God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[Robert]

Well, because this ET may be a God that created our universe, and our universe may have an objective purpose, as a result. Maybe mystical experiences have a greater purpose, and our not some blind result of natural selection. Maybe it's all part of the plan.

You might very well be on to something. This is what I cannot rule out.

And what is the use of this speculation? Even if created by something or somebody does not mean there is an objective purpose. And whose purpose anyway? This all imagination.

Exactly, it's all just speculation and doesn't answer anything in any substantial way. Like Dan answered Loki, it's basically just another deity invented out of our imagination.

It also doesn't exist because for the infinite to exist means that there must be another infinite to compare it to, a second (at least) infinite. Since by definition there can't be, then we can say it doesn't exist.

Link to a brief Wikipedia entry on the cardinality or size of infinite sets, or collections of things that have an infinite number of members. Cardinality is the measure of size. Some infinite sets are bigger than others.

The Infinite might be a poorer choice for this than the Totality. The Infinite is a noun. Its normal usage is as an adjective. Totality is purely a noun.

I was referring to the Totality, of which there can only be one (until we think up two... ).
My point still stands.

[Loki]

Exactly, it's all just speculation and doesn't answer anything in any substantial way. Like Dan answered Loki, it's basically just another deity invented out of our imagination.

It's a possibility. The significance of my work on this thread is to show how we can't have absolute certainty about the non-existence of an infinite God, or even certainty about the inherent meaninglessness of natural phenomena.

The purpose of organisms on this planet may be similar to the purpose of our senses. Maybe large swaths of life are collectively one big nose, or ear of God. The same way there are billions of cells which create our sense of touch, maybe billions of humans provide God a sense of touch, or vision, or something.

My imagination really is phenomenal.

[Robert]

Exactly, it's all just speculation and doesn't answer anything in any substantial way. Like Dan answered Loki, it's basically just another deity invented out of our imagination.

It's a possibility. The significance of my work on this thread is to show how we can't have absolute certainty about the non-existence of an infinite God, or even certainty about the inherent meaninglessness of natural phenomena.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You started off talking about a superpowerful alien that identifies itself with the infinite that created the universe, to saying that it's actually infinite. To my understanding, you can't have it both ways. For example, I realise the implications of my own physical existence of having a body, but that this body is illusory since no real boundaries can be determined, so I can identify my body through my conscious with the infinite. That's not the same as saying my body and conscious actually are the infinite, or the totality (to keep BH happy). The same goes for the alien you suggested.

So it's possible that a powerful ET created a universe, but that would be in the same manner that if you imagine us humans becoming one day extremely advanced in all of science and technology and what not and reaching the point where we could do the same, create a universe. We would still be humans, or something evolved from humans, and we would most definitely still be finite.

Maybe you're defining an infinte God differently than I would.

The purpose of organisms on this planet may be similar to the purpose of our senses. Maybe large swaths of life are collectively one big nose, or ear of God. The same way there are billions of cells which create our sense of touch, maybe billions of humans provide God a sense of touch, or vision, or something.

My imagination really is phenomenal.

What sort of purpose do you have in mind?
If you follow my scenario above of humans creating a universe, what do you imagine the purpose of doing that would be (apart from just for it's own sake)?

[Loki]

Exactly, it's all just speculation and doesn't answer anything in any substantial way. Like Dan answered Loki, it's basically just another deity invented out of our imagination.

It's a possibility. The significance of my work on this thread is to show how we can't have absolute certainty about the non-existence of an infinite God, or even certainty about the inherent meaninglessness of natural phenomena.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You started off talking about a superpowerful alien that identifies itself with the infinite that created the universe, to saying that it's actually infinite.

Well, it's body is actually infinite. As for it's consciousness, it's infinite in the sense that it's creativity produces infinite combination, and it's longevity may be infinite. So in that sense it may have infinite consciousness. Consciousness that lasts forever, and mutates into infinite combination.

So it's possible that a powerful ET created a universe, but that would be in the same manner that if you imagine us humans becoming one day extremely advanced in all of science and technology and what not and reaching the point where we could do the same,

It's possible that this superpower alien being didn't evolve, but it always existed.

