God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[Shahrazad]

broken,

I can tell I'm not living in a computer simulation. Can't you?

I can't tell either; not with total certainty.

How can you tell?

[David Quinn]

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?

No.

-

[Ramayana]

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

-

One cannot prove a negative... Unless you are omni-present. Good luck convincing someone you are! (heh!)

Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist....

One cant "not prove" anything... It's a logical trap to present an argument in such terms.

One can, however, with sufficient data, observation, an proper equation formula, provide a known probability that tooth fairy doesn't exist. Not a proof though.

In layman's terms, only a positive statement can be proven. "Tooth Fairy's do exist" could be proven by direct observation.
The statement "Tooth Fairy's do not exist" could be supported by lack of direct observation, but only presented in terms of probability, not as a proof.

Lame example... (heh) But, it is true...

Just to shake it up a bit, it is also said, anything that can exist, does exist somewhere...

Moving along, the above statement by David is not a fair burden to present in the argument. Davids statement dictates it has to be "not" proven, logically it cannot done. For David to make his claim meaningful, he has to prove, or at least minimally, provide discriminating evidence that the observable Universe is a computer simulation. It can't be "not proven", it can only "be" proven. What evidence is there to support a claim that it is a computer simulation?... It's a fine thought experiment, but that's all, IMO.

David did say "could be", and yes, it could be. It could be anything. Not, picking on you Dave, just making a point.

My intuition says not, but, intuition is meaningless in evidential value.

This, by the way, is just one problem "M" or String theory faces. It makes no currently observed, or observable discriminating predictions.

[Loki]

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.

Is that true in all possible worlds? Is it possible for there to be a world where what we see is the real deal, and not some illusion?

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.

But if things are illusory, then how is causality possible? Causality requires a thing causing another thing. But if things are illusory, then it would appear that causality is illusory as well.

Why must a particle be an illusion?

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

Must objective reality be an illusion in all possible worlds?

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?

I think it comes down to touch. The mole smelling the leaf is one thing, but actually bumping into the leaf with his nose, is another.

[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?

No.

Why then is that one possibility you will admit, yet others you will not, such as Hindu creation myths? I think you are being disingenuous, but it admittedly is hard to "tell."

[Sapius]

Robert: I was referring to the Totality, of which there can only be one (until we think up two... ).

Well, with all due respects, we did think up ONE to begin with, didn’t we? And I’m generally told that that’s not a totaling or adding up of ALL that there is, which I doubt, for then it holds no definitive meaning. However, I don’t think the concept of “one” can be attributed to “totality” even as conceived or expressed by those who nevertheless helplessly TALK about “it” as an “it”, and then deny the ‘it-ness’ (thing-ness) of it.

I have reasons to believe that unless and until there isn’t fundamentally a ‘two’ (the I AND that which is not I), nothing can/could come up with one, or two, or even three for that matter. Even considering ‘the I and the not I’ as ONE in any sense, requires that system of at least two ingredients perpetually in place, otherwise there would actually be absolutely nothing. So I think it is irrational to consider such a simple dynamic system of ‘I and not I’ as any more than what it IS, and drop all those profound attributes and name calling of that which is merely but a system and remains just that in absolutely any which case or world.

David: 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".

So after saying all of the above, would it be inconsistent of me if I then added… 'nevertheless, they are not one and the same thing', or does that not work here? Or is it that only the wise have the privilege and right to say such a thing and then it is supposed to have logical consistency?

David: 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.

So the infinite is like a car with parts that when compiled make it up, but is neither the parts itself that make it up… ok… but I can distinguish a car by experiencing that which is not a car, like a tree or a cloud, so how do I distinguish the infinity when there could be nothing in comparison beyond it. Are you saying that a car is because of its internal parts only and not because of a tree, cloud, etc., etc, ad infinitum, that should necessarily seem external to it, and hence the car, and then further down the line its internal parts or that which make it up?

