Is Existence the Ultimate Power Over God?

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"There is no true happiness for the theist. There is only hatred, fear, war, violence, slavery and judgement." - Sintwar

Look whoose talking! I again apologize but your quote sounds a lot like the attitude best described in this quote: "I hate people who hate people". Well then you've backed yourself into a corner and you're forced to hate yourself... if you regard yourself as a person. Come on mang? drop the baggage and free yourself. Becaue you've been judging others this whole time.

"it's okay if you had a bad childhood, we all did" - Scott Thompson from the Kids in the hall

"People you hate will get their hooks into you
They'll pull you down
You'll frown
They'll tar you and drag you through town
But you still don't like to leave before the end of the movie
No you still don't like to leave before the end of the show
People you hate will get their hooks into you
They'll pull you down
You'll frown
They'll tar you and drag you through town
But you still don't like to leave before the end of the movie
No you still don't like to leave before the end of the show" - Cake (the band)

 

[DeepThunker]

I like the discussion, but I really think we should tone down the slamming of peoples beliefs. The theists aren't going to back from their position, and the atheists aren't either. We should discuss the topic in an informative, and not based solely on opinions.

There I said it, now here is something I thought of earlier it was said Existence-God-everything else. Is it possible for existence to be God(enter your god here)? As a human being I am merely a very complex machine. I Have organic compounds, proteins, and Amino acids combined to make my body and brain. The brain then fires elctrical impulses from neuron to nueron, many synapses along the way. In this mess an "Intelligent thought" is created.

How do I know, though, that I am the only person who isn't a "machine", only capable of doing prethought, preplanned, programs when encountered with certain situations? How do I know I'm not?

What I am trying to say is, With all of the elements, and molecules in the Universe is it possible that "Existence" itself can have "intelligent" thoughts? Then if "Existence" had an infinite amount of power it could easily change itself and laws of physics.

Is what I'm saying Anywhere close, or should I back off of the Mountain Dews?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Existance itself is conscious? I don't know, sounds kinda neat. It would work well in a poem or something... do thoughts exist? I would say yes, thoughts are part of existence even though they doen't take up space or time in the physical world. If you define the space that thoughts exist within as "thought space" or "trancendance", then existence is all thought at once, so no existence couldn't have thoughts because it would be aware of all thoughts at once and there would be no need for time to construct a "stream of consciousness". Now here's the opposite viewpoint: Since you define existence as all powerful, then why would existence have any limitations? Existance is a pickle.

 

[Sintwar]

I like the discussion, but I really think we should tone down the slamming of peoples beliefs. The theists aren't going to back from their position, and the atheists aren't either. We should discuss the topic in an informative, and not based solely on opinions.

I agree with DeepThunker. I did not start this thread with the intention to feed the fire of the never ending theist/atheist struggle.
Although I know all too well how easily a topic like this one can veer into that direction.

Prove that for me... how can you make such a claim with no solid graound to stand on?

That is why I called it a theory.
That is also why I call "god" a theory. And in my theory, god is a redundant theory.

existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence...

I love it! Here I have simplified it for you in C#:

for(existence=i;existence==i;i=i){
existence=i;
}

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

In order for your "theory" as a whole to be taken seriously, you must back it up with facts, not other "theories". So if you really want to make the claim that what you have is a theory, you must explain:

"Existence. The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self."

in terms of facts. You can't just rely on the individual you're talking with to overlook your lack of proof as easily as you do. When you define any word with that same word, the word no longer has any meaning.

For example, I'll prove that eating is redundant. Food is food, and since it is, food is nothing else other than food, without food there is no eating, so since food must have come first, there is no need to eat it.

The above "theory" uses the same allowances you give to your reasoning. Now suppose I better defined food based entirely on facts, the overall theory suggests that there is no reason to eat food. Suppose that were actually true... Am I going to give up experiancing something that I enjoy simply because it makes no logical sense? of course that question is rhetorical because different people will answer differently accoarding to their liking. So even if god is redundant, that doesn't offer anything of practical use. If a theory offers no practical use, or experimantability, there is no use for it. Ultimately, if you did reformulate your "theory" to be based entirely on facts, we would be able to verify it with an experiment or two.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

btw, here is the program that you probably meant to write in C, unless of course you were really only testing me to see if I would correct you. In that case, your program is correct, as you have defined it to work in the "C#" programming language, which doesn't exist yet, and is entirely your creation.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int n;
for(n=1;n==1;printf("existance can't exist without "))
;
}

 

[Fliption]

Proof is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. Proof cannot be dis-proven if it has truly been proven. Proof is fact not opinion as you would have it. Yes if something has been proven and I am denying it, then I am an idiot. As well as anyone else denying it. Until that moment, anyone claiming that something is fact without proof is an idiot.

