Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

[Belindi]

how drugs like alcohol and so on sometimes are the only relief available for you in today's society.

As opposed to what other society? Also recreational drugs only appear to offer relief? And the cost is greater than the cure (so to speak). Don't get me wrong I'm not saying every single person who ever took drugs in their life is absolutely a bad person, I'm just saying they have, almost certainly, made a bad choice.

Mind altering drugs give temporary relief. The disadvantages are well known and I agree with you there.

As opposed to egalitarian cooperatives like the Scandinavian societies.These seem to have the excesses of capitalism pretty well under control.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

If you don't have the time, I agree you don't have to do it.
But for intellectual sake, you need to do it to support your point with such details and confidence levels.

My time isn't the issue. I thought that I made it clear why I don't want to complete the task you suggest? What does “for intellectual sake” mean? I don't see how posting an arbitrary speculation will support anything that I've stated. Don't arguments need to be supported by facts/evidence?

That is the point.
You are the one who is making the claim there are other reasons why people believe.
Thus you have to support your claim with facts/evidence.
This is why I am requesting you to produce the listing and provide the confidence level you have on your list.
This is an intellectual discussion, thus for intellectual sake you have to do it at least a rough presentation of your claim.

I believe the difference between what is primary and secondary is very obvious in terms of set and subsets.
The primary sets is those directly related to the words of God while others are subset thus secondary.

I think that the qualifier here is “I believe”. Which means that what you're stating is not factual, but opinion.

There is a continuum of confidence level from opinion [low] to belief [personal conviction] to knowledge [fact - objective].
In this case, my personal believe has high personal conviction but it is actually general knowledge where the main set is primary while the subsets are secondary.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary
Obviously what is from God i.e. in the holy text would be considered primary, while others depending on believers interpretations are secondary.
You seem to argue merely for argument sake but without respect for the facts.

I was referring to an agnostic or one who was indifferent to God but then because to please the girl declare he is a theist in mind and all occasion. Such a belief I would say in secondary relative to what would be primary.

With respect, I don't that think this scenario is a possibility.

There are many of such cases in reality. There are many borderline cases re those who are agnostic and those who are indifferent to a God accepting theism because to please their future spouse and his/her community. Some would even become preachers.

Nope, what I am referring is direct empirical evidence to justify the existence of God. 
I stated it is empirically possible for a pink unicorn to exists but we know it is very very slim but it not impossible. To prove a pink unicorn exists, one will need to bring a pink unicorn for empirical testing and justification.
But God is empirically impossible as I had demonstrated.

What evidence is there for the existence of a pink unicorn? Your prior list of “empirical elements” is not sufficient IMO. Also, if as you claim there's a possibility of pink unicorns existing, why can't they be “absolutely perfect”? Also, remember that “unicorns” are "magical creatures". Can't you see that by your own arguments, God and unicorns are in the same category?

What I define as 'unicorn' is the typical one i.e. a horse with a single horn in from of its head, e.g.

Such a unicorn has empirical elements.

Nope I am not claiming the unicorn in this case is magical, supernatural and equivalent to God, i.e. an absolutely perfect being.

My main point is anything that has elements that are all empirical are empirically possible.
Thus my expectation of a unicorn in this case is one that has empirical elements.

Note I even agree there is a possibility of an empirical tea pot existing somewhere outside the solar system. This possibility is slim but not impossible.

This is my claim, it is up to you to disprove.

I think it has been shown that your arguments in this case are not sound.

Where is the counter argument?

Yes, I insist but I have provided justification.

I think that the only justification of your arguments is that God cannot be proven to exist empirically. Impossibility requires a leap of faith.

Yes, and I provided the justifications.
Show me what other alternative modes of reality -other than the default empirical rational reality - to convince one of a realistic existence of God.
I have also demonstrated how the idea of God arose out of psychological factors and the Eastern spiritualities has addressed the SAME existential crisis psychologically.

You missed my point. I stated it is empirically possible and we need all the empirical evidences available but it can be further reinforced with brain imagings.

So you insist, but I think the consensus would generally be interpretation.

It is will be as objective an any other Scientific theories since we are relying on Science in this case.

I suggest you raised the valid counter-argument in that threat and I will address them. For me there are no outstanding points I have not address and dismiss.

There are many, and they're valid IMO. You claimed that your argument is perfect. For me, that claim alone is enough to show that it is not a sound argument.

