A proof for the existence of God?

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date

Lifegazer

I cannot believe that there are members within this forum who don't have the intelligence to realise that a representational-portrayal (through the creation of sensation) of a reality, cannot happen
unless the Creator of said-sensation(s) has a prior understanding of the reality it is supposed to be representing via sensation.

If we bombard a rock with photons reflected off a specific object (a tree, for example), then you can bet your lives that the rock wont be experiencing the sensations we have of 'a tree' until something within that rock understands exactly what those photons are telling it. Whether the rock ever has the sensory-experiences of that tree is dependent upon it having an understanding of the universe to such a degree that it can actually ~paint an image of a tree, upon awareness~ through the knowledge which it has prior to doing so.
And without this knowledge/understanding, the rock can never create the sensations.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I cannot believe that there are members within this forum who don't have the intelligence to realise that a representational-portrayal (through the creation of sensation) of a reality, cannot happen
unless the Creator of said-sensation(s) has a prior understanding of the reality it is supposed to be representing via sensation.
This is the kind of nonsense that will get this thread locked. LG, you are absolutely the last member here who should be impugning anyone's intelligence. In fact, you have looked like a complete dimwit over the last 18 pages (I should say 18 months!), still having failed to grasp the concept of deductive validity.

If we bombard a rock with photons reflected off a specific object (a tree, for example), then you can bet your lives that the rock wont be experiencing the sensations we have of 'a tree' until something within that rock understands exactly what those photons are telling it. Whether the rock ever has the sensory-experiences of that tree is dependent upon it having an understanding of the universe to such a degree that it can actually ~paint an image of a tree, upon awareness~ through the knowledge which it has prior to doing so.
And without this knowledge/understanding, the rock can never create the sensations.
And there is an alternative explanation:

The rock does not have those experiences because it does not have a nervous system. I just pointed that alternative out in my last post, and we have all been pointing it out throughout this entire thread.

Get a clue.
 

Lifegazer

Originally posted by Tom
So now you admit it--you are ignoring other people's points.
I ignore people who want to bracket my philosophy, and then judge it within those brackets. My philosophy is unique to me. I have not learnt it from any other 'sect'... whether solipsism, mysticism, or panantheism.
When you make judgements about Solipsism, it doesn't affect my argument because I do not classify myself as a solipsist. That's why I disregarded all such conversation.
I'll deal with the rest of your post later.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I ignore people who want to bracket my philosophy, and then judge it within those brackets. My philosophy is unique to me. I have not learnt it from any other 'sect'... whether solipsism, mysticism, or panantheism.
When you make judgements about Solipsism, it doesn't affect my argument because I do not classify myself as a solipsist. That's why I disregarded all such conversation.
I'll deal with the rest of your post later.
This is a total cop out.

It does not matter that you did not learn your ideas from anyone. The point is that your ideas are solipsistic, and they do in fact share the problems of solipsism.

Would you have listened if I had not used the word "solipsism"?
 
1,029
1
Originally posted by heusdens
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.
Your just doing the same thing here. Your using common sense notions about how you believe things work in the external reality to then prove the external reality. This is just not good philosophy. The truth is, that you cannot know what will happen when you get driven over by a bus until it actually happens. To assume your fate would be similar to what you have observed happens to other people assumes that those other people exists to begin with! You wouldn't expect this same thing to happen to you if you were the only mind that existed would you? No matter how hard you try, you will always end up assuming your conclusion on this.

You are going about this the wrong way. You should pick LG's idea apart because he hasn't proven his case. By trying to prove the opposite view, your task is just as difficult. I contend it is impossible.
 
Last edited:

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
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.
 
1,029
1
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 thats 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.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
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 thats 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.
 
1,029
1
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 thats 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.
 
Last edited:
2,224
0
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.
 
2,224
0
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?
 
1,029
1
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 :smile:
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by Fliption
I think this is accurate about everybody else. But not me :smile:
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?
 
1,596
0
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).
 
2,224
0
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.
 
1,596
0
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.
 
2,224
0
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?"
 
1,596
0
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 realy 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.
 
2,224
0
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 realy 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."
 
1,029
1
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.
 
1,596
0
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 in to choose. Do you realy 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.
 
351
0
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 realise 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+

1,550
2
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.
 

Related Threads for: A proof for the existence of God?

  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
31K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
270
Views
24K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
186
Views
16K
Replies
50
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Top