The purpose of organisms on this planet may be similar to the purpose of our senses. Maybe large swaths of life are collectively one big nose, or ear of God. The same way there are billions of cells which create our sense of touch, maybe billions of humans provide God a sense of touch, or vision, or something.

My imagination really is phenomenal.

What sort of purpose do you have in mind?

To enjoy colors, sounds, movement, mathematics, models.

If you follow my scenario above of humans creating a universe, what do you imagine the purpose of doing that would be (apart from just for it's own sake)?

The purpose would be to enjoy.

[brokenhead]

The purpose would be to enjoy.

Loki, when I thought about this, something came to mind. It seems that most of the time we spend looking for meaning or purose in what we encounter, to rationalize and understand and simply learn about the world and discern patterns and correlations. But have you noticed that when we are truly enjoying something, this drive is somehow suspended, as if it is somehow being satiated at that time, exactly as if our purpose was to simply enjoy?

[Ignius]

So, what is God? Is God a what? By using the term: "God", we mean... ?

Define God? God is the creator. Does the universe need a creator? It's an argument of this nature: created or just appeared?

Hmmm...

So, define: God, and define exist, and then, tell me what you don't understand... And I'll help you.

[David Quinn]

Incorrect. Dan's conclusion that it does not exist aligns with the truth that it is beyond existence. But he did slyly leave out the other side of the equation in his video - namely, that it is beyond non-existence as well.

Listen, you. Yes, you, Mr. Man-of-the-Infinite. The Infinite neither exists nor does it not exist. Yet we are discussing it. Do you not see the contradiction? Do I have to spell it out for you? It is irrational to speak about something that neither exists nor does not exist.

We can talk about it because it isn't hidden away in non-existence.

The Infinite isn't nothing whatsoever, but neither is it a "something" in the manner of an object. We can distinguish it from the objects that comprise it.

If the thing in itself is not what we perceive, then there must be a difference between the outer world and the inner world, i.e.. a boundary between phenomenon and noumenon. All boundaries are illusions, though. So which is it, David?

Your first premise is wrong. The thing-in-itself is the only reality we ever perceive. There is only one thing-in-itself and that is the Infinite, there being nothing other than it, and we stare at it during every moment of the day.

In other words, the boundary between the noumenon and phenomena is an illusion. The noumenon is none other than the realm of phenonema, and the realm of phenomena is none other than the noumenon. There is no "inner" and no "outer".

-

[David Quinn]

I just watched Rowden's God Does Not Exist youtube vid.

Dan, or someone similar, I have a question.

Isn't it true that the Sage is God? I say this because the Sage identifies with the infinite, and thus is an infinite God.

That being said, isn't it possible that this universe was set into motion by some kind of powerful alien being, one which identified himself with the infinite?

No. When the sage identifies with the infinite, he doesn't try to stretch out his own consciousness so that it too becomes infinite or anything like that.

I'm not saying the sage tries to stretch his consciousness to become infinite. I'm just saying that he identifies himself with the totality of nature.

Identification with the infinite is simply that - identification with the infinite. It doesn't involve developing god-like powers, or indeed developing any kind of desire to change things at all. It is simply a recognition of what reality is.

A sage can become more influental over the shaping of the future via the making of wise choices and the crafting of wisdom-friendly consequences, but that is a long way from being god-like.

"The eye with which I see God is the eye with which God sees me"

Observe the power of truthfulness!

Perhaps this universe of ours was created by an alien being who correctly identified himself as God?

Possibly, but whether a wise being decides to create a world or not, his wisdom, which arises from his identification with the infinite, remains unaffected either way.

In other words, the line you are pursuing in this thread is trivial.

Rather, he recognizes that his infinite nature, of which his own consciousness is a miniscule part, is responsible for the existence of all things. This applies just as much to a powerful alien being as it does to a human.

I disagree with your attempt to make the infinite seem big. A powerful alien being isn't necessarily minuscule. Relative to us creatures on earth, such a being may indeed be God-like and massive. In fact, for you to say that there is always an object that makes this powerful alien being minuscule is not an absolute truth. For all you know, this powerful alien being may be objectively the biggest object in all of existence.

It doesn't matter how big it is, it will always shrink down to miniscule proportions in the face of reality's beginningless and endlessness. As soon as you try to pin this god down and make it an existing entity or object, its shrinkage to miniscule proportions is assured.

