Existence of God

[Baron Lokimus]

well youy see this is a very philisofical question and it is impossible to answer at the pressent time we are in. Many peaople try to think of god a a person which isnt right as he can not be in human form as a human has eyes and ears to hear and see only in one place at a time and if lots of people are praying at once he couldnt be in all those places at the same time to hear and see them all. i guess he is some kind of like power in the universe which controls all matter.

[Portuguese Rebel]

The converse of this is that nothing in the physical Universe can exist if there is no intelligence to observe it.

This is stretching a little bit ain't it? What makes you reach the conclusion that existance is dependant on the existance of an observer. By the same logic i could presume that every single piece of reality wich i did not observe is non-existant (and everybody else could presume the same). So, i can go as far as saying that morble only exists as a cybernetic entity that uses overtly complicated designations and formulations to keep me occupied during the christmas holidays. Morble ain't a real person and has no real life because i did not observed it.

I think we can say that our "perception" of reality is ours alone but for what you said i kinda got the impression that you are almost sayind that no independant phenomena occur without observer present. This is a very old philosophical debate .

But i'll take this all in mind next time one of my kids say that there was no homework because they did not hear me say it. It's the same logic, if they were not standing observer it never happened

[Trax]

This is stretching a little bit ain't it? What makes you reach the conclusion that existance is dependant on the existance of an observer. By the same logic i could presume that every single piece of reality wich i did not observe is non-existant (and everybody else could presume the same). So, i can go as far as saying that morble only exists as a cybernetic entity that uses overtly complicated designations and formulations to keep me occupied during the christmas holidays. Morble ain't a real person and has no real life because i did not observed it.

It seems that according to Morble`s theory solipsism is the great truth.

[morble]

tbp,

just one question, and a summary. does all the stuff you've written prove the existance of god, prove that god could exist, or prove that god can't exist, or say that god may or may not exist, and its up to everyone to work it out for themselves?

I don’t think it’s a real proof yet, but I sense the destination. I feel like a bloodhound on the trail.

The basic thrust is that reality (the Universe) cannot exist without a vastly greater intelligent system than can be mustered by humans. At this point, I don’t know if it is pantheistic, or monotheistic, or both. It could be that everything, down to the tiniest sub-atomic particle has a form of awareness/consciousness/intelligence. Or, it might be that there is a single overarching intelligence, that our current major religions more traditionally call God. It might be that these are one and the same, because there is no apparent requirement that intelligence be strictly organized on a human scale or design—or even organized to be comprehensible to a human mind. However, it’s starting to look pretty clear to me that physical reality cannot exist without extra-human intelligence (and I’m talking much larger than alien races or such). What it looks like (and I’m still thrashing it out, with help from the members here) is that God must exist, and can’t be dead, for physical reality to exist.

Baron,

this is a very philisofical question and it is impossible to answer at the pressent time we are in.

It hasn’t been answerable at least up until now. However, these parts of quantum mechanics, which have been proven over and over for the last 80 years or so, may actually provide a means proving the existence of God. The irony is that these principles have been sitting around 80 years waiting for someone to look at them in this way. As far as I know, the tack I’m taking through QM has not been explored before.

PR,

The converse of this is that nothing in the physical Universe can exist if there is no intelligence to observe it.

This is stretching a little bit ain't it? What makes you reach the conclusion that existance is dependant on the existance of an observer. By the same logic i could presume that every single piece of reality wich i did not observe is non-existant (and everybody else could presume the same). So, i can go as far as saying that morble only exists as a cybernetic entity that uses overtly complicated designations and formulations to keep me occupied during the christmas holidays. Morble ain't a real person and has no real life because i did not observed it.

OWW, that last part about “no real life” hit too close to home!

I can see I did a poor job of explaining consensual reality. Finding such holes was why I asked you guys to comment, so thanks!

To start with, forget about the idea of an “objective” physical universe. You have no evidence of that, and never will—because you are limited to by your modes of perception to a subjective universe. There may be an “objective” universe, just as there may exist absolute Truth, but as a human being, you lack the ability to demonstrate or experience either. So, you are limited by your powers of observation to a subjective, personal universe. Also, any physical object that exists within your subjective universe must first be observed by you—otherwise it cannot be included within the set of objects in your known universe.

