Attempted logical proof for God

[BenShade]

In the words of Stefan “I am going to throw a wet one against the wall and see if it sticks. “

 

I would like to premise this by stating that my conclusion is predicated on the assumption that the universe is eternal both past and present.

 

In short to defend this premise I assert that in order for the universe to have a beginning it was either created by something/someone else or it created itself. Since the first option would give us an infinite regress of causality, or else you could point out that the “creator” is by definition part of the universe which includes all things and then ask what created the totality of that. Furthermore, I believe the second choice of the universe creating itself is illogical and self-refuting. However, this is certainly a potential weakness if someone could split the horns and give a logical path for the Universe to have a beginning.

 

Now supposing we have a temporally eternal universe, we can continue by defining God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent consciousness that sustains all things and to which all organizations of matter owe their existence.

 

This appears to be a very tall order, indeed it is. However, suppose that we take the Bible literally when it says that God is light and in him there is no darkness. Then we take our knowledge that mass and energy in the universe is constant and interchangeable. could we then suppose that all matter in the universe is collectively organized in such a way as to all be constituent parts of one mind. Would not this mind be omnipresent with all parts of itself, omniscient in knowing all parts of itself, and omnipotent in having control over itself aka the whole universe?
 

I fail to see how a conscious universe would fail to be God, but if you would have a good argument I yearn for a reply.

 

Now the punchline, no matter how far-fetched you may find a conscious universe to be, if you believe the possibility is arbitrarily small, but non-zero, then given a temporally infinite universe it is guaranteed with probability 1 the universe has at one time reached such a configuration. Having achieved this configuration a sentient being of such magnitude would not be likely to kill itself and any being that would kill itself would eventually be replaced by one that didn’t. This eternal universal consciousness would have thus come into existence an eternal time ago and will exist eternally into the future.

 

Now for the possibility of such a configuration. Not that long I heard of an Atheist quip that “I don’t believe in God yet.” Meaning that he did believe in the eventual creation of an artificial superintelligence. If you believe that human intelligence is not the unique product of a soul external to the universe, then there is no good reason that it would be impossible for us to eventually create one. Our existence has proven cognition to be possible, and our best theory of evolution postulates this process will continue to produce higher and higher beings. So given that we exist and evolution is true given a temporally infinite universe I believe I have just logically proven the existence of an infinitely evolved consciousness that I would call God.

[Duart]

If an intelligence were to arise/ascend at some mid-point of the universe then it would lack the knowledge of what went on prior to it's awareness preventing it from being omniscient. 

 

You could then propose that it could retrospectively deduce what want on before but this would be to assume that everything that went on before was deterministically determined which implies this new godly intelligence is too lacking in free will and therefore not omnipotent. 

[BenShade]

If an intelligence were to arise/ascend at some mid-point of the universe then it would lack the knowledge of what went on prior to it's awareness preventing it from being omniscient. 

 

You could then propose that it could retrospectively deduce what want on before but this would be to assume that everything that went on before was deterministically determined which implies this new godly intelligence is too lacking in free will and therefore not omnipotent. 

 

To speak of an intelligence arising at the midpoint of infinity is nonsensical. An infinite past dictates the existance will have come an infinite time ago. The fact that a greater infinity may exist does not negate the magnitude of the lesser infinity. ( Just because there are infinite points on a 2 dimensional plane does not dimish the fact that there are infinitley many points on a one dimensional line.)

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omniscience

 

noun

1.

the quality or state of being omniscient.

2.

infinite knowledge.

 

omniscience requires infinite knowledge not complete knowledge, this stems from the principle that complete knowledge of an infinite set is non sensical. So having come into existence an infinite time ago begits infinite knowledge thereby sufficing for omniscience even if a higher level of omniscience is theoretically possible. Another definition would be to know all that is knowable which is still satisfied by the God I described.

 

So by clarifying this position on omniscience it appears I don't need to appeal to the deduction of all prior events in order to confer omniscience therby maintaining free will and omnipotence by your definition.

[Duart]

Happy to debate that point but first i think it's fair to query the change in goal posts from Omniscient (the term you first used to define an aspect of god) to Omniscience (the one used in your counter argument). 

 

omniscient - having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

(is the definition first provided, and i'd maintain successfully rebutted...)

 

omniscience -  infinite knowledge

(i.e is well tailored/selected to fit your counter argument)

 

 

to quote your initial argument for reference, "Would not this mind be omnipresent with all parts of itself, omniscient in knowing all parts of itself, and omnipotent in having control over itself aka the whole universe?Would not this mind be omnipresent with all parts of itself, omniscient in knowing all parts of itself, and omnipotent in having control over itself aka the whole universe?"

[BenShade]

 

 

omniscient - having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

(is the definition first provided, and i'd maintain successfully rebutted...)

 

 

 

I undertood "unlimited knowledge" to be equal to infinite knowledge.

[neeeel]

 

. could we then suppose that all matter in the universe is collectively organized in such a way as to all be constituent parts of one mind. 

 

 

I suppose we could suppose that, but why would we, or should we? what does it even mean "constituent parts of one mind?

 

 

 

 

 

[rosencrantz]

 Furthermore, I believe the second choice of the universe creating itself is illogical and self-refuting.

 

Why? And what has logic to do with physics?

[Brainwright]

Let me start out by saying you can't prove god exists.

 

I find the notion of an intelligent universe to be a moot point because even if it did exist, the nature of that intelligence is so beyond us we could never grasp it in any meaningful way. So even if you're right, it's a useless piece of knowledge.

