A proof for the existence of God?

[Lifegazer]

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 in fact have nothing to do with reality.

Absurdity? My argument is excellent. And you know it.

I know that Lifegazer is not listening to any of the arguments, as they don't have a meaning to him at all.

You're quite a character. You have yet to address the body of my argument. You're too busy defending your own cause.

So, my arguments can only have meaning to people, who are not entangled in the kind of reality that LG presents them.

Brainwashed people. That's correct. Anyone with an open mind would definitely take notice.

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.

Are you Alexander in disguise?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
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.

Why would it be necessary to consider the possibility that the hypothesis is right for making constructive arguments?
As soon as I do that, I rob myself of the very arguments needed to proof that the hypothesis is absurd.

The point is of course that Idealism bites itself in the tail. If you follow the point of reasoning, after accepting the premise, you are already dragged into this, and there is no way out of it.
It is quite logical that a philosophy or formal system, can not be proven incorrect on the basis of it's own premises.

There can be only one arbiter to the debate, which is the reality itself, that forms the basis for all philosophical debate.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
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.

I don't see the distinction. I advocate that God created the universe (in his mind) which is within himself, but not truly "separate" from himself. He interacts with humans as though he was the humans himself (God is all things). 'We' have free-will because our actions and thoughts are Its actions & thoughts.
You would have to work harder than this to deter me from thinking that my God is different to the one of the bible.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Absurdity? My argument is excellent. And you know it.

Yes. Absurdity. The kind of absurdity that while talking about reality, and that in fact there is no such thing about reality, cause all we know about are 'inner perceptions', at the same time you step aside for avoiding that a bus might drive over you. That kind of absurdity.

And your hyopthesis has many more of course. And you know it has!

You're quite a character. You have yet to address the body of my argument. You're too busy defending your own cause.

Well, look at yourself. From my perspective, that is what you should do!

Brainwashed people. That's correct. Anyone with an open mind would definitely take notice.

Hear hear! Taking the word 'brainwash' in the mouth.
Let us see now. I put two fingers in the air. I ask, how many fingers do you see? You say 2. I say, no, you are wrong, you don't see any fingers, cause the fingers are not even there, only in your thoughts.

Now, that is what I would define as 'brainswash' and so is all of religion!


People who are educated in science, know better as your appeal on ignorance.

 

[heusdens]

Waiting for proof...


This thread is about proving your absurd hyopthesis, which adapts to a version of reality, better spoken of as 'inner reality'.
As far as it knows of anything in reality, it defines reality as that what takes places between the ears.

It comes up with the concept of a mind that can be aware of anything, that takes place within the mind itself.

But where did you proof in the first place that a mind as such exist?
Doesn't it need to be proven first?

What part of you is aware of anything? If you adapt to the common sense view as that this must be located somewhere in the brain, and is a function that the brain, which is a material existing organ, is performing, then tell me. What part of you is responsible for awareness? What do you refer to as 'I'.

 

[heusdens]

How do I know something?

I know I can ride a bicycle. How do I know? Cause I ride my bicycle.
Is that sufficient proof which is based on reality?

No. At least not in the mind of Lifegazer. Cause he tells then that the bicycle does in fact not exist, only in my mind it does.

How do I know, from withing my mind, this bicycle does exist, and that my legs exist, and that I can perform the will power to coordinate all my muscles and keep my balance in such a way as that the 'bicycling' is performed?

Realy, that is too complex.

So, do I know how to bicycle? I do not know if I know how to bicycle, all I know is that I did it.

There are only two ways to proceed here, in defining 'knowledge'.
One is to state from the fact that someone performed the bicyling that one knows how to bicycle. I would go from that point of view.
The other is to state that since we do not know all the things involved in the whole process of bicycling, that we do not have that knowledge. LG would state that is the case.

Well, in that case I would claim, if that is the way you claim that knowledge is defined, then knowledge does not exist.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Waiting for proof...

