A proof for the existence of God?

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date

FZ+

1,550
2
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 neccessary 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 wont 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.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
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 wont 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'?:wink:
 

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
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+

1,550
2
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 wont 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.
 
1,029
1
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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
2,224
0
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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,596
0
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 realy 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 realise 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.
 
1,596
0
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.
 
Last edited:
2,224
0
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?
 
1,029
1
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. :smile:

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.
 
Last edited:

Lifegazer

Originally posted by FZ+
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 human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
The point is that learning a language either has to be taught, or reasoned. And it is impossible to learn a language merely by reading a book since there are no visual/time/emotional clues within the text itself.

Any Mind which would be observing the external data of the universe, has to reason the meaning of that data for itself. Clearly, the Mind must know universal data before it creates a responding sensation; in the same way that I can only respond kindly to "Guten morgen" when I finally understand what that information means.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Here one day and gone the next. Yes, but where did it go? ... and where do we go when we die?
Where did what go?

When we die then we stop being I, cause then we do not have the possibility to refer to ourselves as I, yet the world itself does not stop having that property to refer to itself. The world will still be.
 
Last edited:

Lifegazer

Originally posted by Fliption
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."
The laws of physics are about the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields. The point at which these motions are transformed into abstract sensations is not something which the laws of physics can even address. The sensations are abstract experiences which mirror those laws of physics, but which are not the same thing. As such, they are distinct from the laws of physics.
It will never be possible, for example, to explain 'pain' in terms of
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields.". For at some point, we have to address the abstract representationalism which is the mirroring sensation of those physics.

You don't seem to grasp the distinction between sensation and physics. You kind of infer that they are both the same. That somehow
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields." can suddenly yield abstract experience, at a specific point within this process. But I cannot accept this point. The distinction between physics and sensation is not something which fades away as the physics becomes more complex. The distinction is eternally concrete, imo.
 
1,029
1
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The laws of physics are about the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields. The point at which these motions are transformed into abstract sensations is not something which the laws of physics can even address.
Just like adding 2 and subtracting 4 has nothing to do with drawing complex pictures. Yet somehow it does it anyway. I see the above statement as another assumption in your argument.

You don't seem to grasp the distinction between sensation and physics. You kind of infer that they are both the same. That somehow
"the motion and structure of matter/energy in response to specific forces/fields." can suddenly yield abstract experience, at a specific point within this process. But I cannot accept this point.
Oh I do see the distinction. If I didn't then your point would be absolutely absurd. The fact that I DO see the distinction is why I think your point is a good one. It's just that I also see an alternative explanation. Ok you cannot accept it. But hopefully you can see that logically it is an alternative. Otherwise, the idea that perception cannot come from the laws of physics or information should be listed as an assumption in your very first thread. Because it can be demonstrated that complex, holist creations can result from totally simple, unrelated reductive parts.

What I'm seeing the more I read and particpate in these materialism versus non-materialism threads is that regardless of which view you conclude, the conclusion is built into the assumptions. This is what I kept trying to telling Heusdens. That he/she cannot conclude materialism without relying on the material world for evidence. Here it seems you are doing a similar thing. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that no laws of physics or information/complexity can produce the process known as "sensations". You claim this even though this is likely a viable explanation for sensations in science today. With this assumption you are bound to concude that the mind came first and then all the other things that stem from that.

Please understand that I see your point clearly about the mind needing knowledge before perception. It is not something that I have thought about before and I think it is a worthy point. I think if anything it puts even more pressure on complexity/information theories to be correct explanations for things. In an odd sort of way, you might could argue that what I'm saying is not inconsistent with what you are saying. You could argue that the "knowledge" is built into the code and therefore did come before perception. ie. The fractal image is built into the 3 steps before the image was created. So how did this knowledgable code get there?
 
Last edited:
1,596
0
Originally posted by Fliption
What I'm seeing the more I read and particpate in these materialism versus non-materialism threads is that regardless of which view you conclude, the conclusion is built into the assumptions. This is what I kept trying to telling Heusdens. That he/she cannot conclude materialism without relying on the material world for evidence. Here it seems you are doing a similar thing. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that no laws of physics or information/complexity can produce the process known as "sensations". You claim this even though this is likely a viable explanation for sensations in science today. With this assumption you are bound to concude that the mind came first and then all the other things that stem from that.
Have you seen my post regarding the conclusions which you have to make NOT to assume the existence of the material world?
In essence the world comes to this, the world exists because it can refer to itself. The world also can refer to me, that is why I can exist in the world. If the world would not exist, then I could not exist. That is why I HAVE to asume the world exists.