From a subjective point of view, the “objective” universe is moot. In fact, the “objective” universe, if any indeed exists, is superfluous and is not used in your operations in reality. (An analogy may be drawn here between “objective” reality and the aether, previously thought to be required as a medium for the propagation of light. It turns out, light is perfectly capable of propagating in vacuum, and you are perfectly capable of operating in reality without an “objective” existence. In fact, you have no means of contacting, observing, or interacting with any such “objective” reality.)

Each of our physical subjective universes (or realities, if you wish) actually contain many fewer physical objects than we tend to assume. This is because an object is an object in your personal universe only if you personally observe it.

Conspiracy theorists make use of this dissonance all the time. Take, for example, the 1969 moon landing. The only way you could have directly experienced this event was to have been on the moon yourself. You weren’t there, however, and only observed the comments or information provided by media broadcasts, newspapers, friends and neighbors, etc. It’s an important distinction: you observed the commentaries, not the event itself. The commentaries become themselves part of your subjective reality; the moon landing itself never does. When the commentaries corroborate one another, you will naturally tend to conclude, or perhaps “infer” is the better word, that the moon landing actually happened.

There are some people who, whether because of their intense disbelief in the possibility of a moon landing, or because they disbelieve any corroborated data they observe, do not believe the moon landing happened. They are correct in claiming that the moon landing is not a physically observable object in their reality. However, the vast majority of people do believe the corroborations, so these conspiracy theorists are considered by most to be “nuts”. In the broad consensual reality, the moon landing is deemed to occur regardless of the physical facts.

So, to the conspiracy theorists, the moon landing never happened. To everyone else, it did. Which is the proper “objective” reality? Answer: There is none. Within the limits of each observer’s capabilities, it is impossible to observe whether the moon landing occurred or not. (Jack Armstrong might well claim the moon landing is part of his subjective physical reality, but you are unable to observe the “objective” reality of this.)

That the moon landing actually happened is a consensual reality. It happened because we agree it happened, not because we personally observed it. “Yeah, but did it really happen?” some will ask. The answer is there is no really. Really is superfluous to your operating in your physical reality. The best you can do is go to the moon yourself and look for footprints and stuff like that.

Here’s the twist: Because consensual reality agrees that the moon landing happened, this agreed upon “fact” in itself becomes part of the consensus. The agreed-upon statement “man landed on the moon” is an observable part of your subjective reality. But, in observing this “fact”, you have altered your subjective reality by the very act of observation.

Suppose you get to the moon and personally observe footprints. Does this objectively prove your conclusion? In practice, we say yes, it does. But in the strictest sense, it does not. (Besides, a fact is defined as a personal observation corroborated by an outside observer—just personal observation is not enough.) In observing the consensus that men landed on the moon, you have altered your subjective reality. There is no way to “objectively” tell if your eyes are deceiving you now, or if you, in essence, created the footprints within your subjective reality as a result of your previous observations.

I realize that to some this smacks of solipsism. Solipsism, however, assumes that there is no outside observer anywhere; that if the solipsist does not personally observe an event or object, then it does not exist, neither subjectively nor objectively. It is true that one cannot ultimately escape solipsism by mere observation. Any experienced reality can always be assumed to be an invention of the self.

(I apologize, but I don’t really have a good argument at the moment to carry forward. I am leaning towards the idea that there is something useful in the concept of a triangle, the first elementary form in which there is definitive deviation from Oneness (if you’ll allow the term for the moment). The three sefira above the Veil in the Kabbalah also seem to offer some pitons for argument. I do believe there exists the “Other”, which is a consciousness that is not the solipsist, and that the Other’s existence forms the basis of consensual reality. But I just don’t have a cohesive argument for it at this time. I’ll work on it.)

As another example of the limits of subjective reality, take this “morble” character you mentioned. Based solely on your observable data, it is more likely that morble is indeed a cybernetic entity. (Sorry about the “overtly complicated designations and formulations”—but you have to admit that as an entertainment value, I’m cheaper than a movie. ) You infer from the information you have received from various sources that computer programming has not progressed to the point that you could be fooled into believing a cybernetic morble was human. There is some level of corroboration at which your skepticism is overpowered, and you believe morble must be human, or else you would have heard about a program capable of typing these very words in such inimitable fashion. J

You accept the above as a fact, but it is not. You have not observed morble as a human being; you have only observed electrons in the shape of letters on your computer screen. You have drawn a conclusion--made an inference--based on third-hand data (commentary) that only a human could type like morble does, so therefore morble must be human.