In my initial argument, I showed you all two vitally-important facts:-
1. The awareness of sensation is a Mind-created phenomena.
By using 'pain' as my obvious example, I was able to show you that all of your sensations are Mind-given.
Are you going to dispute the reasoning here? Directly please.
2. I also showed that a Mind cannot create ordered-sensations unless it already possesses knowledge to do so. The conclusion is obvious: The Mind has universal-knowledge before creating the sensation of it.
Are you going to dispute this fact?

Unless you can dispute these facts to this forum, then your arguments are worthless to everyone. For in these two facts alone, the idea of God is firmly established: as an all-knowing Mind which has the power and capability to create the ordered-sensations of universal existence upon itself, countless times-over. If you ignore these points again, then I can only doubt your sincerity.

This thread is about proving your absurd hyopthesis, which adapts to a version of reality, better spoken of as 'inner reality'.

My philosophy is based upon the absolute-truth of known existence. A sensed-existence. An inner-sensed existence. This is the experience which we all share. Nobody knows anything about anything, without understanding the order present within his own sensations.
The sensations of the Mind are the source of known existence. The attributes which 'decipher' these sensations, are reason & emotion - two more aspects of the Mind.
Everything you sense, and everything you think, is a Mindful-experience. My theory is built upon the absoluteness of this statement.

 

[FZ+]

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

I would point out now that you have yet to respond to my complete rebuttal of your "disproof of external reality". I remind you that hiding behind unrevealed "reasoned explanations" does not help to convince anyone.
Proof is and never will be based on belief and opinion.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In my initial argument, I showed you all two vitally-important facts:-
1. The awareness of sensation is a Mind-created phenomena.
By using 'pain' as my obvious example, I was able to show you that all of your sensations are Mind-given.
Are you going to dispute the reasoning here? Directly please.

With great pleasure. First: you didn't define me what 'Mind' is or not is. So I have a huge gap in knowledge there, and all the rest is now becoming rather diffuse.

I would still state that pain involves the following things:
1. An outside occurence. For instance something material that enters your skin.
2. A perceptorary organ. A nerve sensor, that detects the phenomena, and transmits that to the brain.
3. The awareness of that withing the brain.

Since I do not know what mind is, I can not make any statements regarding that.

2. I also showed that a Mind cannot create ordered-sensations unless it already possesses knowledge to do so. The conclusion is obvious: The Mind has universal-knowledge before creating the sensation of it.
Are you going to dispute this fact?

You go on here refuting to tell me what 'Mind' is and what 'knowledge' is. I do not know what 'Mind' is or what 'knowledge' is. Can you tell me? Explain me those in sensible terms. And don't avoid to mention to tell the material basis, or you will end up making no sense at all!

All what is needed to say here is that the system that was able to detect for instance pain, is a functional system, already in place.
Where or what is the knowledge?

One might ask sensible things like: where does the nerve system come from. We can then further discuss the material basis of nerve systems within organic living matter, and how it evelved in time.
That is a fruitfull attempt.

Your statements don't mean anything to me. It's just wully bully bull ****.

Unless you can dispute these facts to this forum, then your arguments are worthless to everyone. For in these two facts alone, the idea of God is firmly established: as an all-knowing Mind which has the power and capability to create the ordered-sensations of universal existence upon itself, countless times-over. If you ignore these points again, then I can only doubt your sincerity.

I can only state firmly, that the term 'God' which is referenced here, has no internal representation. So what do you mean?
I can not proceed until you make explenations which make sense to me. 'God' for me is a placeholder for missing knowledge, and has no material basis, and therefore misses an important quality: existence!
Such a fruitless concept is out of the question to be further involved in serious debate.

The idea of God is just the idea of God. What can I tell?
We also have the idea of nothingness. But as it is a language concept, must it therefore be a meaningfull concept in reality too?
Don't think so.

