I Believe God Exists

[aitm]

I don't get invited out much anyway so fuck it.

maybe you should try being less of an ass......jes saying...

[Contemporary Protestant]

What is panotheuism, I've seen you mention it a few times and I can't find info on it

[stromboli]

Good luck. 

[Contemporary Protestant]

Is it a joke?

[Casparov]

 

Hello all, I am just checking in to let everyone know I have not given up and run away. I will address each reply individually soon but due to personal circumstance tonight it will have to wait.

Until very soon,

Casper The Friendliest Ghost in the Machine

[Contemporary Protestant]

He is alive!!!!!

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Don't worry, I'm not terribly concerned whether you leave or stay.

[josephpalazzo]

Don't worry, I'm not terribly concerned whether you leave or stay.

Yep, the whole world trembles on whether Casparov is made up of matter/energy or is a pure simulation, which btw that simulation would be made up of matter/energy, LOL.

[the_antithesis]

In what way is the Materialism assumption in any way more likely than any of the other options available.

What other options?

[aileron]

Can we all admit that Materialism is nothing more than an unsupported unjustified assumption?

Nope.

[stromboli]

Before this thread I didn't even know I was a materialist, so I'll take that as a win.

[Casparov]

Do not misunderstand me. That is not proof for the existance of a material universe, nor was it an attempt to provide any. It is merely a way to show you that your question is ultimately doomed to go unanswered by your standard of proof IF a material universe is all there is. You are expecting a grade of certainty that may not be deliverable in any instance.

I think I understand you now. You are saying that all I am doing is expecting proof that is not possible to be given. So your complaint is that I am asking you for proof when there isn't any.

I apologize for inconveniencing you, but with all do respects, that's not my problem. If you make a positive claim about reality, you are obligated to justify your claim with evidence. Or else admit that it is an unprovable assumption.

Allow me to make an analogy to get my point across. I've had a conversation with a muslim co-student at my college once. And she didn't believe in evolution theory. When I told her it was backed up by many things and many proofs. She asked me what those were. The first thing that popped in my head was the fossil-record. Now unlike the answer I was expecting from her (those were monkeys or apes), she said something akin to "But is it not possible that Allah put them there to test our faith?"

Well it is a possibility, an unlikely one and an unfounded one, but it is a possibility. We observe a concrete and consistent universe, though admittedly one with many mysteries yet undiscovered. And the theories we develop to make succesfull predictions seem to work. But yes, it always possible that there is some higher, more intricate and more complex solution. Ultimate proof in this way is impossible.But without evidence for the added and unnecesary notion, aka Allah (in this case), it is better to assume the model that does not have an unfounded, untestable and unprovable 'mind' on top of it.

I agree with what you are saying here. Just because there are other conceivable (even though very unlikely) theories that explain the same phenomena, that does not necessarily mean that the prevailing theory is false. I agree with this.

This is not what is occurring with respect to Materialism however. Materialism is not the most likely explanation. Nick Bostrom has argued that it is far more likely that we live in a simulated reality using pure statistical analysis.

It is not the case that there is a mountain of undeniable evidence that supports the assumption of Materialism and all other possible alternatives to Materialism are highly unlikely imaginative fantasies.... if that is how you perceive it than you are grandly mistaken and quite ignorant of the evidence and arguments that oppose Materialism.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578  ... is just one example of the growing mountain of direct evidence that contradicts the assumption of Materialism.

All viable evidence that science has ever produced works within the framework of reality being real but it can not ultimately prove that framework (hence 'limited proof'). Not if you can always say 'but isn't it possible that there is something else entirely?' Because you can always say that. Evolution is pretty much fact at this point, but you still get people who say "but what if it is just a ploy by an almighty creator"? Same for reality, which in all honesty seems to us to be a material reality. Even if it is not actually a material reality, it does it's best to look like one to us. Perfectly so, actually. So, in that case, it seems wiser to not believe the that the fossils were put there with alterior motives, or that evolution is guided or hurricanes and tsunami's are a punishment from god or ... If you have the working model that is perfect without a supernatural entity on top of it, it is simply not beneficial to put one on there.

