A proof for the existence of God?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Nonsense. Let's take an example. We all know babies are born without language. Yet they learn without translation to interprete the sounds of the world into language. Part of this may be genetic, but the external learning exists, though language is strictly a human concept. I have learned english without a translator handy. We all learn languages this way.

The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
The point is that learning a language either has to be taught, or reasoned. And it is impossible to learn a language merely by reading a book since there are no visual/time/emotional clues within the text itself.

Any Mind which would be observing the external data of the universe, has to reason the meaning of that data for itself. Clearly, the Mind must know universal data before it creates a responding sensation; in the same way that I can only respond kindly to "Guten morgen" when I finally understand what that information means.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Here one day and gone the next. Yes, but where did it go? ... and where do we go when we die?

Where did what go?

When we die then we stop being I, cause then we do not have the possibility to refer to ourselves as I, yet the world itself does not stop having that property to refer to itself. The world will still be.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
IMO, until we actually "know" all the laws of physics, which we don't, I don't think we can say this. I would be willing to restate it like this:

"There are no known laws of physics which transform an understanding of those laws into sensation."

The laws of physics are about the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields. The point at which these motions are transformed into abstract sensations is not something which the laws of physics can even address. The sensations are abstract experiences which mirror those laws of physics, but which are not the same thing. As such, they are distinct from the laws of physics.
It will never be possible, for example, to explain 'pain' in terms of
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields.". For at some point, we have to address the abstract representationalism which is the mirroring sensation of those physics.

You don't seem to grasp the distinction between sensation and physics. You kind of infer that they are both the same. That somehow
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields." can suddenly yield abstract experience, at a specific point within this process. But I cannot accept this point. The distinction between physics and sensation is not something which fades away as the physics becomes more complex. The distinction is eternally concrete, imo.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The laws of physics are about the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields. The point at which these motions are transformed into abstract sensations is not something which the laws of physics can even address.

Just like adding 2 and subtracting 4 has nothing to do with drawing complex pictures. Yet somehow it does it anyway. I see the above statement as another assumption in your argument.

You don't seem to grasp the distinction between sensation and physics. You kind of infer that they are both the same. That somehow
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields." can suddenly yield abstract experience, at a specific point within this process. But I cannot accept this point.

Oh I do see the distinction. If I didn't then your point would be absolutely absurd. The fact that I DO see the distinction is why I think your point is a good one. It's just that I also see an alternative explanation. Ok you cannot accept it. But hopefully you can see that logically it is an alternative. Otherwise, the idea that perception cannot come from the laws of physics or information should be listed as an assumption in your very first thread. Because it can be demonstrated that complex, holist creations can result from totally simple, unrelated reductive parts.

What I'm seeing the more I read and particpate in these materialism versus non-materialism threads is that regardless of which view you conclude, the conclusion is built into the assumptions. This is what I kept trying to telling Heusdens. That he/she cannot conclude materialism without relying on the material world for evidence. Here it seems you are doing a similar thing. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that no laws of physics or information/complexity can produce the process known as "sensations". You claim this even though this is likely a viable explanation for sensations in science today. With this assumption you are bound to concude that the mind came first and then all the other things that stem from that.

Please understand that I see your point clearly about the mind needing knowledge before perception. It is not something that I have thought about before and I think it is a worthy point. I think if anything it puts even more pressure on complexity/information theories to be correct explanations for things. In an odd sort of way, you might could argue that what I'm saying is not inconsistent with what you are saying. You could argue that the "knowledge" is built into the code and therefore did come before perception. ie. The fractal image is built into the 3 steps before the image was created. So how did this knowledgeable code get there?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
What I'm seeing the more I read and particpate in these materialism versus non-materialism threads is that regardless of which view you conclude, the conclusion is built into the assumptions. This is what I kept trying to telling Heusdens. That he/she cannot conclude materialism without relying on the material world for evidence. Here it seems you are doing a similar thing. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that no laws of physics or information/complexity can produce the process known as "sensations". You claim this even though this is likely a viable explanation for sensations in science today. With this assumption you are bound to concude that the mind came first and then all the other things that stem from that.

Have you seen my post regarding the conclusions which you have to make NOT to assume the existence of the material world?
In essence the world comes to this, the world exists because it can refer to itself. The world also can refer to me, that is why I can exist in the world. If the world would not exist, then I could not exist. That is why I HAVE to asume the world exists.

