I Believe God Exists

[Casparov]

I'm confused at what you consider a material universe. For all intents and purposed the characters in GTA5 do exist in a material universe. Cause and effect. We could easily all be in a computer simulation as well, but that would not change a single thing. I'm confused as to why you think it would. Nothing in "our reality" be any different. Our definitions would only exist within this reality. A chair would still be a chair, just as a chair in GTA5 is a chair in that universe. Of course, if we are in fact in a simulation we are in an almost infinitely superior one.

Obviously you recognize that there is a substantial difference between existing in a objective material universe and existing in a simulated universe.

An objective material universe exists independent of consciousness and mind. There are material objects that actually exist regardless of whether or not they are perceived and they and their interactions are the only things that actually exist.

In a simulated reality what we perceive as material objects are not actual material objects but non-physical information rendered as perceptions only when required to. To believe that these perceptions are actual material objects as they appear to be is referred to as "naive realism" and has been thoroughly discredited by scientific observation.

Now... to address your actual point. If we do indeed exist in a simulated universe, that does not change the "reality" of our experiences. Experiences are always "real". I think this is the point you are making. What does change is the actual nature of the reality we exist in. If materialism is true, then this universe exists on its own and it's very nature negates the possibility of everything non-physical including god, afterlife, and all other so called "supernatural" concepts.

Further, if you understand exactly what I am saying, and maintain that even if we exist in a simulated universe that we could still label it "material", you have this option. But then you must also maintain that all experiences had in dreams are experiences of material realities as well. All hallucinations are material, all simulations, all illusions. All experience is a "material" one.

I would accept this, but I choose to maintain that all experience is non-physical, rather than all experience is physical, on the grounds that as I understand Materialism it should be objective and independent of mind, rather than subjective and mind dependent. Otherwise it does not qualify as material.

Now, let's backtrack, you dismiss a material universe, which all evidence supports, and cling to the completely unsupported idea that a being/force/mind lives within the universe. What supports materialism? Absolutely everything. Everything we have ever found is material. We have never found anything immaterial. And no, GTA5 is not evidence of something immaterial. GTA5 is demonstrably material as well. The codes exist. What they transcribe exist. It exists just as much as this forum you are currently writing in.

This is interesting. You say "which all evidence supports." Okay that's pretty vague. "What supports materialism? Absolutely everything." Okay, still have not said anything. "Everything we have ever found is material." I disagree. Not even matter is material. It is 99.999999999% empty space and the 0.0000000001% that is not empty space isn't anything material either, it's an Ivan Value in a wave equation, and Mathematical Equations are concepts that hardly qualify as Material. They are more akin to ideas than material objects.

Of course in the Matrix everything they ever discovered was "apparently material" as well. But if they ever tried to prove Materialism they would fail, because no proof exists. To say the sentence "everything we have ever found is material" is not proof because I can do this, "everything we have ever found is immaterial" and now I have presented equal proof that you have. See? Not very convincing is it?

You say we have never found anything immaterial. But that's just flagrantly false. All reality we ever experience is at base "information" which we interpret as perceptions. Information is a non-physical concept. Experience is a non-physical concept. That which has experiences and interprets information is consciousness, what you are, also a non-physical concept. In essence, everything that exists and can be experienced is fundamentally non-physical all the way around, interpreted as physical or "material" sure, but ultimately immaterial.

So "everything we have ever found is immaterial". Take that.

[josephpalazzo]

The fucking moron still doesn't realize that to run a simulation you need computers, which are made of... TADA, matter/energy.

How many pages of this scrap before the fucking moron is banned? Any takers?

I'll go first: 31 pages

[Casparov]

I read the whole thread and it seems to me that he is sincere in his belief. But it also seems clear that he has accepted a bs line of reasoning (that questioning reality should be the default position) in order to allow himself the freedom to follow this cherished belief. Without the desire for the outcome he seeks, I don't think he would have made an error he seems capable of understanding.

Questioning reality should not be the default position? We should start with accepting reality? Which one, Objective Materialism? Naive Realism is the default position and we should start from there? Are you serious??

I totally and passionately 100% disagree. We should start by doubting as far as possible and begin only with what can be known with absolute certainty. We should not begin by just unquestioningly accepting a certain assertion about the nature of reality, it is not even clear which world view about reality you are suggesting should be just blindly accepted at the forefront?? It seems like a recipe for failure to me...

I do not start building my world view with any specific outcome in mind. I simply start with what can be known and work my way out from there. Where is the error I am making? Perhaps my only error was telling you my conclusion at the start of the thread but it seemed like a reasonable way to get this conversation started. Now you have conflated my conclusion with a "desire for outcome".

I cannot doubt that "I exist," that is the foundation on which I build. I do not start by just blindly accepting Materialism, that would be absolutely ridiculous for reasons that should be very obvious by now, even for those who have never taken the time to truly scrutinize their own world view before.

