How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?

[Dave Toast]

Nice reply Laird. I'll take some time to consider whether it's worth carrying on with this, likely predicated on your sharing your experiences that have given you the desire to speculate so.

Meantime, for purposes of clarity, a 'murder' is one of the collective nouns applied to a group of crows - like a cluster of computers, a culture of bacteria or a coven of witches.

[Kevin Solway]

The fact that you conceive of the Totality as something that requires explanation (ie, an outside cause) means that you are conceiving it as possibly being caused by something outside of and apart from itself.

The fact that you deny the possibility of an explanation when one is required.

You haven't demonstrated that one is required. (And it's not possible for you to do so)

Fixation does not need to be relative.

Put it this way; "fixed" doesn't mean anything unless it is compared to something. That's why it is relative.

And that's why it doesn't mean anything to say that the Totality is "fixed" - because there's nothing to compare it to.

The light from your words, and the gravity of the ink in your words, will have an effect on Alpha Centauri. Also, there may be beings on Alpha Centauri who can read your words and act upon them.

OK, so I'll change "none whatsoever" to "so vanishingly small that it's effectively non-existent".

You don't know enough to say that those causes are "vanishingly small". Your written words may be having a large effect on Alpha Centauri - especially if the residents of Alpha Centauri are reading your words, or if your words inspire alien-creator Gods to destroy Alpha Centauri.

As for reading my words from Alpha Centauri, one might enquire of such a being "is that a telescope in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

You don't know what kind of technology they have, so there's no point in speculating.

there's no reason to think that any creator of our world has any of the qualities you attribute to them. They may be evil creators.

OK, I thought that we were talking about something that resembled the Christian God but apparently not.

There is nothing resembling the Christian God. The Christian God is a nonsensical and insane fantasy of rampant egos.

The traditional Christian God is either infinite or finite. If he is infinite he is identical with the Totality, and if he is finite then he is an alien-creator God, such as I have been speaking of.

There is no third possibility (other than the obvious explanation that the traditional Christian God is an insane and nonsensical construct).

Actually there is a third possibility but I already know that you reject it. That possibility is that He is infinite in some respects

No. There is logically no other possibility than finite or not finite (infinite).

If a thing is bounded in any way at all, then it is finite, and is not the Totality. End of story. The traditional Christian God is bounded, and is not the Totality, and is finite.

and that He is uncaused and that He is the original cause of all else.

All finite things are caused.

To declare something finite (not the Totality) and yet uncaused is simply insanity, and doesn't deserve a response.

I could just as well declare myself infinite, and yet bounded, and uncaused, and the First Cause. It would be insane to do so, but that's exactly the the kind of insanity that Christians practice. Such thinking is simply a sign of the ego's ravenous hunger for power.

Laird: Certainly though when you talk about abstract concepts like the Totality and describe characteristics of them such as that they are infinite in all respects (boundless) and that they are deterministic then you are constructing a model.

Kevin: You haven't demonstrated this, by argument or any other means.

OK, well if that's what you think then let me make an attempt here. First stop, a definition from dictionary.com. The one that I'm going to use is this:
10. a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon

Saying that the Totality in unbounded is not a simplification of it. It is the truth.

Likewise, saying that you can't form an image of it is also not a simplification.

[Laird]

Nice reply Laird.

Thanks Dave, it took most of yesterday - and a lot of thought - to compose so it's nice to read that compliment.

I'll take some time to consider whether it's worth carrying on with this, likely predicated on your sharing your experiences that have given you the desire to speculate so.

I'm not willing to share those experiences publicly because it would entail revealing details of my private life that I don't wish to be publicly known. I'm willing to share them with you via a PM. Would that be acceptable to you?

Meantime, for purposes of clarity, a 'murder' is one of the collective nouns applied to a group of crows - like a cluster of computers, a culture of bacteria or a coven of witches.

Hmm, I'll postpone responding to this until such time as (if) you respond in full.

[Laird]

Laird: The fact that you deny the possibility of an explanation when one is required.

Kevin: You haven't demonstrated that one is required. (And it's not possible for you to do so)

"You can lead a horse to water..." Look, if you refuse see that the explanation of why something (anything) exists at all rather than nothing - which is an ultimately simple state of affairs - is required and is indeed the fundamental question of existence then all that I can say is what I've said to you in the past: keep on playing The Ostrich - keep that head planted firmly in the sand. Go ahead and repeat your mantra: "It is a wrong question. It is a wrong question."

Laird: Fixation does not need to be relative.

Kevin: Put it this way; "fixed" doesn't mean anything unless it is compared to something. That's why it is relative.

You've ignored my request to stop snipping so much and to leave the original context in the post, so I no longer care to pursue this triviality - we can't even see anymore how it relates to the original point of contention: that a Christian-like God could manipulate the Totality from within give that the Totality is deterministic. I'm don't want to have to be constantly reinserting quote sequences. It's OK a couple of times, but not as a matter of course.

Kevin: The light from your words, and the gravity of the ink in your words, will have an effect on Alpha Centauri. Also, there may be beings on Alpha Centauri who can read your words and act upon them.

Laird: OK, so I'll change "none whatsoever" to "so vanishingly small that it's effectively non-existent".

Kevin: You don't know enough to say that those causes are "vanishingly small".

It's my judgement call.

Laird: As for reading my words from Alpha Centauri, one might enquire of such a being "is that a telescope in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

Kevin: You don't know what kind of technology they have, so there's no point in speculating.

