The debate "Is there proof that any religion is true based off evidence of so could you please explain" was started by
February 5, 2020, 2:34 pm.
135 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 58 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PeaceSafe posted 5 arguments, SleepDeprivedSmarts posted 1 argument, Cdawgthree posted 86 arguments, Peak_Points posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 60 arguments, Cdawgthree posted 13 arguments, Nemiroff posted 24 arguments to the disagreers part.
Paula, Khairon, PeaceSafe, jrardin12, abhiram, ProDavid, hmm_ok, SleepDeprivedSmarts, Martianna, Abeah, Peak_Points, Cdawgthree, Nemiroff, Proking and 121 visitors agree.
diecinueve, Rashia, safalcon7, Clint1234, Flux, Aphyllous, candice14coza, Joseph314, kapil and 49 visitors disagree.
"Who decided that, for example, atoms are made up of protons and electrons instead of just being a sphere as previously believed?"
We adopted (and then discarded) this model of matter because it answered more questions than the previous models. It was logically coherent with the observations and perspectives of the individuals at the time.
"Easy, I measure the distance I have traveled and if it is greater than before it means that I am getting closer."
Just because you're moving it doesn't mean you're getting any closer to your imaginary destination. Just because one building is taller and more advanced than its neighbor it doesn't mean its closer to the lost city of atlantis or shangri la.
"We know that science advances because current science is greater than before."
Yes, I don't disagree. However, just because something is greater than another thing, it doesn't make it closer to something else. Humans are greater than ants but there is no such thing as a "true species."
"What is the environment you speak of? Isn't that an external reality?"
No. I'm speaking of nature. Nature isn't external or internal. Nature exists everywhere.
"Art is invented, physical laws are not"
That's not true. Why don't we use Newton's "laws" anymore? Because they're obsolete. Even gravity is a theory. It didn't exist before it was invented because it's just a label.
(1/2) Sorry for the absence. Let me break this down. The following are a few axioms that you and I have agreed upon. Some are quoted from your previous comment:
1- "An interpretation is what you think is objective truth."
2- Humans can have nothing except interpretations.
3- "The objective truth is not an interpretation."
If we understand that we can have nothing except interpretations (2) then we could not possibly think any human conviction, conception, idea, ect. is the objective truth (3). If an interpretation is what you think is objective truth (1) yet we do not think there is a valid interpretation of the objective truth, then there cannot be an internal reality, only illusions of internal realities. If there are no internal realities, then there is no external reality.
"If there is no objective truth, what is the point in affirming something?"
We affirm things in order to create the truth, not to unveil it. Human structures (not just buildings, but ideas) are built from the ground up; they do not descend from the heavens.
"Something does not have to be conceived as existing to exist."
But they must, and even you admitted it! Here is a quote from your last message:
"Something that is neither inside nor outside your mind does not exist."
Something that is neither actively nor passively conceived as existing therefore does not exist. "To exist is to be perceived." -G. Berkeley
"Is nature inside or outside our mind?" Nature constitutes all, so to ask whether it's inside you or outside of you is pointless.
"Where do we get the observations from?" Our senses. "Do we create them?" Yes, observations are what we make of our senses. There aren't any hidden strings; it's all pretty straight forward.
"There are many ways to solve a math problem, but there is only one correct result." Actually, there are many examples of math problems that allow multiple correct answers. As I said, everything is a matter of perspective. Nothing is absolute. The only absolutes are the ones we imagine existing within the concepts that we create (math being a wonderful example).
What does a better scientific model depend on? Whoever believes in it.
"Everything is subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth." -Nietzsche
There are many factors that go into the reasons why we believe what we believe and what models of reality we use, both from biased and logical standpoints. (1/2)
An interpretation is what you think is objective truth. There is external reality and apart there are our interpretations of external reality within internal reality. My interpretation of external reality is that it is not an interpretation, that is, I believe that the objective truth is that external reality is not an interpretation, that does not mean that my interpretation of external reality is not an interpretation. Your interpretation is that everything is an interpretation, that means you believe that the objective truth is that everything is an interpretation. If there is no objective truth, what is the point of affirming something? If anyway the statement cannot be true because the truth does not exist.
"In order for something to be conceived as existing, it must be interpreted as such", that does not mean that for something to exist it must be interpreted as such, something does not need to be conceived as existing to exist.
Something that exists can be within our mind or it can not be within our mind, that is, be outside our mind, there are no more options. Something that is neither inside nor outside our mind is something that does not exist. Is nature inside or outside our mind?
Where do we get the observations from? Do we create them?
There are many ways to solve a math problem, but there is only one correct result.
Types of logic are different parts of the same objective truth, so different types of logic are used to solve different problems.
What does a better scientific model depend on? Who decided that, for example, atoms are made up of protons and electrons instead of just being a sphere as previously believed?
"How could you ever convince yourself that you are getting closer?" Easy, I measure the distance I have traveled and if it is greater than before it means that I am getting closer. We know that science advances because current science is greater than before.
"One has adapted to the new environment". What is the environment you speak of? Isn't that an external reality? Science adapts to new discoveries of external reality.
art is invented, physical laws are not, they are discovered. If gravity didn't exist before it was discovered, how did planets form? if at that time it had not been discovered.
How can we get closer to something unknown? Imagine driving towards a destination that is not only unknown, but unreachable. How could you ever convince yourself that you are getting "closer?"
"3: The true world - unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it - a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
4: The true world - unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
5: The "true" world - an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating - an idea which has become useless and superfluous - consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!" -Nietzsche
We are not progressing either. Progression is a modern idea, a false idea, and the weak man's doctrine of optimism. Things merely change and adapt; they do not progress. Take evolution for example: every species is at the same level of "progression." There is no "perfect" species -- each of them adapt, survive, and overcome in their own way. This will also answer your question as to why general relativity is more valid than Newtonian physics. Imagine the two as animals. Newton would be to Einstein what the dinosaur was to man. One has adapted to the new environment, the other has become obsolete and died. The same will happen to us and our ideas.
