God is an Impossibility

[Snark]

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.

No, you won't. The "new atheists" have already been thoroughly thrashed in regards to this claim.

"New atheist" Where? Links?

I edited my last post. that one link should be enough (but I doubt it will).

I have done my own research into Islam [spent >3 years researching Quran and Islam] and found proofs that the Quran is inherently evil where Allah inspires Muslims to commit evil [as defined] on non-Muslims.

So?

Where?

It seem to be a very common response, whenever I mentioned 'theistic religion and evil', then someone will definitely question "what about" secular "isms," political evil, Nazism, Stalin, etc.

[Prismatic567]

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.

No, you won't. You like to cite psychology to support your position, but here's an article in Psychology Today that refutes your claim, calling it a "scapegoat for deeper psychological problems." The "new atheists" have already been thoroughly thrashed in regards to this claim. But I doubt you will accept that there is reason to dismiss your claim.

I am certain [re religion and evil] the views from this blog
Psychology Today
is based on ignorance of the words of Allah in the Quran.

There are evils acts by Muslims which has nothing to do with Islam, e.g. if a Muslim kill another in a fight for some domestic reasons, etc.
But, for all evils and violence committed by Islamist fundamentalists accompanied by shout of Allahu Akbar there are many layers of causes, but the ultimate root cause is traced to the verses of the Quran and the religion of Islam.

Here is from the horses mouth from the extremist why they kill non-believers;
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ns-8533563

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

If one has done sufficient research into the Quran and ethos of Islam, one will definitely understand the truth of the above why it is inherent within Islam for Muslims to hate and kill non-believers.

So the views of the link you referenced, i.e.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... od-or-evil
is off target.
What is listed as the reasons on why jihadists kill non-believers is merely secondary if any, but the main reason is directly because of the religion and its ideology. see the link from the daily mirror.

Note there are other religionists who adopt a religion for the same reasons as claimed but these religionists [e.g. Buddhist, Jainists, Hindus, Toaists] do not commit violence in the name of their God, founder or are inspired by the commands in their holy texts.

Therefore my claim stands, there is a direct correlation between religion and evils as proven with Islam.

Note:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... od-or-evil
"I believe that religion is being used as a scapegoat for deeper psychological problems."

There is some truth to the above, but the link is between God and deeper psychological problems, not evil.

Deeper psychological problems drive
a person to believe in God.
That God is the basis of a religion.
That particular God deliver evil commands for its followers to kill non-believers.

Deeper psychological problems drive a person to believe in God within an religion.
But not all theistic religions are evil.
So as you can see the link is between the religion and evil.
It is the specific religion that inspire evil in its followers [SOME].

[James S Saint]

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

You are supporting my point? - God is ultimately an absolutely perfect God.

As I have stated multiple times, you do not understand what the word "perfect" means, thus your claim is lacking meaning.

But since you don't understand what "Reality" means either, such as to propose multiple "realities", there isn't much point arguing about your absolute statements, as they could only be relevant to which ever reality happens to conform to them, thus not really absolute.

Your concepts are all conflated and confused, so of course your effort to deduce anything is going to be merely whatever you prefer the conclusion to become, dominated by wishful thinking rather than rational thinking (the exact thing that you accuse religious people of doing).

So I merely pointed out that contrary to your prior claim, "God" does in fact refer to Truth, Logic, Reality for those far more educated than you on the subject. But since you have no understanding of those terms either, I am not interested in continuing to argue with you over it amidst such excessive ignorance of the language and its concepts.

[Prismatic567]

Btw, FYI;
Janmady asya yatah.
The Vedanta-Sutra (1.1.2) defines God or the Absolute Truth, brahman, as the source of everything (The Supreme Creator = Reality itself).

You are supporting my point? - God is ultimately an absolutely perfect God.

As I have stated multiple times, you do not understand what the word "perfect" means, thus your claim is lacking meaning.

But since you don't understand what "Reality" means either, such as to propose multiple "realities", there isn't much point arguing about your absolute statements, as they could only be relevant to which ever reality happens to conform to them, thus not really absolute.

Your concepts are all conflated and confused, so of course your effort to deduce anything is going to be merely whatever you prefer the conclusion to become, dominated by wishful thinking rather than rational thinking (the exact thing that you accuse religious people of doing).

So I merely pointed out that contrary to your prior claim, "God" does in fact refer to Truth, Logic, Reality for those far more educated than you on the subject. But since you have no understanding of those terms either, I am not interested in continuing to argue with you over it amidst such excessive ignorance of the language and its concepts.

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

As I had stated your philosophical views are very shallow and narrow.
I have explained and brushed off all the counters you have presented.
If there is anything outstanding I will not leave it unattended as that will post doubts on my thesis.

