Thread: Why God Exists.

Originally Posted by Mario92

The mole people and the crab people have just teamed up to take down the human race. Armageddon will be upon us by next Wednesday. Aliens have infiltrated the white house and weakened our defense system. Scientists have just bred a humanzee for the first time. They also created Godzilla, who will arrive on Tuesday to deliver a crippling first strike. Oh, and perpetual motion is real. There's a secret machine in Area 51 capable of supplying the world with power for eternity with no drawbacks.

By your own beliefs, you cannot make any assumptions one way or the other. You can only go "well, that seems plausible. I don't know." The correct answer is a healthy dose of skepticism.

You're inflating this into something completely beside the point. I never said you can't make assumptions. My belief is that if you have an assumption, you can be right or wrong. It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is; if you're going to assume something is the way it is, you might be right. But the chances one day you could be wrong. The simple consequences of assuming; lightly or harshly.

Now, what you claim can't be proven right or wrong. It is outside the realm of objective testing, so by definition, it can't be tested and shown to be right or wrong one way or the other. It's equivalent to me saying I had a dream about monkeys last night. You can't test that claim. I might very well have, but you can't know if I did or not. To extend that, I'm not entirely positive if I did indeed go swinging on vines with monkeys in another dimension, or if it was simply a lovely hallucination created by my brain. I'll assume the latter, since it contains the fewest variables and is most probably correct.

What I claim is verifiable in your own experience, yes. You can realize it. You can see how it is true. But you cannot observe it in the same way you are so familiar with; I've gone over this already but maybe you just don't like it. Nobody needs to test if reality exists, for crying out loud. But it already exists and we don't know what it means. So really I'm not claiming anything but deducting a meaningful concept from it.

*sigh* you didn't read my post, did you? To recap, absolute reality is what is really out there. Practical reality is what we, as a species, can observe and verify is there. This may or may not differ from absolute reality in a significant way. We have no way of finding that out. Personal reality encompasses all personal experiences beyond the realm of testing. This includes dreams, and like absolute reality, cannot be verified by an outside observer.

Yes I did read your post, but I found it confusing when you bunch three words together repeatedly.

So I can see a clear difference between you and I. You think the absolute cannot be observed, cannot be verified, whereas I think it is verifiable because of its own nature, not because it cannot be observed.

I see no relevance in naming "practical reality". All reality is practical in some way or another; not all reality is practical in one way only. And so I can learn from personal experiences, think logically rationally, believe in God, and have spiritual purpose all simultaneously.

It might, but we don't know. We've no reason to think it does exist. More importantly, it has no relevancy.

So here's the situation you've created: The only way to know something is by observing it. We don't know if an observer exists, but we must observe nevertheless, and that's not a good reason to think an observer exists, which wouldn't be important anyway.

If we're going to talk about "observing" so often, we must assume it does exist (not that it's really assuming). Isn't it strange to ignore what it means to be an observer? If you're not sure it exists, which is a little illogical, I'd think you're less inclined to know how relevant it is.

It's like lucid dreaming. The dreamer thinks it is irrelevant what is real and what isn't, and doesn't take into account what it means to be dreaming or be in the current circumstances. Yet, when brought into question, the entire meaning of that reality shifts.

I think, therefore, I am. I'm real on some absolute level. Whether or not that differs from the observable, practical reality, I know not. I might very well be a hallucinating penguin, for all I know. But, I have no reason to think I am. Even if I were a penguin, it ceases to be relevant. All that matters in my life is what I can observe and experience.

Why does it matter? Does it matter because of what is observed and experienced, or because you're aware of that?

Even "I think, therefore I am" implies an observer of some kind. Perhaps not of the same point I am heading towards though.

You keep making these bizarre blind jumps. Where have I ever stated that the only thing keeping reality intact is observability? That's what comprises our practical and personal realities.