This seems to beg the question. You haven't explained what proof is and why that is the best form of proof. You seem to be making assumptions that proof has to be objective or inter-subjective. Does this mean that a person cannot "prove to themselves" anything? As I said before, many people have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is not their concern. The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious. Why are you not an idiot for believing in something that you cannot prove to others, like your own consciousness?

The idea of god is also a theory, and one with an extremely poor foundation of evidence if I do say so myself.

It very well may have an extremely poor foundation of evidence. But that fact has not been shown in this post. This post makes assumptions that the world is a physicalist world and follows physicalist rules. I see no good reason to accept these assumptions over any other. Even though I have pointed out at least one example of something that does not fit those rules, that has not stopped you from clinging to this philosophy and making these assumptions.

I agree. It is pathetic. In fact it makes me sick to know that I am surrounded by as many mindless zombies as I am.

I actually did not post in this thread because of your view. Your view is a valid one to have if it can be effectively argued. I did post here because of the attitude I saw in statements like the one above. This just isn't a healthy attitude if you wish to remain objective in the philosophy forum. I would consider what I said earlier very carefully. Whenever I find myself calling the rest of the world idiots because they disagree with me, I should take pause because there is probably something that I do not understand.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010544.html
Of course I am sure you will say that by me believing in this, (or anything I read for that matter), I am just as bad as a theist believing in religious writings. Fair enough. But I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that if I were to perform the experiments that I read about in scientific writings, I would find just about every word of it to be true.

I followed the link and didn't see anything to read, but I can assure you that if they are claiming that something comes from nothing, then they aren't using the same definition of nothing that gets used in the philosophy forum. Most people here would claim that their "nothing" is actually something and so their conclusion is actually "something comes from something". No one would disagree with that. There are lots of threads on this topic here. I posted one below to start with.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=64806

If this post is "closed minded", then I would love to see you on a theist forum. Pick one. Any one. You will have a field day.

I'm sure that's correct. But I'm posting in this thread right now.

There is nothing closed minded about my post, with perhaps the exception of the "lazy, stubborn, and ignorant" part. Yes I am very "closed minded" when it comes to people being brainwashed, and mindlessly accepting things to be fact, and actually killing people over it when they can't even prove it!

Yes. I am closed minded about that. I am also anti theist, and have been labeled by friends and family to be an "Atheist Extremist".

It isn't necessarily closed minded to have any particular view. But when you call everyone else "brainwashed" because they don't have your view and you haven't done a sufficient job arguing why your assumptions are superior, this is clearly close minded.

 

[loseyourname]

http://www.altelco.net/~churches/ProofOfGod.htm
the above link if you read it all will lead you to some interesting scientific measurements about the Earth that coincidence are less than the the chance
of winning the lottery of having occurred in forming the Earth to be habitable for
life as we know it as far as scientific measurements are concerned.

You know, this is a pretty terrible argument. Many people have managed to win the lottery and no one claims that it took a miracle.

 

[Fliption]

You know, this is a pretty terrible argument. Many people have managed to win the lottery and no one claims that it took a miracle.

This of course makes the assumption that the conditions for life have a 100% chance of existing somewhere in the universe.

While the odds of a single person winning the lottery may be 1 in 70,000,000. The odds of someone eventually winning the lottery is 100%.

Your analogy is probably fair though.

 

[Sintwar]

For example, I'll prove that eating is redundant. Food is food, and since it is, food is nothing else other than food, without food there is no eating, so since food must have come first, there is no need to eat it.

Food is food because we make it food. Anything could be considered "food" as long as something exists to "eat" it. This entire planet could be called "food" if there were a giant planet eating dragon flying around in space. And hey who am I to say that there isn't? I have just never seen evidence that there is one. By our definition of "food" anyway. Coal is "food" for fire, but I think you would be hard pressed to attempt to eat some coal.

The problem with your statement is that in order for food to be considered food, there must be something in existence to eat it. Of course how could something that depends on eating in order to exist, exist without something to eat? Evolution. <-- "hypothesis" Perhaps some primitive form of life that did not need food to exist started somehow eating things for whatever reason, and ultimately over billions of years became dependant on it.

The main thing here is that "food" in any form would not exist without existence. Could I be wrong? Maybe existence would not exist without food! But then again, if food existed in order to create existence, it would still already exist, and therefor, it exists because existence exists. Without existence, food could not exist. NOTHING can --->"EXIST"<--- without existence. At least not by our definition of existence.

Perhaps I should change my words from "theory" to "hypothesis".
As I mentioned before I am no science guru. Whatever!

This seems to beg the question. You haven't explained what proof is and why that is the best form of proof. You seem to be making assumptions that proof has to be objective or inter-subjective. Does this mean that a person cannot "prove to themselves" anything? As I said before, many people have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is not their concern. The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious. Why are you not an idiot for believing in something that you cannot prove to others, like your own consciousness?

