A proof for the existence of God?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
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.

Concepts are developed through the capacity of reason. Therefore, it all depends on whether you want to "reason" it out for yourself or not.

 

[Lifegazer]

Do you agree with my argument Iacchus32? You haven't made yourself clear.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Concepts are developed through the capacity of reason. Therefore, it all depends on whether you want to "reason" it out for yourself or not.

Like I said, that is what reason I put it into it, but I was stating it just briefly, cause that would lead to over interpretation, and would undo the experience itself.

Clearifying it as 'God' doesn't do it for me, cause then you add-in a culturally developed and therefore artificial concept.

I would like to speak more in terms of universal awareness of being.

If you ask the universe of why does it exist, it responds in your mind with 'I can not fail to exist'. Which gives you an impression of the infinite being that exist, in time and space.

For me this is close to the reality, and the materialistic concept of describing existence makes for me therefore sense. Much sense in fact.

So why would I need to adopt any other concept?

 

[FZ+]

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).

I think you will find that you have show existence can be x. You have not shown it can only be x, or that it can be x and y as well. Opposites can co-exist... unless you show otherwise. Which you also have not done.
Suppose I say invisible Santa Clauses exist, and they uphold the laws of physics. I discount without having to consider any possibility that they do not exist, and say that because the laws of physics work, invisible Santa Clauses must exist to make it work, and the fact we do not see them is because they are invisible. Since invisible Santa Clauses are the opposite of no invisible Santa Clauses, have I made a valid argument? That is exactly what you have done. You cannot start with an assumption and use it to self-justify.

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.

Nope. Boundless means without bounds. It implies that it is not within something, and is hence all encompassing. You cannot reasonably equate without bounds to bounded by an infinite sized object. It is, in fact, an absurdity. And you have further invalidated your statement by saying that the medium of existence and the laws with it are not boundless, since they cannot exist in the mind.

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.

It is not my fault you have no reasonable argument for these assertions, and that you have not responded to my objections.
I can similarly say: "I can see the invalidity of your reason. It is not my fault you do not." Do you see the utter pointlessness of trying to curry sympathy like this?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Clearifying it as 'God' doesn't do it for me, cause then you add-in a culturally developed and therefore artificial concept.

My notion of 'God' does not come from any religious text. My notion of 'God' relates to a concept of the Mind which acknowledges the possibility that such an entity might exist. Religions were founded upon the concept. Not vice versa. The concept exists within our minds because our reason can understand the concept of an all-powerful being, without having to see such a being.
Thus, any philosophical contemplation of 'God' can only be done in relation to a reasoned analysis of the meaning behind that concept. And reason cannot accept a limited entity as 'God'. It's simple.
Hence, 'God' is all things... omnipresent; God is omnipotent (all creative); God is omniscient. These are the minimum requirements of an entity which can be labelled as 'God'. And The Mind fulfils all of those requirements.
I have not labelled the Mind as 'God' without justification.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Do you agree with my argument Iacchus32? You haven't made yourself clear.

Do I believe in a Universal reality that can be viewed as one mind? Yes.

Do I believe we all share in that same reality? Yes.

Do I believe that God exists? Yes.

Do I believe that reality is determinate (at least for us) upon what we perceive? Yes.

Do I believe we develop our understanding of God through the process of reason? Yes.

The only thing that seems to be an issue is whether or not external reality exists outside of "our mind." In which case I would have to say, Yes it does. As it needs to be included, at the very least, for the sake for everyone else's benefit.

Besides that, I don't know how I can make myself any more clear?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think you will find that you have shown existence can be x.

Then you do see the credibility in the argument.

You have not shown it can only be x, or that it can be x and y as well. Opposites can co-exist... unless you show otherwise. Which you also have not done.