You've said it by stating: "...your senses are the only way we know of to collect information of anything; to know anything" Which means that if you aren't sensing, nothing is real. If that isn't the whole story, you need to elaborate more on what it means to know something.

Seriously, what the fuck? I can't make heads or tails of this. It's like reading something from Philosopher. "Observe knowledge itself." What is that even supposed to mean? Reality = knowledge? I haven't got a freaking clue what you're talking about.

This is nothing more than abstract thinking. They are actually simple questions and you can't make sense of them with your current beliefs, which seems like mechanistic reductionism, so concrete... Why is it so hard to understand the core and substrate of all knowledge, to the point that you don't even believe it exists? You can't explain it because you say knowledge exists because of other knowledge... i.e. that you can know of things because of the senses. That's like saying I can speak English because of my mouth.

Or, it's like looking through binoculars for so long that you're forgetting that your eyes enable you to see. Somebody asks you "How can you see?" and you can only reason because they're right in front of you. This is an analogy for seeing that what you know is not entirely what knowledge, in and of itself, is.

That's saying "This event isn't personal because it isn't." That's no way to argue.

Only if you don't understand the definition of the absolute. Look it up, see the definition under philosophy and then imagine I prefaced it with "By definition...". I don't know how it could be so hard to understand.

Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary: Absolute

Philosophy

a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things:good and evil are presented as absolutes
(the absolute) that which exists without being dependent on anything else.
(the Absolute) ultimate reality; God.

ergo, incapable of being validated; unknowable.

I hope you realize this list was a list to be read together, not individually.

The part "observation is unnecessary" means that it doesn't require validation and is already true in some way. Therefore, like anything that is already true, it doesn't need an extra reason.

Ergo, even more unknowable.

Ergo, even more knowable.

"It's true just because it is. I don't need a reason."

No you don't need a reason; the reason is because it is absolute. If you want me to draw a diagram on what absolute means, I can. Absolute is both one of the the deepest nouns and adjectives that can be intrinsic to reality.

Flawed premise. Assumption it is true because it is.

It's merely a hypothetical statement that exemplifies the definition of absolute.

If you want a real world example again, it is subjective awareness. It is universally true to all reality, irreducible and fundamental. While your thoughts and feelings are personal and observable (by you), awareness is not personal nor observable in the same way. You don't need to observe it, but it is absolutely true, and known, to you, and potentially every other human being, and therefore it is not assumed.

So if humans and all other sentient life were eliminated, the universe would cease to exist? Doubtful.

No, if subjective awareness was eliminated, the universe would cease to exist.

Which came first, observation or sentience? Observation. The first microorganisms to recognize changes in the environment and adapt to those changes without any consciousness.

In such a way, one could argue that sentience and observation are the same thing. I don't know if it is important to anything in this discussion however.

Let's say I make the claim that I'm feeling happy. I cannot substantiate that claim. If I were to tell you that I'm feeling happy, you'd have no reason to believe me. Hell, I might not be able to believe me. I could be delusional. I could be fucking miserable, but I've tricked myself into thinking I'm happy when I'm not.

Now say I know there's another reality...something absolute and wildly different from observable reality. Am I deluded, or am I speaking the truth? Who the fuck knows? You don't, I don't, nobody else does.

This isn't about proof. That's why if you're happy, you don't need to prove to yourself that you're happy. Self-evidence. If you see the color purple, you don't need evidence of the wavelength of purple. Self-evidence. Reality is self-evident. Your beliefs are self-evident to you, so is the world, the universe and everything you think you know.

Do you believe in self-evidence, or must it be observed a second time? Even if you don't consider it evidence of the objective, external world, which I did not imply anyway, that doesn't negate the initial meaning of self-evidence and its purpose for you as a human being to live from. It would merely shift what is self-evident at one point to something else.

Originally Posted by really

You're inflating this into something completely beside the point. I never said you can't make assumptions. My belief is that if you have an assumption, you can be right or wrong. It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is; if you're going to assume something is the way it is, you might be right. But the chances one day you could be wrong. The simple consequences of assuming; lightly or harshly.