I did not claim my argument is absolutely perfect, but logically and rationally "perfect" as supported by sound arguments.

I had relied heavily [not fully] on Kant's argument re where the thing-in-itself is claimed to be a real empirical God it is an illusion. If you can prove Kant wrong then my support would be greatly shaken.

Kant did not use the term 'absolute perfection'. I derived it from various other philosophies in combination with Kant.

I'm not going to attempt to prove Kant wrong, and since you've already be proven wrong a number of times, proving Kant wrong wasn't necessary.

I am suggesting the best way to prove me wrong is to prove Kant wrong since I had heavily relied on Kant for my argument.

[Spectrum]

But the current trend toward the future is the cons of theistic religions are outweighing their pros. Just imagine if the extremists were able to establish an independent Islamic State [the almost did] and they sneak through like North Korea. With that kind of inherent malignant ethos within the religion, it is very possible for a more stable Islamic State somewhere especially after they have learned their lesson from the current defeat.

Well I don't see the slippery slope. Of course things can get worse but they can also get better. As to which way they will go, I don't know, but I wouldn't think it was final.

Yes, things definitely can better but not for theistic-based evils, e.g.
this trend that has been going on incrementally since 911.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

The above is not the only increasing trend of evils from theism. There are loads of theistic evils of various degrees that is on a rising trend all over the world.
To address these issues and problems we have to apply the most effective problem-solving techniques.

Are you suggesting we ignore all theistic-based evils?
What alternative solutions would you suggest to deal with the mentioned evils.

Let me put it another way. If you surround yourself with a philosophy which freezes your mind then your mind will be frozen. Perhaps you are then dangerous to offers but frankly the person you are most dangerous to is yourself. I see extreme disregard of reality as being ultimately self defeating. Of course that is not to say that much harm cannot be done on the way to being defeated.

Note we are in a Philosophy forum, surely we have have to use critical and rational thinking to understand what we are doing rather than doing things blindly.

Frankly as a non-theistic person, you [presumed] and I are already in dangerous waters at present. There is a great potential we non-theists will be killed if our identity is known within certain societies and circumstances. There is no way you can voice your atheistic views [rational] in Saudi Arabia or any majority Islamic country. Atheism is illegal by the constitution and laws in Indonesia.

At present, all criticisms [no matter how sound and rational] of theism [especially Islam] is censored as Islamophobic [nonsensical term] by Facebook, Youtube, Google, Twitter for reasons based on ignorance, fears and threats by Muslims.
WTF is this when the grounds of theism is merely based on a God which is an illusion and impossibility. Just imagine how our brains and thinking are chained by merely an illusion and an impossibility.

As concerned citizens of humanity non-theists has to do something to counter the above primitive thinking and bigotry.

But again I see no special reason to educate against religion when you can educate against all unreasonable beliefs just as easily. Like I said earlier if you did write a course designed to remove religion through logic how would you surgically only remove religion but no other unreasonable beliefs.

I am not against all religions in an extreme manner. Note my signature below.
It is only the theistic religion related to the statistics above and other theistic evils that I am emphazing. But the only solution to resolve those evils is to address theism as a whole and the solutions [fool proof] to be implemented in the future on a voluntary basis.

[Spectrum]

They do feel unease, anxieties, etc. but they do not associate these feelings with the existential angst nor its roots.

If you are homeless, bullied at work, overworked in order to simply stay alive, chronically lonely, or otherwise a total reject, you jolly well do know where your angst is coming from and how drugs like alcohol and so on sometimes are the only relief available for you in today's society.

Yes, those are typical and general psychological angst but not directly existential angst.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

That is the point.
You are the one who is making the claim there are other reasons why people believe.
Thus you have to support your claim with facts/evidence.
This is why I am requesting you to produce the listing and provide the confidence level you have on your list.
This is an intellectual discussion, thus for intellectual sake you have to do it at least a rough presentation of your claim.

That you think I have to support a claim that people believe in God for different reasons is not correct. Many things can be a given, like the diversity and individualism of human-beings. If you're claiming that all people believe in God for one reason, that is the claim that needs to be supported by facts/evidence.

Obviously what is from God i.e. in the holy text would be considered primary, while others depending on believers interpretations are secondary.
You seem to argue merely for argument sake but without respect for the facts.

What facts? You think primary and secondary reasons for belief is a fact? It is clearly your conjecture, an educated guess at best.

