God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[Loki]

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?

[Shahrazad]

You're begging the question, Loki. Who set him into motion?

[Steven Coyle]

God to God is the manner in which I view things.

[Loki]

You're begging the question, Loki. Who set him into motion?

Maybe he (or it) always existed?

[Dan Rowden]

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?

Only if by "this universe" you mean a finite bubble of space-time and physical laws we call the visible universe. If you mean that, then yes, it's theoretically possible, but has nothing to do with reality or its necessary infinitude. No-one can set that in motion.

What you're offering is a sort of deistic model.

[Loki]

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?

Only if by "this universe" you mean a finite bubble of space-time and physical laws we call the visible universe. If you mean that, then yes, it's theoretically possible, but has nothing to do with reality or its necessary infinitude. No-one can set that in motion.

Is that because to be conscious implies that the infinite must already and always be present?

I think your line of reasoning is: "You can't set something into motion which must already be in motion in order for you to be conscious."

Have I got it?

[brokenhead]

Nice video, Dan. The human mind cannot conceive of infinity except as an abstraction. The abstraction is just the mathematical notion of infinity. It is necessarily an abstraction and an exception at the same time. In the abstraction, infinity can be manipulated symbolically with logical rigor. If infinity did not exist, it would not have an abstraction, and so the concept, which is an abstraction, would not exist. Yet we see it does.

You have therefore not demonstrated that God does not exist, but rather that if he does, he is necessarily at least an abstraction, an exception of which the human mind cannot fully conceive.

[skipair]

The human mind cannot conceive of infinity except as an abstraction.

If by abstraction you mean something like making a model, like seeing a picture or 3D graph in your mind, then I agree.

If infinity did not exist, it would not have an abstraction, and so the concept, which is an abstraction, would not exist.

That's ridiculous. Abstractions are just using your imagination, and I can use my imagination to create all kinds of things. That doesn't mean the real, non-abstracted thing exists beyond my comprehension.

[brokenhead]

That's ridiculous. Abstractions are just using your imagination, and I can use my imagination to create all kinds of things. That doesn't mean the real, non-abstracted thing exists beyond my comprehension.

It's not ridiculous. Pay attention. Abstractions are not just using your imagination for the very reason you just gave. Not every imagined thing is an abstraction. You can imagine all sorts of things. But if you try to subject these things to logical rigor, the imagination is not then free to pursue irrational thought. I have said the human mind cannot conceive of infinity EXCEPT as an abstaction. Therefore, its reality to the human mind is limited to its existence as an abstraction. If it exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

[skipair]

Abstractions are not just using your imagination for the very reason you just gave. Not every imagined thing is an abstraction.

Abstractions are just using your imagination, but not all imaginations are abstraction, depending on how you define it, I agree.

You can imagine all sorts of things. But if you try to subject these things to logical rigor, the imagination is not then free to pursue irrational thought.

Not sure what your point is.

I have said the human mind cannot conceive of infinity EXCEPT as an abstaction. Therefore, its reality to the human mind is limited to its existence as an abstraction. If it exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

But since you want to believe in God, you can't quite say that the abstraction is the only form of its existence. Instead, you say things like, "its reality to the human mind", as if there was an external reality. Or, "if infinity did not exist, it would not have an abstraction", again as if there is both a real and abstracted infinity. Or things like, "[God] is necessarily at least an abstraction", once again to give yourself a little wiggle-room to keep "God" alive.

[Loki]

You have therefore not demonstrated that God does not exist, but rather that if he does, he is necessarily at least an abstraction, an exception of which the human mind cannot fully conceive.

Huh? That is so weird. You think God is a thought?. That would make sense if you meant: God is an invention of man's thought, he only exists in man's imagination, as an abstraction, and nothing more.

But I don't think you mean that, do you. What do you mean, Broke?

[brokenhead]

You have therefore not demonstrated that God does not exist, but rather that if he does, he is necessarily at least an abstraction, an exception of which the human mind cannot fully conceive.

