God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[Ignius]

Explain if you would please...

I don't like explaining dumb answers. Hmmm...

[Ramayana]

Explain if you would please...

I don't like explaining dumb answers. Hmmm...

Oh, how ingenious...
Have we had some exchange in the past to warrant your demeanor? Or are you just an ass in general?

[Ignius]

I don't understand why you're understanding my posts in a negative light. I state the truth as I see it. Also, I am a half-hearted spammer - I like leaving an opening for that sort of thing. I guess it's my ego's way of protecting itself...

[Ramayana]

I don't understand why you're understanding my posts in a negative light. I state the truth as I see it. Also, I am a half-hearted spammer - I like leaving an opening for that sort of thing. I guess it's my ego's way of protecting itself...

So it's a predisposition... I suppose if your answer is dumb, it's best you don't elaborate... For your ego's sake.

[Ramayana]

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.

Hmmm... Still on the fence here. You make a point well taken. You lose me in the forth paragraph though...

[Ignius]

No. If the answer is dumb, then there's no point in elaborating. Next, since the door is open (spam), there is no point for the ego to get involved, Further elaboration would simply be boring and ego-boosting...

[Carl G]

No. If the answer is dumb, then there's no point in elaborating. Next, since the door is open (spam), there is no point for the ego to get involved, Further elaboration would simply be boring and ego-boosting...

So, basically you're a spammer who doesn't give a shit?

[Ignius]

I do give a shit about this, but since others don't understand it in the way that I understand it, the door is always open...

[Carl G]

I do give a shit about this, but since others don't understand it in the way that I understand it, the door is always open...

...for you to spam the shit out of them? I don't understand.

[Ignius]

Plus, I sometimes say something out of circumstance as a spur of the moment type of action, and then, forget about the thought behind it because it wasn't all that important to begin with. So, why post? You got me!

[skipair]

Plus, I sometimes say something out of circumstance as a spur of the moment type of action, and then, forget about the thought behind it because it wasn't all that important to begin with. So, why post? You got me!

For attention, I think.

[Ignius]

No, I'm really ill. That's why!

[Sapius]

David: As has been said before, one can distinguish it (the infinite) from its ("internal") parts.

Fine.

[David Quinn]

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?

Not really. The limit resides in your current understanding. When you grasp the reality that Kevin's words here are pointing to, then it all becomes crystal clear and you can see that his language is pointing directly at the reality in a clear fashion. It's just a matter of taking that leap in understanding.

-

[brokenhead]

There is more than faith

There is other than faith.

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.

Kevin is neither raving, nor is he a lunatic. In fact, he is relentlessly sane. I perfectly agree with his proof of the non existence of God based on common definitions of both God and existence. It is in fact, logically irrefutable.

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

Really, Kevin? Two kinds of knowledge. Are all experiences then part of what we know? There are things we know and things we do not know. This is true for everyone. But it is also true that most of what we experience as beings has nothing whatsoever to do with observation of any kind. I think those experiences contribute to our knowledge, even if such knowledge has not been "measured" or "observed." You would place such things under the heading of philosophic knowledge, once understanding has occurred?

I understand that Kevin has not joined this thread excepted as having been quoted. Sooner or later, one who seeks such as Kevin does will understand that the question of the existence of God has nothing to do with common definitions.

[David Quinn]

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

The trouble is, it is impossible to prove that "something is" without also proving, at the same time, that "something is not". The two always go together.

If we use Diebert's example, if it is somehow proved that there is only one bird in the box, then it is also proved that there are not multiple birds, or no birds, in the box. The negative is just as much proven as the positive.

Of course, it is impossible to prove (in any absolute sense) that there is only one bird in the box. Even if we open up the box and observe one bird in there, we can never really be sure that there is only one bird. Perhaps there is another bird in there that we can't see for one reason or another. Perhaps it is rendered invisible by its chameleon techniques, or by a defect in our visual cortex or in our brain somewhere which blocks its existence out. Empirical observation is always inflicted with these uncertainties, which is why it can never uncover absolute truth.

However, to repeat my earlier assertion, if it could be proved that there is only one bird in the box, then it will also be proved, within the very same proof, that there are not multiple birds, or no birds, in the box.

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.

In both cases, you can prove that it is impossible to rule out their existence due to the limitations of the mind. Indeed, your own argument in this thread has been generated from such a proof. You are basing your argument on the firm conclusion that it is humanly impossible to verify that there are indeed no tooth fairies in the universe, or that the observable universe is not a simulation.

As I've said previously, the computer simulation scenario is a far more plausible and significant possibility than the tooth fairy one. The tooth fairy scenario can be easily dismissed because tooth fairies, even if they did exist, are unimportant. Their existence or non-existence has no philosophical significance. The computer simulation scenario, by contrast, challenges our world-view much more deeply. And given that the human race is starting to create its own virtual realities, we know that, in principle at least, virtual universes are possible.