I am not denying that Materialism has been a working model for a very long time. That is not contested. What I am denying is that it is an unquestionable truth. (which quite a lot of Atheists seem to mistakenly believe as this thread should demonstrate)

Materialism is at base, a bare assumption. Philosophically it is unjustifiable. No man can produce a single piece of evidence to support it and certainly no proof. But beyond that, there exists direct evidence that disproves it as a theory about reality.

What I am arguing is not the same as arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster may have magically planted fossils in the ground vs there is an actual fossil record that demonstrates that creatures evolve physically over time.

What I am arguing is more like arguing that because when a ship arrives on the horizon from far out at sea, it gradually appears  top to bottom vs appearing all at once, a sign that the earth is a sphere and not flat, even though flat earth theory was quite a good model and widely accepted for a very very long time.

Also,  you seem to display the idea that an immaterial universe is not an assumption but rather the default-position. (If you agree that the immaterial universe would be an assumption, than sorry for misunderstanding your drift. But realize, for future discussions, that in this one it seemed as such. At least to me it did, and I think to others too.) If the material universe is an assumption, than so is the immaterial one. This is not kin to the argument of atheïsm. To an atheïst a supernatural and ultimately unproven, unmeasured and unobserved claim is made, and the atheïst is not convinced by it. With the atheïst having no burden of proof because he is not asserting a claim. Unlike in the theïsm/atheïsm debate, the existance of a God is purely hypothetical. But the fact that there is some form of reality: material, immaterial, virtual, hive-mind-based, personal-mind-that-deceives-itself-based, ... is not a pure hypothetical.

Information is not material, and reality is ultimately information based, therefore reality is not material. This can be assumed yes, and it is also possible to be proven.

The Atheist has no burden of proof when it comes to the non-existence of any particular God he disbelieves in. No Atheist is required to prove that God does not exist, this is true. But if a person is an Atheist because they are a Materialist and believes that we live in a material objective universe that does not require any God, then that Atheist is required to prove his positive claim about reality. Atheism is his negative position, Materialism is his positive position. He is required to justify his positive assertion.

Now you are right that if I were to assert that a material universe were true, the burden of proof would be on me. I might point to the fact that it's the only world-view with any testable and consistent proof within it's own framework (hence the evidence you inquired after in the quote), but you need not be convinced by that. No more than that muslim girl had to be convinced when I claimed that evolution was true by pointing to the fossil-record.

When Flat Earth Theory was proven false, was all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven with it? No. Absolutely and emphatically not. If you want to survey land you are farming you still use Flat Earth Theory. All of the proofs made within it's framework still holds because flat earth theory was an appoximation that is still accurate to this day for short distances.

When Einstein proved that Newton's Physics was ultimately false, did all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven? No. Just because we have Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory now doesn't mean that knocking billiards balls into other billiards balls doesn't cause a reaction that Newton proved within his framework. An apple still falls at the same rate, even though Newtonian Physics isn't ultimately correct. It was an approximation that is still accurate at certain sizes and speeds.

Similarly, Materialism is a assumption, a model that works to a degree because it is an approximation. The problem is when people believe it to be an unquestionable truth.

But the moment you make a claim about reality being 'immaterial' the burden of proof is on you. And it is an untestable, unproveable hypothesis without even any consistent proof within it's own framework. An hypothesis that, in the particular view that you seem to uphold, seems to manifest itself as if it is a material universe, but it actually being a sort of con our god-hive-mind pulls on us. You said yourself to someone else in this topic (I think stromboli) that a virtual universe would in all effect seem like a material one to us and work like one. So you see, in essence, all you are doing is putting the deity on top of the working model.

You seem to be finally admitting that Materialism is an unjustified assumption, which i commend. Thank you. But you immediately and with the same breath have to throw in the "but you can't prove yours either!"  And that's okay.