To make it very simple. I read this in a book "The Atheists debators handbook", so most of these are not my words.
If you were to take me to court, claiming that I am in breech of a contract, you will need to produce this so called contract in order to prove that I did in fact sign it and that I am breeching that contract. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this contract exists, and it has my signiture, your claim is worthless.

You can convince anyone you want that this contract exists. Hell you could convince the whole world. But without that contract, you have no case.

btw, here is the program that you probably meant to write in C, unless of course you were really only testing me to see if I would correct you. In that case, your program is correct, as you have defined it to work in the "C#" programming language, which doesn't exist yet, and is entirely your creation.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int n;
for(n=1;n==1;printf("existance can't exist without "))
;
}

No, I wrote it in C# (See Sharp). A child of C. C# .Net to be exact.

And I sure hope it already exists, I get payed to code it 5 days a week. :/

for(existence=i;existence==i;i=i){
existence=i;
}

really I should have declared i first, but ultimately in this example existence=i and i=existence.

The point was really just to make an infinite loop. Although It can't really be infinite as it had a beginning. Then again so does "existance can't exist without existence can't exist without..."

probably should have been more like this: (if I really wanted to make it functional), and adding your string to it:

int i;
int existence=0;
string print;
for(i=existence;existence==i;i++){
print += "existance can't exist without ";
}

of course if I really wanted to optimize the server load, I would use a string builder Vs. += but for the sake of keeping it short, and because it is infinite and will ultimately crash anyway, += will do.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Food is food because we make it food." - Sintwar

yes! and we make the definition of existence also. It doesn't make itself.

"The main thing here is that "food" in any form would not exist without existence... Without existence, food could not exist." - Sintwar


You use the word "existence" very often, to describe many different things. At some points it can be taken to mean "space-time" or "the universe" other times it could be taken to mean "a state of being". You are still saying the same thing you said at the beginning, that existence came first. One must be alive in order to understand what existence is, so why didn't "being alive" come first? I think you may even agree with that statement because you probably define existence as being alive, because you use the word "existence" synonymously with "a state of being". You just say that food can't exist without existence, and you leave it there. If you then refuse to change your arguments, then you are no different then a Theist (ouch! the people you hate). They would just say "Food can't exist without God", and leave it there. God to a Theist is existence to you. You both make unfalsifiable claims in the eyes of objective proof. I won't note you as a typical atheist though, I've noticed they are usually really nice people because to them, this moment on Earth is all there is so they make lemonade out of lemons.

"The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious." -Fliption

he's got a point Sintwar, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This has nothing to do with a "contract", it has to do with the fact that you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[FrogPad]

If we break proof down into its foundations, the axioms... then where is our proof that those axioms are true? We have to accept some things on faith. If you choose to accept your axiom as: because god has not stood next to me, levitated a car, transported me to Mars and drank a beer with his mind, then god does not exist... then so be it. But if that actually happened to you and you came on this forum and stated it, I wouldn't believe you for a second. I cannot accept that on faith. You may not like the word faith, but I think its an appropriate word for something in between proof and not-proof.


It seems you have this assumption that in order for something to exist it must be proven. So proof gives means to existence.
That is to say:

If we have proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
If we have (the existence of)proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
If we have ((the existence of)the existence of)proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
Ok, I hope you get my point...

If we NEED proof for something to exist, then we need proof of that proof in order for the proof to exist. It's circular reasoning, and it goes nowhere.

 

[FrogPad]

By the way, with regards to:

int i;
int existence=0;
string print;
for(i=existence;existence==i;i++){
print += "existance can't exist without ";
}

What happens when the allocated space for the spring overflows because there is no more memory left for your "existance can't exist without " print command.

Or are you saying existence is cyclic, since the integer will overflow at some point and start over also?

Better yet, let's forget all the little nuances and say that all you are expressing with the code is that existence just occurs, it will continue to occur, it is an "endless loop" if you will. Well how can we prove that the loop is actually running if we cannot examine it infinitely? Sure we can say its running in a interval of time, but that interval is not infinite... so should we just accept that the loop will run forever?

 

[loseyourname]

This of course makes the assumption that the conditions for life have a 100% chance of existing somewhere in the universe.

While the odds of a single person winning the lottery may be 1 in 70,000,000. The odds of someone eventually winning the lottery is 100%.

Your analogy is probably fair though.