When 'x' is shown to be a singularity of existence with pre-universal knowledge of the sensations which It shall create (as explained), then there is no logical possibility of an external reality. No thing can be external to a true singularity. Which means that a singularity is not enveloped by anything - including 'nothing' - for how can 'nothing' envelop anything? And how can something else envelop a singularity? - Its own indivisibility would be compromised at the boundary of those two different entities. You need to ponder that more carefully, I feel.
In this specific case, 'x' means that 'y' is false.

Nope. Boundless means without bounds. It implies that it is not within something, and is hence all encompassing. You cannot reasonably equate without bounds to bounded by an infinite sized object.

I have said that existence is a singularity. 'Size' is an illusion happening within the mind.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My notion of 'God' does not come from any religious text. My notion of 'God' relates to a concept of the Mind which acknowledges the possibility that such an entity might exist. Religions were founded upon the concept. Not vice versa. The concept exists within our minds because our reason can understand the concept of an all-powerful being, without having to see such a being.
Thus, any philosophical contemplation of 'God' can only be done in relation to a reasoned analysis of the meaning behind that concept. And reason cannot accept a limited entity as 'God'. It's simple.
Hence, 'God' is all things... omnipresent; God is omnipotent (all creative); God is omniscient. These are the minimum requirements of an entity which can be labelled as 'God'. And The Mind fulfils all of those requirements.
I have not labelled the Mind as 'God' without justification.

I don't know if you ever cared to follow my path of reasoning, cause in that reasoning, a concept of God never digs up. The only way it can, and as I showed you over and over again, is because of insufficient and unprofounded reasoning, as in your hypothese.
Why deny existence of the universe and all material being, as the very fundament of the theory, and then later on having to admit that you can not possibly make sense of it, and need therefore a new concept, which you call 'God' or 'The Mind'. It just shows that the part of reality you left out, was done on wrong assumptions, cause it could not be left out. That is what I call flawed reasoning. Materialism clearly defines being and does that in a profound way. The way of evolving and developing materialism is through science, and therefore makes it possible to test the thoughts. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the thinking.
Second: no matter how you define God and arrive at that concept, which is in all not much different from how others arrive at this concept, is nevertheless a religious concept. So this drags in a whole lot of other concepts. A fundamental flaw is that the theory can not be tested experimentally.

Now you tell me what is wrong with the concept of matter, and of the developed materialis theory. What part of it don't you understand. What part of the method of science, or what conclusion of science aren't you happy with? What makes it, you think you need to replace this with?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only thing that seems to be an issue is whether or not external reality exists outside of "our mind." In which case I would have to say, Yes it does. As it needs to be included, at the very least, for the sake for everyone elses benefit.

Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.

 

[FZ+]

Then you do see the credibility in the argument.

Notice the word can. You have shown it is not immediately disprovable. But this is nowhere near a proof of god. Lack of disproof does not equal proof. Any body with experience in logic knows that.

I have said that existence is a singularity. 'Size' is an illusion happening within the mind.

This is a nonsensical statement. If you say that one aspect is an illusion, how then do you validate the others? An additional flaw in your argument pops up. How can you justify using your sense of "reason"? How do you know that reason is real, not an illusion of the mind? Outside of the mind, it follows there is no reason, and there is no reason why the mind itself is governed by reasonably laws. Hence you cannot prove or disprove it by reason, and the existence of god, or the mind, is not plausible as a target for logical discussion. You can additionally no longer deny the existence of external reality outside the mind, as reason no longer applies. The only solution is to place the laws of the universe as objectively real, in which can you create an external reality to support this reason. See?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do I believe in a Universal reality that can be viewed as one mind? Yes.

Do I believe we all share in that same reality? Yes.

Do I believe that God exists? Yes.

Do I believe that reality is determinate (at least for us) upon what we perceive? Yes.

Do I believe we develop our understanding of God through the process of reason? Yes.

The only thing that seems to be an issue is whether or not external reality exists outside of "our mind." In which case I would have to say, Yes it does. As it needs to be included, at the very least, for the sake for everyone elses benefit.

Besides that, I don't how I can make myself any more clear?