Please understand that I see your point clearly about the mind needing knowledge before perception. It is not something that I have thought about before and I think it is a worthy point. I think if anything it puts even more pressure on complexity/information theories to be correct explanations for things. In an odd sort of way, you might could argue that what I'm saying is not inconsistent with what you are saying. You could argue that the "knowledge" is built into the code and therefore did come before perception. ie. The fractal image is built into the 3 steps before the image was created. So how did this knowledgable code get there?
This is like saying that mutations occur in evolution prior to their persistence in reproduction. If the living thing benefits from the mutation, the mutation persists, and else will exhaust. However, no prior knowledge has to be assumed.
 
Last edited:

Lifegazer

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok you cannot accept it. But hopefully yuo can see that logically it is an alternative.
You seem to think that because what we sense can be manipulated/orchestrated, that the manipulated sensation is created externally. This is simply not true. That's like saying that the organisers of a firework display are the creators of the organised-colours which you actually see at the display. Clearly, the firework-organisers are nothing more than the manipulators/orchestrators of colour within your sensation. They have not created the actual sensations of colour which 'you' are aware of.
In exactly the same manner, a set of instructions which manipulate an image to yield 'fractal-art' are not the creators of the sensations of colour which you see when you look at the final product.
I'm sorry to say this, but I do not see your idea as a logical alternative; simply because I think the basis of your idea is wrong.
The creation of sensation - manipulated or not - is a product borne directly of the Mind itself.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
The point is that learning a language either has to be taught, or reasoned. And it is impossible to learn a language merely by reading a book since there are no visual/time/emotional clues within the text itself.

Any Mind which would be observing the external data of the universe, has to reason the meaning of that data for itself. Clearly, the Mind must know universal data before it creates a responding sensation; in the same way that I can only respond kindly to "Guten morgen" when I finally understand what that information means.
Well atually, I have alread learned a language (conversationally) from a book. I don't see how it's really relevant to your hypothesis, that someone can/cannot learn language from a book. After all, your hypothesis dictates that I should already know what it means (or, at least my subconscious Mind should already know).
 
1,029
1
Originally posted by Lifegazer
You seem to think that because what we sense can be manipulated/orchestrated, that the manipulated sensation is created externally. This is simply not true. That's like saying that the organisers of a firework display are the creators of the organised-colours which you actually see at the display. Clearly, the firework-organisers are nothing more than the manipulators/orchestrators of colour within your sensation. They have not created the actual sensations of colour which 'you' are aware of.
In exactly the same manner, a set of instructions which manipulate an image to yield 'fractal-art' are not the creators of the sensations of colour which you see when you look at the final product.
I'm sorry to say this, but I do not see your idea as a logical alternative; simply because I think the basis of your idea is wrong.
The creation of sensation - manipulated or not - is a product borne directly of the Mind itself.
Lifegazer, I'm afraid that you're still interpreting my analogy too literally. I'll have to think about this some and see if I can come up with another analogy. Also, I would encourage you to re-read all that I've written and think about it some more. I thought after the 2nd post it might have been clearer.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Originally posted by Lifegazer
The human mind can learn a language without a translator simply because it can relate to facial expression, and tones of voice, and can also observe the consequences of any word used. For example, if I see a German person say "Guten morgen", I wouldn't know what it means. But when I observe that most German people say this at the start of a conversation, and with a smile upon their face, and that they always say it in the morning, and that the responder to his words sometimes says the same thing; then it becomes apparent that they are saying "good morning".
And how do we do that? Because our genes teach us by instinct. The concept of knowledge did not emerge from the mind, but from material information. There is no way for you to prove otherwise.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Somethings are best done by a chat. If anybody is interested, turn up to the chat tonight, and maybe we'll set up a sub-chatroom for this discussion, if it still is a discussion.
 

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