The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
-
- Posts: 176
- Joined: January 4th, 2008, 5:29 pm
The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
The way I see it, there is endless discussion on God existing or not, but nothing of any discussion on how to concur on the way to prove or disprove God exists.
That is why I am always trying to get people to first work together to concur on what it is to prove or disprove that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.
And forgive me, I always get banned eventually for trying to get folks to return to my invitation of working together to concur on what it is to prove or disprove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind.
What do you say, can we concur on what it is to prove or disprove God exists, or anything at all that exists outside of concepts in our mind?
Hope I stay longer here than in other forums which are heavily and very massively active in philosophy.
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
Yes and it's about time someone put a stop to it.Pachomius wrote:
The way I see it, there is endless discussion on God existing or not,
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
Reichenbach shows that some ideas are just not possible in the physical world: F.i. a solid bridge to the moon. The idea is clear, you can debate the idea, even make plans to build the bridge, but it is just not possible to build in the physical world.
On the level of "physically possible" many ideas have no (possible) existence.
You should always be aware what is not possible now, might become possible in the future. Some ideas are however clearly composed and have not had any real existence, or would rule out because they are physically impossible.
The "God-idea" as a sentient being with ultimate powers, can be understood as composed, or physically impossible to exist. A slight chance exists that what we consider "ultimate power" will in the future be available, and that an existing being from the future could have these powers, and one of these powers should be to create the past with all our history and us.
This is pure science fiction, and like all science fiction this expectation of the future is composed out of available ideas (i.e. our technologically advanced people would seem godlike to primitive people). But induction is not always possible. It might just be physically impossible to create the past, which would rule out the possibility of the God ever coming into existence, if it was only a composed idea, and physically impossible idea now.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
The correct expression would have been: "combined ideas".Leon wrote:David Hume had thoughts on composed ideas. F.i. a lizard and a bird together gives the idea of a dragon. The lizard exists, the bird exists, the dragon exists as an idea, because it is composed. (There may have been dragonlike creatures, but none fire-breathing)
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
At first I was surprised that you'd be banned for such a seemingly innocuous aim. But then I noticed you used exactly the same phrase three times in your OP. Maybe people just get annoyed by the linguistic repetition? I think a lot of us do the same thing. We have a particular "hobby horse" that we obsess about. Try mixing it up a bit. Consult a Thesaurus, maybe.And forgive me, I always get banned eventually for trying to get folks to return to my invitation of working together to concur on what it is to prove or disprove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind.
Anyway, if we treat it as a general question about what it means for something to "exist" and how we decide whether we believe that any given concept or object exists, then it's a good question.
Initially I'd personally avoid the word "prove" and not make the question specific to the God concept. Rightly or not, "proof" generally seems to be used to mean a demonstration that something is true, with certainty. We can't know anything is true with certainty except perhaps our own instantaneous existence and things that are true by definition (mathematics; tautologies).
So, how about this question: "On what basis do we decide that we believe something exists?". With normal, everyday things it seems clear to me that it is by correlations, or patterns, in various different senses. Both our own different senses and the senses of other people. We've discovered that a very effective way to make sense of all these sensations that flood in through our eyes and ears is to assume that they are "caused" by various "things" that exist objectively in a thing we like to call the real world. The more successful that real world model is at making sense of all these sensations, the more attached we are to it. So, if I see a dagger in front of me and I try to clutch it but my hand goes straight through it, that dagger has broken the rules of sensory correlation. So I deem it not to exist. I probably conclude that it is a false creation proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain, or some such thing.
That'll do for now.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
Prior to my conception, I did not have a brain for some 13.7 billion years from the Big Bang and so nothing existed for me personally. Now that I'm here, it seems like the universe exists, but once I'm gone, there will be no way of knowing that I once existed or that the universe existed (from my point of view as a dead person). Things will be like they were before: I didn't miss not being here for 13.7 billion years and I won't miss being here for the next 13.7 billion years.
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
I often get quite nostalgic for the time before I existed.Present awareness wrote:I didn't miss not being here for 13.7 billion
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
Don't worry Alec, it will be back like it was, before you know it!Alec Smart wrote:I often get quite nostalgic for the time before I existed.Present awareness wrote:I didn't miss not being here for 13.7 billion
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
....I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically
meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God.