If on the other hand, you don't believe in an external reality, then perhaps this is your way of dealing with all the "suffering" in the world, by not acknowledging it? (i.e., to distance yourself from it). You know, how could God, which you've come to accept, and is supposed to be Good, possibly allow us to suffer? Of course this is just a guess?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.

I think it's important for us to feel that sense of seperation, by virtue of some barrier (our ignorance?), otherwise we would never have the capacity to acknowledge Him, at least from the standpoint of being "seperate beings," i.e., God is not looking for conscripts.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
a concept of God never digs up. The only way it can, and as I showed you over and over again, is because of insufficient and unprofounded reasoning, as in your hypothese.

My reasoning builds towards an omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent Mind which exists at singularity. That's God, by reason... not by assertion.

I'd like to say that I believe that some people here are actually afraid of my philosophy. They cannot handle the enormity of it all. I understand that. But believe me; my philosophy is not bad news. There's absolutely-nothing to be afraid of. My philosophy does not condemn anyone.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reasoning builds towards an omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent Mind which exists at singularity. That's God, by reason... not by assertion.

But you did not build that tower of reasoning on firm facts and realities. Instead, you built this tower on itself, and shored it up with unproven and often unprovable assumptions. The route is reason, but the sum result? It is still assertion of one's belief, nothing more.

I'd like to say that I believe that some people here are actually afraid of my philosophy. They cannot handle the enormity of it all. I understand that. But believe me; my philosophy is not bad news. There's absolutely-nothing to be afraid of. My philosophy does not condemn anyone.

One word: Arrogance.
Have you ever even considered the idea that this thread is no proof at all, merely an example of a SELF consistent theory with God as it's aim?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My reasoning builds towards an omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent Mind which exists at singularity. That's God, by reason... not by assertion.

I'd like to say that I believe that some people here are actually afraid of my philosophy. They cannot handle the enormity of it all. I understand that. But believe me; my philosophy is not bad news. There's absolutely-nothing to be afraid of. My philosophy does not condemn anyone.

It just puts things upside down, and inside out, uses inverse logic, and is full of flawed concept. But then that is just what this theory is, isn't it? Normal reasoning fails to understand your hypothese.

If one person has an iability to handle enormities, then it's you, cause you constantly argued against the infinite of time and space.

What is wrong with materialism? You never answered that.
Can't you handle the fact that 'dead' matter formed and shaped into sensible beings? That the laws of dialectics apply anywhere within matter and within thinking? That dialectical-materialism is a way to unite being and thinking? That science is a verifyable process and that religion is not?

 

[CJames]

Since this topic has gone on for so long with everybody saying the same things, I'm going to take it right back to the first post, try to summarize it, and explain exactly why I find no logical connections. I will first post the summary, then another post for my response, so that others can use the summary if they so desire.

How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance and of motion... which I think are related. Like AG, I think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.

1. All one knows is through the five senses.

These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know.

I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.

2. The mind must represent the five senses in a way that the mind can understand.

We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves is actually existent beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence. His own existence, via his own senses.

3. It is impossible to prove that this representation is based upon anything external.

And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each individual is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.

4. The subconscious generates this representation, which is then judged by the conscious using reason.

Thus, our whole understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own inner-existence - Mind-ful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.

5. Existence is experienced entirely within the mind via senses and reason.

Additionally:-
We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it. Note too that our perceptions are ordered. The universe works to specific laws. Therefore, these sensory-experiences must reflect this apparent order (and they do, of course).

6. To be capable of understanding the sensory data, the mind must have prior knowledge of that data.

Therefore, if the Mind is capable of creating 'awareness' of a universe even before it has 'sensed' this universe, we can only conclude that 'The Mind' had universal-knowledge before it created its own sensory-awareness of the universe. A hugely-significant conclusion this is too, because it shows that fundamentally, minds possessed universal-knowledge before those minds could ever come to 'sense' the order of the universe.

7. Minds therefore had knowledge of the universe before they sensed it.

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.
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.

