I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Again, you require an individual perspective to rationalize god.

Try this:

If god, then it existed before humans, before any life at all. so there was no perspective.

At the begining, god would have been there. Define it then.
Unless your god evolves?

 

But how does one get from indeterminism to determinism? Free will has to be relevant to an end in the facts of the world. One fact may be that god is there and unalterably self-sufficient, OR the end was in my mind for the fact of the World somehow not deceiving ME. Sure of that?

 

Free will, determinism, either way, it breaks down to mathematically chaotic behavior.

In any case, again, "free will has to be relevant" is totally homocentric.
If all the humans died, the world would still exist even though a source of free will was lacking. Would god?

 

But that could only happen if the alternative possibility of Emanation should be the consequence for your already existing counter-factual. I.E. the One broke up into the Many and the intelligent beings were of ever lower degenerations.

Yes; I think it is strange that God made man from the chain of Being starting with the Devil, and ending with Himself as the model for all creation. Possibly the One was with the the sensible perfection, God, at first.

In all cases Man is the tight-rope,... daa..ah. Golf ball.

 

No reason for that kind of refusal of rational facts for ending . Where else would one get the empirical project to do something? Hum bug.

 

Blind fatih.
A perfect illustration of why the religious fear Science. To accept one's apparent place in the Universe is to deny the relavence of self-importance.

Science has no interest in looking for a possible god, and religion fears the search. What are they trying to hide?

 

I require a brain to consider anything. No matter the context in which we consider the question, we cannot escape the effects of our own thinking. However we can through practice, fine tune the senses to increase the accuracy of our observations.
The universe is made of information. Knowledge is material, it occupies space. A practical definition at least offers observable qualities. Lifeless existence is for us, is a purely theoretical state.
It appears you are seeking a definition you can "believe in". It would seem that you would be better served with a definition you can work with.
You ask if maybe my god evolves.
Nature is a perpetually emergent redundant pattern, both wave and particle.

 

If it is a question of will, another word we might use is intent and from there another might be gravity.
Hopes and dreams are homo-centric aspirations which may or may not manifest in time.
However, what will be done is done. Will is free but its' character is common to all things.

 

No. I am, indeed, seeking a rigid definition. I leave belief to believers.

Your'e just preaching philosophical gobbel-gook. You cannot seperate yourself from your god. Throwing in science terms dosen't change the essence.

"Knowledge is material"? if you're refering to electronic impulses, sure. But can you directly capture anothers thoughts?

"emergent redundant"? as Jimmy mighty say, "c-c-come o,o,o,on"! New-old?

"A practical definition at least offers observable qualities" That's my point. But you haven't presented one. Just grandiose statments that don't actually address the question of god's existence, or non.

"I require a brain to consider anything." non-sequiter. What's that got to do with anything? Does the existence of your god require your brain?

"Lifeless existence is for us, is a purely theoretical state." ??????
The Sun, The Moon. They exist lifeless.

Homocentric nonsense. Religious dogma by any other name stinks just as much.

You can't bull shit me. If you have a definition, spell it out. Because as it stands, the only practical definition out there is non-existence.

And I'm not convinced of that, either.

 

There is no factual baisis for this statement whatsoever.

 

“There remains but the third class, the superstitious. These worthies were not content merely to rest in ignorance; they must know all about things which have no existence whatever…”
-----Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon

 

Demonstrate please, how the statement is not true.

 

One you can accept?

Actually I am trying to communicate with you. Can you separate yourself from any observation that you make?

I am not referring specifically or exclusively to electronic impulses. The electronic impulses you talk about are the evidence of brain activity. Knowledge is, being shared.
All of our science is founded on the powers of human observation. Science does nothing more or less than extend the acuity of our senses.
If thought amounts to electronic impulses, then yes we can capture or measure another persons thoughts. However it is far more efficient and reliably telling to simply share our thoughts.

Sorry. I use the term redundant in its' root form from the latin, "overflow", "rising like a wave". Rise and fall, in and out, light and dark, summer and winter.

"God is our aspiration at any given moment." Is this a grandiose statement?
We live in a world of condition. We stand perpetually in relationship. There is no condition but that arises with the breath.

No. The brain is required to consider the existence of God.

Celestial bodies adhere to the same redundant cycle of nature. Planets have a life cycle.

I would never even entertain the thought of bull shitting you. If I turn out to be misguided it is an honest mistake.
There is no practical definition of non-existence. What does not exist is not real.

So it is in fact, conviction that you seek.

 

Sidebar for thedope,

Before I analyze your responses, let me say that I do respect your view point.

But understand, I am a professional writer and I want to be provocative as opposed to mundane for The Theoretical Reader. Hence the term “bull shit” and the like. It doesn’t matter if anyone likes it—- just that they read it!

Ever watch two Scientist debate a theoretical point? Take my advice; get a drill with a dull bit and stick it in your eye. It’s a lot less painful.

But I must say, you have succeeded in making me look in places I never notices before—

So here we go--

 

“If it is a question of will, another word we might use is intent and from there another might be gravity.”


