Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fanman wrote: ↑January 15th, 2018, 7:55 am Spectrum:

I understand that you've put a lot of work into this. As I've said, I agree that existential angst is one of the causes of religious belief, but I don't agree that there's an ultimate cause of religious belief.

From analysis, the existential factors [crisis, dilemma, angst] is the ultimate cause. If not what other candidates do you think is the possible ultimate cause. I am confident it is the ultimate cause.
Even if you are not sure it is the ultimate cause, it is still the core cause [in combination with others] with a weightage of 90%.

To reinforce your point, provide a listing of all possible causes, like what Eduk had done and estimate the weightage for each cause. However note my point whatever the reasons you raised [not the exceptions] they are reducible to the existential angst.

Is it correct to apply Buddhist philosophy holistically? By taking the tenets of Buddhism and applying them to everyone, aren't you looking at people's beliefs and reasons for belief through the lens of Buddhism, rather than being objective?

I used Buddhism as an example. I would not recommend Buddhism [the religion] as a panacea because as a religion it has its share of negative, albeit not critical. The point here is to address the core and ultimate cause psychologically rather than using God as a security blanket.

I think that in part it does, but you're indication of a main theme is interpretive, not factual.

I agree the Quran is open to wide interpretations.
As I had stated I have done the relevant analysis and arrive at that conclusion. This is not easy to explain in a paragraph. The best verification for you is to read the Quran do any analysis and get an idea of its main theme.
My hypothesis is proven by the acts of SOME Muslims committing the most terrible evils and violence in the name of their God. Even to the extent of killing non-believers who drew cartoons of Muhammad.
Generally it is always the existential factors - kill or be killed when threatened' that motivate one to kill another.

Religious texts have many themes, gaining eternal life is one of them, but whether or not that is the “main theme” is debatable.

Note my challenge to you above. List all possible themes and list the main ones, then put weightage to them.

Again, how do you define secondary?

If one becomes a theist for convenience based on the above elements, that is secondary. Say, if one become a theist merely in name to please his girlfriend, that would not be a theological reason thus secondary.
I have listed existential factors at 90% and the rest as above would be secondary in terms of the insignificance.

I think that most people understand existential crisis and how it affects the psyche (because we all experience it). Your understanding of Buddhism may provide you with more insight, but transferring the teachings of one religion to another may not be the best method of acquiring knowledge. Whilst different religions may share some of the same themes, their approaches to life and death are very different. People may share the same psychological issues, but individually we're very different. So different that people have many different reasons for belief. To isolate an ultimate reason seems at best an educated guess, far from a certainty.

Note my point is not recommending Buddhism as the ONLY way. My emphasis is dealing with the existential problem psychologically rather than theologically.
Note different people get their essential nutrition in many ways of producing, preparing and eating various types of food, but there is only one generic purpose, i.e. to satisfy the hunger impulse and maintaining the health/well-being of the individual to ensure survival.
This central theme re food is not an educated guess.
It is the same for theism [by 90% of people] is driven by the same fundamental theme, i.e. the existential factors.

Then explain why.

You have to get familiar with non-theistic Buddhism and the related Eastern philosophies. They address the psychological existential factors and is non-theistic. In the more refined aspects of Buddhism they even dig down to the level of the atomic levels of the mind [see Abhidharma]. There are many more areas where Buddhism dig very deep in comparison to the Abrahamic theism of merely belief and viola one is saved.

You're joking right?

It is a principle, if a speculation it empirically based, then it is empirically possible. What is the issue with that?
But as I had stated the possibility is very slim, i.e. at 0.001% probability but nevertheless possible and not impossible.
This is empirically provable if there are empirical evidence to justify it.

The idea of a God on the other hand do not have any empirical element at all, thus it is empirically impossible.

I don't think that logical arguments prove that God doesn't exist. I believe they provide (logical) reasons why God's existence is unlikely, but not impossible.

I am not proving God do not exists directly.
I have proven logically the question of God's existence is impossible, i.e. moot and a non-starter.
No one will even consider whether a square-circle exists or doesn't exist or not. It is just an impossibility and a non-starter.

