Note I did not link ontology with the empirical at all. Ontology is beyond empirical possibility.
‘Ontology’ is restricted to pure reason, i.e. purely thoughts only.
It is advised to understand Kant thoroughly one need at least 3 years full time or 5 years part time reading and research on Kant’s philosophy. I have done the above.
So it is not easy to explain in few sentences to you how Kant demonstrated 'ontology is an impossibility.
Here is a clue to my point;
Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a predicate.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto … arguments/
As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why ‘existence’ in never a predicate.
The idea of Ontology ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God.
I have proven the Ontological God is an impossibility.
Thus ‘ontology’ is as a philosophical idea is an impossibility, i.e. impossible to prove any ontological essence can be real within an empirical-rational reality.
how do the atheists go about demonstrating that a God, the God is not the Creator…
One has to prove God exists first before deciding whether God is the Creator of the Universe.
…the only ultimate basis a theist can claim God exists is via faith, very strong faith. How can you use the basis of faith as an irresistible force of intellectual contraption?
But the same can be said of the atheist’s argument regarding [among other things] the impossibility of God’s existence. Beyond arguing that it seems more reasonable for those who claim the existence of something to demonstrate that this is so, the atheist is still left with no solid, irrefutable empirical evidence that a God, the God does not exist.
All I am noting here is that, either way, one or the other frame of mind may well be correct. It has just not been so demonstrated to me. In other words, to my very own entirely individual and unique existential “I”.
And that is what the objectivists are most wary of in my opinion. That this is also applicable to them.
But I will always be the first here to flat out admit that I may well be wrong.
But, right or wrong, how would one actually go about demonstrating it?
You claim that you have…
You are entangled with too much conflation here.
Theists claim their God is real to the extent of being empirically-rationally real, e.g. listening to their prayers and answering them. On this basis, theists must prove their God is real via an empirical-rational basis. But theists cannot do that except by FAITH which is not empirically based.
OTOH. my argument ‘God is an impossibility’ is based purely on reason and logic, i.e. thoughts only and not empirical at all.
Since my argument is merely by thoughts, reason and logic alone, there is no need for me to bring empirical evidence at all.
When I have proven ‘God is an impossibility’ it meant the question of God is a non-starter, i.e. the question of whether God exists or not need not have to raise at all. It is like there is no basis to try to prove whether a Round-square exists or not.
Since God is an Impossibility, there is no question of whether God exists or not.
Where theists are inclined to believe God exists as real, they are doing it based on pure faith, i.e. beliefs based not on empirical-rational justifications.
IF one insists God is real, then they need to bring the empirical evidence and justifications.
The only justified basis for ‘God exists’ is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.
And, sure, to the extent that you embrace this “general description” as proof, it is proof. To you.
To me however it in no way compellingly demonstrates how in the staggering vastness of “all there is” you have proven that God is an impossibility. After all, how “on earth” could any mere mortal possibly know something like this?!
From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is no less a psychological contraption. Unless of course you are able to convince me that it is essentially true. Yet even than that wouldn’t necessarily make it so.
We are all stuck in the same boat here: Grappling to connect the dots between an infinitesimal speck of existence – “I” – and the mind-boggling extent of Existence itself.
Again, I largely share your own assumptions about God but…
I have proven with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility. If one insist otherwise, bring the empirical evidence to justify it empirically-rationally.
The only justification for God to “exists” is purely psychological, here is my point again,
The only justified basis for ‘God exists’ is only a psychological one to deal with an inherent unavoidable terrible angst. While such theistic belief provide psychological comforts it is double-edged in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils, violence and terror upon innocent non-believers merely because they disbelieve in a different God or no God.
nb: Will deal with the other points in another post.