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.

There are certain logical realities that impose limitations on the mind. For example, it is logically impossible for us to go beyond our own consciousness and peek at what lies beyond.

Another example is that we cannot exist in two different places at once. I cannot be here in Australia and at the same be over there in India. So that places limitations on the mind.

Yet another example is that we cannot be conscious of one scenario while being conscious of other scenarios at the same time. We can only be conscious of one scenario at a time, which means that the mind is being barred from being aware of other scenarios in that moment of time.

And so on. There are plenty of limitations of the mind that we can become aware of.

In the case of the computer simulation scenario, the problem of resolving it is due to two facts:

1) Whatever evidence we care to muster that the observable universe isn't a computer simulation will necessarily be part of the observable universe and thus part of the possible simulation itself. It would be part of the thing being investigated.

2) The computer simulation scenario is consistent with all observable facts and thus it becomes impossible for us to distinguish between it and any other competing scenario, including the conventional scenario that the universe is physically and objectively real.

In other words, the available evidence to us will always be unreliable and, even if it were reliable, powerless to point to any definite conclusion.

-

[David Quinn]

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?

Because simulations and virtual worlds express the fundamental nature of reality just as fully as any other realm does. A person stuck in a virtual world has as much access to wisdom as anyone else.

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

When I say nagging, I mean "persistent", rather than "disturbing".

There are countless possibilities - speculative theories, cosmologies, theologies, hypothesies, etc - all of them equally unimportant.

-

[David Quinn]

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?

By thinking about it.

-

[David Quinn]

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 one accepts where you have arbitrarily determined the leaf's boundaries, then sure.

If this animal cared only about consuming smells, then it would identify the smell as a unique thing, separate from the leaf.

Possibly, possibly not. It would depend on the creature and its way of life. Perhaps it has no need to distinguish between what we arbitrarily call a "leaf" and what we arbitrarily call "its smell".

When we eat a peach, we conceive of the peach as being the whole fruit plus its inner seed. We don't normally think of the peach as being merely the outer edible bit surrounding the seed. Likewise, a smell-consuming animal might have no reason to think of the outer edible bit of the leaf (i.e. its smell) as being separate from the inedible centre. He might think of it as one entity.

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

If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

-

[Sapius]

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?

Not really. The limit resides in your current understanding. When you grasp the reality that Kevin's words here are pointing to, then it all becomes crystal clear and you can see that his language is pointing directly at the reality in a clear fashion. It's just a matter of taking that leap in understanding.

-

I don’t think it is the matter of language or understanding, but acceptance of particular “reasoning” by an individual, whatever that that may be. However, it always ends up with chopping wood and carrying water, in any which case.

[Sapius]

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

David: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

Arbitrarily speaking of course… for when exactly would it be that we do not arbitrarily decide I wonder… would the claim of arbitrariness of boundaries, be arbitrary too?

[Shahrazad]

David said,

When we eat a peach, we conceive of the peach as being the whole fruit plus its inner seed. We don't normally think of the peach as being merely the outer edible bit surrounding the seed. Likewise, a smell-consuming animal might have no reason to think of the outer edible bit of the leaf (i.e. its smell) as being separate from the inedible centre. He might think of it as one entity.

That was well explained.

[Sapius]

David said,

When we eat a peach, we conceive of the peach as being the whole fruit plus its inner seed. We don't normally think of the peach as being merely the outer edible bit surrounding the seed. Likewise, a smell-consuming animal might have no reason to think of the outer edible bit of the leaf (i.e. its smell) as being separate from the inedible centre. He might think of it as one entity.

That was well explained.

Sure, very well indeed, but what I think may have been unintentionally left out is, that that is so until we know better, and spit out the seed! Same goes for the poor worm, otherwise it could not operate coherently with its environment. So the moral of the story is, at a deeper level of course, boundaries are here to stay, and that one should NOT make the mistake and think that "I" and the "fruit" are one and the same thing, to begin with.

[David Quinn]

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?

Not really. The limit resides in your current understanding. When you grasp the reality that Kevin's words here are pointing to, then it all becomes crystal clear and you can see that his language is pointing directly at the reality in a clear fashion. It's just a matter of taking that leap in understanding.

I don’t think it is the matter of language or understanding, but acceptance of particular “reasoning” by an individual, whatever that that may be. However, it always ends up with chopping wood and carrying water, in any which case.

It has nothing to do with accepting the reasoning of another individual. It is all about understanding the nature of non-duality in one's own mind. If Robert can do that, then Kevin's words will become crystal clear, as will the words of Jesus, Buddha, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, etc. No longer would he have accept that he is "far from grasping it fully", or that he "can't really make sense of them".

-

[David Quinn]

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

David: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

Arbitrarily speaking of course… for when exactly would it be that we do not arbitrarily decide I wonder… would the claim of arbitrariness of boundaries, be arbitrary too?

Would you say that logical truth is arbitrary?

-