A proof for the existence of God?

[heusdens]

How do we know about reality?

How do we know about reality?

One way of knowing reality is because, for instance, this apple, which is red, I can know of, because it is really there, and I can see it is red. A problem would arise however if someone came in, that would have mental and cognitive and sensitory capacities that equal mine, but who would claim the apple was green.
How could we restore the original situation, in which we knew the apple was red, to this new situation, in which we can not claim with certainty the apple is red. At least, we have to take into consideration the fact that the other person, makes a different claim, and on equal grounds. We assume here, both people are not lying, but testify what they see.
Do we doubt in that case the objectivity of there being a red apple?
Well it would for sure be a situation defeating normal logic.
With no other observers available, the situation is a draw. From the situation given, we know that we must attribute equal observer status to both observers, there is not supposed to be a problem in seeing (colour blindness, for instance). How can we know about the colour of the apple?

(I will provide an answer to this later, I hope someone will come up with a plausible explenation that clariefies the situation).

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
How do we know about reality?

One way of knowing reality is because, for instance, this apple, which is red, I can know of, because it is really there, and I can see it is red. A problem would arise however if someone came in, that would have mental and cognitive and sensitory capacities that equal mine, but who would claim the apple was green.
How could we restore the original situation, in which we knew the apple was red, to this new situation, in which we can not claim with certainty the apple is red. At least, we have to take into consideration the fact that the other person, makes a different claim, and on equal grounds. We assume here, both people are not lying, but testify what they see.
Do we doubt in that case the objectivity of there being a red apple?
Well it would for sure be a situation defeating normal logic.
With no other observers available, the situation is a draw. From the situation given, we know that we must attribute equal observer status to both observers, there is not supposed to be a problem in seeing (colour blindness, for instance). How can we know about the colour of the apple?

(I will provide an answer to this later, I hope someone will come up with a plausible explenation that clariefies the situation).

On the apple:
Go both a step backwards.
Decide to rephrase the terms/definition of red and green by using an external system : a spectrometer or similar that works with a common accepted value frame: numbers. up to 10 = red , 11 to 20= green
Check the measured value and ... smile.

Heusdens ... smile! Don't spent all that time on this issue. Enjoy life and go and get a beer!

 

[Iacchus32]

What it is is what is man ... The apple didn't change therefore the apple is a constant. Just as reality is a constant, at least in a materialistic sense anyway. In which case it doesn't matter who or what or how it's perceived.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
On the apple:
Go both a step backwards.
Decide to rephrase the terms/definition of red and green by using an external system : a spectrometer or similar that works with a common accepted value frame: numbers. up to 10 = red , 11 to 20= green
Check the measured value and ... smile.

Heusdens ... smile! Don't spent all that time on this issue. Enjoy life and go and get a beer!

Yep! Right!

And you might say that to Lifegazer as well!

PS.
You think I am too serious on this? I can't have it when one makes false claims about reality. Esp. idealism has a historic record of making false claims. There is only one reality, and it is consistent.
Materialism and Idealism are in full contradiction in one way, and in absolute harmony with each other, in another way. The point is that we need to have better terminology and define the context to make this explicable. For instance one can use two different concepts of I. The big I that is seeing with his eyes the moon, and experiences seeing the moon. This is the "outer" perception, and is a material context.
The small I that is aware of the image within the mind. The small I is not aware of the real moon, only of the image of the moon within the brain. This is the "inner" perception, and is a mindfull context.
The small I is aware of the big I (or is it the other way around?), and sees it as "God".

Idealism for instance claims:
"Matter is created by mind".
This is a false claim, cause in fact it should read: "the image of matter is created withing the mind", which then can be testified to be true. However, because of the wording, an outer, material context is supposed, which triggers the wrong meaning of the sentence.
And then it becomes non-sense, or simply a false claim.