Also then you should have no logical reasons to say something like this… “The noumenon is none other than the realm of phenonema, and the realm of phenomena is none other than the noumenon.”, for then according to the very same reasoning that you might employ here, I could also say that the infinite is none other than the parts, and vice versa of course. So what mistake or sin would I be committing in considering or saying that?

Does enlightenment always mean having your cake and eating it too? I think without that it wouldn’t work.

David: 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.

So can one meaningfully talk/think about there being no boundaries and yet there being some sort of reality, existence?

David: 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?

Since it is capable of constructing its own world-view, its logic based on its limited experiences will tell it once it reaches the end of the limits of its experiences, (not edge of its smell), or, it could simply assume that there could be an end, or none at all. So the real question then is, what is the end to experiences?

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

What proof do you offer except doubts perhaps! All you can ever say is that it COULD be, and I don’t think it’s wise to indulge in speculation, at least not for long. For even if it is, that makes no difference unless one awakens in the one that is not, and then too, that too could be a simulation, ad infinitum. So my reasoning tells me that one way or another, it wouldn't matter at all. One has to necessarily stick and go by what it experiences as raw perceptions at any given moment, and what remains and works coherently in and off logical consistency. At this point I must say, that one must pay close attention to Victor and understand from where he comes from, and ignore his style of communication that displays a tinge of arrogance at times.

This argument that “our experiences could be a simulation” has been plaguing us long enough I say, its time that we get out of that delusion too, but now and again some profoundly wise man comes along and throws it in for the sake of profound dramatics I guess.

David: However, it is still a direct manifestation of reality nonetheless, which is what gives us the means to uncover is true nature.

Direct or indirect, but ass long ass we hang on to the idea that there is some reality apart from that which is manifest and is "manifesting" it, we shall always keep going in self-created circles to no end. None seem able or willing to accept that I am that I am, and what is not I is simply not I, without which, absolutely nothing IS or could BE, and that neither one “manifests” the other or vice versa, either; both simply necessarily are and have to necessarily be so, if existence is to be what it is.

[Robert]

Robert: I was referring to the Totality, of which there can only be one (until we think up two... ).

Well, with all due respects, we did think up ONE to begin with, didn’t we? And I’m generally told that that’s not a totaling or adding up of ALL that there is, which I doubt, for then it holds no definitive meaning. However, I don’t think the concept of “one” can be attributed to “totality” even as conceived or expressed by those who nevertheless helplessly TALK about “it” as an “it”, and then deny the ‘it-ness’ (thing-ness) of it.

I was making a joke about two Totalities, since we were talking at the time about the existence of something that only exists in the mind, in the imagination. It looks a little clumsy now, sorry for the ambiguity caused.

[brokenhead]

I have reasons to believe that unless and until there isn’t fundamentally a ‘two’ (the I AND that which is not I), nothing can/could come up with one, or two, or even three for that matter.

Thanks for this and the rest of the post. You're saying it better than I can. You clearly have more patience with sages than I have.

[brokenhead]

broken,

I can tell I'm not living in a computer simulation. Can't you?

I can't tell either; not with total certainty.

How can you tell?

Because I have seen computer simluations and I have not been in any of them. There are computer simulations and there are things which are not computer simulations. Otherwise, the term "computer simulations" would be meaningless. I have not ever been a part of anything that I would classify as a computer simulation.

Shah, listen to what you are saying. "Not with total certainty." That means you have a doubt (as Sapius speaks of in his post.) Why would anyone question someone who clings to faith, when you cannot let go of a doubt such as this?

[David Quinn]

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

One cannot prove a negative... Unless you are omni-present. Good luck convincing someone you are! (heh!)

Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist....

One cant "not prove" anything... It's a logical trap to present an argument in such terms.

It's not presented in those terms. It actually involves proving a positive - namely, that the mind has certain limitations in regards to this issue.