[James S Saint]

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

Gyahd ....

"I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about." - 13 year old boy.

[Alf]

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

Gyahd ....

"I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about." - 13 year old boy.

"I inhaled and exhaled once, so I am a medical specialist for breath control."

[Arminius]

As I have stated multiple times, you do not understand what the word "perfect" means, thus your claim is lacking meaning.

But since you don't understand what "Reality" means either, such as to propose multiple "realities", there isn't much point arguing about your absolute statements, as they could only be relevant to which ever reality happens to conform to them, thus not really absolute.

Your concepts are all conflated and confused, so of course your effort to deduce anything is going to be merely whatever you prefer the conclusion to become, dominated by wishful thinking rather than rational thinking (the exact thing that you accuse religious people of doing).

So I merely pointed out that contrary to your prior claim, "God" does in fact refer to Truth, Logic, Reality for those far more educated than you on the subject. But since you have no understanding of those terms either, I am not interested in continuing to argue with you over it amidst such excessive ignorance of the language and its concepts.

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

That is also a typical example for your so-called "arguments". There is nothing behind it. It is all surface. It is more appearance than substance. It is more illusion than reality. It is more the opposite of what is said. "I am a progressive human being, so I am a World Citizen"; "I am a World Citizen, so I am a progressive human being"; "..."; "I read once the translation of the titles of the chapters of Kant's books, so I know Kant's philosophy"; "I was once a pantheist Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about"; "..."; and so on and so forth. These are no arguments. And especially not when it comes to the topic of this thread. You are always derailing your own threads.

Those "modern" guys who say "religion is opium for the people" want to give them their religion, a modern religion (examples: "liberalism", "egalitarianism"/"communism", "fascism", "humanitarianism"/"globalism"), which has always to do with the elimination of the old religion and with antitheism (with slogans like "religion is opium for the people", "God is an impossibility" ...). The main problem ist that the new, the "modern" religion is even worse than the old one.

Do not buy the modern opium!

[Snark]

If any one can dismiss the existing high correlation between religions and evils with sound justified arguments, I will accept that.

No, you won't.

I am certain [re religion and evil] the views from this blog
Psychology Today
is based on ignorance of the words of Allah in the Quran.

Told ya!

[Prismatic567]

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

Gyahd ....

"I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about." - 13 year old boy.

Pure Stupidity!

Note 'all' in this sense do not mean Absolute which is an impossibility with empirical-rational reality. I have discussed this point many times.

[Prismatic567]

That is also a typical example for your so-called "arguments". There is nothing behind it. It is all surface. It is more appearance than substance. It is more illusion than reality. It is more the opposite of what is said. "I am a progressive human being, so I am a World Citizen"; "I am a World Citizen, so I am a progressive human being"; "..."; "I read once the translation of the titles of the chapters of Kant's books, so I know Kant's philosophy"; "I was once a pantheist Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about"; "..."; and so on and so forth. These are no arguments. And especially not when it comes to the topic of this thread. You are always derailing your own threads.

I find your response very childish.
Obviously those are not arguments and were not intended to be arguments. What in the world made you think they are intended to be arguments?

Given the time constraint, it is very normal for anyone within an intellectual environment to present their status of knowledge. This is very common when a speaker or debater is introduced to others within an intellectual environment. Of course it is generally not appropriate and relevant to mention one has studied Kant in a dance party.

In general, there is an obvious difference [in terms of knowledge] between a person who had researched a topic for more than 3 years as compared to one who is a casual reader who had spent only a few days reading a book on the subject. Anyone can claim they have spent years on a subject but ultimately that person has to prove it with evidence and I am ready to justify my claims.

Don't be stupid, I am not forcing you to accept what I had presented of Kant's philosophies. If you are a serious and responsible intellectual and critical thinker, you will read up Kant and verify to agree or counter what I had stated or claimed.

Give me arguments why you think my OP is false.

[Arminius]

Prismatic 567, your statements are childish - as almost everyone knows here.

Just an example how childish your alleged "arguments" are:

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

Gyahd ....

"I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about." - 13 year old boy.

A 13 year old boy is a child. Your statements are like statements of 13 year old boys.

And you have shown this in each of your posts.

Note that we have given you a lot of arguments and proven you wrong. And these arguments are not based on religion, but on logic. You are confusing almost everything.

You really do not know what you are talking about. Why should we take you seriously?

We have proven you wrong. So why should we always repeat this? We have done this in each of your threads.

And your misuse of Kant is a fcat too, it is easily provable that he has never said "God is an impossibility". So you are a liar and faker too.

[Arminius]

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

Gyahd ....

"I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about." - 13 year old boy.

Pure Stupidity!

Yes, it is your pure stupidity.