Hey, you're the one speculating here.

There is nothing resembling the Christian God. The Christian God is a nonsensical and insane fantasy of rampant egos.

Written like a truly dogmatic fundamentalist.

The traditional Christian God is either infinite or finite. If he is infinite he is identical with the Totality, and if he is finite then he is an alien-creator God, such as I have been speaking of.

There is no third possibility (other than the obvious explanation that the traditional Christian God is an insane and nonsensical construct).

Actually there is a third possibility but I already know that you reject it. That possibility is that He is infinite in some respects

No. There is logically no other possibility than finite or not finite (infinite).

If a thing is bounded in any way at all, then it is finite, and is not the Totality. End of story. The traditional Christian God is bounded, and is not the Totality, and is finite.

You're missing something important, and that is that a thing is always infinite in some particular sense, whether that be spatially, temporally, causally, with regards to amount of power that it wields, or something else. It's not enough to simply say that something is either infinite or finite. You have to also specify in which sense it is infinite or finite. For example, the senses in which your Totality are infinite are the first three that I specified: spatially, temporally and causally. It is not, however, infinite in the amount of knowledge that it possesses because it is not an intelligence capable of possessing knowledge. Neither is it infinite in the amount of power that it weilds because it is not a conscious agent capable of weilding power. God, on the other hand, might be considered to be infinite in those respects. And it might not be meaningful to talk of His capacity for infinitude in the first two senses that the Totality is infinite because He might not exist in the same "physical" realm. In other words, if something does not occupy space and if it exists outside of time, then it is not "bounded" by those dimensions anyway, so it does not matter that it is not infinite with respect to them.

So what I'm saying is that just because a thing (e.g. God) is not infinite in a particular sense, does not mean that it is, as you would have it, "bounded". That applies to the Totality too: if I were to use your reasoning I could say that because the Totality is not infinite with respect to the amount of knowledge that it possesses then it is bounded, but that would be erroneous because "possessed of knowledge" is a context that simply cannot apply to the Totality anyway: it does not "exist in that realm (the realm of intelligent consciousness)", so to speak, and hence it is unbounded in that sense anyway.

I will accept that the Christian God does exist in the realm of cause-and-effect, and, being the first cause - which implies later causes independent of Him - He is in this sense "bounded". But it is as far as I can tell the only sense in which we can consider Him to be bounded.

So your insistence on this plain dichotomy between finite and infinite things is a little bit simplistic. I suppose that what you mean by "infinite" in this sense is "infinite in all respects in which it is possible for that thing to be infinite", in which case I would tentatively accept that it applies to the Totality and not to the Christian God, but only because the Christian God is not comprised of all causes.

Laird: and that He is uncaused and that He is the original cause of all else.

Kevin: All finite things are caused.

There's that simple-minded dogmatism again. No explanation, just pure repetitive assertion.

Again: finite in which sense? As I've already described, God is infinite in some senses and there are other senses in which the question of his infinitude does not apply. I don't think that His simply being the first in a chain of causes is enough to apply the label "finite" to Him, although as I wrote above I think that it's - only just - enough to apply the tag "bounded".

To declare something finite (not the Totality) and yet uncaused is simply insanity, and doesn't deserve a response.

I could just as well declare myself infinite, and yet bounded, and uncaused, and the First Cause. It would be insane to do so, but that's exactly the the kind of insanity that Christians practice.

You have yet to explain clearly why it's insane for God as First Cause, bounded by causality but unbounded in all other respects, to be uncaused whilst you simultaneously declare your Totality to be uncaused.

Such thinking is simply a sign of the ego's ravenous hunger for power.

You totally lost me on this one.

[reinserting some content due to excessive snipping - please Kev, maintain relevant content in the quotes]

Laird: Certainly though when you talk about abstract concepts like the Totality and describe characteristics of them such as that they are infinite in all respects (boundless) and that they are deterministic then you are constructing a model.

Kevin: You haven't demonstrated this, by argument or any other means.

Laird: OK, well if that's what you think then let me make an attempt here. First stop, a definition from dictionary.com. The one that I'm going to use is this:
10. a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon [...]
* "a simplified representation": you represent the Totality in words but more important to you than the words is the understanding behind them - clearly pointing to the fact that you intend for some sort of conceptual representation to be created in people's minds; simplified because as you point out, it's impossible to form a complete image of a boundless thing.

Saying that the Totality in unbounded is not a simplification of it. It is the truth.

But the way that you conceptualise that unboundedness in your mind is necessarily a simplified representation of the real thing.

Likewise, saying that you can't form an image of it is also not a simplification.

I wasn't referring to the saying that you can't form an image of it, I was referring to the image itself, which is necessarily simplified.

Anyway, if that's the sum total of your rebuttal then it's pretty weak. You've focussed on one of the least relevant words. If you really want to contest that you're modelling, then focus on the word "representation".

[Kevin Solway]

Look, if you refuse see that the explanation of why something (anything) exists at all rather than nothing

It's easy to understand that something bounded (such as the traditional Christian God) requires an explanation, but impossible to see that something unbounded requires one.

You don't know enough to say that those causes are "vanishingly small".

It's my judgement call.

And you are unqualified to make the judgment.

You are missing the point that it doesn't matter how small the effect is that you are having on distant objects, you are still having the effect.

And there is the fact that small causes can have huge effects.

