I Believe God Exists

[La Dolce Vita]

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.

So does GTA. If everyony sentient agent on earth days, but a GTA game remains the codes and building blocks are still there in said world.

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.

The objects the codes transcribe themselves are not material to us in this reality, of course not - but if there were sentient agents in the GTA5 universe - THEY WOULD BE! And this is where you are demonstrably wrong. "This is not a pipe" cannot be said if you can actually smoke with it. We seperate a drawing of a object and the object existing in our reality - our reality being simulated would in no way change this. A pipe in this reality would continue to be a pipe in this reality.

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.

Incorrect again. If simulated the universe could very well exist on it's own as well, just as the world in a GTA5 game still exists on it's own.

But I am glad you concur that this reality exists. That's all anyone is claiming, and that labels every argument you've stated previously incorrect on your own assumption. You have stated that the theist and the atheist agreeing that the world exists is a flaw and means the theist will always lose, but that's nonsense. The existence of the universe in no way negates the possibility of a theistic god or any other form of creator.

But here's the kicker, and you need to think about this: None of this has any bearing on any god existing. So far nothing implies any gods exist.

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.

Dreams obviously exist in the materialistic sense as we can even film them these days. What creates the dreams exist in our brain. But the experiences themselves do not take place in this reality, which is the one we define existence from. Dreams takes place in the worlds your mind creates for you. But sure, you have had said experiences all the same, only they were dream experiences, which is an important qualifier.

All hallucinations are material, all simulations, all illusions. All experience is a "material" one.

Incorrect. We define existence from the reality we live in. Where as dreams exists in their own separate realities created by our own bodies and dream versions of ourselves may touch them - the things we see are not materialistic in this realm. We cannot bring them over. This make them not materialistic to this reality in the sense you imply - though again, dreams obviously exist. Hallucinations exists as well, and we can document them, but we can not touch what we hallucinate, and it does not exist in our reality.

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 you are really confused. Physical/Non-physical has any connection to the subjective and mind dependent - both can exist objectively and independent of mind. And again, a GTA game exists objectively, and independent of mind - though in this particular simulation we can control certain characters. Leave the game on and walk out of the room on the other hand and it exists independent of any mind to observe it.

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.

Ok, what is everything? Everything we touch is material. Why? Because we can touch it. It objectively exists independent of mind. We can scan it on a computer, and it will capture it. We can take measurements. Bringing up empty space is irrelevant, the objects still exists and we can demonstrate them to. I can pick up a rock, throw it and break a window. Cause and effect. These things exist.

Now, you can make outlandish claims about all of this existing in a dream, or a mind is controlling all of this - but nothing supports that hypothesis. On the other hand we all share this reality and observe it. I am not a materialist in the sense that I say it's obviously 100% fact that solipsism isn't correct, etc. My claim is simply that nothing supports or implies solipsism - while everything implies a materialistic universe existing independent of mind.

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?

I can touch a rock, you can touch a rock, this heavily implies the rock exists. This is evidence. What evidence can you bring forth that materialism doesn't exist. Even with your empty space argument you are acknowledging materialism. In fact at least one of us has to exist for this scenario to make any sense. If one of us exists, the existing person by definition objectively exist - and that petty much proves materialism.

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.

Incorrect again. Our thoughts are created by our brains, and therefor exists. If we had the technology we could observe how our minds and thoughts work "independent of mind". We are really just advanced robots functioning by cause and effect. There is no magic here.

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

Yeah, I think you're having a laugh and trolling and I've wasted to much time on you.

[stromboli]

I concur. I'll call troll as well. I'm done.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I am not saying that if you can't prove your world view then mine is automatically right. I am just saying.... that you can't prove your world view. 

You don't even know what my worldview is. Literally the only thing you know about me is that I don't think your god exists. And in any case, you've yet to address the fact that your worldview can't be proven.

[Berati]

Questioning reality should not be the default position?

