Proof god doesn't exist

[Swedishguy]

How do you know I'm real? I could be a figment of your imagination or a virus or a bot.

Funny, I seem to have the same figment of imagination as Gainy. And the same virus too. How weird.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Theoretically, even though the existence of God might not be falsifiable, aspects of His nature might be. As in, He could appear and tell us whether He has certain traits.

 

[Masquerouge]

Theoretically, even though the existence of God might not be falsifiable, aspects of His nature might be. As in, He could appear and tell us whether He has certain traits.

$20 on the goatee.

 

[Swedishguy]

Theoretically, even though the existence of God might not be falsifiable, aspects of His nature might be. As in, He could appear and tell us whether He has certain traits.

Yes, he's in this body right now! Eran, send 20 000$ to Ensemble Studios and send 5 goats to I.E.S.K! You don't believe me? Sure, it sounds kinda crazy...

 

[warpus]

Theoretically, even though the existence of God might not be falsifiable, aspects of His nature might be. As in, He could appear and tell us whether He has certain traits.

He could be lying.

This would have to be testable.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, we could probably figure out whether some of them are right or not. And again, the nonexistence of God is theoretically falsifiable, although I am not sure we have a test to determine whether a particular being qualifies as a god or not.

 

[beingofone]

Quarky,

You did not offend me sir, I enjoyed talking to you as well.

I will pray a Christian blessing for you, hope that doesn`t offend.



FredLC:

Beingofone, I don’t think it’s convenience at all (though I don’t deny how astonishing it is that conscientiousness exists).

You seem to take your own seiously, yes?

Why do you value your life?

Philosophical constrictions aside, our humane experiences is: human beings exists; human beings have conscience. Yes, “all I know is I don’t know”, “I think therefore I am”, yata, yata, yata – as I said, philosophical constrictions aside, these two postulates are the axiomatic starting point.

This is where we begin.

Could you tell me your first conscious experience?

Could you tell me anyone in the history of mankind that witnessed the beginnig of consciousness?

Hence, there being humans, these being conscientious, some relation between the entities and the conscientiousness ought to exist, yes? And which is that?

Well, no one is sure

This is flawed - how can you separate yourself from your experience? Give me one example of something you experience and at the same time do not experience same event.

I am sure, I am my experience.

but to apply the same things Greeks did in my reply above – to extrapolate dynamics that resemble what is known – as in, too simple brains in humanities cradle, simplistic (or no conscience at all) existed; as brain got bigger and more complex, the capacities to analyze and digress grew, and the result today is what we call conscience – is a perfectly valid axiomatic point for a scientific idea.

True but incomplete.

If the mystery of life is not unveiled, it leads to angst, guilt, and dissatisfaction with existence itself.

It is why the world is insane and has wholesale suicidal tendancies.

Our world is, after all, a world of ordinary things, even if some of these ordinary things are astounding.

You just said:
"I don’t deny how astonishing it is that conscientiousness exists"

Which is it?

Who makes the determination of the worlds ordinary or astounding value? What is it that perceives these "ordinary things"?

There are two ways to live ones life.
1) Nothing is a miracle
2) Everything is a miracle

This is a perfect application of the principle of parsimony or, as it is better known in the forums, Ockham/Occan/Ocan’s razor.

Fair enough.

What is reality?
What was your first moment of awareness?
Do you remember a time you were not?

If you are going to be honest; these are the fundamental questions of existence that demand answers. Use Occams Razor and you will see me sitting here (grinning) waiting for you.

We do not resolve the puzzle by retreating from the tough questions, they must be answered or we are creatures of blind faith trapped in what we do not know or understand.

I know - do you?

There can, in theory, be an extraordinary factor leading the forming of our consciousness (or making the entire universe, as it seems to be your point of contemption)… and that factor may even be God.

It is a legitimate theory - thank you for your forthrite comment.

Mutual respect

However, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, that you guys fail completely to provide. All you can offer is a jump of faith – “how this have happened is not known/not explained, hence it ought to be God” – making it, again, nothing but the God of Gaps, to keep with the more commonplace soubriquet.