You miss in total the relevant point, as for instance, what do you call your awareness and where does it reside, what is consciousness, what is knowledge, etc.
You have not explained them, in fact you call upon ignorance to go for beliefs about these things, instead of real knowledge.

What you call 'real' I call illusions.

My philosophy is based upon the absolute-truth of known existence. A sensed-existence. An inner-sensed existence. This is the experience which we all share. Nobody knows anything about anything, without understanding the order present within his own sensations.
The sensations of the Mind are the source of known existence. The attributes which 'decipher' these sensations, are reason & emotion - two more aspects of the Mind.
Everything you sense, and everything you think, is a Mindful-experience. My theory is built upon the absoluteness of this statement.

I told you again and again that absolute truth and absolute knowledge is not a viable concept. From what grounds you think there is such a thing as absolute knowledge? From 'God'?

Absolute truth and absolute nonsens are known to be very close relatives. Since you speak about 'absolutes' you speak nonsense.

Our proceedings in this universe are from relative knowledge to better relative knowledge. There is absolute knowledge in the infinite time perhaps, but not in the now or later, or any time.

Sensations of the 'Mind' are not sources of existence. That statement fails to be able to be proven in reality, which is the theater and arbiter in this discussion/debate.

Sources of existence are known and proven to be the material forms of existence. Without that, anything is inexistent.

You say that nobody knows anything about anything without knowing the order present within one's own sensation.

That is a definition of knowledge, I do not accept.

If I can ride a bicycle, all that is important is that I am able of performing that, and does not require me to understand all of my actions involved therein.

If I would accept that kind of nonsense, then you would say that nobody knows how to drive a car, cause very few people understand all of the inner working of a car.

This comes finally to this. Using your terminology and flawed concepts, for humans there is no knowledge whatsoever, and only 'God' knows everything, who happens to not exist, so that leaves us with no knowledge whatsoever.

Clearly a flawed concept. Humans have knowledge, but the knowledge is relative.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In my initial argument, I showed you all two vitally-important facts:-
1. The awareness of sensation is a Mind-created phenomena.
By using 'pain' as my obvious example, I was able to show you that all of your sensations are Mind-given.
Are you going to dispute the reasoning here? Directly please.
2. I also showed that a Mind cannot create ordered-sensations unless it already possesses knowledge to do so. The conclusion is obvious: The Mind has universal-knowledge before creating the sensation of it.
Are you going to dispute this fact?

Unless you can dispute these facts to this forum, then your arguments are worthless to everyone. For in these two facts alone, the idea of God is firmly established: as an all-knowing Mind which has the power and capability to create the ordered-sensations of universal existence upon itself, countless times-over. If you ignore these points again, then I can only doubt your sincerity.

1. But it creates it with reality. You have yet to show that the mind is wholly responsible for these sensations, and so you cannot continue this argument. Pain does come about without a physical stimulus.

2. This is not disputed. The mind is based on data from experiences. And these experiences come from reality.

Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation. Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself. The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. But it creates it with reality. You have yet to show that the mind is wholly responsible for these sensations, and so you cannot continue this argument. Pain does come about without a physical stimulus.

2. This is not disputed. The mind is based on data from experiences. And these experiences come from reality.

Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation. Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself. The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.

ALL his arguments are circular of course.

I keep saying here that such a debate, if it at all should occur on here on a Physics form in the Philosophy section, is very misplaced.

He takes the point of view of religion. There is a subsection, in which people with lesser minds can put their flawed concepts of reality in there.

 

[heusdens]

There is reality and there is the thinking/interpretation of reality.

Do we see in reality God? No we don't.

So if we come up in a theory of reality with this concept, which does
not has a representation in reality, this proofs that this theory is not a real representation of reality, but has a flawed concept and consistency.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Do I need to say anymore?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation. Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself. The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.