However, in normal communcations, the default meaning of words is based on the outer, material context. Cause communication takes place with people on the outer level and in a material sense. (we don't connect to each other directly on a brain-to-brain level, but use the perceptory organs to communicate, so this is "outer" context.)
When one wants to express something to someone in the other, non-default context, that is fine, but then please make other people aware you are changing context, and try to make that clear either explicitly or implicitly (by using proper definitions of terms).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
I can't have it when one makes false claims about reality. Esp. idealism has a historic record of making false claims. There is only one reality, and it is consistent.

I think that if anyone can claim to "know" the nature of reality, then it is that person that is making false claims. I think you should type less and go get that beer. I got me one

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think that if anyone can claim to "know" the nature of reality, then it is that person that is making false claims. I think you should type less and go get that beer. I got me one

You seem to imply that nobody can know the nature of reality. How do you know that?

The statement I made about idealism, is based on the confusion that arises, because the difference in layers of reality involved.

Idealism is for instance not even dealing with matter, but only with thoughts that exist within the mind. A statement as "mind creates matter" is then a mere absurdity, and a false claim.
If it is stated as "the image of the material world is created within the mind", then we have a more meaningfull description, which even materialist recognize as being true.

See what I mean?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens

See what I mean?

Honestly, no. I'm sorry but none of that makes any sense to me. And the way that I know that no one "knows" the true nature of reality in this discussion is because their arguments all have the same old flaws. The way I understand these concepts, trying to prove materialism is like trying to prove 1 plus 1 equals 3. I don't see how it can be done.

 

[Iacchus32]

"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

So this is it ... We cannot acknowledge God except that it be given by God for us to do so, through what we perceive "from within." By which it becomes a solid foundation for the "new church."

In other words the "idea" of God is consolidated by the fact that we can acknowledge it for ourselves. How else could we define it?

Whereas materialism is out in left field acknowledging "the aftermath", in all "its concreteness," which all began with the consolidation of a single idea "from within"--i.e., "God."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Honestly, no. I'm sorry but none of that makes any sense to me. And the way that I know that no one "knows" the true nature of reality in this discussion is because their arguments all have the same old flaws. The way I understand these concepts, trying to prove materialism is like trying to prove 1 plus 1 equals 3. I don't see how it can be done.

I know materialism is true, but idealism to me sounds like 1 + 1 = infinity. But there must be a logical explenation for the fact that in some way idealism can be true, and can be meaningfull, but on different grounds.
Because in the frist place, they don't talk about the same reality.
Materialism talks in the firs place of what takes place outside the minds. Idealism doesn't even recognize the outer reality! It doesn't know about anything material! It is only familair with 'mindstuff'.

To see what this means let us create a mental image about this. A picture would be helpfull, but I don't have one.

On a piece of paper draw a large head. Now materialismn talks about the things 'outside' the head, primarily. So for example the moon. Draw the moon outside the head. For idealism, the only thing we are aware of are the things 'inside' the brain, the mind-stuff. So, let's draw the equivalent of the moon, the image of the moon inside the head.
While in idealism, only the image of the moon exist, in materialism both the moon, and the image of the moon exist. But take care: the later 'image of the moon' is not what it is in idealist terms. Because in Idealism that are our thoughts about the moon, and they are not the same as the material things that form that very same thought. In materialism, they are just forms of matter and energy, that are forming this brain activity. We have no means (yet!) to transform this material data back into an 'outside' form that we can understand. Like we cannot attach a device to a part of the brain, and try to see what it represents internally for that person, to someone in the outside world. Perhaps this transformation can be done, at some point in time.

So, each in their own terms, materialism and idealism can be telling the true, but the truthvalue of each reasoning system is only valid within each distinct reality. For materialism, that is the material reality. For idealism, that is the mind reality. The both realities correspond with each other, but, in no way they even touch each other.
The realities are like distinct planes that are parallel. The entitities in each plane are seperate, but have a certain correspondence. (a moon is represented as thought/image about the moon).
Materialism is the outer level, it's reasoning is outside -> in.
Idealism is the inner level, it's reeasoning is inside -> out.