There are many of such cases in reality. There are many borderline cases re those who are agnostic and those who are indifferent to a God accepting theism because to please their future spouse and his/her community. Some would even become preachers.

I was under the impression that someone has to actually believe in God to be a theist? I've never heard of a non-believing theist. A non-believer may accept that their partner believes in God, but to believe themselves when they don't? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Nope I am not claiming the unicorn in this case is magical, supernatural and equivalent to God, i.e. an absolutely perfect being.

How do you know it isn't perfect, if you've never encountered one?

My main point is anything that has elements that are all empirical are empirically possible.
Thus my expectation of a unicorn in this case is one that has empirical elements.

What are the empirical elements of a unicorn, and how to they constitute the possible existence of a unicorn?

Note I even agree there is a possibility of an empirical tea pot existing somewhere outside the solar system. This possibility is slim but not impossible.

Agree with who? Are you aware of the context of the tea pot analogy and why it was used? It doesn't seem as though you fully understand it. Unicorns, orbiting tea pots in space and God are to an atheist in the same category.

Where is the counter argument?

You mean arguments, and there are too many for me to post here. I have posted a counter-argument here.

Yes, and I provided the justifications.

None are needed. It is common knowledge that God cannot be proven to exist empirically. The issue is the validity of your claim that it is impossible for God to exist, and that the claim is conflated with a nonsensical term (“absolute perfection”) when applied philosophically.

Show me what other alternative modes of reality -other than the default empirical rational reality - to convince one of a realistic existence of God.

How can I show you something which is only a speculative conjecture? I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not making any claims about the nature of reality, such as other “modes”.

I have also demonstrated how the idea of God arose out of psychological factors and the Eastern spiritualities has addressed the SAME existential crisis psychologically.

Why do you continually claim to have demonstrated things? No one agrees with you, and I don't think anyone will. No matter where you post your arguments they've been rejected, even by atheists - there's a valid reason for that. You speak as though your conjectures are axiomatic, but they aren't. You're just being arbitrary.

I did not claim my argument is absolutely perfect, but logically and rationally "perfect" as supported by sound arguments.

You're very mistaken.

I am suggesting the best way to prove me wrong is to prove Kant wrong since I had heavily relied on Kant for my argument.

Nonsensical (IMO), you've already been proven wrong. So much so that it's actually a moot point.

[Spectrum]

That you think I have to support a claim that people believe in God for different reasons is not correct. Many things can be a given, like the diversity and individualism of human-beings. If you're claiming that all people believe in God for one reason, that is the claim that needs to be supported by facts/evidence.

Note you are making a claim,
"Many things can be a given, ...."
Obviously for intellectual sake, you have to support such a claim.
I proposed you list them out and give your own confidence level on each.
This should not be an issue at all.

I understand theists will give all sorts of reason why they are a theist based on what they feel and can think of.
What I am claiming is there is an ultimate and proximate root causes why they are compelled to be a theist.
I stated such an ultimate cause can be inferred from the holy books from God.

Obviously what is from God i.e. in the holy text would be considered primary, while others depending on believers interpretations are secondary.
You seem to argue merely for argument sake but without respect for the facts.

What facts? You think primary and secondary reasons for belief is a fact? It is clearly your conjecture, an educated guess at best.

I meant that in general there are primary set and secondary subsets.
As for the primary set for a belief in God we can trace that from the holy books from God to the various psychological factors, i.e. existential crisis, dilemma and angst.

There are many of such cases in reality. There are many borderline cases re those who are agnostic and those who are indifferent to a God accepting theism because to please their future spouse and his/her community. Some would even become preachers.

I was under the impression that someone has to actually believe in God to be a theist? I've never heard of a non-believing theist. A non-believer may accept that their partner believes in God, but to believe themselves when they don't? Isn't that an oxymoron?

I was not referring to a non-believing theist. I was referring to a person who has converted to believe in God sincerely and the motivation was to marry the future theistic spouse. This is so common within Islam and Christianity.

• I am an atheist but I am willing to convert to marry him.
  https://www.zawaj.com/askbilqis/atheist ... ert-marry/

Nope I am not claiming the unicorn in this case is magical, supernatural and equivalent to God, i.e. an absolutely perfect being.

How do you know it isn't perfect, if you've never encountered one?

Note I have given you my definition of what is a unicorn which is fully empirical-based, thus cannot be absolutely perfect.