[stromboli]

Hey, any time. This dude has a mental block made of pure Titanium.

[stromboli]

I cannot doubt that "I exist," that is the foundation on which I build. I do not start by just blindly accepting Materialism, that would be absolutely ridiculous for reasons that should be very obvious by now, even for those who have never taken the time to truly scrutinize their own world view before.

Please provide the method by which you have come to the conclusion that you exist.

[Casparov]

What other options?

Simulism, Idealism, Transcendentalism, Spiritualism, Substance Dualism, Immaterialism, etc etc etc

[wolf39us]

The fucking moron still doesn't realize that to run a simulation you need computers, which are made of... TADA, matter/energy.

How many pages of this scrap before the fucking moron is banned? Any takers?

I'll go first: 31 pages

He hasn't done anything wrong yet... what would we ban him for?

[stromboli]

He hasn't done anything wrong yet... what would we ban him for?

Which is why it'll run for awhile.

[Casparov]

"can we all agree that Materialism is an unsupported assumption?" Nope.

If it is not an unsupported assumption, then that means there is surely proof or evidence to support it. If it is an unsupported assumption, then that means that there is not any proof or evidence to support it.

So if you do not agree that there is no proof or evidence for Materialism, then simply provide the proof or evidence that supports it. Very easy and simple.

[Casparov]

Alright, so I just had to get caught up and reply to all the replies from the last few days. Now that I'm caught up, I'll start replying to the ones that have been posted today. I'm not ignoring you, just replying in order.

[Mr.Obvious]

Lets try to get a few things straight. You are nearly getting my point, but are still missing it.

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.

1) If I'm a materialist; it's a methodological materialist. Because that's all that science can measure. I'm not denying the possibility of an immaterial world, nor am I asserting that a material one is all there is. It is just all that we can observe and thus all there is to assume within reason.
It is allways possible that there is a immaterial world conjuring something that makes it look like a material one too us, but all I'm saying is that it seems like one to us. And anything beyond that, would require the necessary proof.

2) By your standards I've never argued that it is provable. But nothing is by your standards. Because as your reasoning seems to go (by what you think is in the article you provided below): here's something that doesn't seem to fit in our current understanding of reality so it must be a non-material reality. But let's say that everyone assumed there to be an immaterial reality. One could always possit; but is it not possible that there is some natural law that we have not discovered yet that would explain all we can't explain yet and thus make it a material universe?
One can always ask another question. And if your provided article would prove what you claim it to prove, I could still ask that question. It would still not be ultimate proof. And it never will be.

3) Knowing that the ultimate and undeniable proof in your standards is in principle unachievable, it is always best to leave guessing and assuming beyond what limited proof we do have, out of the question.

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.

4) Bostrom has admitted that there are no empirical reasons to assume the simulation-hypothesis to be true. It's an interesting train of thought, true, but not proven.

5) Do you know one of the reasons why there would be no empirical reasons? Because science is founded upon 'methodological materialism'. It's all it extends to. Even if we were a simulated reality our science would not be able to find a way to measure to validate or invalidate it's own framework in measurable works

6) If I'm ignorant, provide proof. Just saying I'm ignorant won't help me. I'm ignorant to a lot of things, just like you or anyone else. (So far all you've done is try to get EVERYONE on the same page and then seemingly hope to provide a knock-out. (And provide an article you clearly do not understand.) That's never going to work, even if you are right you're going to have people not agreeing with you. But present your case clearly and decisively and if it makes sense and I still reject it, then I'm a fucktard. But untill then, stop pulling everyone's leg.)

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

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.

7) That article does not provide proof of your claim the way I understand it. If you think it does, explain to me why you've reached that conclusion.

8) Unquestionable truth -> See earlier. Nothing is an unquestionable truth.

9) Outside of what I've previously called 'limited proof', I agree there is none. But it is the only world-view with testable and measurable and consistent 'limited proof'. There is, however, no proof outside of 'limited proof'. And if there is, provide it.

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.

10) I know that's not what you argue. But that's why it was an analogy. What you are arguing is that outside of 'limited proof' and thus our 'limited conclusions' exists a grander and more intricate and complex solution that renders the nature of the 'limited proof' moot without providing the extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim.

11) The round-earth theory, just like the theory of gravity or whatever theory, still needed evidence. Provide it.

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.

12) If you are going to use the term 'information', then please define it. Because like 'God', many people define it in many ways. And if your concept of God is any indication, you'd better explain the shit out of this one unless you want another clusterfuck of miscommunication.

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.

13) I'm not an atheïst because I'm a materialist. I'm an atheïst because there is no convincing proof for a God. And even if you were to prove our reality to be 'immaterial', something you have as of yet not done, that would not convince me of a God.
13a) The reason for this is at the one hand that your definition of a God is not 'supernatural' and has no reason to be concidered 'an entity'.
13b) And on the other hand it would not prove it's existance. Because even if you were to prove that our perceived reality is 'immaterial' I might just as wel be a brain in a vat being controlled by aliens who do live in a material universe as I would be a part of a Hive-mind-(for a lack of a better name)God. And I'm not going to call my alien overlords God, and neither should you. Viva la resistance.

