I Believe God Exists

[Casparov]

Go play in traffic and see if the world is material or not!  Solitary

If a character in GTA5 takes your advise and goes and plays in traffic he will get hit by a car. This must prove that he exists in a Material Objective Universe right?

If you are brain in a jar hooked up to computer that is simulating a 'physical' universe, and you run out in traffic, you will get hit by a car. Therefore, you were existing in a Material Objective Universe right?

If I am having a dream and I run out in traffic I will get hit by a car, therefore, I was existing in a Material Objective Universe right?

[Casparov]

Okay, so can we all admit that proof that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is impossible?

Can we all admit that evidence that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is also impossible?

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

If yes, great, I may proceed with the argument....

If not, then please present the evidence for your positive assertion.

[stromboli]

Okay, so can we all admit that proof that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is impossible?

Can we all admit that evidence that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is also impossible?

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

If yes, great, I may proceed with the argument....

If not, then please present the evidence for your positive assertion.

No no no and no, because you have not provided anything that in fact disproves it. You reject it out of hand without providing any proof of an alternative explanation. We can only measure reality by what methods we have for testing it. Regardless of what argument you claim to have, without providing another method of testing you cannot claim materialism or anything else is false. And my last question: how do you prove the existence of a god that you can't identify, describe, quantify or define?

You have not proven that materialism is an unsupported unjustified assumption. You have not rendered every available means that we have for testing as moot, because you have not provided any alternative. Every means we have for testing, whether it be evidence of objective reality or Quantum Mechanics, is the only way we can define reality and what is real, experientially or otherwise.

Just because you believe we are all brains in a vat, you have at no point proved that, nor disproved any stance made by us. You have said that hallucinations and dreams are the same as what we perceive as reality, but that is false. We know the difference comparatively between dreams, hallucinations, and what we perceive and agree upon as real. I have had hallucinations and dreams. I know that they are not reality. People who can't tell the difference are people who are mentally ill by definition.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[stromboli]

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

Beautifully stated. I am in awe. 

And again my question:  how do you prove the existence of a god that you can't identify, describe, quantify or define? A god by definition has to be supernatural, having the abilities that are beyond any conceivable or reproducible by observers. But that also puts it outside the realm of possible understanding, because we have no way of verifying if it is real or not.

[Casparov]

No no no and no, because you have not provided anything that in fact disproves it. You reject it out of hand without providing any proof of an alternative explanation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578

There ya go. Now what? 

Above is a link to a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper that conclusively shows that Materialism is a false assumption about the reality we exist in. Conclusively.

You have not provided any evidence for your positive claim beyond bare assumption, but you have invited me to provide evidence that disproves your claim. So I have provided evidence that contradicts your assumption's validity.

From the abstract of the Peer Reviewed Paper:

"No Naive Realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum shows particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a causally disconnected choice."

The results of quantum eraser experiments conclusively show that the assumption of Materialism is false. I believe I have met your criteria, have I not?

And my last question: how do you prove the existence of a god that you can't identify, describe, quantify or define?

I believe I have done this several different times now in this thread, but i will provide my definition once more:

god noun \gad also god\
                   :     The supreme or ultimate reality  :  The ground of all being  :  Infinite Mind.

You know that you are conscious. Consciousness is non-physical and yet you have gained this knowledge. You know that you have experience. Experience is non-physical and yet you can know this. God as I define it is the source and sum of all consciousness, and is therefore knowable in the exact same way.

You have not proven that materialism is an unsupported unjustified assumption. You have not rendered every available means that we have for testing as moot, because you have not provided any alternative. Every means we have for testing, whether it be evidence of objective reality or Quantum Mechanics, is the only way we can define reality and what is real, experientially or otherwise.

A character in a Skyrim could do experiments to discover whether or not he exists in a Material Objective Universe. If he devised a device that let him look far into the distance, and noticed that trees only seemed to pop into existence when we walked close enough to observe them, he would have good reason to believe that he does not exist in a Material Objective Reality. In a Material Universe, trees don't care if there is an observer present or not, they don't pop into existence depending on the actions of an observer. If he somehow noticed that his reality was observer/consciousness dependent and observer/consciousness relative vs observer/consciousness independent, and if he could devise an experiment that proved this, he will have effectively disproved the assumption that the reality he exists in is an Objective Material Universe.

