God Must Exist;

[Jan Ardena]

A relationship only in the sense that I don't see a reason for believing in that existence.

Again, you're using "God" when you really mean "the concept of God". Which, while correct, doesn't help make God exist at all in reality. I'll assume that wasn't your intent, and you're just discussing perceptions themselves.

There must be things we DON'T KNOW, things we can't even comprehend. Right?
Do those things exist?

jan.

 

[Bells]

But more manly.

Don't ask me why, but you brought this to my mind.

I'm an athiestic diety.

You sir, are a Gawd!

You know, I can't hold that image in my mind.
I'm just getting intemitent images of a chimpanzee in a sort of blue haze.

Which is akin to what many mentally picture when they are told "God must exist" or "God is real"..

That haze of 'huh?'..

 

[Rhaedas]

There must be things we DON'T KNOW, things we can't even comprehend. Right?
Do those things exist?

jan.

The ones that do exist, yes. But I don't think we have to see the tree before it can fall in the forest either.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Don't ask me why, but you brought this to my mind.

I refuse to comment on whether or not I have "crunchy man-nuts".

You sir, are a Gawd!

As in "Oh my gawd!"?

 

[Bells]

I refuse to comment on whether or not I have "crunchy man-nuts".

Manly!

As in "Oh my gawd!"?

Which is probably what DeeCee says to 7 of 9 at the height of imaginary passion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rhaedas,

The ones that do exist, yes.

s


How can the non-existent exist, if you have no comprehension of anything
outside of what you know?

And just for the record, God does not fall into the ''non-existent'', because he does exist, in your mind.

He exists more than the ''non-existent'', yet you are prepared to accept that
things must exist even though you have absolutely no idea of them.

That's some strange shit when you think about it.

But I don't think we have to see the tree before it can fall in the forest either.

I would say this is so because we have an image it in our mind which we relate to. Whether or not the tree actually falls is neither here nor there.

jan.

 

[Repo Man]

Some of SciForums heavy hitters are having a go at Jan? Good.

 

[Bells]

I would say this is so because we have an image it in our mind which we relate to. Whether or not the tree actually falls is neither here nor there.

jan.

We know if a tree falls down anywhere, even in a forest, it will make a sound.

We know this because we have observed it.

We know what the sound would be like, the creak of the trunk as it falls, the scraping noise and the leaves swishing about noise. We can imagine it because we have all heard it in some form or other, observed it ourselves or seen it on TV for example.

You cannot apply that knowledge to God or to the supposed knowledge that God exists.

 

[wynn]

The point is, we form a relationship with the idea, which becomes a perception. The question is; are relationships and perceptions real?

The fact is that we do act in some relation to those relationships and perceptions (at least this is how we tend to explain our actions).

We move our body accordingly when we walk up the stairs. We say hello to a particular person. These are real actions.
We explain this by saying that we presume some relation between ourselves and our perceptions and relationships (but often, we are not specifically aware of this).

Further, a person who is afraid of snakes, and also ropes, jumps away upon seeing a rolled-up rope. That jumping is a real action.

If something has real implications, then it is real, I would presume.

That relationship which is formed in the mind, is no different to forming the
same type of relationship in your mind, with your husband.

What is the difference?

Neuroscientists would say that to the brain, there is essentially no difference.
Now we'd have to decide whether we shall see the neuroscientists as the authority on what is real or not.

 

[wynn]

How is it possible to ''not have a clue about God'' when your mind has already concieved of it?

Incorrect. There are peoples that had no concept at all of god until they were introduced to the idea by outsiders.*

Dyw's comment is not a reply to Jan's.
The people Dyw is referring to are the Pirahas, supposedly having no concept of God.

 

[wynn]

I have no belief in god. Therefore he does not exist for me and there is no relationship.

If I am understanding Jan as he means it, then he is saying that as long as anyone is making any statement about God (ie. any statement that has the word "God" in it),
then this person has some perception of God, some relationship with God.

Because in order to truly have no relationship with God, the word "God" (and any other term that might refer to God, such as "Supreme Being") would have to be completely foreign to one.

Such foreignness is not possible to bring about deliberately, and can be undone in a moment.

 

[wynn]

Not quite true.
In order to believe something doesn't exist means that you do hold a belief about that something. If you see what I mean.
Not believing god exists allows him to not exist in your head, however.

So you are focusing on the dualism between
believing that not-p
and
not believing that p

The fact is that when you think and talk about this (and you do!), you prove that you have some notion of p (which means that you are not a Piraha-before-the-advent-of-white-man-kind-of-atheist).