Do I agree that general relativity happened before Einstein created the theory? Well, did the ionian, dorian, lydian, aeolian, mixolydian, phrygian, and locrian modes of western music theory exist before music theory was invented? What about non-authentic/plagal modes? Did calculus exist before it was invented? What about art?
(Part 1/2) Telling me that the external world is not an interpretation is an interpretation of the external world in itself. Everything is an interpretation. In order for something to be conceived as existing, it must be interpreted as such. Even the words "external" and "world" are interpretations within this interpretation of ours, so to say that the external world is not also merely an interpretation would be false. Do I think all interpretations are valid? Yes and no. The caveman's interpretation is valid, but only to the caveman. The same goes for those who live beyond the cave; their interpretations are valid, but only from their perspective. However, another person's perspective may contain more experience, coherency, complexity, ect and would therefore hold the power to change other perspectives.
Nature is just nature. It is not comprised of internal or external parts. Our observations constitute our interpretations.
Telling me "only one can be right" is like saying there is only one way to solve a math problem. Different methods exist for different reasons. For example, there are many different types of logic (and all of them will give you different types of answers). Is any form of logic more valid than the last? Yes and no. It all depends on what kind of perspective one is viewing it from and what kind of answer they are looking for. There is no "invalid" form of logic, as logic only becomes invalid when viewed from an incoherent perspective. Boolean logic will give you a binary yes or no answer for every question, but if your question is not a black and white question, then a black and white answer will not make sense. This also answers your other question: "do they pick the one they like the most?" They pick the one that works best for whatever they are trying to achieve, just like you would probably choose an algebraic method on a question concerning algebra.
The objective truth is not an interpretation, nobody knows exactly what it is, but we can get closer. The proof that there is an objective truth is not that I know what that truth is, it is that I can get close to it. Our interpretation of the shadows is more valid than that of the cavemen because it is closer to objective reality, but why is it more valid? Or do you think they are just as valid?
"Scientific models describe individual interpretations of nature". What do you mean by "nature"? Isn't that an external reality?
If there is no external reality to observe, what does observation mean in the scientific method?
Of all the ways of interpreting time dilation, only one is true. Scientists' job is to find what it is. If they are all equally valid, what do scientists do? They choose the one they like the most?
General relativity is not exactly external reality, but it is the closest we have to it. Newtonian physics was the closest thing to external reality that people of hundreds of years ago had. If there is no external reality, why is general relativity more valid than Newtonian physics? How is science progressing? What are we getting closer to?
Do you agree that general relativity effects happened before Einstein discovered them?
Now you're making more sense with the cave analogy, but the same problem remains. The caveman interpretation = internal reality (according to you), however even you admit that the other interpretation does not equal the external reality, so what IS the external reality? It can't be your interpretation, because your interpretation is partial and unique to yourself. If nobody, including you, can hold an objectively true interpretation of the "shadow" due to the fact that all interpretations are partial and unique, then how can an objectively true version of anything exist?
Your question regarding models is easy. You ask how one can create a model of something that doesn't exist. Well, how do architects create models of buildings that don't exist yet? How do artists create sculptures of things they've never seen? How does a musician write a song they have never heard? Human creativity. Scientific models describe individual interpretations of nature, just like the cavemen interpret nature through shadows, just like an artist interprets his emotions and experiences.
You claim general relativity to be an external reality, but it's not; it's just another "shadow." Not only are there are many valid ways to interpret time dilation other than general relativity (quantized gravity, classical unified field theories, string theories, to name a few), but if we had this conversation a couple hundred years ago then you would probably be telling me that Newtonian physics & equations constitute this "external reality" instead.
Lastly, you assume that, without these models, things would happen "randomly." This is also false. Time was not experienced "randomly" before Einstein created his model of general relativity, nor was music "random noise" before music theory was invented. A lack of an external reality does not equate to wacky randomness, nor does it mean that every "truth" is equally valid in our interpretations.
Shadow is "the part of space where no light reaches". Both those who live inside and those who live outside the cave see the same part of the space without light, that is, they see the same shadow, but those who live inside do not know that it looks like this because there is no light, they think it is people, so that's their interpretation. On the other hand, those who live outside have an interpretation closer to what the shadow actually is.
How can you create a model of reality if there is no reality? What is the model describing if it is not external reality?
I am going to give an example of the case of observers who move at different speeds through time. The equations of relativity are what tell how fast you are moving in time. Those equations are external reality. If it didn't exist there would be nothing to indicate how fast you move in time, so it would be random, so everyone would see time go by at a different speed.
If it is not external reality that indicates how we perceive things, then what is?
Well you've never informed me that there was a difference between the shadow and the interpretation of the shadow. Is the shadow not an interpretation? What is the difference that you are referring to here?
The goal of science is to create models of reality that we can use as a basis for the plethora of applications that science has to offer. Even Stephen Hawking stated in his book "The Grand Design" that it was useless to ask if our models of reality corresponded to reality itself due to the fact that our concept of reality is equivalent to our model of reality.
How do those examples not apply? All three examples are instances of two observers viewing the same phenomena. If one observer views the phenomena as a square while the other views it as a circle, there cannot be an objective reality because circle squares do not exist.
Holding similar concepts due to similar perspectives does not equate to an objective reality, why would it? If different perspectives, similar as they may be, contradict eachother like in the examples below then there cannot exist a coherent reality that accommodates all perspectives.
When did I say that the interpretation of the shadow is part of external reality? The shadow is part of the external reality and its interpretation is part of the internal reality.
If the goal of science is not to discover reality, then what is?
Nobody exists in exactly the same condition, but in very similar conditions. The examples you gave do not apply to two people on the same planet because their speed and position conditions are very similar, so your observations will be too. In your examples, the two are equally close to objective truth because they are only seeing a different part of the same truth.
How do you explain without an external reality that under similar conditions we all see similar things?