8. Since all minds agree on the laws of physics, all these minds are somehow linked as a single Mind.

Given that this Mind fulfils the requirements of omnipotence; omnipresence; and omniscience, I conclude that this is the Mind of God.

9. This Mind is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and is therefore God.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
One word: Arrogance.
Have you ever even considered the idea that this thread is no proof at all, merely an example of a SELF consistent theory with God as it's aim?

My point was valid. The conclusion of my philosophy is one which might be rejected through fear alone. That would be criminal.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.

It says in the Bible that we're all brothers and sisters, and yet that separation does exist.

Let me ask you this? How do you distinguish between one form and another, if in fact it didn't have an "exterior" as well as an interior? At the same time, how is it possible to put one form inside another? Say like a ball inside a box? In which case you have one external reality resting "within" another? Why can't it be any different with our minds and the mind of God?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If on the other hand, you don't believe in an external reality, then perhaps this is your way of dealing with all the "suffering" in the world, by not acknowledging it? (i.e., to distance yourself from it). You know, how could God, which you've come to accept, and is supposed to be Good, possibly allow us to suffer? Of course this is just a guess?

Who is suffering? God is all things, in my philosophy. Only God suffers. But God cannot know joy without relating to suffering.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
1. All one knows is through the five senses.

I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.

That's just not true. We can know that the Mind itself has created an awareness of sensation. And as such, we can see that the Mind needs to have knowledge prior to creating sensed-order.
That's so simple that if you can't see it, then it's because you refuse to see it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by CJames
1. All one knows is through the five senses.

I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.

No, knowing is more than what we know through the five senses. Knowing is what we "interpert" through the five senses, otherwise we would be bereft of the brain to offer the interpretation (which has the ability to speculate on other matters as well).

 

[CJames]

1. All one knows is through the five senses.

True premise.

2. The mind must represent the five senses in a way that the mind can understand.

This is another obviously true premise.

3. It is impossible to prove that this representation is based upon anything external.

Again, entirely true. However, this should not be taken as a proof that the external reality does not exist.

4. The subconscious generates this representation, which is then judged by the conscious using reason.

Here you are assuming that 3. proves the external reality does not exist. You also offer no proof of the subonscious mind.

5. Existence is experienced entirely within the mind via senses and reason.

True again.

6. To be capable of understanding the sensory data, the mind must have prior knowledge of that data.

This is unsubstantiated and is not a logical necessity. Rather, a continuous intake of information can just as easily provide the knowledge needed to be capable of understanding sensory data.

7. Minds therefore had knowledge of the universe before they sensed it.

Based on faulty conclusion 6.

8. Since all minds agree on the laws of physics, all these minds are somehow linked as a single Mind.

There is nothing to logically disprove all minds couldn't be created with the same laws of physics without being linked. There is nothing to logically prove that any mind other than yours is real. How do you experience other people? Through the senses, just like everything else.

9. This Mind is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and is therefore God.

Being based on false/unsubstantiated conclusions and premises, this conclusion is false.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Who is suffering? God is all things, in my philosophy. Only God suffers. But God cannot know joy without relating to suffering.

We all suffer. Do you know why? Because we're ignorant.

Do you suffer? If you say you don't, then I would say mine was a pretty good guess.

 

[CJames]

And as such, we can see that the Mind needs to have knowledge prior to creating sensed-order.

No, it simply needs the potential to learn. As far as we know, knowledge isn't required to learn, and I see no reason to believe otherwise.

That's so simple that if you can't see it, then it's because you refuse to see it.

It's simple, and there's nothing there. Mine and others' refutations are just as simple, and you refuse to see them.

Take care--Carter

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
The best approach to this known to me is dialectical-materialism.

Then by all means you should believe it. But you cannot prove it or "know" it in any way beyond faith.

 

[quantumdude]

Fliption,

Seeing that this thread grew by several pages in my absence, I am not going to go on about solipsism here. It is not a point of dispute in this topic, and the thread is long enough.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I've shown that the only reality you can confirm is a mind-ful reality... whereby you have senses and then emotionalise/reason over those senses.