I have provided peer reviewed evidence that disproves your positive claim, whereas you have provided nothing but Apologetics.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578

There ya go. Now what? 

Above is a link to a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper that conclusively shows that Materialism is a false assumption about the reality we exist in. Conclusively.

I have a strong suspicion that you haven't even read that paper.

[Casparov]

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

Well I do not disagree with this much... Go on....

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

I do disagree here.

Any being, no matter how intelligent and advanced, that claims to be God is obviously not "God" as I have defined it. God is not something separate and exterior but is the source and core of beingness itself. To travel towards God one must travel within and find the true self, which is the self of all. An ancient Eastern teaching that far predates the Bible.

Any creature that appears outside of me and claims to be god has already demonstrated that it is not.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Mythological gods that you think of are indeed simplistic, but the Brahman and the Atman as one, described in the extremely ancient texts of Eastern Traditions is not so simplistic as Zues and yahweh. Several different ancient traditions have held that the perceptions of the senses are illusion, and that the truth is the changeless self within, in which all perceptions appear.

You look at the perceptions and call them real. You view the passing show that appears within your consciousness and point to it saying, "look out there, all of that is real" and yet you ignore the fact that you have never been anywhere else but here, and you have never been any time else but now, and you have never experienced anything else but you.

The only thing that exists is you. And the only thing that exists is God. The experiencer of experiences. Consciousness. Mind.

You point to the perceptions that appear within your consciousness, and claim that they are real but you the one experiencing them are not. But when pressed, you have no proof to back up such claim, because proof of such a claim is impossible on account of the nature of reality. Proof does not exist for that which is not true. But you have every right to go on believing whatever it is you wish, whatever gives you comfort.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?"

If materialism were true, and I claimed that the material objective universe was God, that would be ridiculous. I should just call the objective material universe the objective material universe.

But because materialism is not true, to say that all is God is similar to saying "When I have a dream, the entire world I dream is me." Everything that I experience in a dream, no matter how physical or material it seems, or how many other people exist in the dream that I interact with, the entire thing is really just one consciousness interacting with itself. Consciousness at play.

Similarly, I say that "all is in and part of god", there is nothing else. Just as the rock I kick in a dream is part of me, so are we all parts of God.

We are Consciousness, tiny pieces of God. Consciousness creates realities. When you fall asleep, you create realities and play in them. When you are in a sensory depravation chamber, your consciousness starts to hallucinate and create realities to experience. It is the very nature of reality, the nature of God, the nature of us, we are it.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Rob Bryanton states himself that the Seventh Dimension he describes is indistinguishable to what human being should consider to be God, and I totally 100% agree with him. The seventh dimension is God. It is all of us and everything we have ever will ever and could ever experience all at once. God.

But he goes further, and I agree with him. Though the seventh dimension is God as far as we should ever care, I believe the true God is the Tenth Dimension, which is not just everything that possible could ever have anything to do with us, but also everything that possibly could ever happen even that has absolutely nothing to do with us and our entire universe altogether, all happening at once and being experienced simultaneously as one thing. God.

Our universe seems Material, but fundamentally it is produced by consciousness. And i believe the same is true for all existence and all being and all experience, at the core is consciousness. And all conceivable existence, and even unconceivable existence and all possibilities and even unpossibilites, all crunched together as one large consciousness system... is God. And we are parts of it, not seperate from it, but eternal connected and one with it

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it.

Sure, I'm totally cool with that. It's semantics bro. You call it programmer, I'll call it God. Whatever. Words are words, if you don't like a certain word because it has a certain connotation that brings back bad memories for you and leaves a nasty taste in your mouth then fine, throw it out! Don't use the word God, use programmer instead. What matters is not the label but that the conclusion is rational consistent with the actual case of the matter.

So go ahead, replace the word "god" every time I have used it throughout this entire thread and replace it with the word "programmer". It makes no difference to me.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

Plausible deniability. To a truly skeptical individual, no body could ever prove anything, there is only one thing that is undeniably true for us all and none of us can doubt and that is the statement "I exist." But this statement alone, when followed all the way, points to the existence of "the programmer".