Maybe God (or something God-like) is entirely imagined, maybe not. I don't think that we can currently know for certain.

Note my point above,
Like a square-circle, the idea of a God is just an impossibility and a non-starter.

The idea of God cannot even be imagined since it is non-empirical. The idea of God arose in the mind out of crude reasoning, thus pseudo rational to soothe the psychological angst.

This is arbitrary. My inability to articulate something does not preclude it's existence. The fact that I don't know for sure doesn't mean that I cannot speculate.

You can speculate, but such speculation has to be empirically-based to be a possibility.
In the case of the idea of God, it is a impossibility to start with. You can speculate on such an idea, but it will never be possible to exists as real, e.g. a square-circle.

That is your view, not a matter of fact.

It is not an empirical fact.
It is by reason and logic that one cannot expect a square-circle to exists. The idea of God is along the same line. Kant did not pull his views from the air, he wrote the Critique of Pure Reason to justify why God cannot be really real.

Justified by what?

Surprised you are asking.
Note as in Science, all beliefs has to be justified via the Scientific Method and its Framework and System, then we can call the Justified True Belief.
Einstein's E=MC2 was initially a belief [personal and to those who agreed]. It only become knowledge when it was tested and proven with empirical evidences.

As proven?

Yes, see http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=193474

But we can trust in your hypothesis?

Yes, mine is more credible with the evidences provided compared to the theists' reliance on faith.
You can do your own research based on the various leads I have provided.

QED ?

Yes QED based on all the justifications I have provided above.
One central theme from the Abrahamic religions is God threatens believers and non-believers they will die and end up the terrible burning Hell if they do not believe in God who can save them from the above.
Such a threat triggers the existential alarms within the person and naturally s/he will believe in God and for some its Pascal Wager, i.e. nothing to lose. But they do not realize they are indirectly supporting the malignant elements within theism in general.

Spectrum wrote: ↑January 15th, 2018, 9:23 pm The existential dilemma, crisis, and angst is not merely a fear of death, life after death, but as I has postulated it is a turbulence of existential psychological forces deep with the psychic that is analogically like a 'zombie parasite' that infected ants, etc. that control their behaviors.

Oh, geez. Just because you have "a turbulence of existential psychological forces deep with the psychic that is analogically like a 'zombie parasite' that infected ants, etc. that control their behaviors" doesn't mean everyone does.

Spectrum wrote:

What are the other central theme?

The central but not the only theme of The Bible is messianic. That the Messiah will save us. Prophecies are made in Isaiah and fulfilled in the NT. God evolves from creator, through monogod superior to kings ,to holy prophets, hence to Isaiah's prophecy.

True, all of this is consistent with existential angst.

Your title for this thread is queer. What sort of "Why?" do you intend? Is the 'why?' historical, psychological, theological, anthropological? From what you write you presume that the 'why?' is psychological i.e. existential angst. It's a reasonable hypothesis however what about reasons of social control, historical determinism, or satisfaction of curiosity?

Spectrum:

From analysis, the existential factors [crisis, dilemma, angst] is the ultimate cause. If not what other candidates do you think is the possible ultimate cause. I am confident it is the ultimate cause.
Even if you are not sure it is the ultimate cause, it is still the core cause [in combination with others] with a weightage of 90%.

As I stated, I don't think that there is an ultimate cause for religious belief - that is perhaps an ideal. I wouldn't attempt to apply a percentage to which I think is the greater cause, as it seems arbitrary. There's no way that I could verify my estimation.

To reinforce your point, provide a listing of all possible causes, like what Eduk had done and estimate the weightage for each cause. However note my point whatever the reasons you raised [not the exceptions] they are reducible to the existential angst.

That is confirmation bias (IMO). Since you already think you know the answer, and have provided your answer, what's the point or purpose of me doing so?

If one becomes a theist for convenience based on the above elements, that is secondary. Say, if one become a theist merely in name to please his girlfriend, that would not be a theological reason thus secondary.

I think your distinction is arbitrary. Listing primary and secondary causes for religious belief is interpretive, not factual.

I have listed existential factors at 90% and the rest as above would be secondary in terms of the insignificance.