Huh? That is so weird. You think God is a thought?. That would make sense if you meant: God is an invention of man's thought, he only exists in man's imagination, as an abstraction, and nothing more.

But I don't think you mean that, do you. What do you mean, Broke?

Stating that God is an invention of man's thought is a conclusion many people make, yet I see no logical reason why it must be so.

In Dan's video, he identifies God with infinity. But why is this a valid identification? He makes it because he has a ready-made tautology involving the concept of infinity, i.e., that it does not exist. His intent is to offer a proof that God does not exist.

My point is that the human mind cannot conceive of infinity, except as an abstraction. As an abstraction, it is conceived of all the time by mathematicians with startling and unexpected successes. Since these successes are demonstrable, it can be concluded that infinity does indeed exist. If it exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

It would be true to say that the human mind cannot perceive infinity the same way it can perceive finiteness. The argument is made in numerous instances of QRS writing that this very concept of finiteness is an illusion, that there are no boundaries out there.

It comes down to what happens when we discuss whether or not God exists. If you identify God with infinity - and this step is fraught with problems - then you end up with a discussion between at least two people about something no human mind can conceive of except as an abstraction. So the question then becomes, does this particular abstraction exist or not? You can see the problem.

While I commend people for asking the question, I suggest waiting for someone to give you a definitive answer and prove it to you may turn out to be futile.

[brokenhead]

Abstractions are not just using your imagination for the very reason you just gave. Not every imagined thing is an abstraction.

Abstractions are just using your imagination, but not all imaginations are abstraction, depending on how you define it, I agree.

You can imagine all sorts of things. But if you try to subject these things to logical rigor, the imagination is not then free to pursue irrational thought.

Not sure what your point is.

I have said the human mind cannot conceive of infinity EXCEPT as an abstaction. Therefore, its reality to the human mind is limited to its existence as an abstraction. If it exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

But since you want to believe in God, you can't quite say that the abstraction is the only form of its existence. Instead, you say things like, "its reality to the human mind", as if there was an external reality. Or, "if infinity did not exist, it would not have an abstraction", again as if there is both a real and abstracted infinity. Or things like, "[God] is necessarily at least an abstraction", once again to give yourself a little wiggle-room to keep "God" alive.

And your point? What's wrong with wiggle room? Also, do not assume what it is I "want" to believe. Nothing comes across more absurd than someone else thinking they know something about you that you're aware you yourself do not know. In other words, if it were that clear to me what I want to believe, I would be happy to tell you.

Of course, King David in his castle knows what my beliefs are. Just ask him. While you're at it, ask him if the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale. I hear the economy has made him mark it down, and he's got it priced to go.

[Sapius]

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

Nice video, but then, am I to believe that a thought or an idea does not exist?

Well, what I gather is that at least unless a thing has a definitive form like the illustrious cup example used in the video, it does not exist, so I think a thought or an idea has to be considered as non-existent.

I’m confused actually… how exactly does one demonstrate the existence of an idea apart from the meaning itself or the word/s that point to it?

[brokenhead]

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

Nice video, but then, am I to believe that a thought or an idea does not exist?

Well, what I gather is that at least unless a thing has a definitive form like the illustrious cup example used in the video, it does not exist, so I think a thought or an idea has to be considered as non-existent.

I’m confused actually… how exactly does one demonstrate the existence of an idea apart from the meaning itself or the word/s that point to it?

Hi Sapius
This I think is my area of confusion as well. Vicdan has pointed out the fallacy of expecting a thing-in-itself (or the thing-apart-from-appearances) to be real.

If one is satisfied thinking abstract things, such as courage or devotion, are not real, then it it seems quite pointless to discuss the reality of an abstract concept such as infinity. While it is possible to admit a noumenal existence of a coffee cup or a chair, seeking such an existence for a thing which only exists as an abstraction to a human mind is futile. Above, I am inferring that infinity exists because of the demonstrable successes which are achieved while considering its abstraction mathematically. But does it exist? Does pi?

