God probably exists ii

[Big Eye]

Star Wars was fiction.

Force isn't though.

 

[lwf]

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.

So you think that external reality exists outside of my thoughts, but not outside of thought itself. And the thought that makes up reality external to my experience is merely the thought of a creator being?

If it is possible for there to be a reality external to your and my thoughts, why must we assume that such reality cannot be external to all thought? Maybe it's just an external reality that exists outside of all thought and will?

 

[Big Eye]

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.

The stuff within the universe obey the laws of nature...it is those laws of nature to which I refer to as a designed program....talking about atoms ,rocks or galaxies causing things (and appearing mindless) is irrelevant.

 

[Big Eye]

So you think that external reality exists outside of my thoughts, but not outside of thought itself. And the thought that makes up reality external to my experience is merely the thought of a creator being?

If it is possible for there to be a reality external to your and my thoughts, why must we assume that such reality cannot be external to all thought? Maybe it's just an external reality that exists outside of all thought and will?

Yes , you have described it perfectly .

Something external to thought adds unnecessary complexity if thought alone (will) is enough.

 

[watsup]

The stuff within the universe obey the laws of nature...it is those laws of nature to which I refer to as a designed program....talking about atoms ,rocks or galaxies causing things (and appearing mindless) is irrelevant.

You can “refer” to them any way you want. That in no way makes my input false in any manner:

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.

 

[lwf]

Yes , you have described it perfectly .

Something external to thought adds unnecessary complexity if thought alone (will) is enough.

But if I didn't invent chess, then something external to my thought exists. Your premise is that it is rational to assume that there are things external to my thoughts, but not external to thought itself.

I would argue that assuming the existence of thought outside of human experience that contains all of reality adds more unnecessary complexity than assuming the existence of reality outside of all thought. The question still remains: If there is a reality beyond my perception, then either that reality is contained within the thoughts and will of an external being, or it is not. Positing an external realm of thought that encompasses all other thought adds +1 to the unnecessary entities required to assume a reality external to my thoughts.

 

[zyzygy]

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.

I disagree. We are not descended from apes, Homo sapiens and apes have a common ancestor. Believers are often confused about that point.

 

[zyzygy]

I will play along. The universe consists of thought or will, whatever that means. Now what?

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes , you have described it perfectly .

Something external to thought adds unnecessary complexity if thought alone (will) is enough.

To use your own argument. Complexity does not just appear. Thought itself is complex it did not happen in an instance with humans but after many life cycles over many years. Where did thought come from?

 

[zyzygy]

To use your own argument. Complexity does not just appear. Thought itself is complex it did not happen in an instance with humans but after many life cycles over many years. Where did thought come from?

From a magic god, who else? Nature and physics could never come up with anything like that.

 

[soylentgreen]

From a magic god, who else? Nature and physics could never come up with anything like that.

I think the word you mean is magic mushroom.

 

[zyzygy]

I think the word you mean is magic mushroom.

Good point. The book of Revelation is a report of a bum trip.

 

[distraff]

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 ).

All games do is simply simulate or copy reality with a screen with colors on it. This is very different than rocks and plants being made of thoughts where one thing (physical objects) is literally being composed of another (thoughts). I can explain in detail how water can be composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms and the chemical forces that bind them together and give them the properties that we ascribe to water. Can you explain in the same way how a rock can be made of thoughts and how this all works?

What defines reality is the laws that govern it not the necessity for mind independent stuff.

No, laws are just abstract human ideas that describe in human terms how reality works. The law of gravity is just our explanation for explaining the force that matter exerts on each other. Reality defines the laws not the other way around.

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.

What we see is a physical world that is independent to our own minds or to any mind. We also see a physical world that is fundamentally different from thought. If the world is really made of thought, then our observation that everything is made of matter is a fine-tuned forgery and that really needs to be explained.

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

What Occham's razor says, is that we don't add unnecessary complexity to an explanation if there is no reason, evidence, or observations to do so not that everything is likely or has to be simple. We observe a world of physical objects so there is a good reason for believing that a physical world exists and not just thoughts. Another problem is that you don't have any actual evidence the world is made of thought. In cases where there is no evidence either way, then you can't go with either argument no matter which explanation is simpler. Occham's Razor only works for actually believing something when it is combined with actual evidence.

There is no reason for supposing that the complexity of the Universe can not be encompassed and caused by conscious intent...

Just because there is no reason for believing the universe can't be encompassed by conscious intent doesn't mean it is. You need actual evidence here. While we have seen conscious being make tools, we have no evidence conscious being can even make a whole universe. Also, if physical objects aren't real, then physical complexity doesn't exist and your observations of people making complex physical objects are fallacious deceptions as well.

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.