My main point is anything that has elements that are all empirical are empirically possible.
Thus my expectation of a unicorn in this case is one that has empirical elements.

What are the empirical elements of a unicorn, and how to they constitute the possible existence of a unicorn?

Note the picture of a 'unicorn' I presented above. It is simply horse-liked with a sharp pointed horn in the front of the head.
Note horses exist empirically, so can a sharp pointed horn. Therefore a horse with a sharp pointed horn is an empirically possible albeit very slim. A horse with a squared-circle horn is not a possibility.

Note even humans can grow horn infront of their head;


Therefore it is empirically possible [odds are very slim] for horses with a sharp pointed horns in front of their head existing individually or as a species somewhere in the Universe.

Note I even agree there is a possibility of an empirical tea pot existing somewhere outside the solar system. This possibility is slim but not impossible.

Agree with who? Are you aware of the context of the tea pot analogy and why it was used? It doesn't seem as though you fully understand it. Unicorns, orbiting tea pots in space and God are to an atheist in the same category.

Agree with myself.
Nah this has nothing to do with Russell's tea pot. I could have say a table, chair, ball, or anything empirical on Earth.
As long as something is empirically-based, it is possible anywhere albeit very slim in outer space but it is not an impossibility.

Where is the counter argument?

You mean arguments, and there are too many for me to post here. I have posted a counter-argument here.

Note I have countered your counter-argument in the related thread here.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 96#p302996

Yes, and I provided the justifications.

None are needed. It is common knowledge that God cannot be proven to exist empirically. The issue is the validity of your claim that it is impossible for God to exist, and that the claim is conflated with a nonsensical term (“absolute perfection”) when applied philosophically.

Again that is your view.
It is common knowledge many theists accept a real God exists empirically who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claim they can feel and experience the presence of God.
Many theists are hoping Science will one say prove the existence of the God-Particle.

Show me what other alternative modes of reality -other than the default empirical rational reality - to convince one of a realistic existence of God.

How can I show you something which is only a speculative conjecture? I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not making any claims about the nature of reality, such as other “modes”.

Then you have to accept God is an impossibility within our default reality, i.e. the empirical-rational reality.
Where it is a speculative conjecture it is has no credibility at all, thus can be rejected for deliberation of reality.

I have also demonstrated how the idea of God arose out of psychological factors and the Eastern spiritualities has addressed the SAME existential crisis psychologically.

Why do you continually claim to have demonstrated things? No one agrees with you, and I don't think anyone will. No matter where you post your arguments they've been rejected, even by atheists - there's a valid reason for that. You speak as though your conjectures are axiomatic, but they aren't. You're just being arbitrary.

What??
Buddhists will agree with my proposition 'the idea of God is psychological and its related problem should be addressed psychologically'.

Btw, I have never expected theists nor atheists to accept my arguments in here. I can understand the reasons why do not accept my arguments. For many it is due to the lack of depth in philosophical knowledge and until they dig deeper, I am not expecting them to agree with me. What I am looking forward is as many counter arguments as possible to my thesis so that I can counter them to reinforce my thesis.

I did not claim my argument is absolutely perfect, but logically and rationally "perfect" as supported by sound arguments.

You're very mistaken.

Note my argument in my counter here.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 96#p302996

I am suggesting the best way to prove me wrong is to prove Kant wrong since I had heavily relied on Kant for my argument.

Nonsensical (IMO), you've already been proven wrong. So much so that it's actually a moot point.

Again that is your opinion without justification.
Whatever counters you offered I have contra them effectively;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 96#p302996

[Dark Matter]

Why is it that, according to Spectrum, everyone fails to support their claims except Spectrum?

[Belindi]

Spectrum copied in an interesting picture of a unicorn. I'd like to know when it was painted.

This unicorn has a beard and its muzzle is that of goat not horse. It also has a horn, therefore it is part goat part horse. It is also part dog as it's doing what affectionate dogs do but not what goats or horses do.

The unicorn therefore symbolises an amalgam of energy and imagination(horse), pagan nature (goat), and human power over both(subservient dog).
It also appears to be blind, in which case it would be dependent upon the human for its survival.

The human figure is female, therefore the human figure symbolises the human soul.The picture is Renaissance humanist with pagan undertone, and is not religious.