I would say; this is true of 99.99% of religious dogma.

I am however, another kettle of fish - I do have the answer to any question you could ask.

Two things are required:
1) ruthless honesty
2) abject humility

If one can forgo their pride and take Truth to be the ONLY prize worthwhile of attaining, they will find.

It is a conclusion of absolute logic. Most (including religious types) are not ethical enough for pure logic. Logic or the love of Truth must be the fundamental or we will stop short of the answer and settle for one that props up misdirection and presto! Momentary 'goody felings' - including religion.

Therefore, rather than “not invisible like an stupid god” (do I smell playing victim here? I haven’t been patronizing you to deserve these bits and pieces of Irony have I?),

Yes you did, you had a drive by posting that smacked of smugness.

My reply was written in satire.

the factor of conscience is ordinary (though complex)

This makes absolutely no sense.

If your consciousness is ordinary, could you show me your 'other' consciousness? Do you have more than one?

blind and deprived of volition

This makes no sense.

Who is posting if not you? Are you blind and deprived of decisions?

and unparalleled with any for of humane volition

There is no parallel of your consciousness.

What do you experience outside of your consciousness?

“It” does not think, and “it” is nothing except an event, deserving of “praise” no more than gravitation or attrition.

Who is thinking about "IT"?

Who determined IT is an event?

Who or what is thinking about gravity and collision?

I don’t know why you, fans of the most esoterically oriented perceptions of reality and humanity’s relation with it (in contradiction with more materialistic debaters such as your’s truly) have this, so common, drive to dismiss the basic dissentions of ours overviews

Because they make no sense.

Could you tell me how your conscious experience is spatial? Can you give me the measurement of your awareness?

If you can answer these two questions(or will you avoid them like everyone else does) I will convert on the spot; but the answers must be cogent and logical.

suggest that deep down our disagreement is superficial, and in the end, we are all beings of faith. I honestly cannot agree that this is the case at all – our dissention is very profound and reaches the most basic tenets of reality's workings.

I agree that we disagree in a very profound way.

I disagree with most of religious dogma to.

Neither of you make a lick of sense and yet; when one comes along with the answer, everybody wants to show off how much they know.

As the Buddha said, the biggest blockage of enlightenment and Truth is the illusion of already having the answer.

I won’t say you have to agree with me, for obviously you don’t, but really, can’t you please at least acknowledge that much?

Here is what I see and hear:
"I do not have the answer to reality. I have never met anyone with the answer and therefore; there is no answer."

The Truth balances on the razors edge and yet; is so simple, children understand before the answer is stole from them.


warpus:

You mean, it is up to you decide to believe that he exists. That doesn't make it true though

There is only one who can derive what is Truth - that would be you.

beingofone
Go through the deductive steps, I do not have time to keep spelling everything out.

1) If God is true, creation emmanates from/within him.

2) What is the highest reasoning life form?

3) In what way would God participate?

As you can see - its not arbitrairy at all.

Warpus:
Your 1) is already a huge assumption that rests on nothing but pure speculation. Or are you saying that you have proof that shows that this is true?

Then why in the world did you reply at all to a God only question?

Of course the assumption was about God - what are you talking about Warpus? If you are incapable of following a conversation, this is my final reply to you.

Here is the flow and context:

beingofone:
God`s greatest desire is to be you.

Warpus:
This is what I mean by arbitrary sorting. This statement comes to us out of thin air

Then you reply with jibber jabber about God is a big assumption? My original post was to Quarky and not you.

The whole context was God - keep up or don`t bother.

beingofone
We only 'know' it processes thought. Does your computer have the source of electricity within its hardrive?

It processes and is responsible for thought.

Could you provide a link?

[qoute]I don't understand your analogy. The computer does not do any processing with the harddrive.. the CPU and GPU are responsible for all the processing. The power supply is where the electricity comes from. Are you suggesting that the electric currents in our brains come from the supernatural?[/quote]

I know you don`t understand - that is because you aren`t trying to and so; this is just a waste of space.

beingofone
Why do you ask? You just ignored everything I said about consciousness previously.


