A proof for the existence of God?

[Iacchus32]

Not to make you feel any more exasperated ... but what if God really does exist?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Wether Mr Lifegazer assumes or not assumes there is a God, and wether he actually believes his statements about that or not, is of course of no interest for the discussions itself.

Really? Don't you think it's important?

The only thing interesting is to see that he uses wrong reasoning to come up with this Deity. First and foremost he rejects:

1- That there exists a material world,

I am saying that my reason rejects a material world because
my reason has shown that reality is completely Mindful.
Our perceptions/senses/thoughts/feelings are real. I'm not saying that none of you exist. I'm saying that none of you are what you think you are. 'You' are an aspect of The Mind itself.

2- The existing material world cannot have a beginning in time.

Of course it can. The Mind just has to start thinking about it.

Since this would imply the appearance of matter from nothing

No it wouldn't. It would imply the appearance of thoughts and images (senses), within the Mind.

and that motion arises out of no motion.

Close your eyes and imagine a scene where you are driving through the country. The space you are moving through is the space-of-the-mind.
Somehow, it is a fact that the mind has the capacity to move through itself. Dreams and fantasies confirm this. Like I said in my first post, we have a sense of motion and balance. Perhaps you can relate it to the sense of 'touch'. But anyway, we feel motion and gravity, nevertheless - to such an extent that we can use these feelings to fuel our imaginations and dreams.
The Mind can move through its own space, even though the Mind doesn't have to travel through real 4-dimensional space.

This follows from our daily perceptions, and hundreds of years of scientific research. We don't want to have that thrown out of the window, just for enabling mythical things to have happened.

I'm not throwing anything out of the window. Everything which we know has its own value. That value doesn't fade. Only feelings change. And attitudes.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not to make you feel any more exasperated ... but what if God really does exist?

I'll invite him for a cup of coffee then and a good philosophical debate, and will go on debating until even God is convinced he does not exist!

But seriously, it does not come to my mind to actually think there is a God, since "God" is only a human made concept, we have "invented" for some or other purpose.

But your reasoning seems to imply that on some level you think you never can know that. While the fact is, we can. At least to the extend which should satisfy our reasoning system (which have a mind of it's own).

All other and lower part of us, never seem to have this kind of trouble. Our stomach digests the food that enters from the "outside" world, and never troubles itself with the question "does this food really exist, or just the sensation that evolves". The atoms and moleclues we are made of, really never question gravity.

In fact, your desperateness, expresses what being human is all about. We all have fears, and we all have limited knowledge, and we all are in any or more ways dependend on others, on nature, etc.

We have to understand that "God" is a sublimation of these fears, and uncertainties that is involved in human existence, now and in the past. In fact the "believing" part of us, is a necessary part of us. When we have insufficient knowledge, yet need to make a vital decission, we can not go around in circular things, but sometimes the world and our being necessitates us to make the best possible guess, which can not be argues on mere reason.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
I'll invite him for a cup of coffee then!

Well He might just take you up on it!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Really? Don't you think it's important?

Yes and no.

Yes, because this is, and can't help to be, an formal and abstract discussion, in which you, who you are, and what you think, feel or believe, is of no importance.

No. Because no matter how hard and how solid I can present my evidence for materialism and the denial of the existence of a deity, I can of course not deny that a belief in a deity and religion as such do exist, and to explain that fact is in fact a total different, but related, discussion.
But this would involve much more then abstract formal discussions, it could or would involve also other sides of one's being into the discussion, etc. I don't think this medium is the best place to discuss that kind of topics.

I am saying that my reason rejects a material world because
my reason has shown that reality is completely Mindful.
Our perceptions/senses/thoughts/feelings are real. I'm not saying that none of you exist. I'm saying that none of you are what you think you are. 'You' are an aspect of The Mind itself.

The aspect of 'mindfullness' of the world is is not as such disputable, but should be considered an integral part of materialism, and the relation between matter and mind, itself. The way in which is done, is better known as dialectical-materialism.