He has DEFINED reality just to be that. It is the naive outlook of a small child. When it experiences pain (for instance it fell from it's bicycle), it must hold something/someone responsible for inflicting that pain on him/her. It's just a very naive and primitive outlook on reality.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. But it creates it with reality. You have yet to show that the mind is wholly responsible for these sensations, and so you cannot continue this argument. Pain does come about without a physical stimulus.

But this is an assertion. You don't know that there is an external event, because you only have knowledge of an internal event. That's the point of my whole thread. And what is undisputable, is that the Mind itself has created sensations such as 'pain' upon its own awareness.

2. This is not disputed. The mind is based on data from experiences. And these experiences come from reality.

The Mind cannot create sensations mirroring the order of our universe unless it has prior knowledge of what the universe is about (prior to having the sensation of an event, the Mind must have knowledge of that event).
Clearly, The Mind does not merely know what it has sensed. The Mind has sensed what it already must know. It is the awareness of being lost within those sensations which has created 'human knowledge'.

Notice how you have failed in a primary role to classify reality as a sensation.

How have I failed? All experience of existence comes via created-sensations. It's impossible for you to counter that. Reality is sensation... combined with reason; emotion; will; etc..

Hence, mind based speculation fails as a proof simple because you cannot link that to existence itself.

That's all anyone can link to existence. You seem to be confused. Would you like to tell us about your experiences beyond your sensations and reason; emotion; will... ?

The only way this line of argument works is if you already assume the equivalence of reality with subjective sensations like pain. Ie. this is a circular argument.

The argument works because it reflects the reality of our experiences. It doesn't ask, for example, for the reader to simply 'believe' that sensations exist, since the reader knows exactly what I'm talking about, through direct-experience.

Materialism, on the other hand, is an appeal to take you beyond those sensations. It asks you to accept that there is an external reality, mirroring those sensations of yours. But it cannot give you any proof - rational or otherwise - that this is the case.
And then when I also posted an argument to show why an external-reality doesn't actually make sense (a few pages back), the construction of this argument was also largely-ignored. But the conclusion merely strengthed my own position.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
With great pleasure. First: you didn't define me what 'Mind' is or not is. So I have a huge gap in knowledge there, and all the rest is now becoming rather diffuse.

You don't know what your own mind is like? I was assuming that you were a sentient-being.
Mind is the sensations, plus reason; emotion; will...

I would still state that pain involves the following things:
1. An outside occurence. For instance something material that enters your skin.

The assertion of an external-reality is not supported by your knowledge about inner-experience. You must see that.
Do you also see, again, how you have just totally-evaded the 'fact' I presented and asked you to address? You never addressed it.
The fact is that The Mind itself creates the sensation of pain. You cannot dispute that. So the fact remains solid. It then leads to the second fact, which you've again ignored - that the Mind itself has knowledge before experience and without sensation.

Your statements don't mean anything to me. It's just wully bully bull ****.

Thanks for the laff!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You don't know what your own mind is like? I was assuming that you were a sentient-being.
Mind is the sensations, plus reason; emotion; will...

You are referring here to some 'common sense' knowledge, which you assume I must have. Wether I assume or know (or think to know) I have a mind is here not in any way of any importance. And we can not go from any common sense view. (in the same way, you disqualify materialism, cause it is based on a common sense view that matter exist as something outside the mind).

Now you state that the mind is composed of, consists of, or contains the following elements: sensations. reasons. emotion. will.
That is at least something!

Now, the next step is of course: define me those entities.

The assertion of an external-reality is not supported by your knowledge about inner-experience. You must see that.

I DO have knowledge about 'external reality' (the reality as it is). You just claim that I can not know that! It's a claim with no basis however!

You DEFINE inner experience to be the sole basis for experience and knowledge. It is not. You just think or define it is. That is the real problem!

Here is the famous computer anology again:

The CPU in my computer is not in any way familiar with the concept of Word documents. All it know are 32 bit sized words.
Nevertheless, my computer can present me a Word document. So, therefore I assume my computer is able of performing that task, and 'knows' about Word documents.

What have you to say against that?