 

Secondly, on the notion of proving god's existence. Stefan has said in prior broadcasts you can't prove that God exists in much the same way you can't prove the State exists. These are icons, and you only find them by relating to them.

 

By way of example, if you could prove that a guy named Brainwirght existed without relating yourself to him, then you could easily impersonate without any ability to distinguish between the original and the new Brainwirght. This is a good argument for when you're defending yourself against arguments resting on the fact that God never proves his existence. The truth is, if God did provide absolute proof of his existence, then people could start pretending to be him.

 

You can't prove the object of a name exists, you can only call out the name and see who answers.

[BenShade]

I suppose we could suppose that, but why would we, or should we? what does it even mean "constituent parts of one mind?

 

I should have said parts of one brain or body. In this I assume that only that which is physical exists and the macroorganism is God

 

Why? And what has logic to do with physics?

 

I suppose if you want to refute logic there is no point in arguing and if you think it has nothing to do with physics please give an example of something causing its own existence either real or hypothetical.

 

Let me start out by saying you can't prove god exists.

 

I find the notion of an intelligent universe to be a moot point because even if it did exist, the nature of that intelligence is so beyond us we could never grasp it in any meaningful way. So even if you're right, it's a useless piece of knowledge.

 

Secondly, on the notion of proving god's existence. Stefan has said in prior broadcasts you can't prove that God exists in much the same way you can't prove the State exists. These are icons, and you only find them by relating to them.

 

By way of example, if you could prove that a guy named Brainwirght existed without relating yourself to him, then you could easily impersonate without any ability to distinguish between the original and the new Brainwirght. This is a good argument for when you're defending yourself against arguments resting on the fact that God never proves his existence. The truth is, if God did provide absolute proof of his existence, then people could start pretending to be him.

 

You can't prove the object of a name exists, you can only call out the name and see who answers.

 

First sentance is a pointless assertion without evidence.

 

The second sentance is an opinion that since anything complex enough to be called God is pointless because we can't comprehend it. I find this to be as rediculous as saying we shouldn't study the universe becasue it is too big and complex to understand it in any appreciable way.

 

Third sentance second point. I have clearly defined the word "God" to mean (an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent consciousness that sustains all things and to which all organizations of matter owe their existence.) This is very clearly not an icon or idea but a sentient being composed of matter and energy directly observable within our universe. Stefan does argue quite persuasively against the self contradictory "gods" of human religions generally.

 

As far as you last attempt I fail to see how it matters whether I call it Chuck, Meagan, Spot or God. I have very clearly defined the being in question and offered what I believe to be a proof for it's existence provided the given premises. If you feel my definition should not be called I would be happy to rename him the flying spagetti monster so long as it still has the attributes I have above defined.

[Duart]

I undertood "unlimited knowledge" to be equal to infinite knowledge.

 

The knowledge is limited, limited by the fact that it/the intelligence can't deduce past knowledge. 

[rosencrantz]

I suppose if you want to refute logic there is no point in arguing and if you think it has nothing to do with physics please give an example of something causing its own existence either real or hypothetical.

 

 

Physics is descriptive. It doesn't deal with questions why something is caused or why something is the case. Reality determines the models and not the other way round. 

[BenShade]

The knowledge is limited, limited by the fact that it/the intelligence can't deduce past knowledge. 

 

So I hate to move my goalposts but also want to hone my argument, so would it satisfy you if instead of saying omnicscient, omnipotent and omnipresent i would say infinitly knowledgable, infinitly powerful and eternally present?

[EclecticIdealist]

If one accepts that the universe is eternal, one can then accept anything and everything because anything that can happen will have already happened and will again, it's simply a matter of time, because eventually, the probability of anything, and therefore everything happening is 1.

 

There are an infinite number of earths that have existed throughout time. An infinite number of these had no life. An infinite number had only plant life. An infinite number were never hit by meteors causing the extinction of the dinosaurs. An infinite number of these had intelligent saurian life that developed technologically and explored and conquered the universe. An infinite number of these were defeated by or defeated the infinite number of insect techno-civilizations. etc. etc.

 

If the Universe is eternal, then at some point in the past, and at some point in the future, there were an infinite number of times that Robot Hitler conquered the planet, and an infinite number of times where Robot Hitler died for the sins of all Robotkind.

 

The only thing that has NEVER happened even once in all of eternity and will never happen again in all of eternity is the phenomena known as "The Kardashians". They are a trans-dimensional anomaly which we should all love, appreciate, and worship since they have never happened before and will never happen again.

[BenShade]

If one accepts that the universe is eternal, one can then accept anything and everything because anything that can happen will have already happened and will again, it's simply a matter of time, because eventually, the probability of anything, and therefore everything happening is 1.

 

There are an infinite number of earths that have existed throughout time. An infinite number of these had no life. An infinite number had only plant life. An infinite number were never hit by meteors causing the extinction of the dinosaurs. An infinite number of these had intelligent saurian life that developed technologically and explored and conquered the universe. An infinite number of these were defeated by or defeated the infinite number of insect techno-civilizations. etc. etc.

 

If the Universe is eternal, then at some point in the past, and at some point in the future, there were an infinite number of times that Robot Hitler conquered the planet, and an infinite number of times where Robot Hitler died for the sins of all Robotkind.

