I Believe God Exists

[Solitary]

Go sit on a railroad track and stay there until a train goes by if you don't believe in materialism. Or stand in a puddle of water and stick a wire into an outlet and let us know if you still don't believe in materialism. Solitary

[Casparov]

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.

Duly noted. If you make zero positive claims about reality, you are called a Nihilist, and you are therefore impossible to debate with. I commend you for the commitment to never being wrong by remaining silent. This is a good (but lazy and some may say cowardly) strategy, but as you have eliminated the possibility of being wrong you have at the same time eliminated the possibility of being right.

You can't win until you accept a positive position. If you choose to not take any position about the nature of reality, you don't win, you fore-fit, and therefore are not part of the conversation.

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.

Incorrect. I choose to start building my world view with what I can know with certainty. Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make. When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.

This is how I believe all World Views should be built, from the ground up, but sadly most people just go to the World View Buffet and pick out a ready-made World View that fits with their preconceptions and hold on for dear life. A pre-made World View with assumptions effectively hidden deep within for convenience.

[stromboli]

Merely by using the word "if" you invalidate your entire argument. It still comes back to what can be proven.

We can only know with certainty what can be tested by what means we have available. Apparent passage through time, repeatable experiences, historic data that is universally agreed upon, the nature of elements and matter, further discoveries through Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and so on. We may well discover that the universe is indeed something other than material, But you have not given another set of criteria by which to judge. You can only invalidate that by providing another method of testing that can in fact replace it. You have not.

You keep using examples like dreams and hallucinations. The mere fact that we can define them as different than reality invalidates that argument. We know the difference, therefore they can be discounted as valid.

Yes, there are theories that the universe is not "real" in the perceived sense of materialism, but until we have specific evidence of same, which you have not provided, we cannot assume that to be the case.

God is an assumption. God is by definition supernatural. Supernatural; above or outside of nature, possessing attributes or abilities not understandable in any natural way. To create a universe you have to have existed outside the universe. To claim that god is itself the universe, how did it create itself as the universe, or within the universe, when it had to be outside the universe to create it? That is a paradox- you are then back to orthodox beliefs of god being both inside and outside the universe, which is neither explainable nor understandable.

And why does a supernal god with all the potential ability to know everything, understand everything, see every future and exist forever throughout time, need to create a universe in the first place? And why did it need to create us to either recognize its existence or worship it?

If god is the universe, and we can eventually understand the universe, then it is not a supernatural being and by definition not god. If god is the universe, how did it create itself? Was it created by another god? If so, it is not god. If it created itself, we are back to the original problem; it had to have existed outside the universe to create it.

[Poison Tree]

Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make. When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.

But you don't stop there. You go on to assert that non-material things exist, one of which is some type of god.

[Casparov]

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.

You say it describes "A Standard Double Slit Experiment in Quantum Mechanics" and then the first sentence you quoted says "the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment". Definitely not "a standard double slit experiment" because it is a highly modified version produced in order to test very specific effects.

If you read the paragraph you yourself quoted you would see that what this experiment shows is that a scientist can make a decision AFTER the experiment is over that determines what happened during the experiment. Meaning that a decision made in the present effects the past of the particle being tested, without physically interacting with it, and without any causal link.

This effectively proves that reality is not objectively material because an objective material object would remain unaffected by a decision that is made far in the future. First off, in a material objective universe, material objects are not effected by decisions made, they are only effected by other material objects. Second, material objects are not effected by actions in the future as this violates causality. There should be nothing I can do in the present, that effects what happened in the past.

This experiment proves that reality is not mind independent, and also that objective causality is not consistent. That is why the abstract states, "“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 key words there are "causally disconnected" and "choice".

And it is also old, dated about 1999.

And when was the experiment done that proves your world view? Was it conducted by Isaac Newton himself? The date of the experiment has absolutely nothing to do with the results of the experiment. You should be above this garbage.

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.

I wouldn't call that Materialism, I'd call that science. And it works just as well whether we work in an Objective Material Universe or we live in a simulated Universe or anything else.

[stromboli]

Quote:
Incorrect. I choose to start building my world view with what I can know with certainty. Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make. When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.
[/i]

By what criteria do you prove that you exist? The hardness of your hand, the ability to process information, the fact that you can read a book and remember it? Congratulations, you are a materialist.

"I exist" is a statement that you recognize your own existence. So does everyone here on the forum. But BY WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR EXISTENCE? what means do you use to test the reality of your existence? You might be a glob of information on a circuit board in some holographic reality or a brain in a Matrix vat, but how do you prove it?  What is your method of testing the reality of your existence? Come on, give us the criteria and method of your testing for your believed existence. Wow, blow me away with your prodigious knowledge, seriously.