A proof is simply that - a proof. If it is watertight and irrefutable, then it remains watertight and irrefutable, regardless of its content. Labelling such content as either "positive" or "negative" is an arbitrary decision on our parts. It depends on how we choose to look at it.

The computer simulation scenario also differs from the tooth fairy scenario in that computer simulation is an observable reality created by science. The concept of creating virtual worlds is easily understood nowadays and made believable via the recent developments of modern science. It is only natural that we should ask whether the world we live in is a virtual one. And from that we can prove, in a very positive sense, that it is impossible to tell.

-

[David Quinn]

I can tell I'm not living in a computer simulation. Can't you?

No.

Why then is that one possibility you will admit, yet others you will not, such as Hindu creation myths? I think you are being disingenuous, but it admittedly is hard to "tell."

Hindu creation myths don't have the backing of science in the way that computer simulations do and therefore are far less believable. Unless there is some other compelling evidence to suggest their existence, there isn't any reason to ponder them.

But yes, it is possible that the universe (or at least our observable universe) was generated in the way that the Hindu myths describe. But as with the computer simulation scenario, such possibilities don't really matter in the larger scheme of things. All such scenarios are entirely irrelevant to the deeper, spiritual task of uncovering ultimate reality.

-

[David Quinn]

David: 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".

So after saying all of the above, would it be inconsistent of me if I then added… 'nevertheless, they are not one and the same thing', or does that not work here?

It depends on what you mean by it. Even though the world and nirvana are one and the same, only sages experience the world as nirvana. So there is a difference there, but it is one of perspective only.

David: 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.

So the infinite is like a car with parts that when compiled make it up, but is neither the parts itself that make it up… ok… but I can distinguish a car by experiencing that which is not a car, like a tree or a cloud, so how do I distinguish the infinity when there could be nothing in comparison beyond it.

As has been said before, one can distinguish it from its parts.

Are you saying that a car is because of its internal parts only and not because of a tree, cloud, etc., etc, ad infinitum, that should necessarily seem external to it, and hence the car, and then further down the line its internal parts or that which make it up?

A car can be distinguished from external things, such as trees, as well as from its parts. The Infinite doesn't have that luxury and can only be distinguished from its parts.

Also then you should have no logical reasons to say something like this… “The noumenon is none other than the realm of phenonema, and the realm of phenomena is none other than the noumenon.”, for then according to the very same reasoning that you might employ here, I could also say that the infinite is none other than the parts, and vice versa of course. So what mistake or sin would I be committing in considering or saying that?

"There is no infinite apart from finite things" - a Zen saying.

David: 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.

So can one meaningfully talk/think about there being no boundaries and yet there being some sort of reality, existence?

One can talk meaningfully about World War Two despite there being no way to determine, aside from the whim of consensus, when it actually began.

David: 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?

Since it is capable of constructing its own world-view, its logic based on its limited experiences will tell it once it reaches the end of the limits of its experiences, (not edge of its smell), or, it could simply assume that there could be an end, or none at all. So the real question then is, what is the end to experiences?

Death.

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

What proof do you offer except doubts perhaps! All you can ever say is that it COULD be, and I don’t think it’s wise to indulge in speculation, at least not for long.

The moment you start searching for ultimate truth and absolute certainty, even the smallest of doubts become significant and have to be dealt with.

For even if it is, that makes no difference unless one awakens in the one that is not, and then too, that too could be a simulation, ad infinitum. So my reasoning tells me that one way or another, it wouldn't matter at all.

Yes, such possibilities don't make any difference to the person who understands ultimate reality. However, it is worthwhile for those who are still trying to break free of their delusions to contemplate possibilities such as computer simulation, as it can help them break free of their habitual view of the world.

It is one of those issues that a person needs to resolve for himself, so that he can move on freely to deeper and more important things.

This argument that “our experiences could be a simulation” has been plaguing us long enough I say, its time that we get out of that delusion too, but now and again some profoundly wise man comes along and throws it in for the sake of profound dramatics I guess.