I was thinking more along these lines:

Let us say there are exactly 1 million possible worlds (just for the sake of helping us conceptualize). Which world becomes an actual world is purely a matter of chance and depends on the way in which physical constants network to create natural laws. Each world has an equal probability of occurring. For the sake of argument, let's just that 25 of these possible worlds are constructed such that the evolution of intelligent life can take place in them. Sure, because of that, it's more probable that a universe will exist that cannot support intelligent life - in fact, it is quite a bit more probable. However, the probability of any given possible world becoming an actual world is equal. To bring it back to the lottery analogy, let's say each ticket has a 1 in 1 million chance of being the winning ticket. Only 25 ticket-holders are between the ages of 27 and 29. In fact, the probability of any person within any given three-year age span eligible to play the lottery winning is 25 in 1 million. Would we be surprised to find that a 28 year-old wins? What about a 35 year-old?

That's the thing. Any possible world has an equally low a priori probability of being an actual world. There is no more reason to be surprised that our world is the one that exists than there would be over the existence of any possible world, whether or not it could support intelligent life.

 

[Canute]

You seem to be suggesting that the universe exists as a superposition of states, each actualised by an act of sentient observation. John Wheeler uses this argument to suggest that consciousness is required in order to actualise probable states of the universe, and is thus required to be in existence at t=0 in all universes. This is not a strong argument for the non-existence of God.

I know nothing about programming languages but the infinite loop that arises in programming for existence, as demonstrated above, is dispensed with in the logical calculus of George Spencer-Brown, who uses imaginary values to solve the problem. Thus he presents his calculus as a mathematical model of how form arises from formlessness in all universes. Not as an act of God, but as the natural outcome of the fundamental existence of a 'causeless cause', aka the Void, the Tao, emptiness etc., as suggested by Lao-tsu, Chuang Tsu, the Buddha, Richard Gere, Schrodinger and the rest.

The God issue is a mess in my opinion. It results from a naturalisation or objectification of God as a concept, which began with the early Greek philosophers and culminates in the work of people like Ayn Rand and Dan Dennett, and in the sort of shallow happy-clappy Christianity that has evolved in recent times. It is often forgotten, for instance, that in Sufism, which is equivalent to Taoism, Buddhism and the Christian mystics in its cosmology, great efforts are made to make it crystal clear that Allah is not God, and that to think of Allah as God is is to make a serious and very misleading mistake. Similarly there is a profound difference between the God of TV evangalists and the 'Godhead' of Evagrios, Merton or Meister Eckhart.

To argue that the God of modern Christianity does not exist is to pick on an easy target. It is not hard to show that this notion of God is incoherent and requires the possibility of divine miracles in order to overcome its internal contradictions. The question is, is there a inevitable gap in all our consistent accounts of cosmogenesis, if so is there something in it, and if so what might it be, assuming it needs to be something consistent with physics. To the first I'd say yes, to the second yes and no, depending on how you look at it, and to the last I'd agree with Spencer-Brown.

 

[Sintwar]

I use the word existence with abundance because if you really boil it down, nothing can exist without existence.

You can argue that to the death, but it is a fact. It is a fact because the moment that anything comes into existence (no matter what form of existence it is), it exists.

I do not hold "existence" to only physical forms of existence. For example. I am imagining 5 billion dollars in my bank account right now. It is a nice thought, and although it is not physical reality, the thought of it exists in my mind. And now that I have said it to you, and you are reading it, it now exists in your mind.

In this sense, yes god does very much exist. god exists in the mind of just about every single living human being on this planet.

Although, this "thought" is more or less electrical signals in my brain, so the only thing that really exists (as far as that thought is concerned) is some electrical activity in my brain.

In that sense, perhaps we are not "really" intelligent beings at all. In fact, if you REALLY want to boil it down, we are nothing more than a chemical reaction.

Who knows. Maybe the only actual thing that physically exists is a single cell, something like a brain cell. It floats in a void of absolute nothingness and emptiness, and our "existence" is nothing more than an electrical signal in that cell. It doesn't even have to understand it. It just is.

And then we are not even a chemical reaction. We simply become a "thought" induced by a chemical or electrical reaction.

But... even if that were the case. That single cell still exists.

Wether existence existed before that cell, or they both popped into existence at the same time... Well... We might never know. At least I probably wont.

The point is, it could not exist without the existence of existence.


I know I know. If NOTHING can exist withough existence, then how can "existence" exist without existence? hmmmm?

THAT is why I think that it is just possible that existence is infinite.

What would happen if absolutely nothing existed, not even existence its self, and then all of the sudden BAM it did exist?

Maybe a giant explosion... hmmm kind of like a Big Bang!

At the end of the day, the fact that I am typing this message right now , and you are reading it, means that existence already exists. And wether I am really a physical being, or just a thought coming from an electrical signal in a single brain cell. Something exists.

 

[infidel]

I was with you up to a point Sintwar, but I'm afraid all this makes no sense to me. "Nothing can exist without existence" is a tautology and essentially meaningless. The "existence of existence" is similarly without meaning. And what does it mean to say "nothing exists"? Does it exist if it is nothing?