But first you told me that the interpretation of the shadow was part of the external reality. Now you're saying it's part of the internal reality? Which is it? Or am I right to say that neither exist?
"That's what scientists do?" It certainly wasn't what scientists like Einstein and Hawking did. Both of these scientific pioneers rejected realism (the belief in an external reality). Einstein himself was the one to propose E=MC^2, yet he never thought of it to be a step closer to "objective truth" because he, as all reputable scientists, didn't view any hypothesis or perspective as an objective fact (nor a step closer to objective facts), but rather as a construct or model.
Nobody exists in the same conditions. Every perspective is both unique and limited, yet you still insist that there exists a perspective which defies this rule. Which of the previous examples were "closer" to objective truth? Was Observer A or Observer B closer to the truth within their judgements of the situation?
Internal reality is constitutes of our interpretations of external reality.
Someone who knows that matter is energy is closer to objective truth than someone who does not. Reality is not hidden in a specific place, reality is scattered everywhere and every time we find more pieces trying to put the puzzle together, that's what scientists do.
In the examples you gave, people see different things because they are not in the same conditions, that is, they do not see the same part of reality. If two people are moving at the same speed and in the same position, they will see the object of the same color, the trajectory of the shooting star with the same shape, and they will see time go by at the same speed. The objective truth is that if you move at speeds X in position Y you will see Z. How do you explain without an external reality that under the same conditions we all see similar things?
You're simply assuming that this external reality exists in order to support your illusions. If the shadow is part of the external reality, then what constitutes the internal reality?
The reality of our hypothetical "cavemen" is that people = shadows. Surely, this cannot be the true reality because the people outside our hypothetical cave perceive people as far more than just a dark silhouette. You may think that these people have a better grasp on the external reality, but this is not true either! Those who see people as 3 dimensional, material beings may be shocked to discover that matter itself is an illusion (according to E=MC^2). So then, where is this external reality you speak of? In the clouds? Just beyond the horizon? Is it hidden deep underground in an ancient vault, protected by spells and magic? You speak of this external reality as if it's Bigfoot -- mystical and unknown, but somehow assumed to exist despite all evidence that proves otherwise.
Imagine an object travelling away from Observer A and towards Observer B. Observer B sees the object as blue. Observer A sees the object as red. What is the true color of the object in this situation? Blue or red?
Imagine Observer A and B are now looking at a shooting star from different areas of space. Observer A sees the star travel in a straight line. Observer B sees the star travel in a curved line. What is the truth of this line? Curved or straight?
Imagine Observer A stays on Earth while Observer B travels around the Earth's orbit at a high velocity. When Observer B lands, he has recorded his travel time as 6 hours. However, Observer A records Observer B's travel time as 12 hours. What is the true reality? 6 or 12 hours?
You tell me "if there were no objective reality, each person's interpretations would not be similar." Are these interpretations similar? Blue and red? Curved and straight? 6 hours and 12 hours? They seem exceptionally different to me. How are we to tell which observation is the truth?
The answer would be: because the shadows exist in an external reality. The idea came from observing reality. Since they all observe the same part of the same reality, their interpretations of reality (that is, their ideas) are similar. Those who live outside the cave observe a greater part of the same reality, therefore their ideas are closer to objective reality.
If there were no objective reality, each person's interpretations would not be similar because there would not even be a reality to interpret it.
From language. From our ability to express abstract concepts to eachother. Blue is just a label used to express a subjective experience; and subjective experiences are, as you can guess, subjective to the observer. Your experience of blue is not the same as my experience of blue. Perspectives are always unique and never exactly the same.
Just because we are the same species living on the same planet with similar cognitive abilities (and therefore similar perspectives) it doesn't mean that our perspectives are objective. Imagine if we tied a few people to chairs (from the time they were born) and faced the chairs towards the back wall of the cave. The only experience they could ever have would be watching the shadows of the people and animals that passed by. Their concept of a person would be our concept of a shadow. Now imagine if you lived in the cave and asked me: "Why do most of us see people as dark silhouettes? Where do we get this idea from?"
So why do most of us see it blue? Where do we get that idea from?
If no one had told us that it is blue, would we see it in another color?
Babies can't even grasp the concept of colors until around 18 months.
If you're trying to imply that the sky is objectively blue, you are wrong. An observer traveling fast enough away from the atmosphere will see the sky as red. A color blind person will see it as a different color. A blind person won't attribute a color to the sky at all. A person wearing rose-colored glasses will see it as purple. An animal who can perceive infrared will see it in a color that we can't even conceive of.
Just because your perspective of the sky is blue, it doesn't make the sky objectively blue. This goes for anything else. For example, just because someone thinks (x) is good or bad, it doesn't make (x) good or bad.
Are you saying that babies don't see blue sky?
That's begging the question. You're assuming something self-caused has a "before," which is entirely false. There are no numbers "before" infinity, so why would there be a "before" in relation to an infinite and eternal being?
They aren't born with the same idea. They adopt the idea the the sky is blue from other people, just like language. Babies don't come popping out of the womb knowing how to speak fluent English or with knowledge that the sun is typically considered to be a ball of helium. These things are learned, not inherent through birth.
You said there is something self-caused. Something that does not exist cannot cause anything, so if something self-caused did not exist before it was caused, how could it be caused?
Why are all non-colorblind people born with the same idea that the sky is blue? Why are we all born with the same ideas of many things?
Who "existed before causing themselves" and how does that have anything to do with this? Nobody "existed before causing themselves," nor did they cause themselves in the first place.
We get ideas from the intellect and the imagination, aka the mind. It's rather self explanatory.
Are you insinuating that color blind people see the sky as blue?
If you already existed before causing yourself, then what are you causing?
Where do we get ideas from? Why do we have the same idea since we are born that the sky is blue and the trees are green?
Where are you getting this idea that self caused means you didn't exist at one point? That makes absolutely zero sense.
How could something cause itself prior to its own existence???
