A proof for the existence of God?

[quantumdude]

Fliption,

I left a post for you in Heusdens' thread ("Proof Against LG's Theory") asking basically: What exactly would you accept as good philosophy?

It seems to me that you would only accept solipsism, and that no inductive logic is allowed at all. If so, then you are always going to be thinking "That is just not good philosophy," no matter who writes what.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
Fliption,

I left a post for you in Heusdens' thread ("Proof Against LG's Theory") asking basically: What exactly would you accept as good philosophy?

It seems to me that you would only accept solipsism, and that no inductive logic is allowed at all. If so, then you are always going to be thinking "That is just not good philosophy," no matter who writes what.

Ok Tom. How many times have you in the past allowed LifeGazer to stray from logic IN ANY WAY to come to his conclusions? How can we hold him to strict logical standards but allow Heusden so much freedom? BTW, I am certainly not saying that solipsism is all that's acceptable. I am claiming that you cannot know what the truth is either way. I have some issues with LG's argument as well. My point to Heusdens has been that it would be much easier to show that LG hasn't proven his case logically, then it is to try to prove the opposite view. He cannot do this in a satisifactory way and there are much more glaring issues with LG's points. He doesn't even need to do this.

And your example of someone manipulating their world with their mind would not be sufficient proof that one lives in the Matrix. You would first have to rule out that such a thing is not possible in a material universe. (Some people believe that it is!) Or I can argue that a mindful world which invokes order consistently with a law of physics wouldn't allow this sort of manipulation unless it too had a lawful explanation.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok Tom. How many times have you in the past allowed LifeGazer to stray from logic IN ANY WAY to come to his conclusions? How can we hold him to strict logical standards but allow Heusden so much freedom?

You're missing a fundamental point here though:

LG claims that he has proven his conclusions, which entails that the negation of his conclusions must be false. That requires absolute adherence to deductive logic from self-evident premises. Heusdens, on the other hand, has repeatedly acknowledged that no philosophical stance can be proven absolutely.

If LG would stop insisting that his conclusion is anything more than a mere possibility, I would stop hassling him (except when he goes loopy with scientific theories, in which case I have to step in not as "Tom", but as "PF Mentor").

BTW, I am certainly not saying that solipsism is all that's acceptable. I am claiming that you cannot know what the truth is either way.

I agree with that.

I have some issues with LG's argument as well. My point to Heusdens has been that it would be much easier to show that LG hasn't proven his case logically, then it is to try to prove the opposite view. He cannot do this in a satisifactory way and there are much more glaring issues with LG's points. He doesn't even need to do this.

That is an equally frustrating route as LG has no recognition of--and sees no need for--logic. If you get the PF v2.0 archives, you will find many instances of people pointing out both formal and informal errors to LG, only to have him shrug it off. This is especially frustrating when LG constantly demands that we address his "logic".

I can completely understand Heusdens' impulse to say, "to hell with it" and try to argue the materialist case. He may not prove it, but he can at least show that an alternative explanation exists, which would show that LG's argument is not valid.

And your example of someone manipulating their world with their mind would not be sufficient proof that one lives in the Matrix. You would first have to rule out that such a thing is not possible in a material universe. (Some people believe that it is!)

It isn't possible in a material universe. Of course, I say that as the conclusion of an inductive argument, which brings me to my other question: Do you accept inductive logic?

Or I can argue that a mindful world which invokes order consistently with a law of physics wouldn't allow this sort of manipulation unless it too had a lawful explanation.

I don't think that would matter, as the mere occurance of it would have no explanation in a material universe.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
You're missing a fundamental point here though:

Heusdens, on the other hand, has repeatedly acknowledged that no philosophical stance can be proven absolutely.

Well Tom then it seems you and I are not so far apart. But you would be right that I have missed one fundamental part. This statement you make about Heusdens has not been my observation at all. I've seen nothing but absolute statements about what is true and what is false from him/her. If I have misunderstood, then I'll bow out with Heusdens because this is my only objection.

That is an equally frustrating route as LG has no recognition of--and sees no need for--logic. If you get the PF v2.0 archives, you will find many instances of people pointing out both formal and informal errors to LG, only to have him shrug it off. This is especially frustrating when LG constantly demands that we address his "logic".

