The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

Well the first thing i would suggest is subsiding the Idea of “proof” in the sense of there being something that is 100% probable.
There is always the possibility that something, or someone is wrong about something no matter what it is.
Even though math deals with 100% possibilities it does so hypothetically through hypothetical situations.

We arrive at most things, including math, by logic:

“In order to prove the overall validity of logic one must use logic, and such a method, of proving a thing by assumption of that thing, is shown to be a fallacy by logic.” Quoting my self from elsewhere.

But that can be a minor thing…And I’m not sure that you would disagree.
But I would suggest that it would not be a matter of “proving” God exists or that God matters but of showing you that it is highly likely that he does and that it would/should matter to you.

This is a very hard thing to do.
I might start with this:

What does end mean, to you?
And what have you witnessed ending?

Start with the end. :smiley:

A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.

It would be a far shorter list to cite what I haven’t witnessed ending.
That would be pretty easy; not one thing.

I don’t know, however, what you specifically mean by the word “end”.
There are roughly 15 to 20 different meanings of that word.

It is good that you don’t allow yourself to prescribe to simply one definition of a thing…

i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?

“A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.”
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?

Then again, it would be easier to ask the opposite question of what I have NOT witnessed ending: Not one thing .

That depends on which kind of end is being described and what condition a thing is in.
For instance, I know the end of a ball because it has a skin that is visible as the properties of being a ball and to which can be observed in interacting with other things by the limitation of that skin which defines its shape.

Or, I can know the end of my meal because the plate is now empty and my belly is full; therefore indicating the properties identifiable as the end of the meal.

Ultimately what I am getting at is that it would seem to me that what most people think of as an end is not accurate. Things don’t cease to be all that they are, unless you define them to be something specifically finite. And it would seem then that when something ends it is more a matter of perceiving an alteration in the state of a thing such that it is no longer recognizable as what it was. Would you agree?

Yes, and no.
Yes, in the sense of matter and energy within a system. What you described is the physical truth of the matter.

No, in the sense of what counts as an identity of a thing to the human consciousness.
If I cut off my hand and burn it to ashes, I don’t say that my hand still exists.
Yes, it does according to physics, but effectively to the identification of function being my hand; it does not.

i believe that might be my point that the idea of ending is a matter of perception/consciousness, it only ends so long as it we/you don’t recognize what we/you thought of as it.
The hand when cut off may not be there by our recollection but all that it was continues to have an affect, the seeming absence of it would be a continuously altering aspect of our lives.
Rather it would seem what really ended was a particular state.
What I am getting at is that what typically happens is just a matter of change/alteration, end is just a type of alteration/change?
So what I might then ask is have you ever seen anything actually stop changing, rather than it just seem like it has?

No, that would be a physics impossibility.
If any single thing stopped changing, regardless how small, every law of physics would shatter to pieces and the universe would implode faster than observation could notice.

So would you think that the consciousness would stop changeing after death?

Consciousness is a state, not an object.
It is like asking me if running would stop after the race, or if the engine would stop after the car was shut off.

It’s not like asking me if my legs would still exist after the race, or if the engine would still exist after the car was shut off.

No, it is like asking me if the current still exists in the circuit after power has been removed from the battery and the circuit decays into being separated matter of another form.

Let me put it this way to elaborate further.
Water is a collection of water molecules.
When together, we have water.

If I take a cup of water and stir the water therein, then I can say that I have current.
If I take away the cup and let the water move to another basin, then there is still water with current.
If, however, I put the cup down and walk away, then the current will eventually cease over a long enough time.
Once it stops, it will rest.
Could I regenerate the current in that water?
Sure, that’s easy; I walk up and excite the water. It is a simple compound so that is not too difficult.
The more complex the compound, the more difficult such an event becomes.
But if I leave that water alone, it will evaporate.
The hydrogen will begin to separate from the oxygen slowly.
Essentially, the water will begin its version of decay.
Eventually I will be left with an empty cup.
The current was first to stop, then the water separated its bonds and departed.
If I wait long enough, the cup will also decay, separating its bonds.