....."Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer
..............July 12 1979
To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.
I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.
In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.
Firstly I mean:_
those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicated upon past successions
which are unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
physically demonstrable answers
to what thereto fore had been missassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that
scientifically explainable answers
may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is:-
all the experientially explained
or explainable answers
to all questions
of all time-
Secondly I mean;-
The individual's memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehension's
of as interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance-
the meaning-
of all experiences.
Thirdly, I mean:-
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically stateable
family
of generalized principles-
cosmic laws-
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal,
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tuneable
micro- and macro-Universe events.
Fourthly, I mean;-
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never -ending
cosmic scenario serials.
With these four meanings I now directly
address God.
"Our God-
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest:-
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehrension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do
Yours , dear God,
is the only and complete glory.
By glory I mean the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but non-unitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potentials
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity's non redundant
syntropic integrating
Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
is interceptible, separatist, and biasble-
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;
Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is non-focusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative;
all of which characteristics gravity
are also the characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.
(eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these
two opposite forces.)
You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvement's, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous
omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe
You eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally inter-complementary
totally inter-transforming
non-simultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but non-unitarily conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.
Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.
To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.
Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen."........
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Levinas
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
I don't see what is supposed to be a proof in this? Could you elaborate on which part is supposed to be a proof?Rr6 wrote:...."Since 1927, whenever i am going to sleep, i always concentrate my thinking on what i call "Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer" (Richard Buckminister Fuller)
....I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically
meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God.
....."Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer
..............July 12 1979
To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.
I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.
In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.
Firstly I mean:_
those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicated upon past successions
which are unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
physically demonstrable answers
to what thereto fore had been missassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that
scientifically explainable answers
may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is:-
all the experientially explained
or explainable answers
to all questions
of all time-
Secondly I mean;-
The individual's memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehension's
of as interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance-
the meaning-
of all experiences.
Thirdly, I mean:-
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically stateable
family
of generalized principles-
cosmic laws-
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal,
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tuneable
micro- and macro-Universe events.
Fourthly, I mean;-
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never -ending
cosmic scenario serials.
With these four meanings I now directly
address God.
"Our God-
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest:-
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehrension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do
Yours , dear God,
is the only and complete glory.
By glory I mean the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but non-unitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potentials
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity's non redundant
syntropic integrating
Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
is interceptible, separatist, and biasble-
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;
Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is non-focusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative;
all of which characteristics gravity
are also the characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.
(eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these
two opposite forces.)
You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvement's, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous
omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe
You eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally inter-complementary
totally inter-transforming
non-simultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but non-unitarily conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.
Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.
To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.
Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen."........
As far as I can see, he is just defining some terms. And then he just jumps to talking about god with no argument or proof.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
R B FULLEr--
.."To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.
I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences."...
Asking the source is always best. His own words is the closest we can come to asking him.I don't see what is supposed to be a proof in this? Could you elaborate on which part is supposed to be a proof?
As far as I can see, he is just defining some terms. And then he just jumps to talking about god with no argument or proof.
..."To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.
I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences."...
See my cosmic hierarchy ergo cosmic trinity and that may help you.
Our finite occupied space Uni-Verse exists. If you need proof of such then I refer you to those many scientists who have their common sense and instrumental verification of their common sense experiences.
However, there exists people who do not believe space, occupied or not even exists ex Atreyu has made such comments.
It is nonsense of course. Then there others, including Belinda who insinuates she cannot understand a word I state ex;
"U"niverse = "G"od is beyond here ability to comprehend/grasp/understand/grock
Universe/Uni-Verse = God is beyond her ability to comprehend/grasp/understand/grock.
metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept is beyond her and some others to comprehend/understand/grasp/grock.
macro-infinite, non-occupied space is beyond her and some others to comprehend/grasp.
finite, occupied space Universe etc.....""................""................."'
There are some who have ego based mental blockage to anything r6 has to say. Go figure.
The truth is out there for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.
r6
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Levinas
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
I see all of the proof I need, If you don't, you have the option to move along to that which interests you more.Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:Well if you see a proof in the text you posted, you could also just say what the proof is?
Occupied space >< non-occupied space
Physical/energy >< metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept
Gravity ( ) >< dark energy )(
Biological/soul >< mineral, atom, fermion, boson
r6
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023