All Jan has done is put god on the same footing as unicorns, Winnie the Pooh and Santa Claus.

Actually, it's the atheists who do that.

 

[Rav]

Actually, it's the atheists who do that.

Typically, sure. But Jan is arguing that if you can conceive of a thing (even if you don't believe it exists) then it does exist. So in this case Dywyddyr has been given indirect permission by Jan to argue that unicorns, Winnie the Pooh and Santa Claus should enjoy the same ontological status as God.

Seriously though, I wish people would stop picking on Unicorns.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

I would say this is so because we have an image it in our mind which we relate to. Whether or not the tree actually falls is neither here nor there.

We know if a tree falls down anywhere, even in a forest, it will make a sound.

We know this because we have observed it.

I would be inclined to agree with you, in part.
The trouble is, I haven't observed it.
Does this matter?

We know what the sound would be like, the creak of the trunk as it falls, the scraping noise and the leaves swishing about noise. We can imagine it because we have all heard it in some form or other, observed it ourselves or seen it on TV for example.

If this ''imagining'' and ''hearing'' forms the reality purely in our minds, it must
therefore exist. We can of course reason that the tree doesn't make a sound, but that is not part of the reality, it is in relation to it.
IOW our minds instantly forms the reality, based on the essence of who, and what we are. We then question it, and draw conclusions, or we accept different ideas. But the reality remains in tact.

You cannot apply that knowledge to God or to the supposed knowledge that God exists.

It is non-different.
The reality of God is present within you, but you have questioned it, and come to a conclusion based on it. But God must exist in your mind in order for you to do this. Just as the tree does make a sound when it falls, in my mind, despite never having had that physical experience.

jan.

 

[DeeCee]

Jan

A thought occurs....

Why god?
It's been pointed out that we could play this game with anything, unicorns, pink lettuce, blue monkeys (accidentally created by me if your musings on the objective content of thought are to be believed) ect ect

So why choose god as you example?
You worried that "Stable version of Windows must exist" wouldn't attract as much interest?
Or have you got another agenda?

DeeCee

 

[Bells]

I would be inclined to agree with you, in part.
The trouble is, I haven't observed it.
Does this matter?

You have never seen a tree fall down?

And yes it does matter. Since you have never heard the noise a tree makes as it falls down in a forest, you really should never use it in your debate until you do.

If this ''imagining'' and ''hearing'' forms the reality purely in our minds, it must
therefore exist. We can of course reason that the tree doesn't make a sound, but that is not part of the reality, it is in relation to it.
IOW our minds instantly forms the reality, based on the essence of who, and what we are. We then question it, and draw conclusions, or we accept different ideas. But the reality remains in tact.

There is a difference between imagining an event and remembering an event - ie tree falling down in a forest.

It is non-different.
The reality of God is present within you, but you have questioned it, and come to a conclusion based on it. But God must exist in your mind in order for you to do this. Just as the tree does make a sound when it falls, in my mind, despite never having had that physical experience.

Now you see, if I was some backward savage living in the middle of nowhere and had never had contact with anyone in the outside world, God would not be present within me because I would have had no knowledge of him/her/it. And if he/she/it was, then you may have a point. But that was not the case.

Just as you cannot imagine knowing what sound a tree makes as it comes down in a forest because you have never experienced it before. For all we know, you could be imagining and believing that they sound like fairy bells when they come down.. which would be incorrect.

 

[Bells]

You worried that "Stable version of Windows must exist" wouldn't attract as much interest?

Well Windows 7 is quite stable, especially when you use Firefox.

Just sayin'..

Anywho, don't tell her that. Next thing you know she will swap 7 of 9 for God and we'll have an influx of fapping men saying 'oh god oh god'..

 

[Enmos]

God still exists in the mind.
To the point where you make a decision as to whether or not he exists.
That you think he doesn't exist does not eliminate him, it merely describes him as non-existent.

God(s) exists in the mind. True enough.

Therefore God exists, as much as anything else in the mind, despite
qualities we assign to it.

jan.

That's IT? Okay, I can live with that..

 

[leopold]

if men can't aspire to be like gods then they will be worms.
- author unknown

 

[spidergoat]

That relationship which is formed in the mind, is no different to forming the
same type of relationship in your mind, with your husband.

What is the difference?

jan.

For you? Nothing. I would suggest that maybe your husband is real and your thoughts are not.

if men can't aspire to be like gods then they will be worms.
- author unknown

That's the whole problem, we aspire to become dictators that demand love from our subjects while dominating and controlling them.