It's not enough to simply say that something is either infinite or finite. You have to also specify in which sense it is infinite or finite.

I've clearly explained in what sense I'm talking about finite and infinite.

That which is bounded is finite, and that which is not bounded at all is infinite.

the senses in which your Totality are infinite are the first three that I specified: spatially, temporally and causally. It is not, however, infinite in the amount of knowledge that it possesses because it is not an intelligence capable of possessing knowledge.

I've already been over that. It is not a limitation of a thing that it conforms to logic. It is not logically possible for something that is not an intelligence to possess knowledge. And that is not a limitation.

Likewise the Totality is infinite and not finite, but that is not a limitation either.

God, on the other hand, might be considered to be infinite in those respects.

All I care about is whether a thing is truly infinite (unbounded) or not.

The traditional Christian God is bounded and finite.

And being finite he is infinitely small when compared to the infinite.

So what I'm saying is that just because a thing (e.g. God) is not infinite in a particular sense, does not mean that it is, as you would have it, "bounded".

It is bounded if it has boundaries. If there is something apart from itself then it is bounded.

There are things apart from God, therefore it is bounded.

I will accept that the Christian God does exist in the realm of cause-and-effect, and, being the first cause - which implies later causes independent of Him - He is in this sense "bounded". But it is as far as I can tell the only sense in which we can consider Him to be bounded.

There are countless things which are outside of and apart from this God. Each of those things establishes the boundaries of this alien-creator God.

Saying that the Totality in unbounded is not a simplification of it. It is the truth.

But the way that you conceptualise that unboundedness in your mind is necessarily a simplified representation of the real thing.

You don't know how or if I conceptualize it.

I've explained that it is impossible to form an image of it, so I certainly don't conceptualize it.

[Jamesh]

Laird said: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would firstly have had the idea well before me and secondly wouldn't engage in wanton destruction for no benefit.

This sort of comment is so egocentric.

If goodness is humanity surviving by eating plants and animals, then you are artificially placing humans on a higher level of good-god benevolence. You are attaching super-goodness to humans and lesser goodness to our food/resources.

It is not possible for something that is not totally the totality, to create something from nothing. The form and nature of what already exists must always be destroyed before new forms can arise.

If Og is not the whole totality and nothing but the totality, then any alien race that is capable of destroying us humans would have the same “Ogly-good” justification to say “eat humans”, as we have to “eat chickens”. This is exactly the same as Og deciding what can be benevolently destroyed or not. If there are more consciously advanced life forms out there - and there will be - we humans would therefore NOT be as special in the eyes of Og as these beings - they would get a higher benevolence priority from Og.

Logically however this creates a problem. In just the same way as a computer will stop working if a certain wire is disconnected, so too are certain lower life forms, like gut bacteria for instance, as essential to ourselves working properly, as is the wire to the computer. If something is essential for the survival of a thing with a higher level of Og-determined goodness, then it cannot actually have a higher or lower value level of goodness, as Og will be forced to value it the same in order to ensure the survival of the higher valued entity.

…arrhh I give up - this post lacks a decent level of coherency and pertinence ….but I couldn’t be bothered spending the time to make my point properly. Out of posting practice.

[Kevin Solway]

Such thinking is simply a sign of the ego's ravenous hunger for power.

You totally lost me on this one.

That's because you create your fantasy beings for the same reasons that Christians do - because it empowers the ego.

If a young child said, "My father is the best, the most powerful, and the most good father in the universe, and he determines what is good for the whole world.", we would think he was just fantasizing. That's what Christians do with their imaginary father.

There are a many thousands of people around the world who believe they are literally Jesus Christ, or Napoleon, etc. Many of them are in mental health institutions. They have these imaginings so as to reinforce their ego, because it is struggling. It is a fantasy to help shore-up the ego.

And it is exactly the same delusion that Christians have with their God. It is a fantasy to help shore-up a failing structure.

[Laird]

Laird: Look, if you refuse see that the explanation of why something (anything) exists at all rather than nothing

Kevin: It's easy to understand that something bounded (such as the traditional Christian God) requires an explanation, but impossible to see that something unbounded requires one.

Righto, I'll leave to your sand-gazing then.

Kevin: You don't know enough to say that those causes are "vanishingly small".

Laird: It's my judgement call.

Kevin: And you are unqualified to make the judgment.

And you're unqualified to make the judgement that I'm unqualified to make the judgement. We can play this game indefinitely. I suspect that at some point one of us will realise how futile and pointless it is though.

Laird: It's not enough to simply say that something is either infinite or finite. You have to also specify in which sense it is infinite or finite.

I've clearly explained in what sense I'm talking about finite and infinite.

That which is bounded is finite, and that which is not bounded at all is infinite.

Yeah, uh, apparently the meaning of my last post totally escaped you (or you've simply decided to ignore it). I couldn't be bothered trying to explain again to you what I mean because I don't believe that you're particularly interested. You have your formula and you'll stick to it, despite my attempts to provide some clarification. With that explained, I'll go ahead and snip the rest of your comments on infinity/boundedness/God.

Kevin: Saying that the Totality in unbounded is not a simplification of it. It is the truth.

Laird: But the way that you conceptualise that unboundedness in your mind is necessarily a simplified representation of the real thing.

Kevin: [...] I certainly don't conceptualize it.