-

[Loki]

I disagree with your attempt to make the infinite seem big. A powerful alien being isn't necessarily minuscule. Relative to us creatures on earth, such a being may indeed be God-like and massive. In fact, for you to say that there is always an object that makes this powerful alien being minuscule is not an absolute truth. For all you know, this powerful alien being may be objectively the biggest object in all of existence.

It doesn't matter how big it is, it will always shrink down to miniscule proportions in the face of reality's beginningless and endlessness. As soon as you try to pin this god down and make it an existing entity or object, its shrinkage to miniscule proportions is assured.
-

Earlier you told me that the infinite has nothing to do with space extending outwards, and is simply about formlessness. Now here you are telling me that the infinite causes objects to shrink to minuscule proportions. What's up with that?

My contention is that the only thing that can cause an object to shrink to minuscule proportions, is a larger object. Formlessness cannot cause a form to become small. The only thing that can cause a form to become small, is a much larger form.

[skipair]

My contention is that the only thing that can cause an object to shrink to minuscule proportions, is a larger object. Formlessness cannot cause a form to become small. The only thing that can cause a form to become small, is a much larger form.

I suppose formlessness can't make a form "small", but when you compare the finite to the infinite, the finite is always infinitely far from being infinite. Though this distinction is probably misleading in some way...

[David Quinn]

I disagree with your attempt to make the infinite seem big. A powerful alien being isn't necessarily minuscule. Relative to us creatures on earth, such a being may indeed be God-like and massive. In fact, for you to say that there is always an object that makes this powerful alien being minuscule is not an absolute truth. For all you know, this powerful alien being may be objectively the biggest object in all of existence.

It doesn't matter how big it is, it will always shrink down to miniscule proportions in the face of reality's beginningless and endlessness. As soon as you try to pin this god down and make it an existing entity or object, its shrinkage to miniscule proportions is assured.

Earlier you told me that the infinite has nothing to do with space extending outwards, and is simply about formlessness. Now here you are telling me that the infinite causes objects to shrink to minuscule proportions. What's up with that?

Formlessness is so "big" that it even dwarfs the assumed reality of space existing indefinitely outwards. It eats up such realities without even blinking.

My contention is that the only thing that can cause an object to shrink to minuscule proportions, is a larger object. Formlessness cannot cause a form to become small. The only thing that can cause a form to become small, is a much larger form.

A form, no matter what it is, even if it is the form of a super-large god, will only ever be one form out of countless other forms. This is what makes it miniscule in the face of Nature's formlessness.

This point can only be understoond when one abandons the illusion of objective reality and understands the manner in which things don't really exist.

-

[Ignius]

That's the way it goes.

[Ignius]

Btw, read: "The Perfect Crime" - it's pretty good, though it may be difficult to understand.

[Loki]

Earlier you told me that the infinite has nothing to do with space extending outwards, and is simply about formlessness. Now here you are telling me that the infinite causes objects to shrink to minuscule proportions. What's up with that?

Formlessness is so "big" that it even dwarfs the assumed reality of space existing indefinitely outwards. It eats up such realities without even blinking.

How so? Are you alluding to a sort of holographic nature to our universe, a matrix kind of thing? I can understand how such a possibility dwarfs the assumed reality of space expanding outwards.

But that's just a possibility, it's not something we can know for certain. Space may very well expand outwards, but may eventually stop at a wall.

My contention is that the only thing that can cause an object to shrink to minuscule proportions, is a larger object. Formlessness cannot cause a form to become small. The only thing that can cause a form to become small, is a much larger form.

A form, no matter what it is, even if it is the form of a super-large god, will only ever be one form out of countless other forms. This is what makes it miniscule in the face of Nature's formlessness.

Yeah, but what if those other forms are all smaller. Isn't it possible for a form to be the biggest of all other existing forms?

This point can only be understood when one abandons the illusion of objective reality and understands the manner in which things don't really exist.

What about the possibility of a God particle, the smallest unit of matter? Isn't it possible that there is one?

[David Quinn]

Earlier you told me that the infinite has nothing to do with space extending outwards, and is simply about formlessness. Now here you are telling me that the infinite causes objects to shrink to minuscule proportions. What's up with that?