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.

14) Empathically? What do you mean by that. Not joshing you (English isn't my first language), just never heard that expression in that way before.

15) I understand what you are trying to say. But, and this is not a major point, we don't use the disproven theories anymore. The new ones just envellop the usefull bits. But that's semantics.

16) But these replacing and newer theories can be made to make predictable and testable measurements within the framework of science (a 'methodological materialist concept'). The moment you can, you get limited credit for your idea. (Not the hive-mind-bit, but the immaterial bit.)

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.

17) It just so happens to be the only 'assumption' (by your definition) that does not exceed what our limited proof provides.

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.

18) Again, by your standards I've never denied it. But again, by your standards of proof, everything is unjustified: including your assumption.

19) To entertain the simulation hypothesis is one thing. But to jump to the hive-mind hypothesis you hold, is another. In itself the bare simulation-hypothesis or the immaterialist-hypothesis is a positive claim you actually can't provide 'ultimate proof' for, as I've said earlier. Not by your standards. But to then jump to 'hive-mind-God-hypothesis' is even more in need of a claim because you're just adding claims without adding proof. You skip 'physical simulation', 'brain-computer interface', 'brain-in-a-vat', 'emigration', 'virtual world simulation', 'virtual solipsic simulation', ... You use them to explain your possibility of this all being an immaterial reality, but disregard them even though they are just as likely (which is not very) as your 'God-Hive-Mind-idea'.

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.

20) This is why you need to define 'information' so I can know if I agree or disagree. (I'm leaning towards the latter, but you're unclear.)

21) It wouldn't prove it. Not by your standards. I can always ask another question and superimpose either a hypothetical material-natural law that could encompass all anomalies we encounter without providing proof (like you are doing in reverse here).

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.

22) Your understanding of reality has been provided no shred of proof, limited or otherwise, of being true.

23) The immaterial reality would not automatically lead to your definition of God. You are making a non-sequitur.

24) Your definition of God would fare better with another name. Because even if it were proven real, I would not call it God nor call myself a Theïst. Probably not even a deïst.

And for a bonus: 25) I saw you say to Stromboli that the fact that the experiment was 15 years old, it did not prove it to be false. You are most certainly right about this. But you also said, if I'm not mistaken, in an earlier post, that it proved your point conclusively. As in without question. We've been living in a internet-equiped-globa society for decades now in which science works through a peer-review system.
If, fifteen years ago, that's a WHOLE DECADE AND A HALF, there would have been conclusive scientific proof of us living in an immaterial universe, this would be accepted by now. At least by scientists. It would be either taught in schools by now, or a major part of religious people would be trying to keep it out of school while another major part would be screaming that they knew it all along and that it just proves their theïstic views. There would be wide-spread agreement amongst scientists and they would be debating that instead of or alongside with evolution and such on television with ignorant twits.
The fact that it's 'relatively old' indeed does nothing to crush it's validity. The fact that it's swayed so little in a world-wide-netwerk-of-communication-technology-and-a-peer-reviewed-system does. Which leads to much more persuasive conclusions, like one of these two: One, it's not conclusive at all. Or two, you misunderstand what it conclusively proves.

[leo]

He hasn't done anything wrong yet... what would we ban him for?

Please not ban this funny troll. This is fun.

[stromboli]

If it is not an unsupported assumption, then that means there is surely proof or evidence to support it. If it is an unsupported assumption, then that means that there is not any proof or evidence to support it.

So if you do not agree that there is no proof or evidence for Materialism, then simply provide the proof or evidence that supports it. Very easy and simple.

The "if" word again. Would you please provide evidence to prove that materialism is invalid? You haven't done that.

would you please provide the method by which you yourself know that you exist?

would you please explain what method of testing reality you would use if all the methods of testing we now use are invalid?

Would please explain how you can prove that a god exists- a supernatural god with all that the definition of a god entails.

I already gave you a test for the material universe; go kick a boulder. That, by the way, is not my invention. It is an actual test for the existence of a material universe.

It involves an action participatory with natural elements
it provides a measurable outcome
it is testable in several ways- the mark on the boulder, the pain in your toe, the damage to your toe and so forth
it demonstrates that participatory actions exist through time
it is recognizable universally by everyone with a thinking brain
it is repeatable, recordable and can be documented as existing in many different ways.
And it is not a dream or a hallucination because the outcome will remain, even after awakening

These are all tests of reality. How can you say it is an unsupported assumption if there are so many ways to verify it?

[josephpalazzo]

Yep, matter, you can't prove it, but God, well, obviously exists, no proof required...

[josephpalazzo]

                                                                                                                                                 Please not ban this funny troll. This is fun.

Not until page 31, please,please,please...