There is a world of difference between the perception of something existing and the thing existing. One is a thought, incorporeal, a set of chemical reactions which we perceive as a mental image or idea. As such it is a thing itself, a thought, that has existence. Very little to do with the thing itself existing.

Usually when one debates whether a god exists, there is little doubt among the participants that we mean external existence in a real sense. There is no debate as to whether the idea of god exists.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe you have a very good idea or explanation in there somewhere but it's not coming across, at least to me, very well. But that's just me, and I think it's why I find the subject of philosophy so uninteresting.

 

[PIT2]

I only read the first post, but here's what i thought:

Replace the word 'existence' with 'God' and u can start all over again.

 

[PIT2]

Although I do know that "something from nothing" is possible, and has already been proven it happens.

Im afraid this has never been witnessed, let alone proven.

The idea that everything came from nothing, is just as fantastical as that of a God. Actually, it makes even less sense...

 

[Fliption]

To make it very simple. I read this in a book "The Atheists debators handbook", so most of these are not my words.
If you were to take me to court, claiming that I am in breech of a contract, you will need to produce this so called contract in order to prove that I did in fact sign it and that I am breeching that contract. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this contract exists, and it has my signiture, your claim is worthless.

You can convince anyone you want that this contract exists. Hell you could convince the whole world. But without that contract, you have no case.

I'm not sure I understand this response. Are you saying that the "atheists debators handbook" advocates making statements without having to defend them?

 

[infidel]

No, he's saying people's belief in god proves nothing. You need some other evidence. So in his example, convincing others I breached the contract is meaningless. You'd need to produce the evidence (the contract) and show I breached it.

 

[Fliption]

I was thinking more along these lines:

That's the thing. Any possible world has an equally low a priori probability of being an actual world. There is no more reason to be surprised that our world is the one that exists than there would be over the existence of any possible world, whether or not it could support intelligent life.

I agree. I was just making the point that saying the odds of a 25 year old winning the lottery is more analagous to the existence of life than saying "someone will win the lottery". Because the latter statement has a 100% chance of being correct which is not the case for a 25 year old nor life on earth. So it requires the assumption that life has a 100% chance of existing eventually somewhere. Your new analogy is better

It is not miraculous that someone wins the lottery because the odds of that are 100%. It is not miraculous that someone gets dealt a royal flush because that arrangement is no less likely than any other. To make this analogy with life, we are making the assumption that a world that includes the existence of life is just as likely as a world that doesn't. A person arguing on the grounds of "odds" could make the argument that this is not the case.

 

[Sintwar]

I agree. I was just making the point that saying the odds of a 25 year old winning the lottery is more analagous to the existence of life than saying "someone will win the lottery". Because the latter statement has a 100% chance of being correct which is not the case for a 25 year old nor life on earth. So it requires the assumption that life has a 100% chance of existing eventually somewhere. Your new analogy is better

It is not miraculous that someone wins the lottery because the odds of that are 100%. It is not miraculous that someone gets dealt a royal flush because that arrangement is no less likely than any other. To make this analogy with life, we are making the assumption that a world that includes the existence of life is just as likely as a world that doesn't. A person arguing on the grounds of "odds" could make the argument that this is not the case.

I was thinking about this yesterday. I came to this.

I don't think that our world being the way it is, is highly improbable.

What I do think is improbable, is another world being exactly like ours.

Just like any system really. I think you would have a VERY hard time finding an identical system in this universe. Although it might be possible, it is EXTREMELY improbable.

Take a hand full of rocks and toss them on the ground. Now look at one of them very carefully. It is almost impossibly unlikely that you can pick those rocks up, and drop them again and have even one of them land in the same exact location, at the same exact angle at which it landed. But, the chances of it landing exactly the way that it did the first time are probably about as likely as our planet being the way it is. But guess what? It happened didn't it?

But just because it is improbable for another system to be identical to ours, does not mean that it is improbable that another system will contain life in some form. Or even intelligent life for that matter. It just probably won't be exactly like what you see on earth.

It is just a matter of something evolving and adapting to its environment.

Take a look at fish for example. I was in the pet store tonight, looking at the salt water fish. I am amazed at how different those things are even from the weirdest mammal I have ever seen.

They are from another world. Even though they share the same planet as us, they have adapted to a word that we could never in our lives imagine adapting to. But they did it. Not only do they live under water, some of them live so deep under water that they even live in temperatures that we could never imagine adapting to.