Your second part is close, but mind and extension aren't sets of "everything that exists," but rather methods we use to conceive of said things.
Yes, an object is conceived through extension and ideas through mind.
My position is not the stance that only ideas exist. I'm saying that ideas are mental representations of physical things, and physical things are physical representations of ideas. This means that a circle and the idea of a circle are the merely same thing perceived in two different ways.
Something eternal is something that did not have a beginning, has always existed. If it has always existed, it means that its existence was not caused by anything, not even by itself, since if it did, it would mean that there was a moment when it did not exist, so it would not be eternal.
Let's see if I understood correctly. You say there are physical things and ideas. The set of all physical things that exist is what you call "extension". The set of all the ideas that exist is what you call "the mind of God". An object is a part of extension, that is, it is a set of physical things. A human mind is a part of the mind of God, that is, it is a set of ideas. Your position is that all reality exists in the mind of God, that is, that all that exists are ideas. I am right?
Something "not caused by anything else" is something that is caused by itself.
Spinoza simply defines an idea as: "a conception of the mind." There are no strings or hidden symantics here. An idea is what the mind creates. An object is what extension (the universe/cosmos) creates. However, one will always come to realize that an idea and object/ideatum are one in the same, just conceived through different means.
Something eternal is not caused by anything, that is what it means to be eternal.
Tell me what you mean by "idea" in your definition of mind so that I can understand what you are saying.
You're not getting it.. What causes something that is eternal if not itself?
Consciousness is an essential part of conceiving the mind, and is therefore also an essential part of the mind's existence. This is how God actively creates existence: through the mind! You are right to say that God involves consciousness, but to say that he is conscious (as if he were an ego in itself) would not be accurate.
I don't understand what you're talking about in the last paragraph. Please elaborate.
A coin has two sides: heads and tails.
We have two sides: body and mind.
God has infinite sides. Body and mind are simply two of them.
Body and mind are two sides to a coin, aka attributes or properties, rather than things in themselves.
That something is infinite in time (that is, eternal) does not mean that it has created itself, it means that it was not created, it has always existed.
For me, consciousness is a fundamental part of the mind without which it cannot be a mind. Make a clearer definition of what you mean by mind. You said it is "the idea of.the body", but what do you mean by idea?
You say my mind is "how my brain appears to me mentally", that means "how my brain appears in my mind". You are using the word you are defining in its own definition, don't you find that paradoxical?
If nothing is self-caused then we run into a paradox called "infinite regress." Let me explain how it works:
Imagine we have an object, (x), and we want to know what caused it. We then conclude that (y) caused (x). Then we are faced with another question: "what caused (y)? We conclude that (z) caused (y). But then what caused (z)? Everything is a result of cause and effect, but if we keep asking this question then we only find ourselves in an infinite chain. This leads us to conclude that the cause of all cannot be a finite variable like (x), (y), or (z), but can only exist as absolutely infinite... and what is absolutely infinite?... I'm sure you know where this is headed.
Mind does not necessarily involve consciousness. Consciousness is merely a modification of mind. God cannot be conscious, as consciousness involves awareness of your surroundings, (of which God has none).
I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that mind is not an appearance. Even your mind is an appearance. Your mind is just how your brain appears to you mentally, and your brain is just how your mind appears to you physically.
The brain named itself, but for that to happen the brain had to exist before it was named. The mind can construct a concept of itself, but for that to happen the mind must exist before its concept is created. For something to create something, it must first exist, so nothing can create itself because that would imply that it existed before it was created.
If God has a mind, then he has a conscience, and I don't think there is a God with a conscience. But if he existed, since his mind is not created by any other mind, then his mind is not an appearance, therefore it is an external reality.
The human brain ultimately named itself, did it not? In the same way, the human mind constructs a concept of itself.
However, when one closely analyzes this concept of "self," what do we find? Well we can't find anything, really. We are not our body, as it changes. We are not our memories, as we can forget. We are not our emotions, as we can control them. We are not our possessions, as we can lose them. We cannot place any concrete perspective of the ego because it's purely imaginary. Our individual "minds" therefore, do not exist beyond our own imagination.
You say there must be at least one mind that is not created by another mind. You are correct. This is the mind of God, or rather, the attribute of thought in itself. Because we are animals who share similar cognitive functions, we can all share this same method of conception, even if the resulting perspectives will be unique to the recipient.
Appearances are created in the mind, so if minds are appearances, then minds are created in the mind. How is that possible? There must be at least one mind that has not been created by another mind.
Why would I think that an internal reality exists? Like I said, an internal reality automatically implies an external reality.
Remember this quote?: "The true world -- we have abolished. What world remains? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one."
I am not saying this because the human perspective is "flawed" in any way. How can a view be flawed if it is impossible for any perspective to be objectively correct? How can a thing in itself be "out there" when everything is an appearance of an appearance, ect? Why are you assuming these objective shapes, ect. exist in reality when shapes change depending on your perspective? Show me where you can find an objectively straight line or an objective position of a photon.
Again, like Hawking said, it is pointless whether to ask if these perspectives are true to reality because they are simply interpretations in themselves. Einstein merely adopted a new interpretation -- a new method to construct his reality.
One does not call art "correct" or "false" so why should science apply when both art and science are interpretations -- constructs -- of nature? If I adopt a new method to play guitar, does that make the new method "correct" and the old method "false?" No. The new method may prove to be more proficient, but nevertheless, it is still not based in objectivity.
Therefore, when you say that "the universe was never really static" you must also say that the universe was never really expanding. The model of the universe is merely a method of interpretation, not an objective reality.
The next part is simply you asserting that these substances exist without any further explanation. There is no science, nor philosophy, nor logic to support your claim. Any modern scientist or philosopher will agree. The only ones who are on your side are the religious nuts who believe in fairytale lands beyond the horizon.