Once the water separated its bonds and hydrogen and oxygen left in separate motives, it is no longer water.
The atoms still exist that existed in that cup of water, but they do not exist in their arrangement that made them the water, nor do they exist in proximity to each other in their respective and individual forms they have taken in leaving the unity of being water.
Instead, they have atomically left to join and bond with other atoms and create other compounds useful for other means that are not the body of water that they were a part of previously.

And in even this, the current that was present in the body of water hasn’t any relation at this point of existing at all.
It now only exists as a concept of what has taken place in the past but is no longer taking place.
That specific arrangement of atoms moving in that specific manner in which they could; that current; it is no more and never will be.

If the hydrogen atom is separated from the oxygen atom it is by our perception that they are separate. one might could think that even after death of this state, that even after seeming separation to our current state, that after say death, one’s consciousness continues regardless of separation…But I wouldn’t think of it that way.

But I might ask if time is to continue endlessly, wouldn’t it be inevitable that eventually, even maybe a relatively infinite distance away in time, that all those particles that make you would come back into form?

That does not occur.
Quantum entanglement does not take place in grand network design from regular networking’s of atomic mass on the macro level.

No.
Because even if you could get the probabilities to line up to allow for the exact 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 Octillion) atoms to bond once again (which you really can’t because what would be needed is for the parents’ atomic structure to rejoin so that the birth of those atoms in their origin of starting atomic mass could be accomplished to arrange in the same fashion as before, which would require their parents to be rebonded, and their parents, and their parents, and their parents, and well…all the way back to the beginning), you would not get the same interactions and behaviors of the atoms each in the same fashion that occurred in existence before; and that is because you would be absent the rest of every other person and their 7 Octillion atoms being in existence along with that far, far, beyond miraculously rejoined 7 Octillion atom person.

So the only way possible would be to repeat ALL of existence in full twice.

You mean no perceptible “entanglement”.

So it is possible, I would think that if it is possible and time is endless that it is bound to happen.
And also your thinking that in order for the same thing to occur the same situation must cause it, that may not be the case.
one might say that if the All thought-by-complexity idea i had was correct that it would require only an alteration in thought to do such…

No, I mean that’s not how quantum entanglement works.
It takes some pretty extreme conditions for even two atoms to entangle, let alone a preserved network of a few octillion.
And by extreme, I mean that where they first popped up was in reference to black holes in Hawkins radiation.

If we say that unicorns that skateboard on hind legs while dancing in a hula hoop might possibly exist but just hasn’t been observed in our perception, then we would be closer to possible than by stating that a few octillion atoms may be quantum entangled in a networked manner together and that we have just not noticed it yet.

No, it’s not possible.
It was a hyperbolic statement of ridiculousness.
There is no standard observed in natural existence by which anything has ever shown even the farthest of remote capacities of reoccurring exactly the same twice sub-atomically.

Yeah, and the unicorn might do a double backflip.

While i agree with you about unicorns not existing, i would think it is inevitable that something we think doesn’t exist is going to be shown to exist…

But recognizing your irritation i think it might be best to desist.
Likewise it seems that you rely on the idea that things can be “proven” by empirical data even though as i think I said:
“In order to prove the overall validity of logic one must use logic, and such a method, of proving a thing by assumption of that thing, is shown to be a fallacy by logic.”
And it would seem that if logic is not 100% certain that neither can it be certain that empirical data is or always will be most accurate.

But I thought I might point out that Hawking radiation is actually a form of light…as such black holes might be more appropriately named dim holes, but understandably black holes in that they don’t emit visible light.

Firstly, don’t take me to be irritated. I’m not.

How can you agree with me on the unicorn and turn around and then say that it is inevitable that something we think doesn’t exist is going to be shown to exist?

Prapple jack lapper jocks in yonder par dancing fullaboons don’t exist.
Just because I conceived of them should have no indication that one day they will inevitably exist.