No, it should not. Assuming what we both experience is an illusion is the claim. The burden of proof is on you to show our shared observations are illusions. Observations are not claims. Claims of illusions are claims.

We should start with accepting reality?

Of course. Not accepting reality is called psychosis.

I totally and passionately 100% disagree.

Then your are totally passionately 100% wrong.
We start by accepting the world around us.
Think of the Matrix since that is basically what you are proposing. Morpheus tells Neo that you can't be told what the Matrix is you have to see it yourself. So he gives him a red pill (thereby accepting the burden of proof) and proves to Neo that the Matrix wasn't real.
You are not providing the red pill. You are demanding that we accept your claim that the Material world is an illusion. Where is my red pill?

Furthermore, you are confusing science with philosophy. You are taking a solipsist position (purely philosophical and not falsifiable) and demanding scientific evidence to disprove your illusion assumption. For any question to be considered scientific it has to be falsifiable.
There are fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

[josephpalazzo]

Page 16 and counting,


(please make it to 31... )

[aitm]

Page 16 and counting,


(please make it to 31... )

when members are actively contributing 6,7 18 paragraph responses then we can't really destroy such a fine conversation for our more..er....arguable members.

[josephpalazzo]

when members are actively contributing 6,7 18 paragraph responses then we can't really destroy such a fine conversation for our more..er....arguable members.

[doorknob]

I also can not believe this thread is still going. I tried to read it from the start but when people start writing entire books as their post I start to get bored and my mind wanders. Especially on subjects that don't interest me like god.

[aitm]

my mind wanders.

tsk tsk..your mind is not wandering, it is coalescing with other parts of the non-physical subjective parts of the universe...at that moment, unbeknownst to you....you were god, BUTTTTT then you fucked up and typed a response instead of curing hatred....you were a piece of shit god!

[aileron]

In this thread in general Casparov you're completely lost in the woods.  It's a naive question to ask whether something is or isn't proven.  Proving anything is dependent on what would satisfy a person that it's been proven. 

For example, is it proven that Earth orbits the sun?  When you claim that someone can't prove something, the unstated assumption is that they can't proven it to your personal satisfaction.

[Feral Atheist]

Sooo....

I believe God exists. And I'm willing to debate with people who don't agree with me. And so here I am. Hi.

Gather your verifiable proof and post it here, till then I classify you with the rest of the delusional theists that will buy any pile of crap found in the buy bull.

[Casparov]

Gather your verifiable proof and post it here, till then I classify you with the rest of the delusional theists that will buy any pile of crap found in the buy bull.

The Argument

These responses are getting very long and apparently people are not wanting to read entire books, so what I will do here is try to include my complete argument for people in this post. And then I will continue to respond to each individual response as usual. So this is for you guys who are getting lost in the long responses, here's one large post to describe my position:

I start from scratch. Assuming nothing and desiring no particular outcome over any others. I then ask what I can know.

The answer to this question is simply, "I exist". I do not know that my perceptions are true, even my own hands and body could be false perceptions. I find that I am able to doubt absolutely everything except my own existence. I cannot doubt my own existence because by the very act of doubting itself I would be demonstrating my existence. "I think, therefore I am" kind of thing. As long as I am aware, and am having experiences, I am unable to doubt that I exist. Therefore, I know that I exist with absolute certainty and cannot be wrong about this.

From there my only real next logical move is solipsism, my own mind is the only thing I can know exists with any kind of certainty, but the interactions I have with other seemingly conscious beings are so very convincing, and they claim to have minds too which seems likely based on my own knowledge of my own mind, so I seek a solution to solipsism. I do not feel comfortable with solipsism so I seek a way out. Upon speaking with most of these other conscious beings, they inform me that the reality I am perceiving is in fact an objective Material universe that exists independent of observation.

Now, because I am being very cautious and trying to maintain rational skepticism in order to build a sound world view, I am interested in entertaining Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, but first would like to hear the case. When another presents Materialism as a solution to me, they are making a positive claim about reality which is subject to the burden of proof. This assertion then requires evidence, or else it is just a bare assertion with nothing to support it.