Formlessness is so "big" that it even dwarfs the assumed reality of space existing indefinitely outwards. It eats up such realities without even blinking.

How so? Are you alluding to a sort of holographic nature to our universe, a matrix kind of thing? I can understand how such a possibility dwarfs the assumed reality of space expanding outwards.

The universe is holographic in the sense that all of our experiences are illusions. But they aren't illusions created by a mind or a computer or some such thing, but by reality itself. So in another sense, the universe isn't a hologram at all. Everything we experience is a direct manifestation of reality.

But that's just a possibility, it's not something we can know for certain.

On the contrary, it is something which can be known for certain and forms the basis of all wisdom.

Space may very well expand outwards, but may eventually stop at a wall.

It doesn't matter either way.

My contention is that the only thing that can cause an object to shrink to minuscule proportions, is a larger object. Formlessness cannot cause a form to become small. The only thing that can cause a form to become small, is a much larger form.

A form, no matter what it is, even if it is the form of a super-large god, will only ever be one form out of countless other forms. This is what makes it miniscule in the face of Nature's formlessness.

Yeah, but what if those other forms are all smaller. Isn't it possible for a form to be the biggest of all other existing forms?

It would still remain a droplet of illusion in the limitless ocean of reality.

This point can only be understood when one abandons the illusion of objective reality and understands the manner in which things don't really exist.

What about the possibility of a God particle, the smallest unit of matter? Isn't it possible that there is one?

You're still looking in the wrong place. Particles, godly or otherwise, are part of the realm of illusion and therefore of no consequence.

-

[brokenhead]

Your first premise is wrong. The thing-in-itself is the only reality we ever perceive. There is only one thing-in-itself and that is the Infinite, there being nothing other than it, and we stare at it during every moment of the day.

In other words, the boundary between the noumenon and phenomena is an illusion. The noumenon is none other than the realm of phenonema, and the realm of phenomena is none other than the noumenon. There is no "inner" and no "outer".

But the perception is not the reality. Or is it, ultimately?

The Infinite isn't nothing whatsoever, but neither is it a "something" in the manner of an object. We can distinguish it from the objects that comprise it.

How, though, David? How is it possible to distinguish it? You can't distinguish the Infinite from anything because the Infinite includes everything by definition. Do you see my problem?

[David Quinn]

Your first premise is wrong. The thing-in-itself is the only reality we ever perceive. There is only one thing-in-itself and that is the Infinite, there being nothing other than it, and we stare at it during every moment of the day.

In other words, the boundary between the noumenon and phenomena is an illusion. The noumenon is none other than the realm of phenonema, and the realm of phenomena is none other than the noumenon. There is no "inner" and no "outer".

But the perception is not the reality. Or is it, ultimately?

Perception is as much a direct manifestation of reality as anything else. To a person whose mind is free of all delusions, all things, including perceptions, are reality and fully reflect its nature.

Wise people experience the world as nirvana. Deluded people experience nirvana as the world.

The Infinite isn't nothing whatsoever, but neither is it a "something" in the manner of an object. We can distinguish it from the objects that comprise it.

How, though, David? How is it possible to distinguish it? You can't distinguish the Infinite from anything because the Infinite includes everything by definition. Do you see my problem?

Not really. One can distinguish the Infinite from things in the same way that one can distinguish a car from the parts that comprise it.

The parts are not the car itself, but neither are they separate from it.

-

[Loki]

How so? Are you alluding to a sort of holographic nature to our universe, a matrix kind of thing? I can understand how such a possibility dwarfs the assumed reality of space expanding outwards.

The universe is holographic in the sense that all of our experiences are illusions. But they aren't illusions created by a mind or a computer or some such thing

Oh yeah? And how do you know that for certain?

The universe is holographic in the sense that all of our experiences are illusions. But they aren't illusions created by a mind or a computer or some such thing, but by reality itself.

But if reality is infinite, then reality can't cause anything, because only a thing can cause a thing.

You are saying that what we perceive is caused by reality, but this just can't be true.

So in another sense, the universe isn't a hologram at all. Everything we experience is a direct manifestation of reality.

Well, what if humans created a holo-deck like in star trek. Are you saying that the illusions we experience in the holo-deck aren't really holograms, but are direct manifestations of reality?