This is far from strange or unusual. Human beings use this technique to operate in consensual reality. In fact, if human beings were incapable of making such inferences, they would likely go catatonic very early in life and remain that way.

Consensual reality requires other consciousness(es). It is the consensus, the agreed upon facts, that broaden the personal subjective reality from the few personally observable physical objects into the rich Universe we are currently aware of.

<sigh> I’m unhappy with my arguments here, because not only do I feel I still have not properly explained consensual reality, but I also have not really answered your first point. However, tomorrow morning I’m going on vacation until 12/29, I have to pack, and I’m running out of time. I’ll think about this stuff while I’m gone, and hopefully I’ll have better explanations for you when I get back. In the meantime, please post your objections, arguing points, etc.


Trax,

I’ve got to make a similar wimpy reply to you. I’m pretty sure solipsism is false, but I’m not at a point where I can logically disprove it. Again, I believe it’s the consensus of personal subjective realities that creates the physical reality within which we live. I don’t have a way to reason to that point yet, but I’ll work on it.



Keep those comments coming, folks&#33; Thanks&#33;

[the Black Prince]

now i&#39;m probably going to sound very stupid by saying this, but hey, who cares?

by consensual reality do you mean whats real is only what we consent to be real, i.e. what we agree or believe to be real?

in which case, reality is defined by perception, by belief and by our own experiances. (and also by the depths of our brain; collective knowledge and evolutionary backlash such as sleep paralysis)

hey, that sounded half way intelligent - kool&#33;

but getting back on topic, if what yoursaying is whats real is what we believe to be real, then god exists for those who believe in him, and doesn&#39;t exist for those who don&#39;t,and therefore this entire debate is pointless because whether god exists or not dependsonwhether you believe he exists.

and that line of thought links back toone of my previous posts in which i used the anaology of gods (any gods) needing belief like we need food.and without elief a god has no power, and that without belief a god does not technically exist, and certainly not inthe same sense that gods with believers exist. of course this argument is fundamentally flawed in that if a god cannot exist without believers, how does he get any believers in the first place. this is especially true when you consider thatgods most often attract believer by performing mircale, or the stories of the god performing mircales hundreds of years ago.

its also my personal belief that as so many people believe in the christian god when he clearly does nothing to promote his existance, people have ceased to believe in the god, but come to believe in the hierarchy, and the hierocracy ofthe church,especially the catholic church, and also believe in thestories of the bible, andnot what the stories tell us, ie that there is agod and that that god is a good god and it wouldbe a good idea to worship him before he becomes a bad god&#33;
and that as people have stopped believing in the god, and beliwvein the institution of godhood and the church and the churches ability to intercede with god on our behalf, there is in fact, no god.

and as this is my belief, and i believe it, by my understanding of consenual reality, this is true> yes?

if anyone can follow the admittadly twisted logic here, i&#39;d be happy to their comments, or you could just ignore this post (i will), and read morbles again instead, its much more interesting. of course as i wrote this at the bottom, your likely to hve read my post already, oh well

[EmeraldWarlock]

wow morble...you got me lost
im just gonna chill and say i dont believe in god.
im a spiritual person but to me there is no god and i place my life at no body&#39;s hands. Sometimes i believe in fate but to me that is just intertwined with the course of my life and does not represent any supreme figure above

I believe what Aristotle said, fate and prophecy make things happen rather than predicting them.

[Gaius Marius II]

Fate is for those afraid to change their own destiny.

[EmeraldWarlock]

but who says that when you change somethng that should have happened that it wasnt fate or destiny that decided that

[Manji]

Just because every person can change his/her "fate", that doesn&#39;t mean outside interference is an impossiblity. Imagine this: You are walking near a road and you want to cross it. You look both ways, cross the road, done. But if you were crossing the road and trip on a rock and made you fall? Would you blame yourself, the rock, the world (for "putting" the rock there) or god for not shoving the rock away?
I strongly believe that everything we do has either an immediate or long term effect. If you build a house on soft ground it is bound that she will crash. Sooner or later. But if you build it on a hard surface...it will crash, sooner or later. Ehehe, I just contradicted myself. Of course causality suffers from environment interferences, but hey, for me, it&#39;s the main rule.
Anyone has a good link on causality and such?