OK so far.

That is your 'existence'. That's our existence, too. You even agreed with this, earlier.

Here's one of your leaps of faith, and no, I never agreed with it. In fact, it was one of the things I identified as a leap of faith. There is no way to logically deduce "my existence is in my mind" from "my perceptions are in my mind".

"Reality is in the mind" is confirmed - regardless of the rest of my argument.

It so very obviously is not confirmed, that I can't believe you are still repeating this. I have read the rest of the thread, and you are still stuck on it. The above is simply not a valid deduction. Why are you so unwilling to lose your bias and look at this logically?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Since this topic has gone on for so long with everybody saying the same things, I'm going to take it right back to the first post, try to summarize it, and explain exactly why I find no logical connections. I will first post the summary, then another post for my response, so that others can use the summary if they so desire.

1. All one knows is through the five senses.

I would stop here, because it is indeed all we can know.

2. The mind must represent the five senses in a way that the mind can understand.

3. It is impossible to prove that this representation is based upon anything external.

4. The subconscious generates this representation, which is then judged by the conscious using reason.

5. Existence is experienced entirely within the mind via senses and reason.

6. To be capable of understanding the sensory data, the mind must have prior knowledge of that data.

7. Minds therefore had knowledge of the universe before they sensed it.

8. Since all minds agree on the laws of physics, all these minds are somehow linked as a single Mind.

9. This Mind is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and is therefore God.

Right. Thanks for taking us back.

People who cared to follow my 'Anti-Lifegazer' thread (thought the name of the thread was changed to 'proof against the hyopthese of the mind') must know by now the path of reasoning which the idealists follow. All known entities to us, of which we can be aware through our senses, are in a fact dismantled, and undone from their intrinsic properties. It is then stated that the 'things in themselves' which exist independend of our mind, are insignificant, and in fact the idealist claim that they do not exist at all, only the feelings, hearing, and other senses of which we are aware in our mind, exist.
Materialists reason against this, that although our awareness of things indeed takes place in our minds, and that our senses can make errors when detecting things, by using science we nevertheless know what the material world is like. Materialism can not be split with sciences. The consequences is that idealists have a limited vision on what the reality is. In fact the reality is defined as and limited to the inner experience of such a reality.

Let us take an example here.
For instance we know about the sun, which is a hot and dense globe of gas that emits enormous amounts of light, which come from nuclear fusion reactions inside the sun. Our limited senses have the awareness of the sun as a flat disk, which is brilliant at day time, and is bigger and redder near the end of the day, when the sun is just above the horizon. We know however that the sun isn't flat, neither a disk but a round globe, and that the sun emits light in all kind of light, visible, infrared, x-ray, etc. This kind of knowledge is not directly detectable by humans, but only by using detectors and instruments. There have been thousands or more of detections regarding all kinds of aspects of the sun. This enables us to make more profound assumptions on what the sun as a material object in fact is, how it is evolving, etc.

A statement as that in fact there would not be a sun, that exists independ of our mind, is in that respect an absurd notion. It ignores a great amount of evidence using varying sources and detection methods, that form a coherent picture of the sun. Unless one wants to be totally ignorant of that, it arges us to take into account that the sun really exist, and not just in our minds.

The uses of instruments enables us to go beyond our ordinary 5 senses, and increases our way of perceiving, and also understanding nature and the material world.

That would be sufficient to negate statement 1.

Statement 2 is for me a rather obscure statement.
I could only make a sensible statement, in which the perceptions which our ordinary senses receive, must be internally represented in such a way, that it has meaningfull information for us, as humans.
Which is a way of saying of why we see the things we see, and hear the things we hear, etc. Although our perceptions are certainly limited, for human purposes, these senses suffice.
The question, which is not adressed however, is to ask the why question. Why don't we see x-rays, or rontgen, but can see red, yellow, violet. Same for hearing and the other senses.
This has of course to do with the fact that the sensoray organs were developed in a long process of evolution, and were determined by the conditions of the environment. Comparing our senses to that of other animals, we don't have extra-ordinary well developed senses. Many animals have one or more senses that are better developed. The sight of cats is much better then that of humans, esp. in the dark.
Dogs can smell much better as humans. What gave humans an advantage in evolution was the well developed brain and reasoning system.