Your analogy simply asserts that a car crash isn't a phenomenon. Where is your proof? I've explained multiple times why noumema cant exist, but you only respond with presumed assertions, and when you respond with presumed assertions, you sound like that Clint1234 guy who simply assumes that reality is objectively as the Bible states.
Nothing in nature "is" a certain way. Things in nature only appear a certain way because things in nature are appearances in themselves. What you call the "independent chain" is entirely dependant on perspective.
By mind I mean "the idea of the body," whereas the body itself is the ideatum.
However, although mind and body seem to be opposites, they are really just the same thing looked at from opposing perspectives.
No, I'm not considering telepathy at all. In order to answer your question, one must first presuppose that human minds exist as things in themselves. Human minds, like everything else, are phenomenon, not noumena, meaning they too are just appearances and not their own substance.
So, one cannot ask "what connects (x) and (y)?" if (x) and (y) are phenomena, not separate and distinct entities.
*not nonexistence of an external reality
as a side note, i dont understand how an internal reality exist without an external one. brains without a universe? to me these are synonymous.
im fine with perspectives. you are right that my view/understanding of the universe is flawed and everchanging. but that doesnt affect whats actually out there. einstein changed his perspective, however at no point was the actual universe static in size regardless of his perspective
i am still perceiving something, and that something exists. space and energy maybe the most fundamental substances, imo just space. but it still is, and it is independent of us. and all the things that occured because of it also exists.
we dont need to be micro level for your theory to work. a 5 car accident in a metropolitan street happens. tons of chaos. all the different people will have different perspectives of the event, all could be even true. but the incident did happen in an objective way when one gathers all the details.
we may disagree on what happened, but we certainly agree that something happened. an independent series of events lead to different perspectives.
"Not non existence"
Never once have I advocated for "non existence."
I'm advocating for perspectivism, the belief that only perspectives exist
Every experiment I have mentioned is a result of perspective. Matter is a perspective of energy. Time is a perspective of space. Our perspective determines the position of a photon and can even change it's past.
Einstein changed his perspective because no perspective is concrete. There will ALWAYS be a new perspective to overcome the old.
double slit: proved that particles exist as both particle and wave.
not non existence
spacetime dilation: proved that aspects of reality can be affected by other aspects. that should be obvious reality is interconnected. gravity and dark energy both work, but their results are mixed
not non existence
quatum eraser: an argument that sorry if i missed, but i dont remember you bringing up previously. hardly something to have a fit over.
quantum mechanics gets crazy at times, how does this support a lack of external reality? quantum mechanics is incomplete and not well understood. the only thing we know is that its predictions are uncanny and therefore fact. but it breaks down when gravity is added. it is complete. how do you get your conclusion from that?
you propose a crazy theory that noone has voiced agreement yet. and you expect no resistance. i stand corrected on einsteins god, i challenged that once. you need to go sleep, your hype is overwhelming you. your not an idiot, but you have no idea how to convince people. what good are beliefs if they break easy?
ill give you the einstein point on god, but he still believed in a static universe, and that is fact. it was demonstrated by neither observation nor calculation, but a great man believed it. he was wrong. if einstein's personal guess is wrong, so can hawkings. if you say it is more than opinion, which research paper did hawking publish this in.
"No amount of evidence will ever convince an idiot."
I literally cited 4 books and 3 scientific experiments (double slit, quantum eraser, & spacetime dilation) on top of these quotes.
"EiNsTeIn BeLiEvEd In ThE jUdEo ChRiStIaN gOd" -You
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." -Einstein.
Spinoza's God is nothing like the "God" of religion.
You love making things up just to get a reaction.
"HAWKING summarizes the arguments he makes in his book." Literally a direct quote from Hawking, not a "peer review."
"It's not as confident."
So that means your opinion that Christian metaphysics is true outweighs mine? Mhm. I'm sure your personal fantasy outweighs all of science and philosophy.
proving energy is matter is not the same as proving an external reality does not exist. energy is still not in our heads.... you are clearly saying that 1+1=0
i dont know why you are acting so cocky when it took you several tries to provide a proper citation. however, where in this quote does he say external reality does not exists. he speculates on the possibility, but never says it as confidently as "matter is energy"
do you understand the difference between peer reviewed scientific conclusion, and an opinion in a personal book?
einstein believed in the judeochristian god and a static universe, he never proved that, but he wrote about it personal documents.
hawking has made several opinion statements on the lack of existence of a creator god and what came before the big bang. are you implying that science has proven something about god or what came before the big bang?
ive disagreed with hawkings opinion statements before, and just like einstein's belief that the universe is static, the opinion of a single scientist doesnt make truth. but thank you for finally providing a proper quote to put your claim into context. i agree with realism. and although hawking speculates that realism "is increasingly hard to defend" (in his very knowledgable *opinion*). that is hardly an *explicit* denial of its validity.
you do understand science functions on peer reviewed findings and not personally published books.
So... I just gave you a direct quote of Hawking explicitly denying an external reality with a link... is this debate over?
Also (for the other guy I was talking to): I'll respond tomorrow. I need to get up early.
Here's a Hawking quote (directly from one of his books) that I found within 30 seconds on Google: https://www.millennialstar.org/stephen-hawkings-defense-of-positivism/
"Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them. In philosophy, that belief is called realism.
Those who remember Timothy Leary and the 1960s, however, know of another possibility: one's concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver. That viewpoint, with various subtle differences, goes by names such as antirealism, instrumentalism or idealism. According to those doctrines, the world we know is constructed by the human mind employing sensory data as its raw material and is shaped by the interpretive structure of our brains.
The way physics has been going, realism is becoming difficult to defend. (p. 70)"
And what does Hawking suggest instead?
"Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only where it agrees with observation. (p. 70)"
This dude really can't read...
"Match the frequency of reality that you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy, this is physics"
"I believe in Spinozas God."
Gonna just blatantly ignore these, are we?
Yes, he was saying that matter is just another form of energy... that's my ENTIRE POINT! Jesus Christ, it's like talking to a brick wall... I tell you 1+1 is 2 and you cry "Wrong! Because 1+1 is 2!"