Materialism is true within itself. Idealism is too (it just needs to have some terms redefined, so we don't mix it up with materialism).
As long as your are in the materialist frame, you won't discover any contradictions. Same for idealism. Only problem comes when you try to mix things. If you say in idealist terms that "matter is created by mind" then you really mix things up. There is no matter in Idealism! Only thoughts, concepts, and other mind stuff!

As we have stated, Idealism, is the mind projection of the surrounding world onto the brain. Materialism describes the whole material world in terms of matter. Idealism describes the projections of all the outside, material things in concepts understood by the mind.

Both describe the complete world in total. So, also materialism can talk about things in the brain. But they do that in different terms as idealism does.

Note that everything gets projected. So also yourself, must be projected inside into an 'I', the part or function of the brain that is really aware of things (compare it with your computer, it's the CPU that 'knows' os things, no other part of the computer is). The same is true for the whole of the universe, etc.

If you are forcing yourself to think about a reality in which nothing is existent, what you ultimately come up with is that this little I, that is inside oneself aware of the thoughts that it has, then must at some point seriously doubt the existence of you as a whole person.
This can not be performed (in computer terms it would be called a hardware failure, invalid operand, or something like that). What your inside will come up with, is that it cares about itself, and the little I sees the big I as it's 'God'. That is your meaning of existence, programmed/hardcoded in your brains. The little I can not think about the big I not being existent (it has not data to verify upon that..hmmm when was the last time i was switched on? ****! no date about that! imposible operaration! it might conclude anything, like for instance that it will conclude that it has eternally existed. Inside that is true. From outside knowledge, we know that makes no sense, these two conclusions do not match of course).

You can also see this as follows: materialism is more related to the hardware side of things, idealism is related to the software side of things.

Basically when defining reality, we have to take into account that both realities exist. Each have their own set of entities that have meaning within that reality. Both are describing all of reality, but in a different way.

That's why it is not either materialism OR idealism, but we need a description of reality that fits both realities, and the correspondence that exist between them, and in which the relation between being and thinking is resolved in a more meaningfull way.

The best approach to this known to me is dialectical-materialism.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism talks in the firs place of what takes place outside the minds. Idealism doesn't even recognize the outer reality! It doesn't know about anything material! It is only familair with 'mindstuff'.

I have no idea who you are talking about. But my philosophy does not ignore the reality of my perceptions. What I perceive is really being perceived. All I say is that what is being perceived is inside a Mind. And I have actually demonstrated this to be the case. Our experience of existence is utterly 'inner'.
Do not think that my philosophy renders-meaningless the perceptions we have. It just infers a new identity for ourselves, amongst what we are sensing.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I have no idea who you are talking about. But my philosophy does not ignore the reality of my perceptions. What I perceive is really being perceived. All I say is that what is being perceived is inside a Mind. And I have actually demonstrated this to be the case. Our experience of existence is utterly 'inner'.
Do not think that my philosophy renders-meaningless the perceptions we have. It just infers a new identity for ourselves, amongst what we are sensing.

I know that you cannot know that. Cause my reasoning is ultimately based on a materialist world perspective, and you do not accept that reality. All you can talk about is your inner reality, that is a projection of the bigger reality around us (and in us too, of course).

Your reasoning is as follows. In my mind I have an image, a thought about something. All I know and can ever know is, are things that are refrained to my own mind, and the concepts that it knows. The mind doesn't know real apples, it only knows about the image or the projection of the apple that has been formed inside, the mindstuff.

Your reasoning is inside out. It stops as soon as it reaches the physical limit of your brains and brain power. Your world is the size of about 1 large football, and defininately finite in size and in time. You have no ability to know what is outside that, or before that. In order to know that, you must become 'God'.

We have different opinions on things, cause we use different concepts.
"The world" means in materialist terms the material stuff of which everything that is made, and that is infinite in extent, and is around, outside and in us.
"The world" means in idealist terms only those things, as they have been projected/transformed into meaningfull concepts within the mind itself. It knows about the thought about the moon, but not about the moon itself.