No I didn't. You can't explain why consciousness and God are somehow linked in a paragraph or less? I don't have time to read that huge post, I am at work.

This is a waste of time.

CYA

 

[warpus]

Well, we could probably figure out whether some of them are right or not. And again, the nonexistence of God is theoretically falsifiable, although I am not sure we have a test to determine whether a particular being qualifies as a god or not.

Yeah, a sufficiently advanced alien species could potentially just teleport us to some sort of a holodeck and then perform a variety of 'miracles' that all of our instruments would confirm as miracles...

But really, if we ever encounter a species that advanced, we better think of them as Gods. We better worship them and hope that they don't destroy everything we've ever built.

Could you tell me anyone in the history of mankind that witnessed the beginnig of consciousness?

I've already explained to you that this is a gradual process and that consciousness isn't something that just gets 'switched on' at some point. It's not discrete, it's continuous. If you don't know any calculus of physics this concept might not make sense to you, but that's what happens.

Then you reply with jibber jabber about God is a big assumption? My original post was to Quarky and not you.

The whole context was God - keep up or don`t bother.

I was just trying to show you what I mean with my whole 'arbitrary' business... so I took something you said, "God's greatest desire is to be you"... which is an excellent example of this.

Take the top 100 religious leaders from all over the world and see what they have to say about this. How many would agree with you? How many would have totally different answers? How many would claim that the truth is 'obvious if you just want to see it' ?

You are all making guesses about what God wants, if anything. They're not even educated guesses. They're just arbitrary guesses.

Could you provide a link?

Sure

The structure of the human brain differs from that of other animals in several important ways. These differences allow for many abilities over and above those of other animals, such as advanced cognitive skills. Human encephalization is especially pronounced in the neocortex, the most complex part of the cerebral cortex. The proportion of the human brain that is devoted to the neocortex—especially to the prefrontal cortex—is larger than in all other animals.

Humans have unique neural capacities, but much of their brain structure is similar to that of other mammals. Basic systems that alert the nervous system to stimulus, that sense events in the environment, and monitor the condition of the body are similar to those of even non-mammalian vertebrates. The neural circuitry underlying human consciousness includes both the advanced neocortex and prototypical structures of the brainstem. The human brain also has a massive number of synaptic connections allowing for a great deal of parallel processing.

I know you don`t understand - that is because you aren`t trying to and so; this is just a waste of space.

I am trying. You are probably getting frustrated because you can't convince me.. but we're not here to convince eachother, are we? Obviously our points of view are incompatible.. but those are the best points of view.. totally opposite points of view It's good to see them from time to time, to get a new perspective on things.

It's what every good scientist should do - look at aproblem from various angles... even seemingly ridiculous ones.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, a sufficiently advanced alien species could potentially just teleport us to some sort of a holodeck and then perform a variety of 'miracles' that all of our instruments would confirm as miracles... But really, if we ever encounter a species that advanced, we better think of them as Gods. We better worship them and hope that they don't destroy everything we've ever built.

And maybe they would then qualify to be gods. Not in the Abrahamic understanding of God, perhaps, but they would be gods in another sense. For example, in the science fiction webcomic Schlock Mercenary, an advanced AI has essentially become God, or at least a god. Not only is he powerful beyond the ability of mortals to even create, he acts as a god. If he really wanted he could rule the galaxy and possibly make everyone, if not immortal, than live for a very long time. Is he a god?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

If god exists, his existence isn't a god of the gaps. It has to ba a theory that includes all of existence in the explanation. God of the gaps explainers will fail. Like newtonian physics, some explanations of the existance of god will cover some of reality and break down after some point. I see this in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. It can explain some things up to a point then fails after widening the scope of the explanation. Being raised Catholic, I have seen Christianity come the closest to explaining what I experience, but still it wasn't enough. It's probably why I see this argument as a choice between a Christian god or nothing.

Science is the most rigorous system for parsing out what is happening in real life but hasn't reached the point of being able to decide if the existence of god is true or false. In all wordplay and reason I see, there is too much QED and assuming the conclusion in every argument I have seen.