You keep using the word "mythical god", and I'm sure you realize that I am not arguing for any "mythical god" such as yahweh or Zeus. We both agree that "mythical gods" are feeble attempts at approximation made by ignorant ancient people and are patently false.

The nature of reality is not consistant with Materialism. But it is consistent with a "simulator" or a "programmer". So there we have it folks. Now if it makes you feel all warm in fuzzy inside you can say at the end, "Now we can reasonably conclude that there is no god." 

[Casparov]

I have a strong suspicion that you haven't even read that paper.

The paper is only 7 pages long, yes I have read it but it is obviously extremely technical, especially towards the end, and is not written for the laymen. I am however very familiar with how the quantum eraser experiments work and what their conclusions are and why this is important.

The conclusion of this Paper and this experiment is that Materialism is false. (and this is not the only one)

[Mr.Obvious]

What is that evidence exactly?? If you are claiming that Materialism is true, and also admitting that proof is an impossibility, what are you actually saying? It sounds like you are saying that you are claiming something to be true even though you can't prove it to be true.

In what way is the Materialism assumption in any way more likely than any of the other options available. What is this "limited proof" you speak of?

As a skeptic I am asking for at least some kind of attempt at justification. Even "limited proof" would be better than nothing at all....

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.

[aitm]

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.

[SGOS]

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?

This kind of argument has been around as long as I can remember.  A college sophomore takes his first class in philosophy and immediately feels qualified to wear a toga and walk about the campus spouting bizarre crap that strikes him as deeply profound.  Some never grow out of it and become street preachers.

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?

Can you not see that you may have deceived yourself?

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.

Only a fool would attempt such a simple argument when it is obvious to the advanced student of philosophy that things are never what they seem.  Nothing is all that exists.

Added:  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.

[wolf39us]

I am not arguing whether or not what you see/hear is "real". Of course it is. I am asking that the positive claim that we exist in a Material Objective Reality be backed with some hard evidence rather than just taking your word for it.

"every body else believes it" and "nobody else questions it" are not valid arguments. I would at the very least like to hear one of you admit that your world view rests upon an unsupported assumption. But i'd much rather like to hear one of you actually present some proof.

Okay Casaprov let's make this really easy because this conversation is ridiculous.

***Ahem...***



1)  I make no claim that there exists only a material world.  I make no claim that an immaterial world DOESN'T exist. 
2)  I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God.  I make no claim that God does NOT exist.

God is not something separate and exterior but is the source and core of beingness itself. To travel towards God one must travel within and find the true self, which is the self of all. An ancient Eastern teaching that far predates the Bible.

Positive Claim, where is your evidence?

But because materialism is not true, to say that all is God is similar to saying "When I have a dream, the entire world I dream is me."

Positive Claim, where is your evidence?

Plausible deniability. To a truly skeptical individual, no body could ever prove anything,

Yet you are convinced of an immaterial God?  Quite the skeptic you are.

The reason I have arrived at the conclusion that God exists is because the alternative is not convincing. The alternative, of course, being that we exist in an objective material universe. In which case the God Hypothesis would be entirely unnecessary.

It seems to me that you are starting with the assumption of God and working your way backwards.  You assume God because you're not convinced of a material world.

I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do.

Wouldn't even bother.  Firstly I make no assumption this is the case and secondly I have no reason to believe that ANYTHING anyone says will be convincing to you.  You are, in my opinion, unreasonable by definition.

[stromboli]

Is English your second language? The link doesn't say what you think it said. It is a description of a standard double slit experiment in Quantum Mechanics:

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment investigates a paradox. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by a single path to the detector, then "common sense" (which Wheeler and others challenge) says it must have entered the double-slit device as a particle. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by two indistinguishable paths, then it must have entered the double-slit device as a wave. If the experimental apparatus is changed while the photon is in midâ€'flight, then the photon should reverse its original "decision" as to whether to be a wave or a particle. Wheeler pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago.

And has absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality, god or anything else.

And it is also old, dated about 1999.
And then you dive into metaphysical Brahman/ Buddhist concepts. Dude, you have not proven your point in any way, period.

