God probably exists ii

[Aletheia]

The big problem with your entire premise is that you are assuming that thought exists separate from the physical. Can you show this assumption to be true? Can you , for example , show that thought exists separate from the brain? Let's see you show that thought is more than a physical process happening in the brain. Until you can do that, your premise is flawed.

I don't think thought exists outside the physical brain. Just by pure experience based reasoning, we can imagine that our mind creates internal representations about the world via external physical stimulus (visible objects, sounds, sensations, etc). If we accept that the mind is very much like a computational machine with memory, then not only can it receive, create, and store internal representations of external stimulus, but it can also recombine such representations and generate new and novel internal creative representations (like when we close our eyes, and or dream). I just think thought is just a way for our minds to interpolate or perceive non-real, imagined internal objects that represent familiar objects outside of our body, similar to the way, we hear and see real objects 'outside' of the body.

When we feel something like pain, the brain's representation feels more local, since we physically feel this sensation much more locally than external. Same goes for imagining pain via thought. I would bet most people imagine it locally and internally, unlike an imagined external conversation. Thought is just the brain's mirror representation of how we might perceive similar things in reality.

We can see physical evidence of localized thought activity by looking at EEGs, even MRI scans. I would bet that a 'thought' of a particular experience has similar regions of activity and waveforms, that the actual experience might have in reality. I'm not aware of any 'thoughts' being captured far outside of the brain, the signals are so low in power that they quickly deteriorate over small distances.

Something like talking to god, is just an extension of the above ideas. It's our brain having an internal dialogue with an imagined external being created from parts of our memory and beliefs.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The big problem with your entire premise is that you are assuming that thought exists separate from the physical. Can you show this assumption to be true? Can you , for example , show that thought exists separate from the brain? Let's see you show that thought is more than a physical process happening in the brain. Until you can do that, your premise is flawed.

I think a more precise way to phrase that is that he's assuming that it's POSSIBLE for thought to exist separate from the physical, and therefore he's essentially begging the question.

 

[Quag]

It's about the nature of reality. If there is will behind the Universe or whether it is accidental has huge implications for human behaviour.

I dont see how you get from imagining universes to deciding that there is will behind the universe.

The argument from design is a good argument if you really understand it. If you think the Universe is ordered and predictable (which it seem to be) and you know that in order to add order and predictability to it (like make a watch) you need will , then it is reasonable to assume the Universe itself requires will.

No actually it is a poor argument. The universe unfolds according to the laws of physics, to claim that means a creator is as unsound as those who claimed the giants causeway was built by giants because it appears too geometrical to be natural.

 

[zyzygy]

I dont see how you get from imagining universes to deciding that there is will behind the universe.


No actually it is a poor argument. The universe unfolds according to the laws of physics, to claim that means a creator is as unsound as those who claimed the giants causeway was built by giants because it appears too geometrical to be natural.

And the if that he used was the biggest if that has ever existed.

 

[HonestJoe]

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

We can take that as a valid assumption (if we didn't, things get a whole load more complicated). I would argue that it is equally valid to say that "non-thoughts" exist too.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine the concept but we can't present it as reality unless it is consistent with all our observations. At the very least I think you need to give more detail on the nature of the universe you are proposing here.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

That would be a common misunderstanding/misuse of Occams Razor. It is not about simply dismissing the more complex of two different hypotheses.

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to.

I disagree on the intent. We can have very complex but entirely unintentional dreams for example.

The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

No, because you've not established that a mind is the only way for things to be designed, let alone for them to appear designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

No. Even if all of your propositions were accepted, the conclusion is only that there was some form of thinking designer. There is absolutely no reason that designer would need to be anything like any of the various concepts commonly attributed to the word "God" (especially with the capital G).

 

[Quag]

And the if that he used was the biggest if that has ever existed.

problem with using IF in an argument is that unless you can show the IF to be the case you really haven't gotten anywhere

 

[Big Eye]

There is nothing simpler than the primitive idea of a magic god willing the universe into existence.

