A proof for the existence of God?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I have no idea who you are talking about. But my philosophy does not ignore the reality of my perceptions. What I perceive is really being perceived. All I say is that what is being perceived is inside a Mind. And I have actually demonstrated this to be the case. Our experience of existence is utterly 'inner'.
Do not think that my philosophy renders-meaningless the perceptions we have. It just infers a new identity for ourselves, amongst what we are sensing.

I know that you cannot know that. Cause my reasoning is ultimately based on a materialist world perspective, and you do not accept that reality. All you can talk about is your inner reality, that is a projection of the bigger reality around us (and in us too, of course).

Your reasoning is as follows. In my mind I have an image, a thought about something. All I know and can ever know is, are things that are refrained to my own mind, and the concepts that it knows. The mind doesn't know real apples, it only knows about the image or the projection of the apple that has been formed inside, the mindstuff.

Your reasoning is inside out. It stops as soon as it reaches the physical limit of your brains and brain power. Your world is the size of about 1 large football, and defininately finite in size and in time. You have no ability to know what is outside that, or before that. In order to know that, you must become 'God'.

We have different opinions on things, cause we use different concepts.
"The world" means in materialist terms the material stuff of which everything that is made, and that is infinite in extent, and is around, outside and in us.
"The world" means in idealist terms only those things, as they have been projected/transformed into meaningfull concepts within the mind itself. It knows about the thought about the moon, but not about the moon itself.

When I say, the world, the universe, is infinite and unfolding inifinitely in time, you claim, no that can't be true. It's definitely finite and had a beginning. So which one is true, since this seems to contrast each other? Well it makes sense (from my point of view) to say that all you are talking about, is not the real universe (since this does not exist within your reasoning, only the projections inside of you) but is only the idea's, images, projections of the real universe into your thought. Well your brains are limited in size, and have begun at some time. So you think therefore the universe must be that way also.
You claim for instance 'I cannot know X'. I can make a statement that says: 'I do know X'. Have we totally different minds? No. It's just that we have used different concepts for 'I'.

As I said before, you have to 'tunnel' yourself into existence, and look at things from outside in, instead of inside out, and look at the big reality also some time. Escape from your self-created cage of mind. It can be done. Or do you think all materialists make false claims?

The big problem with your philosophy is that it tryes to draw people back into the historic time, at which mankind did not have knowledge about the material world. Why would one refute that? What is the purpose for that?

Your kinf of 'knowledge' which proceeds from the inside, and tries to reason from there, stops of course where your brain tissue stops. But for the outside world itself, it is of course ridiculous to claim that it is limited to that! That is reasoning in a very naive and childish way. You have the reasoning capabilities of a child. it has the ability to learn, but it refuges to accept that knowledge. Very stubborn, very stubborn indeed. You are reasoning in empty space, and the sole reason for that is because a lot of your brain cells miss any content. It would be time you gave those brain cells an excercise, and learn them how the reality really looks like!

History progresses forwardly, not backward. We don't want backwardness, we will need the knowledge we have accumulated through science very badly, to run this planet in a bit more decent and human way!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by pelastration
A sole entity (on his own) has no reflection because there is no surrounding. Cfr.in Kabbal (Kether: 1) needs the Two to be aware of the difference. In other words you need a mirror to have awareness.

Who is it that is looking in this mirror?

Where does the mind come from? Show me the creation system. Where come the circular energy from (needed for awareness) and how is it generated?

How did the mind come into existence?
- Existence is eternal. The reason for this is quite simple:-
Something cannot emanate from and after a state of absolute- nothingness... nor can something reside ~within~ the 'nothing'
that preceded it. Thus, existence is eternal. There has always been 'something'.
I am in a position to equate The Mind with this absolute-existence (this something), because my philosophy deduces that The Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity, I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.
The Mind is the source of all sensations. It gives sensory-energy to its own awareness.

Why should there something behind the membrane?

Where would this membrane be existing? Within 'nothing'? That's not possible. No thing can touch 'nothing'. Therefore, the membrane would have to exist within another 'medium'. Hence, the membrane cannot be acclaimed as the fundamental source of universal-phenomena. It's just logically impossible.