I am aware of the fact that my numerous layers of existence, that ultimately form me, are partly covered and are unconscious. I don't "think" about digesting my food, my stomach and other involved systems do that on themselves, not interacted (most part) by any consciouss awareness or interruption.

I am aware that I don't look upon myself as any other form of unconscious matter, yet I am of the same matter, only enormously more complex, and with an enormously long hisotry of development.

But sometimes I do try to bring such unconsciouss levels into consciousness (like now). We are nothing more then machines. Very sophistaced and self-aware, but we are part of matter, part of nature.

Of course it can. The Mind just has to start thinking about it.

The fact the we as humans, like most other real entities, have this specific form only temporarily, makes it for us very natural to look upon reality this way. Where have we ever encountered as a real experience infiniteness? We haven't. So what we really state or assume that this is what material existence is about, is beyond ordinary perception. It's quite natural of course to think that, since everything has a begin and an end (also this discussion), so has the world as such.

But the point I was making was this. Even when we think in our imagination that crocodiles can fly, this does not provide for the real world the ability for crocodiles to fly (unless they in a couple of millions of years mutate into birds again..)

No it wouldn't. It would imply the appearance of thoughts and images (senses), within the Mind.

Yes. But we are talking on totally different grounds here. The (first) appearances of thoughts and senses imply the development of a human being after the conception towards a full grown human being.
That is not the appearenc of the world itself, but your awareness of that world. We are speaking about different things.

Close your eyes and imagine a scene where you are driving through the country. The space you are moving through is the space-of-the-mind.
Somehow, it is a fact that the mind has the capacity to move through itself. Dreams and fantasies confirm this. Like I said in my first post, we have a sense of motion and balance. Perhaps you can relate it to the sense of 'touch'. But anyway, we feel motion and gravity, nevertheless - to such an extent that we can use these feelings to fuel our imaginations and dreams.
The Mind can move through its own space, even though the Mind doesn't have to travel through real 4-dimensional space.

We use sometimes the same words in manner of speach, that have different meaning. If my mind "goes somewhere" this does not imply physical motion of any sorts (involving the movement of my complete body) but to "thoughts processes" (which of course are also ultimately material, and therefore necessary imply "motion" as in chemcial/neural stimuli in the synapses and such).

You are stating things about a situation which already contains lots of motions. All parts of your brain and your body, at all levels, are in constant motion. On the atomic level, the chemical level, the cells, and organs, and so on. So, here just applies the laws that govern the matter on the different levels.
But in no way this has anything to do with a state-of-the world in which there was no motion at all (of which I was talking), that comes into motion.

I think it would benefit the discussion if you try to separate the different meanings, and not use them out of context.

I'm not throwing anything out of the window. Everything which we know has its own value. That value doesn't fade. Only feelings change. And attitudes.

Do you imply that based on this schism in worlview (materialism<->idealism) there is a significant difference in feelings / attitude?
Is believing in God a better feeling/attitude towards live then non-believers? It think that would be very prejudiced.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
We have to understand that "God" is a sublimation of these fears, and uncertainties that is involved in human existence, now and in the past. In fact the "believing" part of us, is a necessary part of us. When we have insufficient knowledge, yet need to make a vital decission, we can not go around in circular things, but sometimes the world and our being necessitates us to make the best possible guess, which can not be argues on mere reason.

Live and learn! ...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Live and learn! ...

... and feel, and think, and do, and struggle, and make mistakes, and learn from them... etc,

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Now, wait a minute. Something had to impose the pain, didn't it? The mind may be the only thing that knows what pain is (even though that is debatable, given the fact that primitive life-forms can also feel pain), but why would it choose to impose "pain" on itself?

If 'you' feel that you exist within 'this universe', feeling pain is definitely an advantage for keeping healthy and alive... in the long-run. It's an aid to survival.

If it were imposed from an external source

There can be nothing external to a singularity. Which means that there are no boandaries to the Mind. Nothing cannot be touched or reached.