You know what Kev? I'd so much like right now to let loose on you for this insanity, but I know that I'd regret it later. After all of the things that you have to say about the Totality, for you to then turn around and write that you neither conceptualise nor model nor imagine it (and to refuse to acknowledge - when I gave you the opportunity to - that you even "think about" it) is like Albert Einstein after disseminating the Theory of Relativity to turn around and say that he didn't think about relativity, he just experienced it. And you know what else? I'd love for everyone reading this post to drop a reply into the thread to back me on this. Kevin will probably be impervious to a group assault anyway but it's got a damn sight better chance than me on my own trying to battle this ridiculousness.

Kevin: Such thinking is simply a sign of the ego's ravenous hunger for power.

Laird: You totally lost me on this one.

Kevin: If a young child said, "My father is the best, the most powerful, and the most good father in the universe, and he determines what is good for the whole world.", we would think he was just fantasizing. That's what Christians do with their imaginary father.

I see where you're coming from now. I suppose that you've identified part of the motivation for some Christians. I don't think that it's the whole story, nor that it's always the story. I'm sure that there are many other similar but different motivations behind people's Christianity - for example wanting to feel safe and secure, wanting to feel special and loved, wanting certainty in their platform of beliefs, etc.

[Laird]

Laird: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would firstly have had the idea well before me and secondly wouldn't engage in wanton destruction for no benefit.

Jamesh: This sort of comment is so egocentric.

James, I unfortunately have to agree with your concluding opinion that your "post lacks a decent level of coherency and pertinence", but I think that I understand some of you're trying to say. Really though you lost me on your first comment (as quoted above) and the rest of what you wrote wasn't much use in justifying it in relation to what I wrote. That first comment seems to me to be totally unrelated to what I wrote, and whilst I can use my imagination a little to try to see how the rest of what you wrote relates, it's a bit of a stretch. You seem to be reading things into my words that weren't there. Anyway I won't respond to the rest of your post because by your own acknowledgement you're not making your point properly.

[Kevin Solway]

And you're unqualified to make the judgement that I'm unqualified to make the judgement.

It is a logical fact that you don't know what effect your actions have on those far distant. It's not a matter of opinion.

That which is bounded is finite, and that which is not bounded at all is infinite.

Yeah, uh, apparently the meaning of my last post totally escaped you

Your post had absolutely no bearing on what I said.

That which you are calling "infinite" is, by your own admission, not the Totality, and is therefore bounded. Being bounded, it is what I call "finite", for obvious reasons.

for you to then turn around and write that you neither conceptualise nor model nor imagine it

It's simply not possible to form an image, or conceptualize, that which is Infinite and boundless. Once again, this is a purely logical fact, and is not a matter of opinion or popular vote.

I suppose that you've identified part of the motivation for some Christians.

Hunger for power is the primary motivation behind the delusions of all Christians.

I'm sure that there are many other similar but different motivations behind people's Christianity - for example wanting to feel safe and secure, wanting to feel special and loved, wanting certainty in their platform of beliefs, etc.

All of those things you mention there are expressions of the hunger for power.

It is plain, base egotism.

[brokenhead]

it doesn't matter how small the effect is that you are having on distant objects, you are still having the effect.

And

That's because you create your fantasy beings for the same reasons that Christians do - because it empowers the ego.

Your need to feel that Alpha Centaurians are affected by what you write here is the exact same thing, Kevin. Christians may pray to their God, but you seem to imply that with all the answers, you are one.

[HYPNOSIS]

How to prove GOD EXISTS?

Give me a naked woman with a cup of tea, and I show you the holy grail./.

[Sapius]

Laird: I think that I see what you're getting at. Let me hazard a guess and please tell me if this is what you mean. This much I would say myself: one of the fundamental characteristics of the universe is change; change necessitates differences as one thing becomes another. Now it seems that you go further and say also that not only are differences necessary for change to function, but opposites and contrasts are necessary as well. Perhaps you would also say (as Jamesh frequently propounds on) that change functions through the dynamic interaction of opposites. (forces) Is that being fair to you?

More than fair I would say. From the very first day that James expressed his theory… in not so simple terms… I told him that I totally understand what he is trying to express albeit in a philosophical sense.

L: I'm not saying that there are no differences, I'm just saying that I don't think that opposites are necessary to sustain each other. But perhaps you are right after all that, even if it isn't necessary, the interaction of opposites is the way that the universe works. I'm open to that possibility.

It is not only the opposite but any other thing that contrasts. (See the bold in your above quote). For example, A is not necessarily only because of not A, but also B. The difference between A and B also makes them what they are irrelevant of abstractly conceptualizing a not A and not B.

S: And it is not necessarily only the “opposite” that a thing may rely upon, but anything other than what IT is, be it IT”S own environmental surroundings since it is limited as an IT and hence could not extend infinitely; whatever that surroundings may be, including nothingness.

L: Ah, so you agree with me that opposites aren't necessary?

I may be mistaken, but where did I say that only opposites are absolutely necessary?

S: “An absolutely existent or perceived thing”, necessarily requires at lease perception to be, and perception and the thing perceived, cannot be one and the same thing. So how do you explain or understand how either one could be absolute on its own?

L: I disagree that "perception and the thing perceived, cannot be one and the same thing".

That’s quite a convincing argument. Why didn’t I think of that? (Sapius flogs himself) ;)

S: So you think the contrast between the LSG of Good and LSG of evil is not essential but merely useful? So you do believe that there is no essential difference between good and evil?