What about the possibility of a God particle, the smallest unit of matter? Isn't it possible that there is one?

You're still looking in the wrong place. Particles, godly or otherwise, are part of the realm of illusion and therefore of no consequence.

Why must a particle be an illusion? Boy do I ever long for the intellect and money to do chemistry and physics. I think that would help me get clear on things.

I think that's ultimately what prevents your teaching from being more effective, David. People tend to imagine something like....a leaf.....and we tend to think that the edge of this leaf is comprised of atoms. The leaf has a definite boundary.......where the atoms end, the leaf ends. I'm not clear about why my reasoning here is wrong.

[Ataraxia]

How is it possible to distinguish it? You can't distinguish the Infinite from anything because the Infinite includes everything by definition.

By recognising what it is not.

Anything you can name(identify);then that is not 'it'.It is that plus everything else...

[David Quinn]

How so? Are you alluding to a sort of holographic nature to our universe, a matrix kind of thing? I can understand how such a possibility dwarfs the assumed reality of space expanding outwards.

The universe is holographic in the sense that all of our experiences are illusions. But they aren't illusions created by a mind or a computer or some such thing

Oh yeah? And how do you know that for certain?

You're right, our observable universe could well be a computer simulation or some such thing (it's impossible for us to tell). However, it is still a direct manifestation of reality nonetheless, which is what gives us the means to uncover is true nature.

As far as reality is concerned, the things we observe are always illusory, regardless of whether they are part of a computer simulation or not.

The universe is holographic in the sense that all of our experiences are illusions. But they aren't illusions created by a mind or a computer or some such thing, but by reality itself.

But if reality is infinite, then reality can't cause anything, because only a thing can cause a thing.

You are saying that what we perceive is caused by reality, but this just can't be true.

I meant it in the sense that things are created by the causal web which comprises reality. The principle of causality is the same everywhere.

So in another sense, the universe isn't a hologram at all. Everything we experience is a direct manifestation of reality.

Well, what if humans created a holo-deck like in star trek. Are you saying that the illusions we experience in the holo-deck aren't really holograms, but are direct manifestations of reality?

They are both holo-deck illusions and direct manifestations of reality.

Even though everything we experience is a direct manifestation of reality, some of these manifested things are mirages, hallucinations, virtual simulations, etc. Their simulated nature doesn't make them any less a direct manifestation of reality.

What about the possibility of a God particle, the smallest unit of matter? Isn't it possible that there is one?

You're still looking in the wrong place. Particles, godly or otherwise, are part of the realm of illusion and therefore of no consequence.

Why must a particle be an illusion?

Because it is part of the overall illusion of objective reality.

I think that's ultimately what prevents your teaching from being more effective, David. People tend to imagine something like....a leaf.....and we tend to think that the edge of this leaf is comprised of atoms. The leaf has a definite boundary.......where the atoms end, the leaf ends. I'm not clear about why my reasoning here is wrong.

Your perception that the leaf has a definite boundary is certainly real enough, but that doesn't mean the leaf really does have a boundary. It is an experience created, in part at least, by your own mode of perception.

A nocturnal mammal, such as a mole, that has weak eyesight and therefore constructs its world-view via the sense of smell could easily have a very different perception of where the leaf begins and ends. It might perceive the boundary of the leaf as residing at the edge of its smell. So where does the leaf really begin and end?

-

[Ignius]

You see: oversimplification... I don't mind it, and I see a point to it, but others do not and I'd like to know why not. Since you've come this far, why not go all the way. I'm trying to go all the way, by asking questions, etc... And sticking with the simplification. So, what seems to be the problem? I don't know.

Now, I'm going to get another obvious answer which I can either overlook or contemplate. So, what seems to be my problem?

[brokenhead]

You're right, our observable universe could well be a computer simulation or some such thing (it's impossible for us to tell).

Impossible for you, maybe.

[David Quinn]

Alright, give us your proof that the observable universe cannot be a computer simulation.

-

[Ignius]

I'm in virtual reality right now.

[brokenhead]

Alright, give us your proof that the observable universe cannot be a computer simulation.

-

Who said anything about proofs? You said "it is impossible for us to tell." I can tell I'm not living in a computer simulation. Can't you?

And "alright" is substandard usage. It should be written all right.