But you are desperate looking for motives to start with a mind that comes from start out of the blue (or has always existed). That's an assumption but not a fact like you present it. It's a 'believe', not a proof.

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

I have no problem with your believes but don't present as a fact.

I am presenting conclusions from rational-argument. Those conclusions are valid unless you show the reasoning to be flawed. You're not even addressing my reasoning.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
How did the mind come into existence?
- Existence is eternal. The reason for this is quite simple:-
Something cannot emanate from and after a state of absolute- nothingness... nor can something reside ~within~ the 'nothing'
that preceded it. Thus, existence is eternal. There has always been 'something'.
I am in a position to equate The Mind with this absolute-existence (this something), because my philosophy deduces that The Mind resides at singularity. And given the boundlessness of this singularity, I am in a position to state that there is no logic in asking "What resides beyond the Mind?". There is no 'outside'.
The Mind is the source of all sensations. It gives sensory-energy to its own awareness.

Where would this membrane be existing? Within 'nothing'? That's not possible. No thing can touch 'nothing'. Therefore, the membrane would have to exist within another 'medium'. Hence, the membrane cannot be acclaimed as the fundamental source of universal-phenomena. It's just logically impossible.

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

I am presenting conclusions from rational-argument. Those conclusions are valid unless you show the reasoning to be flawed. You're not even addressing my reasoning.

I think the above is all abstract non-sense.
Your philosophy is a 'limited edition' of reality, it's the projection of the material reality in the brain. Outside of that, in your philosophy, nothing exists.

You are talking here not about the world outside your brain, but you are just talking about the inside tissue of your brain. It consists indeed of two halves of brain tissue, and looks like it, when strected out completely, has the shape of a membrane that is folded/pelestrated inside itself.

But don't try to make people think that your 'inside' reality has anything to do with the world outside of that. Because you know, you cannot do that. Not because I say so, but because that is the foundation and pillar of your own philosophy.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Your reasoning is inside out. It stops as soon as it reaches the physical limit of your brains and brain power. Your world is the size of about 1 large football

Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity. I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

, and defininately finite in size and in time.

Our perceptions have an origin - The Mind itself. Anything which is linked to this origin is 'finite'.

You have no ability to know what is outside that, or before that. In order to know that, you must become 'God'.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

We have different opinions on things, cause we use different concepts.
"The world" means in materialist terms the material stuff of which everything that is made, and that is infinite in extent, and is around, outside and in us.
"The world" means in idealist terms only those things, as they have been projected/transformed into meaningfull concepts within the mind itself. It knows about the thought about the moon, but not about the moon itself.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

As I said before, you have to 'tunnel' yourself into existence, and look at things from outside in, instead of inside out, and look at the big reality also some time.

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

Escape from your self-created cage of mind. It can be done. Or do you think all materialists make false claims?

I think materialism is intuitive. The tree I can see across the road does appear to be apart from me by several meters. And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.
As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true. This includes an awareness of 'space'.

The big problem with your philosophy is that it tryes to draw people back into the historic time, at which mankind did not have knowledge about the material world. Why would one refute that? What is the purpose for that?

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

History progresses forwardly, not backward. We don't want backwardness

It doesn't matter what you want. Materialism will not survive the 21st century (IMO).

we will need the knowledge we have accumulated through science very badly, to run this planet in a bit more decent and human way!

Science and knowledge are not rendered useless by my philosophy. Our perceptions are ordered.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity. I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

Our perceptions have an origin - The Mind itself. Anything which is linked to this origin is 'finite'.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

I know about your arguments and that of many other arguments that idealists use (read my own trhead about it, where it represents those ideas). I can show you that it does make sense to talk about an outside reality, a material reality. Not that you would accept it, because even the words 'sense' and 'knowledge' are something completely different then the terms I use.

To make this point, let's use an anology here.
Let us for instance say that the computer I am using, is able of presenting a Word document. And I can proof you that it has that capability. The claim is about the ability of the complete system.