Well done, you've got something right!:boom

 

[Big Eye]

A brain is an idea? You are funny. Lost its correlation!

That's the point of this thread...everything exists as thought...do catch up lol.

In this theory there is a correlation between your thoughts and your idea of your brain. As we all should know , correlation is not proof of causation.

 

[rahl]

I thought I'd carry on with the original thread subject matter, just in case anyone still wanted to try and debunk my theory. Put in simple terms the following is the gist of the theory...

Thought is the generation and passing on (or not) of information . That information can be true or false, the true stuff we call objective, the false stuff is always subjective (opinion)...though not all subjective thought is false.

My claims are...

Thoughts exist...without doubt.

If we can imagine a universe of thought rather than thought and non-thought, then that is a simpler concept.

We can imagine such a universe, therefore we can drop the unnecessary non-thought idea (Cheers Occam).

Mind has the ability to design things (like E-type Jags). If we wish to add a degree of predictable complexity (E-Type) we have to intend to. The universe is complex and predictable...far more so than the Jag, therefore it is reasonable to deduce that the universe is designed.

Both ideas support each other, God probably exists.

your conclusion does not follow. You can not demonstrate in any way that the universe was designed or created.

 

[Big Eye]

How exactly can the universe even be made of thought? How exactly is an apple made of thought? You can't just propose something without a plausible way it can be true. Its like saying that there aren't different types of materials food is made of, and its simpler to believe all food is made of water because its simpler. To claim this you have to show that it is even possible all food is only made of water, just like you have to show that a stone can be made of thought.



Occham's Razor only says that the simpler ideas are more likely to be true. But if there isn't any evidence either way, then it doesn't help you at all, because Occham's Razor is just an educated guess. To actually show something to be true, you need real evidence that it is true. For example, the Greeks didn't know what everything was made of, and proposed that things were made of earth, air, fire, and water. Today we understand that there are dozens of different types of atoms and sub-particles that operate according to complex chemical laws and forces. Reality turned out to be very complex. The ancient Greeks didn't have the evidence yet and were better off admitting they didn't know rather than make big leaps with Occham's Razor.



All you really know is that your thoughts exist according to your own theory. If our perceptions of the material world are completely wrong and it is actually made of thought, then our perceptions are completely unreliable. So how do you know your observations of minds designing things are correct at all?



But to accept that the world is complex you have to accept it is made of physical material not thought. This is because the complexity you see is material physical complexity. If the physical world is actually made of thought, it really doesn't matter how complex it physically appears, since that appearance is obviously wrong.

Also, just because of universe is complex and minds can make complexity doesn't mean minds are the only thing that can make complexity. For example, just because we see fire, and humans can create fire doesn't mean all fires are made by humans. Sometimes natural forces make fire too. We don't know all the natural forces out there but we do know the process of natural selection and mutations make complexity too.

The universe can be made of thoughts in the way that a computer program can simulate a reality (this is not a simulation but it's a simple idea for you to take on board regarding our relationship with reality ). What defines reality is the laws that govern it not the necessity for mind independent stuff.

Occam's razor basically says that we should go with the simplest argument that fulfils all the requirements of a philosophical or scientific question.

I don't think that because many people see the world as mind independent that that in any way means our minds are unreliable. What the human mind really understands (usually) is that a reality exists that is separate to (just) their own minds. I fully accept the reality around me, I just don't accept that there is good reason for believing it is mind independent merely because it's free of my mind.

There is no reason for supposing that the complexity of the Universe can not be encompassed and caused by conscious intent...there is literally no reason for supposing thoughts are any less complex than mind free material. The argument here is that thought is known beyond doubt to exist ...so (as a substance) if we can visualise a universe made by thought then that is simpler than a material universe causing thought accidentally.

 

[Big Eye]

Some complex and predictable things can be explained without a creator, i.e. a dog is a complex system, but we do not require a more complex entity than the dog to explain it's creation. The dog's existence can be explained by the natural processes of evolution. While it is certainly possible that a given dog was thought up, designed, and put together by a more complex entity, such an entity is not required to explain the dog's existence, and assuming the existence of such an entity violates Occam's Razor.