I assure you. Anywhere in this universe that life is capable of evolving, it will most likely happen. And you, me and anyone else living on this planet might never understand it, until we catch one of them suckers and cut them open for examination.. >=)

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

My rational self questions all aspects of reality, and can't understand to any certainty why or how I exist. My aestetic self doesn't question reality at all, and can't understand why my rational self has a problem. The left and right hemispheres of the brain are like evolution's check and balance system, without this symbiotic dichotomy, life can't ameliorate. The consciousness will either destroy itself by seeing no purpose and therefore not striving for anything, or destroy itself by becomming too appreciative of it's purpose and miss out on living. Both viewpoints must be balanced in order to ensure survival.

 

[loseyourname]

It is not miraculous that someone wins the lottery because the odds of that are 100%. It is not miraculous that someone gets dealt a royal flush because that arrangement is no less likely than any other. To make this analogy with life, we are making the assumption that a world that includes the existence of life is just as likely as a world that doesn't. A person arguing on the grounds of "odds" could make the argument that this is not the case.

That's why I was careful to say that every possible world has an equal a priori probability of being an actual world. As we cannot view any other worlds that might exist nor any worlds that might have existed before ours or will exist after ours, we have no way of calculating a frequentist probability. The best we can do is to perhaps calculate a Bayesian probability, but even that would require knowledge of how universe's form and what it is that causes physical constants to become what they do. As we do not have that knowledge at the moment, the best we can currently do is assign equal probability to all possible worlds, in which case there is no reason to think anything special was required for our particular world to become actual.

 

[Fliption]

That's why I was careful to say that every possible world has an equal a priori probability of being an actual world. As we cannot view any other worlds that might exist nor any worlds that might have existed before ours or will exist after ours, we have no way of calculating a frequentist probability. The best we can do is to perhaps calculate a Bayesian probability, but even that would require knowledge of how universe's form and what it is that causes physical constants to become what they do. As we do not have that knowledge at the moment, the best we can currently do is assign equal probability to all possible worlds, in which case there is no reason to think anything special was required for our particular world to become actual.

Agreed. (I'm putting this sentence in because my message was too short to post otherwise )

 

[Les Sleeth]

Proof is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. Proof cannot be dis-proven if it has truly been proven. Proof is fact not opinion as you would have it. Yes if something has been proven and I am denying it, then I am an idiot. As well as anyone else denying it. Until that moment, anyone claiming that something is fact without proof is an idiot.

I've read all your comments in this thread. I want to address the idea of proof before responding (in a second post) to your original point about the redundancy of God.

As someone who became an atheist at age 11, I have heard and expressed most of your complaints. Like most atheists, your biggest objections appear to be about the beliefs and practices of religion. You make the mistake of assuming religion represents whatever evidence there is for what's been called "God." Yet what if there is evidence, but theology has nothing to do with it?

A point which is related to something Fliption said is that the modern standard for all so-called "proofs" (excepting tautologies/pure math) are subjectively achieved (empiricism). All scientific proof is based on subjective observation first, and then the ability to share that with others so they too can subjectively experience (observe) what's been claimed. So you cannot escape subjectivity for what we label "proof."

Now, do you believe you know all varieties of subjective experience that have ever been attained? Have you studied all the practices of this world to find out what's been done? For example, the Buddha meditated for many years and then achieved something called enlightenment. Do you know what that is? How many atheists do you think have a clue what that is? Is it pure nonsense, or did he really realize some new level of consciousness through that? If he did realize some new level of consciousness, then how do you know it didn't make him aware he was, for example, part of some greater consciousness?

If that seems far fetched you might consider some of the claims of people who've taken psychedelic drugs. In my youth I took such drugs (mostly peyote) a couple of hundred times over a period of twenty years treating the experience reverently. My impression was that the drug released my consciousness from a sort of "constriction" the brain causes, and expanded it (and no, I don’t recommend drugs, especially since I now know a better way). In that expanded condition I was acutely aware of some sort of "field" all around me which, over time, I came to feel was conscious. I can’t claim to actually know if it is/was, but the impression was there nonetheless.

I always wondered if I could get that expanded experience without the drug, because I came to love it, but every time the drug wore off the expanded experience disappeared. Then someone taught me to meditate, and I've practiced daily now for over 30 years. I have in fact achieved the expanded experience through that, and I now continuously feel like I am existing within some greater consciousness. Is it God? I don’t know. I can only report what I experience, which is that it feels conscious and loving. However, I also could provide you (as somewhat of an expert in this field) with lots of similar reports from inner practitioners taken from many cultures and times over the last 3000 years or so.

Now you, without that experience and having never researched the long history of people who practiced this experience (including a lot monastic Christians . . . I think Canute mentioned Meister Eckhart, for instance), you speak of there being "no proof." But to those of us who have the deeper inner experience, it is being proven to us (or confirmed at least) over and over each day. We just can't prove it to you, and (as Fliption astutely points out) most people don't give a rat's behind whether they can or not. The proof is subjective, not inter-subjective, and that’s just how it works.