, then it is obvious that the mind didn't choose pain, but your hypothesis doesn't allow for this (commonly held) explanation.

It is concious-awareness of 'you' which does not like pain. 'you' are the product of the Mind's thoughts. 'you' are the pain... and everything else you feel is what constitutes 'you'. But 'you' had no say in this matter. The decision to create pain belongs to The Mind. And it does serve a purpose.

How do you get this past Hurdle's 2, 3, and 4?

Please print the relevant bits. I want the readers to know what I'm responding to.

How do you get knowledge, without awareness?

You don't. We are reasonably and emotionally aware of the existence
we feel through the senses. Knowledge is the product of contemplation... of those senses.

How can I say that I know something, if I'm not aware of it's existence?

You are aware of its existence - through the 5/6 senses, and the attributes of reason and emotion.

Yes, I understand that you are referring to an omniscient Mind, that can know all things - and there's nothing wrong with believing in that - however, the Mind that "knows" these things, would have to be aware of these things first. You do not know something, before becoming aware of it's existence.

If The Mind creates the sense of time/change, then the Mind must understand the changes that are happening before it creates the sensation(s) of those changes. There's no way around this.
The Mind is omniscient in the eternal-moment. Time proceeds it. The Mind is knowledgeable before sensation!

This is incorrect. As Hurdle #3 points out, humans have had wrong assumptions about reality. They would never break out of these misconceptions, if one person's perception of reality was not different from everyone else's.

Pure reason is absolute. Just like mathematics. But whereas mathematics discusses the relations (implying scales of relativity and absolute points of reference - such as '0'; '1'; infinity... ) between the quantitative-value of things, my philosophy centres-around concepts known (by 'us') through the experience of our perceptions.

 

[Iacchus32]

Is there a difference between saying I "believe" I'm sitting in the chair, as opposed to I "know" I'm sitting in the chair? If so, then that should be the criteria by which you accept anything, even God Himself. Now based upon that, would you say I believe that God exists? Or, would you say I know that God exists?

Yeah, so why can't materialism and spiritualism be viewed as correlatives, you know, like in the yin and yang? Why can't the two halves come together to create the whole? ... The only reason why the schizm is there is because we choose to believe each one as "singular."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is there a difference between saying I "believe" I'm sitting in the chair, as opposed to I "know" I'm sitting in the chair? If so, then that should be the criteria by which you accept anything, even God Himself. Now based upon that, would you say I believe that God exists? Or, would you say I know that God exists?

Yeah, so why can't materialism and spiritualism be viewed as correlatives, you know, like in the yin and yang? Why can't the two halves come together to create the whole? ... The only reason why the schizm is there is because we choose to believe each one as "singular."

Materialism and Idealism are opposites. They form a contradiction.
In dialectical terms: they are a unity of opposites. One supposes the other. Like in capitalism. Capital supposes labor to exist, and labor supposes capital to exist. One can not exist without the other.

But the opposites in a dialectical-unity, because they are opposites, imply struggle. One competes the other.

This same kind of dialectical-unities exists within matter itself at all levels. It's in fact what the world makes go round. Without this permanent struggle and competence, there wouldn't be motion. There wouldn't be anything at all!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
The post was to point out your philosophy... doesn't work.

But you didn't address any of my post.

By your argument, we can at best note that there is a 50% probability either way to the existence of an external reality.

Incorrect. By my philosophy, it's an absolute-certainty that there is only an internal reality. I do make that conclusion.

Which ever stance you take, it must be an irrational assumption.

It's only irrational if there's no reasoned-support for that stance.

If you make the assumption that an external reality does not exist, you will get no useful results.

Perhaps you need to contemplate the implications of my philosophy. It attempts to provide the impetus for inner-change (of attitude).

You get a view of life that justifies no action.

Far from it. I give a view of life whereby our efforts will change to reflect our changed-attitudes (if that happened). My philosophy is a spur to act, for everyone.