That doesn't make any sense. Significance is again interpretive. What makes an existential reason for belief “primary” and another reason “secondary”? You need to explain this in more detail.

Note different people get their essential nutrition in many ways of producing, preparing and eating various types of food, but there is only one generic purpose, i.e. to satisfy the hunger impulse and maintaining the health/well-being of the individual to ensure survival.
This central theme re food is not an educated guess.
It is the same for theism [by 90% of people] is driven by the same fundamental theme, i.e. the existential factors.

I think that the psychological factors for belief are more complex than the hunger impulse. In my view, your relation of the two is a conflation - Since a is b then c must also be b.

It is a principle, if a speculation it empirically based, then it is empirically possible. What is the issue with that?
But as I had stated the possibility is very slim, i.e. at 0.001% probability but nevertheless possible and not impossible.
This is empirically provable if there are empirical evidence to justify it.
The idea of a God on the other hand do not have any empirical element at all, thus it is empirically impossible.

I still think that you're joking... You're effectively arguing that there's more chance of a pink unicorn existing than God, because the “empirical elements” exist. That is certainly a joke whichever way you look at it .

I have proven logically the question of God's existence is impossible, i.e. moot and a non-starter.
No one will even consider whether a square-circle exists or doesn't exist or not. It is just an impossibility and a non-starter.

God is not argued to be a "square-circle". If you can demonstrate that God is a square-circle then you might have a point (please don't attempt to, its a rhetorical point).

The idea of God cannot even be imagined since it is non-empirical. The idea of God arose in the mind out of crude reasoning, thus pseudo rational to soothe the psychological angst.

Why can't the idea of God be imagined? Why is it “crude” to reason that God exists? Do you think that there could be other reasons why belief in God arose?

You can speculate, but such speculation has to be empirically-based to be a possibility.

Maybe.

Note as in Science, all beliefs has to be justified via the Scientific Method and its Framework and System, then we can call the Justified True Belief.
Einstein's E=MC2 was initially a belief [personal and to those who agreed]. It only become knowledge when it was tested and proven with empirical evidences.

How would you know if someone that you're in love with also loves you? Interpretation right? There's a chance that you could be right or wrong. I think that the same principle applies with religious beliefs. People interpret their experiences or events to mean something, they may be wrong (deluded) or they may be right (although the chance is slim). As stated, I don't think that we can be as certain about the non-existence of God as you appear to be (100%).

Yes, see

I read a few pages of the link you provided, thanks. However, no one agrees with you on that forum or this one and there are some very good counter-arguments. So factually speaking, you are the only person who believes that you've proven something, which doesn't constitute proof.

Yes, mine is more credible with the evidences provided compared to the theists' reliance on faith.
You can do your own research based on the various leads I have provided.

So we should completely ignore the reasons why people say they believe in God and refer strictly to what we hypothesise because we "know" that's right? Is that reasonable or ethical? I don't think that you can complete an objective study of theistic beliefs without including the views of theists.

Yes QED based on all the justifications I have provided above.

I don't agree.

One central theme from the Abrahamic religions is God threatens believers and non-believers they will die and end up the terrible burning Hell if they do not believe in God who can save them from the above. 

That is certainly one of the themes, but not necessarily the central theme. You can't rule out subjective interpretation when designating the importance of themes.

I can't think of anything that couldn't be thought of as being existential.

Eduk wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 9:03 am I can't think of anything that couldn't be thought of as being existential.

But you can think of things that dont experience angst. The Bible was written by men: it's human to experience angst:

The editors of The Bible intended to supply the messianic answer to human angst.

The editors of The Bible intended to supply the messianic answer to human angst.

How do you know? Did you meet all of them over the last few thousand years? How do you know they weren't lying to you? Or deluding themselves?
I would say the reason/s for writing the Bible would be many and varied. For example when King Henry translated the Bible into English and set himself up as the head of the church in England (if I remember my history properly) were the translators/editors intending to supply the messianic answer to human angst? Or did King Henry just want a divorce?

By the way when I pointed out everything is reducible to existential the terms that was to remove the uniqueness from any given religion. For example I am an atheist for existential reasons (if you so care to reduce it). By which I mean existential reasons are not a reason to be religious per say, anymore than they are a reason not to be religious.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 9:51 amThe editors of The Bible intended to supply the messianic answer to human angst.