It is not a delusion to affirm that we cannot dissmiss the possibility of the world being a computer simulation. It is a fact of reality. People need to resolve this issue logically, not push it aside because it troubles them. Otherwise, they'll only get stuck.

-

[Ramayana]

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

One cannot prove a negative... Unless you are omni-present. Good luck convincing someone you are! (heh!)

Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist....

One cant "not prove" anything... It's a logical trap to present an argument in such terms.

It's not presented in those terms. It actually involves proving a positive - namely, that the mind has certain limitations in regards to this issue.

A proof is simply that - a proof. If it is watertight and irrefutable, then it remains watertight and irrefutable, regardless of its content. Labelling such content as either "positive" or "negative" is an arbitrary decision on our parts. It depends on how we choose to look at it.

The computer simulation scenario also differs from the tooth fairy scenario in that computer simulation is an observable reality created by science. The concept of creating virtual worlds is easily understood nowadays and made believable via the recent developments of modern science. It is only natural that we should ask whether the world we live in is a virtual one. And from that we can prove, in a very positive sense, that it is impossible to tell.

-

I don't wish to derail this topic. But, simply, "prove it cannot be" is a statement asking for proof of a negative ie "cannot be". There is nothing arbitrary about it.

I am not stating that the Universe being a computer sim is a negative prognosis. It's the language you are using.

Again, a computer sim, sure, why not? But then why not anything else? It could be anything, the probability of it actually being a computer sim, is very low from a logical perspective. Stating it's impossible to tell, is not evidence that it actually is, only that there is no discriminating evidence. Tell me, how would you test whether the Universe is merely computer sim?

[David Quinn]

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.

Is that true in all possible worlds? Is it possible for there to be a world where what we see is the real deal, and not some illusion?

There is the enlightened world into which we can step and perceive the "real deal", but this involves a change of perspective and not a trip to some particular place within Nature. It is an all-or-nothing scenario. All things, and all worlds, are either illusory or real (depending on your perspective). It isn't a case of some things being illusory, while other things are real.

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.

But if things are illusory, then how is causality possible? Causality requires a thing causing another thing. But if things are illusory, then it would appear that causality is illusory as well.

Good point. Causality is only real to the degree that things are real.

Why must a particle be an illusion?

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

Must objective reality be an illusion in all possible worlds?

Yes. Objective reality is a logical contradiction in terms and can no more exist in the world than a square circle can.

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?

I think it comes down to touch. The mole smelling the leaf is one thing, but actually bumping into the leaf with his nose, is another.

That is your bias speaking, generated from your human sensory structures and your beliefs concerning what is important.

If there was a blind creature which could sustain itself purely on the consumption of smells, then it wouldn't have any reason to recognize the solid aspects of a leaf or, if it did recognize them, place any importance on them. As far as it is concerned, the leaf begins and ends at the edge of its smell.

-

[David Quinn]

A proof is simply that - a proof. If it is watertight and irrefutable, then it remains watertight and irrefutable, regardless of its content. Labelling such content as either "positive" or "negative" is an arbitrary decision on our parts. It depends on how we choose to look at it.

The computer simulation scenario also differs from the tooth fairy scenario in that computer simulation is an observable reality created by science. The concept of creating virtual worlds is easily understood nowadays and made believable via the recent developments of modern science. It is only natural that we should ask whether the world we live in is a virtual one. And from that we can prove, in a very positive sense, that it is impossible to tell.

I don't wish to derail this topic. But, simply, "prove it cannot be" is a statement asking for proof of a negative ie "cannot be". There is nothing arbitrary about it.

Given that it is just as easy to look at the same matter as a case of proving the existence of the mind's limitations, it is indeed an arbitrary choice to perceive it as "proving a negative".