There are some assumptions that can be made (sometimes must be made) for reality to make any sense at all. You've got to assume the sun won't go supernova tomorrow so you don't go insane. These assumptions are backed up by evidence. You can be reasonably confident that scientists didn't engineer Godzilla the Destroyer; such a feat is far beyond current capabilities, if even possible at all. But to assume something that requires faith to be valid (e.g. god, the afterlife, or anything else we have absolutely no evidence for) is childish. It's not just unsubstantiated and sometimes unverifiable, but taking a gamble on infinity to one odds. Might you be right? Might evidence-supported assumptions fall apart? Sure. Is it even remotely likely? Nope. It is not practical to assume those assumptions count for fluff.

What I claim is verifiable in your own experience, yes. You can realize it. You can see how it is true. But you cannot observe it in the same way you are so familiar with; I've gone over this already but maybe you just don't like it. Nobody needs to test if reality exists, for crying out loud. But it already exists and we don't know what it means. So really I'm not claiming anything but deducting a meaningful concept from it.

Sharing in a delusion doesn't verify its existence.

So I can see a clear difference between you and I. You think the absolute cannot be observed, cannot be verified, whereas I think it is verifiable because of its own nature, not because it cannot be observed.

You've got it.

I see no relevance in naming "practical reality". All reality is practical in some way or another; not all reality is practical in one way only. And so I can learn from personal experiences, think logically rationally, believe in God, and have spiritual purpose all simultaneously.

Tell me: how do YOU personally differentiate between "absolute reality" and "personal delusion"? How do you KNOW you aren't just imagining all of it? Keep in mind that "I just do" or "I know because I know" or "I know because reality is true because it is" aren't valid answers.

So here's the situation you've created: The only way to know something is by observing it. We don't know if an observer exists, but we must observe nevertheless, and that's not a good reason to think an observer exists, which wouldn't be important anyway.

Um...the fuck? If by observer you mean one who observes, than that's the entire human race (and for that matter, all life). If instead you mean some superbeing god observer, then no, we don't have reason to think one exists.

If we're going to talk about "observing" so often, we must assume it does exist (not that it's really assuming). Isn't it strange to ignore what it means to be an observer? If you're not sure it exists, which is a little illogical, I'd think you're less inclined to know how relevant it is.

See above. I am so confus.

It's like lucid dreaming. The dreamer thinks it is irrelevant what is real and what isn't, and doesn't take into account what it means to be dreaming or be in the current circumstances. Yet, when brought into question, the entire meaning of that reality shifts.

Back up, I lost you again. We can observe from within a dream and test to see if it is real or not.

Why does it matter? Does it matter because of what is observed and experienced, or because you're aware of that?
Even "I think, therefore I am" implies an observer of some kind. Perhaps not of the same point I am heading towards though.

It matters because it's right fucking there. I shoot someone, I go to jail, I feel bad for 20 to life. That action has direct, tangible consequences that impact my life. Of course my awareness contributes to that. It just isn't the sole factor. If I was aware of reality but unable to observe it or any consequences within it, I wouldn't care.

You've said it by stating: "...your senses are the only way we know of to collect information of anything; to know anything" Which means that if you aren't sensing, nothing is real. If that isn't the whole story, you need to elaborate more on what it means to know something.

This is about the ninth time I'll be explaining this. Here we go.
There is some sort of absolute reality. That much we know. We also know that we have five senses: smell, touch, taste, sound, sight. Using these five senses, we can observe absolute reality. Whether or not those senses portray it accurately, we don't know. By comparing personal sensory experiences with others, we can often rule out hallucination and delusion. This is where practical and absolute realities may or may not diverge. I'm not suggesting there are two plains of existence or anything. The only difference is how we perceive things to be.