You haven't even shown that thought is even separate from matter. Claiming that our eyes are fooling us and that the physical world doesn't exist and is actually made of thought pretending to be physical objects, is a more complicated explanation than just believing things are simply as you see them. Also, I could propose that thought is material which has some backing from neuroscience. In this way, we only have one thing, matter, which is simple and doesn't require believing that our eyes are fooling us or that thoughts are pretending to be physical.

 

[zyzygy]

If I split a rock into two do I create two new rock thoughts?

 

[zyzygy]

All games do is simply simulate or copy reality with a screen with colors on it. This is very different than rocks and plants being made of thoughts where one thing (physical objects) is literally being composed of another (thoughts). I can explain in detail how water can be composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms and the chemical forces that bind them together and give them the properties that we ascribe to water. Can you explain in the same way how a rock can be made of thoughts and how this all works?



No, laws are just abstract human ideas that describe in human terms how reality works. The law of gravity is just our explanation for explaining the force that matter exerts on each other. Reality defines the laws not the other way around.



What we see is a physical world that is independent to our own minds or to any mind. We also see a physical world that is fundamentally different from thought. If the world is really made of thought, then our observation that everything is made of matter is a fine-tuned forgery and that really needs to be explained.



What Occham's razor says, is that we don't add unnecessary complexity to an explanation if there is no reason, evidence, or observations to do so not that everything is likely or has to be simple. We observe a world of physical objects so there is a good reason for believing that a physical world exists and not just thoughts. Another problem is that you don't have any actual evidence the world is made of thought. In cases where there is no evidence either way, then you can't go with either argument no matter which explanation is simpler. Occham's Razor only works for actually believing something when it is combined with actual evidence.



Just because there is no reason for believing the universe can't be encompassed by conscious intent doesn't mean it is. You need actual evidence here. While we have seen conscious being make tools, we have no evidence conscious being can even make a whole universe. Also, if physical objects aren't real, then physical complexity doesn't exist and your observations of people making complex physical objects are fallacious deceptions as well.



You haven't even shown that thought is even separate from matter. Claiming that our eyes are fooling us and that the physical world doesn't exist and is actually made of thought pretending to be physical objects, is a more complicated explanation than just believing things are simply as you see them. Also, I could propose that thought is material which has some backing from neuroscience. In this way, we only have one thing, matter, which is simple and doesn't require believing that our eyes are fooling us or that thoughts are pretending to be physical.

I hit my thumb with a hammer today. These thoughts sure are good at pretending to be physical objects.

 

[watsup]

All games do is simply simulate or copy reality with a screen with colors on it. This is very different than rocks and plants being made of thoughts where one thing (physical objects) is literally being composed of another (thoughts). I can explain in detail how water can be composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms and the chemical forces that bind them together and give them the properties that we ascribe to water. Can you explain in the same way how a rock can be made of thoughts and how this all works?



No, laws are just abstract human ideas that describe in human terms how reality works. The law of gravity is just our explanation for explaining the force that matter exerts on each other. Reality defines the laws not the other way around.



What we see is a physical world that is independent to our own minds or to any mind. We also see a physical world that is fundamentally different from thought. If the world is really made of thought, then our observation that everything is made of matter is a fine-tuned forgery and that really needs to be explained.



What Occham's razor says, is that we don't add unnecessary complexity to an explanation if there is no reason, evidence, or observations to do so not that everything is likely or has to be simple. We observe a world of physical objects so there is a good reason for believing that a physical world exists and not just thoughts. Another problem is that you don't have any actual evidence the world is made of thought. In cases where there is no evidence either way, then you can't go with either argument no matter which explanation is simpler. Occham's Razor only works for actually believing something when it is combined with actual evidence.



Just because there is no reason for believing the universe can't be encompassed by conscious intent doesn't mean it is. You need actual evidence here. While we have seen conscious being make tools, we have no evidence conscious being can even make a whole universe. Also, if physical objects aren't real, then physical complexity doesn't exist and your observations of people making complex physical objects are fallacious deceptions as well.



You haven't even shown that thought is even separate from matter. Claiming that our eyes are fooling us and that the physical world doesn't exist and is actually made of thought pretending to be physical objects, is a more complicated explanation than just believing things are simply as you see them. Also, I could propose that thought is material which has some backing from neuroscience. In this way, we only have one thing, matter, which is simple and doesn't require believing that our eyes are fooling us or that thoughts are pretending to be physical.

Excellent.

 

[distraff]

I hit my thumb with a hammer today. These thoughts sure are good at pretending to be physical objects.