Please understand that I see your point clearly about the mind needing knowledge before perception. It is not something that I have thought about before and I think it is a worthy point. I think if anything it puts even more pressure on complexity/information theories to be correct explanations for things. In an odd sort of way, you might could argue that what I'm saying is not inconsistent with what you are saying. You could argue that the "knowledge" is built into the code and therefore did come before perception. ie. The fractal image is built into the 3 steps before the image was created. So how did this knowledgeable code get there?

This is like saying that mutations occur in evolution prior to their persistence in reproduction. If the living thing benefits from the mutation, the mutation persists, and else will exhaust. However, no prior knowledge has to be assumed.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok you cannot accept it. But hopefully yuo can see that logically it is an alternative.

You seem to think that because what we sense can be manipulated/orchestrated, that the manipulated sensation is created externally. This is simply not true. That's like saying that the organisers of a firework display are the creators of the organised-colours which you actually see at the display. Clearly, the firework-organisers are nothing more than the manipulators/orchestrators of colour within your sensation. They have not created the actual sensations of colour which 'you' are aware of.
In exactly the same manner, a set of instructions which manipulate an image to yield 'fractal-art' are not the creators of the sensations of colour which you see when you look at the final product.
I'm sorry to say this, but I do not see your idea as a logical alternative; simply because I think the basis of your idea is wrong.
The creation of sensation - manipulated or not - is a product borne directly of the Mind itself.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
The point is that learning a language either has to be taught, or reasoned. And it is impossible to learn a language merely by reading a book since there are no visual/time/emotional clues within the text itself.

Any Mind which would be observing the external data of the universe, has to reason the meaning of that data for itself. Clearly, the Mind must know universal data before it creates a responding sensation; in the same way that I can only respond kindly to "Guten morgen" when I finally understand what that information means.

Well atually, I have alread learned a language (conversationally) from a book. I don't see how it's really relevant to your hypothesis, that someone can/cannot learn language from a book. After all, your hypothesis dictates that I should already know what it means (or, at least my subconscious Mind should already know).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You seem to think that because what we sense can be manipulated/orchestrated, that the manipulated sensation is created externally. This is simply not true. That's like saying that the organisers of a firework display are the creators of the organised-colours which you actually see at the display. Clearly, the firework-organisers are nothing more than the manipulators/orchestrators of colour within your sensation. They have not created the actual sensations of colour which 'you' are aware of.
In exactly the same manner, a set of instructions which manipulate an image to yield 'fractal-art' are not the creators of the sensations of colour which you see when you look at the final product.
I'm sorry to say this, but I do not see your idea as a logical alternative; simply because I think the basis of your idea is wrong.
The creation of sensation - manipulated or not - is a product borne directly of the Mind itself.

Lifegazer, I'm afraid that you're still interpreting my analogy too literally. I'll have to think about this some and see if I can come up with another analogy. Also, I would encourage you to re-read all that I've written and think about it some more. I thought after the 2nd post it might have been clearer.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".

And how do we do that? Because our genes teach us by instinct. The concept of knowledge did not emerge from the mind, but from material information. There is no way for you to prove otherwise.

 

[FZ+]

Somethings are best done by a chat. If anybody is interested, turn up to the chat tonight, and maybe we'll set up a sub-chatroom for this discussion, if it still is a discussion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Where did what go?

When we die then we stop being I, cause then we do not have the possibility to refer to ourselves as I, yet the world itself does not stop having that property to refer to itself. The world will still be.

You mentioned something about not being able to determine something doesn't exist. Well I'm saying you can, if in fact it "did exist," prior to its being destroyed (or death).

 

[CJames]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.
It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.
Creating sensation is a 'function' which cannot be learned. This is a fact, since there's nothing to learn these things from.

Now, please read the argument again.

It learns by simple trial and error. You are correct in saying that "no thing has taught It these things." It learns it on its own. Before you tell me to read the argument again, please listen to what I am saying. A newborn child has no idea what it is seeing, feeling, smelling. In fact, infants actually interpret smells as sights, noises as feelings. They are clueless. But there are patterns in the data. Once these patterns are sorted out, it can then represent what it is sensing.

You are correct, some things we just know. We are all born with the ability to feel pain. So are all mamals and many other animals. This is an instinct. Where can you possibly prove that this instinct isn't the result of millions of years of evolution?