You really think that this is an "argument" (used in your thread called "God is an Impossibility" of an internet forum called "I Love Philospophy" in the 21st century):

Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

It is merely a typical example again for your childish naivety, your stupidity.

[James S Saint]

Perhaps it would help if our visiting sage would bother to study (for years) a specific form of philosophy obviously unknown to him (rather than continue spouting blatant logical fallacies):

Wiki's List of Logic Fallacies

The particular one being bandied about at the moment falls under several headings:

False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.

Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.

The Seed of ALL Sins: Presumption.

Others listed:

• Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[5][6]
• Argument from fallacy – also known as fallacy fallacy, assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.[7]
• Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[8]
• Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[9]
• Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.[10]
  
• Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
• Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.[22][23]
• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.[24]
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.[25][26][27][28]
• Shifting the burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
• Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
• Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
• Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[29]
• Correlative-based fallacies
• Correlation proves causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.[30]
• Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[31]
• Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so incredible/amazing/ununderstandable, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.[32]
• Double counting – counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.
• Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[33]
• Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.[34]
• Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.[1]
• Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[35]
• Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[36]
• Fallacy of accent – a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written passage, it's left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.
• Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.[37]
• Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.[38]
• False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
• Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy, quote mining) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[39]
• False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[40]
• False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
• Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
• Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[41]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
• Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
• Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.[42]
• Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[43] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
• Historical fallacy – where a set of considerations holds good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result.[44]
• Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).[45]
• Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.[46]
• If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
• Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
• Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
• Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so.)[47]
• Jumping to conclusions – the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so.
• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[48]
• Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.[dubious – discuss]
• Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.[49]
• McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) – making a decision based only on quantitative observations, discounting all other considerations.
• Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring 'is from ought' is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
• Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
• Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[50] in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring 'ought from is' (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
• Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[51] (anti-naturalistic fallacy)[52] – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is P ∨ ¬ P {\displaystyle P\lor \neg P} does imply ought P ∨ ¬ P {\displaystyle P\lor \neg P} for any proposition P {\displaystyle P} , although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.
• Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.[53]
• Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam)
• Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
• Proving too much – using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, undesirable conclusion.
• Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
• Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.[54]
• Referential fallacy[55] – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
• Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.
• Reification (concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
• Retrospective determinism – the argument that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made its occurrence inevitable.
• Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for a position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
• Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
• Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[56]

All of those are pretty common around here. You might want to avoid being found among them.

[Arminius]

Perhaps it would help if our visiting sage would bother to study (for years) a specific form of philosophy obviously unknown to him (rather than continue spouting blatant logical fallacies):

Wiki's List of Logic Fallacies

The particular one being bandied about at the moment falls under several headings:

False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.

Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.

The Seed of ALL Sins: Presumption.

Others listed:

• Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[5][6]
• Argument from fallacy – also known as fallacy fallacy, assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.[7]
• Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[8]
• Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[9]
• Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.[10]
  
• Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]
• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]
• Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.[22][23]
• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.[24]
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.[25][26][27][28]
• Shifting the burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
• Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
• Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
• Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[29]
• Correlative-based fallacies
• Correlation proves causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.[30]
• Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[31]
• Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so incredible/amazing/ununderstandable, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.[32]
• Double counting – counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.
• Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[33]
• Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.[34]
• Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.[1]
• Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[35]
• Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[36]
• Fallacy of accent – a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in a written passage, it's left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.
• Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.[37]
• Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.[38]
• False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
• Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy, quote mining) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[39]
• False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[40]
• False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
• Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
• Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[41]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
• Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
• Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.[42]
• Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[43] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
• Historical fallacy – where a set of considerations holds good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result.[44]
• Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).[45]
• Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.[46]
• If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
• Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
• Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
• Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so.)[47]
• Jumping to conclusions – the making of a determination without all of the information required to do so.
• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[48]
• Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.[dubious – discuss]
• Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.[49]
• McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) – making a decision based only on quantitative observations, discounting all other considerations.
• Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring 'is from ought' is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
• Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
• Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[50] in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring 'ought from is' (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
• Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[51] (anti-naturalistic fallacy)[52] – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is P ∨ ¬ P {\displaystyle P\lor \neg P} does imply ought P ∨ ¬ P {\displaystyle P\lor \neg P} for any proposition P {\displaystyle P} , although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.
• Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.[53]
• Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam)
• Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
• Proving too much – using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, undesirable conclusion.
• Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
• Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.[54]
• Referential fallacy[55] – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
• Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.
• Reification (concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
• Retrospective determinism – the argument that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made its occurrence inevitable.
• Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for a position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
• Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
• Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[56]

All of those are pretty common around here. You might want to avoid being found among them.

Now, Prismatic 567, look what you have done. I believe that these charges are sufficient to condemn you for ever (ad infinitum).

[Arcturus Descending]

James,

I think it is true with 100% certainty when I think there is no alternative.