When I say, the world, the universe, is infinite and unfolding inifinitely in time, you claim, no that can't be true. It's definitely finite and had a beginning. So which one is true, since this seems to contrast each other? Well it makes sense (from my point of view) to say that all you are talking about, is not the real universe (since this does not exist within your reasoning, only the projections inside of you) but is only the idea's, images, projections of the real universe into your thought. Well your brains are limited in size, and have begun at some time. So you think therefore the universe must be that way also.
You claim for instance 'I cannot know X'. I can make a statement that says: 'I do know X'. Have we totally different minds? No. It's just that we have used different concepts for 'I'.

As I said before, you have to 'tunnel' yourself into existence, and look at things from outside in, instead of inside out, and look at the big reality also some time. Escape from your self-created cage of mind. It can be done. Or do you think all materialists make false claims?

The big problem with your philosophy is that it tryes to draw people back into the historic time, at which mankind did not have knowledge about the material world. Why would one refute that? What is the purpose for that?

Your kinf of 'knowledge' which proceeds from the inside, and tries to reason from there, stops of course where your brain tissue stops. But for the outside world itself, it is of course ridiculous to claim that it is limited to that! That is reasoning in a very naive and childish way. You have the reasoning capabilities of a child. it has the ability to learn, but it refuges to accept that knowledge. Very stubborn, very stubborn indeed. You are reasoning in empty space, and the sole reason for that is because a lot of your brain cells miss any content. It would be time you gave those brain cells an excercise, and learn them how the reality really looks like!

History progresses forwardly, not backward. We don't want backwardness, we will need the knowledge we have accumulated through science very badly, to run this planet in a bit more decent and human way!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by pelastration
A sole entity (on his own) has no reflection because there is no surrounding. Cfr.in Kabbal (Kether: 1) needs the Two to be aware of the difference. In other words you need a mirror to have awareness.

Who is it that is looking in this mirror?

Where does the mind come from? Show me the creation system. Where come the circular energy from (needed for awareness) and how is it generated?

How did the mind come into existence?
- Existence is eternal. The reason for this is quite simple:-
Something cannot emanate from and after a state of absolute- nothingness... nor can something reside ~within~ the 'nothing'
that preceded it. Thus, existence is eternal. There has always been 'something'.
I am in a position to equate The Mind with this absolute-existence (this something), because my philosophy deduces that The Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity, I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.
The Mind is the source of all sensations. It gives sensory-energy to its own awareness.

Why should there something behind the membrane?

Where would this membrane be existing? Within 'nothing'? That's not possible. No thing can touch 'nothing'. Therefore, the membrane would have to exist within another 'medium'. Hence, the membrane cannot be acclaimed as the fundamental source of universal-phenomena. It's just logically impossible.

But you are desperate looking for motives to start with a mind that comes from start out of the blue (or has always existed). That's an assumption but not a fact like you present it. It's a 'believe', not a proof.

Every one of my conclusions has a reasoned explanation. Every one.

I have no problem with your believes but don't present as a fact.

I am presenting conclusions from rational-argument. Those conclusions are valid unless you show the reasoning to be flawed. You're not even addressing my reasoning.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
How did the mind come into existence?
- Existence is eternal. The reason for this is quite simple:-
Something cannot emanate from and after a state of absolute- nothingness... nor can something reside ~within~ the 'nothing'
that preceded it. Thus, existence is eternal. There has always been 'something'.
I am in a position to equate The Mind with this absolute-existence (this something), because my philosophy deduces that The Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity, I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.
The Mind is the source of all sensations. It gives sensory-energy to its own awareness.

Where would this membrane be existing? Within 'nothing'? That's not possible. No thing can touch 'nothing'. Therefore, the membrane would have to exist within another 'medium'. Hence, the membrane cannot be acclaimed as the fundamental source of universal-phenomena. It's just logically impossible.

Every one of my conclusions has a reasoned explanation. Every one.