Do you also see, again, how you have just totally-evaded the 'fact' I presented and asked you to address? You never addressed it.
The fact is that The Mind itself creates the sensation of pain.

"The Mind". Here is the 'God' concept again. It still misses internal representation. I look at reality, which is our arbiter and stage.
No 'God' there. Ok?

So in 'fact' I do dispute what you say here.

You cannot dispute that.

If I DO dispute them, does that in your mind mean that I can?

If I DO ride my bicycle, does that in your mind mean that I know how to ride a bicycle?

So the fact remains solid. It then leads to the second fact, which you've again ignored - that the Mind itself has knowledge before experience and without sensation.

Solid? It's not founded on anything!
How solid can anything be when it misses foundations?


You keep mixing 'The Mind' and 'mind'. The first term is something that totally misses representation in my point of view.

'mind' as the processes, concepts, thoughts, emotions, etc. that are taking place as material phenomena in my brain, is something else.
I could come to see that, if you define that properly for me.

PS.
Did you read my posts anyhow about little I and big I?
It might explain a few things here.

If you determine knowledge and awareness to be what little I encounters, you will miss a few points then, same as in the computer analogy.

You just fail to see that, and won't admit it!

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
But this is an assertion. You don't know that there is an external event, because you only have knowledge of an internal event. That's the point of my whole thread. And what is undisputable, is that the Mind itself has created sensations such as 'pain' upon its own awareness.

The Mind cannot create sensations mirroring the order of our universe unless it has prior knowledge of what the universe is about (prior to having the sensation of an event, the Mind must have knowledge of that event).
Clearly, The Mind does not merely know what it has sensed. The Mind has sensed what it already must know. It is the awareness of being lost within those sensations which has created 'human knowledge'.

How have I failed? All experience of existence comes via created-sensations. It's impossible for you to counter that. Reality is sensation... combined with reason; emotion; will; etc..

That's all anyone can link to existence. You seem to be confused. Would you like to tell us about your experiences beyond your sensations and reason; emotion; will... ?

The argument works because it reflects the reality of our experiences. It doesn't ask, for example, for the reader to simply 'believe' that sensations exist, since the reader knows exactly what I'm talking about, through direct-experience.

Materialism, on the other hand, is an appeal to take you beyond those sensations. It asks you to accept that there is an external reality, mirroring those sensations of yours. But it cannot give you any proof - rational or otherwise - that this is the case.
And then when I also posted an argument to show why an external-reality doesn't actually make sense (a few pages back), the construction of this argument was also largely-ignored. But the conclusion merely strengthed my own position.

1. Ouch. You just decimated your own argument. This thread is not about assertions against each other. It is about proof. By admiting you only have knowledge of internal events, you have shown that you cannot determine the idea that sensations are wholly mindful to be a fact, as you cannot know that they are NOT stimulated by an external factor. So, the rest of your proof is based on an irrational assumption contrary to common sense, and can not be a proof.

2. This is an assertion, a matter of your belief. It is not proof. I am merely saying there are two conclusions from this fact. You have unreasonably ruled out the other.

3.

How have I failed? All experience of existence comes via created-sensations. It's impossible for you to counter that. Reality is sensation... combined with reason; emotion; will; etc..

Repeating it does not make it more true. And the fact that perceptions comes via the mind does not mean that the source of the perceptions is all sensation, that there is reality beyond sensation or what we can perceive. You have failed to reason this. You have instead assumed it irrationally.

That's all anyone can link to existence. You seem to be confused. Would you like to tell us about your experiences beyond your sensations and reason; emotion; will... ?

But all that exists is not all that can be seen. You have not made this crucial link. Perception is irrelevant unless you show this relevance. The only way you can make this relevance between what is perceived and what is actually real is by assuming your hypothesis to be correct. A circular argument, QED.

The construction of the anti-external reality argument was largely ignored? Are you joking? I posted 2 posts in reply to it. It seems you have ignored that in making your conclusion, not I.