You can't work with the assumption that the material world doesn't exist while you are trying to prove that it doesn't exist. There are multiple conclusions.

Pain is a sensation that helps protect us from dangerous situations. Situations that are harmful to our bodies. If the external reality wasn't real, why would we have such a sense?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You mentioned something about not being able to determine something doesn't exist. Well I'm saying you can, if in fact it "did exist," prior to its being destroyed (or death).

I was referring to the idea of this topic ('The Mind'), which lacks existence, but which one can not proof. If something had existence, in theory this can be falsified. Because in fact something what had existence leaves traces, cause nothing disapears into thin air, but leaves traces, which can be found.

I was more thinking of issue of existence/inexistence in the theoretical claims. For instance suppose a physicist came up with the thought of postulaing the existence of P particles. The theoretical models prescribes how P particles do behave, but the theoretical claim is that P particles can not interact in any way with normal matter. They can in this theory literally go trough normal matter and be at the same places where normal matter is. Now, one can never disproof the existence of such P particles. Neither can one proof they do exist.

The debate about 'The Mind' which is also claimed on purely theoretical grounds, is like wise. One cannot disproof it, neither proof it. One can just discuss about it endlessly and fruitlessly.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Pain is a sensation that helps protect us from dangerous situations. Situations that are harmful to our bodies. If the external reality wasn't real, why would we have such a sense?

The hypothese of 'The Mind' just asks us to do that. Throw away all the knowledge we have of the material world, including the theory of evolution, which explains how living organisms evolve from simpeler species, and ultimately arive out of dead organic material, and developed sensory organs.

This has to be replaced with an unprovable and absurd thesis about the existenc of 'The Mind'.

Can't see why anybody would buy that.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
A newborn child has no idea what it is seeing, feeling, smelling. In fact, infants actually interpret smells as sights, noises as feelings. They are clueless. But there are patterns in the data. Once these patterns are sorted out, it can then represent what it is sensing.

You're talking about the ability of concious-awareness (of the baby)to understand what it is already sensing. I'm talking about the aspect of the Mind which creates the sensation in relation to the universe; and thus already understands the universe in order to create the sensations of it.

Where can you possibly prove that this instinct isn't the result of millions of years of evolution?

If sensations do not accurately depict what's going on in the universe, then the organism which has those sensations is probably better off without them. If information (contained within the senses) is wrong, then that information is not only useless, but highly-dangerous.
There is no room for the evolution of sensation-creation. Sensations have been accurate for as long as organisms have been having sensations. I don't buy the idea that sensations used to be anything-but accurate depictions of universal-reality, and then slowly evolved towards accuracy. If this was the case, all organisms which acquired sensation would have died-out almost immediately.

You can't work with the assumption that the material world doesn't exist while you are trying to prove that it doesn't exist. There are multiple conclusions.

My argument builds towards that conclusion. I don't assume that at all.

Pain is a sensation that helps protect us from dangerous situations. Situations that are harmful to our bodies.

I remember stating the exact-same thing, several pages ago.

If the external reality wasn't real, why would we have such a sense?

The point is that 'conciousness' believes that it exists within its own perceptions. The point is that there is a point to this perceived existence. A purpose.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My argument builds towards that conclusion. I don't assume that at all.

Not so. It ain't a conclusion, it is the very premise of your hypothese that everything that exists outside of your mind, is 'mind-stuff'. Which you haven't proven in the least, in fact you have not even proved, just assumed, you had a mind yourself.
You can't go around like that building a conclusion into the assumptions that lead to the conclusion, and assuming anything that were not previously proven, while starting criticizing other ideas (materialism) for not having proven it's premises. You have never proven materialism is wrong, and can't proof that. The only thing you done is provide circular reasoning for 'something else' that builds up from the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that what was what assumed. That won't do at all.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Not so. It ain't a conclusion, it is the very premise of your hypothese that everything that exists outside of your mind, is 'mind-stuff'. Which you haven't proven in the least, in fact you have not even proved, just assumed, you had a mind yourself.
You can't go around like that building a conclusion into the assumptions that lead to the conclusion, and assuming anything that were not previously proven, while starting criticizing other ideas (materialism) for not having proven it's premises. You have never proven materialism is wrong, and can't proof that. The only thing you done is provide circular reasoning for 'something else' that builds up from the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that what was what assumed. That won't do at all.