Have you never found yourself to be wrong about something after engaging in this kind of absolutist thinking ~~ 100% certainty? Your words, not mine.
Seeing "no alternative" doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one, does it, James?
There may not be one *at this time* within YOUR own mind but if you decide for yourself that there cannot be one, then one will not be found.

What is Your standard for 100% certainty?

I myself am a skeptic so I am not sure I could even answer this but let us say that 1000 scientists share the same consensus about something. Would that be, objectively speaking, 100% certainty or proof for something?
Or would that simply be based on Time and what knowledge we have now ~~which does not necessarily point to 100% certainty.
More information and knowledge always comes to light about things which change the facts.

When we say "...when I think" does the word *think* here imply a conclusion or a continuing ongoing thought?

[James S Saint]

James,

I think it is true with 100% certainty when I think there is no alternative.

I was asked when I think that I am certain.

Have you never found yourself to be wrong about something after engaging in this kind of absolutist thinking ~~ 100% certainty? Your words, not mine.

Never, not "after engaging". I have made errors for not sufficiently thinking before responding. But when challenged, I either find my error right away, as they might have already, or it isn't there. Ensuring that there is no alternative isn't all that hard to do with a little practice. That is the main purpose for instigating challenge.

Seeing "no alternative" doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one, does it, James?

Depends on who is doing the seeing.

There may not be one *at this time* within YOUR own mind but if you decide for yourself that there cannot be one, then one will not be found.

Certainly not true if I properly resist believing that there cannot be one.

What people fail to see is that deciding that there must always be doubt, is itself a claim of doubtless certainty. I do not doubt that I can be certain. And I do doubt anything I believe until I have removed any alternative. There is no alternative to the fact that I can be certain (eg "I think therefore [certainly] I am").

I only seem so confident because I built a mountain of immutable no-alternatives long ago - through endless doubting until there was nothing left to doubt, except for my doubt (the devil facing the Devil).

What is Your standard for 100% certainty?

I myself am a skeptic so I am not sure I could even answer this but let us say that 1000 scientists share the same consensus about something. Would that be, objectively speaking, 100% certainty or proof for something?
Or would that simply be based on Time and what knowledge we have now ~~which does not necessarily point to 100% certainty.

I agree that 1000 scientists are easily fooled - happens quite frequently.

More information and knowledge always comes to light about things which change the facts.

Not really. Existence must always and forever mean "that which has affect" (not counting the mere redefining of the words involved). There is no alternative, although other potential meanings can be used also. More information cannot change that.

When we say "...when I think" does the word *think* here imply a conclusion or a continuing ongoing thought?

For me, there is no end to thinking, but there is an end to any one chain of thought, beyond which there is nothing more to think concerning that one. Every one thing has a beginning and an end. But there was never a beginning to all things nor shall there ever be an end to all things. Of that I am 100% certain .. because there is no alternative.

[iambiguous]

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.

Again: How on earth would you go about demonstrating to others that this is true?

For all practical purposes, what does this mean?

How is it linked to God other than in an intellectual contraption?

Sure, we can speculate "philosophically" about an existence that consists of thoughts only. And then "in our heads" fit God into that.

But then that's my point.

It doesn't bring a God, the God any closer to, among other things, "the scientific method". A way to manifest Him substantively.

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.

How does understanding Kant bring us any closer to a God, the God? How did Kant bring a God, the God any further into existence? Other than "philosophically"?

God -- technically -- a scholastic synthesis between a priori and a posteriori thinking? Okay, where exactly is this God? If not in Kant's head?

And how is this God implicated in the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave. Which of course is always my own focus here: How ought one to live?

With or without God.

As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate.

Okay, implicate this assumption in a particular context. The murderer comes to your door and asks for the whereabouts of a woman he intends to kill. What does it mean here to state that "Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate."

And how, sans God, can it be demonstrated what the rational man or woman -- as subject -- is obligated to do. How is this not entirely predicated on one or another set of assumptions about the ontological/teleological relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world".

Here of course I interject with my own "existential contraption": dasein, conflicting goods, political economy. In a No God world.

And we don't even seem to have a way to demonstrate definitively that all of this does not unfold only as it ever could have in a wholly determined universe.

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.

Sure, if this entirely intellectual contraption works for you then from your point of view it is entirely true. But how would the implications of this be made relevant to the lives that we actually live from day to day?

One has to prove God exists first before deciding whether God is the Creator of the Universe.

That's not how it works though. Out in the world that we interact in from day to day to day, one only has to believe in the existence of God. After all, the behaviors that we choose [which precipitate actual consequences] are predicated not on what can be demonstrated to exist but on what we have come to believe exists.

That's why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able to demonstrate it one way or the other.

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.

Yes, I agree. But this doesn't bring the atheists any closer to demonstrating the impossibility of an existing God. Other than in a "world of words" emanating from a set of speculative assumptions nestled "in their heads".