I’m not requiring empirical proof.
I do require relatable tangent of plausibility from what is understandable and relatable.
If you could but show one thing that works remotely similar in analogy, that would be fine.
To my knowledge, there is not even one thing that works by any merit that you’ve described as being needed to accomplish your proposition.

When we have to create and invent a mass array of estranged tangents to allow for a simple concept to be even the slightest bit possible, then it is quite fair to logically conclude that it is therefore simply not the case.

And the conditions that you are asking me to permit are far beyond the range of estranged tangents.

It hasn’t anything to do with empirical.
It has to do with plausible.

There’s a bunch of poorly named objects in science.
“Big Bang” is another terribly named concept.

That all said, let me just grant the existence of an ALL and a 7 octillion atomic quantum entanglement for 106 trillion humans and counting, and a repeating timeline of exact atomic levels, or the same byproduct accomplished by two non-identical yet somehow identical atomic universes and timelines.

Why should I believe in this?

Lol, Just to say that to me in particular it seems to be less probable than some of the things we think aren’t true.

But it would seem you have arrived at what works or not, and an idea of what is tangible, by primary reliance on empirical data.
As such it doesn’t seem evident to me that anything i might suggest would seem tangible to you.
Just an aside though, if God is the everything in terms of tangibility you would always be touching it.

I would think for the same reason you think it is worth believe in anything.

Perhaps I should be asking you a question like this: Why is it that there must be space between two things in order for a thing to pass?(in other words water doesn’t leave a container without a hole.) It seems illogical to work any other way as we are used to this way, but why was it not such that things were such as to logically work otherwise?

I fail to notice the difference between the two in the idea of accountable plausibility.

I’m not strictly an empirical defendant.
There are plenty of things which cannot be empirically measured which yet still exist.

However, the ideas that you are talking about present themselves from your descriptions into the physical world with which empiricism has the ability to lend information as to how matter works and functions, and your choice of presentation provided the means by which you wanted to traverse down logically.
The leg you chose was by using the universe and standard empirical concepts as the justification of the probability when mixed with uncertainty of possible arrangements of what is empirically known.

Under those circumstances why would I not use the empirical standard by which you are addressing?

Yes.
And if the entire universe were really an expanding pair of underwear, then in terms of tangibility I would always be touching it.

What makes a god more likely than underwear?

You missed the point of the question and that could be my fault.

Let me rephrase.
What’s in it for me?
What’s the gain in believing in an ALL, 7.4 duodecillion atoms quantum entangling, and the same universal byproduct accomplished by two non-identical yet somehow identical atomic universes and timelines.

What do I get from that?
What’s the sales pitch?
Why should I buy that car over some other one?

It is a matter of just believing… When you take any idea that you have it is based on logic, even ideas of how the brain works, and logic is not proven but assumed. Ultimately it would seem that everything has a non-decernable definitive probability.

In otherwords. When we deside when something is true or false. There is asserted as being evidence to suggest it is true and evidence to suggest it is false. But the amount of evidence that can be stacked up is endless, and even when we reach what seems like an end there is no sure way of telling it is the end rather than just seeming so by logic or something. So what happens is that different people begin to belive things based on different levels of evidense. it is not like some particular probability is suggested by a particular amount of evidence. If you don’t have any evidense it remains possible, and thus the possibility is greater than zero even when you have zero evidense (sort of, you could say that what it amounts to is that the idea of a thing is evidence in itself, thus not knowing of that thing constitutes zero probability, but that would seem even not to be true because one can recognize that it is possible otherwise, in otherwords that what you don’t know might be true…abstract but logical) So when you say get 50 pieces of evidense stacked up on the side of truth, one can’t specify that such a thing is actually of a particular level of certainty. Especially considering that we likewise don’t know what accuracy our method of probabilistic assert ion has…
As such one could say that in reality everything, even the idea of a unicorn , is equally possible, it is just a matter of believing that it doesn’t be believing in what evidense seems to suggest otherwise, and of course believing in that evidense requires believing in the idea that evidense is good…At some point it required just believing…

What lead you to believe in these things? And if you don’t mind could you give me an example?