I can completely understand Heusdens' impulse to say, "to hell with it" and try to argue the materialist case. He may not prove it, but he can at least show that an alternative explanation exists, which would show that LG's argument is not valid.

I never understood why you guys don't just ignore him then. If it truly is not worth discussion due to this apparent hard headedness then why don't people just ignore the threads? This would be a much better tactic then to commit the same crimes by trying to prove the opposite view.

It isn't possible in a material universe. Of course, I say that as the conclusion of an inductive argument, which brings me to my other question: Do you accept inductive logic?

Well that's a very open ended question. It depends on what it's being used for. Is it a way to perhaps advance our understanding of how things work? Yes. I think so. Will it give you 100% certain knowledge? No. The conclusions you make inductively could change given more evidence as the years go by. Many conclusions achieved inductively have changed over the years. You cannot be certain that your current inductive conclusions will not also be shown to be false. In fact, one of the few things we can be certain about, is that some of them most definitely will be.

From my perspective, you may actually become 100% certain of how human anatomy works. But you can never be 100% certain that the external world really exists. But I thought we agreed on this and you are saying that apparently heusdens agrees with this as well.

I don't think that would matter, as the mere occurance of it would have no explanation in a material universe. [/B]

Here it is again. You're assuming the current world is all material (inductively I'm sure). No matter how you try to prove external reality, you have to invoke it in an assumption somewhere.

 

[Iacchus32]

What? The acknowledgment of truth is inborn? And hence the acknowledgment of God as well? You will "never" be able to prove the existence of God, to yourself or anyone else, unless you can get past this.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven ..."

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Wouldn't the obvious answer be because you can see that it's so? Does flesh and blood have to reveal it to you? (i.e., through the external senses). No.

This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is inborn. Knowlegde deals with dead "external facts."

If in fact God exists, then this cancels out everything which has been said so far.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What? The acknowledgment of truth is inborn? And hence the acknowledgment of God as well? You will "never" be able to prove the existence of God, to yourself or anyone else, unless you can get past this.

"Blessed art thou Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven ..."

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Wouldn't the obvious answer be because you can see that it's so? Does flesh and blood have to reveal it to you? (i.e., through the external senses). No.

This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is inborn. Knowlegde deals with dead "external facts."

If in fact God exists, then this cancels out everything which has been said so far.

Now why do I somehow sense this is the furthest thing from everyone's mind, to "prove the existence of God?" Could it be that we're all entrenched in our own views, and haven't the slightest inclination to go beyond what we've "formally" (i.e., formal = form = external) been taught?

What's the difference between the "established view" and an economic cash cow? Not much I suppose? There's a nice profit to be made for those who buy into it (or at least maintain a comfortable living), so long as "nobody" changes the way that it's "set up." Hmm... Now why would we want to do that?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Could it be that we're all entrenched in our own views, and haven't the slightest inclination to go beyond what we've "formally" (i.e., formal = form = external) been taught?

I think this is accurate about everybody else. But not me

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
I think this is accurate about everybody else. But not me

That's fair enough. It's just that everyone seems to want to argue about every single last detail, without giving any consideration to the real issue, Does God exist?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well Tom then it seems you and I are not so far apart. But you would be right that I have missed one fundamental part. This statement you make about Heusdens has not been my observation at all. I've seen nothing but absolute statements about what is true and what is false from him/her. If I have misunderstood, then I'll bow out with Heusdens because this is my only objection.

Since I have been mentioned here, and I seem to be the source of the confusion, let me try and explain the issue.

I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge. The position of the other side is and always will be to proof then that there are things we do not know, and cannot know, and therefore we dont't have knowledge at all. This would leave us then just with thoughts, impressions, emotions, etc. but no real and profound knowledge.

I also used the analogy of the computer. Let us make the following steps. The brain and nerve system is the whole computer. The center of our awareness and ratio is the CPU. Knowledge translates into a capacity. Has the computer the capacity to open a Word document? Yes it has. But does the CPU have that capacity? No, all it can deal with are 32 bit words (either as data or operarands). What we define then the capacity of the computer to be, is dependend on our point of view. Does our knowledge reside in the total complexity of our whole system, or do we think it is just this center of awareness and ratio?
That is the crucial point.

