Proof of the existence of God

[spidergoat]

Not god but a Being.

OK, being then. Our minds are uniquely structured to model the behavior of other beings, a critical skill in a complex social culture. How do you know it isn't your own subconscious mind that through some quirk of neurology becomes consciously accessible and perceived as another mind? Multiple personality disorder is revealing in the sense that it's possible to have more than one personality in the same brain. Perhaps believers create a false god of their subconscious mind. Perhaps this is a comfortable way of interacting with it.

 

[river]

OK, being then. Our minds are uniquely structured to model the behavior of other beings, a critical skill in a complex social culture. How do you know it isn't your own subconscious mind that through some quirk of neurology becomes consciously accessible and perceived as another mind? Multiple personality disorder is revealing in the sense that it's possible to have more than one personality in the same brain. Perhaps believers create a false god of their subconscious mind. Perhaps this is a comfortable way of interacting with it.

We always think in terms that a higher form of thinking is a god concept. We are TAUGHT this through religion of any form and anywhere on this planet.

I of course, obviously think different.

 

[Sarkus]

I would like to put in a blatant self-promoting advertisement for my new thread here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-faith-a-reliable-path-to-knowledge.152142/

Isn't self-publicising against the forum rules, James?
Shame on you!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

But snowflakes are only one of many "exceptions". We really can not

Here's Jan's argument in a nutshell:


This argument is given in the face of a world in which, in fact, millions of people do not believe that God exists. That is, a world where certain people not only can conceive of a world where God does not exist, but who honestly believe that is the true nature of the world.

Jan's argument is that people who actually do imagine a world in which God doesn't exist, and believe in the truth of that world, are wrong because they don't know what God really is. That is, Jan thinks that atheists and so on are denying the true definition of God - Jan's definition - and that if they really accepted what God actually is - i.e. accepted Jan's conception of God - then they'd have no choice but to believe in God.

To put it in simpler terms, Jan would like atheists to accept that his God is a logical necessity because Jan's universe needs a God-like creator or else his house of cards falls down. The problem is that for his God to be a logical necessity we all first need to accept that his definition of God as the Creator etc. is the only possible conception of God, and that God is essentially synonymous with the universe. Therefore, no God = no universe. Apparently Jan is stuck in his own little box here and can't see out.


Is it really so hard to imagine a world in which living things didn't breathe? It seems clear to me that such a world would be very different from this one, not the same, but such a world is conceivable. I'm not sure what the issue is with imagining such a thing.

Firstly, I am not making an argument, as there is no need. I accept that you believe God does not exist.

One cannot imagine a world where millions of people don't believe God exists, because we already live in such a world.

I have never said people are wrong for not believing in God.
God as original cause/creator, is not my definition. It is THE definition. If you don't accept that, then you are delusional.

We can imagine a world where we cannot breath, because we know what it is like to not breath. The world which we imagine cannot go past that experience, because we've never been beyond that experience, and do not have a concept of what it is like. All our imaginings are based on what exists. If we try to imagine what it is like to be dead, I'm sure that for most of us, it would resemble sleep, or unconsciousness.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

The definition of Princess Sparklekisses is that she's a unicorn with fairy wings who really exists.

Now, considering that that is the definition, does it then follow that Princess Sparklekisses really exists? Apparently so, right jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

The definition of Princess Sparklekisses is that she's a unicorn with fairy wings who really exists.

Now, considering that that is the definition, does it then follow that Princess Sparklekisses really exists? Apparently so, right jan?

I didn't claim God existed. Sorry to burst your bubble. Also, I never presented an argument.

The trojan horse however. He claimed God does not exist in the guise of so called thought experiment. What say you about that?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Quite frankly, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Can you imagine something that does not exist?
Are you sure you're not simply recognizing things, events, places, people/animal types, feelings, emotions, and other things that actually exist, to create a scenario that you've never seen or experienced before?

Do you regard this experience as something that is non existent?

Something thhat is truly non existent, is something that cannot be even thought of, or imagined. Why? Because it does not exist in reality.

Can you imagine something the doesn't exist at all? I bet you can't.

Jan.

 

[Daecon]

I didn't claim God existed. Sorry to burst your bubble. Also, I never presented an argument.

The trojan horse however. He claimed God does not exist in the guise of so called thought experiment. What say you about that?

Jan.

You're claiming that God exists because the definition of God is that God exists.

 

[HarryT]

Where have I concluded that God exists.

It alle began here:

JBrendonK, Imagine a world in which it is a fact that there is no God. Now look at our world and it looks the same as that world you just imagined.

A world with no God, means no ability to imagine, and a world where imagination exists is a world with God. ?

Jan, If you do not mean to say here that God exists, then what are you saying here?!

 

[Sarkus]

You're claiming that God exists because the definition of God is that God exists.