If it is not possible to conceive of a thing, can it be meaningful to discuss whether or not it exists? Is this what you are saying, Sapius?

[Robert]

Vicdan has pointed out the fallacy of expecting a thing-in-itself (or the thing-apart-from-appearances) to be real.

If one is satisfied thinking abstract things, such as courage or devotion, are not real, then it it seems quite pointless to discuss the reality of an abstract concept such as infinity. While it is possible to admit a noumenal existence of a coffee cup or a chair, seeking such an existence for a thing which only exists as an abstraction to a human mind is futile. Above, I am inferring that infinity exists because of the demonstrable successes which are achieved while considering its abstraction mathematically. But does it exist? Does pi?

If it is not possible to conceive of a thing, can it be meaningful to discuss whether or not it exists? Is this what you are saying, Sapius?

I don't see the difficulty in this. If you can't conceive of something, what is there to discuss? If you can conceive of something, then discussion is possible and it exists, at the very least in the mind. Isn't that the point of using logic and reason, as a tool to rationalise about the nature of something, whatever that something is?

[Loki]

In Dan's video, he identifies God with infinity. But why is this a valid identification? He makes it because he has a ready-made tautology involving the concept of infinity, i.e., that it does not exist. His intent is to offer a proof that God does not exist.

My point is that the human mind cannot conceive of infinity, except as an abstraction.

Yes, I think Dan would agree with you there.

As an abstraction, it is conceived of all the time by mathematicians with startling and unexpected successes. Since these successes are demonstrable, it can be concluded that infinity does indeed exist.

Dan is not saying infinity does not exist. Although, he is not saying that it exists either. He equates existence with appearance. He is saying that reality has an infinite nature, and this infinite nature is beyond appearance & experience. It is beyond existence and non-existence.

If it exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

Well, I can think up some wacky abstractions of some weird creatures that I'm sure don't exist. Abstractions do not automatically add up to the perceptual appearance of something. And that's what existence is, the appearance of a thing to the senses.

It would be true to say that the human mind cannot perceive infinity the same way it can perceive finiteness.

We can know with absolute certainty that the human mind cannot perceive infinity at all. It's un-perceivable, by definition. Un-experiencable.

The argument is made in numerous instances of QRS writing that this very concept of finiteness is an illusion, that there are no boundaries out there.

I haven't yet attained this realization. The only thing stopping me is the possibility of a God particle, and the possibility that one can be within something that has no outside exterior, but only an interior.

It comes down to what happens when we discuss whether or not God exists. If you identify God with infinity - and this step is fraught with problems - then you end up with a discussion between at least two people about something no human mind can conceive of except as an abstraction. So the question then becomes, does this particular abstraction exist or not? You can see the problem.

Are you sure it's logical to define existence as anything other than appearance? That's what the QRS do. Infinite reality does not exist, but it doesn't not exist either. It is beyond existence and non-existence.

[skipair]

And your point? What's wrong with wiggle room?

In this case, I think it's a way to wiggle out of reality and into a dream. If you like dreams, like God or aliens or Woman, then I'm sure you'll be content to wiggle away. But if you like reality you'll question those things to the point of cruelty. And I don't think you're savage enough for that. You'd rather milk them for sustenance.

It'd be nice if I was wrong.

[Sapius]

BH: If it is not possible to conceive of a thing, can it be meaningful to discuss whether or not it exists? Is this what you are saying, Sapius?

No, and Robert has responded to it appropriately.

My response to the following should give you the idea of what I’m getting at.

BH: My point is that the human mind cannot conceive of infinity, except as an abstraction.

Loki: Yes, I think Dan would agree with you there.

I don’t know whether Dan will agree or not, but what I want to know is; is an abstraction an appearance or not?

And what exactly isn’t an abstraction that stands before the mind? things experienced through sensory organs? Like the cup?