We can not deny the fact that our whole system is able to know the material world. All our behaviour just shows and proofs that.
The other thing is wether we can know that from our center of awareness and ratio alone. The answer is probably no, at least not directly. There is one exclusion to this, we can bring our thinking and ratio and awareness in such a state in which it is is confronted with the fact that EITHER also the ratio and awaraness itself does not exist, OR it just has to assume that everything in the whole world, of which it does not has direct knowledge must exist.
(see tread 'The Fundamental Issue' and the thread 'Proog against lifegazers mind hypothese' the intermezzo part).

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge. The position of the other side is and always will be to proof then that there are things we do not know, and cannot know, and therefore we dont't have knowledge at all. This would leave us then just with thoughts, impressions, emotions, etc. but no real and profound knowledge.

Do you believe the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe the acknowledgment of truth is inborn? If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

We have the reasoning capacity to find the truth, and to acknowledge the truth, although truth is something relative. We are able to make a more comprehensible picture of reality, which becomes more and more like the truth, so every step we take will lead us further to the truth. This doesn't mean we may take sometimes mistakes, which lead us further away from truth, but we will find out that we made a mistake.
All I know is that we are able to find a relative better truth, but do not know about the truth in advance (that's why we have to find and research it). We do not always know what paths to take in advance, we may be on a path that leads to nowhere, but we can catch up for that, and take a road that will take us further.
From our past (in the last thousands of years) investigation, I do certainly have the impression that we are advancing and progressing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
All I know is that we are able to find a relative better truth, but do not know about the truth in advance (that's why we have to find and research it). We do not always know what paths to take in advance, we may be on a path that leads to nowhere, but we can catch up for that, and take a road that will take us further.

Then what is intuition? if not some degree of foresight?

This I would deem comparable to the sun as it begins to rise (better qualify that by saying "appears to rise") and, while it may not have reached the horizon yet, there is evidence--i.e., "pre-knowledge"--that it will, by virtue of the light that precedes it. Perhaps something similar is going on inside our brains? Could that be what they mean by "flash of insight?"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what is intuition? if not some degree of foresight?

This I would deem comparable to the sun as it begins to rise (better qualify that by saying "appears to rise") and, while it may not have reached the horizon yet, there is evidence--i.e., "pre-knowledge"--that it will, by virtue of the light that precedes it. Perhaps something similar is going on inside our brains? Could that be what they mean by "flash of insight?"

We have partly consciousnessly and partly unconsciously established a model of how reality works. From there one we can in a certain way use that "model" as a way of predicting things. Part of this is done subsconsciously, and therefore we can have in a flash a picture of the immediate or near future.

When I see someone in front of me, which a glas in his hands, and manipulating it in a such a way that I am almost certain it will faal, I can see in a "flash" the glass falling in thousands pieces on the ground, before it actually happens. This information of things about to occur, all happen on know information of how reality works, based on experience. Most of how this is done, is a hidden layer of consciousness. We would really turn mad if we knew how our brain performs all the numerous tasks it has to perform, for instance only walking is an immensely complex task, or speaking.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
When I see someone in front of me, which a glas in his hands, and manipulating it in a such a way that I am almost certain it will faal, I can see in a "flash" the glass falling in thousands pieces on the ground, before it actually happens. This information of things about to occur, all happen on know information of how reality works, based on experience. Most of how this is done, is a hidden layer of consciousness. We would really turn mad if we knew how our brain performs all the numerous tasks it has to perform, for instance only walking is an immensely complex task, or speaking.

Yeah, I've had this happen to me numerous times. For example if I was working on something or trying to get something done, and then out of the blue a thought would occur to me, well what if this (or whatever) happened? Which, I would pretty much ignore as it didn't seem all that much out of the ordinary, so I would keep working. But sure enough, only a moment later, there it was all over the floor.

While I eventually learned to acknowledge this, and whenever it occurred I would just stop, reassess what I was doing, and go back to work. And sure enough it went away or, had become incorporated in my "behavior pattern."

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Since I have been mentioned here, and I seem to be the source of the confusion, let me try and explain the issue.

I think we can know, like materialism claims, the material world. No doubt about this. But our knowledge we have, is not and never will be absolute knowledge.