 

The only thing that has NEVER happened even once in all of eternity and will never happen again in all of eternity is the phenomena known as "The Kardashians". They are a trans-dimensional anomaly which we should all love, appreciate, and worship since they have never happened before and will never happen again.

 

While this made me smile, I don't know what it adds to the conversation.

[Donnadogsoth]

In the words of Stefan “I am going to throw a wet one against the wall and see if it sticks. “

 

1. This is pantheism, if you're looking for the technical term.

 

2. "Eternal Universe" is an oxymoron.  The Universe cannot be infinitely old, because an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed prior to the present.  Try counting backwards to infinity.  Can't do it, right?  Therefore the Universe couldn't count forwards to infinity, either, to reach the present.  The Universe had to have been created at some point.  It may continue to exist forever, without reaching infinity, but it cannot have existed for infinity.

[BenShade]

1. This is pantheism, if you're looking for the technical term.

 

2. "Eternal Universe" is an oxymoron.  The Universe cannot be infinitely old, because an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed prior to the present.  Try counting backwards to infinity.  Can't do it, right?  Therefore the Universe couldn't count forwards to infinity, either, to reach the present.  The Universe had to have been created at some point.  It may continue to exist forever, without reaching infinity, but it cannot have existed for infinity.

 

1. I agree this is pantheism, which I would argue is the polar opposite of atheism (nothing is God vs everthing is God)

 

2. Having said that I believe that I do not find fault in the conclusion of the above argument I have made from what I readily admit is an assumption of an eternal universe.

 

3. I am not however convinced that my inability to count backwards to infinity dissallows its existance than my inability to see past the edge of the visible universe proves there is nothing more out there.

[EclecticIdealist]

1. This is pantheism, if you're looking for the technical term.

 

2. "Eternal Universe" is an oxymoron.  The Universe cannot be infinitely old, because an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed prior to the present.  Try counting backwards to infinity.  Can't do it, right?  Therefore the Universe couldn't count forwards to infinity, either, to reach the present.  The Universe had to have been created at some point.  It may continue to exist forever, without reaching infinity, but it cannot have existed for infinity.

Infinite is by definition non-quantifiable. One may attempt to reach or quantify the infinite, but never succeed. Eternal is the concept of infinite as applied to time. To claim that God is Eternal is to claim that God has always and will forever exist. One cannot logically claim the universe cannot be Eternal based on one's own limitations. That makes as much sense as saying that birds can't possibly fly by flapping their appendages because human can't fly by flapping their appendages.

 

Omnipotence is infinity applied to power. Omniscience is infinity applied to knowledge. Omnipresence is infinity applied to the singleness of being in space and time. Omnipresence would enable omniscience assuming that presence facilitates awareness and thereby knowledge.

 

One can imagine a being that is in fact omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Such a being would absolutely be a pantheistic concept of God. In fact every entity that exists would be a part and manifestation of such an entity in the same way that a being's cells are part of their body. The great difference being that we are not consciously aware of the working of every cell of our body, or even a single cell of our body. At most, we are conscious of various regions or organs of the body by virtue of nerve signals relaying information to our brains.

 

If such a God exists, is it likely we would have any personal relationship with such a being. Individually, we would be of less relative individual significance or intelligence than the mitochondria which inhabit each cell of our own bodies are to us. We might be beneficiaries of such a being's existence, and it us, but how likely would that be the limit of such interaction. We have no way of guessing whether such a being would even have a conscious personality the way you and I do.

 

Most people simply are incapable of grasping the scale of a single human being's time on this planet in relation to the history of the human race, much less so that of all animal life on the planet, and so much less so than all forms of life on the planet, and so much less so than the age of the planet which is only about 1/3 the age of the universe (all according to what science tell us... no one REALLY knows for sure).

[Donnadogsoth]

1. I agree this is pantheism, which I would argue is the polar opposite of atheism (nothing is God vs everthing is God)

 

2. Having said that I believe that I do not find fault in the conclusion of the above argument I have made from what I readily admit is an assumption of an eternal universe.

 

3. I am not however convinced that my inability to count backwards to infinity dissallows its existance than my inability to see past the edge of the visible universe proves there is nothing more out there.

 

1. True.

 

2. There is no infinite regress of causality if the Creator cannot conceivably be preceded without simply postulating an identical being.  Since there cannot be two identical beings, the Creator cannot be preceded.

 

3.

 

(a) I'm saying that time has to elapse and there is no way an infinite amount of time could ever have elapsed.  Similarly, space has to expand and there is no way an infinite amount of space could have expanded.

 

(b) The "material universe" can be indefinitely extensible, but it can't be infinite because nothing material is infinite.  Everything material is a projection in the minds of the respective monads having that experience.  It's like videogame:  how many things are there in game-space?  Answer:  as many as can fit on the screen.

[EclecticIdealist]

There is no infinite regress of causality if the Creator cannot conceivably be preceded without simply postulating an identical being.  Since there cannot be two identical beings, the Creator cannot be preceded.

There must be an infinite regression of causality. If there is not an infinite regression of causality, then "the Creator" is a being that exists without any physicality and without any cause. How then can an infinitely complex being simply exist without physicality or causality? When has that ever happened? It is posited, in my opinion, only because the alternative is for some, unfathomable.

 

I'm saying that time has to elapse and there is no way an infinite amount of time could ever have elapsed.

Why? Why is there no way? If it's not possible, then your Creator must exist outside of time, space, and causality, which makes your creator in all ways Supernatural and in no way empirically demonstrable.