Will=resolve

Goal=intent

Gravity= Adjective: Serious
Noun: The force of attraction between to masses.

So, unless you mean Gravity as a noun, this sentence is simply a list of synonyms. So let’s choose “resolve” as the distilled product.

“Hopes and dreams are homo-centric aspirations which may or may not manifest in time.”

This ones is easy. It’s a definition of aspiration-type dreams.


“However, what will be done is done.”

Translation: Resolve and Aspirations are irrelevant to the outcome.

“Will is free but its' character is common to all things.”

But you just said that “will” is irrelevant…

But you nailed one thing: irrelevance is common to all things.
--------------
When I was at Carolina, back in the day (sounds better than “back in the stone age) PCs didn’t exist, and instead of programming, they taught Symbolic Logic, which was more useless than geometry for me… until chat rooms came along!

 

No worries I'm having a great time. I appreciate you as well. I employ technique as well to disrupt habitual thought.

 

I am suggesting that there is a difference between what free will actually is and what we have assumed that it is. I agree with you that hopes and dreams aspirations and desires are homo-centric phenomena, however I see "will" as a singular universal motivator.
All things will to be, from the density of a stone to the wall of a cell. To recognize that this is the progenitor of all effects is the key to commanding the wind and the waves. We walk the world unopposed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by geckopelli
No. I am, indeed, seeking a rigid definition. I leave belief to believers.

“One you can accept?”
By Rigid, I mean a list of properties that are NOT reliant upon the observer. (i.e. “Near” or “Far” is entirely subjective. “300 meters” is a rigid definition of distance.)
(Keep in mind that I am quite intimate with the Uncertainty Principle.)
Quote:
Your'e just preaching philosophical gobbel-gook. You cannot seperate yourself from your god. Throwing in science terms dosen't change the essence.

“Actually I am trying to communicate with you. Can you separate yourself from any observation that you make?”
Uncertainty.
But your observation of god is not rigid; it is subjective. Whereas my observations of the sun rise can be duplicated by anyone because they are rigid.
Quote:
"Knowledge is material"? if you're refering to electronic impulses, sure. But can you directly capture anothers thoughts?

I am not referring specifically or exclusively to electronic impulses. The electronic impulses you talk about are the evidence of brain activity.”
“Knowledge is, being shared.”
“Knowledge” is a subjective concept. Non-sequiter. The facts exist without an entity to have knowledge of them.
“All of our science is founded on the powers of human observation. Science does nothing more or less than extend the acuity of our senses.”
A common misconception. Engineering extends the acuity of our senses. Science Describes observations.
“If thought amounts to electronic impulses,”
THAT is one hell of a leap—it’s easier to discuss the existence of god!
Quote:
"A practical definition at least offers observable qualities" That's my point. But you haven't presented one. Just grandiose statments that don't actually address the question of god's existence, or non.

"God is our aspiration at any given moment." Is this a grandiose statement?
We live in a world of condition. We stand perpetually in relationship. There is no condition but that arises with the breath.”
This is totally Solipsistic. I will not accept the assumption that the Universe was created as a cradle for Human conceit.
Quote:
"I require a brain to consider anything." non-sequiter. What's that got to do with anything? Does the existence of your god require your brain?

“No. “
Then—a rigid definition is appropriate.
Quote:
"Lifeless existence is for us, is a purely theoretical state." ??????
The Sun, The Moon. They exist lifeless.

“Celestial bodies adhere to the same redundant cycle of nature. Planets have a life cycle.”
Word play.
Planets do not meet even the most liberal definition of life. “life cycle” is an analogous term with respect to inanimate objects.
“There is no practical definition of non-existence.”
I beg to differ.
If Components of Reality affect other Components of Reality in an observable way, then Components of Reality that are non-existent affect Components of Reality in a non-observable way.
Belief is Real; but it does not follow that the thing believed in is Real.
Quote:
And I'm not convinced of that, either.

“So it is in fact, conviction that you seek.”

To clarify: Just because the religious view of god is—well, self-servingly contemptible at best-- doesn’t mean that the raw god-concept is invalid.

The Force?

 

Taking everything I know (which—so I’m an ass—is a fuckin’ lot) this occurs to me:

IF

God is Indifferent but Accessible

THEN
(to be metaphorical about it)

The Three Laws of God

1) God fights on the side of the Heaviest Artillery

2) God never rolls a Gutter Ball

3) God Stacks the Deck

Meshes History and the Bible, etc., No?

 

I think it is your claim of solipsism that makes the proportions of what I am saying fall sloppy dead.
We live in a world of condition, parameters set by metabolism. Under normal conditions we cannot see the microscopic, we need to extend the range of our senses with a microscope.
This ability to extend the range of our senses through the use of technology is a facility of mind. Homo sapiens is a being of two distinct yet complimentary aspects, knowing and tasting. Mind is the synthesizer of these two aspects, its' nature being abstract and therefore transcendent. Transcendent meaning to have the ability to go beyond perception. We have the ability to project probability and manifest potentiality. We cannot truly appreciate the relevance of this as long as we seek to depreciate the power of mind.