Your reasoning goes then as follows, to attack this claim. You say that inside the computer there is nothing that has awareness itself.
All components inside the computer have their own functioning. At several levels the computer contains all forms of data, and transforms these data. There is only one element in which this data gets processed, which is the CPU. The CPU knows nothing about Word documents. So your claim is that the computer is not able to present Word documents. And that outside the computer with all it's components, nothing can be known, only what is inside the computer.

Your claim makes sense in one way, but only when using your standards of reasoning/defining. You make the transition for example of computer (whole system) to CPU (processor). Then you loose the point we are talking about. Cause the computer in total is really able of presenint a Word document (no problem), but that knowledge is not in the CPU, but in the computer in total.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

In your reasoning you are talking about a different world, or at least a different outlook on reality.
But the world is the world. Only you refuse to see things in their materialist terms, because either you hate them (for no appearant reasons), or you simply did not learn to think in materialist terms.

Your reasoning system is more simple and therefore more naive as mine, cause you stand on the perspective of the CPU and it's outlook on 'reality', while I reason from the capacity of the whole system. That is an important difference.

Your equivalents are: the CPU is what is called 'I'. The computer ios what is called 'God'.
My equivalents is: The CPU is inner awareness. The computer that is me.

(And god does not exist).

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

Yet it is possible. Shall I show you how my compoter represents a Word document??

(see the above anaology)

I think materialism is intuitive.

Materialism conforms to the outer reality, and is very usefull to communicate in the real world, in which different minds exist. These mind do not communicate with each other direclty (in terms of the mind itself), but use there 'presentation layers' for that.
Idealism would be the perfect outlook on reality, if I would be the only person in the world, and needed to communicate within myself only.

The tree I can see across the road does appear to be apart from me by several meters. And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.
As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true. This includes an awareness of 'space'.

Who says that I ain't aware of that too?
You advocate something that has some (limited) meaning on itself, but which is not the only reality, or outlook on reality, in fact it is a reality that is a shrunken version of the real reality, but nevertheless is a reality on it's own (the point however is that it is not the only reality, but that point can not be seen from 'within' that shrunken reality).

The problem is that it is rather helpless in dealing with reality. It is therefore a naive outlook on reality. Only science based on materialism can be helpfull to succesfully produce real knowledge about the world. Knowledge needs to be verifyable. All your claims about your inner reality, also need to be proven, based on science.

We have to deal with real reality. Not the fixations of our minds as such. For this world to become a better place for everyone, we need scientific educated people, not relogiuous fanatics.

We better increase the budgets for science education.

There is a way however to increase your point of sight, from a 'singularity' to a full blown up universe. It is called inflation.
This will create a universe from a near-singularity. Hope that it will do the trick for you.

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

How do you know it's original. I am not accusing you of having copied it, but I can not imagine that this argument has never been used before. Have your read Berkeley?

It doesn't matter what you want. Materialism will not survive the 21st century (IMO).

Materialism is the only way to help us in this forthcoming century, and protect us from a world which clearly is in chaos. Know why?
Just because of the religious inspired movements (fundamental christianity/ capitalism, conquering the arab/islamic world again, which inflicts arabic/moslinm fundamentalism).

Science can be of much help to solve the problems of the world. But instead not science or knowledge rules the world, but big money enterprises and all kinds of religiuous ideas do that.

You have obviously not had much knowledge about materialism, and are even unaware of the most modern form of materialism, which is dialectical-materialism. This is a very rich and profound reasoning system.

 

[(Q)]

Lifey

Actually, I advocate that we exist at singularity.

Impossible. I exist and you exist as separate as can be. I think completely different from you in almost every way shape and form. Proof enough that we are not one.

I advocate that the singularity is boundless.

The use of scientific terms to describe an imaginary concept is quite popular with those who do not understand the terms.

That's not true. I used reason to show why an external-reality does not make sense. Did you read that argument?

Your argument does not use reason to explain anything – if it did, we would agree.

My world is no different to yours. However, I advocate that it exists within the mind of God.

Our worlds are very different. Yours is one of imagination and fantasy while mine is firmly based in reality. This alone will dictate our decision making process in almost every way.

That's impossible. That would require a knowledge of existence beyond our sensations of existence.

That is double-speak. Your talking in riddles.