L: Oh, it depends on what you mean by "essential" there. If we posit that good and evil exist, then the difference between them is essential - it's part of what defines them. But IMO it's not necessary that the world be constructed in terms of good and evil so in that sense good and evil are not "essential" and so therefore neither is the difference between them.

I know, but I specifically wanted to know what YOU believed, since we are discussing this.

S: So since there is no USG, it stands to reason the neither LSGs could destroy or overpower the other completely.

L: I'm not so sure that that's true. The very possibility that one of them might ultimately triumph might be what keeps them fighting and what maintains the balance between them.

Hoping for an ultimate triumph and it actually happening are two different things. Hope of such a possibility might keep them going, (maintaining the “balance” or existence itself), but if either one actually triumphs, what do you think would be the result? Heaven? And what if Hell wins? ...which seems to be more likely. Remember, they are equally powerful so it coud go either way.

S: hence the LSG of good cannot exercise all of its goodness (read Life), neither can the other all of its evil (read Death), because of not being an USG. And below you imply that one of them (Good aka LIFE) can be IMMORTAL? You think the other guy would allow that?

L: In the scenario that I'm positing, both of them are IMMORTAL in the sense that death (permanent loss of consciousness and feeling) is not an option, it's just that the amount of power that each one has varies depending on its (His) ascendency in the eternal battle.

Well then, neither could completely destroy the other, hence there cannot be absolute life or death, but merely the varying degrees thereof, playing a dynamic dance called existence, and collapsing the moment one of them is about to triumph over the other.

L: I'm just suggesting the possibility that the reason that they are universally agreed upon is that there are absolute conceptions of good and evil that our minds are keying in to.

S: Well, why not? But how I see it as is that MIND itself is an active arbitrator, that is not “keying” into some absolute “concepts”, but is acting out its own nature of evaluating the degree of personal benefits as against mutual benefits. If mind is a highly complex self-reflective electro-magnetic system, then love and hate, good and evil, are active ingredients of its nature, by the mere fact that you must have studied at school, that like charges repel and opposite attract, and what do you think mind is made up of other than such interacting charged particles, that culminate as a centralized control system because of the evolved complexity of an individual brain that supports it, which now can be abstractly thougt over; otherwise “good” and “evil” resided within every molecule or every particle you can think of, and do not need to "key into” some externally absolute conceptions; it is all "within".

L: First you say "why not" and then you argue against it. So shall I take it that you believe that what I suggest is "possible, although unlikely"?

Please reread what I wrote and focus on your idea of “keying into absolute conceptions”, which have to necessarily pre-exist for you to “key” into, but ‘conceptions’ are not what pre-exist since there is no One Universal Mind that holds it, but literal attraction (which could be conceptualized or considered as Love when a mind thinks over it), and repulsion (hate), is what is there in its most simplest form. We don’t “key” into it, simply realize as per individual mind, our nature that lies within but not out there that we may or could "key" into.

S: What you are talking about is essentially, or say unwittingly is, that Existence is absolutely dualistic in nature, and from that point of view, I cannot help but agree.

L: I suppose that good and evil are dualistic concepts, so I suppose that I am saying "unwittingly" that Existence is in at least some sense dualistic, but I don't think that it necessarily is in all senses.

Forget about ‘good and evil’, think in terms of positive and negative charges, or consider if consciousness could be without something to be conscious of, or vise versa?

S: I hope this post didn't make it any less interesting. :D

L: No, although I think that we're starting to repeat ourselves to one another. At some point you're going to get sick of me and say "Damn it Laird, when are you going to see things like I do??" :-P

I don’t think it will ever come to that. I might not agree with certain notions, but I do respect individuality, so it never upsets me if you or anyone else does not agree with me. You don’t have to necessarily see things as I do, for the simple reason that you are not me (not my experiences), and I am not you; each one of us is as unique as every grain of sand, yet we, and all that there is, is no different in essence at its core.

[brokenhead]

Good to see you back, Sapius. And good to see this thread revived! Your exchanges with Laird have made this one of the most interesting threads I've seen since I've been at GF.

[Sapius]

Good to see you back, Sapius. And good to see this thread revived! Your exchanges with Laird have made this one of the most interesting threads I've seen since I've been at GF.

Hi! Its good to be back. One of the reasons I like to leave for a while.

[Laird]

L: I'm not saying that there are no differences, I'm just saying that I don't think that opposites are necessary to sustain each other. But perhaps you are right after all that, even if it isn't necessary, the interaction of opposites is the way that the universe works. I'm open to that possibility.

S: It is not only the opposite but any other thing that contrasts. (See the bold in your above quote). For example, A is not necessarily only because of not A, but also B. The difference between A and B also makes them what they are irrelevant of abstractly conceptualizing a not A and not B.

At the risk of becoming repetitive - because I've said similar things to you in the past (although the argument that I'm about to present to you is new) - I don't agree that A is what it is primarily because of its contrast with B. Let me put it to you like this: imagine a universe consisting only of A, B and C. You would seem to be arguing that we know A primarily through its contrast with B and C. But now let's add in D, E and F without otherwise changing A, B and C in any way. Now there are new things to contrast A against, but A hasn't changed in any way. Do you see what I'm getting at? Those new contrasts are irrelevant to what A already was. In the same way, A did not depend on the existing contrasts with B and C either. A does not rely on contrasts for its existence, but contrasts aid our conceptual understanding of A, and that's as far as I go with you with the contrast business.