 

The "material universe" can be indefinitely extensible, but it can't be infinite because nothing material is infinite.  Everything material is a projection in the minds of the respective monads having that experience.  It's like videogame:  how many things are there in game-space?  Answer:  as many as can fit on the screen.

What is the basis of your assertion that nothing material is infinite? The universe by definition can be considered both material and infinite. It might not be, but there's no way to prove one way or the other.  To suggest that everything material is a proejction in the minds of those experiencing anything suggest that there is no material reality whatsoever. If there is no material universe as everything exists only in the mind, then everything is supernatural and therefore nothing is empirical, everything is nothing more than a delusion of the mind, or to quote the poet, "life is but a dream".

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

There must be an infinite regression of causality. If there is not an infinite regression of causality, then "the Creator" is a being that exists without any physicality and without any cause. How then can an infinitely complex being simply exist without physicality or causality? When has that ever happened? It is posited, in my opinion, only because the alternative is for some, unfathomable.

 

Yes, the Creator exists without physicality or cause. But the Creator is beyond complexity, so in that sense he is simple. Though strictly speaking he is beyond simplicity and complexity alike--as I said, beyond the categories—but the reconciliation of opposites.

 

 

 

Why? Why is there no way? If it's not possible, then your Creator must exist outside of time, space, and causality, which makes your creator in all ways Supernatural and in no way empirically demonstrable.

 

The Creator causes events and existences. But he is outside of time and space, true.

 

 

 

What is the basis of your assertion that nothing material is infinite? The universe by definition can be considered both material and infinite. It might not be, but there's no way to prove one way or the other.  To suggest that everything material is a proejction in the minds of those experiencing anything suggest that there is no material reality whatsoever. If there is no material universe as everything exists only in the mind, then everything is supernatural and therefore nothing is empirical, everything is nothing more than a delusion of the mind, or to quote the poet, "life is but a dream".

 

Yes, everything that exists exists as a monad, a non-extended, non-material locus of experience (perception, desire). Our human experience we call “the Universe” but it is actually percepts projected before us inside our monad (mind). Like Leibniz and Bishop Berkeley, I am an idealist.

[EclecticIdealist]

Yes, the Creator exists without physicality or cause. But the Creator is beyond complexity, so in that sense he is simple. Though strictly speaking he is beyond simplicity and complexity alike--as I said, beyond the categories—but the reconciliation of opposites.

Beyond physicality, beyond cause, beyond simplicity, beyond complexity, beyond categorization, beyond rationality, beyond reality, beyond credulity, beyond incredulity... in short, your God is anything and everything you need He/She/It/They to be - completely non-falsifiable, and beyond any rational justification for belief.

 

The Creator causes events and existences. But he is outside of time and space, true.

So how can "the Creator" cause anything, including existence while being outside of time and space?

 

Yes, everything that exists exists as a monad, a non-extended, non-material locus of experience (perception, desire). Our human experience we call “the Universe” but it is actually percepts projected before us inside our monad (mind). Like Leibniz and Bishop Berkeley, I am an idealist.

Your idealism is wholly non-falsifiable and holds absolutely no practical predictive value. It in fact makes you the creator of everything including the imaginary, irrational Creator you profess to believe in. As such it can be gratuitously refuted without any further justification as being nothing more than narcissistic delusion.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

Beyond physicality, beyond cause, beyond simplicity, beyond complexity, beyond categorization, beyond rationality, beyond reality, beyond credulity, beyond incredulity... in short, your God is anything and everything you need He/She/It/They to be - completely non-falsifiable, and beyond any rational justification for belief.

 

Hence the need for revelation. Hence the need for Christ as mediator between man and the Creator.
 

 

 

So how can "the Creator" cause anything, including existence while being outside of time and space?

 

As I indicated, time and space are constructs of human experience and do not exist “outside” minds.
 

 

 

Your idealism is wholly non-falsifiable and holds absolutely no practical predictive value. It in fact makes you the creator of everything including the imaginary, irrational Creator you profess to believe in. As such it can be gratuitously refuted without any further justification as being nothing more than narcissistic delusion.

 

Dualism, the idea that mind and matter coexist and mutually interact, is untenable due to the problem of influence. How can mind affect matter, or matter affect mind?

 

Pure materialism, the idea that mind is “epiphenomenon” in matter, can never explain where experience comes from, but accepts it as a brute fact.

 

Neither option explains where the Universe came from.

 

And neither option explains what the ontological status of an object is when no one is looking at it.

[EclecticIdealist]

Hence the need for revelation. Hence the need for Christ as mediator between man and the Creator.

Revelation from a being you already admit is nothing more than a figment of your imagination...

"... everything that exists exists as a monad, a non-extended, non-material locus of experience (perception, desire)."

As I indicated, time and space are constructs of human experience and do not exist “outside” minds.

While it is true that the only thing we can know with absolute certainty is our own existence and thoughts, we can with reasonable and relative certainty (absent evidence to the contrary such as hallucinations that others do not experience) trust that what our minds perceive to be sensory input from the sensory receptors of our bodies is actual data about a real, material world that is independent of our subjective experience of it.

Dualism, the idea that mind and matter coexist and mutually interact, is untenable due to the problem of influence. How can mind affect matter, or matter affect mind?