Yep - but he won't accept that his reasoning is circular, and in fact accuses those who note that it is of being wilfully ignorant and preventing discussion.

It alle began here:
Jan, If you do not mean to say here that God exists, then what are you saying here?!

Jan's been denying having claimed it ever since he wrote that.
Either he is simply incapable of seeing the implicit claim within what he wrote, or he is being dishonest.
That, coupled with his inability to identify the circularity within his own arguments, says pretty much all you need to know about the last 4 or 5 pages of this thread.

 

[HarryT]

Yep - but he won't accept that his reasoning is circular, and in fact accuses those who note that it is of being wilfully ignorant and preventing discussion.
Jan's been denying having claimed it ever since he wrote that.
Either he is simply incapable of seeing the implicit claim within what he wrote, or he is being dishonest.
That, coupled with his inability to identify the circularity within his own arguments, says pretty much all you need to know about the last 4 or 5 pages of this thread.

Well, I am not so sure. In any case, he is not making is easy to understand him. I don't know if he is doing that on purpose because he likes the argument or he is just not able to get his point across.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It alle began here:
Jan, If you do not mean to say here that God exists, then what are you saying here?!

I am responding to a to a challenge which asked us to imagine a world where it is considered a fact that God does not exist, and upon that it will become apparent that the envisioned world is nothing but the world we currently live in.
All I did was show him that according the definition of God, we exist beacause God exist, so if God doesn't exist, then neither would we . Remember this takes place as an imaginary scenario.

I am now being accused of arguing the claim that God exists.

It seems that thought experiments, metaphors, analogies, and mutuality, is a privilege reserved only for the confirmed atheists among us.

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Also, I never presented an argument.

And you never will.

 

[sideshowbob]

I accept that you believe God does not exist.

I do not "believe" that God does not exist. That would be as empty a belief as the belief that God exists.

I said that the "God" that people believe in is made up. That doesn't preclude the existence of a real God. However, there is no solid reason to conclude that there is a real God.

 

[Spellbound]

And you never will.

God can be thought of as a conscious energy field which permeates the material universe. So yes, there is a God but I do not believe in an after-life given the evidence. This God is self-generating and self-reflecting. He is just like you or me except omnipresent, all knowing. It doesn't seem capable of bending nature's laws so I doubt it is omnipotent, but more like a passive observer that is capable of interacting with the television and other media such as music. It is within you and you will know it if you ever feel it. I know I have. Undeniably. Read the supertautological CTMU.

 

[sideshowbob]

It doesn't seem capable of bending nature's laws so I doubt it is omnipotent, but more like a passive observer that is capable of interacting with the television and other media such as music.

You'll probably get more argument on that from theists than from atheists.

(I like the idea of God yelling at the TV. )

 

[spidergoat]

God can be thought of as a conscious energy field which permeates the material universe. So yes, there is a God but I do not believe in an after-life given the evidence. This God is self-generating and self-reflecting. He is just like you or me except omnipresent, all knowing. It doesn't seem capable of bending nature's laws so I doubt it is omnipotent, but more like a passive observer that is capable of interacting with the television and other media such as music. It is within you and you will know it if you ever feel it. I know I have. Undeniably. Read the supertautological CTMU.

My question is how do you know that what you perceive is in you isn't just you. I highly doubt that CTMU was the thing that made you a believer.

 

[Spellbound]

My question is how do you know that what you perceive is in you isn't just you.

My mind was influencing the external world's light in the room I was in with good and bad thoughts. Which is why I did my best to have only positive thoughts. I could determine this from the effect I had on God, the Being who merged with me a few times in 2012 and once or twice this year, a Being who, made Himself known to me in the kind of oneness that defines spirituality or the "Quantum entanglement" between mind and reality. It's metaphysics and science. There was no mysterious aspect to it AT ALL.

 

[spidergoat]

My mind was influencing the external world's light in the room I was in with good and bad thoughts. Which is why I did my best to have only positive thoughts. I could determine this from the effect I had on God, the Being who merged with me a few times in 2012 and once or twice this year, a Being who, made Himself known to me in the kind of oneness that defines spirituality or the "Quantum entanglement" between mind and reality. It's metaphysics and science. There was no mysterious aspect to it AT ALL.

The dialation of one's pupils could explain your perception of control over light levels, did you happen to measure this with a light meter? I have experienced this oneness too, but it didn't strike me as indicative of a being.

 

[Spellbound]

The dialation of one's pupils could explain your perception of control over light levels, did you happen to measure this with a light meter? I have experienced this oneness too, but it didn't strike me as indicative of a being.

No. It was definitely a reality, not an hallucination. The universe is conscious of itself. Maybe not all the time, only when God merges with it. As well as with you. The experience is explained by Quantum Entanglement. Not the dilation of one's pupils.