Why do you reply to me? Because you assume I exist. By your argument, there is no reason for you to believe I do exist

By my argument, 'you' do exist. It's just that 'you' don't understand what you are in relation to your own perceptions.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism and Idealism are opposites. They form a contradiction.
In dialectical terms: they are a unity of opposites. One supposes the other. Like in capitalism. Capital supposes labor to exist, and labor supposes capital to exist. One can not exist without the other.

Then what's the difference between idealism and spiritualism? If there is none (according to your original post under the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158"), then why can't we view it in terms of "the relationship" between the two? (i.e., materialism and spiritualism).

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you speaking of realization then or manifestation? Feelings can also be construed as gut instinct, and if you could provide something on that level, then perhaps you could provide something that's easier for everyone to relate to?

I don't know what this means. You want me to prove God exists by expressing my emotions? Who would believe that?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what's the difference between idealism and spiritualism? If there is none (according to your original post under the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158"), then why can't we view it in terms of "the relationship" between the two? (i.e., materialism and spiritualism).

Spiritualism is a different sort of term, and not a philosophical discipline. It is in a way connected to the philosophy of Idealism.

So let's us stay with the basic terms Materialism and Idealism here.

The relationship I already tried to explained: they are opposited, forming a dialectical-unity, in which one supposed the other.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
But you didn't address any of my post.

Incorrect. By my philosophy, it's an absolute-certainty that there is only an internal reality. I do make that conclusion.

It's only irrational if there's no reasoned-support for that stance.

Perhaps you need to contemplate the implications of my philosophy. It attempts to provide the impetus for inner-change (of attitude).

Far from it. I give a view of life whereby our efforts will change to reflect our changed-attitudes (if that happened). My philosophy is a spur to act, for everyone.

By my argument, 'you' do exist. It's just that 'you' don't understand what you are in relation to your own perceptions.

Oh... you can disprove existence. Good luck. All your arguments apparently ever say is that there is no argument for the existence of external reality.

And how do you know I have perceptions?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
And the other, more important thing is. You can "say" and "make believe" to others, in a rational way, that there isn't a proof for this "external reality" as you call it, but I am very sure that within your consciousness and being, you are in fact not believing one bit of that.

Of course. I admitted as much to Fz, when I expressed that my feelings were not the source of my philosophy. My philosophy is new to my own ears too. I was 'conditioned' with the same beliefs as everyone else. I assumed that I was looking outside of my mind.

But this doesn't detract from my reasoned argument. Like I said, realisation and manifestation are different subjects. I could talk about the 'spiritual' side of things; but then the discussion would become a 'mystical' discussion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Spiritualism is a different sort of term, and not a philosophical discipline. It is in a way connected to the philosophy of Idealism.

So let's us stay with the basic terms Materialism and Idealism here.

The relationship I already tried to explained: they are opposited, forming a dialectical-unity, in which one supposed the other.

Just to quote you from your previous thread ...

Originally posted by heusdens
What are the distinctive features of idealism?

1. The basic element of reality to the idealist is mind or spirit. Everything else comes from mind or spirit and depends upon its operations.

2. Mind or spirit exists before and apart from matter. Spirit is the abiding reality; matter no more than a passing phase or illusion.

3. Mind or spirit is identical with or emanates from the divine, or, at least leaves open the possibility of supernatural existence, power and interference.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I don't know what this means. You want me to prove God exists by expressing my emotions? Who would believe that?

If you hold it possible for us to actually believe your hypothese, it would sure be a piece of cake for us to believe also your emotions on that.

 

[Fliption]

Well, I'm going to interject here because I've seen a lot of LifeGazer bashing lately. While sometimes this may be warranted, many times I see the people doing it making sloppy arguments and none of the other bashers bother to correct them or make points. The point here ought to be to get closer to the truth; not to bash LifeGazer.