Well, it's not quite that simple, given that the bible has been modified many, many times over generations and was essentially put together by a committee where each committee member had his own interpretation and reasons for wanting changes. It's a very human document, with very human foibles.

See Council of Nicea.

Belindi:

The editors of The Bible intended to supply the messianic answer to human angst.

The individual Gospels are themselves edited. They are not first hand accounts or historical in the contemporary sense of the term. They are the retelling of stories, rumours, and inspiration - which, depending on one’s degree of piety, might be considered fiction, divinely inspired, or revelation. I would say that the authors' intent was to share the “good news”. Take out all reference to a messiah and what is left? Certainly not the foundation of a new religion. The early Church Fathers wanted to present a single, unified teaching upheld by a single unified hierarchical church. To this extent we might say that their intent was to support and develop the messianic answer, but that is a faithful and charitable reading that ignores the desire for power and wealth, which may provide a contrary answer to human angst available to those in positions of power and influence. The two may be intertwined.

The general loss of values and virtues due to a tight fisted calculating society, could somehow force people with existential angst syndromes to turn to religion. If this is always profitable is a different thing. Imagine in medivial times, people sought for the fountain of youth due to religious agenda. Nowadays is more moderate and more realistic aims are somehow connected to people who turn to religion.

Scribbler60 wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 10:36 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 9:51 amThe editors of The Bible intended to supply the messianic answer to human angst.

Well, it's not quite that simple, given that the bible has been modified many, many times over generations and was essentially put together by a committee where each committee member had his own interpretation and reasons for wanting changes. It's a very human document, with very human foibles.

See Council of Nicea.

Well perhaps it's just a fear to get a loner in the system. Social isolation spreads by far more, with rude capitalistic methods of a society which turned ice cold in it's heart and lost it's human warmth.

What lose of values and virtues?

Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 4:53 am Spectrum wrote:

What are the other central theme?

The central but not the only theme of The Bible is messianic. That the Messiah will save us. Prophecies are made in Isaiah and fulfilled in the NT. God evolves from creator, through monogod superior to kings ,to holy prophets, hence to Isaiah's prophecy.

True, all of this is consistent with existential angst.

There you go, try and most of the themes will be reducible to the core and central, i.e. the existential angst.

Your title for this thread is queer. What sort of "Why?" do you intend? Is the 'why?' historical, psychological, theological, anthropological? From what you write you presume that the 'why?' is psychological i.e. existential angst. It's a reasonable hypothesis however what about reasons of social control, historical determinism, or satisfaction of curiosity?

Yes, my intention was to draw attention to the fact why people believe in a God [whatever type] is psychological.

I have argued, re why believe in God, I've put a 90% weightage on the existential factors [direct] and 10% on the rest, e.g. political, social, economics, peer pressure, curiosity, etc. as secondary.
Even then I can prove these secondary factors will also be ultimately be reduced to the existential, but this is a different topic.

Why I want to expound 'why belief in a God is psychological' is because it is the most likely [given the evidence of clues to it].
It may not be at present, but given the trend of expanding knowledge, humanity will be able to establish 'God is psychological' as a matter of fact.
Then we can deal with all the evils and violence related to theism from its true perspective, i.e. psychologically on an objective basis.

The psychological basis is not something new, the Eastern Spirituality, e.g. Buddhism-proper, Jainism and others have been dealing with that existential issue on a psychological basis without any baggage of evils, violence and other negatives since thousands of years ago.

You can reflect and ask your own self, why believe in a God [Spinozan] when there is no empiral-rational evidence to support that God exists. Because of peer pressure, the majority is doing it, etc.
Why not the other alternative, i.e. just accept God does not exists [because God is illusory and impossibile]. The fact is you cannot do that, i.e. give up the idea 'God exists.' The reason why you cannot is psychological and I would not recommend you give up the idea unless you have a replacement to deal with that psychological factor.