EDIT: correction, I posted 3 posts in reply. You only responded to one, and I refuted that.

 

[Iacchus32]

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."

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.

No, it makes a very good point, and reiterates precisely what Lifegazer is saying, that the proof of God is "within us." Always has and always will be, as is the "proof" of everything else. Get it?

Oh, and by the way, does anybody know that Lifegazer started this thread on Good Friday? Hmm... I wonder if he did it deliberately?

 

[heusdens]

LG fails to see a lot of common sense points. That is the reason he keeps coming up with his crap.

Awareness and knowledge. To LG this is only seeable by the inner awareness. Reality is defined as that what occurs in the mind only.

Reality is thus brought back from an infinite universe to the size of not much more then the size of a football.

Do we miss here something?

If you deny the most part of reality is not part of reality in your theory, then there is not much to say for such a theory.

The rest is just circular reasoning.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Materialism, on the other hand, is an appeal to take you beyond those sensations. It asks you to accept that there is an external reality, mirroring those sensations of yours. But it cannot give you any proof - rational or otherwise - that this is the case.
And then when I also posted an argument to show why an external-reality doesn't actually make sense (a few pages back), the construction of this argument was also largely-ignored. But the conclusion merely strengthed my own position.

This is clearly a false claim about materialism.

The acceptance of material reality is not something of cognition.
That is false reasoning! Material reality exist, wether you are consciously aware of it or not. You can only try to create in your mind an image of a world where that what you are in your ordinary life aware of (consciously or not) would not be existent.
This is precisely the other way around. It asks for cognitive capacities to try to deny the existence of the world!
But cognition can not accept that, no matter how hard one tries!
Cognition can at least not fail to admit that at least cognition itself must be present and that the 'tour-de-frappe' of being mentally cognitive about a non-existent world, simply fails!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

No, it makes a very good point, and reiterates precisely what Lifegazer is saying, that the proof of God is "within us." Always has and always will be, as is the "proof" of everything else. Get it?

Oh, and by the way, does anybody know that Lifegazer started this thread on Good Friday? Hmm... I wonder if he did it deliberately? [/QUOTE]


Now excuse me. I fail to see this proof of God "within us".
I don't know if that is a "weakness" of my mental and cognitive system, or that there is just lack of proof, or that other people just lack to see that there is no proof of God, and that anything they may come up with, wether inner experience or something else, can always be explained in other terms.

To proof something, well let us define this in such aw way that this is open for arbitration. That what you see in your mind, is not witnesable for me. And we currently lack any device that can connect my brain directly to your brain.

So could we please agree on the fact that therefore we need a more objective arbiter?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is clearly a false claim about materialism.

The acceptance of material reality is not something of cognition.
That is false reasoning! Material reality exist, wether you are consciously aware of it or not. You can only try to create in your mind an image of a world where that what you are in your ordinary life aware of (consciously or not) would not be existent.
This is precisely the other way around. It asks for cognitive capacities to try to deny the existence of the world!
But cognition can not accept that, no matter how hard one tries!
Cognition can at least not fail to admit that at least cognition itself must be present and that the 'tour-de-frappe' of being mentally cognitive about a non-existent world, simply fails!

But what brought about that external reality if not through the "consolidation" of an "original idea?" Of course one might be willing to argue that this is not the case with nature (which occurs more on a subconscious level), but with man, that's an entirely different story. Who, through his very ideas (... idea/ideal/idealism), consolidates everything around him, i.e., in a concrete and "material sense."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But what brought about that external reality if not through the "consolidation" of an "original idea?" Of course one might be willing to argue that this is not the case with nature (which occurs more on a subconscious level), but with man that's an entirely different story. Who, through his very ideas (... idea/ideal/idealism), consolidates everything around, i.e., in a concrete and "material sense."

If you figuratively speak about an entity that had an "original idea" and "consolidated" that into material form, I can state that this was not the case.