Cheers

[Gaius Marius II]

When I was born something called fate didn&#39;t decide for me every little aspect of my life. I will get into a good school because I choose to get good grades. I will get a job that I enjoy not because fate is gonna lead me there, but because I chose it. My destiny is chosen by either me or my God not by fate.

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Originally posted by Josh@Dec 30 2003, 11:06 AM
When I was born something called fate didn&#39;t decide for me every little aspect of my life. I will get into a good school because I choose to get good grades. I will get a job that I enjoy not because fate is gonna lead me there, but because I chose it. My destiny is chosen by either me or my God not by fate.

You sound very sure, pray tell, how do you know it is so...?

Boris

[Gaius Marius II]

I dont.

by the definition of sure nothing, except that which is proven by science, is sure.

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

I strongly believe that everything we do has either an immediate or long term effect. If you build a house on soft ground it is bound that she will crash. Sooner or later. But if you build it on a hard surface...it will crash, sooner or later. Ehehe, I just contradicted myself.

you can strongly beleive that more, because its something that goes without sying. When you do something, it is an effect in itself....

[EmeraldWarlock]

im with you Josh. its hard to believe in a fate but oddly enough, i want to. guess it has to do with my interest in ancient greece think of fate as this, it is what you do and its effect, not what you will do

[Gaius Marius II]

Yea, ya see enerald I&#39;ve definitly entertained that thought of fate before. I kinda played with it because it&#39;s easy to beleive that everything that has happened and that will occur is because its already planned out. Then I thought a little deeper into it.

People who beleive in fate are apathetic. If a problem arises they just say "let fate run its course." Not me. Thats not a mind set of a winner. I&#39;ll grab my &#39;fate&#39; by the neck and carve my own destiny.

[EmeraldWarlock]

that is where the problem comes in, you got me on that one. but they way i see it i contol my fate so if a problem arises i will deal with it as normal. in this case i guess the definition of fate no longer applies because fate is a preordained destiny. if you wanted to go even deeper though...for example, lets say you can&#39;t get good grades in math class. you have two options. 1) you sit back and say it was fate so ill let it run and see what happens since it was going to happen anyway 2) or you study harder and get a tutor, etc. and then realize that perhaps your fate was to do this in which case your solution was dictated by fate.

You can also think of fate as millions of paths. so taking the example from above, if you let the bad grades go by thinking fate will decide the outcome anyway, then you have gone down one path of fate that leads to a new branching of paths that will get worse and worse. take the other path and a get a good grade and new paths of fate open up.

[the Black Prince]

of course, it could be fated that you decide your fate..... hehe

if a fortune teller said i would get good grades, and then i didn&#39;t study coz i knew i would get good grades, and i got bad grades, was the fortune teller wrong?

no, because he was seeing my future as it would have been. if i hadn&#39;t met the fortune teller, i would have studied, and got the good grades he said i would.
does this mean that it wasfated that i go to the fortune teller and thereby change my fate? or did the fortune teller change my fate?

[Gaius Marius II]

I see your point. But thats not fate....i dunno what that is called. Fate is defined as the power supposed to determine the outcome of events.

So an event comes up and the outcome is already determined. Basically what it means is if fate decides your gonna be a dumb shite no matter what kinda grades you get or what school you get into in the end your still a dumb shite.

Maybe fate is thought to be many branching paths. Those paths all end in one place though.

lata,
Joshie washie.

[Chris the Conquerer]

on the first note i am a catholic (just in case, i felt like adding it i dont know why)
listen if there is no god then what created you.?
what created the life around you?
what created the earth?
what created the galaxies and the universe?
what created the thing that created all these things?

religion in the thing we all rely on to live our daily lives (in my opinion).
think about what i said.

your humble friend
Chris the Conquerer

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Originally posted by Chris the Conquerer@Jan 2 2004, 09:25 PM
on the first note i am a catholic (just in case, i felt like adding it i dont know why)
listen if there is no god then what created you.?
what created the life around you?
what created the earth?
what created the galaxies and the universe?
what created the thing that created all these things?

religion in the thing we all rely on to live our daily lives (in my opinion).
think about what i said.

your humble friend
Chris the Conquerer

oh boy &#33;

Maybe a raging rabid pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon created me. ever give that any thought....if this sounds ridiculous, then you arent getting the point..

By the way, arguing about fate is pretty hopeless folks. In that, it is obvious that fate has fated you to argue about fate, and fated you not to find out about fate.

Boris