There is no problem of influence. Matter affects the mind via the senses--physical sensations converted into electrical signals which are transmitted to the brain. The brain incorporates the sensory information mapped to various regions of the brain into sensory perceptions. These perceptions combine to form concepts which are processed by regions of the brain governing the formation and storage of memory and those which govern higher reasoning and logic, as well as emotion and desire. The brain responds to concepts and desires by sending impulses to the regions of the brain controlling the muscles of body. These things while not fully and completely understood, are largely understood by anyone who takes the trouble to learn about them. Only ignorance allows the dualism to remain an untenable problem.

Pure materialism, the idea that mind is “epiphenomenon” in matter, can never explain where experience comes from, but accepts it as a brute fact.

There are many phenomena that ignorant anti-materialist idealists have considered inexplicable that are later explained quite satisfactorily to the rational who accept the likelihood of materialism. The mind is not epiphenomenal in the sense that it is the natural result that arises consequently, not secondarily, from the formation of a sufficiently complex brain. It is simply the natural consequence of complexity that arises from a self-referential (self-sensing) data processing system.

Neither option explains where the Universe came from.

 

And neither option explains what the ontological status of an object is when no one is looking at it.

Under the premise of materialism, the ontological status of an object that no one is looking at doesn't change. Its existence is non-determinative of conscious observation. Such a notion is an all too common misunderstanding of the "observer effect" of quantum mechanics. The "observation" is not that of a conscious entity, but rather the imposition of sensory apparatus which has the effect of changing the energy state (and therefore the momentum) of the observed sub-atomic or atomic particles.

[thebeardslastcall]

If your logic "proves" the illogical, then your logic is flawed. Suppose you had a "proof", where would this get you? There is still no evidence or relevance to our current existence for or of God. This can't go anywhere, because there is nothing to be proven or revealed by this conversation except bad logic for the insane people to try to fog people to feel they may have some ground to stand on in their irrational belief of a God.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

Revelation from a being you already admit is nothing more than a figment of your imagination...

"... everything that exists exists as a monad, a non-extended, non-material locus of experience (perception, desire)." 

 

Don't see your point. God is a monad.

 

 

 

While it is true that the only thing we can know with absolute certainty is our own existence and thoughts, we can with reasonable and relative certainty (absent evidence to the contrary such as hallucinations that others do not experience) trust that what our minds perceive to be sensory input from the sensory receptors of our bodies is actual data about a real, material world that is independent of our subjective experience of it.

 

What is the ontological status of this “world” when you're not looking at it, or otherwise experiencing it? What colour is the apple when you don't see it? What does the grease smell like when you're not working on your car?

 

 

 

There is no problem of influence. Matter affects the mind via the senses--physical sensations converted into electrical signals which are transmitted to the brain. The brain incorporates the sensory information mapped to various regions of the brain into sensory perceptions. These perceptions combine to form concepts which are processed by regions of the brain governing the formation and storage of memory and those which govern higher reasoning and logic, as well as emotion and desire. The brain responds to concepts and desires by sending impulses to the regions of the brain controlling the muscles of body. These things while not fully and completely understood, are largely understood by anyone who takes the trouble to learn about them. Only ignorance allows the dualism to remain an untenable problem. 

 

What do we need the mind for then, if the brain does it all?

 

 

 

There are many phenomena that ignorant anti-materialist idealists have considered inexplicable that are later explained quite satisfactorily to the rational who accept the likelihood of materialism. The mind is not epiphenomenal in the sense that it is the natural result that arises consequently, not secondarily, from the formation of a sufficiently complex brain. It is simply the natural consequence of complexity that arises from a self-referential (self-sensing) data processing system.

 

Still no need for a mind, if the brain does it all. Mind violates the principle of least action.

 

 

 

Under the premise of materialism, the ontological status of an object that no one is looking at doesn't change. Its existence is non-determinative of conscious observation. Such a notion is an all too common misunderstanding of the "observer effect" of quantum mechanics. The "observation" is not that of a conscious entity, but rather the imposition of sensory apparatus which has the effect of changing the energy state (and therefore the momentum) of the observed sub-atomic or atomic particles.

 

I'm not talking about quantum mechanics. I'm talking about you looking at an apple and seeing that it is red, shiny, curved, apple-like, with a stem and green leaf, and a spot on one side. All of these are sensory inputs. Close your eyes. Is the apple still red, shiny, etc.? How can it be such, if the qualities of “red,” “shiny” etc., are purely functions of your mind apprehending it? What is the apple really like when you're not looking at it. All you see, taste, smell of the apple is a bundle of sense impressions. What is left of the apple when we remove those sense impressions and leave it “in the dark”?

[EclecticIdealist]

"... everything that exists exists as a monad, a non-extended, non-material locus of experience (perception, desire)." 

 

Don't see your point. God is a monad.

If everything that exists exists as a non-extended, non-material locus of experience, then there isn't ANYTHING ELSE. You're the only thing that exists, and everything else is entirely a delusional creation of your schizophrenic mind. There is no "other" there are no separate entities with separate experiences. There can be no revelation.

 

What is the ontological status of this “world” when you're not looking at it, or otherwise experiencing it? What colour is the apple when you don't see it? What does the grease smell like when you're not working on your car?

Asked an answered. The answers won't change simply because you don't like the answers that were already given and ask the question a second, third, fourth, ad infinitum time.

 

What do we need the mind for then, if the brain does it all?

Why do we need to respirate air if the lungs do everything? The mind does not exist without the brain. The body does not process oxygen with the lungs. The mind is the functioning of the brain, just as the respiration is the functioning of the lungs, contraction and relaxation are the functioning of the muscles, etc.