When did I ever say it was imaginary? Can you please stop wasting my time with these strawmen? It's obvious now that you're just spewing nonsense to get a reaction because you are no longer engaging in the debate whatsoever.
Hawking isn't saying anything is imaginary... Do I need to pull up his quote again for you to understand? Oh wait.. no. I have one even better. I'll even send you a link in my next response
again, you stated: "reality is both internal and external."
i agree. is this debate over?
as for the full hawking quote, i cannot locate it anywhere. this may as well be a facebook quote of lincoln bashing twitter. unless you tell me where the quote came from, it is not a citation. and his conclusion was phrased as a question, because it is his opinion and not an objective discovery. scientists are allowed personal opinions. their opinions do not dictate science.
i didnt ignore your scientists, your interpretation of what they said was objectively wrong. i demonstrated with your Einstein quote, you clearly did not read.
your quote of einstein: "there is no matter"
your interpretation is that einstein meant "matter does not exist"
your quote is out of context and is clearly a fragment of a thought. when you look it up, he was saying that matter is just another form of energy and not its own existence as per his famous E=mc2. external reality continues to exist in his view.
your interpretation is wrong. i explained this.
i asked for a single quote from a reputable scientist stating that external reality does not exist as a fact, you did not provide. instead you give me a mountain of garbage and expect me to explain each point to you. i dont have the time for that. you clearly have no idea how to properly cite something.
likewise with hawking: imaginary time is a math trick where he takes time equations and multiplies them with imaginary numbers like square root of negative one. he did not say that time itself is fundamentally imaginary.
your quotes were all out of context... and your conclusions were objectively wrong. what else do you want me to say?
you did provide philosophical quotes, but although i eventually did ask for ANY reference, i made it clear from the start i dont respect armchair philosophy enough for that to convince me.
What do you mean by mind?
By mind I mean "the set of cognitive abilities of a person".
The only connection between minds that could be considered as a cognitive ability is telepathy. So if you don't think that our minds are connected by telepathy, then there must be an external reality that connects them
The amount of ignorance in your comment now leads me to believe that you're simply making strawmen just to argue, so I will treat it accordingly. Not only have you just ignored 2 of the most world-famous, Nobel prize-winning scientist's conclusions on this subject (along with all the citations I provided for 4 books and 3+ experiments in both quantum physics and general relativity), but you have also repeatedly failed to address my arguments... instead, opting for the classic "yOuR wRoNg" (no further explanation) whenever faced with an analogy. Let's begin to dissect this little flaming gift that you've left on my doorstep...
1: I never said that you did. Why would I? What do you gain by accusing me that I did? Believing in an external reality automatically means that there is an internal reality. Not only have I already told you this multiple times, but it's common sense.
2: This is a strawman argument. Please stay on topic... I already know you're advocating for an internal reality. I've told you this many times but you refuse to listen. The theory of noumema (the one that you are proposing) says there are INTERNAL and EXTERNAL realities...
3: Since when is nature transcendent/external to us? Last time I checked, we were part of nature, not magical spirits separate from it. So no, I do not agree with your fantasy world. In all my years, I have NEVER seen an atheist advocate so much for a heaven/transcendent realm. Truth comes from US, not some magical bearded man in the sky or land in the "beyond"... You claim to be atheist and then you KEEP ADVOCATING FOR CHRISTIAN METAPHYSICS! This is exactly why I think you're just doing this cause you're bored. If you really want to debate, then please acknowledge either the quotes, citations, or arguments that I have presented.
4: Your response to my analogy: "wrong" (no further explanation). Figures. If I am wrong then PLEASE demonstrate AT LEAST ONE song that isn't comprised of notes, only sound.
5: Again, no; we do not create perspectives of magical and transcendent realms that break all laws of physics...
I'm not sure what the question is here. Our means of interpretation is how chaos is translated into harmony.
Why do you claim that minds cannot interact? God is the indwelling of all minds (and all things & beyond) that connects it all. An indwelling is internal, not transcendent.
"reality is both internal and external"
i never said there was no internal reality, i am simply rebuking your claim that there is no external reality.
just like how saying i love my mother doesnt mean i dont love my father. or how black lives matter doesnt mean other lives dont, saying a positive statement about one thing doesnt negate other things. again, you are just assuming.
if this is your answer to my "interpreting what?" question then you acknowledge the existance of an external realty. im glad we finally agree.
a song is composed of sound. notes are symbols that represent the specific sounds of a song. your analogy is wrong.
we do create perspectives. perspectives of an external reality. again, i am glad we agree.
What does a means of interpretation have to do with "what moves it, what brings it all together in harmony"?
A mind cannot interact with other minds, so if God is the connection between them, then God must be something external to the mind.
Reality. Nature. Reality is both internal and external so it makes no sense to call it an "external reality" or "true reality" as opposed to an "apparent reality" or "internal reality." Imagine if I told you there were "sound songs" as opposed to "note songs;" it doesn't make any sense; a song is compromised of both notes and sounds simultaneously.
We create our perspectives, but it doesn't always involve the will, so "making it up" wouldn't be very accurate. It's closer to a language. Is a language "made up?" Sure, but you can't just say "jeveustsndvdrsi" and expect to communicate anything with it, just as I can't go around saying the sun is a glowing peanut and make any sense. Our concept of the sun is specific, so if I start ranting about glowing peanuts in the sky then I'm communicating a different concept entirely.
interpreting what? you claimed there is no external reality. rather than interpreting, do you mean making it up?
The mind is a means of interpretation, just like the senses.
We do not. Not only are there color blind individuals, but the literal size of a meter changes depending on your position in spacetime, same with color.
Are you aware that objects moving away from you will appear to be red while the same object moving towards you will appear to be blue?
I already stated that there is a connection: God. The way that we interpret things is the same, but our interpretations are not.