S: And it is not necessarily only the “opposite” that a thing may rely upon, but anything other than what IT is, be it IT”S own environmental surroundings since it is limited as an IT and hence could not extend infinitely; whatever that surroundings may be, including nothingness.

L: Ah, so you agree with me that opposites aren't necessary?

S: I may be mistaken, but where did I say that only opposites are absolutely necessary?

I don't recall that you did - I just wanted to clarify your position.

S: “An absolutely existent or perceived thing”, necessarily requires at lease perception to be, and perception and the thing perceived, cannot be one and the same thing. So how do you explain or understand how either one could be absolute on its own?

L: I disagree that "perception and the thing perceived, cannot be one and the same thing".

S: That’s quite a convincing argument. Why didn’t I think of that? (Sapius flogs himself) ;)

Sap, Sap
Was a cheeky chap
But did I get in a flap?
No, I doffed him my cap.

My dear man, I have presented an argument to you already, you have simply forgotten it. Recall our dialogue in the thread "The effect of thoughts and needs on reality" where I hypothesised about a universe that consisted purely of awareness - in which case perceiver and perceived would be one and the same.

S: So you think the contrast between the LSG of Good and LSG of evil is not essential but merely useful? So you do believe that there is no essential difference between good and evil?

L: Oh, it depends on what you mean by "essential" there. If we posit that good and evil exist, then the difference between them is essential - it's part of what defines them. But IMO it's not necessary that the world be constructed in terms of good and evil so in that sense good and evil are not "essential" and so therefore neither is the difference between them.

S: I know, but I specifically wanted to know what YOU believed, since we are discussing this.

Oh boy, crunch time. Do I really have to lay my beliefs on the line? I live in at least two different worlds, Sapius, such that it's hard to know exactly what I believe about reality a lot of the time. I'm going to have to pass on this one I think.

S: So since there is no USG, it stands to reason the neither LSGs could destroy or overpower the other completely.

L: I'm not so sure that that's true. The very possibility that one of them might ultimately triumph might be what keeps them fighting and what maintains the balance between them.

S: Hoping for an ultimate triumph and it actually happening are two different things. Hope of such a possibility might keep them going, (maintaining the “balance” or existence itself), but if either one actually triumphs, what do you think would be the result? Heaven? And what if Hell wins? ...which seems to be more likely. Remember, they are equally powerful so it coud go either way.

Yes, heaven or hell. In either case, the defeated team would be imprisoned in some way, the difference is that in the case of hell winning, the losing team (and the rest of us "innocent" humans) would be tormented for eternity because that's what evil likes to do - perhaps it's even the way that it sustains itself: feeding on the pain of others. In saying that I'm reminded of a science fiction novel that I read as a teenager: "The Last Legends of Earth" by A A Attanasio. I don't remember much about it but I do recall enjoying every minute of it. The one thing that has stuck in my mind though is that part of the plot involved beings (humans? I think so but I can't recall exactly) who were trapped for eternity in outer space in pods from which they could not escape and in which they were tormented by aliens who literally survived on their pain. Perhaps that's where my idea of evil feeding on suffering came from.

On a slight diversion, I've just noticed in A A Attanasio's Wikipedia entry that he's written an essay with the coolest title that I've seen in a long time: "In Responsibilities Begin Dreams". Is that an awesome title for an essay or what, huh? I'm so intrigued to know what he writes about in that essay now but I can't find it online.

S: hence the LSG of good cannot exercise all of its goodness (read Life), neither can the other all of its evil (read Death), because of not being an USG. And below you imply that one of them (Good aka LIFE) can be IMMORTAL? You think the other guy would allow that?

L: In the scenario that I'm positing, both of them are IMMORTAL in the sense that death (permanent loss of consciousness and feeling) is not an option, it's just that the amount of power that each one has varies depending on its (His) ascendency in the eternal battle.

S: Well then, neither could completely destroy the other, hence there cannot be absolute life or death, but merely the varying degrees thereof, playing a dynamic dance called existence, and collapsing the moment one of them is about to triumph over the other.

Oh, yeah, they couldn't completely destroy one another in the sense of ending consciousness, but one could completely overcome the other such that it had no power left to do anything - not even to move.

L: I'm just suggesting the possibility that the reason that they are universally agreed upon is that there are absolute conceptions of good and evil that our minds are keying in to.

S: Well, why not? But how I see it as is that MIND itself is an active arbitrator, that is not “keying” into some absolute “concepts”, but is acting out its own nature of evaluating the degree of personal benefits as against mutual benefits. If mind is a highly complex self-reflective electro-magnetic system, then love and hate, good and evil, are active ingredients of its nature, by the mere fact that you must have studied at school, that like charges repel and opposite attract, and what do you think mind is made up of other than such interacting charged particles, that culminate as a centralized control system because of the evolved complexity of an individual brain that supports it, which now can be abstractly thougt over; otherwise “good” and “evil” resided within every molecule or every particle you can think of, and do not need to "key into” some externally absolute conceptions; it is all "within".

L: First you say "why not" and then you argue against it. So shall I take it that you believe that what I suggest is "possible, although unlikely"?

S: Please reread what I wrote and focus on your idea of “keying into absolute conceptions”, which have to necessarily pre-exist for you to “key” into, but ‘conceptions’ are not what pre-exist since there is no One Universal Mind that holds it, but literal attraction (which could be conceptualized or considered as Love when a mind thinks over it), and repulsion (hate), is what is there in its most simplest form. We don’t “key” into it, simply realize as per individual mind, our nature that lies within but not out there that we may or could "key" into.