 

Still no need for a mind, if the brain does it all. Mind violates the principle of least action.

No, it does not. Mind is the "doing" of the brain. The "principle of least action" is not an accurately delineated and described principle. Were the principle true as you seem to believe it to be, there would never be over-population of animals species leading to over-grazing and subsequent mass-starvation and sometimes the completely decimation of entire herds or more.

 

I'm not talking about quantum mechanics. I'm talking about you looking at an apple and seeing that it is red, shiny, curved, apple-like, with a stem and green leaf, and a spot on one side. All of these are sensory inputs. Close your eyes. Is the apple still red, shiny, etc.? How can it be such, if the qualities of “red,” “shiny” etc., are purely functions of your mind apprehending it?

I understand. You seem to have the mentality of a baby... that if you close your eyes, the world disappears, despite the fact that it does not disappear for anyone else with their eyes open (excepting of course those who have or are in the process of going blind). This is a very infantile apprehension of reality which mistakes subjective perception for objective reality, or denies objective reality altogether.

 

What is the apple really like when you're not looking at it. All you see, taste, smell of the apple is a bundle of sense impressions. What is left of the apple when we remove those sense impressions and leave it “in the dark”?

Again, already asked and answered. Your subjective experience of the apple with your senses does not create or change the nature of the apple in any way. Your actions upon the apple may do that, but not your mere perception (or the cessation of the perception) of the apple. Subjective perception is different from Objective reality. Subjective perception leads to erroneous conceptions of reality. Consensus between multiple individuals' subjective perceptions leads to a more accurate conception of reality, but such a conception will only ever be approximate.

[Donnadogsoth]

If everything that exists exists as a non-extended, non-material locus of experience, then there isn't ANYTHING ELSE. You're the only thing that exists, and everything else is entirely a delusional creation of your schizophrenic mind. There is no "other" there are no separate entities with separate experiences. There can be no revelation.

 

God is a monad, you are a monad, I am a monad, etc.. I don't see why you're pretending plurality is impossible.

 

 

 

Asked an answered. The answers won't change simply because you don't like the answers that were already given and ask the question a second, third, fourth, ad infinitum time.

 

No, you have simply misunderstood the question. I am asking what is left once we exclude all sense-data from the identity of a given object. What noumenon do you propose?

 

 

Why do we need to respirate air if the lungs do everything? The mind does not exist without the brain. The body does not process oxygen with the lungs. The mind is the functioning of the brain, just as the respiration is the functioning of the lungs, contraction and relaxation are the functioning of the muscles, etc.

 

Is there then a lungs-mind?

 

And so the lungs-mind is the “doing” of the lungs.

 

 

 

No, it does not. Mind is the "doing" of the brain. The "principle of least action" is not an accurately delineated and described principle. Were the principle true as you seem to believe it to be, there would never be over-population of animals species leading to over-grazing and subsequent mass-starvation and sometimes the completely decimation of entire herds or more.

 

I understand. You seem to have the mentality of a baby... that if you close your eyes, the world disappears, despite the fact that it does not disappear for anyone else with their eyes open (excepting of course those who have or are in the process of going blind). This is a very infantile apprehension of reality which mistakes subjective perception for objective reality, or denies objective reality altogether.

 

Yes, if I close my eyes, my experience of the world disappears. You have your own experience of the world which disappears when you close your eyes. But there is nothing “in between” your mind and my mind that we can point to and call “objective reality” unless you wish to address my demand for a noumenon, above.

 

 

 

 

Again, already asked and answered. Your subjective experience of the apple with your senses does not create or change the nature of the apple in any way. Your actions upon the apple may do that, but not your mere perception (or the cessation of the perception) of the apple. Subjective perception is different from Objective reality. Subjective perception leads to erroneous conceptions of reality. Consensus between multiple individuals' subjective perceptions leads to a more accurate conception of reality, but such a conception will only ever be approximate.

 

Answered by you erroneously. The “red” of the apple is a phenomenon existing solely within my mind (and those of others who also see the apple etc.). We cannot find an experience-of-red anywhere in the Universe outside of a mind, and if I close my eyes, the red goes away. All phenomena are thus states of mind and nothing else. Where is the noumenon that exists outside of my subjective, phenomenal perception?

[EclecticIdealist]

God is a monad, you are a monad, I am a monad, etc.. I don't see why you're pretending plurality is impossible.

 

I'm a monad, you're a monad, he's a monad, she's a monad, wouldn't you like to be a monad too? Except we're not really. We don't actually exist. We're all just figments of your imagination, because as you've already pointed out, there is no physical reality. If you believe in God, then God is a real monad. If you don't, the monad referred to as God does not exist. The only thing that actually exists is you, whatever you are, since you're not really anything at all, not anything physical anyway.  

 

No, you have simply misunderstood the question. I am asking what is left once we exclude all sense-data from the identity of a given object. What noumenon do you propose?

 

The sense data isn’t the object, the sense data is not any part of the object. The sense data is the interaction of our senses in relationship to the object and the environment in which the object exists. The identity of the object does not change with its perception or lack of perception by a conscious entity; only the awareness of the person sensing the object changes. The idea of noumenon is a purely hypothetical concept which has no baring on the material world or actual items. It is equivalent of a masturbatory fantasy akin to how many imaginary flying beings can perch atop a sewing implement.

 

Is there then a lungs-mind?