Statement 3. An external reality would be unprovable.
If one builds a theory in which the first premise is that there is no external reality, then within that theory this is unprovable.
But why would one make that assumption in the first place? Human life and all life is bound to enabling the species to survive. The senses are of course closely linked with this purpose. Why would we have an internal representation of an external reality, if such an external reality does not exist in the first place? The assumption that the sensory organs, do no really represent in our mind an image of something external, is therefore non-sense. Suppose a frog that sees an insect. If we don't assume the insect exist independend of the mind of the frog, then why would the frog have senses to detect the insect, and why would it not be the case that the insect really exists?
After all the frog needs the insect for a purpose of feeding. If the exernal reality would not exist, then ... so much for the frog, it would have starven to death. The hypothese of 'The Mind' which is able of seeing everything and is linked to every mind, in this sense is also suspicious. Why would the frog need to see the insect then? Instead, the Great Mind could then cause the insect to walk directly into the mouth of the frog, without the frog needing to see or sense it. It would make things infinitely less complex. It would not even call upon the need for any material world at all...


Living organisms developed in the course of evolution sensory organs, to be able to be aware of things outside them, in order for them to be able to survive, find food, find mates, etc.

As I am not an expert in biology and evolution theory, I will further direct to the various available sources on these kind of topics, that explain the development of species and the development of the sensory organs in greater detail.

Statement 4.
The incoming signals from the senses will be translated into information that other parts of the brain can handle, in order for it to be aware of it and make sense of it.

Also this is a highly specific subject, which is better explained in that discipline of science. (biology/cognition/brain).

Statement 5.
Our mind activities take place within the mind. We think with our brain. I think a lot more can be said on that, then that is stated here.

Statement 6.
The brain and all the sensory organs and other bodily properties, were developed during a very long lasting evolutionary process.
This would mean that the properties of the outside world, which were vital for the survival of the species, must be correctly representated within the brain itself, in order for the organism to function well and be able to survive.

Statement 7.
This is a statement without any proof. All we can assume however is the laws of phyiscs and chemistry that came in action. This determines the abilities of life forms to form and change during the long course of evolution.

Statement 8.
This is put in a weird way, as if a mind has to be asked wether or not to agree on the laws of physics. The laws of physics work no matter how one thinks about it. The laws governing the material world link everything together, yes they do. What is interesting to know however is how everything fits in place in this context.

Statement 9.
There is no clear connection to this statement and the other statements, which are partly or fully invalidated. Since the statements do then not lead to 'God' but to the laws that govern the material world, we better concentrate us to finding and prescribing those laws. The things we are looking for are present in matter, and only discoverable by scientific research. This has been done in numerous fields of science, and in many millions of explorations all over the world. If you want to find real answers for the questions being asked, ask them in a sensible way, and look at the results of scientific discoveries that took place in the last 20 centuries.

Or it must be that you are unbelieble dissatisfied with the results they until yet have found. But I am suspicious that you probably didn't have much science eduction, because the way you persistently want to reach this conclusion. If you want to find out the way material world works, then you have to study the results of science.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Then by all means you should believe it. But you cannot prove it or "know" it in any way beyond faith.

It's not a doctrine, and it doesn't ask to be believed.
As is said, the proof is in the practice. Dialectical-materialism should show it's usefullness in explaining the material world.
I will come soon with a post about dialectical-materialism.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My point was valid. The conclusion of my philosophy is one which might be rejected through fear alone. That would be criminal.

Don't come up with such hasty conclusions.