Heusdens,

I've seen you make comments in several threads lately about materislim versus Idealism. First let me say that I am not an Idealists. But the bottomline is, there is no way you or I can prove or even add credibility to Materialism. I know you are trying and it seems obvious to you but you cannot do it. LifeGazer is correct that all evidence of a material world is recognized through an interpretation of the mind. You really have no idea what a tree is. You only know what your mind tells you a tree looks like. You cannot then proceed to use an object of the material world (like other people) to lend credibility to materialism. Thats not good logic at all. I even saw Tom making the argument that he had 2 options. He could believe in a material world or believe that everyone else was in his mind. He chooses 1 because 2 is absurd. This is odd to me because he's basing the absurdity on the prior belief in a material world. LOL. This is not proof.

Absurdity is a subjective opinion here at best. Quantum physics would have been absurd 200 years ago so there is no strong argument here.

If you've seen the movie Matrix, then think about that. No one in that world knew they were not material. There was no way for them to know. None of your "evidence" or arguments would help you a bit in that situation. Even if a LifeGazer (Morpheus) comes along and tells you that you are a program inside a computer, you can't know for sure unless he presents you with the little blue pill.

I'm running out of time and do want to see if I can interject on the other comments but it'll have to wait. I will say that there are a lot of concepts being thrown around like "god", "mind", "diety" and worst of all "time". The problem with building arguments around these concepts is that they are limited in definition to what people have been taught or exposed to. I would not be so bold as to claim that since heusdens idea of god cannot exists then the universe must be a cold, meaningless box full of rocks. What might exists inbetween the 2 extremes and do we have concepts that allow us to talk about it? The title of this thread mentioned "god". But too many times that word conjures up images created in Sunday school and noses begin to turn up. This will always turn into the same old debates that have been going on for centuries.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course. I admitted as much to Fz, when I expressed that my feelings were not the source of my philosophy. My philosophy is new to my own ears too. I was 'conditioned' with the same beliefs as everyone else. I assumed that I was looking outside of my mind.

But this doesn't detract from my reasoned argument. Like I said, realisation and manifestation are different subjects. I could talk about the 'spiritual' side of things; but then the discussion would become a 'mystical' discussion.

Of course it would.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Incorrect. By my philosophy, it's an absolute-certainty that there is only an internal reality. I do make that conclusion.

Yes, but you make it invalidly. There is no logic whatsoever in the leap from "all perceptions take place in my mind" to "all reality takes place in The Mind". You simply take a leap of faith at the end, and that is what the chief complaint is.

Everyone agrees that the jump from "all perceptions take place in my mind" to "there is a material universe" is also a leap. The thing is, we have to choose one of them.

You claim to have given a proof for the truth of your option, but you have not.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Oh... you can disprove existence. Good luck. All your arguments apparently ever say is that there is no argument for the existence of external reality.

That's not all they say. Arguments such as the one here explain why existence is an internal phenomena. They explain why there cannot be an external reality.

And how do you know I have perceptions?

You communicate those perceptions. You act upon them.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's not all they say. Arguments such as the one here explain why existence is an internal phenomena. They explain why there cannot be an external reality.

And there's the mantra again.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
The title of this thread mentioned "god". But too many times that word conjures up images created in Sunday school and noses begin to turn up. This will always turn into the same old debates that have been going on for centuries.

The 'God' of reason is just 'everything'. The Gods of religion are finite and different. It's so simple.
Again, thanks for your open-ness.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Heusdens,

I've seen you make comments in several threads lately about materislim versus Idealism. First let me say that I am not an Idealists. But the bottomline is, there is no way you or I can prove or even add credibility to Materialism. I know you are trying and it seems obvious to you but you cannot do it. LifeGazer is correct that all evidence of a material world is recognized through an interpretation of the mind. You really have no idea what a tree is. You only know what your mind tells you a tree looks like. You cannot then proceed to use an object of the material world (like other people) to lend credibility to materialism. Thats not good logic at all. I even saw Tom making the argument that he had 2 options. He could believe in a material world or believe that everyone else was in his mind. He chooses 1 because 2 is absurd. This is odd to me because he's basing the absurdity on the prior belief in a material world. LOL. This is not proof.