You want god not to exist? Assume he does, then add enough impossible assumptions to disprove the original assumption. Or assume he does not. Every logical argument is able to prove the initial assumptions of said argument, QED.

You want god to exist? Assume he does not, then point out the near impossibility of our existence under this system you set up. Or assume he does, and the logical argument becomes a given. It can't even be called a proof because the initial assumptions aren't proven but assumed.

I am still waiting for proof either way. This is why I am an agnostic or apostate (or heretic).

For the existance of a creator:
The universe was created. I am convinced from the concept that CBE matches very closely the radiation signature we should see if the universe was an expanding space and that everything in the (observable) universe occupied nearly the same point in space somewhere in the past at a defined point in time (13-15B years ago in our reference frame IIRC).

Was it god? That is still a leap of faith for me. Was the universe created? Signs most overwhelmingly point to yes. What mechanism made it happen? Who knows? If you believe in god, you say God. If you don't believe, you can argue that it the mechanism didn't necessarily have to be sentient as in god.

Conciousness, perception, the physical world. Whatever argument is made has to be able to include these in the explanation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You can't explain why consciousness and God are somehow linked in a paragraph or less?

God is consciousness and it is infinite and eternal. Creation (the physical universe) is that consciousness with constraints that give the appearance of individuality and separateness. The individual consciousness we all experience is in Reality god-consciousness, but physical form keeps us from experiencing it directly. When consciousness is freed from all the constraints of the universe, it experiences itself as what it has been all along, god.

Is the connection clear now?

 

[King Flevance]

God is consciousness and it is infinite and eternal. Creation (the physical universe) is that consciousness with constraints that give the appearance of individuality and separateness. The individual consciousness we all experience is in Reality god-consciousness, but physical form keeps us from experiencing it directly. When consciousness is freed from all the constraints of the universe, it experiences itself as what it has been all along, god.

Is the connection clear now?

Hey look, God is the beginning and end of that paragraph.

 

[beingofone]

warpus,

You still skip over the points being made and questions you get asked because you are evading and playing word chess.

Look close - I can answer every single honest question you ask me, I do not have to pick and choose - use verbal gymnastics and pretend I am actually responding.

Communication - true heart felt - is from sincerity in honesty. Not the game of 'I gotta win' and word/meaning mangling.

beingofone
Could you tell me anyone in the history of mankind that witnessed the beginnig of consciousness?


I've already explained to you that this is a gradual process and that consciousness isn't something that just gets 'switched on' at some point. It's not discrete, it's continuous. If you don't know any calculus of physics this concept might not make sense to you, but that's what happens.

If consciousness is a 'process' - follow that trail of logic to its conclusion. You stopped short of the answer. It is the very reason you evade and avoid the most critical questions I ask - you are not being honest and you know it.

It is obvious because you simply ignore all the questions that I ask that lead to real answers.

The reason NO ONE, has ever - under any circumstances - seen the entry of consciousness is because it does not have one. Logical necessity if consciousness is a process - do the math.

It is a process, hello?

I was just trying to show you what I mean with my whole 'arbitrary' business... so I took something you said, "God's greatest desire is to be you"... which is an excellent example of this.

Its an example of you trying to confuse the issue instead of communicating.

You said the assumption was based in God - yup - what is confusing you again? I don`t see what is arbitrairy, could you actually point it out this time?

Last chance or I am not interested; if you just keep clouding meaning instead of communicating. Go play with someone who wants to.

Take the top 100 religious leaders from all over the world and see what they have to say about this. How many would agree with you? How many would have totally different answers? How many would claim that the truth is 'obvious if you just want to see it' ?

No - that is not what you said and what is more is - you know it.

You said what was arbitrairy is the premise of God himself.

More games.

You are all making guesses about what God wants, if anything. They're not even educated guesses. They're just arbitrary guesses.

What is arbitrairy is you not following a train of thought, context of conversation, or intellectual honesty.

You are just throwing mud in the water - you think this is clever?

I will talk to you if you actually respond to what I have already said and the questions I posed.