Hmm, I'm not sure that you're making a meaningful distinction. How different is it to say that we "key into (external) absolute conceptions" versus we "realise our (pre-existing) nature that lies within"? Does it really matter whether it's within or without? The key is rather whether it is absolute.

S: What you are talking about is essentially, or say unwittingly is, that Existence is absolutely dualistic in nature, and from that point of view, I cannot help but agree.

L: I suppose that good and evil are dualistic concepts, so I suppose that I am saying "unwittingly" that Existence is in at least some sense dualistic, but I don't think that it necessarily is in all senses.

S: Forget about ‘good and evil’, think in terms of positive and negative charges, or consider if consciousness could be without something to be conscious of, or vise versa?

Heh. Consciousness could simply be conscious of itself (come on, don't tell me that you didn't guess that I was going to say that!).

As for "something to be conscious of" being able to exist without consciousness - yes, I believe that that's possible - life hasn't been around forever to the best of our scientific knowledge and therefore (yes, I know that you have a different understanding of consciousness - I'm going with a definition that distinguishes inanimate objects as unconscious) neither has consciousness, yet things existed in the absence of consciousness.

S: I hope this post didn't make it any less interesting. :D

L: No, although I think that we're starting to repeat ourselves to one another. At some point you're going to get sick of me and say "Damn it Laird, when are you going to see things like I do??" :-P

S: I don’t think it will ever come to that. I might not agree with certain notions, but I do respect individuality, so it never upsets me if you or anyone else does not agree with me. You don’t have to necessarily see things as I do, for the simple reason that you are not me (not my experiences), and I am not you; each one of us is as unique as every grain of sand, yet we, and all that there is, is no different in essence at its core.

Cheers to that. So long as we agree on important matters, such as what constitutes ethical behaviour, then I'm happy - this philosophising is just for fun.

[Sapius]

Laird;

In the same way, A did not depend on the existing contrasts with B and C either. A does not rely on contrasts for its existence, but contrasts aid our conceptual understanding of A, and that's as far as I go with you with the contrast business.

I agree, but just as contrasts aid our understanding of A, so does the contrast of a colored A (insert absolutely anything here), written on a different colored background (insert absolutely any other contrasting thing here), lets us visualize the A to begin with; the understanding through definitions and naming comes later.

My dear man, I have presented an argument to you already, you have simply forgotten it. Recall our dialogue in the thread "The effect of thoughts and needs on reality" where I hypothesised about a universe that consisted purely of awareness - in which case perceiver and perceived would be one and the same.

Well, my mistake, but then I must have given my argument against it too, (most of the time I don’t remember what I ate last night, but I do know that I always give reasonable explanations then and there, irrelevant of how many times I repeat myself, because the essence of my entire philosophy is quite consistent in my mind. I actually live in the NOW, so I don’t generally remember what was said in which thread), so would it be fair for me to say… I don’t agree? ;)

Oh boy, crunch time. Do I really have to lay my beliefs on the line? I live in at least two different worlds, Sapius, such that it's hard to know exactly what I believe about reality a lot of the time. I'm going to have to pass on this one I think.

Hey! Everyone lives in more that one “world”, it depends on the immediate environmental situations one faces. But fair enough; I don’t want to push it any further.

Yes, heaven or hell. In either case, the defeated team would be imprisoned in some way, the difference is…

I think we have had enough of LSGs for now… lets concentrate on to other avenues.

On a slight diversion, I've just noticed in A A Attanasio's Wikipedia entry that he's written an essay with the coolest title that I've seen in a long time: "In Responsibilities Begin Dreams". Is that an awesome title for an essay or what, huh? I'm so intrigued to know what he writes about in that essay now but I can't find it online.

Nice Title; what do you make from the title itself? I think ‘in responsibilities lie the realization of dreams’? I mean, if I’m not that serious about responsibilities, I could never strive hard enough to realize any dream. On the other hand, an irresponsible person would hardly have enough vision or foresight to dream something significant, or realize them in actuality.

Hmm, I'm not sure that you're making a meaningful distinction. How different is it to say that we "key into (external) absolute conceptions" versus we "realise our (pre-existing) nature that lies within"? Does it really matter whether it's within or without? The key is rather whether it is absolute.

It does to me. It signifies the necessary dualistic nature of existence; there has to necessarily be a within AND a without, with a dividing boundary between them, which is what makes existence possible. It does not matter if I call or value even this understanding as “absolute” or not, for it remains irrelevant of my though processes.

Heh. Consciousness could simply be conscious of itself (come on, don't tell me that you didn't guess that I was going to say that!).

Hehehee… I did… but what the hell… it’s worth a try.

As for "something to be conscious of" being able to exist without consciousness - yes, I believe that that's possible - life hasn't been around forever to the best of our scientific knowledge and therefore (yes, I know that you have a different understanding of consciousness - I'm going with a definition that distinguishes inanimate objects as unconscious) neither has consciousness, yet things existed in the absence of consciousness.

Fair enough.

- this philosophising is just for fun.

May be, but it depends on the subject matter, otherwise it cannot be taken that lightly, because it could lead to serious consequences, like irrational and irresponsible behavior. BTW, every prince or a popper has his own “philosophy”, and each takes his views and values very seriously, and values held have much to do with behavior.