I intend to post a summary later, if I have time. I will try to cover all relevant complaints and confusions which relate to my original argument.
Perhaps you should ponder the fact that despite the large volume of your responses, I will not be including any reference to a single thing you have said. Everything you have said is either incorrect or irrelevant.
For the benefit of my own summary, and to render meaningless everything you have said, I shall repeat a post which I made on page 20 of this thread:-

"I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists.
Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-9, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed. If it makes sense, then so would an external-reality. But as an external reality does not make sense (see the argument for details), I can actually conclude (myself) that there is no sense in an external reality.
Hence, I have reason for my own stance... and reason which destroys yours. Whereas you have no reason to destroy the Mind-reality. And you only have beliefs to defend materialism. That's right: beliefs.
My point is that there is nothing which you have said which constitutes a logical argument to support materialism. You either have to do that by the aforementioned method, above. Or you have to build an argument which starts exactly like mine. For, let's be clear about this:- a philosopher who doesn't realize that sensory-experience is the only means of confirming existence (apart from the mind-attributes of reason; will; emotion), can easily start to convince his audience that existence is so-much-more than "sensory-experience".
They'll tell us things like existence is external, because things are interacting independently of 'my' mind. But they're not acting independently to the mind - because they're happening directly within your awareness!
I absolutely-declare that there's not one single statement that can be made for the defense of materialism, which cannot be shown to be a mistake. Tom made the same mistake too, when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.
Everything which you have said is meaningless. Simply because everything you have said is a mistake. It doesn't validate material-reality; no more than the three examples I gave, above, did either.
I an not BSing anyone here. We only have an inner-reality. It's the only thing which can be confirmed by reason.
And from this fact, my argument did proceed. Please address it. Let's forget this defending of materialism nonsense. Because there is no justification for an external reality. None whatsoever."

If you cannot honestly acknowledge the shortcomings of materialism, as mentioned above, then I can only suggest that your posts are reflective of somebody not interested in 'debate', but in preserving the status-quo which materialism has presided over for the last couple of centuries.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Have you seen my post regarding the conclusions which you have to make NOT to assume the existence of the material world?
In essence the world comes to this, the world exists because it can refer to itself. The world also can refer to me, that is why I can exist in the world. If the world would not exist, then I could not exist. That is why I HAVE to asume the world exists.

I don't understand this. Why does the world need to exist for you to exist?

This is like saying that mutations occur in evolution prior to their persistence in reproduction. If the living thing benefits from the mutation, the mutation persists, and else will exhaust. However, no prior knowledge has to be assumed.

No it isn't like that. The laws of complexity and information are not a product of evolution. They just are. So to the extent that laws have the ability to build complex creations when applied over and over, one can make the argument that the creations themselves are built into these laws.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.

I actually agree with everything you said in this post. I wish Heusdens would have directed his/her attention to critiquing your argument rather than trying to prove materialism. It has wasted a lot of space in this thread.

But let me try something with you one more time. Perhaps if nothing else, this will let you see how I'm viewing this "knowledge before perception" thing and maybe you can direct my thinking in a different way if I'm not understanding.

For my analogy, let's concentrate on the minds creation of "words used to describe colors". So, we're talking about the creation of part of our language. We're talking about the "labels" that are going to be used to refer to colors.

Let's say I see a certain color for the first time and I decide to call this color "blue". From now on, whenever I see this color, I will say "BLUE!". This word did not exist for any reason prior to it being used in this way. So my mind "created" this label for this color. I think we can all agree that the color has absolutely nothing to do with the word "blue". The color didn't jump into my mind and suggest that it's name is "blue". My mind completely made the label up on it's on. The only relationship between the color I see and the word "blue" is in my mind.

Now all of this is exactly consistent with the picture you have painted about the experience of pain, for example. The mind has created this sensation to associate with a certain pain causing event. Just like the label "blue, the only relationship between the experience of pain and this event is in the mind. The event doesn't know what pain is. Only the mind does.

So these 2 things seem to be the same. So here's the question. Why does the mind need to have prior "knowledge" of colors to be able to "create" and assign a label like "blue" to them? The label could have been "red" couldn't it? As long as we all call it the same thing the label serves it's purpose.