Absurdity is a subjective opinion here at best. Quantum physics would have been absurd 200 years ago so there is no strong argument here.

If you've seen the movie Matrix, then think about that. No one in that world knew they were not material. There was no way for them to know. None of your "evidence" or arguments would help you a bit in that situation. Even if a LifeGazer (Morpheus) comes along and tells you that you are a program inside a computer, you can't know for sure unless he presents you with the little blue pill.

I'm running out of time and do want to see if I can interject on the other comments but it'll have to wait. I will say that there are a lot of concepts being thrown around like "god", "mind", "diety" and worst of all "time". The problem with building arguments around these concepts is that they are limited in definition to what people have been taught or exposed to. I would not be so bold as to claim that since heusdens idea of god cannot exists then the universe must be a cold, meaningless box full of rocks. What might exists inbetween the 2 extremes and do we have concepts that allow us to talk about it? The title of this thread mentioned "god". But too many times that word conjures up images created in Sunday school and noses begin to turn up. This will always turn into the same old debates that have been going on for centuries.

If you state that on the basis of logic alone we can not distinguish between the credibility of Materialsm and Idealism as formal systems, then you are correct.

But who says we have to narrow our domain of proof by logic alone?

Thus far I have been focusing too much on attacking the formal reasoning of LG, to show him his errors in his thinking, and that he could not construct a real argument, that falsified the premise of Materialism, and thus allowed him to proof the existence of God.

But when asked me directly, what evidence do you have of the premise of Materialism, that there is a material world, evolving and unfolding eternally, I can present it too you.

It is unbeatable evidence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course. I admitted as much to Fz, when I expressed that my feelings were not the source of my philosophy. My philosophy is new to my own ears too. I was 'conditioned' with the same beliefs as everyone else. I assumed that I was looking outside of my mind.

But this doesn't detract from my reasoned argument. Like I said, realisation and manifestation are different subjects. I could talk about the 'spiritual' side of things; but then the discussion would become a 'mystical' discussion.

What's the difference between realization and manifestation? Do you mean realize in the sense that the brain uses it to extract reason or, do you mean "spiritual realizaion?" Do you mean manifestation in terms of the "outward appearance" of something, by which it can be observed or, do you mean an "outcropping of feelings," which is subjective.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Fliption
I even saw Tom making the argument that he had 2 options. He could believe in a material world or believe that everyone else was in his mind. He chooses 1 because 2 is absurd. This is odd to me because he's basing the absurdity on the prior belief in a material world. LOL. This is not proof.

I know heusdens just made a good response to it, but I would like to emphasize the point:

Logic alone can not settle the issue.

Logic cannot even get us out of our own heads, so to speak. It takes us neither to materialism, nor to idealism. That is why this thread is a waste of time and disk space, because its objective "a proof of god", will never be presented.

Do we have anything besides logic at our disposal?

Yes. We have knowledge of the world, and we have people with whom to compare notes. That knowledge and comparison points unequivocally to one conclusion: that there is a big, wide, universe of lifeless objects moving according to definite laws.

So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, but you make it invalidly. There is no logic whatsoever in the leap from "all perceptions take place in my mind" to "all reality takes place in The Mind". You simply take a leap of faith at the end, and that is what the chief complaint is.

I showed that the creation of the sensations was a Mindful creation... an artistic sensory-imagary of universal-reality. Again, I use 'pain' as the obvious example to convey what I mean. Our awareness can only trace the origin of its own perceptions to a subconscious aspect of itself.
Secondly, I added that the attributes of reason & emotion were used to 'judge' these perceptions.
Hence, all known-experience is a Mindful phenomena. Add to that the considerations of the Mind understanding reality before sensing it, and you're left pondering a Mind which has knowledge of the universe prior to sensing it.
I think you've overlooked the details of my post. I did explain why reality had to be a Mindful reality. There is no "leap of faith" asked of by the reader. The conclusion is built. You're just omiting my details.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's not all they say. Arguments such as the one here explain why existence is an internal phenomena. They explain why there cannot be an external reality.