[Casparov]

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.

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. 

[stromboli]

You say it describes "A Standard Double Slit Experiment in Quantum Mechanics" and then the first sentence you quoted says "the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment". Definitely not "a standard double slit experiment" because it is a highly modified version produced in order to test very specific effects.

If you read the paragraph you yourself quoted you would see that what this experiment shows is that a scientist can make a decision AFTER the experiment is over that determines what happened during the experiment. Meaning that a decision made in the present effects the past of the particle being tested, without physically interacting with it, and without any causal link.

This effectively proves that reality is not objectively material because an objective material object would remain unaffected by a decision that is made far in the future. First off, in a material objective universe, material objects are not effected by decisions made, they are only effected by other material objects. Second, material objects are not effected by actions in the future as this violates causality. There should be nothing I can do in the present, that effects what happened in the past.

This experiment proves that reality is not mind independent, and also that objective causality is not consistent. That is why the abstract states, "“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 key words there are "causally disconnected" and "choice".

And when was the experiment done that proves your world view? Was it conducted by Isaac Newton himself? The date of the experiment has absolutely nothing to do with the results of the experiment. You should be above this garbage.

I wouldn't call that Materialism, I'd call that science. And it works just as well whether we work in an Objective Material Universe or we live in a simulated Universe or anything else.

Boy, you are getting stupider with every post. The experiment was done in a lab by scientists to explore Quantum reality. The "findings" are "could alter" a qualifying phrase. It is the result of an experiment performed in the material world by material scientist with some form of measurable results.  Measurable, as in the realm of a material world. A formalized test using scientific method, which is the criteria of measure in a material world. If something new is learned from scientific experiment, goody goody. but until science offers us a measurable, testable alternative to the measurable, testable methods we have now, we are still not outside of the realm of a knowable reality.

Oh and science is materialism, dumbass. It has provided us the means by which we measure everything in the material universe.

Your world view or your belief is haphazard at best. You have essentially blown off whatever methods of defining reality and said "mmm nope, don't buy it" but not provided any substitute.

Show us an alternative method of testing for reality
show us how to prove the existence of a supernatural god
show us how the universe is something other than a measurable, understandable existence.

If it is not measurable, not quantifiable, not knowable in any sense we can comprehend, than it is just your imaginary idea of what reality is. If you can comprehend it, then show us why.

[Bibliofagus]

What does the term 'proof' mean to a person whom is open to the option that we are all living in the matrix?

[Casparov]

Hi Berati, nice to meet you,

The first major problem is his repeated claim that “the Material Objective Universe is a positive claim”
It is NOT a positive claim, it is a shared experience. If we both see a tree, touch the tree, smell the tree, sit on the tree and so on… we share the experience of the tree.

Three people are playing World of Warcraft online. (a much more advanced version from 2000 years in our future.) All three see a tree. All three touch the tree. All three smell the tree. All three sit on the tree. They all share the experience of the same tree.

THEREFORE THE TREE IS OBJECTIVELY MATERIAL!!! ... is your argument.

You are saying that because they all three share the experience of this tree, then it therefore becomes a logical impossibility that the tree is a simulated tree, and in turn proves once and for all that this tree is an objective material tree. And I of course would disagree with you.

Shared experience does not equal Objective Material Universe.

Any claim that the tree is an illusion is therefore the positive claim and is what needs to be proven.

One of these three says, "Since we all see this tree, that means we are existing in a Material Objective Reality."

Another says, "I disagree. We would have the same experience in a simulation. We could have the same experience in a shared dream. We could have the same experience even if the apparent materiality of this tree were an illusion. Just because we share an experience does not mean that we live in an objective reality."

And the first one says, "Prove it!"

He doesn't have to, because he's not making a positive claim, the guy who is claiming that we DEFINITELY DO live in an objective material universe is making a positive claim and therefore, just like any positive claim, the burden of proof is on him.

Casporov is attempting to shift the burden of proof to avoid the sticky problem of proving his claim that there are more “things” than we can observe. One of those things being the amorphous “God” he wishes to prove the existence of. It seems to me that many of his detractors failed to catch his switch and accepted a burden of proof problem that was never theirs.

That you don't believe in god accrues no burden of proof. That you posit that we live in an objective Material universe does. If I were truly "shifting the burden of proof" as you are accusing me of doing. I would be saying, "PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST THEN!!" like an idiot. But that's not what I'm doing, so please don't accuse me of it.