I know that my own mind exists. But I quickly learn that there is no proof for Materialism. It is a bald assumption, unsupported and unjustified. This is because we do not observe the exterior world directly. We do not perceive matter itself. What we perceive is a representation of the outside world produced by filtered information and  interpreted by our own conscious experience. In Philosophy this is known as the Veil of Perception Problem. Naive Realism is the belief that what we perceive is exactly as it really it, and this seems to be the position of the Materialists I encounter. There is no evidence to support this position, and certainly no proof.

Materialism is presented to me as a possible solution to Solipsism but it is an unjustified assumption because of the Veil of Perception Problem, the equal possibility of other explanations such as the Simulation Argument, and the complete and utter lack of evidence to support it. I also know that Materialism states that the only things that exist are material objects and their interactions, which seems to negate the existence of my Mind, the only thing I really know with certainty actually exists.

In order to accept Materialism I would have to sacrifice the only thing I know with absolute certainty in favor of an unprovable unjustified assumption. Those that do this seem to do so out of fear more than anything else because Materialism provides a simple and comfortable explanation that eases the uncomfortable feelings of uncertainty. The universe and everything it get wrapped up with a pretty little Material bow. But the Game Ender for me when it comes to Materialism is the growing amount of scientific evidence that seems to directly refute Materialism, therefore, after all is said and done, I am forced to remain skeptical.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

“While a number of philosophical ideas may be logically consistent with present Quantum Mechanics, Materialism is not.” - Eugene Wigner

This is what I learn with regards to Materialism:

1) Mind exists.
2) Mind is immaterial.
3) Materialism states that only matter exists, anything immaterial does not.
4) Materialism is an unprovable assumption.
5) Scientific evidence exists that directly refutes Materialism.

C1) I know that Mind exists but Materialism requires that it does not, therefore Mind is not compatible with Materialism and I cannot doubt the existence of my Mind so Materialism must be a false assumption about the nature of reality.
C2) Two key characteristics of a Material Universe are the Principle of Causality and Local Realism and yet recent scientific experimentation has conclusively demonstrated that both of these characteristics of a Material Universe can be violated, therefore Materialism is a false assumption about the nature of reality.

Plus it is impossible to provide even a shred of evidence, proof, or justification for asserting Materialism beyond bare assumption. So with Materialists unable to provide a convincing argument for their world view, I am still left with Solipsism but searching for a way out.

So I talk to more people, and they assert that the solution to Solipsism is obviously Substance Dualism. They say that mind exists, which I agree with, and they also say that matter exists. They say that both existence simultaneously, mind existing in the Material Objective World. I like this idea because at first it seems like the best of both worlds, but I want to remain skeptical of all claims, and so, knowing that this too is a positive assertion about the nature of reality, I know that it too is subject to the burden of proof, and so I seek evidence to justify this positive claim.

What I discover is even worse than what I got for Materialism. All of the same problems of Materialism are still there, the Veil of Perception Problem, the Simulation Argument, the complete lack of any evidence, but the Game Ender for Substance Dualism is the Causal Interaction Problem. It is impossible to explain how immaterial mind can interact with material objects. Material Objects by definition cannot be effected by anything immaterial. This for me, makes Substance Dualism an impossibility, and another failed attempt to resolve Solipsism, and thus I am forced to remain skeptical.

I wont go into it here, but Substance Dualism is probably the most thoroughly refuted assertion about reality out there.

So what options do I have left? Well... There is one more, and here it goes:

P1.) Minds can exist in a solipsist universes.

P2.) Nothing material can exist in a solipsist universe.

C1.) Minds are not material.

P3.) Substance dualism is impossible.

C2.) Matter can not possibly exist, all that can exist is mind, and thus Monistic Idealism is true.