I am presenting conclusions from rational-argument. Those conclusions are valid unless you show the reasoning to be flawed. You're not even addressing my reasoning.

I think the above is all abstract non-sense.
Your philosophy is a 'limited edition' of reality, it's the projection of the material reality in the brain. Outside of that, in your philosophy, nothing exists.

You are talking here not about the world outside your brain, but you are just talking about the inside tissue of your brain. It consists indeed of two halves of brain tissue, and looks like it, when strected out completely, has the shape of a membrane that is folded/pelestrated inside itself.

But don't try to make people think that your 'inside' reality has anything to do with the world outside of that. Because you know, you cannot do that. Not because I say so, but because that is the foundation and pillar of your own philosophy.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your reasoning is inside out. It stops as soon as it reaches the physical limit of your brains and brain power. Your world is the size of about 1 large football

Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity. I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

, and defininately finite in size and in time.

Our perceptions have an origin - The Mind itself. Anything which is linked to this origin is 'finite'.

You have no ability to know what is outside that, or before that. In order to know that, you must become 'God'.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

We have different opinions on things, cause we use different concepts.
"The world" means in materialist terms the material stuff of which everything that is made, and that is infinite in extent, and is around, outside and in us.
"The world" means in idealist terms only those things, as they have been projected/transformed into meaningfull concepts within the mind itself. It knows about the thought about the moon, but not about the moon itself.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

As I said before, you have to 'tunnel' yourself into existence, and look at things from outside in, instead of inside out, and look at the big reality also some time.

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

Escape from your self-created cage of mind. It can be done. Or do you think all materialists make false claims?

I think materialism is intuitive. The tree I can see across the road does appear to be apart from me by several meters. And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.
As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true. This includes an awareness of 'space'.

The big problem with your philosophy is that it tryes to draw people back into the historic time, at which mankind did not have knowledge about the material world. Why would one refute that? What is the purpose for that?

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

History progresses forwardly, not backward. We don't want backwardness

It doesn't matter what you want. Materialism will not survive the 21st century (IMO).

we will need the knowledge we have accumulated through science very badly, to run this planet in a bit more decent and human way!

Science and knowledge are not rendered useless by my philosophy. Our perceptions are ordered.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity. I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

Our perceptions have an origin - The Mind itself. Anything which is linked to this origin is 'finite'.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

I know about your arguments and that of many other arguments that idealists use (read my own trhead about it, where it represents those ideas). I can show you that it does make sense to talk about an outside reality, a material reality. Not that you would accept it, because even the words 'sense' and 'knowledge' are something completely different then the terms I use.

To make this point, let's use an anology here.
Let us for instance say that the computer I am using, is able of presenting a Word document. And I can proof you that it has that capability. The claim is about the ability of the complete system.

Your reasoning goes then as follows, to attack this claim. You say that inside the computer there is nothing that has awareness itself.
All components inside the computer have their own functioning. At several levels the computer contains all forms of data, and transforms these data. There is only one element in which this data gets processed, which is the CPU. The CPU knows nothing about Word documents. So your claim is that the computer is not able to present Word documents. And that outside the computer with all it's components, nothing can be known, only what is inside the computer.

Your claim makes sense in one way, but only when using your standards of reasoning/defining. You make the transition for example of computer (whole system) to CPU (processor). Then you loose the point we are talking about. Cause the computer in total is really able of presenint a Word document (no problem), but that knowledge is not in the CPU, but in the computer in total.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

In your reasoning you are talking about a different world, or at least a different outlook on reality.
But the world is the world. Only you refuse to see things in their materialist terms, because either you hate them (for no appearant reasons), or you simply did not learn to think in materialist terms.

Your reasoning system is more simple and therefore more naive as mine, cause you stand on the perspective of the CPU and it's outlook on 'reality', while I reason from the capacity of the whole system. That is an important difference.

Your equivalents are: the CPU is what is called 'I'. The computer ios what is called 'God'.
My equivalents is: The CPU is inner awareness. The computer that is me.