You communicate those perceptions. You act upon them.

No they don't, even if they are valid. They can never prove that there is no such thing as an external reality, just as it is impossible to prove there is NO god. Because by definition, external phenomena is outside your internal existence, and since you say there is nothing but an internal existence, your reason does not extend outside it. Just as science cannot disprove god - you can give an alternative, of course, you cannot say there is nothing beyond your perceptions. Your perceptions themselves are not fit to reach it, and that is the tool you use. Catch-22.

As to part two, that is an awfully materialistic notion is it not? What even possesses you to think I am real, not just a trick of your perception? And how do you believe I am not just a robot, or perhaps a manifestation of your consciousness? Just by talking to me, you are making, by your argument, an unreasonable assumption.

 

[quantumdude]

Details, eh? Let's look "in detail" at the transition from my mind to The Mind.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Thus; this argument shows that Mind had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things now sense reality.

So, your basic position here is that all my perceptions (which we all agree is all I really know) are in my mind. Fine.

Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.

So...

1. All observed phenomena register in my mind.
2. Those phenomena are governed by the laws of physics.
3. Since those phenomena register in my mind, the laws of physics governing them must be laws of the mind.
4. Since we all agree on those laws, they must have come from one mind.

First, #3 is an unjustified assumption. Second, this is a simple non-sequitur, because another conclusion can be reached from 1 and 2, namely:

3. Since we all agree on those laws, we all must be looking at the same material universe.

A valid deductive argument is such that its premises only admit one conclusion. Hence, you haven't proved a thing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.

Without the capacity "not to know," we have no means by which to gauge what we "do know." So maybe we're just better off claiming ignorance which, is what you're doing by "choosing" materialism.

Knowledge is not wisdom!

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Without the capacity "not to know," we have no means by which to gauge what we "do know." So maybe we're just better off claiming ignorance which, is what you're doing by "choosing" materialism.

?

First, choosing materialism is not an appeal to ignorance. To accept it, I am not obligated to accept anything other than the existence of matter and its interactions, of which there is a great deal of knowledge.

Second, there is no sense in which appealing to ignorance is better. It leads to anyone of an infinite number of subjective beliefs. If appeals to ignorance are admissible, then we have not only The Mind, but also Jehovah, Allah, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and invisbile dancing fairies. I would not say that that leavs us "better off".

Third, idealism, which really is based on ignorance, requires us to accept either solipsism or a super-intelligent being for which there is not one shred of evidence. I would say not say that that leaves us "better off" either.

 

[Iacchus32]

Oh, are you doubting me Thomas? By the way, today is Good Friday.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
?

First, choosing materialism is not an appeal to ignorance. To accept it, I am not obligated to accept anything other than the existence of matter and its interactions, of which there is a great deal of knowledge.

But the crux of the matter is "who" is doing the accepting? And from where does that "who" originate? If the who originates from within, then the who can only acknowledge from within, period. Therefore isn't it possible that the who can acknowledge "a God" inside there as well? It's not requiring you to do anything different, if you really think about it. In fact it's entirely up to you.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But the crux of the matter is "who" is doing the accepting?

In my case: I am.

And from where does that "who" originate?

From the interconnectdness of my thoughts.

If the who originates from within, then the who can only acknowledge from within, period.

There is still the so-called Problem of Other Minds. What am I to make of the other people in the world? Are they within me, too? If so, then only I exist. But surely I could never convince you of that, can I? You surely could not convince me that I don't exist.

The above philosophy is called solipsism, and that is where your thinking leads. It ultimately says that, because everything is happening in my mind, only I exist.

Therefore isn't it possible that the who can acknowledge "a God" inside there as well?

By George, you've got it! God is "in there"--in the human mind as an abstract mental object, and nothing more.

LG has got it totally backwards here. Man is not in The Mind of god. God is in the mind of man.