The mind is the set of cognitive abilities of an individual. What you say is the mind of God has nothing to do with it.
We all see the sun the same color and the same size, so there must be some connection between our minds, otherwise everyone would see completely different worlds.
I'm not sure where the issue is here. You are right to say that a mind brings with it a body. God's body is nature. His mind is what moves it, what brings it all together in harmony.
Each individual perspective is as unique as a snowflake. From one perspective a line could be straight and from another it is curved. Even time is a perspective that changes relative to you.
Your song analogy describes an individual, not a God. A note brings with it a sound, so a song can be interpreted as notes or as sounds. A mind brings with it a body, therefore an individual can be interpreted as mind or body. Each individual has a different mind just as each song has a different sound, what is it that connects those minds so that they all see the same world?
Let's clear this up with an analogy. What are you? Are you an immaterial mind or a material brain? You are both. In the same way, mind and extension are two of God's attributes. We could also make the same analogy with a song. Is a song comprised of notes or sound? Both. The song IS sound just as God IS mind.
You can most certainly differentiate between imaginary concepts. In fact, all perceptions are differentiations based in the imagination. This is because any perception is necessarily a division of the infinite. As you know, you cannot logically divide infinity, but you can create concepts within that infinity from which to make logical deductions between their relation/ontology. Take numbers for example; numbers are imagined divides of an infinite line, but the relationship between numbers is not imagined. This is the relationship between the imagination and the intellect, and whoever assumes that knowledge can be PURELY from the intellect is gravely mistaken. Even the perception of ourselves & our environment are both based in the imagination.
The attributes of God do not come posterior to/after the existence of God, they are eternal within his nature, just as sound is an innate attribute to the nature of a song.
I do not understand. First you say the mind is God and then you say the mind is an interpretation of God, so God is an interpretation of himself?
Then you say that the mind is what we use to differentiate things in our environment, but you cannot differentiate something that does not exist, so for the mind to exist there must first be an environment with things that we can differentiate. If the mind is an interpretation of God, then for the mind to exist there must first be God. So there is a mind independent reality in which there is an environment with things and God
Yes, 'the' mind is God (who exists within himself) but you must be careful not to think of the mind as a thing, but rather as an interpretation. Mind and matter are interpretations of "God," "Dao," "The All," "The way," "Naturas Naturans," "substance," or whatever you would like to call the indwelling of existence. This mind is not a reality or thing, it's a method, a method that we use to differentiate things in our environment. This is what we call "reality" (the differentiation between "this" and "that") which exists within the aforementioned method. We even use this method to perceive ourselves.
"Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways -- that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect. God and all attributes of God [mind being one of them] are eternal." -Spinoza.
Spinoza's God, also known as Einstein's God, is metaphysically identical to Dao or "the way" in eastern philosophy. From this quote, you can clearly see that he describes God as a "way" or indwelling of conception rather than a thing in itself or external entity. His God, proven geometrically through his demonstration titled "Ethica Geometrico Demonstrata," is essential in the conception or existence of any particular thing.
"THE ALL is mind; the universe is mental-held within the mind of THE ALL." -The Kybalion.
If everything exists within the mind, then where does the mind exist? Within itself?
Lmfao, come on dude. This is excruciatingly simple. I'm really sick of over-explaining this pseudo-religious theory of yours... Notice, no really, go ahead and look... see? Can you see it? The part where you said "EXTERNAL" reality? Is it there for you on your screen? Are we having technical difficulties here? Go ahead and tell me what's popping up for you. Did you say "EXTERNAL reality" or did you say "reality?" I'd love to know if I'm just seeing things here.
Uh... so you're just ignoring the other two Einstein quotes then? Did you miss where he says "Match the frequency of reality that you want and you cannot help but get that reality" or what about the part concerning Spinoza? I'm so glad you understand E=MC^2, so maybe you can do some simple deductions to realize that matter is a perspective of energy and not its own substance. I assume you are just going to ignore the Hawking quote as well...
Lmfao... a citation doesn't always include a website. I literally gave you the names of 4 books and their authors. Do you want a link to the Amazon page where you can purchase them? I assume this is the only thing you can possibly mean, considering that those Einstein/Hawking quotes are literally one Google search away... or do you need help with that too? Hilarious, you say "you are wrong" all while refusing (or maybe unable) to type a few words into a search bar to prove that I'm not. Where's your evidence? Where's your citations? I literally have Einstein and Hawking, among many others, to back my claim.
...So what do you have?
And why is that? Why must there be an external and internal reality? I have already explained why there is neither, but you have not responded to anything concerning this paradox. If there is no internal reality, how can there be an external reality? You're presupposing your "internal" and "external" theory upon the existence of an ego. The ego is an illusion, as I have also explained.
There is no "internal" or "external" reality. There is only reality.
einstein's quote saying there is no matter is not meant to demonstrate your subjective fantasy. he means to say that matter is actually energy, aka e=mc2
a citation requires a source. please provide a link. im tired of hearing your interpretations. you are wrong.
now you say "i never said anything about reality not being real"
yet about 20 posts ago when i said "im proposing an external reality exists, nothing more" you responded with: "yes, thats the theory of nuomena, your proposing the theory of nuomena."
thus you are claiming that an external reality is nuomena, and that nuomena do not exist. therefore your claim is that an external reality does not exist.
Internal reality is "what exists within our mind", external reality is "what exists outside our mind". I already explained why there must be an external reality, you have not responded to that.
Here are some quotes for you. If you want my other citations then refer to the comment below this one.
"Match the frequency of reality that you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy, this is physics"
"There is no matter."
"Spinoza's God reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists."
"One cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?"
"There is only the perspective of seeing, only the perspective of "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be."
"From the beginning there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, no absolute magnitude."
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
"The true world -- we have abolished. But what world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one."
"As long as you still experience the stars as something "above you," you lack the eye of knowledge."
Noumema is literally a paradoxal and unsupported theory of things existing in themselves. Phenomena is an appearance (which is self evident)... How do you not see the difference?