And so the lungs-mind is the “doing” of the lungs.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the lungs possess the necessary characteristics of highly complex sensory input processing and evaluation to suggest the existence of a lungs-mind. It seems as though you're being deliberately obtuse here. 

 

Yes, if I close my eyes, my experience of the world disappears. You have your own experience of the world which disappears when you close your eyes. But there is nothing “in between” your mind and my mind that we can point to and call “objective reality” unless you wish to address my demand for a noumenon, above.

 

On the contrary, we can point to everything between the temporal-physical location of your min and the temporal-physical location of my mind and everything else not between them, as well as the brains containing those minds which are all “objective reality”. Our experience of these is subjective; however, their existence is objective. No need to address the purely hypothetical “noumenon” you keep referring to as there is no reason to believe that such actually exists in the material world. The world does not cease to exist when you stop sensing it. The world's identity does not change whether you are aware of it or not. The only thing that changes is your knowledge or experience of it, which is entirely subjective. Such knowledge and experience (or lack thereof) does not change the objective reality of its existence.

 

All phenomena are thus states of mind and nothing else.

 

You are again mistaking your experience of phenomena for the phenomena itself.

 

 Where is the noumenon that exists outside of my subjective, phenomenal perception?

 

I already explained that. If there’s no credible evidence for something’s existence, it can be presumed not to exist. If you want to presume that something exists for which, by definition, there can be no evidence, you're free to be as irrational as you wish and go ahead and do so. I on the other hand am not about to go attempting to prove the existence of the empirically unprovable.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

I'm a monad, you're a monad, he's a monad, she's a monad, wouldn't you like to be a monad too? Except we're not really. We don't actually exist. We're all just figments of your imagination, because as you've already pointed out, there is no physical reality. If you believe in God, then God is a real monad. If you don't, the monad referred to as God does not exist. The only thing that actually exists is you, whatever you are, since you're not really anything at all, not anything physical anyway.

 

“Physical reality” is not necessary for a thing to exist. Everything we know of what you're referring to as “physical reality” amounts to sense impressions.

 

 

The sense data isn’t the object, the sense data is not any part of the object. The sense data is the interaction of our senses in relationship to the object and the environment in which the object exists. The identity of the object does not change with its perception or lack of perception by a conscious entity; only the awareness of the person sensing the object changes. The idea of noumenon is a purely hypothetical concept which has no baring on the material world or actual items. It is equivalent of a masturbatory fantasy akin to how many imaginary flying beings can perch atop a sewing implement.

 

How can I say “the object” is anything other than a mere packet of sense impressions? You haven't given me any quality or nature the object possesses aside from what I already know are sense impressions. You're presenting me with objects that are mere hollowed-out ghosts, lacking all nature or substance.

 

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the lungs possess the necessary characteristics of highly complex sensory input processing and evaluation to suggest the existence of a lungs-mind. It seems as though you're being deliberately obtuse here.

 

Oh but the lungs-mind is very simple, it enjoys i-i-i-i-in and o-u-u-u-u-t over and over, that's a good time for the lungs-mind.  Am I jesting?  Not really.  Whatever exists outside of merely my sensorium, still has some kind of mind.  These minds, as in the case of protons or molecules or pieces of driftwood or what have you, will probably be pretty strange compared to ours.  What does a proton think about?  I conjecture that the smaller the entity, the more it "sings" mathematically.  Just as the solar system embodies the "music of the spheres" so does the microverse operate musically.  Anyway, my argument isn't for what kind of mind these things have, only that, in order to be real things outside of my sensorium, they must be mental in nature.

 

 

On the contrary, we can point to everything between the temporal-physical location of your min and the temporal-physical location of my mind and everything else not between them, as well as the brains containing those minds which are all “objective reality”. Our experience of these is subjective; however, their existence is objective. No need to address the purely hypothetical “noumenon” you keep referring to as there is no reason to believe that such actually exists in the material world. The world does not cease to exist when you stop sensing it. The world's identity does not change whether you are aware of it or not. The only thing that changes is your knowledge or experience of it, which is entirely subjective. Such knowledge and experience (or lack thereof) does not change the objective reality of its existence.

 

Everything you point to in “objective reality” is nothing to me but packets of sense-data. The primary datum of experience is experience itself, which is why I position it as primary. “Brains” and “material world” are secondary constructs made out of my mind. And your mind, too, and the minds of all monads.

 

 

You are again mistaking your experience of phenomena for the phenomena itself.

 

What is the nature of “phenomena itself”? What does it look like, outside of all sense-data associated with it?

 

 

I already explained that. If there’s no credible evidence for something’s existence, it can be presumed not to exist. If you want to presume that something exists for which, by definition, there can be no evidence, you're free to be as irrational as you wish and go ahead and do so. I on the other hand am not about to go attempting to prove the existence of the empirically unprovable.

 

You have yet to supply credible evidence that any “phenomena itself” exists, outside of all sense-data.

[BenShade]

I started this thread to discuss the merits of a very specfic argument but it feels like I should restart this thread as the conversation has deviated to a completely differant line of discussion.

 

If your logic "proves" the illogical, then your logic is flawed. Suppose you had a "proof", where would this get you? There is still no evidence or relevance to our current existence for or of God. This can't go anywhere, because there is nothing to be proven or revealed by this conversation except bad logic for the insane people to try to fog people to feel they may have some ground to stand on in their irrational belief of a God.