(And god does not exist).

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

Yet it is possible. Shall I show you how my compoter represents a Word document??

(see the above anaology)

I think materialism is intuitive.

Materialism conforms to the outer reality, and is very usefull to communicate in the real world, in which different minds exist. These mind do not communicate with each other direclty (in terms of the mind itself), but use there 'presentation layers' for that.
Idealism would be the perfect outlook on reality, if I would be the only person in the world, and needed to communicate within myself only.

The tree I can see across the road does appear to be apart from me by several meters. And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.
As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true. This includes an awareness of 'space'.

Who says that I ain't aware of that too?
You advocate something that has some (limited) meaning on itself, but which is not the only reality, or outlook on reality, in fact it is a reality that is a shrunken version of the real reality, but nevertheless is a reality on it's own (the point however is that it is not the only reality, but that point can not be seen from 'within' that shrunken reality).

The problem is that it is rather helpless in dealing with reality. It is therefore a naive outlook on reality. Only science based on materialism can be helpfull to succesfully produce real knowledge about the world. Knowledge needs to be verifyable. All your claims about your inner reality, also need to be proven, based on science.

We have to deal with real reality. Not the fixations of our minds as such. For this world to become a better place for everyone, we need scientific educated people, not relogiuous fanatics.

We better increase the budgets for science education.

There is a way however to increase your point of sight, from a 'singularity' to a full blown up universe. It is called inflation.
This will create a universe from a near-singularity. Hope that it will do the trick for you.

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

How do you know it's original. I am not accusing you of having copied it, but I can not imagine that this argument has never been used before. Have your read Berkeley?

It doesn't matter what you want. Materialism will not survive the 21st century (IMO).

Materialism is the only way to help us in this forthcoming century, and protect us from a world which clearly is in chaos. Know why?
Just because of the religious inspired movements (fundamental christianity/ capitalism, conquering the arab/islamic world again, which inflicts arabic/moslinm fundamentalism).

Science can be of much help to solve the problems of the world. But instead not science or knowledge rules the world, but big money enterprises and all kinds of religiuous ideas do that.

You have obviously not had much knowledge about materialism, and are even unaware of the most modern form of materialism, which is dialectical-materialism. This is a very rich and profound reasoning system.

 

[(Q)]

Lifey

Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity.

Impossible. I exist and you exist as separate as can be. I think completely different from you in almost every way shape and form. Proof enough that we are not one.

I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

The use of scientific terms to describe an imaginary concept is quite popular with those who do not understand the terms.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

Your argument does not use reason to explain anything – if it did, we would agree.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

Our worlds are very different. Yours is one of imagination and fantasy while mine is firmly based in reality. This alone will dictate our decision making process in almost every way.

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

That is double-speak. Your talking in riddles.

And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.

Would that make you a sap?

As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true.

Yes, and the universe disappears when I close my eyes. This is in fact true.

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

No it isn’t – Buddhism also advocates the concept of the “boundless singularity.” It defined the foundation of the Dharma.

Science and knowledge are not rendered useless by my philosophy.

That’s a contradiction. Everything would be rendered useless with your theory. There would be no point to existence, knowledge, understanding, creativity, family, etc. It would all be for naught.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

So this is it ... We cannot acknowledge God except that it be given by God for us to do so, through what we perceive "from within." By which it becomes a solid foundation for the "new church."

In other words the "idea" of God is consolidated by the fact that we can acknowledge it for ourselves. How else could we define it?

Whereas materialism is out in left field acknowledging "the aftermath", in all "its concreteness," which all began with the consolidation of a single idea "from within"--i.e., "God."

Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.

 

[heusdens]

Lifegazer's arguing

LG:

You have a kind of reasoning that states things like 'I can't know that'. They are based of course on your worldview, Idealism, that denies the existent material world in the first place, and only determenines it to be the world that is known within the thoughs, the thinking process and such. Instead of the capacities of the full human mind and body (which is how I see myself as 'I'), you only reason from far and deep within, where some inner awareness exists, that has a very limited outlook on reality. You define knowledge to be that what can be perceived by that center of awareness.