Short of actually understanding why there is something instead of nothing -- and why this something and not something else -- we are all still in the same boat here. It's just that some insist that, on the contrary, they have actually figured it all out.

Okay, I note, then demonstrate that to us. Why should we believe you? How would you go about -- empirically, materially, phenomenally -- confirming to us that your own set of assumptions reflect the optimal frame of mind here?

Your "proof" --- a proof "with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility" --- is [to me] just the flip side of James Saint defining -- analyzing -- the Real God into existence.

Clearly: In his head.

Or, rather, here and now, so it seems to me.

His sort of logic just seems to go around and around [internally] in circles.

* He has access to the one true TOE: RM/AO
* The Real God is embedded intellectually in this
* Therefore he has access to the one true God

Whatever that means!

In other words, as long as the discussion stays up in the stratosphere of dueling definitions, he will pit his own "logic" against the "logic" of any and all comers here at ILP.

And, in certain respects, your own frame of mind here seems much the same.

To me.

Here and now.

[iambiguous]

But that would require closing the gap between "I" as a psychological contraption and an understanding of human psychology in the context of "all there is".

What interest me most about Buddhism [and other Eastern narratives] is really no different from what interest me most about Christianity [and other Western narratives]: how to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and what we imagine our fate to be on the other side of the grave. As that relates to whatever we conclude when confronted with the question, "how ought one to live?"

In particular when one has come to believe that mere mortals inhabit an essentially absurd and meaningless world that seems to culminate in oblivion for all of eternity.

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above in regard to a particular existential context in which value judgments come into conflict. Including the judgment that revolves around establishing what value judgments are and how we come to acquire them historically, culturally and experientially.

The Eastern spiritualities and philosophies has gone into great depths on this issue since thousands of years ago and had continuously improve on them to the present.

Okay, let's test this then:

Note a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict. How would you imagine those subscribing to Eastern philosopies reacting differently from those subscribing to Western philosophies?

Historically, what would constitute an "improvement" here? What would constitute "progress"?

How is this not instead [as I construe it] merely the embodiment [existentially] of particular sets of political prejudices rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts?

The first thing is one need to understand the natural inclination to the idea "I" and "All there is" are ultimately illusory. Note Kant's there is no "I-in-itself" "Universe-in-itself" which the same with the non-theistic principles of Buddhism and the likes.

It is when one clings [naturally driven] to the "I" and "All there is" or "whatever there is" that a terrible angst is generated that drive one's to seek psychological security and the easy solution is the idea of a God [the all powerful] as a panacea.

All of this may well be true. As an argument. But what transpires when this argument is made to actual flesh and blood human beings who find themselves in a particular context in which particular values have precipitated particular behaviors that have precipitated particular conflicts?

That is always where "I" aim to take these "general description" analyses.

The part where "here and now" I am entangled in my dilemma above. How are those who embrace an Eastern philosophy not entangled in it? Or considerably less entangled in it?

And then we can take the discussion to the part where what we choose to do on this side of the grave has actual consequences regarding our imagined fate on the other side of it.

The question is how to deal with this angst without clinging to anything. This is how Buddhism came up with the concept of 'nothingness' 'emptiness' 'dependent origination' where there is no dualistic reality but rather the focus is on emergence of reality with the self [as non-self] in engagement with the flow.

Well, from my frame of mind it is more a question of how to interact with others socially, politically and economically, when you have managed to think yourself into the dilemma that I am in.

In flesh and blood human relationships there are actual consequences that can make our lives [from our own perspective] seem considerably better or worse. And sometimes it can revolve literally around matters of life and death.

To the extent that Eastern philosophies are able to mitigate that, all the better. But [for me] it doesn't make the part about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away.

In other words:

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above ..

Besides theories based on real collective experiences, Buddhism and the likes focus critically to change the brain and mind via effective spiritual practices. The effectiveness of such practices is evident from the tons of research done on this subject.

Okay, but sooner or later these "spiritual practices" are going to collide with any number conflicting religious and moral and political agendas out in our modern world.

Again, if they succeed in minimizing the stress and anxiety these conflicts bring with them, that is clearly a victory.

But in trying to imagine a Buddhist reacting to, among other things, Trumpworld and the global economy, I begin to wonder just how far that can go.

[Prismatic567]

Perhaps it would help if our visiting sage would bother to study (for years) a specific form of philosophy obviously unknown to him (rather than continue spouting blatant logical fallacies):

This is another bankrupted and childish approach of yours and insulting your own intelligence and credibility.
Show me your justifications for each accusation you made.