See above on believing, we all use legs…

I use it myself, I’m not suggesting not using it, but just realizing it is a “leg” just a means to justify what you choose to believe in. Rather than thinking it is some thing that cannot be wrong, or even something that has a tendency to be less wwrong than anything else. It may by use of its self show that useing it has a tendency to “work” but there is of course no gurantee that it won’t stop working in the future. and relative to the amount of possible future time and thus the time possible for alteration in acuity the overal likely hood that it is the best method is equal to the number greater than zero but as close to zero as possible. In fact the overall likely hood of any method depsite tendency to be correct over some observable time does not lend to an overal increase in likely hood that it is or will continue to be a functional means at arriveing at beliefs.

Although it would seem that either way you wouldn’t make much attention of it being there because it had always been there, assuming it had always been there I guess.

For me personally when I began to understand the problems with our systems to arrive at beliefs stuff happened.

regardless can you think of an answer to this question:
Why is it that there must be space between two things in order for a thing to pass?(in other words water doesn’t leave a container without a hole.) It seems illogical to work any other way as we are used to this way, but why was it not such that things were such as to logically work otherwise?

You won’t by it if you don’t buy that the reasons are good in the first place.
Why do you buy what you buy?

If you really believe this, then I’m not sure why you bother listening to any one or talking to anyone, because you could reduce every conversation into uncertainty, and you could permit yourself to believe anything because any given thing may have at least one billionth of a possibility.

Do you question whether you actually exist?

The relationship of love between people is not accountable.
We can account for the emotion and even measure it, but we cannot empirically account for the relationship of love itself.

That is the simplest example.
Human behavior is full of relationships with their own selves, others, and objects in manners not capable of being quantified by the empirical form.

Another example of such; faith.
Faith exists, but the faith in a thing is not able to be quantified empirically.
Wall Street tries every day and they can never get the values correct so the values keep changing as fickle and wild as human faiths move in their investment of money.
We could better predict storms, which is one of the harder empirical macro events to predict, than accurately predict human faiths.

Again I must ask…do you believe that you exist?

You conveniently mitigate everywhere, but your mitigation offers nothing. They are empty and implausible.
Basically, your only common theme seems to be to say that anything is possible.

Yes, anything is possible.
Like a fly getting hit 3 times by lightening and surviving is possible.
But the stretches by which they are probable?

Do you try to shoot the moon with a pellet gun?

OK, then the point wasn’t really worth making if we can’t make any differentiation between a god and underwear.

You have problems with it; that is clear.
I think you need some time to get over this stage of your experience.
Everyone goes through the questioning age of their foundations, but hopefully you’ll see at some point that always bringing up the 100% concept is really not useful to anything unto yourself.

We don’t need 100%.
We need better than beyond imaginably improbable.
Do you know what the probability of 7.4 duodecillion atoms quantum entangling is?

Again, you have a moon set pellet gun.

Why would things not be permitted to pass through concentrated bonds of complex atomic compounds?
Do you need that explained on the macro level really?
And honestly, not everything works that way; but in the case of the cup, do you really need atomic compound electron fields explained?
Your question more boils down to asking why atoms work in the manner in which they do.

And even if I did answer that for you, you would ask me why the constituents of that answer work in the manner in which they do, and then the same of that answers constituents, and that answers constituents.

You are losing my faith because you have invested no reasonable logic in your faith placing.
You simply mitigate out of uncertainty, even if the uncertainty is ridiculously small, and allow the smallest of possibilities to be in play in your logic instead.

Essentially, I see you simply doing nothing more than flipping the standard approach to logic from probability on its head so that the more improbable a thing is the more likely it is that you will be backing it and the more probable a thing is the more likely you will be to refute it.
Neat.
And?

Spiritually I work with what produces pragmatic results to my person directly and offers a psychological control over a neurological condition or state for a positive gain of satisfaction.