] the idea that God exists as real for say, immediately, now, for one day, for one month or longer..
You will definitely feel terrible emotionally with some kind of derangement syndrome and perhaps cold turkey if you extend your disbelief in God for a longer period.
However if you immediately re-surrender or submit to your God, you will immediately feel soothed.
I am confident I am correct on the above.

Since thousands of years ago non-theistic religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, others] had understood the reason for a God is psychological and contribute to evil, thus they resolve the issue by addressing the psychological roots that trigger the terrible existential pains of mammoth proportion at the subliminal levels.

Note - How the idea of God arose within humanity:


Btw just quoting above for info, I am not a Buddhist per se nor is religious in any sense.

Info? ...all i see there is waffle.

If you applied rationality to the above, it makes rational sense.
My point is the belief in a God is grounded on terrible human primal psychology arising from the existential crisis.
There are alternative non-theistic strategies where human side stepped the clinging to a God to soothe the terrible existential pains [Angst] and instead deal with the existential crisis directly.

[attofishpi]

We R done.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have loads of circumstantial evidence that to a reasonable mind should infer the 3rd party intelligence exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

The idea of God is confined to psychology and the activities within the brain/mind and no where else. There is no thing-in-itself and no God-in-itself existing as a real Being.

It is only in recent years it is discovered that experiences of a God were traceable to mental illness, e.g. in temporal epilepsy, schizophrenia and other mental problems.

Here is a case where neuroscientist Ramanchandran show a guy experienced Jesus and God 'directly' but it was traceable to his Temporal Epilepsy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
Since the above in 2007, there are loads of evidence to support the above thesis that the idea and direct experiences of a God can spring from the minds of those who suffered various mental illnesses.

In addition the direct experience of a 'God' can arise from the following;

• -psychedelic drugs
  -long term meditations
  -pro long stress
  -sudden for unknown reasons,
  -stress
  -trauma
  -induced electronically
  - brain damage
  - etc. reasons
  - old age

From the above which are verifiable empirically via the neurosciences, psychology, neuro-psychology and neuro-psychiatry, it is more tenable, the idea of God is confined to mental activities and psychology rather than there is a God which has not been verified and justified as real.

As the last nail, I have demonstrated it is impossible for a God to be real.
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[attofishpi]

As the last nail, I have demonstrated it is impossible for a God to be real.
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You have demonstrated your extreme bias, that is all, so stop thread spamming your shit all over the place - nobody's interested.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As the last nail, I have demonstrated it is impossible for a God to be real.
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You have demonstrated your extreme bias, that is all, so stop thread spamming your shit all over the place - nobody's interested.

Note the currency of this Philosophy Forum is sound rational arguments.
I have provided sound rational arguments.
All you need is to provide rational counter arguments.

[attofishpi]

As the last nail, I have demonstrated it is impossible for a God to be real.
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You have demonstrated your extreme bias, that is all, so stop thread spamming your shit all over the place - nobody's interested.

Note the currency of this Philosophy Forum is sound rational arguments.
I have provided sound rational arguments.

U R Dreaming dude. Hence Y we R done - waste my intelligence on U!!??

btw. Mind those garden gnomes don't start talking to you - because clearly you will be straight off to see a shrink to eat the pills he will give you..
TEST 1. Faith in YOURSELF.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am raising this OP is this section to support my point, the idea of God is actually a transcendental-hallucination out of this set of empirical-hallucination proposed by Anil Seth.


Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience -- and not just any conscious experience, your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it.
How does this happen?

According to neuroscientist Anil Seth, we're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it "reality."

Join Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence.

Long ago, V. S. Ramachandran had made the same claim,

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think.
In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”

― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

Views?

The billions of neurons hallucinating your reality are subsets of that said reality thus are hallucinations as well. The argument basically states all is a hallucination, yet this contradicts itself as this argument for hallucinations is an hallucination itself thus unreal by the standard presented.