Is the idea of ‘sensory organs’ itself not an abstraction? Is the idea - “mind” – not an abstraction that stands before the “mind” as an appearance? If Infinity does not exist, then show me the mind that we all so much speak of.

[Ignius]

2 girls, 1 cup; I was told that this was a must-watch video. Unfortunately, this cannot be farther from the truth. Anyway, before I watched the video, I had constructs (abstractions) of what it was about. This is a very natural thing that occurs. So yeah, I saw the video... And that's the difference between an abstraction and reality.

Swoosh!

[brokenhead]

And your point? What's wrong with wiggle room?

In this case, I think it's a way to wiggle out of reality and into a dream. If you like dreams, like God or aliens or Woman, then I'm sure you'll be content to wiggle away. But if you like reality you'll question those things to the point of cruelty. And I don't think you're savage enough for that. You'd rather milk them for sustenance.

It'd be nice if I was wrong.

But you are wrong.
If I am not "savage" now, as you put it, then it is also true you have not known me all my life or even know me now. You probably haven't even been around most of my life.
I question everything and I do not think cruelty is required. I especially question people who repeat party lines such as "God or aliens or Woman," much as I hold in dim view people who always quote the Bible.
If you think the question is whether or not one "likes reality," then you and I must not be on the same page. All I can tell you is read on.

[Loki]

BH: My point is that the human mind cannot conceive of infinity, except as an abstraction.

Loki: Yes, I think Dan would agree with you there.

I don’t know whether Dan will agree or not, but what I want to know is; is an abstraction an appearance or not?

Yes, it is.

And what exactly isn’t an abstraction that stands before the mind? things experienced through sensory organs? Like the cup?

Yes, things we sense with our eyes, ears, nose, etc. These aren't abstractions.

Is the idea of ‘sensory organs’ itself not an abstraction?

Yes, it is.

Is the idea - “mind” – not an abstraction that stands before the “mind” as an appearance?

Yes, mind is an abstraction. But it's also a raw experience, a non-abstraction.

If Infinity does not exist, then show me the mind that we all so much speak of.

When you see, hear, feel, smell, or think, that's your mind.

[brokenhead]

Brokenhead: If it [infinity] exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

Loki: Well, I can think up some wacky abstractions of some weird creatures that I'm sure don't exist. Abstractions do not automatically add up to the perceptual appearance of something. And that's what existence is, the appearance of a thing to the senses.

I'm not sure you are seeing the distinction that I am seeing here, Loki. You say you can think up abstractions of creatures that you are sure don't exist. If you are sure the creatures don't exist, then what is the abstraction an abstraction of? Wouldn't the abstraction in such a case actually be the creature? It is possible to have an abstraction of an abstraction, and an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction, and so on. But at the end of the line, what would such abstractions be abstractions of? If the answer in the end is "nothing," then the abstractions are the reality, are they not? In such a case, the abstractions would have to be in some sense equivalent, we identify them. That's what an abstraction is.

No abstraction is the same as the perceptual appearance of a thing in the sense that an abstraction is a volitional mental construct while the perceptual appearance is an involuntary mental construct.

With infinity, there is no possibility - as you have pointed out - of a perceptual experience. Any concept must be volitional, and is therefore an abstraction.

But let's think of the irrational number pi. Is there ever a perceptual appearance of pi? I say there is not. Seeing its symbol is not a perceptual experience, I hope you will agree. I think it is possible to have a firm grasp of the concept of pi, but that it is an abstraction every bit as much as infinity is. It is defined wholly in terms of other abstractions which the human mind must be taught. It only gets there by virtue of its previous appearance in other human minds, and so therefore in books and texts. It took many thousands of years to first appear as part of the collective consciousness.

Likewise, the abstraction of infinity, once understood symbolically, keeps cropping up in mathematical research and invention. The notion keeps getting refined and expanded at the same time, with all the rigor available to the human intellect which is reflected in the mathematical symbolism.

All of which is not to say the abstraction of infinity is infinity.