The second major problem is that he is asking for scientific proof to an unscientific question. In other words he is violating the principal of falsifiability. Solipsism (questioning reality) is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one (as there is no way to falsify the concept)
Since solopsism deals with questions that cannot be answered by observation or experiment it follows that demanding scientific proof of a purely philosophical question is invalid. He is conflating philosophy with science.

Well, first of all, Solipsism does not equal "questioning reality." Solipsism is the belief that I am the only person that exists and everyone and everything else is an illusion. "Questioning reality" is called skepticism. They are not one in the same.

I am not demanding scientific proof, I am just demanding proof in general. Any kind will do, philosophical scientific or otherwise it makes no deference. I am only seeking justification for the belief that we live in Objective Material Universe.

The reason for this, is because if we do indeed live in a Material Objective Universe, then that means that a belief in god would be entirely irrational, and life after death is an absolute impossibility and so on. I do not wish to hold an incorrect world view, so I am asking all of you Materialists to please provide justification for your world view, so that I can make an informed decision about my own.

The fact that you cannot is telling. I am not playing games, shifting burdens of proof and playing philosophical tricks as you have framed me. I am legitimately interested in arriving at a correct world view with regards to reality as it really is. If it is Materialism, I will gladly accept it, but I will not accept it without the required evidence, proof, and definitely not without even the minimalist shred of justification or reason.

Unlike you I cannot just say, "It's not an assumption, it's a shared experience." Because I know that a "shared experience" does not equal "objective Material reality." I'm sure you've seen "The Matrix". As tacky as it is, it's a good analogy to demonstrate where your logic fails. Everyone sharing the same experiences doesn't mean that that they definitely exist in a material objective reality case closed. That is just faulty logic. Materialism must be assumed. Descartes didn't have such a good analogy, so he had to use the idea of a "demon" that projects a reality onto every one.

[stromboli]

I am not demanding scientific proof, I am just demanding proof in general. Any kind will do, philosophical scientific or otherwise it makes no deference. I am only seeking justification for the belief that we live in Objective Material Universe.

The reason for this, is because if we do indeed live in a Material Objective Universe, then that means that a belief in god would be entirely irrational, and life after death is an absolute impossibility and so on. I do not wish to hold an incorrect world view, so I am asking all of you Materialists to please provide justification for your world view, so that I can make an informed decision about my own.

And once again we are back to you saying you demand evidence, and we are giving it to you, and then saying our evidence is invalid. WE DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY BELIEVING IN A MATERIAL UNIVERSE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SAYS WE DO.

EVERY KNOWN METHOD OF MEASURING REALITY- THE PASSAGE OF TIME, THE REPEATABILITY OF EXPERIMENTS, THE CONSENSUS OPINION OF A VAST BODY OF OBSERVERS, SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS THAT PROVE THE CONCLUSION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, THE MATHEMATICAL CONCLUSION OF PHYSICAL FUNDAMENTALS LIKE GRAVITY, THE TABLE OF ELEMENTS, THE EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG AND THE WHOLE LIST OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE, AND THROUGH SCIENCE WE ARE ALWAYS FINDING MORE, ISN'T PROOF, ISN'T EVIDENCE, THEN WHAT IS?

You still haven't provided any other way of testing reality or proving your original statement, that materialism is invalid. Dismissing it is not providing a legitimate counter argument or proof.

Quote:
if we do indeed live in a Material Objective Universe, then that means that a belief in god would be entirely irrational, and life after death is an absolute impossibility

THANK YOU. YOU JUST BECAME AN ATHEIST.

[wolf39us]

Exactly, there never was a reason to believe in God.  Whether or not a material universe exists does not automatically point to a "God" or "being" of any sort... these are assumptions which have no merit.

[SGOS]

Exactly, there never was a reason to believe in God.  Whether or not a material universe exists does not automatically point to a "God" or "being" of any sort... these are assumptions which have no merit.

You mean I can's sell you on this?

You can't prove a material universe.
A non material universe may exist instead.
Yay, God!

[sasuke]

Show him evidence that the material world exists, otherwise god exists.
You gotta love it, they come here asking us to believe in god, and when we don't, they resort to doubting science, logic, and reality.

Material is everything that exists.  Immaterial can't be defined.  If I ask you what whiskey is, and you tell me that it's not vodka, then you really haven't defined whiskey.

For the 100th time:

Immaterial (outside of space) + timeless (outside of time) = imaginary (outside of existence)

[stromboli]

This thread was a dead horse like 2 pages ago.