Monistic Idealism is a solution to Solipsism that does not suffer from any of the problems the other explanations do. It is even consistent with modern Quantum Experimentation that is slowly doing away with Materialism and Realism in general. Idealism states that reality is a mental construct, and does not exist dependent of mind.

If all is mind, and mind is immaterial, then it follows that the apparent objective material reality we experience is in fact a mental construct, as well as the apparent individuality and separateness we seem to possess because what is immaterial does not have definite boundaries by definition. Objectivity and separateness are illusions. All consciousness and all experience and all existence together as one grand thing in the Tenth Dimension, is worthy of the Title "God."

I then conclude that Idealism is more reasonable and more justified than both Substance Dualism and Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, and also more consistent with current scientific experimentation.

1) Materialism if true would negate the existence of God, afterlife, soul, mind, and all other things immaterial.

2) Substance Dualism would save the intuition to cling to Realism with regards to perceptions but also allows for the existence of immaterial such as mind, soul, gods, afterlife etc into the mix.

3) Idealism rejects the intuition of Naive Realism but expands the undoubtable knowledge of the existence of mind to include our perceptions, (even those perceptions that seems extremely physical and objectively material) and as the only rational alternative to solipsism, also just so happens to allow for and even necessitate the existence of mind, god, afterlife, and all other things immaterial, because it states that all is immaterial, and all is mind.

"God" in this world view would then be analogous to Rob Bryanton's description of the tenth dimension: A mind with ultimate degrees of freedom encompassing, creating, and experiencing all possibilities all at once.

FIN

P.S. Turned into another book.... I tried.

[Casparov]

A video for my homies. Enjoy.

P.S. This is an interview with the man who conducted the experiments that I have posted.

[sasuke]

I am interested in entertaining Materialism as a solution to Solipsism, but first would like to hear the case.

Not going to bother reading the rest of your post after that.  As a matter of fact, forget making the case for materialism and just seriously doubt all knowledge you have about the world, including gravity, and go to work or school tomorrow through the window in your home and not your front door.  I hope you reside on the fifth floor of your building.

[Poison Tree]

1) Mind exists.
2) Mind is immaterial.
4) Materialism states that only matter exists, anything immaterial does not.
5) Mind is not reducible to matter.
6) Scientific evidence exists that directly refutes Materialism.

2) Prove it
Guess number 3 is immaterial?
5) oh, 2 again.
6) I hope you've got very strong evidence to support your sue of the word "refutes". Besides, according to you argument all that is irreverent because the results and what is being studied could give any possible result--even proving materialism--while simply be a non-existent illusion, right?

P1.) Minds can exist in solipsist universes.

P2.) Nothing material can exist in a solipsist universe.

C1.) Minds are not material.


If the form of your argument is valid, then the term can be replaced:
P1.) Bananas can exist in solipsist universes.

P2.) Nothing material can exist in a solipsist universe.

C1.) Bananas are not material.


All consciousness and all experience and all existence together as one grand thing in the Tenth Dimension, is worthy of the Title "God."

Where exactly did I miss the proof of dimensions, let alone ten, other consciousness or any of this?

3) Idealism rejects the intuition of Naive Realism but expands the undoubtable knowledge of the existence of mind to include our perceptions, (even those perceptions that seems extremely physical and objectively material) and as the only rational alternative to solipsism, *also just so happens to allow for and even *necessitate* the existence of mind, god, afterlife, and all other things immaterial, because it states that all is immaterial, and all is mind.*

Do we have to assume the defense of all this is in part two?

"God" in this world view would then be analogous to Rob Bryanton's description of the tenth dimension: A mind with ultimate degrees of freedom encompassing, creating, and experiencing all possibilities all at once.

Something which, even accepting your above argument, you've failed to even approach let alone provide support for. Unless you are going to claim your mind (the only think you can know exists, remember) is "encompassing, creating, and experiencing all possibilities all at once" I can't see how this is anything but a non-sequitur.