And you are right. When you base your knowledge on that worldview, then indeed it can be proven that you cannot know anything about the outside, material world. That is the crucial point, since because the outside world exists, it means that this philisophy is wrong.
It comes down on having a wrong point of view.

For people who base themselves on a broader vision of reality, this becomes immediately clear. If you pertain and persist however to leave your point of view, then of course this does not come to your mind, and never can.

It is therefore clear that Idealism is not a very fruitfull attempt to describe reality in the first place. Because it chooses a definition of reality, which limits it's scope to that what is know to the inner awareness within the mind. As if we should limit our capacities of knowledge to that inner awareness only, and don't want to take into account the capacity of the full system.

The reasoning is as absurd as claiming that a computer is not able to present a Word document, cause the CPU has no knowledge about Word documents, only about 32-bit words.

Nevertheless, the computer can present to us a Word document, which falsifies the argument. Wether or not the CPU is in fact not knowing what it is doing, is not of any interest of course!
Who cares about what the CPU would 'know' or does not 'know' as long as the computer does what it is supposed to do.

You must have a very narrow mind to claim that the point of view of the CPU is the only thing one can know. It's childish and primitive, and does not belong in the modern world.

 

[Mentat]

Heusdens, I agree with other members who say you are taking this too seriously. Remember, it won't affect your life, or lifegazer's, whether he is right or not. I don't mean that you should abandon reasoning on it, altogether (I myself started at least three threads, before, attacking the hypothesis), I'm merely suggesting that you not let it matter so much to you whether lifegazer listens to you or not.

 

[chosenone]

If you want to debate whether god exist or not,ask jesus he's coming back,or did he.well he's suppose to anyway!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by chosenone
If you want to debate whether god exist or not,ask jesus he's coming back,or did he.well he's suppose to anyway!

You are making the same mistake as Iacchus32: confusing "God" for "God of the Bible". The God of the bible is nothing like lifegazer's God. In fact, lifegazer's hypothesis leaves no room for the God of the bible.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, I agree with other members who say you are taking this too seriously. Remember, it won't affect your life, or lifegazer's, whether he is right or not. I don't mean that you should abandon reasoning on it, altogether (I myself started at least three threads, before, attacking the hypothesis), I'm merely suggesting that you not let it matter so much to you whether lifegazer listens to you or not.

Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality, which in fact have nothing to do with reality. I know that Lifegazer is not listening to any of the arguments, as they don't have a meaning to him at all. So, my arguments can only have meaning to people, who are not entangled in the kind of reality that LG presents them.
In itself it can be a fruitfull discussion, just how to discover how reality works, and set aside one's biasess, and make full use of one's reasons capacities.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality,

Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

 

[(Q)]

Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

Why should this even concern you? Who are you to tell other members when and what to write, or whether they should or shouldn’t respond?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

Why should this even concern you? Who are you to tell other members when and what to write, or whether they should or shouldn’t respond?

I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense. This seemed like the kind thing to do, and I hope that heusdens doesn't think me as nosy as you seem to.

 

[(Q)]

I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense.

You presume too much and your concern is honorable albeit however distant from the cause -- but I think we are all grown-ups here and can handle ourselves, thank you very much.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense.

You presume too much and your concern is honorable albeit however distant from the cause -- but I think we are all grown-ups here and can handle ourselves, thank you very much.

In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member? It shouldn't even be your business if I really am being as nosy as you implied earlier.

BTW, I understand that heusdens is capable of "taking care of himself", as you put it. That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

 

[(Q)]

In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

Well, considering the fact that heusdens has already posted a thread, with giant posts (compared to most that I've seen, except perhaps DT Strain's posts...) that attack the hypothesis. And considering the obviously disapproving tone of heusdens' posts. I think that mine was a safe assumption. Besides, I'm not the only one who thought so (if you look back, you'll see a couple of invitations to "have a beer").