Basically, our brains take in light from the objects in the external world and interpret it to be colors in the minds eye. So it is possible that this can be fabricated along with our other senses in a simulation. Example of this are virtual reality games, dreaming, and daydreaming. In fact, a lot of smart people believe this world is a simulation, because according to them, advanced civilizations will develop advanced simulations, and the number of simulations will outnumber the one reality, so it is far more likely that we are in a simulation. But "Big Eye" isn't even claiming that this world is a sophisticated simulation like a dream or a game. He claims that the world is real and is literally made of thought.

 

[zyzygy]

Basically, our brains take in light from the objects in the external world and interpret it to be colors in the minds eye. So it is possible that this can be fabricated along with our other senses in a simulation. Example of this are virtual reality games, dreaming, and daydreaming. In fact, a lot of smart people believe this world is a simulation, because according to them, advanced civilizations will develop advanced simulations, and the number of simulations will outnumber the one reality, so it is far more likely that we are in a simulation. But "Big Eye" isn't even claiming that this world is a sophisticated simulation like a dream or a game. He claims that the world is real and is literally made of thought.

He has no evidence for that but he is free to post his opinions, using a device made of thought.

 

[NWO_Spook]

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.

However, there are quite a few non sequiturs.

 

[zyzygy]

Did thought create this entity that thought the universe into existence?

 

[grip]

What you say comes close to what I'm saying...but a little less refined. Mine is simpler....for example instinctive thoughts are still thoughts, I've never implied all thoughts have to be complex.

I agree, the instinct to survive is the primal source for all thought. But instincts are genetically hardwired into our DNA. While thoughts arose from the senses as merely a way for the central nervous system to organize different elements of our environment into a manner that makes our survival more successful.

We can't prove that thoughts exist independently of a brain's physical structure. They're not completely intangible as they're chemicals, neurons, synapses, and other brain cells electrically firing off and communicating with each other. The information (software) is stored and activated in the brain (hardware), much like a computer.

Once a species hits a certain level of mental complexity, conscious self-awareness develops. Though self-awareness connects us to our environment as semi-autonomous creatures, the delusion is that we exist independently from nature and its energy source.

When God was asked who he was, he replied 'I Am.' It says biblically that when a person dies, their body returns to the earth and the spirit returns to God. He must be pure energy, an ethereal source of consciousness interwoven within the human construct, mainly the brain, that gives us animation and personality or a soul. But he obviously does not want to be found or explained.

 

[zyzygy]

I agree, the instinct to survive is the primal source for all thought. But instincts are genetically hardwired into our DNA. While thoughts arose from the senses as merely a way for the central nervous system to organize different elements of our environment into a manner that makes our survival more successful.

We can't prove that thoughts exist independently of a brain's physical structure. They're not completely intangible as they're chemicals, neurons, synapses, and other brain cells electrically firing off and communicating with each other. The information (software) is stored and activated in the brain (hardware), much like a computer.

Once a species hits a certain level of mental complexity, conscious self-awareness develops. Though self-awareness connects us to our environment as semi-autonomous creatures, the delusion is that we exist independently from nature and its energy source.

When God was asked who he was, he replied 'I Am.' It says biblically that when a person dies, their body returns to the earth and the spirit returns to God. He must be pure energy, an ethereal source of consciousness interwoven within the human construct, mainly the brain, that gives us animation and personality or a soul. But he obviously does not want to be found or explained.

Why not? Assuming that he exists.

 

[Aletheia]

Why not? Assuming that he exists.

If he's the god of the bible, I'd say he clearly wants to be found. Why else would he send Jesus and inspire humans to fabricate the bible?

On the other hand, if 'he' is the sentient entity, yeah, it doesn't want to be found and is doing a very good job of it.

 

[watsup]

I agree, the instinct to survive is the primal source for all thought. But instincts are genetically hardwired into our DNA. While thoughts arose from the senses as merely a way for the central nervous system to organize different elements of our environment into a manner that makes our survival more successful.

We can't prove that thoughts exist independently of a brain's physical structure. They're not completely intangible as they're chemicals, neurons, synapses, and other brain cells electrically firing off and communicating with each other. The information (software) is stored and activated in the brain (hardware), much like a computer.

Once a species hits a certain level of mental complexity, conscious self-awareness develops. Though self-awareness connects us to our environment as semi-autonomous creatures, the delusion is that we exist independently from nature and its energy source.

When God was asked who he was, he replied 'I Am.' It says biblically that when a person dies, their body returns to the earth and the spirit returns to God. He must be pure energy, an ethereal source of consciousness interwoven within the human construct, mainly the brain, that gives us animation and personality or a soul. But he obviously does not want to be found or explained.

“He hides from me but I believe in him”.

 

[Helix]

I probably said something similar in the other thread, but my view is that i'm happier believing in God than not believing in God. I don't really have a desire to convince anyone of the existence of God, and will continue my personal and private conversations with Him. i also don't have a problem with atheists.