Conversation is quid pro quo, it is not a one way street. Answer my questions, respond to what I say, or I am completely done talking to you.

The neural circuitry underlying human consciousness includes both the advanced neocortex and prototypical structures of the brainstem.

That is arbitrairy - this is a good definition of that word. You have a premise but lack deduction.

You are saying(as is the author) electrical energy transference is conducted through the neural circuitry and is underlying human consciousness. You then make the assumption that energy makes a "conscious" decision to become "consciousness". The energy is conscious enough to decide to become aware?

Not one supported reason or analysis of the conclusion the brain is clearly the source of consciousness. Just simply an interjection of opinion.

The author interjects a supposition.

Answer this question: how does energy(chemical/electrical) decide to be conscious?

I noticed you skipped right over this part of the article:

The brain is defined as the physical and biological matter contained within the skull, responsible for all electrochemical neuronal processes. The mind, however, is seen in terms of mental attributes, such as beliefs or desires. Some believe that the mind exists in some way independently of the brain, such as in a soul or epiphenomenon. Others, such as strong AI theorists, say that the mind is directly analogous to computer software and the brain to hardware.

And this:

Neurons are the cells that generate action potentials and convey information to other cells; these constitute the essential class of brain cells.
And this part:

Do cells have consciousness, are they alive? So the underlying cause of consciousness is life? Who makes the "decision" to become aware?

And this:

It is hypothesized that developed brains derive consciousness from the complex interactions between the numerous systems within the brain.

Its all theory

beingofone
I know you don`t understand - that is because you aren`t trying to and so; this is just a waste of space.

Warpus:
I am trying. You are probably getting frustrated because you can't convince me

I am growing tired of you obfuscating - really quick, you will see.

but we're not here to convince eachother, are we? Obviously our points of view are incompatible.. but those are the best points of view.. totally opposite points of view It's good to see them from time to time, to get a new perspective on things.

I have never minded another perspective, it is healthy to examine. The problem is you don`t have a point, you keep clouding and twisting what you say and then what I say over and over again. You skip over my questions like I never asked you one; then refuse to even attempt to understand what I am saying.

You just want to win an arguement and avoid rather than learn - all so you can win the debate.

It's what every good scientist should do - look at aproblem from various angles... even seemingly ridiculous ones.

That is healthy but only - and only if - we remain in honesty of what is self evident. If I am right about something you have yet to demonstrate the common courtesy of agreeing. That is pointless because the discussion does not uncover the truth but who is the best at hiding it.

If the point of discussion is to argue - good day sir.

 

[punkbass2000]

Like newtonian physics, some explanations of the existance of god will cover some of reality and break down after some point. I see this in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.

Out of curiousity, could you explain how you see this in Buddhism?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Like newtonian physics, some explanations of the existance of god will cover some of reality and break down after some point. I see this in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc...

Out of curiousity, could you explain how you see this in Buddhism?

-A Buddhist who has attained Nirvana has escaped the world of cause-and-effect (they are free from the cycle of birth and rebirth). (pulled from wikipedia)

First problem for me. Any explanation of the universe, religious or otherwise, has to explain and include things that are perceptually real... like cause and effect. "What you see is an illusion" is not an answer. This tells me that Buddhism is a partial explanation that can't account for everything, like all other religions. This is what pushed me into agnostic apostasy from my Catholic upbringing. It's also what keeps me from following any faith other than the one I was raised in.

In order to believe, I am expected to have faith in something that I see can't be true. I see it in every religion I have looked at. Back to the physics example I used, Newtonian physics works extremely well under certain assumptions of the universe (continuum mechanics) but doesn't explain electromagnetism, anything quantized (since the core assumption is that of a continuum space), and other things that very obviously exist within more complete theories of physics.