I regret I don't know how to copy it perhaps Spectrum would oblige.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

Note you are making a claim,
"Many things can be a given, ...."
Obviously for intellectual sake, you have to support such a claim.
I proposed you list them out and give your own confidence level on each.
This should not be an issue at all.

Note, that I am not claiming specifically what the different reasons people believe God are. But that people believe in God for different reasons. I don't think there's a need to support that claim.

I understand theists will give all sorts of reason why they are a theist based on what they feel and can think of.

If that is true why do you need me to support my claim?

What I am claiming is there is an ultimate and proximate root causes why they are compelled to be a theist.

Its a given that there are causes for theistic beliefs, but I wouldn't categorise them as you have. That of course doesn't make you wrong, but it seems arbitrary to me.

I stated such an ultimate cause can be inferred from the holy books from God.

Such as?

I meant that in general there are primary set and secondary subsets.
As for the primary set for a belief in God we can trace that from the holy books from God to the various psychological factors, i.e. existential crisis, dilemma and angst.

I don't agree. You seem to be connecting the dots, but I don't think that you've demonstrated the specific correlation.

I was not referring to a non-believing theist. I was referring to a person who has converted to believe in God sincerely and the motivation was to marry the future theistic spouse. This is so common within Islam and Christianity.

If this was to occur, why would that make it a “secondary” reason for believing in God? Does the fact that the motivator is a person rather than the scriptures, make their belief secondary? If so why?

Note I have given you my definition of what is a unicorn which is fully empirical-based, thus cannot be absolutely perfect.

Your definition doesn't demonstrate that. I don't understand why you think it would?

Note the picture of a 'unicorn' I presented above. It is simply horse-liked with a sharp pointed horn in the front of the head.

The picture you posted is not meant to be a reflection of reality. Unicorns, as far as we know are imagined or mythical creatures, there's no empirical evidence of their existence.

Note horses exist empirically, so can a sharp pointed horn. Therefore a horse with a sharp pointed horn is an empirically possible albeit very slim. A horse with a squared-circle horn is not a possibility.

This is a belief and also a conflation (IMO). With this line of reasoning you can justify the possible existence of anything, because there are “empirical elements”. Like orbiting space tea pots.

Therefore it is empirically possible [odds are very slim] for horses with a sharp pointed horns in front of their head existing individually or as a species somewhere in the Universe.

Based upon current knowledge, there's no evidence of unicorns existing. Therefore, I think that the claim "unicorns don't exist" is reasonable. If we are to claim the possible existence of any mythical beings or creatures (of which unicorns are), because their existence is not impossible due to there being "empirical elements", where do we stop?

Agree with myself.
Nah this has nothing to do with Russell's tea pot. I could have say a table, chair, ball, or anything empirical on Earth.
As long as something is empirically-based, it is possible anywhere albeit very slim in outer space but it is not an impossibility.

Thus you have a belief. A belief which I think is unreasonable, but that's debatable.

Again that is your view.
It is common knowledge many theists accept a real God exists empirically who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claim they can feel and experience the presence of God.
Many theists are hoping Science will one say prove the existence of the God-Particle.

Why are you speaking for many theists? I haven't yet encountered a theist who believes that God is empirical. The theists I've encountered believe God to be a “spirit” of a “spiritual nature” or transcendent. I think that is the general consensus for people's ideas about God including atheists and agnostics.

Then you have to accept God is an impossibility within our default reality, i.e. the empirical-rational reality.

No, I don't. Even if I don't believe that God exists. I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical-rational reality"? Can you be more specific?

Where it is a speculative conjecture it is has no credibility at all, thus can be rejected for deliberation of reality.

Speculative conjecture doesn't as a rule mean error. We generally assess the validity and possibility of a claim or claims. Someone can have a hunch or a gut feeling about something that turns out to be correct.

What??
Buddhists will agree with my proposition 'the idea of God is psychological and its related problem should be addressed psychologically'.

I am specifically talking about philosophy forum users. I should of made that clear.

Btw, I have never expected theists nor atheists to accept my arguments in here. I can understand the reasons why do not accept my arguments. For many it is due to the lack of depth in philosophical knowledge and until they dig deeper, I am not expecting them to agree with me. What I am looking forward is as many counter arguments as possible to my thesis so that I can counter them to reinforce my thesis.

That you believe this is an error. If your argument is perfect, how can it be countered?

Again that is your opinion without justification.
Whatever counters you offered I have contra them effectively;

An opinion yes, but not without justification, because the counter-arguments are valid.