But that you already saw.

The difficulty of the acceptance of this is perhaps not due to the explenation itself, but due to the difficulty in 'giving up' on a created concept of this.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Now excuse me. I fail to see this proof of God "within us".
I don't know if that is a "weakness" of my mental and cognitive system, or that there is just lack of proof, or that other people just lack to see that there is no proof of God, and that anything they may come up with, wether inner experience or something else, can always be explained in other terms.

To proof something, well let us define this in such aw way that this is open for arbitration. That what you see in your mind, is not witnesable for me. And we currently lack any device that can connect my brain directly to your brain.

So could we please agree on the fact that therefore we need a more objective arbiter?

Just as you have to prove to yourself that "you exist" (you and everything else around you; nobody else will do it for you), then the same criteria of "proof" falls directly on the doorstep of you know Who ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But what brought about that external reality if not through the "consolidation" of an "original idea?" Of course one might be willing to argue that this is not the case with nature (which occurs more on a subconscious level), but with man, that's an entirely different story. Who, through his very ideas (... idea/ideal/idealism), consolidates everything around him, i.e., in a concrete and "material sense."

And what is an idea, if not an abstraction in the first place?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just as you have to prove to yourself that "you exist" (you and everything else around you; nobody else will do it for you), then the same criteria of "proof" falls directly on the doorstep of you know who ...

Have you read my posts on this subject?
Like in the thread 'The Fundamental Question' and 'proof against Lifegazers hypothese' - the intermezzo part.

In a cognitive sense this was an excercise in prooving that the negation of my normal attitude towards reality (reality exists), was failing. A mental image of the negation or absense of the world, was impossible for the fact that the cognition itself makes that impossible (it's impossible to use your cognition to be aware of a state of the world in which your awareness isn't there).

But what to conclude from that?

I would conclude that it 'proofs' for me that the world is really there! No doubt about that.

If the world wouldn't be there, then neither I would be there.

A misinterpretation is to say that the world thanks it's presence to the fact that there is some entity, which can reflect upon itself as 'I' was there and 'created' the world.

I explained that already, I think.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
If you figuratively speak about an entity that had an "original idea" and "consolidated" that into material form, I can state that this was not the case.

We, the "entity of mankind," do it all the time. Which, if you like, can be taken it to be a reflection of an even "Greater Entity."

The difficulty of the acceptance of this is perhaps not due to the explenation itself, but due to the difficulty in 'giving up' on a created concept of this.

Are you referring to yourself, or me?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We, the "entity of mankind," do it all the time. Which, if you like, can be taken it to be a reflection of an even "Greater Entity."

Which is?

[

Are you referring to yourself, or me?

It was generally speaking, since we still see a lot of these ideas around in present days.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
In a cognitive sense this was an excercise in prooving that the negation of my normal attitude towards reality (reality exists), was failing. A mental image of the negation or absense of the world, was impossible for the fact that the cognition itself makes that impossible (it's impossible to use your cognition to be aware of a state of the world in which your awareness isn't there).

And yet it's through this process of cognition that we learn to develop a sense of reason, and it's through our sense of reason (again, based upon cognizance), that we are able to ascertain whether or not God exists. Now why does that sound so much like what Lifegazer is saying? And how is it that both he and I can acknowledge it at the same time?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. Ouch. You just decimated your own argument. This thread is not about assertions against each other. It is about proof.

I never asserted anything. Read those 'facts' again. They were structured upon reason. They were built.