Fanman wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 7:32 am Spectrum:

From analysis, the existential factors [crisis, dilemma, angst] is the ultimate cause. If not what other candidates do you think is the possible ultimate cause. I am confident it is the ultimate cause.
Even if you are not sure it is the ultimate cause, it is still the core cause [in combination with others] with a weightage of 90%.

As I stated, I don't think that there is an ultimate cause for religious belief - that is perhaps an ideal. I wouldn't attempt to apply a percentage to which I think is the greater cause, as it seems arbitrary. There's no way that I could verify my estimation.

To reinforce your point, provide a listing of all possible causes, like what Eduk had done and estimate the weightage for each cause. However note my point whatever the reasons you raised [not the exceptions] they are reducible to the existential angst.

That is confirmation bias (IMO). Since you already think you know the answer, and have provided your answer, what's the point or purpose of me doing so?

If one becomes a theist for convenience based on the above elements, that is secondary. Say, if one become a theist merely in name to please his girlfriend, that would not be a theological reason thus secondary.

I think your distinction is arbitrary. Listing primary and secondary causes for religious belief is interpretive, not factual.

I have listed existential factors at 90% and the rest as above would be secondary in terms of the insignificance.

That doesn't make any sense. Significance is again interpretive. What makes an existential reason for belief “primary” and another reason “secondary”? You need to explain this in more detail.

This is a discussion and you are presenting an alternative view.
Thus there is nothing wrong in producing a list and giving your best estimation and you will get feedback. This is merely to reinforce your views and this how knowledge progresses.

Whether it is primary or secondary has to be objective against the various sources of knowledge in context, i.e. from the holy texts, from words of believers, etc.
Being a theist to please and marry one's girlfriend is obviously secondary in relation to the holy texts. Which holy texts would emphasize on such a reason as primary.

Note different people get their essential nutrition in many ways of producing, preparing and eating various types of food, but there is only one generic purpose, i.e. to satisfy the hunger impulse and maintaining the health/well-being of the individual to ensure survival.
This central theme re food is not an educated guess.
It is the same for theism [by 90% of people] is driven by the same fundamental theme, i.e. the existential factors.

I think that the psychological factors for belief are more complex than the hunger impulse. In my view, your relation of the two is a conflation - Since a is b then c must also be b.

I did not say they are 100% the same. The existential drive is the most basic and the hunger drive is just one level from the existential drive. To survive it is critical one must eat. I use the hunger drive to give you an idea of the principles which is the same. I could have referred to the drive to breathe.

It is a principle, if a speculation it empirically based, then it is empirically possible. What is the issue with that?
But as I had stated the possibility is very slim, i.e. at 0.001% probability but nevertheless possible and not impossible.
This is empirically provable if there are empirical evidence to justify it.
The idea of a God on the other hand do not have any empirical element at all, thus it is empirically impossible.

I still think that you're joking... You're effectively arguing that there's more chance of a pink unicorn existing than God, because the “empirical elements” exist. That is certainly a joke whichever way you look at it .

Note there are two distinct perspectives involve, i.e.

• 1. Empirically possible
  2. Empirically impossible - purely reason.

Because God do not has any empirical elements, the idea of God is totally out of the empirical-rational SET.
A pink unicorn has empirical elements thus it is a subset of the empirical-rational set, thus it it empirically possible.

The consideration of 1 and 2 above is critical.
E.g. Dawkins being a Scientist assume God is in the empirical sense, thus give the concept of God an empirical possibility. Thus from his Scientific perspective he is agnostic and give a 1/7 probability God exists. But he compared that possibility to Zeus existing.
Dawkins in this case is unphilosophical and off target, i.e. wrong.

On the other hand, I as with Kant has demonstrated that the idea of God do not has any empirical elements, thus it is 100% impossible to be empirically based.

Read this [from Kant] carefully a few times [mine],

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, the Whole Universe] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 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 [God, Soul, the Whole Universe] 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

I have proven logically the question of God's existence is impossible, i.e. moot and a non-starter.
No one will even consider whether a square-circle exists or doesn't exist or not. It is just an impossibility and a non-starter.

God is not argued to be a "square-circle". If you can demonstrate that God is a square-circle then you might have a point (please don't attempt to, its a rhetorical point).