Proof is arrived at by a consistent, repeatable methodology that comes to the same conclusion every time. You can call that materialism, but it is a simple fact. It is also science. You can also explain god in any words you choose, but there is a conundrum; as I said earlier, god by definition is supernatural and outside of human understanding. At the end of the day, no matter what you define, describe, or imagine, it will be in human terms and will be speculation- BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Any being, no matter how intelligent and advanced, that claims to be God is obviously not "God" as I have defined it. God is not something separate and exterior but is the source and core of beingness itself. To travel towards God one must travel within and find the true self, which is the self of all. An ancient Eastern teaching that far predates the Bible.

Any creature that appears outside of me and claims to be god has already demonstrated that it is not.

[bullshit]Mythological gods that you think of are indeed simplistic, but the Brahman and the Atman as one, described in the extremely ancient texts of Eastern Traditions is not so simplistic as Zues and yahweh. Several different ancient traditions have held that the perceptions of the senses are illusion, and that the truth is the changeless self within, in which all perceptions appear.

You look at the perceptions and call them real. You view the passing show that appears within your consciousness and point to it saying, "look out there, all of that is real" and yet you ignore the fact that you have never been anywhere else but here, and you have never been any time else but now, and you have never experienced anything else but you.

The only thing that exists is you. And the only thing that exists is God. The experiencer of experiences. Consciousness. Mind.

You point to the perceptions that appear within your consciousness, and claim that they are real but you the one experiencing them are not. But when pressed, you have no proof to back up such claim, because proof of such a claim is impossible on account of the nature of reality. Proof does not exist for that which is not true. But you have every right to go on believing whatever it is you wish, whatever gives you comfort.[/bullshit]

I've seen this sort of "speaking without saying anything" too many times to have any interest in digesting it.

If materialism were true

I don't really give one singular fuck if it's true or not. My point is that you have nothing better.

Rob Bryanton states himself that the Seventh Dimension he describes is indistinguishable to what human being should consider to be God, and I totally 100% agree with him. The seventh dimension is God. It is all of us and everything we have ever will ever and could ever experience all at once. God.

But he goes further, and I agree with him. Though the seventh dimension is God as far as we should ever care, I believe the true God is the Tenth Dimension, which is not just everything that possible could ever have anything to do with us, but also everything that possibly could ever happen even that has absolutely nothing to do with us and our entire universe altogether, all happening at once and being experienced simultaneously as one thing. God.

The Rob Bryanton example was used as an easily-digestible illustration of scale. Rob Bryanton is not describing an accepted scientific theory. The instant you try to use it as such, you are straying into the realm of bullshit.

[bullshit]Our universe seems Material, but fundamentally it is produced by consciousness. And i believe the same is true for all existence and all being and all experience, at the core is consciousness. And all conceivable existence, and even unconceivable existence and all possibilities and even unpossibilites, all crunched together as one large consciousness system... is God. And we are parts of it, not seperate from it, but eternal connected and one with it[/bullshit]

Blah blah fuckitty blah.

Sure, I'm totally cool with that. It's semantics bro. You call it programmer, I'll call it God

You missed the entire point if you think it's just semantics. Such a being would no more be God than it would be Dracula. You are demonstrating perfectly the exact reason why the word "god" needs to be purged from that discussion: The term has emotional attachments that leads people to bullshit conclusions that are not supported by science, nor have anything to do with the scientific body of knowledge.

You keep using the word "mythical god", and I'm sure you realize that I am not arguing for any "mythical god" such as yahweh or Zeus. We both agree that "mythical gods" are feeble attempts at approximation made by ignorant ancient people and are patently false.

You are, though. Just because it's the New Age Spiritualism variety doesn't make your god any less mythical. You only have this concept thanks to earlier stories.

The nature of reality is not consistant with Materialism.

Even if it isn't, that doesn't automatically make it consistent with your worldview. This is the exact same mistake the anti-evolution folks make, which is thinking that "disproving" one idea instantly elevates your own above all the other possibilities. Your arrogance in thinking so, like theirs, is astounding; though I have seen it far too many times for it to be infuriating anymore.