Well If Tom read this post from Heusdens, I think he can see why there is so much confusion. I am still not clear on exactly what is being said. The first few words say "we can know" and then the sentence goes on to say that we cannot know for certain. I think we need to be real careful with the words know/knowledge. The way it's being used here is what I would call a belief. I will conceed that some beliefs are backed with much more evidence than others but it is a belief nonetheless. I associate the ability to know materialism with the ability to see your own eyeball with your very own eyes in real time. It cannot be done. As soon as you take your eyes out to look at them, you have nothing to see with.

The analogy with the computer/cpu and brain/awareness just loses me completely. It's just not this complicated. All knowledge must pass through awareness.

I'm beginning to think this is just a combination of semantics and personal taste on how views are presented with "spin". I'm not so sure I think any of it is relevant to the topic. We can critique LG's proof without having to "know" that materialism is correct.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well If Tom read this post from Heusdens, I think he can see why there is so much confusion. I am still not clear on exactly what is being said. The first few words say "we can know" and then the sentence goes on to say that we cannot know for certain. I think we need to be real careful with the words know/knowledge. The way it's being used here is what I would call a belief. I will conceed that some beliefs are backed with much more evidence than others but it is a belief nonetheless. I associate the ability to know materialism with the ability to see your own eyeball with your very own eyes in real time. It cannot be done. As soon as you take your eyes out to look at them, you have nothing to see with.

The analogy with the computer/cpu and brain/awareness just loses me completely. It's just not this complicated. All knowledge must pass through awareness.

I'm beginning to think this is just a combination of semantics and personal taste on how views are presented with "spin". I'm not so sure I think any of it is relevant to the topic. We can critique LG's proof without having to "know" that materialism is correct.

Well the most rigorous statement is that it's either Idealism or Materialism, either belief/religion or science. There is nothing into choose. Do you really think there is a material reality outside of your brain and independend of it, or not?

The other thing is if our knowledge ever can be or will be complete. Knowledge is proceeding through history.

 

[CJames]

I don't even know why I'm saying this, but could you respond to my posts on page 18?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well the most rigorous statement is that it's either Idealism or Materialism, either belief/religion or science.

I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists.
Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-8 I think, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed. If it makes sense, then so would an external-reality. But as an external reality does not make sense (see the argument for details), I can actually conclude (myself) that there is no sense in an external reality.
Hence, I have reason for my own stance... and reason which destroys yours. Whereas you have no reason to destroy the Mind-reality. And you only have beliefs to defend materialism. That's right: beliefs.
My point is that there is nothing which you have said which constitutes a logical argument to support materialism. You either have to do that by the aforementioned method, above. Or you have to build an argument which starts exactly like mine. For, let's be clear about this:- a philosopher who doesn't realize that sensory-experience is the only means of confirming existence (apart from the mind-attributes of reason; will; emotion), can easily start to convince his audience that existence is so-much-more than "sensory-experience".
They'll tell us things like existence is external, because things are interacting independently of 'my' mind. But they're not acting independently to the mind - because they're happening directly within your awareness!
I absolutely-declare that there's not one single statement that can be made for the defense of materialism, which cannot be shown to be a mistake. Tom made the same mistake too, when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.
Everything which you have said is meaningless. Simply because everything you have said is a mistake. It doesn't validate material-reality; no more than the three examples I gave, above, did either.
I an not BSing anyone here. We only have an inner-reality. It's the only thing which can be confirmed by reason.
And from this fact, my argument did proceed. Please address it. Let's forget this defending of materialism nonsense. Because there is no justification for an external reality. None whatsoever.

 

[FZ+]

Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-8 I think, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed.

Also notice the pages after that post which fully refute it. I don't see anything more in this than beliefs. No proof. Your accusations are getting off topic...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
The mind does not require prior knowledge of the universe to be capable of learning how to represent it. It must only have the ability to learn how to represent it.

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

Now, please read the argument again.

 

[FZ+]

What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.

Assertion.

It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.

Incorrect. Does a french book understand french? No, but reading it can teach you french. Does an atom understand nuclear physics? No, but observing it, or a group of it, can teach you it's secrets. It is possible to generate new ways of thought by the evolution of the mind, and it is possible to be taught by your genes the beginning of sensation. Think about it carefully. The statement that the mind can only be taught by the mind is only necessary with a proven transcendence of the mind without outside influence. This is not done. So this is not a fact, only an assertion.