[Belindi]

Spectrum, please don't send in more pictures of obscene pathologies!

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

It is only "your" opinion “absolute perfection” is a nonsense term. 
Note I am a very intensive researcher in this area, so I am very well versed with such a term.

I'll stick with my arguments in this case. What is the difference between a perfect God and an absolutely perfect God?

Where did I argue perfection cannot exist empirically.
I presented there are relative perfection and absolute perfection.
One can have a perfect game of 300 points in ten-pin bowling or 100% perfect score in an objective test, 10/10 scores in sports, etc.

As far as I'm aware, perfection can only be relative to the observer or something that is not perfect. In my view, your understanding of perfection is not correct, as something cannot be more perfect than another perfect thing. 10/10 and 100% are absolutes, the word we use to describe such absolutes is perfect.

As distinct from empirical perfection, I have argued no matter how one define God, ultimately the idea of God MUST be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God. There is no other way.

There is no such distinction. You're re-iterating your belief.

This is very convoluted.
There will never be any empirical evidence available to prove God is empirically perfect because God in the first place can never be empirically possible.
As I had argued the idea of God is a transcendental illusion thus impossible within the empirical-rational reality.
The only validity for consideration of the idea of God [illusory and impossible] is within mental thoughts and no where else.

These are your beliefs. The fact that God cannot be proven to exist empirically, doesn't make them valid arguments. I'm no genius, but this is philosophy 101.

No theists would agree their God to be inferior and be kicked in the ass by another more superior God. Given the above knowledge and possibility, every theist will gravitate to the ultimate God [than which no greater exists] whose ass cannot be kicked by another other superior God.

Nonsensical (IMO). How do you know what every theist's motivations are? You can guess, but you cannot be certain, such as to label all theists as being or doing something. The only certain claim we can make about about all theists, is that they believe that God exists.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum, please don't send in more pictures of obscene pathologies!

Those are medical facts. They are horns from heads and not genitals, as such should not be considered obscene.

They are pathological ; skin diseases are often unsightly and downright obscene and the poor souls who have them are sometimes stigmatised. If you or I cannot do anything to relieve them let's not horrify ourselves.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

Note you are making a claim,
"Many things can be a given, ...."
Obviously for intellectual sake, you have to support such a claim.
I proposed you list them out and give your own confidence level on each.
This should not be an issue at all.

Note, that I am not claiming specifically what the different reasons people believe God are. But that people believe in God for different reasons. I don't think there's a need to support that claim.

If you claim for different reasons, then you should give your list of those different reasons. Such a requirement is pertinent to the debate.

I understand theists will give all sorts of reason why they are a theist based on what they feel and can think of.

If that is true why do you need me to support my claim?

You are disputing my main reasons, thus you have to justify your alternative reasons.

What I am claiming is there is an ultimate and proximate root causes why they are compelled to be a theist.

Its a given that there are causes for theistic beliefs, but I wouldn't categorise them as you have. That of course doesn't make you wrong, but it seems arbitrary to me.

To be effective within problem solving techniques, one of the most crucial approach is to deal with ultimate and proximate root causes rather than the less critical causes. This is why I brought in the concept of weightage.

I stated such an ultimate cause can be inferred from the holy books from God.

Such as?

I have already stated many times, there is great emphasis of salvation and soteriological issues within the holy texts of the Abrahamic religions. The same is emphasized in Buddhism and other Eastern religions.

I meant that in general there are primary set and secondary subsets.
As for the primary set for a belief in God we can trace that from the holy books from God to the various psychological factors, i.e. existential crisis, dilemma and angst.

I don't agree. You seem to be connecting the dots, but I don't think that you've demonstrated the specific correlation.

As I had stated many times I have done extensive research, e.g. in the Quran and there are hundreds of verses related to salvation and the promise of eternal life in paradise to avoid Hell.

I was not referring to a non-believing theist. I was referring to a person who has converted to believe in God sincerely and the motivation was to marry the future theistic spouse. This is so common within Islam and Christianity.

If this was to occur, why would that make it a “secondary” reason for believing in God? Does the fact that the motivator is a person rather than the scriptures, make their belief secondary? If so why?

To any theist, God is primary.
The above conversion to marry is not the main issue for theism as expressed in the theistic holy texts.

Note I have given you my definition of what is a unicorn which is fully empirical-based, thus cannot be absolutely perfect.