And yet, that tree exists within my awareness, even as I sense it. It is inside of me.

Would that make you a sap?

As difficult as it is to accept that all things are inside of your mind, this is in fact true.

Yes, and the universe disappears when I close my eyes. This is in fact true.

My philosophy is one of the present, which has considered scientific concepts of today. Though 'idealism' has been around for many centuries, the arguments I use have not. My first-post here is an original argument.

No it isn’t – Buddhism also advocates the concept of the “boundless singularity.” It defined the foundation of the Dharma.

Science and knowledge are not rendered useless by my philosophy.

That’s a contradiction. Everything would be rendered useless with your theory. There would be no point to existence, knowledge, understanding, creativity, family, etc. It would all be for naught.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

So this is it ... We cannot acknowledge God except that it be given by God for us to do so, through what we perceive "from within." By which it becomes a solid foundation for the "new church."

In other words the "idea" of God is consolidated by the fact that we can acknowledge it for ourselves. How else could we define it?

Whereas materialism is out in left field acknowledging "the aftermath", in all "its concreteness," which all began with the consolidation of a single idea "from within"--i.e., "God."

Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.

 

[heusdens]

Lifegazer's arguing

LG:

You have a kind of reasoning that states things like 'I can't know that'. They are based of course on your worldview, Idealism, that denies the existent material world in the first place, and only determenines it to be the world that is known within the thoughs, the thinking process and such. Instead of the capacities of the full human mind and body (which is how I see myself as 'I'), you only reason from far and deep within, where some inner awareness exists, that has a very limited outlook on reality. You define knowledge to be that what can be perceived by that center of awareness.

And you are right. When you base your knowledge on that worldview, then indeed it can be proven that you cannot know anything about the outside, material world. That is the crucial point, since because the outside world exists, it means that this philisophy is wrong.
It comes down on having a wrong point of view.

For people who base themselves on a broader vision of reality, this becomes immediately clear. If you pertain and persist however to leave your point of view, then of course this does not come to your mind, and never can.

It is therefore clear that Idealism is not a very fruitfull attempt to describe reality in the first place. Because it chooses a definition of reality, which limits it's scope to that what is know to the inner awareness within the mind. As if we should limit our capacities of knowledge to that inner awareness only, and don't want to take into account the capacity of the full system.

The reasoning is as absurd as claiming that a computer is not able to present a Word document, cause the CPU has no knowledge about Word documents, only about 32-bit words.

Nevertheless, the computer can present to us a Word document, which falsifies the argument. Wether or not the CPU is in fact not knowing what it is doing, is not of any interest of course!
Who cares about what the CPU would 'know' or does not 'know' as long as the computer does what it is supposed to do.

You must have a very narrow mind to claim that the point of view of the CPU is the only thing one can know. It's childish and primitive, and does not belong in the modern world.

 

[Mentat]

Heusdens, I agree with other members who say you are taking this too seriously. Remember, it won't affect your life, or lifegazer's, whether he is right or not. I don't mean that you should abandon reasoning on it, altogether (I myself started at least three threads, before, attacking the hypothesis), I'm merely suggesting that you not let it matter so much to you whether lifegazer listens to you or not.

 

[chosenone]

If you want to debate whether god exist or not,ask jesus he's coming back,or did he.well he's suppose to anyway!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by chosenone
If you want to debate whether god exist or not,ask jesus he's coming back,or did he.well he's suppose to anyway!

You are making the same mistake as Iacchus32: confusing "God" for "God of the Bible". The God of the bible is nothing like lifegazer's God. In fact, lifegazer's hypothesis leaves no room for the God of the bible.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, I agree with other members who say you are taking this too seriously. Remember, it won't affect your life, or lifegazer's, whether he is right or not. I don't mean that you should abandon reasoning on it, altogether (I myself started at least three threads, before, attacking the hypothesis), I'm merely suggesting that you not let it matter so much to you whether lifegazer listens to you or not.

Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality, which in fact have nothing to do with reality. I know that Lifegazer is not listening to any of the arguments, as they don't have a meaning to him at all. So, my arguments can only have meaning to people, who are not entangled in the kind of reality that LG presents them.
In itself it can be a fruitfull discussion, just how to discover how reality works, and set aside one's biasess, and make full use of one's reasons capacities.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality,

Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

 

[(Q)]

Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

Why should this even concern you? Who are you to tell other members when and what to write, or whether they should or shouldn’t respond?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
Which should only be that much more reason for you to leave it be. Of course, I appreciate some of your posts, on materialism and the folly of idealism. But I still think you are getting too heated about the Mind hypothesis.

Why should this even concern you? Who are you to tell other members when and what to write, or whether they should or shouldn’t respond?

I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense. This seemed like the kind thing to do, and I hope that heusdens doesn't think me as nosy as you seem to.

 

[(Q)]

I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense.

You presume too much and your concern is honorable albeit however distant from the cause -- but I think we are all grown-ups here and can handle ourselves, thank you very much.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
I was concerned that lifegazer's way of reasoning might be upseting to someone else. As a matter of form, I tried to help Heusdens to not take offense.

You presume too much and your concern is honorable albeit however distant from the cause -- but I think we are all grown-ups here and can handle ourselves, thank you very much.

In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member? It shouldn't even be your business if I really am being as nosy as you implied earlier.

BTW, I understand that heusdens is capable of "taking care of himself", as you put it. That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

 

[(Q)]

In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by (Q)
In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

Well, considering the fact that heusdens has already posted a thread, with giant posts (compared to most that I've seen, except perhaps DT Strain's posts...) that attack the hypothesis. And considering the obviously disapproving tone of heusdens' posts. I think that mine was a safe assumption. Besides, I'm not the only one who thought so (if you look back, you'll see a couple of invitations to "have a beer").

Look, you've side-tracked the thread. If you have a problem with me personally (as you seem to), just PM me.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.

Don't be so hasty to make that conclusion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Don't be so hasty to make that conclusion.

Forgive my presumptiousness. Doesn't your hypothesis call for a God who's mind is the source of all reality? This is not compatible with the God of the Bible, who created a universe, separate from Himself, and interacts with humans as though they were separate (and free-willed) entities.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by (Q)
In response, how is it your business whether I try to console another member?

You’re implying that you know what others are thinking and feeling – rather absurd considering the medium.

That doesn't mean that a little helpful advice is bad.

Ah yes, the road of good intentions. Now, where was it that road led to… ?

Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

I appreciate the concerns here. I will take note of that.

But now, about how to proceed here.
We know the debate here is about an absurd hypothese. We can proceed in two different ways.
One is performing an effort in trying to make reason out of it, and communicating to the person who dropped this hypothese, where his errors are.
Or, in case we think that attempt is only futile, we can at least state what gives us profound reasons to state that the hypothese is incorrect

And a third position is of course to not take note in total of this.

I reason for myself as follows. This is a philosophy discussion board, and we should proceed in this debate taking it for a profound discussion on our very basements of knowledge.

The topic is very central to philosophy itself. It is a discussion which goes on for about 2000 years or more. There is a lot of histroric material available on the subject. So this for me means there is purpose in discussing these things.

And to me, I find it learnfull and knowledgeable to take the challenge in showing where and why Idealism is wrong and why Materialism is a better perspective on reality.

If I can this make clear to LG himself, I can not say. I do not know in how far he actually believes it himself. He can only partly believe it of course, it is not possible for anyone to take full account of Idealism. Or you would run into a bus very soon!

The purpose is to develop here a good form of reasoning, and which constitutes sufficient proof to make sure that such a hyopthese is false.

I think we are not there yet. But I know we can.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

I appreciate the concerns here. I will take note of that.

But now, about how to proceed here.
We know the debate here is about an absurd hypothese. We can proceed in two different ways.
One is performing an effort in trying to make reason out of it, and communicating to the person who dropped this hypothese, where his errors are.
Or, in case we think that attempt is only futile, we can at least state what gives us profound reasons to state that the hypothese is incorrect

And a third position is of course to not take note in total of this.

I reason for myself as follows. This is a philosophy discussion board, and we should proceed in this debate taking it for a profound discussion on our very basements of knowledge.