(Here we go again...)

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Your accusations are getting off topic...

'Accusations'? What I just said in my second-last post is not only fact; but also necessary. If I can get everybody to stop defending materialism (because it has no defense), then people might actually start to take my argument seriously; and we won't have to put-up with the kind of stuff that heusdens (and others) keep posting. No defense of materialism = no defense of materialsm. So why bother?
You can try and destroy my argument, but you will never present a logical-argument for the defense of an external reality. Never. It's just impossible.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You can try and destroy my argument, but you will never present a logical-argument for the defense of an external reality. Never. It's just impossible.

LG, your argument has been destroyed. The only one who doesn't see it is you. And of course one can make a case for external reality. In fact, you are making a case for it. You just think it's god.

All anyone really needs to do to show the invalidity of your argument is show that material existence is tenable, and that has been done.

Why can't you accept that your worldview is just one of many possible worldviews, and not a logical necessity?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
What? How does the Mind *learn* ~how to paint portraits~? There is nothing in the universe which can tell the Mind how to create 'pain', for example. The Mind cannot be 'taught' how to create sensations. It just knows these things. No thing has taught It these things.

Assertion.

The explanation is within my reasoning. I make a conclusion - not an assertion.
The actual-sensation of 'pain' is created by the Mind, regardless as to whether the mind/brain receives external-data informing it of structural-harm to the body. It doesn't matter how much data the brain/mind receives (if this is the case). The important point to note here is that the Mind [/B]must transform that data into sensation (of pain) upon awareness[/B].
That sensory-awareness is a creation of the Mind, is certain.
That it can 'learn' (from external data) how to create these sensations, is false. For there is no information (from external data) on how to create sensations. Not unless you believe that all matter can feel, anyway.
Furthermore, a creative representation (sensory) of external-data would require knowledge of that data - in order that the sensations make sense of that reality. So, either the Mind has universal-knowledge, or it instantly-understands universal-knowledge since it can comprehend external-data before creating the sensation of it.

It's impossible to 'learn' how to create sensation when there's nothing in the world (except the Mind) which can do such things. Think about it carefully please, this time.

Incorrect. Does a french book understand french?

No. But the Frenchman who made it does.

No, but reading it can teach you french.

I can promise you that I could read German-books for eternity. The fact is that unless someone translates the meaning of the text for me, that I won't learn a single word of German in the whole of that eternity. The Mind cannot just "read" external-data. It simply must be able to 'translate' the meaning of that data, by itself, and for itself. The Mind must know physics before it can read physics... and then create sensations which mirror those physics.

Does an atom understand nuclear physics?

The actions of an atom are influenced by forces which interact with it. Not by personal information of the Laws of physics.

No, but observing it, or a group of it, can teach you it's secrets.

I have no idea what this implies.

It is possible to generate new ways of thought by the evolution of the mind,

Sounds like a mantra used at a materialist's convention.

and it is possible to be taught by your genes the beginning of sensation.

I see. So 'genes' convert external-data into sensation. Did you mean 'genies'?

 

[Kerrie]

i am closing yet another thread due to complaints from a variety of people that this debate is going nowhere...i think what we need to remember is that posting over and over in an argument that appears to be getting nowhere doesn't do anyone or this site any good...if people don't agree with you, move on...

 

[Lifegazer]

Thanks Kerrie.
I've been given a 48 hour reprieve, it seems. I aim to post my summary before then.

 

[FZ+]

That sensory-awareness is a creation of the Mind, is certain.
That it can 'learn' (from external data) how to create these sensations, is false.

Assertion.

For there is no information (from external data) on how to create sensations. Not unless you believe that all matter can feel, anyway.

Assertion.

I can promise you that I could read German-books for eternity. The fact is that unless someone translates the meaning of the text for me, that I won't learn a single word of German in the whole of that eternity.

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

The actions of an atom are influenced by forces which interact with it. Not by personal information of the Laws of physics.

Exactly. Yet by observing, we extrapolate and derive this proof. We have gained the method of predicting and observing further data from an external source that neither observes, nor predicts. Disproof for your assertion.

Sounds like a mantra used at a materialist's convention.