Again, a computer sim, sure, why not? But then why not anything else? It could be anything, the probability of it actually being a computer sim, is very low from a logical perspective. Stating it's impossible to tell, is not evidence that it actually is, only that there is no discriminating evidence. Tell me, how would you test whether the Universe is merely computer sim?

The short answer is, we can't, due to the inherent limitations of the mind. It will always remain a nagging possibility for us - albeit a fundamentally unimportant one from the perspective of wisdom.

-

[balloonsrise]

I think we should ask the folks at Ne Plus Ultra.

[brokenhead]

The short answer is, we can't, due to the inherent limitations of the mind. It will always remain a nagging possibility for us - albeit a fundamentally unimportant one from the perspective of wisdom.

Why is it fundamentally unimportant from the perspective of wisdom?

Is there just this one nagging possibility? Or can there be there others?

[Loki]

Yes. Objective reality is a logical contradiction in terms and can no more exist in the world than a square circle can.

How do you know this for certain?

[Ramayana]

I don't wish to derail this topic. But, simply, "prove it cannot be" is a statement asking for proof of a negative ie "cannot be". There is nothing arbitrary about it.

Given that it is just as easy to look at the same matter as a case of proving the existence of the mind's limitations, it is indeed an arbitrary choice to perceive it as "proving a negative".

You seem to be arguing semantics. For the sake of communication, and avoidance of tedious exchanges such as this. In the English language the word "not" is accepted as a negative, or unequal too. <---edited for better comprehension

not

ADVERB:

"In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any. "

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, alteration of naught, nought ; see naught
Usage Note:
"Care should be taken with the placement of not and other negatives in a sentence in order to avoid ambiguity."

Now, do you really wish to argue what the word "not" means?

Usage, "The cancer has not spread" The word "not" is still a negative, however, most would perceive it as an overall positive claim. Unless you have a large life in insurance policy on this person! (heh) In which case the overall statement is either positive or negative depending on ones' desires. But, the word "not" is still a negative in the sentence structure. IE, "The cancer is unequal to spreading"

Now back again, "Prove it can not be" is a statement asking to prove the negative. Or (broken down) "Prove it is unequal to being". The application of the word "not" is not/and shouldn't be perceived as arbitrary. If you are speaking English anyhow. (heh) Only the results or implications can be arbitrary.

If you still don't get it, forget the "negative" and just tell me, how would someone prove that something "cannot exist"
There in, is the point of this entire exchange, on my part anyhow. It is illogical, a trap, to demand someone "not prove" anything. It's an impossible challenge.

The short answer is, we can't, due to the inherent limitations of the mind. It will always remain a nagging possibility for us - albeit a fundamentally unimportant one from the perspective of wisdom.

We agree on this point, somewhat. It's meaningless to say it "could be" a computer sim without discriminating evidence, except for use as a thought experiment. That "It's a limitation of the mind" is rather ambiguous, one could just as easily say it's a limitation of our technology, or current thought. I don't think it's fair to suggest you, or anyone else knows the limitations of the mind.

[Ignius]

Ah yes, above we have a good example of oversimplification and its use/misuse...

[Ramayana]

Ah yes, above we have a good example of oversimplification and its use/misuse...

Explain if you would please...

[Ramayana]

Ah yes, above we have a good example of oversimplification and its use/misuse...

The fundamental principle that one cannot prove a negative has a solid foundation in philosophy and science. There is no misuse of its application in my argument.

The way I understand David's argument with me, is that he is not asking for proof of a negative when he demands "Where's you're proof the Universe cannot be a computer simulation," because the negative property of the demand is arbitrary. Hence my rebuttal is that it can be nothing but negative. No oversimplification, no misuse. Straight forward logic. I'm not manipulating the terminologies, or his statements.

Indeed it is the same as asking one to "prove a negative," and fundamentally impossible, as well as illogical to demand such proof.