The topic is very central to philosophy itself. It is a discussion which goes on for about 2000 years or more. There is a lot of histroric material available on the subject. So this for me means there is purpose in discussing these things.

And to me, I find it learnfull and knowledgeable to take the challenge in showing where and why Idealism is wrong and why Materialism is a better perspective on reality.

If I can this make clear to LG himself, I can not say. I do not know in how far he actually believes it himself. He can only partly believe it of course, it is not possible for anyone to take full account of Idealism. Or you would run into a bus very soon!

The purpose is to develop here a good form of reasoning, and which constitutes sufficient proof to make sure that such a hyopthese is false.

I think we are not there yet. But I know we can.

Well, one thing you should realize is that you are going on the premise that this is an absurd/irrational hypothesis. Perhaps considering the possibility of it's being right would help you to make more constructive arguments. That's what I did.

 

[(Q)]

Please let us not quarrel too much about this ok.

Sorry heusdens, Mentat was high jacking the thread and I was trying to get it back on course.

 

[heusdens]

About LG's hypothese.

Let me first state that this hypothese is in no way new, although the exact wordings and exact reasoning is different from most other Idealist viewpoint, nevertheless it is definitely closely linked and belongs to the philosophical school of Idealism.

Second thing is that at the very basis of this and any other hypothese, there is reality as it is, wether we know, can know, or not, that forms in ultimate sense the basis of any reasoning. Wether this or that hyopthese is correct or not, absurd or not, the only arbiter in this 'game' can be reality itself.

There is reality, and there is the thinking about reality.
These are two different things. The thing to accomplish is, to give a prescription, definition and explenation of reality, as thinking, that fits reality itself. The thinking part is ultimately part of reality itself.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, perhaps. But this is because of the absuridity of the way Lifegazer makes his statements and conceptions of reality, which in fact have nothing to do with reality.

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

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

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

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

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

In itself it can be a fruitfull discussion, just how to discover how reality works, and set aside one's biasess, and make full use of one's reasons capacities.

Are you Alexander in disguise?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, one thing you should realize is that you are going on the premise that this is an absurd/irrational hypothesis. Perhaps considering the possibility of it's being right would help you to make more constructive arguments. That's what I did.

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

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

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

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Forgive my presumptiousness. Doesn't your hypothesis call for a God who's mind is the source of all reality? This is not compatible with the God of the Bible, who created a universe, separate from Himself, and interacts with humans as though they were separate (and free-willed) entities.

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

 

[heusdens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[heusdens]

Waiting for proof...


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

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

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

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

 

[heusdens]

How do I know something?

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

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

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

Realy, that is too complex.

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

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

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

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Waiting for proof...

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

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

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

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

 

[FZ+]

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

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

 

[heusdens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you call 'real' I call illusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FZ+]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[heusdens]

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

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

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

ALL his arguments are circular of course.

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

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

 

[heusdens]

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

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

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

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Do I need to say anymore?

 

[heusdens]

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

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

 

[Lifegazer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lifegazer]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the laff!

 

[heusdens]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the famous computer anology again:

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

What have you to say against that?

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

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

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

You cannot dispute that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[FZ+]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"And when Jesus asked the disciples, Whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)

So this is it ... We cannot acknowledge God except that it be given by God for us to do so, through what we perceive "from within." By which it becomes a solid foundation for the "new church."

In other words the "idea" of God is consolidated by the fact that we can acknowledge it for ourselves. How else could we define it?

Whereas materialism is out in left field acknowledging "the aftermath", in all "its concreteness," which all began with the consolidation of a single idea "from within"--i.e., "God."

Originally posted by Mentat
Your point is only valid if you take the Bible as a reliable guide to the true nature of God. If lifegazer's idea is correct, then God is not as described in the Bible.

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

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

 

[heusdens]

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

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

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

Do we miss here something?

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

The rest is just circular reasoning.

 

[heusdens]

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

This is clearly a false claim about materialism.

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

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

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

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


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

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

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

 

[Iacchus32]

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

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

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

 

[heusdens]

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

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

But that you already saw.

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

 

[Iacchus32]

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

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

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

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

 

[Iacchus32]

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

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