Your definition doesn't demonstrate that. I don't understand why you think it would?

Show me where empirical elements can be absolutely perfect.
I have argued this in the 'God is impossible' thread.

Note the picture of a 'unicorn' I presented above. It is simply horse-liked with a sharp pointed horn in the front of the head.

The picture you posted is not meant to be a reflection of reality. Unicorns, as far as we know are imagined or mythical creatures, there's no empirical evidence of their existence.

It is up to you to define what you meant by unicorn then we can assess whether what you define is empirically possible or not.
Note what is unicorn is not the issue.
The principle is whatever has inherent empirical elements is empirically possible.

Note horses exist empirically, so can a sharp pointed horn. Therefore a horse with a sharp pointed horn is an empirically possible albeit very slim. A horse with a squared-circle horn is not a possibility.

This is a belief and also a conflation (IMO). With this line of reasoning you can justify the possible existence of anything, because there are “empirical elements”. Like orbiting space tea pots.

That is my point, it is the principle that I am concern with, i.e.

The principle is whatever has inherent empirical elements is empirically possible.

Therefore it is empirically possible [odds are very slim] for horses with a sharp pointed horns in front of their head existing individually or as a species somewhere in the Universe.

Based upon current knowledge, there's no evidence of unicorns existing. Therefore, I think that the claim "unicorns don't exist" is reasonable. If we are to claim the possible existence of any mythical beings or creatures (of which unicorns are), because their existence is not impossible due to there being "empirical elements", where do we stop?

Note again,

Note what is unicorn is not the issue.
The principle is whatever has inherent empirical elements is empirically possible.

[Spectrum]

Based upon current knowledge, there's no evidence of unicorns existing. Therefore, I think that the claim "unicorns don't exist" is reasonable. If we are to claim the possible existence of any mythical beings or creatures (of which unicorns are), because their existence is not impossible due to there being "empirical elements", where do we stop?

Agree with myself.
Nah this has nothing to do with Russell's tea pot. I could have say a table, chair, ball, or anything empirical on Earth.
As long as something is empirically-based, it is possible anywhere albeit very slim in outer space but it is not an impossibility.

Thus you have a belief. A belief which I think is unreasonable, but that's debatable.

Note again,
The principle is; whatever has inherent empirical elements is empirically possible anywhere.

Again that is your view.
It is common knowledge many theists accept a real God exists empirically who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claim they can feel and experience the presence of God.
Many theists are hoping Science will one say prove the existence of the God-Particle.

Why are you speaking for many theists? I haven't yet encountered a theist who believes that God is empirical. The theists I've encountered believe God to be a “spirit” of a “spiritual nature” or transcendent. I think that is the general consensus for people's ideas about God including atheists and agnostics.

What is wrong with presenting the views of 'many' theists. I agree there are many views of God but note,

Note:

This fits with most Americans' views: 92% say there is a God and 83% say this God answers prayers, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,000 adults May 1-2. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/re ... 5_ST_N.htm

Where God listens and answers prayers God in this case has to be empirical else there is a conflation of modes of reality.

Then you have to accept God is an impossibility within our default reality, i.e. the empirical-rational reality.

No, I don't. Even if I don't believe that God exists. I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical-rational reality"? Can you be more specific?

I have explained this many times.
Empirical-rational is a mode where the empirical is complemented with reason to arrive at its conclusion, e.g. Science rely on the empirical but also rely on reason and the intellect to arrive at its conclusion.
It is the same with philosophy-proper which relies on the empirical and reason-intellect to philosophize reality.

Where it is a speculative conjecture it is has no credibility at all, thus can be rejected for deliberation of reality.

Speculative conjecture doesn't as a rule mean error. We generally assess the validity and possibility of a claim or claims. Someone can have a hunch or a gut feeling about something that turns out to be correct.

Yes, not error but a question of credibility and veracity.
If the speculation is based on empirical element and presented rationally within an accepted Framework and System, then we weigh it credibility accordingly. Example, Scientific speculations on the empirical are empirical possibilities, e.g. Big Bang.
If the speculation is not based on empirical elements then it is not empirically possible.

What??
Buddhists will agree with my proposition 'the idea of God is psychological and its related problem should be addressed psychologically'.

I am specifically talking about philosophy forum users. I should of made that clear.

This is pointless. Note, once upon a time 99% of a humans believed the Earth was flat. What is of concern is the argument presented, not the views of a small group people or even 99% of humans.