We serve cake and tea as usual.
Ok, disprove it then.

I see. So 'genes' convert external-data into sensation. Did you mean 'genies'?

I guess the brain is made by magical fairies then. It's almost a shame to ask you to prove it.

 

[Fliption]

Lifegazer,

I posted my questions/critiques way way back and they seem to have gotten lost so I'll bring this one up again before this thread is gone. I am struggling with some of the same points that others are.

On the issue of the mind having knowledge prior to experience, I think I do understand what you're getting at here. But I think there could easily be other explanations. I think a problem may be when you use the word "create" to describe what the mind is doing with perceptions. Why can't experience or "sensations" be an algorythmic result of living in a universe like this? An example that comes to mind is that of fractal art. If you haven't seen any of these then I'd recommend searching on it. There's quite a bit of stuff out there. These pictures are the result of a simple set of steps that when repeated seem to produce an output that compounds on itself and unfolds these intricate pictures. But it is all "created" with a few simple (non artistic) rules.

Why can't experience also simply be an intricate, determined result of the universe following it's natural law of physics? These simple rules do not have knowledge of art. This art seems to be built into a mindless set of rules. Why can't sensations be built into the mindless laws of physics? I see this as just another alternative.

 

[jammieg]

I don't think there is any sure way to prove the existence of the creator of everything, people have to find God in their own way.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Paradox of Manifestation

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1469&perpage=15&pagenumber=3" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So "abstract" is equal to idealism, and "concrete" is equal to materialism. And there you have it, the "paradox of manifestation." The two exist as correlatives and you can't have one without the other.

And yet, if there was no idea (conceived of the mind = essence) in the first place, there would be nothing concrete to "brag about" in the second place. Which is very interesting (credit to Lifegazer), for it suggests our whole notion of material existence is brought about by abstract thought (or, as Tom would say, the application thereof) and, since we all live in the world collectively (or so materialists claim), then we all must be part of the same "collective mind" as a whole ... Only question is, whose mind is it?

So tell me, what's the difference between a concrete idea and a "solid idea?" Say like 1 + 1 = 2? Is this what an axiom is? (I just looked up axiom in the dictionary for the first time by the way.)

In which case let me restate what I said to Tom:

I guess this has something to do with you telling me in the other thread that the "idea of God" was abstract and that nothing would become of it. And yet, what I'm telling you is that this whole world is built upon nothing "but" abstractions. Therefore it all must have begun with a single "axiom" or idea. Based upon the idea of God perhaps?

So you see that's the whole point, because if God does exist, then this becomes the axiom (idea) by which everything (materially) becomes manifest.

Nope nope ... Shunt shunt! ... Nope nope ... Shunt shunt! ... Yeah, I can see the alarms going off already!

Hey, did you know that the number 432 corresponds to the "Rhythm of the Universe?" Just thought I would toss this in as this is my 432nd post, and indeed the connection has been made to paradox and hence the Yin and Yang (which is an expression of this rhythm).

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by jammieg
I don't think there is any sure way to prove the existence of the creator of everything, people have to find God in their own way.

The proof that there exists a God constitutes the proof that there isn't a God, yet there is really a world, and we happen to live in it!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lifegazer,

I posted my questions/critiques way way back and they seem to have gotten lost so I'll bring this one up again before this thread is gone. I am struggling with some of the same points that others are.

I apologise for not responding to every statement of every post. When there are over 300 posts in a topic that was only started last Friday, I'm sure you'll understand why this is impossible.

On the issue of the mind having knowledge prior to experience, I think I do understand what you're getting at here. But I think there could easily be other explanations. I think a problem may be when you use the word "create" to describe what the mind is doing with perceptions. Why can't experience or "sensations" be an algorythmic result of living in a universe like this? An example that comes to mind is that of fractal art. If you haven't seen any of these then I'd recommend searching on it. There's quite a bit of stuff out there. These pictures are the result of a simple set of steps that when repeated seem to produce an output that compounds on itself and unfolds these intricate pictures. But it is all "created" with a few simple (non artistic) rules.