You can investigate or not, it’s nobody’s business but your own, but you can’t demand something that doesn’t yield to the objective methods of science do so or you claim it’s bogus. The problem arises when you speak from what you know, and seem to think that because you haven’t experienced it, then no one has. That my friend is an egocentric opinion and not worthy of anyone hoping to acquire a truly objective and informed perspective about all this existence has to offer.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Proof Existence. The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self.

Because of this, I have a theory that the force of existence is infinite. This theory is based on the fact that existence could not exist without existence.

With that in mind, let's move onto the god thing.

If god exists, he exists under the rules of existence. Meaning that even god cannot exist without the force of existence.

God cannot have created existence, because he would have to exist first to create it. And because he cannot exist without existence, he is not the ultimate power. Existence is above him.

If existence were to cease to exist, so would everything else. Including god.

So my conclusion is that if existence could create god ->

(I use the term "create" loosley. Much in the same way that gravity (and a series of other factors) "creates" diamonds from coal. It is simply an "effect" of its presence.)

It could also create the universe, everything in it, and then some without the need of "god".

This theory of course does not dis-prove god. It does however render him useless in a sense. The idea of god is that he is all powerful. If god has no power over his own existence, he is not all powerful.

I generally agree with your idea of existence as “The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self. Because of this, I have a theory that the force of existence is infinite. This theory is based on the fact that existence could not exist without existence.”

To your list I would add the qualities of eternal, uncreated, indestructible, highly mutable . . .

But I don’t see why you say God, and if you don’t mind I am going to substitute “consciousness” for God, is redundant. There are aspects of this universe which so far cannot be explained. We cannot explain, for example, how chemistry can self-organize itself into the complex, self-sustaining systems of a cell (sure, we can provide an explanation, but we can’t demonstrate it is true). People are trying to do it in a laboratory, but guess what, it is consciousness that is doing the vast majority of the organizing.

We also cannot demonstrate how physicalness produces consciousness (again, we have our theories, but we can prove none of them).

Now, if we throw out the tired, old worn out theological and purely speculative concepts of an omniscient and omnipotent creator, is there any reason to consider consciousness might have evolved first (i.e., before the physical universe) out of that pure existence you spoke of? And that being in an infinite and eternal medium, this conscious was able to evolve for unimaginable eons (if necessary), and then participate in the formation of the universe?

One reason to at least consider it is because it would help explain the organization of matter found in/behind life and consciousness which physical principles alone cannot be shown to produce. If such a consciousness does exist, there is no reason to imbue it with omnipotence (logically, it only has to be powerful enough to have helped with creation to the degree it did), nor omnipotence (it just has to know whatever it needed to know to make its contribution to creation), nor with supernatural ability (creation appears totally natural, so this consciousness would be seen as having to obey the more basic rules of existence, just like everything else, and therefore be “natural”).

That, like physicalism, is just a theory. Is there any evidence supporting the idea of some universally omnipresent consciousness? By golly there is! I mentioned it in my last post to you. Are you going to research it? Well, if you are like most atheists and physicalists I debate, you won’t, and you will also continue to proclaim to everyone “there is no evidence.” But then, I could be wrong, maybe you are different.

 

[Sintwar]

Are you going to research it? Well, if you are like most atheists and physicalists I debate, you won't, and you will also continue to proclaim to everyone "there is no evidence." But then, I could be wrong, maybe you are different.

One thing about my atheism is that I did not just pop from a believer to a non believer over night. I am sure there have been quite a few atheists out there who did exactly what I did.

I have experience the "Christian" side of theism. I have been saved a few times, and yes while I was in church, listening to the preacher I "felt the presence of god". There was no denying it. I had so much blind faith in god that there was no way that anyone could have convinced me otherwise.

Somewhere along the lines of that stage in my life, I began to learn that there are literally thousands of different beliefs, and religions. This bothered me. I began to think to myself "Self? How is it that there are so many beliefs in the world, but mine is the only "true" belief?"

Well this was overwhelming to me. All of the sudden my belief was outnumbered by thousands of others and mine seemed somewhat insignificant.

I began to explore and research a little about other beliefs. At that point I still believed in "a higher power" such as god.

I found out about Wicca. An interesting religion based on multiple deities.

But what really sparked my interest in Wicca was that they practice "manipulating" the energy around us. They call it "Magik". "Well this makes sense" I said. We are surrounded by energy, why wouldn't Christianity observe this and do the same? So I actually converted to Wiccan, and my beliefs were 100% shifted to that belief. I researched and actually cast spells, and meditated on a daily basis "religiously". The funny thing was, that same "presence of god" feeling came over me when I was worshiping the Wiccan goddess Vs. worshiping the Christian god.