Now, if all life suddenly goes extinct and there is nothing left to observe reality, that doesn't mean it evaporates or vanishes into nothing. The human version of practical reality is wiped out, but that was an aggregate of observations, not a tangible reality.

This is nothing more than abstract thinking. They are actually simple questions and you can't make sense of them with your current beliefs, which seems like mechanistic reductionism, so concrete... Why is it so hard to understand the core and substrate of all knowledge, to the point that you don't even believe it exists? You can't explain it because you say knowledge exists because of other knowledge... i.e. that you can know of things because of the senses. That's like saying I can speak English because of my mouth.

Back the fuck up. I said I haven't got a clue about what inane babble you're spewing, not that I can't explain how knowledge exists, or that I believe it doesn't exist. WHY it exists is a philosophical question; a rhetorical that has no right answer. From the practical standpoint of evolution, acquiring and passing on knowledge is beneficial to a species. That satisfactorily explains HOW knowledge exists (collected and aggregated via observation, by the way. A chimp that learns that collecting ants on a stick is more efficient is an observation).

Or, it's like looking through binoculars for so long that you're forgetting that your eyes enable you to see. Somebody asks you "How can you see?" and you can only reason because they're right in front of you. This is an analogy for seeing that what you know is not entirely what knowledge, in and of itself, is.

knowl·edge/ˈnälij/Noun
1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information

How do you acquire knowledge? Through observation. You can observe someone else talking at length on a subject and absorb that knowledge.

Only if you don't understand the definition of the absolute. Look it up, see the definition under philosophy and then imagine I prefaced it with "By definition...". I don't know how it could be so hard to understand.

ab·so·lute/ˈabsəˌlo͞ot/
Noun: A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.

Again, circular reasoning. "This event isn't personal because it's absolute. This event is absolute because it isn't personal."

The part "observation is unnecessary" means that it doesn't require validation and is already true in some way. Therefore, like anything that is already true, it doesn't need an extra reason.

Circular reasoning. "This doesn't require validation to be true. It is true because it doesn't require validation."

No you don't need a reason; the reason is because it is absolute. If you want me to draw a diagram on what absolute means, I can. Absolute is both one of the the deepest nouns and adjectives that can be intrinsic to reality.

Circular reasoning. "This event doesn't require a reason because it's absolute. It's absolute because it doesn't require a reason."

If you want a real world example again, it is subjective awareness. It is universally true to all reality, irreducible and fundamental. While your thoughts and feelings are personal and observable (by you), awareness is not personal nor observable in the same way. You don't need to observe it, but it is absolutely true, and known, to you, and potentially every other human being, and therefore it is not assumed.

I can observe my own awareness. I experience it constantly. As for everyone else, I don't absolutely know whether they're also conscious, or constructs of my own mind. I assume the former because it is more likely.

No, if subjective awareness was eliminated, the universe would cease to exist.

I severely beg to differ.

This isn't about proof. That's why if you're happy, you don't need to prove to yourself that you're happy. Self-evidence. If you see the color purple, you don't need evidence of the wavelength of purple. Self-evidence. Reality is self-evident. Your beliefs are self-evident to you, so is the world, the universe and everything you think you know.

Do you believe in self-evidence, or must it be observed a second time? Even if you don't consider it evidence of the objective, external world, which I did not imply anyway, that doesn't negate the initial meaning of self-evidence and its purpose for you as a human being to live from. It would merely shift what is self-evident at one point to something else.

I assume that my thoughts are close in line to reality, but again, I don't KNOW for absolute certainty they are. I don't KNOW whether or not purple light is actually striking my retina, or if my mind is making it all up. What staggers me is how you can claim to KNOW with certainty an unobservable reality, and on top of that, god, the afterlife, etc etc whatever.

It's a little scary that our posts have grown so long. Every point I make is very much related to the other, and so slicing up posts on nearly every paragraph is somewhat unhelpful to the both of us, not to mention repetitive. I have to summarize.