Perhaps a better way to present his demand might be, "What evidence or reasons are there to think its not a computer sim?" Perhaps that's what you meant Dave? But, when I called out the logical fallacy of demanding the negation of proof, he stuck by his statement/demand. Claiming its open to ones perception. If that were the case, if a Doctor were to tell you, "The cancer has not spread" It could also mean, "The cancer has spread." Really now, this is very simple.

I only present it in these simplified terms, not overly simplified, because if this is not understood, everything built upon it will also be compromised.

Again, how do you prove something is not?
You can't, you can only prove what it is.

How do prove tooth fairy's do not exist?
You can't, you can only prove they do.

How do you prove the Universe is not a computer simulation?
You can't! You can only prove it is, David.

To expand this, the proof must discriminate the possibility of it being anything else that mimics like properties.
This is were the redundancy of it "could be" begins. A whole host of scenarios could mimic the Universe. There must be discriminating evidence to break outta the redundancy, and really be on to something. Don't get me wrong, it "could be" is a powerful thought experiment, it can give us clues where to look for isolating factors. But, it "could be" is meaningless all by it's lonesome.

[Robert]

I was recently reading issue 3 of Genius News, where one of the subjects discussed is similar to this thread - Dialogue: "A Question of Faith", found here. At the end of the topic, Dan Rowden reproduces a letter that Kevin Solway sent to David Suzuki, I think this summerises most of the discussion here:

Dan Rowden: This whole discussion has been pretty silly. How does one begin to demonstrate the impossibility of something if that something remains indefinite? It is absurd to even suggest it. And "God" is not a simple and conventionally well understood notion because most notions of God are utterly incoherent, nebulous or just plain dumb. Do we mean a creator God separate from his Creation or one bound to his creation? A purposeful, conscious being or an unconscious force or principle? Or do we mean a corporeal being that inhabits a planet somewhere "out there" as the Mormons assert?

Anyway, Kevin Solway, as an example of someone who purports to have proven God's non-existence, wrote a concise little essay some years ago which pretty much covers all possible bases regarding this issue: Unfortunately I couldn't find the essay itself, but I did find a letter the Atheist Society of Australia wrote to scientist David Suzuki after he declined honorary membership; the letter contains the gist of the essay:

Dear David,

Well, it's been an age since I received your postcard turning down our offer of honorary membership in our Atheist Society, and I've finally decided to respond. To jog your memory, you said "I believe that my position is based on an act of faith, just as a theist's is. I don't believe you can prove or disprove the existence of God." Your statement indicates to me that your belief (that you can't prove or disprove the existence of God) is not merely a belief, as one would believe, say, in evolution for example, but is in fact something you hold to be a certainty. One "believes" in evolution until such time as the evidence favours another understanding. But your belief that you can't prove or disprove the existence of God is something you hold to be an absolute truth, impervious to anything. You claim to know with certainty that all knowledge is uncertain, but are seemingly blind to the obvious meaninglessness of this notion. You should know there are two kinds of knowledge. Firstly there is scientific knowledge, which is any knowledge based on observation and measurement, and is obviously an uncertain knowledge. Then there is philosophic or purely reasoned knowledge, which has nothing to do with observation and measurement, but is based on definitions, and provides certain knowledge.

Our modern, feminine age of philistines has completely ignored the certainty of philosophic knowledge and has thus turned its back on the most essential and beautiful knowledge of all. My knowledge of the nonexistence of God is certain. To repeat what I explained to you on a previous occasion, I can say with absolute certainty that God does not exist, based on what God and existence are commonly defined to be. God is defined to be all-powerful and infinite . . . but existence is finite and limited. So, to say that God exists is to say "the infinite is finite" which I reject as absurd, just as I reject the nonsensical or mad notion of a "black white". Thus do I know with certainty that God does not exist.

You may object that many people do not share my narrow definitions of "God" and "existence" and therefore my argument is of little or no value. So let me promptly put this objection to rest.