The arbiter in this game is the reality itself, which will take care itself of the conclusions you have drawn on her.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Can there be an external reality to God's Mind? That's the question.
If you restrict God to such a finite entity, then you kill the notion that 'it' is God.
If you believe that we all exist within God, and that God is all things; then you cannot argue that 'you' exist separately to 'me'. Because then you divide God against 'itself'. You separate God's Mind.

But what is a mind (even God's) if it's not allowed to differentiate? How could it distinguish between one form and another without their being separate? Why is it that you and I can't agree upon this, if in fact you were I and I were you? Because you and I "are" separate.

 

[CJames]

While heusdens does in fact assume that the material world does exist outside our minds, he presents a great deal of evidence to demonstrate why such an assumption is quite justified.

Since my perceptions of the world are always consistent, since they obey laws that do not change, since it is the only world in which I can communicate others and the only world I can make predictions about, it is in fact real, whether it's some illusion or not. And it is far more real than anything else, because the assumption that it's all false leaves me nowhere. It truly does, if you truly look at it logically. There are multiple conclusions to arrive at when you assume (or even if you prove) that it's all the creation of the mind. Statements that lead to multiple and simultaniously incompatable conclusions are not logical.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
While heusdens does in fact assume that the material world does exist outside our minds, he presents a great deal of evidence to demonstrate why such an assumption is quite justified.

Since my perceptions of the world are always consistent, since they obey laws that do not change, since it is the only world in which I can communicate others and the only world I can make predictions about, it is in fact real, whether it's some illusion or not. And it is far more real than anything else, because the assumption that it's all false leaves me nowhere. It truly does, if you truly look at it logically. There are multiple conclusions to arrive at when you assume (or even if you prove) that it's all the creation of the mind. Statements that lead to multiple and simultaniously incompatable conclusions are not logical.

Would my argument suffice?

 

[CJames]

It certainly seems to, although I guess I haven't gone over it with a fine-tooth comb or anything.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by CJames
1. True premise.

2. This is another obviously true premise.

3. Again, entirely true. However, this should not be taken as a proof that the external reality does not exist.

4. Here you are assuming that 3. proves the external reality does not exist. You also offer no proof of the subonscious mind.

5. True again.

Cjames my synopsis about 6 pages ago was very similar to this. But no oneresponded to it. I think I agreed with and had problems with the exact same points that you do.

But I still continue to disagree with the way Heusdens is presenting his case. He is basically disagreeing with number 3 even though he says "right" in response to it. There is no way to "know" the material world exists. Building evidence for it can only give you assurance to some percentage less than 100%. But there is no logical argument that will allow you to know this for sure.

Your comments in your last post are more of the same comments dealing with common sense notions and and evidence. None of this will give you knowledge of an external material world.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Cjames my synopsis about 6 pages ago was very similar to this. But no oneresponded to it. I think I agreed with and had problems with the exact same points that you do.

But I still continue to disagree with the way Heusdens is presenting his case. He is basically disagreeing with number 3 even though he says "right" in response to it. There is no way to "know" the material world exists. Building evidence for it can only give you assurance to some percentage less than 100%. But there is no logical argument that will allow you to know this for sure.

Your comments in your last post are more of the same comments dealing with common sense notions and and evidence. None of this will give you knowledge of an external material world.

The issue might well be stated, and is in fact equivallent to this: what does it need you (as a biological organism) to know that an "external reality" exists?

If you have little time to think, and your life is in danger, what do you think you will do? Our brains are built to deal with that, and don't need 100% certainty. Now the study of the biological organism will tell you that everywhere in nature you will find behaviour that absolute shows that organism behave acoording to their senses and according to the assumption that there is an external reality.

And for supplying even more reasons. Suppose that some biological species would appear, that would not apply this logic/reason and subsequent behaviour that there is an external reality according to their senses. It would not take long for such a species to go extinct. This is true for humans too of course. No matter how consequent an Idealist is in his thinking, he will still take care not to be droven over by a bus.