I Believe God Exists

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can we restrict theists to comic sans font, please?

[stromboli]

Can we restrict theists to comic sans font, please?

[Casparov]

You missed the boat. I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about, "how do you know", which a totally different matter. I could be conscious, living in a totally dark room. I have no way of knowing what's happening. Am I in a prison? Am I in a rocketship travelling from star to star? Am I alive? and so on. I am conscious, but I know zilch. So when you make the assertion, " I have proof that I exist" that is a belief which is unproven.

I will state this several different ways to clarify my point:

If you are in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that you are conscious, then the only true statement you can make is "I exist".

If I am in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that I am conscious, then the only true statement that I can make is "I exist."

If I show up in your dark room, and claim to you that "I exist". You can doubt this, because I cannot prove it to you. (which i think is the point you were making) But you still have proof that "you exist" therefore when you say the statement "I exist" you say it with absolute certainty. (which is the point I was making)

The statement "I exist" is made with absolute proof when you say it, but if I show up to you with the assertion, "I have proof that I exist", this is not absolutely true for you, because you can deny that I exist. But you cannot deny that you exist. Therefore, the statement "I exist," when you are the one making it, is the only absolute certainty you can ever have.

The difference in my scenario with what we experience is that in our daily experience we can see and go outside the dark room, and investigate what's out there. We see trees, cats, tables, etc. and we can ask, are these things made up of the same stuff as I am made of?

You know that you exist. Further, you know that images and sensations appear in your awareness. To observe these sensations and claim that they exist externally and independent of you as objective material objects, is an assumption that you then make. We do not perceive the world directly (The Veil of Perception Problem), therefore we cannot conclude that we are perceiving external objective Material objects without making an unjustified assumption.

Further investigation reveals we are all made of the same stuff which we can label matter/energy. But now you ask, what if we are in a simulation? Then we are back to the intial scenario. Unless we can move outside that simulation, we have no way of knowing what's out there. If there is an immaterial world, it is beyond our investigative abilities and we are wasting our time speculating about it.

Upon further investigation we find that matter is 99.999999% empty space. Upon even further investigation we find that the 0.00000001% of matter that is not empty space isn't material either, it is an Ivan Value in a Wave Equation. An Ivan Value in a Wave Equation is a figment of our imagination, not a material object.

To assert that "we are the all made of the same stuff which we label matter/energy" is to identify yourself with what you perceive. This is a philosophical error: I perceive that which I am.

If you think you are your body you are wrong. You perceive your body, therefore you are not your body, you are that which perceives your body. You cannot look outside of your self and claim that what you perceive is you, because you are always going to be that which is doing the perceiving, not the thing being perceived.

You are awareness itself. (which is immaterial) Reality is fundamentally information which we interpret as perceptions and sensations. (information is immaterial) The only thing that is real is the resulting culmination of information and awareness, ergo: Experience. (experience also is an immaterial concept)

There is no need and no basis for material objects in this picture of reality, therefore Monistic Idealism entails.

[Casparov]

I submit that it is better to work to understand how the experiments are actually performed and what the results actually are then to argue over other people's opinions about what quantum mechanics means. Once you truly come to understand what is being tested and what the results are, you can then form your own informed conclusion about the ramifications.

I present here a trusted source for an explanation of certain experiments and their results. Like a good experimental scientist, Aspect does not offer his opinion on the ramifications of these experiments, but leaves that up to us. Enjoy.

"The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality." - Niels Bohr

[La Dolce Vita]

If you think you are your body you are wrong. You perceive your body, therefore you are not your body, you are that which perceives your body. You cannot look outside of your self and claim that what you perceive is you, because you are always going to be that which is doing the perceiving, not the thing being perceived.

Am I not perceiving my perception as well? As I cannot be what I perceive, by your definition, I can not be that which perceives either - by your definition - as I perceive it. 

See how none of your logic works?

[Hakurei Reimu]

LOL Okay well first of all.... Quantum Mechanics is not a "theory," it is a branch of Physics.

No, quantum mechanics is a theory, not a branch of physics. The branch of physics is particle physics, or high-energy physics.

It is a means to test and accurately describe what we observe.

Of material things we are oberving, to wit, subatomic particles. Hence, it is a materialistic theory â€" it assumes what you are talking about are material objects. Subatomic particles are real enough. If enough gamma rays zip through you, you die of radiation poisoning.

If Materialism states that actions in the future cannot effect the past,

IF IF IF! There's nothing about materialism that says that time machines aren't (theoretically) possible, which would do exactly as you state â€" allow actions in the future to affect (not effect) the past. You are not arguing against materalism. You are arguing against something you made up and call materialism.

I've had enough of your bullshit.