Let's look at alternative definitions to an all-powerful, infinite God. Notably, any alternative to an infinite God must be a finite God. Well, we could define God to be "a very powerful being" or even "the most powerful being". Such a God would be firmly in the domain of uncertain scientific knowledge, and would be infinitely removed (literally) from the traditional God who is supposed to be infinite and all-powerful. He would be only a shabbily hypothesized powerful alien of questionable morals.

That's why people prefer the infinite God to the finite one, and shows why my assumption that God is commonly defined as "all- powerful and infinite" is valid. For good reason I have excluded the possible alternative definitions of God that I would call "completely mad" (as opposed to just mad), such as defining God to be my pet budgie, or to be anything that I can't possibly think of. That leaves my assumption about the common definition of existence. Is it valid? Am I barking at the wind?

Then let's ask if there are possible alternative definitions of existence - at least, ones that aren't overly mad. I have said that existence is finite and limited. This is because something is said to exist if it relates to something else (like an observer). So, if something appears to us (in whatever way) we say it exists. Any alternative definition of existence would have to define things as existing that don't appear to us in any way at all (whether through our senses, intellect, or imagination). This is overly mad.

Ah, then what about Nature you ask? If Nature is defined to be "everything" (a sensible definition), then does it exist or not? Nature is by definition infinite (not limited) so it cannot relate to anything and therefore doesn't fit my definition of existence. So am I saying that Nature doesn't exist and am therefore a raving lunatic? No, Nature neither exists nor does it not exist. The distinction "existence/nonexistence" is inappropriate when applied to the infinite, which is beyond distinctions.

So I am not a raving lunatic, and my proof of the nonexistence of God based on the common definitions of both God and existence is perfectly valid. This is very significant.

There is more than faith, David Suzuki!

Regards
Kevin Solway

I can understand, sort of, when Kevin says "The distinction "existence/nonexistence" is inappropriate when applied to the infinite, which is beyond distinctions", but I'm far from grasping it fully. I understand the words, but I can't really make sense of them. Is this where language reaches a limit?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

you can only prove what it is.

Only in an unconstrained, unlimited context. For example: "there are no birds in this box" is not a negative in the sense you are using it. It's the opposite of "there are one or more birds in the box". One can prove it's not raining outside by establishing dryness [lack of water] in some agreed on manner. It's only impossible to prove it's not raining in all possible worlds in existence. One can only take a shot at guessing probabilities here, since the very context of the universe is an unknown - like its size, the amount of worlds in it, types of atmosphere and so on.

If one could show it's logically impossible for a box to contain a bird without the bird ceasing to be a bird , we can easily say that there are no birds in boxes in existence. The context here is the logical realm, one which is known by definitions as its axioms have been defined.

Furthermore, any axiomatic statement is excluded from 'burden of proof' for the simple reason it addresses the 'box' or the 'context' itself. The assertion of any limitation equals the asserting of a thing. So once a mind is asserted, its limits are asserted. This is an axiomatic truth: true "by definition".

The context is known here: the mind. For those who see the mind and its thoughts as ultimately 'unknown', it all remains limitless and possibilities never ending. But for those who define the mind as essentially being a logical process, its limits are a given. To arrive at this is the result of a logical process too: one uses the mind to arrive at mind. Actually: the mind always arrives at mind.

[Loki]

David,

I think it comes down to touch. The mole smelling the leaf is one thing, but actually bumping into the leaf with his nose, is another.

That is your bias speaking, generated from your human sensory structures and your beliefs concerning what is important.

If there was a blind creature which could sustain itself purely on the consumption of smells, then it wouldn't have any reason to recognize the solid aspects of a leaf

Well, the smell of a leaf is different than the leaf itself. If this animal cared only about consuming smells, then it would identify the smell as a unique thing, separate from the leaf.

After all, the object and the smell of the object are two different things.

or, if it did recognize them, place any importance on them. As far as it is concerned, the leaf begins and ends at the edge of its smell.

The smell begins at the edge of the smell. The leaf and the smell are two separate things.