[Snark]

Perhaps it would help if our visiting sage would bother to study (for years) a specific form of philosophy obviously unknown to him (rather than continue spouting blatant logical fallacies):

Nah. You can't fill an already-filled cup.

[James S Saint]

That's why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able to demonstrate it one way or the other.

Prove to your cat that the Internet is real.

[Prismatic567]

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.

Again: How on earth would you go about demonstrating to others that this is true?

For all practical purposes, what does this mean?

How is it linked to God other than in an intellectual contraption?

Sure, we can speculate "philosophically" about an existence that consists of thoughts only. And then "in our heads" fit God into that.

But then that's my point.

It doesn't bring a God, the God any closer to, among other things, "the scientific method". A way to manifest Him substantively.

Generally 'ontology' in its widest sense is,

"Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations."

My take re 'ontology' is restricted to an existence that is independent of human conditions, e.g. Plato Forms, God and the likes.

The point is this, any one can think of any thing in thought but it is only real as a thought.
For example any thought of empirical possibility need to be justified with empirical evidence as objectively real.
If one cannot justify whatever is thought as real within empirical-rational reality, then it is false or illusory within that reality.

God is a thought rationalized by pure reason only [for psychological reasons] but to be real a theist must justify God's existence within empirical-rational reality.

You tell me, what other reality than empirical-rational reality can any one justify a thing is really real? - dream world? moral world? a psychiatric world?

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.

How does understanding Kant bring us any closer to a God, the God? How did Kant bring a God, the God any further into existence? Other than "philosophically"?

My point was, a thoroughly understanding of Kant will enable a person to realize philosophically, the idea of God is an illusion. It does not bring any one closer to a God.

God -- technically -- a scholastic synthesis between a priori and a posteriori thinking? Okay, where exactly is this God? If not in Kant's head?

Kant thesis is true knowledge arise from a posteriori experiences but knowledge is also tied to a priori of the collective experiences embedded in the DNA via the experiences of our past ancestors.

According to Kant, the idea of God arose when the theists [out of psychological factors -mine] untie whatever empirical basis to the thought to conclude the existence of a God which in fact is an illusion.

Note this [again];

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

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

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. -B397

And how is this God implicated in the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave. Which of course is always my own focus here: How ought one to live?

With or without God.

As I had stated before, ALL humans are infected with a 'virus' that generate an existential crisis in the psyche. The virus in the majority are active while in others it is dormant.
Because the existential crisis generate terrible subliminal angst, a rationalized thought [emptied of the essential empirical base] of God is a very effective balms to soothe those angst. This belief in God thus provide real psychological security to theists to deal with a turbulent reality.

The fact that there are others who resort to non-theistic approaches [more efficient & not evil laden] to deal with that inherent viral existential crisis is indication theism is not the only way.

As I had stated, Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate.

Okay, implicate this assumption in a particular context. The murderer comes to your door and asks for the whereabouts of a woman he intends to kill. What does it mean here to state that "Kant demonstrated why 'existence' in never a predicate."

The 'exist' in 'God exists' is not a predicate.
With a predicate, then it is 'God exists as a thought only'.

And how, sans God, can it be demonstrated what the rational man or woman -- as subject -- is obligated to do. How is this not entirely predicated on one or another set of assumptions about the ontological/teleological relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world".

The contention re 'the Murderer - lying' scenario is a criticism of Kant as advocating an absolute rule 'Lying is not permissible absolutely.' The dilemma is if the man at the door sticks to the rule of no lying [telling the truth where the woman is hiding], then he is complicit to the murder of another human being which is a greater evil.

There is a misinterpretation of Kant's Framework and System of Morality & Ethics in the above case.
Kant's moral framework do include Absolute Moral Rules but they are only to act a guides and never to be enforced in practice. In 'the Murderer - lying' example, Kant was merely discussing the workings of an absolute moral rule, and he NEVER advocated such an absolute moral rule [morality] must be enforced in practice [ethics]. Kant agreed with Hume, an 'OUGHT' [morality] cannot be an "IS' [ethics] but nevertheless both can work in complement to each other.

So in a real [in practical] 'Murderer - lying' scenario, the man at the door will have to 'lie' [a lesser evil] to counter a greater evil of assisting a murder to kill.

The above is a gist of how Kant's Framework and System of Morality & Ethics works.
It is not easy to understand Kant's work and 90% of the understanding of the above case within the philosophical community on this point is wrong.

Here of course I interject with my own "existential contraption": dasein, conflicting goods, political economy. In a No God world.

And we don't even seem to have a way to demonstrate definitively that all of this does not unfold only as it ever could have in a wholly determined universe.

Not too sure of this point.

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.

Sure, if this entirely intellectual contraption works for you then from your point of view it is entirely true. But how would the implications of this be made relevant to the lives that we actually live from day to day?