Btw, I have never expected theists nor atheists to accept my arguments in here. I can understand the reasons why do not accept my arguments. For many it is due to the lack of depth in philosophical knowledge and until they dig deeper, I am not expecting them to agree with me. What I am looking forward is as many counter arguments as possible to my thesis so that I can counter them to reinforce my thesis.

That you believe this is an error. If your argument is perfect, how can it be countered?

My argument is deductively perfect [relative]. If after many counters are presented there are no reasonable counters to my argument then it indicate my argument has a high degree of credibility that 'God is an Impossibility' based on reason.
The next phase is to prove the basis of theism is psychological based on empirical evidences and proofs.

Again that is your opinion without justification.
Whatever counters you offered I have contra them effectively;

An opinion yes, but not without justification, because the counter-arguments are valid.

Which of your counter-argument is valid? There are none.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

It is only "your" opinion “absolute perfection” is a nonsense term. 
Note I am a very intensive researcher in this area, so I am very well versed with such a term.

I'll stick with my arguments in this case. What is the difference between a perfect God and an absolutely perfect God?

With a 'perfect God' it could mean relative perfection.
With an absolutely perfect God, it is unconditional perfection which only God [a being than which no greater exists] is capable of.

Note this where I have linked many times. Did you notice this?

In scholastic philosophy, actus purus ( literally "pure act") is the absolute perfection of God.

Created beings have potentiality that is not actuality, imperfections as well as perfection. Only God is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect: 'I am who I am' (Exodus 3:14). His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence necessitates His existence.

Do ensure the above sink in so you don't have to ask again what is meant by 'absolute perfection'.

Where did I argue perfection cannot exist empirically.
I presented there are relative perfection and absolute perfection.
One can have a perfect game of 300 points in ten-pin bowling or 100% perfect score in an objective test, 10/10 scores in sports, etc.

As far as I'm aware, perfection can only be relative to the observer or something that is not perfect. In my view, your understanding of perfection is not correct, as something cannot be more perfect than another perfect thing. 10/10 and 100% are absolutes, the word we use to describe such absolutes is perfect.

Note 'actus purus' above.
God has to be absolutely perfect where no greater perfection can exists.

10/10 say in sports is not absolutely perfect because it conditioned within an agreed criteria and judges. Such a 'perfection' is conditional upon a Framework thus not totally unconditional.

As distinct from empirical perfection, I have argued no matter how one define God, ultimately the idea of God MUST be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God. There is no other way.

There is no such distinction. You're re-iterating your belief.

I have provided argument why God MUST [imperative] be an absolutely perfect God, i.e. the ontological God in this thread and elsewhere.

This is very convoluted.
There will never be any empirical evidence available to prove God is empirically perfect because God in the first place can never be empirically possible.
As I had argued the idea of God is a transcendental illusion thus impossible within the empirical-rational reality.
The only validity for consideration of the idea of God [illusory and impossible] is within mental thoughts and no where else.

These are your beliefs. The fact that God cannot be proven to exist empirically, doesn't make them valid arguments. I'm no genius, but this is philosophy 101.

Yes that is Philosophy 101.
The fact that God cannot be proven to exist empirically is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
How else? explain your counter view?

No theists would agree their God to be inferior and be kicked in the ass by another more superior God. Given the above knowledge and possibility, every theist will gravitate to the ultimate God [than which no greater exists] whose ass cannot be kicked by another other superior God.

Nonsensical (IMO). How do you know what every theist's motivations are? You can guess, but you cannot be certain, such as to label all theists as being or doing something. The only certain claim we can make about about all theists, is that they believe that God exists.

Note I am justifying based on principles of what a God by default is, i.e. ultimately has to be an ontological God. This can be justified from holy texts of all theistic beliefs, e.g. Abrahamic, Hinduism and others.

Of course being humans, some theists may accept their God as an inferior, masochistic, subservient and a useless God that is inferior to another superior God. This is a perversion of theism rather than theism proper.
There are some who believe in a lesser god[s], e.g. monkey, elephant and whatever gods as in Hinduism or Greek mythology, but for them there is always one greatest God that dominate all these lesser gods.

I find the above rather tedious but I am confident there is no way you can counter any of my points. So far there is no reasonable counter from you but I am always one-up [in reply] on your counters and I still have lots of reserve if you can raise the levels of your counters.