Similarly, the more we seem to learn about the universe, the less it appears to require a complex creator. The complexity of the universe so far appears to be explainable through natural forces and entropy. No creator is required.

The laws that apply to the reality around us are what has led to animals like dogs. It is those laws that require intention given all the evidence we have for writing computer programs (for instance).

 

[Big Eye]

Of course they go hand in hand for the theist, but that doesn't validate the argument in any way.



Well, that's a rather extraordinary (employed here in the sense that is it highly unusual) claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I don't think that there's anything extraordinary about the fact that we know thought exists (extraordinary direct evidence) and that it alone can constitute reality (we know for sure it can simulate reality), and that we know thought is required when adding predictable complexity (a watch) to a predictably complex system (the world). There's literally nothing complex there.

 

[zyzygy]

I think a more precise way to phrase that is that he's assuming that it's POSSIBLE for thought to exist separate from the physical, and therefore he's essentially begging the question.

Assuming, without proof. A game of let's pretend.

 

[lwf]

The laws that apply to the reality around us are what has led to animals like dogs. It is those laws that require intention given all the evidence we have for writing computer programs (for instance).

Why aren't physical laws all there is? Why aren't they the point of irreducible complexity? The complexity we see is subjective and based solely on our lack of understanding of how these laws work. So far, simple entropy seems sufficient to explain all complexity that we see in the universe. If we posit something that wrote and implemented these laws and put entropy in motion, then we run into the same problem. What laws did the Creator operate under before creating the universe, and who wrote those laws?

It is one step further than is necessary to assume a Creator. It could be that the laws of the universe and the matter and energy contained therein are all there ever was or will be. It is also possible that something else that exists or existed somewhere else created these laws and matter and energy, but there is no evidence of this. It is simply a possibility. Occam's Razor would require that since a creator is not necessary and would not resolve the question of how reality came to be, then it should not be assumed.

 

[Big Eye]

1. No, that's flat out wrong, and even so, doesn't address my point.
2. How is there no matter? I'm typing this message (or at least I think I am) on a thing made of matter. The only real question is whether it is actually matter, or it only exist in thought (i.e. it is a product of thought). As I said, it's not necessarily any simpler to postulate that what we perceive as matter is just a product of thought, than it is to postulate that thought is entirely a product of a particular arrangement of matter (the brain). In fact, I could argue that the latter is simpler because more steps are involved: thought conceives of matter giving rise to thought, as opposed to just matter giving rise to thought.
3. You added something else besides "thoughts," namely a "mind." It's "simpler" just to hypothesize that the thoughts exist independent of any mind.

What people really mean by "matter" is mind independent reality...but as you interact with reality all you are ever perceiving is thoughts about reality, this theory would suggest that it is clearly simpler to accept that reality is purely information generation and transfer. When we apply our imperfect subjective will we also make mistakes about the nature of reality.The mistake materialists make is a simple one...they assume that because reality has a degree of separation from their own thoughts that it must be mind free...

 

[zyzygy]

What people really mean by "matter" is mind independent reality...but as you interact with reality all you are ever perceiving is thoughts about reality, this theory would suggest that it is clearly simpler to accept that reality is purely information generation and transfer. When we apply our imperfect subjective will we also make mistakes about the nature of reality.The mistake materialists make is a simple one...they assume that because reality has a degree of separation from their own thoughts that it must be mind free...

Could assuming that a god or gods exist be a mistake?

 

[Big Eye]

I dont see how you get from imagining universes to deciding that there is will behind the universe.


No actually it is a poor argument. The universe unfolds according to the laws of physics, to claim that means a creator is as unsound as those who claimed the giants causeway was built by giants because it appears too geometrical to be natural.

Complex balanced systems (like watches) require will. The universe may be made from thought alone (a simpler explanation of reality than thought and non-thought). The universe is a complex balanced system. Such a "program" requires will.Will requires a mind.