I understand theism is a critical psychological necessity for the majority of people to soothe the inherent unavoidable angst arising from an existential crisis.
However I am also aware of theism-as-a-whole has malignant evil elements [in Abrahamic religions especially Islam] that pose a critical threat to the human species. [MAD is not a deterrent to Muslims].
Given the existential crisis is inherent and unadvoidable, humanity must strive to find alternative foolproof replacements for theism [with a malignant potential].
At present we already have non-theistic ideologies and practices which tackle the same existential crisis and are benign. All we need is to improve on them and repackage them without an specific brand.

One has to prove God exists first before deciding whether God is the Creator of the Universe.

That's not how it works though. Out in the world that we interact in from day to day to day, one only has to believe in the existence of God. After all, the behaviors that we choose [which precipitate actual consequences] are predicated not on what can be demonstrated to exist but on what we have come to believe exists.

That's why discussions like this go on and on and on and on and on and on and on: No one is ever actually able to demonstrate it one way or the other.

Note we are in a philosophical forum and thus the need for intellectual integrity. It would be an insult to one's intelligence to accept an illusion [proven] as really real, i.e. within an empirical rational reality.

One cannot present the idea of God as really real [empirical rational reality] without making the appropriate qualification that God is in fact illusory within an empirical rational reality .

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.

Yes, I agree. But this doesn't bring the atheists any closer to demonstrating the impossibility of an existing God. Other than in a "world of words" emanating from a set of speculative assumptions nestled "in their heads".

Short of actually understanding why there is something instead of nothing -- and why this something and not something else -- we are all still in the same boat here. It's just that some insist that, on the contrary, they have actually figured it all out.

Okay, I note, then demonstrate that to us. Why should we believe you? How would you go about -- empirically, materially, phenomenally -- confirming to us that your own set of assumptions reflect the optimal frame of mind here?

Your "proof" --- a proof "with arguments [thoughts only] why God is an Impossibility" --- is [to me] just the flip side of James Saint defining -- analyzing -- the Real God into existence.

Clearly: In his head.

Or, rather, here and now, so it seems to me.

His sort of logic just seems to go around and around [internally] in circles.

* He has access to the one true TOE: RM/AO
* The Real God is embedded intellectually in this
* Therefore he has access to the one true God

Whatever that means!

In other words, as long as the discussion stays up in the stratosphere of dueling definitions, he will pit his own "logic" against the "logic" of any and all comers here at ILP.

And, in certain respects, your own frame of mind here seems much the same.

To me.

Here and now.

As I had stated 'God is an impossibility' as proven [in thoughts via the highest possible rationality] is like a square-circle is an impossibility.
No rational person would doubt a square-circle is an impossibility because there is no deep psychological interest in such a point.

The original basis of theism is psychological, i.e. a desperate drive to soothe the arising angst pulsating from an existential angst.
This is real and has been recognized by Eastern spiritualities since thousands of years ago who has improved upon theistic methods [potentially malignant] to establish non-theistic methods which are benign.

It is this psychological desperation and insecurity that compel theists to defend their position as giving up theism for them at present without a replacement would be a psychological catastrophe. I understand this dilemma and I have never advocated replacing theism at the present or near-future but only later in the future when we have the capacity to do so without destabilizing the psychological state of theists.

Okay, I note, then demonstrate that to us. Why should we believe you? How would you go about -- empirically, materially, phenomenally -- confirming to us that your own set of assumptions reflect the optimal frame of mind here?

I do not expect any one to believe me [100%] based on what I have posted.
What I have posted should be taken a clues and one need to do research on the subject.
However before one can proceed one must first understand the psychological compulsion that is driving one to theism. Using mindfulness one need to navigate to understand and reflect on what is really going on.

[James S Saint]

Generally 'ontology' in its widest sense is,

"Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations."

My take re 'ontology' is restricted to an existence that is independent of human conditions, e.g. Plato Forms, God and the likes.

You would be wrong about that too. But at least you finally learned to use a dictionary.

Now if you could just accept what it says rather than your own version of the words.

An ontology is a set of concepts and their relations used to describe reality, an understanding of reality. There can be many true ontologies, just as there can be many languages. And there can never be a language without an underpinning ontology. Ontology is what gives language meaning: concept -to- word and how the puzzle fits together - the "map" to the "terrain" of reality.

The point is this, any one can think of any thing in thought but it is only real as a thought.
For example any thought of empirical possibility need to be justified with empirical evidence as objectively real.
If one cannot justify whatever is thought as real within empirical-rational reality, then it is false or illusory within that reality.

Oh really?
So the back side of the Moon doesn't exist unless you are watching it?

I do not expect any one to believe me

That's good. So far, no one has.

[Prismatic567]

But that would require closing the gap between "I" as a psychological contraption and an understanding of human psychology in the context of "all there is".