[stromboli]

No, quantum mechanics is a theory, not a branch of physics. The branch of physics is particle physics, or high-energy physics.
Of material things we are oberving, to wit, subatomic particles. Hence, it is a materialistic theory â€" it assumes what you are talking about are material objects. Subatomic particles are real enough. If enough gamma rays zip through you, you die of radiation poisoning.
IF IF IF! There's nothing about materialism that says that time machines aren't (theoretically) possible, which would do exactly as you state â€" allow actions in the future to affect (not effect) the past. You are not arguing against materalism. You are arguing against something you made up and call materialism.

I've had enough of your bullshit.

Yeah. dude doesn't get it. Like showed up late to the party with cheap beer. Sad.

[Sargon The Grape]

I submit that it is better to work to understand how the experiments are actually performed and what the results actually are then to argue over other people's opinions about what quantum mechanics means. Once you truly come to understand what is being tested and what the results are, you can then form your own informed conclusion about the ramifications.

[josephpalazzo]

I will state this several different ways to clarify my point:

If you are in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that you are conscious, then the only true statement you can make is "I exist".

If I am in a dark room and know absolutely nothing except that I am conscious, then the only true statement that I can make is "I exist."

But you do not know HOW you exist: you could exist as a material being, or as a fictionasl character in a comic book, or as an illusion from brains-in-vats or in a matrix as in the movie of that title. You won't know until you do some further investigation.

If I show up in your dark room, and claim to you that "I exist". You can doubt this, because I cannot prove it to you. (which i think is the point you were making) But you still have proof that "you exist" therefore when you say the statement "I exist" you say it with absolute certainty. (which is the point I was making)

I have the same problem as you do: I don't know How I exist.

Upon further investigation we find that matter is 99.999999% empty space.

Space cannot exist without matter. It is parts and parcel of our world. In no way does it deny the existence of matter, quite the contrary.

Upon even further investigation we find that the 0.00000001% of matter that is not empty space isn't material either, it is an Ivan Value in a Wave Equation. An Ivan Value in a Wave Equation is a figment of our imagination, not a material object.

I have no idea of what you're talking about.

To assert that "we are the all made of the same stuff which we label matter/energy" is to identify yourself with what you perceive. This is a philosophical error: I perceive that which I am.

You are stating it as an error, but you haven't demonstrated it. In fact, I find that I am made of atoms which were fabricated in stars that exploded millions of years ago, demonstrating that I'm made of the same stuff as all other forms of matter.

If you think you are your body you are wrong.

An unproven statement, which undelines you have an agenda that can't be proven, so the only way out for you is to make blatant unproved statement.

You perceive your body, therefore you are not your body,

Why not???? My eyes see my feet. Sure my eyes are not my feet. But there are no laws in nature that forbids a part to see the whole.

you are My mind is that which perceives my body.

FIFY

You are awareness itself.

Without my brain, I cannot be aware, and that's a proven fact.

Reality is fundamentally information which we interpret as perceptions and sensations.

Agree.

(information is immaterial)

Totally disagree. Information comes in the form of energy, which is matter ( E = mc²

The only thing that is real is the resulting culmination of information and awareness, ergo: Experience. (experience also is an immaterial concept)

Information is real, but not the only thing, as it is a form of energy, then everything made up of matter/energy is real.

[leo]

Wow 25 pages of this shit. 

[stromboli]

Evidence:
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something

Proof:
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
the act of testing or making trial of anything; tests.

From the beginning, anything you provide would have to be fairly materialistic in nature, because it has to be understood and agreed upon by everyone. If everything we put here you recect because of your philosophical stance, then the discussion is meaningless from the start, because you simply reject everything we offer as proof.

Your "evidence" has been a series of if/then statements and reference to some experiments in Quantum Physics, which have been interpreted several different ways by Particle Physicists, some claiming it proof somehow god exists, and others that it disproves god. I don't see any way you can prove your statements, because they are outside of any material form we can agree upon.

You claim you can prove the existence of a god, but you can't even define it. Supernatural means not definable or quantifiable by natural means. So even if you describe something, you can't know if what you are describing is real. You can't prove something if you can't identify what you are proving.

Theory is not fact until it is tested and can be shown through experimentation to be real.

God does not have to have created the universe.
Quote:
"A complete scientific theory that accounts for everything in the universe doesn't need an external explanation in the same way that specific things within the universe need external explanations. In fact, Carroll argues, wrapping another layer of explanation (i.e., God) around a self-contained theory of everything would just be an unnecessary complication. (The theory already works without God.)"

And other people such as Hawking and  Krauss have slo constructed models that did not require a god to create the universe.

You can run this thing out to a hundred pages, but you'll never prove your argument, because you yourself have taken away the very definition of proof from the beginning.