After that realization I came to the conclusion that religion is just a tool to be in touch with the 1 and only "diety" or "higher power". No matter what way you look at it, there is no wrong or right, it is all the same.

So that was the point that I released religion from my life all together. I wasn't an Atheist yet, but I considered myself to be "Spiritual". I believed there was something, but that nobody was really capable of explaining it, so we all just made up our own versions of what we think this "higher feeling of presence and comfort" really is.

After so many "conversions" in my life, I really began to explore the idea of "god". I began to logically question the base of my beliefs.

Essentially, why do I believe that there is a god? Because I was raised that way. The same reason I believe that chewing with your mouth open is repulsive. I have had it engrained into my mind that this is the way it is.
The same goes for my parents, and their parents and so on.

Have I ever REALLY whitnessed a "miracle" (like the ones described so vividly in the religious writings)? Or could everything that I considered to be a miracle in the past possibly be confused with a coincidence? No, I cannot say that I have ever REALLY whitnessed a "miracle". Everythig I have ever whitnessed that would be considered a miracle by believers, could really be boiled down to logical coincidence.

Am I able to induce the feeling of "the presence of god" by simply using my imagination to visualize, without being in church, praying, meditating, etc. ? Yes I can. I am an artist, and I do have a fairly good grasp of visualization, and how to control it. I can very easily visualize the presence of someone standing behind me, breathing and watching me. I can visualize it so well that I can even visualize the scent of cologne, the sound of his breathing, and even the feeling of the breath on the back of my neck. I can visualize it so well that I will actually look behind me to make sure it isn't real. It is a matter of being in tune with the senses that you take for granted every day.

So, once I began to realize that the "idea" of god was planted in my mind by my parents, I have never actually whitnessed a miracle, and that I can actually visualize the presence of something being there when it really is not, I began to REALLY question the validity of this whole god business all together.

I then became an agnostic.

I still had the idea that "There COULD be something out there, after all this universe is "too perfect" to be anything other than the creation of some form of intelligent being... Or is it?

I then began to read up on the scientific views of our universe. Don't get me wrong, I did not get into any in depth, hard core study about it, but I have picked up bits and pieces along the way. Things such as theories about why Earth is the way it is, how chaotic the universe really is, and how evolution does make a lot of sense, etc, etc...

I have also payed attention to the nature of theists, and their history. Not only did my father force me to go to church, and force the idea of god into my mind, entire civilizations have come under attack and been forced into certain beliefs by threats and means of violence.

Now with all of this flooding through my head, I have simply boiled it down to this:

Idea of god was forced on me (and billions of other people) by other men, not a god, I have never whitnessed a miracle, I can invoke the presence of "someone" with visualization, the universe IS chaotic, and we are not as "perfect" as many think. We are simply a product of our environment, due to a process of evolution.

Wow... Now I am beginning to really open my eyes, and my mind a little wider. No longer trapped by the forced limited beliefs that I was raised on, all of the sudden, I feel "enlightened". More awake, more aware and more alive than ever in my life. All of the sudden life is no longer a simple insignificant stepping stone. It is the most unbelievable thing that I could possibly ever imagine. With all odds against us, we exist.

BAM. Now I am a full fledged Atheist. I say Atheist, because as a former theist, there is really no other way. I imagine there is a state of mind in which god does not exist at all. Throughout someones life, they have never been introduced to the idea of a god, and therefore it does not exist. That has to be the absolute purest state of mind that anyone could ever achieve.

I have a 1 year old daughter. That is her mind. Unfortunately I will need to raise her as an Atheist because the idea of god will be shoved down her throat from the moment she can form sentences.

I think that if you really want to "prove" that god exists, let it go. If there is a god, I am sure it will show up and prove it in its own way. Rather than consistently brain washing people with the ideas of god, and forcing it on our children and other people, I think that we should focus more on teaching our children the reality of what we do know about the universe.

Now that we know that the sun is not god, the Earth is round, and it is not the center of the universe. Now that we know what stars really are, and what gravity is, and why it rains, and what lightning is.

Or we can continue to embrace ignorance and continue to tell our children that the sun is gods face, the Earth is the center of the universe, the rain is gods tears, the thunder is god walking, and the stars were hung in the sky by god to light the earth, when we know it not to be true.

Now that I am an Atheist, I am trying to move toward that pure state of mind as my next step. This is why my focus has been narrowed down to "existence". I have some ideas, but nothing truly convincing yet. Hence this post. You have all become a part of the next step in my life. Any of you trying to convince me that god does exist is doing so in vain. I have come too far. There is no turning back now.

 

[PIT2]

Now that we know that the sun is not god, the Earth is round, and it is not the center of the universe. Now that we know what stars really are, and what gravity is, and why it rains, and what lightning is.

Unfortunately for u, science is starting to indicate that our universe is an illusion.