But I am saying even though it cannot exist in the human mind except as an abstraction, that there is a basic difference between infinity (or pi) and the wacky creatures which you mention.

I forget the person who said it as I forget the actual wording of the quote, but it goes something like this: The most amazing thing about mathematics in the sciences is not only does it correspond to what we observe in the physical world, but that it does it so astoundingly well.

Though I could have the quote wrong! Maybe it should be: not only is it so amazing that math can be used to describe our world so well, but that it can be used to describe our world at all!

You get my point. By definition, your wacky creatures correspond to nothing except, perhaps, themselves. Mathematics, on the other hand, does seem to correspond to things that we perceive.

Yet every mathematical concept is an abstraction. The number 2 is an abstraction, is it not? If all of the "apparent" boundaries in the phenomenal world are merely illusions, as Quinn et al claim, then real numbers are abstractions. Like you, Loki, I have not yet attained this realization as the indelible certainty which Kevin bids us below:

Kevin writes in Poison for the Heart ("Cause and Effect")

Know that any boundary line you draw to designate a "beginning" will by necessity be totally arbitrary. Nonetheless such boundaries must be made-up for practical purposes, there being no demarcations in reality. The crucial thing to remember while we go about our business is that all boundaries are drawn by the imagination, and are therefore illusory. I bid you never forget this truth!

If I am failing to make my distinction between the "abstraction" of your wacky creatures and the abstraction of infinity apparent, the fault is mine. Perhaps some one else can do it more clearly.

[Loki]

Brokenhead: If it [infinity] exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

Loki: Well, I can think up some wacky abstractions of some weird creatures that I'm sure don't exist. Abstractions do not automatically add up to the perceptual appearance of something. And that's what existence is, the appearance of a thing to the senses.

I'm not sure you are seeing the distinction that I am seeing here, Loki. You say you can think up abstractions of creatures that you are sure don't exist. If you are sure the creatures don't exist, then what is the abstraction an abstraction of?

The abstraction is unique to itself, and is not a reflection of any particular object I perceive with my senses. mind you, the weird things I come up with in my imagination, are definitely inspired by a wide variety of things I do experience with my senses.

Wouldn't the abstraction in such a case actually be the creature?

An abstraction of a creature isn't a creature.

You get my point. By definition, your wacky creatures correspond to nothing except, perhaps, themselves.

Well, they correspond to a mish-mash of other perceptions. like the abstraction of a unicorn corresponds to a horse and one of them whales with the horns.

Mathematics, on the other hand, does seem to correspond to things that we perceive.

Yet every mathematical concept is an abstraction. The number 2 is an abstraction, is it not? If all of the "apparent" boundaries in the phenomenal world are merely illusions, as Quinn et al claim, then real numbers are abstractions. Like you, Loki, I have not yet attained this realization as the indelible certainty which Kevin bids us below:

Kevin writes in Poison for the Heart ("Cause and Effect")

Know that any boundary line you draw to designate a "beginning" will by necessity be totally arbitrary. Nonetheless such boundaries must be made-up for practical purposes, there being no demarcations in reality. The crucial thing to remember while we go about our business is that all boundaries are drawn by the imagination, and are therefore illusory. I bid you never forget this truth!

If I am failing to make my distinction between the "abstraction" of your wacky creatures and the abstraction of infinity apparent, the fault is mine. Perhaps some one else can do it more clearly.

Is your point simply that infinity exists? Is that what you are trying to say?

Look, all I'm saying is that infinity cannot logically appear, and therefore I agree with QRS that if reality is infinite, then this infinite reality is beyond existence and non-existence.

[brokenhead]

Look, all I'm saying is that infinity cannot logically appear, and therefore I agree with QRS that if reality is infinite, then this infinite reality is beyond existence and non-existence.

And that is exactly what my view is. I could not have put it more clearly. If infinite reality is beyond existence and non-existence, then the syllogism in Dan's video falls apart. Correct?