FYI, more background of the Buddhism pulled from wikipedia, reformatted for space...>>>

The 4 truths:
1. Suffering
2. Desire causes suffering -"The cause of suffering is craving or selfish desire."
3. end of desire = end of suffering -The goal of life is the end of suffering. Nirvana
4. The way = the 8-fold path

-Define suffering: Birth, aging, death, not getting what one wants, separation with what is pleasing, union with what is displeasing.
-The 8-fold path:
1.Right viewpoint = realize the 4 truths
2.Right values = commitment to moderate growth
3.Right speech = non-hurtful, non-exaggerated, truthful way
4.Right actions = do no harm
5.Right livelihood = do nothing for a living that harms
6.Right effort = try to improve in the direction of the goal.
7.Right mindfulness = clear conciousness
8.Right meditation = to eliminate ego
<<<(pulled from wikipedia)

I don't really buy the precepts, assumptions or the solutions of this faith. As such, I will never be Buddhist. I don't buy reincarnation, one problem/one path, or the destruction of desire as the ideal goal of all life.

You are sick and in pain. You are suffering because of the craven selfish desire of a microbe to reproduce within your body. C'mon, just take an antibiotic. Sure, it hurts the microbes. You have a choice to make. You desire to end your suffering, take action to interfere with the ability of the microbe to reproduce.

I guess I'm just too practical. Life is generally pleasant to start with. Pain comes and goes. Pleasure comes and goes. The closer you get to death, pain generally gets worse and more common but many of the effects of aging can be mitigated much better now than even a generation before.

There are things you can do that make life more pleasant. There are actions with long term positive consequences and short term pain, and actions with the exact opposite effect. You can decide that you want to have a long term gain over a short term gain, because you see in some of your relatives the enduring pain they lived through choosing the other path. Good and evil exist in every soul. It's your choice. Buddhism is one way to deal. There is more than one way.

 

[punkbass2000]

I think our understandings of Buddhism differ.

 

[Swedishguy]

I think our understandings of Buddhism differ.

Buddha doesn't differ from Jesus, I tell you that.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Buddha doesn't differ from Jesus, I tell you that.

Strange you say that. When I heard a version of the trials of Buddha on a spiritual CD that my yoga instructor used to play during Yoga class, the hunger and pain and stuff that brought him into a hyperaware state, it sounded almost exactly what Jesus went through during his awakening and discovery of his path. I actually confused the story as Jesus' trials of faith until about halfway through, when the story diverged and started using Hindi terminology.

I think our understandings of Buddhism differ.

I hope I didn't insult anyone who follows that faith. I just explained what I think, the way I see the religion in the most honest way I could. I did research it for a bit and found it as I described above. I looked into it pretty deeply these past five years I have been going to Yoga class.

About the good and evil thing, I admit I still have a pretty deep Catholic worldview regardless of my beliefs. I held it most of my youth and the worldview is probably permanently ingrained, but I won't pretend that I'm not firmly agnostic about it right now. That's a different thread entirely.

I still enjoy Yoga as an activity. It's an excellent core and flexibility exercise, and it's real peaceful. You always feel real good during and after the session.

 

[Sidhe]

Out of curiousity, could you explain how you see this in Buddhism?

There has been some serious talk about the similarities between quantum mechanics and some areas of budhist thought. Philosophically speaking they are quite simillar. Not that I want to say this is some mystical coincidence. It seems reasonable to assume that if you think about the realities you observe enough, you may well come to some of the same conclusions independantly, It's still interesting to note the simillarities though.

http://home.btconnect.com/scimah/Quantumphenomena.htm

Quantum sunyata
Basically, what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no inherent existence from their own side and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Whenever and wherever there is no mind there is no meaning and no reality. This is a similar conclusion to the Mahayana Buddhist teachings on sunyata.

The ultimate manifestation of quantum sunyata is when quantum theory is applied to the entire universe. According to some cosmologists, the universe began as a quantum fluctuation in the limitless Void (Hartle-Hawking hypothesis). The universe remained as a huge quantum superposition of all possible states until the first primordial mind observed it, causing it to collapse into one actuality. This fascinating theory is discussed in The Participatory Anthropic Principle.

- Sean Robsville

By the way I'm not condoning any particular belief or theory as being correct, but the meeting of minds in philosophy and science could be more than just coincidence? If nothing else it's kinda interesting

 

[punkbass2000]

Buddha doesn't differ from Jesus, I tell you that.

And you don't differ from me.