 

[Big Eye]

Why aren't physical laws all there is? Why aren't they the point of irreducible complexity? The complexity we see is subjective and based solely on our lack of understanding of how these laws work. So far, simple entropy seems sufficient to explain all complexity that we see in the universe. If we posit something that wrote and implemented these laws and put entropy in motion, then we run into the same problem. What laws did the Creator operate under before creating the universe, and who wrote those laws?

It is one step further than is necessary to assume a Creator. It could be that the laws of the universe and the matter and energy contained therein are all there ever was or will be. It is also possible that something else that exists or existed somewhere else created these laws and matter and energy, but there is no evidence of this. It is simply a possibility. Occam's Razor would require that since a creator is not necessary and would not resolve the question of how reality came to be, then it should not be assumed.

I think "the Creator" is simply pure will. So the bed rock of reality is will (which can be seen as a kind of consciously directed force). Maybe it's the case that that Force has also developed a character , I don't know.

 

[Big Eye]

Could assuming that a god or gods exist be a mistake?

Obviously , but it's also the simplest explanation of reality. Maybe there's a reason that humanity has always had a spiritual side...but just lately "philosophers" want us just to revert back to being apes that have no beliefs beyond the requirements of bodily functions.

 

[lwf]

I think "the Creator" is simply pure will. So the bed rock of reality is will (which can be seen as a kind of consciously directed force). Maybe it's the case that that Force has also developed a character , I don't know.

If we assume that we can't know if anything exists outside of our own thoughts, and so my thoughts are all there is, then wouldn't that pure will me mine? I think we have the same problem here. If my thoughts are 100% of my reality and I can never know if anything else exists outside of my mind, then while it is possible that something else created me, my premise that all reality is within my own thoughts requires me to assume that I am my own creator. If my own thoughts are all there is, then nothing else could have created me.

 

[Quag]

Complex balanced systems (like watches) require will. The universe may be made from thought alone (a simpler explanation of reality than thought and non-thought).

Watchmaker argument is not a logical argument it is a logically flawed attempt at rationalizing a preset beleif
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

The universe is a complex balanced system. Such a "program" requires will.Will requires a mind.

That is an unsupported claim that you are free to try and back up but no one has so far

 

[zyzygy]

Complex balanced systems (like watches) require will. The universe may be made from thought alone (a simpler explanation of reality than thought and non-thought). The universe is a complex balanced system. Such a "program" requires will.Will requires a mind.

Or not. What proof do you have that it is? Proof, not your unsupported opinion.

 

[zyzygy]

I think "the Creator" is simply pure will. So the bed rock of reality is will (which can be seen as a kind of consciously directed force). Maybe it's the case that that Force has also developed a character , I don't know.

Star Wars was fiction.

 

[watsup]

Complex balanced systems (like watches) require will. The universe may be made from thought alone (a simpler explanation of reality than thought and non-thought). The universe is a complex balanced system. Such a "program" requires will.Will requires a mind.

Your second-to-last sentence is nothing more than an assumption without evidence or proof. The watchmaker (or typing monkeys) is a simplistic argument by pop theologians that is seen as being based on “common sense” rather than deeper intellectual thought.
The problem is that the universe is seen as PRE-designed (like a watch) with certain expects end results (such as “humans” living on a small planet in a corner of the universe), but there is no actual evidence of “intent” in that regard. Yes, it all “just happened” and humans are here as a result of the physics and biology of the universe combined with chance. That is all.

 

[Big Eye]

If we assume that we can't know if anything exists outside of our own thoughts, and so my thoughts are all there is, then wouldn't that pure will me mine? I think we have the same problem here. If my thoughts are 100% of my reality and I can never know if anything else exists outside of my mind, then while it is possible that something else created me, my premise that all reality is within my own thoughts requires me to assume that I am my own creator. If my own thoughts are all there is, then nothing else could have created me.

If you think that your thoughts are all that exist then you can not believe in an external reality...that's a choice you can make, but in my opinion it is wiser to accept that you probably didn't invent chess.