[Laird]

so would it be fair for me to say… I don’t agree [that a universe in which perceiver was the same as perceived was possible]? ;)

Yes, that would be more than fair.

Laird: On a slight diversion, I've just noticed in A A Attanasio's Wikipedia entry that he's written an essay with the coolest title that I've seen in a long time: "In Responsibilities Begin Dreams". Is that an awesome title for an essay or what, huh? I'm so intrigued to know what he writes about in that essay now but I can't find it online.

Sapius: Nice Title; what do you make from the title itself? I think ‘in responsibilities lie the realization of dreams’? I mean, if I’m not that serious about responsibilities, I could never strive hard enough to realize any dream. On the other hand, an irresponsible person would hardly have enough vision or foresight to dream something significant, or realize them in actuality.

Yeah, I get something like that out of it too. When you're responsible for something you think a lot about it and start to dream about ways of better carrying out your responsibility.

Laird: - this philosophising is just for fun.

Sapius: May be, but it depends on the subject matter, otherwise it cannot be taken that lightly, because it could lead to serious consequences, like irrational and irresponsible behavior. BTW, every prince or a popper has his own “philosophy”, and each takes his views and values very seriously, and values held have much to do with behavior.

Yes, point taken. There are parts of philosophy - such as one's life philosophy - that are of profound importance, bearing as they do on how one lives one's life.

[protilius]

Ok... To the poster:

If we're going to tackle something as big as proving god exists, we need to structure our words a little better.

Try to keep everything in proper context, make sure your not just finding every big word in the dictionary to make the most pointlessly elaborate sentance possible. (<-like this one here)

Genius is not defined by a persons vocabulary, although, it could be defined by they're ability to use it...

Oh, and I know this one is tough sometimes, but try to resist the urges to perform a Kansas City Shuffle. When people figure out half of your argument doesn't float well, the point you were attempting to make is usually lost in that "little misunderstanding of word play"

Entertaining read though.



To the forum:

It was enlightening to watch a lot of you illuminate the original post a bit more. I was lost there for a few minutes.

But...

No one has proven anything here.

More importantly, people keep trying to define god, and in the process alienate themselves from one another by doing so.

Just an observation.

[Gurrb]

chris langan claims he can prove god exists through mathematics. we can 'prove' anything exists with something as arbitrary as mathematics.

god exists as an idea. in that regard, god exists.
i do not believe in god, therefore he does not exist. (in my realm)
he simply exists as a name and idea put forth by others in my world. did my mind create all this? is god an idea of my mind put forth by others, but only within my mind.

[jufa]

Logic 0=0 From: servant_wayne (Original Message)

Posted: 08/27/05 11:57:15

When considering the scenarios that try to explain the creation, there are two choices: The creation is due to an intelligent designer, a Creator; or that matter itself is the eternal. Although neither scenario can be proven, only one of these two seemingly impossible scenarios is possible. Even though the Biblical account of the creation is but primitive mumbo-jumbo, it is equally naive to think that lifeless matter created its self.

I do not argue that one has to believe that God is, but that its illogical to believe that God is not. A belief in God does not require the rejection of evolution as a means to explain what has occurred after the so-called "Big Bang". To claim evolution was not the engine driving creation after the "Big Bang" is as thoughtless as claiming that creation is simply the results of random actions of inanimate matter. For if the creation had been solely dependent upon inanimate matter, there would be no universe but a void, 0 = 0.


Proof of God


We, the created, are the proof of God. Logic demands that the source of creation had to be a living, intelligent, eternal. No substance of matter, whether it is hydrogen or helium, seen or unseen, can meet the absolute demand of being a living, intelligent, eternal. No matter how infinitesimal a particle of matter may be, it is nonetheless lifeless. What is lifeless has no will and thus it could not have created its own self in a void. In order for lifeless matter to have materialized in the void, it had to be subject to the will of a living source. Without the will of a living a source to create lifeless matter, there would be no universe, but a void, 0 = 0

The evidence that the source of creation is intelligent is seen in the design of the creation; in the laws and reason that govern the universe. Had law and reason not proceeded inanimate matter, the universe would not be comprehensible, but incomprehensible chaos.

Knowing that the inanimate could not have created themselves and that the universe is governed by laws and reason testifies that another dimension exists; one that is superior to the created and is best described as a Spiritual realm, whose is intelligent designer is God.
====================================================================

jufa states: .I agree with all that you have presented, with one exception, it does not proved the existence of God. What you have presented is an intelligent. But all creatures have intelligent in one form or other, and although some may deem some form of matter as unintelligent because of inanimation, the underlining reality is that with a Creator being responsible for all forms existence, then one must conclude all form are an emanation of the Creator. What you have established is Consciousness' essence and substance. This means you have established the reality of yourself, but not God.

To prove God, you must prove your emanation from God, and to do this would make you void, for you as you have come to be, only have knowledge of that which is material, and therefore your interpretation is based in material knowledge which is limited to birth, and living the interval between birth opposite death, which nullifies your reality of being in the physical which you now operate and intellectualize from.

God cannot be proved. God must be lived. In living God one demonstrates the reality of God, but not God. for God is inclusive of every one and every thing, and so one must demonstrate every one and every thing to prove God. But when one reaches this point of Being, they no longer can retain the physical; they ascend into the invisiblity of the Silence.

jufa