If it can be proven that information is the base of reality, then it will be proven that reality is ultimately immaterial, and the perceived materiality is an illusion produced by our experience of it, an approximation, a guess, an assumption. I believe that information as the base reality would prove that we live in an immaterial universe rather than just assume it as so.

The God I am arguing for unfolds from a correct understanding of reality. I do not first postulate a God, and then find reasons to justify it's existence. I first scrutinize reality, and upon discovering it's nature, if in the end a God seems a reasonable conclusion, or at the very least a more likely conclusion that not, then I will accept that "God" exists.

[Casparov]

I really have no problem with the "lets toss this out and think about it" scenario of alternate realities or the god is all and all is god. The questions that hamper my poor mind is why the grandness of the "illusions". If, for instance, I am simply alone, and everything else is mere "imaginative", why the complexity? Does not this violate some basic concept of economy? Why is all this necessary when "life" could as easily be enjoyable as a single cell?

If indeed, you do not exist but for my poor mind, the idea and thoughts my mind has imagined has gone considerably further than the desires of tits and ass, why do I give a fuck about quantum and tube worms living at the ocean bottom? Why would I care about combustion engines and Pythagorus, or even comma's and smilies? It is rather absurd to take the baseness that I find appealing, tits and ass, and spend this incredible amount of energy on shit I don't give a fuck about when, especially, the point of this rant is I am not getting the fucking that my baseness desires which calls into question why the fuck can't my own fucking imagination give me what the fuck I want instead of shit I don't give a fuck about? The programmer is a fucking FUCK.

Or we could take a much simpler look at things and suggest they are real indeed because everything suggests it is, and nothing suggests it is not. And I might add, if one admits that the concept of gods are humanities greatest inventions, the gods would pale to the arrogance to suggest that ones consciousness is indeed the macrocosm of all, and especially when the very consciousness cannot give its own self what it wants.

Interesting post here but I think I get what you're asking. Essentially it's the "What is the purpose?" question.

Of course I can only guess at this, but according to my beliefs, the purpose of all of this, is evolution. As fundametally non-physical conscious being, it is the nature of what you are to create reality. That is what consciousness does. It seems that the purpose of this reality is to evolve into a consciousness that has more than the desire to create a reality full of tits and ass, as you put it.

If you truly wanted to create your tits and ass reality, you can! Nobody is stopping you from doing that. You dream every single night and it is up to you and your ability to direct and control your consciousness. If you could learn through discipline and hard work to focus your intent and increase your awareness to the point that you were aware and conscious during your dreams, you could by all means direct your intent to create whatever reality you want, every single night, and no body would ever be able to stop you. It is the nature of being a conscious being, it is your right.

The purpose of this reality it seems however is to have constraints and rules. It is not like a dream, it is more like a simulation of an objective consciousness independent reality in which we can't just intend things into existence. The purpose of this existence is to evolve your intent it seems. But that's just my theory of course.

If I am right, then it might be best to be an Atheist and fully buy into the objective material universe concept, as it should maximize the experience and point of this simulation.

So in short: The point is evolution. (but this is pure speculation mind you)

[Casparov]

  This thread is becoming a bore.  We need to get Jutter over here asking some of prize winning indecipherable questions.  Now there's a real philosopher.  No answers intended to be given.  Just seemingly profound questions to stir our addled brains, and no attempt at debate.  Jutter merely plants a seed, and our minds blossom into pure thought unencumbered by reality.  Now that's what I call smokin' philosophy.

Sounds like my kind of guy. Let's get Jutter in here!

[SGOS]

The God I am arguing for unfolds from a correct understanding of reality.

Which because of a lack of evidence is known only to you.

I do not first postulate a God, and then find reasons to justify it's existence. I first scrutinize reality,

The material universe which has no proof? or the immaterial universe for which you do?

and upon discovering it's nature, if in the end a God seems a reasonable conclusion, or at the very least a more likely conclusion that not, then I will accept that "God" exists.

OK, so you've got these universes which you can't prove exist, and you observe them, or at least the  one you favor, and you draw conclusions from a universe which may not exist, which makes you believe God exists.

All rightey!