 

You statement is not an argument. I am loathe to even respond but perhaps you don't realize. If agree with my assumptions and fail to find a flaw in my argument then to reject the conclusion is irrational. The only reason to use logical reasoning is to come to conclusions that are unexpected. If it was only used to come to conclude that which is obviously true it would be useless.

 

I came to this forum in great hopes of finding some intelligent people who could help me vette this argument and perhaps even poke a hole or two in it. Instead the thread has been hijacted by an irrational theist throwing up a straw man and another person with sound arguments rebutting him, and nearly no one interacting with my argument and those that do want to argue semantics or tell me my argument must be flawed by virtue of a conclusion they don't like.

 

I implore anyone with the capacity to engage the origional argument.

[thebeardslastcall]

I found flaws, but didn't have the time or inclination to detail them. Having just reread some of the post I think my book will address some of your points with arguments and am putting my efforts there to finish the book for more than just those on these forums to read. I was also observing the madness that followed as the thread got a bit derailed by the crazy guy. My post was to point out the insanity and then to question the relevancy of the point of the topic, questioning what exactly you think you've answered with your proof, if we assumed it wasn't flawed. Are you going to treat rocks differently? Are you God or a part of God? Is your God one consciousness or an infinite number of consciousnesses?

[Anuojat]

This really boils down to "empirism vs logic" in which case empirism wins.

 

Because everyone must accept the validity of theyre senses. Otherwise posting here makes no sense and moots any arguement by self contradiction. Logic must thus always bow down empirism even if logic is valid way of pressing reality arguements and information.

 

 

And also the LACK of curiousity from Donnadogsoth was particularly irritating. That is ofcourse not an argument but rather  i find important Because it reminded of what i used to do almost to the letter, in the past when i was christian. Respond as if you cant be wrong so and pretend that this is somehow a debate.

 

This like any defence of that which either cannot exist or has not been shown to exist is managing anxiety of childhood abuse. Revelation as you put it thus is born not out of something which exist outside of your mind but only in your head. I say all of this in desperate plea for you to not lose yourself to your own anxiety and long held beliefs which you know already lisening to stefan are ingrained so well theyre irrational origins have become blurred or to put it another way:

 

I might be completely wrong and projecting but you for one have not entarined the idea for single minute here (and in other threads concerning religion) and given how important it sounds to you is very telling and frankly seems horrifying that such important issue to you doesnt warrant dout or curiousity about being possibly wrong/mistaken.

 

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1638/the-ghosts-of-self-knowledge

 

Whether you find this useful or not, know that this was simply me rection and thoughts to similiarities i see with your posts and mine in the past and call out of horror of such self foggin as i see it. In no way am i posting this as argument for or againts god but simply as my experience. If original poster find this not useful to the discussion please inform me.

[EclecticIdealist]

Consciousness is the quality or state of being wherein the senses relay information to the brain of an organism which then processes that information to create a concept of the environment which it may then use to successfully interact with the environment, to hunt and gather food, to work with tools and other implements, to interact with other conscious and non-conscious entities and so on. We know that our brains are the organs which manifest consciousness, as do the brains of other animals. We know this by virtue of the fact that absent a correctly functioning brain, the body will not self-animate in any meaningful, deliberate, or purposeful way. The functions of the brain rely upon the physical structure of the brain, electricity, and chemical processes to create the experience and manifestation of consciousness.

 

There are but two alternatives. Either consciousness is the result of natural, physical processes, or it is the result of supernatural, metaphysical processes. If the universe were conscious by natural means, the consciousness would be very, very, very slow on the order of billions of years for any given “thought” encompassing data from the entire universe due to the great distances between the star systems and the amount of time it takes for light (the fastest thing out there) to get from one point at the furthest distance from all the others in the universe. 

 

The notion that the universe is conscious of itself and in absolute control of itself would require that the constituent elements of the universe (or at least significantly large portions of it) would need to be sensory in nature, and others would need to be capable of altering itself in some way as a consequence. Now I suppose it’s possible; however, again, the time it would take is on the order of billions of years. You might be able to justify calling the universe conscious, under such a hypothetical scenario, but from a practical standpoint for you and I, the universe could not be conscious of any of us… our lives would be shorter than the blink of an eye over the span of 100 years.

 

Now, if you want to hypothesize that consciousness is supernatural (as some have suggested), then all bets are off, as you can imagine anything and everything you wish, such as a consciousness that is not bound by space or time, and non-localized to this universe. It can be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and anything else you might wish, because it’s non-temporal and non-spacial, not bound by any of the laws of physics; not to mention completely unfalsifiable and indistinguishable from one’s own imagination.

[Donnadogsoth]

Hard to respond when my responses get eaten, which has happened twice now.

 

You have not supplied any evidence for entities being anything other than packets of sense-data in the mind.  Absent the sense-impressions we are left with nothing--at least, you are left with nothing, because you believe the mind is a function of matter, not matter a function of mind.  My Universe is lavishly arrayed with substances like the sand grains of the beach and the stars of the sky, whereas yours is substanceless, empty, dead, some kind of scientistic fever-dream.

[rosencrantz]

My Universe is lavishly arrayed with substances like the sand grains of the beach and the stars of the sky, whereas yours is substanceless, empty, dead, some kind of scientistic fever-dream.

 

Just because you say so doesn't it make so. Propose an experiment that verifies your view. A materialistic view of the world is easy to validate. Consume your favourite drug and see how it changes the way the mind works based on the intake of a single substance.