I did a quick search on 'fractal art'. Interesting and eye-catching stuff.
But you seem to be suggesting that mathematical data (of sorts) has created the sensation of the art itself. This is not true. What's happening is that the math/instructions have merely orchestrated the way colours and shapes are seen by the mind itself.
I see this as no different to painting-by-numbers. By instruction, a child is able to see the result of colour orchestration (not colour creation). But this doesn't mean that those instructions have created the sensation of the colouring itself. They have merely organised those colours so that the mind sees a particular object or image.

I contend that any specific sensation is a creation of the Mind. By 'orchestration' of needles and matches, for example, I could dictate the pattern and intensity of your 'pain'. But I cannot actually create the sensation of 'pain'. For that, I am dependent upon your Mind creating the sensation - even as a response to the needles and matches. For at the end of the day, if your Mind does not create the sensation of 'pain', my use of the matches and needles will be no more effective in creating patterns-of-pain than it would be upon a rock.
External data is not sensation. And orchestration of external data is not sensation. Only the Mind can create sensations.
Once you realize this, you are forced to reconsider what I have said about the Mind having knowledge/understanding of the data it is receiving.

Why can't experience also simply be an intricate, determined result of the universe following it's natural law of physics? These simple rules do not have knowledge of art. This art seems to be built into a mindless set of rules. Why can't sensations be built into the mindless laws of physics? I see this as just another alternative.

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

 

[heusdens]

Thinking about prooof of existence.

1. If I state that I do not exist, or if I proof that I do not exist, then all I do is stating and proving that I exist.

2. If I state or I proof that God exists, then all I do is state and proof that I exist.

3. If I would not be existing how could I proof that? How can it be proved that something does not exist? It can not be proved.

4. If somehow God could proof that he doesn't exist, then we would have a proof that God exists.

5. God can not do that, because God does not exist, but this can not be proven.

6. We have then proven that even the absence of God, can not be proven.

7. The essence of existence is that existence can refer to itself. I am because I can refer to myself as I.

8. If the world would not be able to refer to itself, then the world would not exist.

9. If I assume the world would not exist, I would assume the world could not refer to itself.

10. If I assume the world would not exist, the world would not be able to refer to me.

11. If I would assume the world would not exist, I could not assume I exist.

12. If I would fail to exist, I would not be able to refer to myself or to the world.

13. I state my existence. I cannot fail to exist.

14. The world can not fail to exist, cause if the world does not exist, I could not exist either.

15. Therefore I have to state that the world exists.

16. God can fail to exist, cause God did not proof it can refer to itself or to the world.

17. God does not exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Thinking about prooof of existence.

1. If I state that I do not exist, or if I proof that I do not exist, then all I do is stating and proving that I exist.

2. If I state or I proof that God exists, then all I do is state and proof that I exist.

3. If I would not be existing how could I proof that? How can it be proved that something does not exist? It can not be proved.

4. If somehow God could proof that he doesn't exist, then we would have a proof that God exists.

5. God can not do that, because God does not exist, but this can not be proven.

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

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I apologise for not responding to every statement of every post. When there are over 300 posts in a topic that was only started last Friday, I'm sure you'll understand why this is impossible.

No I understand completely. Especiallly when some people write an entire book in each post.

But you seem to be suggesting that mathematical data (of sorts) has created the sensation of the art itself. This is not true. What's happening is that the math/instructions have merely orchestrated the way colours and shapes are seen by the mind itself.
There are no laws of physics which transform an understanding of those laws into sensation.

I understand what you're saying. In fact, I kind of expected it. But I think you have taken my analogy to literally. I was just trying to present an analogy that shows something simple and mindless can grow into something intricate and complicated. In a similar way, why can't some basic, mindless law of physics grow into an intricate complicated process like "sensations"? I think the fact that in the analogy the resulting complexity was an art form that needed to be viewed by perception to be appreciated confuses the point and caused you to interpret it too literally.

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

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

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

But I'm not sure we would know it even if we did know all laws of physics. I would have never thought that 3 simple steps could have produced such pictures either. Boy is my face red.

If you think about these fractals, you can see that there's no way to look at 3 simple rules and determine that they would result into such complexity. The only way to know is to actually execute them and see the result. Similarly, I wouldn't think you would be able to look at the laws of physics and see "perception" as a necessary result. That's because, like fractals, it could be a compounded result of the laws of physics, much too complicated to be seen in the laws themselves.

I hope this analogy is clearer to you.