While a lot of what you argue is true and practical generally speaking, I'm not referring to the same scenario as you. The issue is that the scientific method is limited, and the truth I am speaking about is outside it. Immediately, anybody with a scientific mind would argue that therefore it is meaningless or not provable etc. but then why is it true? What constitutes something being true and not provable?

You have to think abstractly and look at what subjectivity is. Subjectivity is true in itself and not provable, but without it the scientific method is meaningless because you cannot observe anything and interpret anything. It's not necessarily always wrong, just because human thinking and experience is unreliable, there is a point at which subjectivity is critical and consistent. That point can be described as universally true and absolutely true.

Subjective awareness: The state of awareness in its purest form that registers all conceivable objects. Fundamentally, it envelopes all knowledge and reality, because without it, no reality exists. You said but if sentient beings ceased to exist that it would not be the case, however this is about the root of knowledge: You don't know anything without awareness; reality does not exist. Besides, even when sentient being dies, how do we know what happens to their awareness? I've heard stories about it continuing after death, although I'm not trying to prove that to you. Just consider that sentient beings disappearing is a hypothetical scenario, and so is the notion that reality exists without being aware of it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Sharing in a delusion doesn't verify its existence.

Sharing the experience only verifies it's consistency, no? Isn't this effective for research purposes? That's not my reason for it being true, it's one reason for it being reliable.

Tell me: how do YOU personally differentiate between "absolute reality" and "personal delusion"? How do you KNOW you aren't just imagining all of it? Keep in mind that "I just do" or "I know because I know" or "I know because reality is true because it is" aren't valid answers.

They are distinguished, obviously because a delusion cannot be absolutely true under every possible circumstance. Delusions possibly fall under category of personal perception, which varies according to point of view. This is a completely different category that does not vary according to point of view; it has no point of view.

Back the fuck up. I said I haven't got a clue about what inane babble you're spewing, not that I can't explain how knowledge exists, or that I believe it doesn't exist. WHY it exists is a philosophical question; a rhetorical that has no right answer. From the practical standpoint of evolution, acquiring and passing on knowledge is beneficial to a species. That satisfactorily explains HOW knowledge exists (collected and aggregated via observation, by the way. A chimp that learns that collecting ants on a stick is more efficient is an observation).

So really the knowledge is information, but remember information has no meaning by itself. You could say it has to be learned, but even then, you still leaving out the part where you have to know the information; to be aware of it. When you are aware of that information; when it has meaning, when it is true, then it is knowledge about something. Whatever that information is, the source of real knowledge and knowing-ness is awareness.

I assume that my thoughts are close in line to reality, but again, I don't KNOW for absolute certainty they are. I don't KNOW whether or not purple light is actually striking my retina, or if my mind is making it all up. What staggers me is how you can claim to KNOW with certainty an unobservable reality, and on top of that, god, the afterlife, etc etc whatever.

That's only important if you want more information. However, my point is that, alone, the experiences presented to you are still evident for what they are. Whether the purple you experience is purple light is striking your retina or not, doesn't change the fact that it was existing at one point and evident to you. If it was purple light striking your retina, that is merely another piece of information that you can project on to the phenomenon and help understand it, but it doesn't actually alter the initial phenomenon. Another example: you have a dream. Sure, the dream is wild and makes no sense. But that is the dream. That is the experience. The dream is real, and is its own reality, while it lasts. Upon waking, the reality is recontextualized and we say it wasn't real. But we could argue that it was real, only different. You could say it's a delusion, which it might be if you confuse the relationship with the "waking world", but it is not a delusion, given the phenomena, in and of itself, intrinsically.

So when it comes to delusions, it is really only a matter of things you can perceive, the stories and imaginings we can make. But awareness can't possibly be a delusion; it is verifiable and yet improvable. We don't observe it because at depths, observing arises from it. That we can observe awareness means we have made an object, which still means awareness must yet again be present and unobservable on another level; i.e merely self-evident.