What interest me most about Buddhism [and other Eastern narratives] is really no different from what interest me most about Christianity [and other Western narratives]: how to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and what we imagine our fate to be on the other side of the grave. As that relates to whatever we conclude when confronted with the question, "how ought one to live?"

In particular when one has come to believe that mere mortals inhabit an essentially absurd and meaningless world that seems to culminate in oblivion for all of eternity.

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above in regard to a particular existential context in which value judgments come into conflict. Including the judgment that revolves around establishing what value judgments are and how we come to acquire them historically, culturally and experientially.

The Eastern spiritualities and philosophies has gone into great depths on this issue since thousands of years ago and had continuously improve on them to the present.

Okay, let's test this then:

Note a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict. How would you imagine those subscribing to Eastern philosopies reacting differently from those subscribing to Western philosophies?

Historically, what would constitute an "improvement" here? What would constitute "progress"?

How is this not instead [as I construe it] merely the embodiment [existentially] of particular sets of political prejudices rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts?

The first thing is one need to understand the natural inclination to the idea "I" and "All there is" are ultimately illusory. Note Kant's there is no "I-in-itself" "Universe-in-itself" which the same with the non-theistic principles of Buddhism and the likes.

It is when one clings [naturally driven] to the "I" and "All there is" or "whatever there is" that a terrible angst is generated that drive one's to seek psychological security and the easy solution is the idea of a God [the all powerful] as a panacea.

All of this may well be true. As an argument. But what transpires when this argument is made to actual flesh and blood human beings who find themselves in a particular context in which particular values have precipitated particular behaviors that have precipitated particular conflicts?

That is always where "I" aim to take these "general description" analyses.

The part where "here and now" I am entangled in my dilemma above. How are those who embrace an Eastern philosophy not entangled in it? Or considerably less entangled in it?

And then we can take the discussion to the part where what we choose to do on this side of the grave has actual consequences regarding our imagined fate on the other side of it.

The question is how to deal with this angst without clinging to anything. This is how Buddhism came up with the concept of 'nothingness' 'emptiness' 'dependent origination' where there is no dualistic reality but rather the focus is on emergence of reality with the self [as non-self] in engagement with the flow.

Well, from my frame of mind it is more a question of how to interact with others socially, politically and economically, when you have managed to think yourself into the dilemma that I am in.

In flesh and blood human relationships there are actual consequences that can make our lives [from our own perspective] seem considerably better or worse. And sometimes it can revolve literally around matters of life and death.

To the extent that Eastern philosophies are able to mitigate that, all the better. But [for me] it doesn't make the part about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away.

In other words:

How are the Buddhists able to yank themselves up out of my dilemma above ..

Besides theories based on real collective experiences, Buddhism and the likes focus critically to change the brain and mind via effective spiritual practices. The effectiveness of such practices is evident from the tons of research done on this subject.

Okay, but sooner or later these "spiritual practices" are going to collide with any number conflicting religious and moral and political agendas out in our modern world.

Again, if they succeed in minimizing the stress and anxiety these conflicts bring with them, that is clearly a victory.

But in trying to imagine a Buddhist reacting to, among other things, Trumpworld and the global economy, I begin to wonder just how far that can go.

This quote is supposedly attributed to Einstein [disputed];

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

The fact as I noted is the ultimate effectiveness of Buddhism [& other Eastern spiritualities] is too advanced for the masses at the present. This is why at present the Abrahamic religions are more popular, i.e. just believe and viola one is 'saved'.

In addition to crude practices for the masses, Buddhism has a solid Framework and System of knowledge & practices to enable the believer to align optimally with reality san an illusory God and its negative baggage.

The effectiveness of genuine Buddhism can only be realized upon a high degree of continuous hardwork in the self-development of rewiring one's brain for the purpose. This is why not many people are taking Buddhism seriously at present.
In your case, if you are above 55, genuine Buddhism is not going to be very effective on an older atrophized brain with low degree of plasticity.

As for the future generations, with the incremental trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technological in the advance knowledge of the neurosciences, genomics, etc. I am optimistic one can use these advancing knowledge to advance self-development programs like Buddhism [& other Eastern spiritualities] to optimize spirituality without malignant elements.

Btw, I am not a Buddhist per se and I am not insisting Buddhism is the only way. I believe in the future humanity must adopt the effective principles and practices from Buddhism and the likes and repackaging them for general use without reference to any specific religion or spirituality.

[Snark]

Prisimatic is right about one thing: ontology — the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations — ultimately leads to the existence of the ontological God. He's wrong about everything else, but he was right about that. It's a mystery to me how he can say that and, in the very next line, say that it is restricted to an existence that is independent of human conditions.