Look, you've side-tracked the thread. If you have a problem with me personally (as you seem to), just PM me.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.

Don't be so hasty to make that conclusion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Don't be so hasty to make that conclusion.

Forgive my presumptiousness. Doesn't your hypothesis call for a God who's mind is the source of all reality? This is not compatible with the God of the Bible, who created a universe, separate from Himself, and interacts with humans as though they were separate (and free-willed) entities.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by (Q)
In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

I appreciate the concerns here. I will take note of that.

But now, about how to proceed here.
We know the debate here is about an absurd hypothese. We can proceed in two different ways.
One is performing an effort in trying to make reason out of it, and communicating to the person who dropped this hypothese, where his errors are.
Or, in case we think that attempt is only futile, we can at least state what gives us profound reasons to state that the hypothese is incorrect

And a third position is of course to not take note in total of this.

I reason for myself as follows. This is a philosophy discussion board, and we should proceed in this debate taking it for a profound discussion on our very basements of knowledge.

The topic is very central to philosophy itself. It is a discussion which goes on for about 2000 years or more. There is a lot of histroric material available on the subject. So this for me means there is purpose in discussing these things.

And to me, I find it learnfull and knowledgeable to take the challenge in showing where and why Idealism is wrong and why Materialism is a better perspective on reality.

If I can this make clear to LG himself, I can not say. I do not know in how far he actually believes it himself. He can only partly believe it of course, it is not possible for anyone to take full account of Idealism. Or you would run into a bus very soon!

The purpose is to develop here a good form of reasoning, and which constitutes sufficient proof to make sure that such a hyopthese is false.

I think we are not there yet. But I know we can.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

I appreciate the concerns here. I will take note of that.

But now, about how to proceed here.
We know the debate here is about an absurd hypothese. We can proceed in two different ways.
One is performing an effort in trying to make reason out of it, and communicating to the person who dropped this hypothese, where his errors are.
Or, in case we think that attempt is only futile, we can at least state what gives us profound reasons to state that the hypothese is incorrect

And a third position is of course to not take note in total of this.

I reason for myself as follows. This is a philosophy discussion board, and we should proceed in this debate taking it for a profound discussion on our very basements of knowledge.

The topic is very central to philosophy itself. It is a discussion which goes on for about 2000 years or more. There is a lot of histroric material available on the subject. So this for me means there is purpose in discussing these things.

And to me, I find it learnfull and knowledgeable to take the challenge in showing where and why Idealism is wrong and why Materialism is a better perspective on reality.

If I can this make clear to LG himself, I can not say. I do not know in how far he actually believes it himself. He can only partly believe it of course, it is not possible for anyone to take full account of Idealism. Or you would run into a bus very soon!

The purpose is to develop here a good form of reasoning, and which constitutes sufficient proof to make sure that such a hyopthese is false.

I think we are not there yet. But I know we can.

Well, one thing you should realize is that you are going on the premise that this is an absurd/irrational hypothesis. Perhaps considering the possibility of it's being right would help you to make more constructive arguments. That's what I did.

 

[(Q)]

Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

Sorry heusdens, Mentat was high jacking the thread and I was trying to get it back on course.

 

[heusdens]

About LG's hypothese.

Let me first state that this hypothese is in no way new, although the exact wordings and exact reasoning is different from most other Idealist viewpoint, nevertheless it is definitely closely linked and belongs to the philosophical school of Idealism.

Second thing is that at the very basis of this and any other hypothese, there is reality as it is, wether we know, can know, or not, that forms in ultimate sense the basis of any reasoning. Wether this or that hyopthese is correct or not, absurd or not, the only arbiter in this 'game' can be reality itself.

There is reality, and there is the thinking about reality.
These are two different things. The thing to accomplish is, to give a prescription, definition and explenation of reality, as thinking, that fits reality itself. The thinking part is ultimately part of reality itself.