And the same goes for an intelligent universe. This would certainly involve the fine tuning argument, which all of us here reject outright, so forget it.

[Casparov]

Am I not perceiving my perception as well? As I cannot be what I perceive, by your definition, I can not be that which perceives either - by your definition - as I perceive it. 

See how none of your logic works?

Look carefully at the sentence you constructed, "I can not be that which perceives... as I perceive it." You are still "that which perceives", even if you could somehow observe the act of perception itself. (which is impossible) As long as you add at the end of your sentence "as I perceive it" you are still that which perceives. The fact that you are perceiving has not gone away, it is still very much there, even at the end of your sentence. And it remains what you are at base, no matter what is perceived.

That which is perceiving is always one step behind what is being perceived. As soon as you have something that is "being perceived" you remain "that which is perceiving it", and therefore are one step behind it to be able to observe it.

As the perceiver, you are always one step removed from the perceived.

[Casparov]

Without my brain, I cannot be aware, and that's a proven fact.

This is not a proven fact in the same way that, to you, it is not a proven fact that I exist. You can observe that when brains stop functioning, the person who's brain it was ceases to be able to tell you that they are aware, but this is not proof that they are not aware.

It was never a proven fact that they were aware in the first place. Even when their brain is working, the only way you can know that they are truly aware is if they tell you they are, but they cannot prove it to you, you have to just believe what they say is true without definite proof. It is possible that they are what is called a "philosophical zombie" in philosophy of mind. They could be a body and fully functioning brain with absolutely no conscious awareness. This "zombie" would still be able to tell you it was aware, and would be entirely indistinguishable from someone who truly was aware, but there is no way you can definitively PROVE one way or the other. It should be obvious then that if it cannot be proven to you that a functioning brain is in fact "aware", then it also cannot be proven that a person ceases to be aware when the brain stops functioning.

The only definitive PROOF you can have of this is if your brain stops working and you discover that you continue to be aware.

Agree.

So we agree that reality is fundamentally information.

Totally disagree. Information comes in the form of energy, which is matter ( E = mc²

But we disagree that information is immaterial. Okay cool. The hard part is done. The rest is easy:

2+2=4

You have received information from the set of symbols I have provided above. This is an example of information. Now we must ask a few questions about this information:

Is the information conveyed by the symbols, equal to the symbols? No. The exact same information can be conveyed using various different symbols. I could point to two apples, add two apples, and point to the four apples and convey the same information. Instead of "2+2=4" I could write 'two plus two equals four" and convey the exact same information using entirely different symbols. Therefore, the information is not equal to the symbols.

You are receiving the information provided by me via light being projected from your computer screen in a certain pattern. Is the information equal to the pixels in your monitor? Is the information equal to the photons hitting your cornea? Is the information equal to the electrical signals passing over neural passageways in your visual cortex? Is the information equal to the matter in your brain which is representing it?

if I write 2+2=4 in the sand, is the information equal to the grains of sand? If you see 2+2=4 written in a book, is the information the piece of paper and the blots of ink? No. grains of sand, ink on paper, light from a computer monitor, all of these things are just more symbols. Symbols which are meaningless to someone who cannot interpret their meaning. The information is not equal to the symbols used to convey it.

It seems you have confused the "medium" with the "message". The medium is "e=mc²" but the "message" is the information that is conveyed. The information is immaterial because it has no mass, no weight, no volume, etc. It is not measurable, nor quantifiable.

If I have a material object and I give it to you, I no longer have that material object. If I have a piece of information (such as 2+2=4) and I give it to you, I have not lost that piece of information. We both have it. Information is not quantifiable.

Information has none of the properties of a material object, and all of the properties of being immaterial. Therefore, information is immaterial.

Information is real, but not the only thing, as it is a form of energy, then everything made up of matter/energy is real.

Information is not fundamentally energy, energy is fundamentally information. All of reality and everything that you have ever perceived and experienced and interpreted as energy/matter is fundamentally information. Information is immaterial, awareness is immaterial, experience is immaterial, therefore Idealism entails.

[Mr.Obvious]

You may have missed my reply on page 22, or chosen not to reply to it, I do not know which of course.

[josephpalazzo]

Information has none of the properties of a material object, and all of the properties of being immaterial. Therefore, information is immaterial.

When your computer prints a "1" as an output, or display a "1" on your screen, it does that through the workings of switches. If you open your computer, you're not going to see "1" anywhere. It is stored in the configuration of a bunch of open and closed switches. Similarly, when you think of "1", that is stored in the configuration made up of neurons and synapsis of your brain. With MRI, we can locate exactly where "1" is stored in your brain. We can probe that area so that it will automatically popped into your mind, we can even erase that "1" so that even if you try to recall it, you won't be able to. Sorry to rain on your parade, but information IS matter/energy. Nice try.