That same question for the sensations is:

Why does the mind need to have "prior" knowledge of the pain causing event(or the universe) in order to create and assign an experience
to it?

This is where I'm stuck. I don't understand why prior knowledge is needed in order to assign a "tag", if you will, to an event. It seems all you would need is the ability to recognize the event/color and then the ability to create a sensation/label to assign to it.

To go any farther then this would be suggesting that the label "blue" is actually somehow related to the color itself in some way outside of the mind! When we've already established that there is no relationship at all. It's just a label the mind made up for the purposes of assigning it to that color. The same with pain. If the universe doesn't know what pain is, establishing that there is no connection between pain and the universe, then what is it that the mind has prior knowledge of?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
This is where I'm stuck. I don't understand why prior knowledge is needed in order to assign a "tag" if you will to an event. It seems all you would need is the ability to recognize the event/color and then the ability to create a sensation/label to assign to it.

Concious-awareness assigns labels/tags to sensory-experience.
Concious-awareness doesn't assign tags to an external event.
The subconcious-Mind is the source of the sensations. Conciousness is the source of tags, through sensation.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Concious-awareness assigns labels/tags to sensory-experience.
Concious-awareness doesn't assign tags to an external event.
The subconcious-Mind is the source of the sensations. Conciousness is the source of tags, through sensation.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Even if all of this true, the question remains:

Why does the mind need to have prior knowledge of colors to be able to assign a tag like "blue" to it?

 

[CJames]

Hi LG.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You're talking about the ability of concious-awareness (of the baby)to understand what it is already sensing. I'm talking about the aspect of the Mind which creates the sensation in relation to the universe; and thus already understands the universe in order to create the sensations of it.

The "aspect of the Mind" creating the sensation doesn't understand the universe. It only understands the five senses. There is no order to it. There is no understanding of the laws of physics in it. The fact that this part of the mind exists does not imply that it has created everything. It implies that we have those senses for a reason.

If sensations do not accurately depict what's going on in the universe, then the organism which has those sensations is probably better off without them. If information (contained within the senses) is wrong, then that information is not only useless, but highly-dangerous.

Yes, and only if the universe is real enough to pose a threat.

There is no room for the evolution of sensation-creation. Sensations have been accurate for as long as organisms have been having sensations. I don't buy the idea that sensations used to be anything-but accurate depictions of universal-reality, and then slowly evolved towards accuracy. If this was the case, all organisms which acquired sensation would have died-out almost immediately.

The first cells had no sensations at all. They simply multiplied so fast that they survived no matter what. Eventually senses began to form. Those that weren't accurate posed no advantage and, as you said, died out almost immediately. But when a sensation evolved from a mutation that ended up working, it was kept. Of course the theory of evolution has grown quite a bit since than, and there is much more to it than chance.

My argument builds towards that conclusion. I don't assume that at all.

Making a statement doesn't change the facts. You are attempting to prove that the external universe does not exist by saying we are born with sensations. You argue that since we are born with these sensations, we have knowledge of the universe before we ever sense it. I counter that argument by saying we are born with these sensations due to evolution. You disregard my argument because it assumes there is an external universe. Therefore, you are attempting to prove there is no external universe by first assuming that one does not exist.

I remember stating the exact-same thing, several pages ago.

The point is that 'conciousness' believes that it exists within its own perceptions. The point is that there is a point to this perceived existence. A purpose.

If our minds are made to assume an external universe exists, it must be in our best interests to do so, otherwise we wouldn't have created it in the first place. You would be going against this and threatening all of us by attempting to prove otherwise.

--Carter

 

[DR OF DEATH]

ok i don't know how many of you guys were members of physicsforums' last incarnation, but this topic was debated to death and we still couldn't agree but my argument was that if god exzists why do all the bad things in the world happen, and why does he allow us to sin. also if god is all powerfull can he create a stone he cannot lift. the answer is no as if he can create the stone he is not all powerfull cos he can't lift it, but if he can't create the stone then he is not all powerfull. therefore he cannot possiably be all powerfull. therefore our definition of god is inaccurate. this means our whole belief system is flawed which makes god a flawed being himself. if god is flawed however, he logically cannot be a god and therefore does not exist according to the way we define. so in simple terms god logically cannot exist as we belief in a god that cannot possiablly be the way we define him to be. QED god has left the universe and will not be returning.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

this topic was debated to death and we still couldn't agree

So let's move on.