I have given reason why God is an impossibility. Note Kant pointed above, God is an illusion, thus in a way an impossibility to be real in the empirical-rational reality.
It is not but similar in principle to a square-circle.

The idea of God cannot even be imagined since it is non-empirical. The idea of God arose in the mind out of crude reasoning, thus pseudo rational to soothe the psychological angst.

Why can't the idea of God be imagined? Why is it “crude” to reason that God exists? Do you think that there could be other reasons why belief in God arose?

Whatever can be imagined [image] is by default empirically possible. Can you draw an 'image' of an ontological God?
The only reason how the idea of God arose is due to "crude" reason [see Kant above re pseudo-rational] as driven by desperate psychological factors.
The fact is the idea of God conjured from crude reasons really works to soothe the psychological angst.

You can speculate, but such speculation has to be empirically-based to be a possibility.

Maybe.

It is the truth.

Note as in Science, all beliefs has to be justified via the Scientific Method and its Framework and System, then we can call the Justified True Belief.
Einstein's E=MC2 was initially a belief [personal and to those who agreed]. It only become knowledge when it was tested and proven with empirical evidences.

How would you know if someone that you're in love with also loves you? Interpretation right? There's a chance that you could be right or wrong. I think that the same principle applies with religious beliefs. People interpret their experiences or events to mean something, they may be wrong (deluded) or they may be right (although the chance is slim). As stated, I don't think that we can be as certain about the non-existence of God as you appear to be (100%).

Whether someone love another is not the issue here. The fact is loving someone is an empirical possibility. This can be made more objective with brain imagings and many other criteria that can be objectively determined.

OTOH, believing in a God is an impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.
The idea of God [as a subset] can never fit into the empirical-rational set at all.

Note, note and note; I believe you missed this critical point and is conflating the empirical-rational with that of crude reason [the empirically impossible].

Yes, see

I read a few pages of the link you provided, thanks. However, no one agrees with you on that forum or this one and there are some very good counter-arguments. So factually speaking, you are the only person who believes that you've proven something, which doesn't constitute proof.

As far as I have known, no one has provided any effective counter-argument, otherwise I would have continued to deal with whatever is an outstanding issue.
I think a few posters did agree in some ways but that is not the critical point. What is critical is whether the argument is sound or not.
In addition, that idea is rested upon the giant shoulders of Kant which lend a degree of credibility. [unless you can prove Kant was wrong in his claim God is a transcendental illusion as quoted above].

Yes, mine is more credible with the evidences provided compared to the theists' reliance on faith.
You can do your own research based on the various leads I have provided.

So we should completely ignore the reasons why people say they believe in God and refer strictly to what we hypothesise because we "know" that's right? Is that reasonable or ethical? I don't think that you can complete an objective study of theistic beliefs without including the views of theists.

Whatever the views of theists it would be confirmation bias due to the fundamental desperate psychological existential forces that compel theists believe in a God.
The real basis for the idea of God is psychological but at present knowing the current psychological state of the majority, I am not expecting theists to accept my argument. See my empathic provision for theists in my signature below.
We cannot expect theists to give up their theism until there are effective fool proof alternative replacements to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis deep within their psyche. Such is only expected to be possible in the future (>50, 75 ?? years). But at present we need to discuss the issue.

One central theme from the Abrahamic religions is God threatens believers and non-believers they will die and end up the terrible burning Hell if they do not believe in God who can save them from the above. 

That is certainly one of the themes, but not necessarily the central theme. You can't rule out subjective interpretation when designating the importance of themes.

What is more critical than from God's words in the holy texts? Obviously in this case, we have to give heavier weightage to the theists' God. Another critical point is objective observations from independent observers.

The subjective views from theists cannot be reliable due to the confirmation bias tendency compelled by the desperate existential forces within their psyche.

Eduk wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 9:03 am I can't think of anything that couldn't be thought of as being existential.

• "I can't think of anything that couldn't be thought of as being existential."
  The idea of God is a 'thing'.
  Therefore the idea of God is existential [related].

From research of holy texts and experiences of theists, the existential elements is the most critical.
Therefore the idea of God is psychological [existential] and not existing independently as real out there.