By admiting you only have knowledge of internal events, you have shown that you cannot determine the idea that sensations are wholly mindful to be a fact

At this particular stage of my argument, I do not make that conclusion. The reason for dismissing external-reality ultimately falls upon this:-
Existence (whatever it might be) is eternal and boundless. It is definitely a singularity. Explanation can be given again, if you wish. It all boils-down to 'something' not emanating from absolutely-nothing; nor of existence being embraced by 'nothing'.
This instantly shows that 'motion' is purely in the mind. Because it is impossible to actually move across a singularity. And a singularity of indivisible-nature is definitely what existence must be. And I'm not talking about a singularity in the same sense as science. I'm using the term in its purest rational-sense. An indivisible existence, which has truly always existed - but which has not always existed in the time we are experiencing. For this time of ours has its origin within It. 'The Mind' created the time we now see.

as you cannot know that they are NOT stimulated by an external factor. So, the rest of your proof is based on an irrational assumption contrary to common sense, and can not be a proof.

My first argument denounced materialism without having to even consider it. The conclusion was a consequence of my own conclusion.
But I have presented this other argument for the skeptics. And it too denounces the sense of an external-reality, by directly addressing that reality.

 

[FZ+]

My first argument denounced materialism without having to even consider it. The conclusion was a consequence of my own conclusion.

Precisely! Therefore this cannot be a proof, only a circular assumption. Your facts are not facts at all. Do you see now?

(Incidentally, by declaring that existence is only within the mind, you have self-invalidated your comment existence is boundless and eternal. You have also not shown any of the things you assert. You seem to be just repeating yourself.)

When by the way are we going to get the reasoned explanations you speak so much of?

 

[heusdens]

This thread is about the subject of 'A proof for the existence of God'.

So far no proof has come up.

But I got something else, which I would like to adress.

We can ask the world, with which we daily interact, about it's existence. Not literally or directly of course, but in an indirect way. We can ask the question, why there exists a world, in the first place, instead of no world.

All the times I dig into this issue, the only answer I get from this is: 'I can not fail to exist'.

I must add to this that I is a general way of perceiving. It is about 'I'-ness. About oneself sensing oneself. Something like an universal 'I'.

Now, one can then go interpreting this, in as what it means.

For some perhaps, this is like asking about God, and then God comes up with the answer : 'I can not fail to exist'. For me this does not work, since it requires one to already have a concept in one's mind of God, which I hadn't and still haven't.

"I cannot fail to exists" means for me this. An entity, that has selfawareness, is not able of detecting it's own inexistence. Because if it is inexistent, it is not able of detecting anything.

It can also be interpreted as that for the world itself, it is not able of being inexistent. Which means in other words, it has always and will always be.

Not let us leave the issue with that. That answers should be sufficient.

Let's leave it with the experience, and leave that to itself. Overinterpreting it would only destriy the experience itself.

 

[Iacchus32]

I would like to interject one thing here. That although Lifegazer "seems" to be rejecting "external reality" (I don't know if it's his wording or what?), the whole purpose of this thread is to provide "proof of the existence of God," in which case there are many similarities between what Lifegazer is saying and what I'm saying. Comprender?

And yet it seems everyone wants to pick at this one point, and use it to invalidate the rest of the argument ...

 

[FZ+]

And yet it seems everyone wants to pick at this one point, and use it to invalidate the rest of the argument.

Because his utter failure to show this does in fact invalidate his whole "proof".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely! Therefore this cannot be a proof, only a circular assumption. Your facts are not facts at all. Do you see now?

No I don't. If I build an argument to say that existence is 'x', I am definitely well-positioned to say that it is not 'y' (since y is the opposite of x).
Furthermore, I have addressed external-reality head-on in that second argument. I have made this conclusion independent of my first argument.

(Incidentally, by declaring that existence is only within the mind, you have self-invalidated your comment existence is boundless and eternal.

Why? I am merely advocating that there are no barriers or limits to the mind's existence. Even the laws of physics are sometimes defied in our dreams.

You have also not shown any of the things you assert. You seem to be just repeating yourself.

If you cannot see the validity of my reason, then don't blame me. The Mind creates sensory-experience and the Mind has knowledge prior to sensing existence. I've fully-explained why this is so. It's very simple really. Anyone could grasp it... unless he didn't want to. I can do nothing to address your feelings. You are responsible for them.