1: If space and time change depending on perspective then how can noumena exist? How can a thing in itself exist when its defining attributes change depending on your point of view?
2: I never said anything about reality not being real. Are you paying attention at all?? That's relativism or solipsism, not perspectivism...
Do you understand the premise of Schrodinger's cat or would you like me to explain how superpositions work?
3: Again, I already cited it.
Spinozas geometric proof.
Literally called "Ethica geometrico demonstrata," not hard to find. Even Einstein personally confirmed it to be true. Want me to pull up his quotes/letters concerning Spinoza? His Ethica is literally one of his favorite books. Einstein's physics are built upon Spinoza's metaphysics.
4: Literally any of Nietzsche's books. Again, not hard to find. The Gay Science. The Genealogy of Morality. Twilight of the Idols. Ect.
5: You've never heard of Dao or Yin/Yang? The literal cornerstone to eastern philosophy? Do you really need me to cite eastern philosophy as a whole? Lmfao.
Who do you want quotes from? Einstein? Stephen Hawking? Nietzsche? Modern philosophers? Eastern philosophers? Spinoza?
You are already presupposing that "our mind" and "reality" are separate. They are not. The dichotomy of the ego (between "I" and "not I") is imagined.
No, I am not saying that reality does not exist. That would be an obvious paradox, as reality is defined by all that exists. I'm saying what I said above: There is no "internal" and "external" reality; there are no noumena, only phenomena on top of phenomena.
it appears im not the only one confused by this claim "that was proven hundreds of years ago and supported by science." if it is so certain, I'm sure you will have no problem providing quotes of professional concensus agreeing with you.
i await your citations.
thank you for repeating your interpretation of these theories, but do you know what citation means?
0. please provide a source for your definitions, again based on my research phenomena is as much reality as nuomena, its just a matter of visibility.
1. relativity =/= imagination. someone moving faster experiences time differently... but time still exists.
2. please cite a scientists concluding the nonexistance of reality from superposition or schrodinger's cat. quantum mechanics is complicated and incomplete; many scientists state it is difficult to explain and understand even for them; you have a history of running on assumptions.
3, 4, 5. again, please provide *a citation* of others coming to your conclusion. please do not simply repeat your opening statements ad nauseam. thank you.
I don't understand what you mean anymore. In order not to be confused anymore, I am going to define reality as "what exists outside our mind".
What exactly do you want to say? Is it that reality does not exist? That means that everything that exists does it within our mind. But for things to exist within our mind, our mind must first exist, and cannot exist within itself. So our mind must exist outside of itself, that is, in reality.
If not, then what do you mean?
Noumena: Things in themselves.
Phenomena: The appearances that constitute our reality.
Objectivism: Noumena ----> Phenomena
Relativism: Phenomena ----> Noumena
If everything is phenomena (which is proven to be so) then all of reality must be a perspective of man kind and not an objective nature.
Sources of perspectivism used in science and/or philosophy as requested:
1: Spatial dimensions and time are relative to the observer as demonstrated by Einstein's general relativity.
2: A superposition collapses upon measurement as demonstrated by Schrodinger's cat and numerous quantum experiments, even as simple as the double slit experiment.
3: Spinoza's geometric proof against any noumema or distinguishable substances (which is highly revered by Einstein as one of his favorite).
4: Nietzsche's critique on classical philosophy vs theology. "There are no straight lines in nature" and "there are no facts, only interpretations" ect are all direct quotes from him (who started the entire existentialist movement against classical philosophy and theology in the last century).
5: The simple truth which holds the core of eastern philosophy together: opposites or "things in themselves" only exist within a mind, such as left and right, beautiful and ugly, ect (Yin/Yang).
i googled noumena and phenomena and found no indication of phenomena being any less reality than noumena. it may be limited perception of reality due to our limited senses... but it is a perception of something that is real by all accounts noted.
please provide citation for your no reality theory from scientists or at least philosophers explicitly stating certainty at a subjective underlying reality.
My position is perspectivism. Not objectivism (as you (and every other religious nut) advocate for) nor is it relativism (which you constantly claim me to be, eg the "brain in the jar" or "reality is an illusion" BS). That is as clear as I can make it. I am the synthesis. Not the thesis nor the antithesis.
"1000 years ago the stars were physically not balls of collapsing gas?" Here you are presupposing that the concept of "stars" has a concrete reality by suggesting that they "were" a certain way. From our perspective, the sun was always a ball of gas. Other perspectives? This is not the case, both future and past. I'm sure Schrodinger's cat can perfectly sum this up.
I know what a superposition is, lol.
Even you said: "measuring is what determines" it, meaning the observer's perspective is what determines the outcome of the reality. This really isn't a modern revelation... Schrodinger's cat, a philosophical thought problem, suggests an idea that is being used to this day, and has been used for millennia in certain doses despite religious dogma
deduction is how i phrased my question. rather than blind assumption i would prefer you make your position clear yourself.
so then, 1000 years ago the stars were physically not balls of collapsing gas? is that correct? or shall i upgrade your statement to a concrete "stars are not real?"
i do hope i dont have to keep typing please answer for you to answer.
superposition deals with various quantum states a particle CAN be in, and measuring determines which. it is not a question of existence or not.
im sure such a mind blowing and definitive declaration would have prominent physicists explaining it in some published article. i believe a citation would easily settle this matter... unless this is just philosophy.
Lol. I know.
You're asking me for something I don't even believe in; you're asking me about the "actual reality" of something all while "actual reality" doesn't even exist.
There only exists phenomena, not noumena, meaning the sun has no "actual" reality. What we conceive of the "actual" reality of the sun is only our perceived reality therefrom.
Please deduct properly.
Quantum tests which prove that the superposition of a photon is collapsed into a reality by, and therefore realized by, the perspective of the observer are not proven?
The fact that time is relative to the perspective of the observer is not proven?
The symbol is in reality? I agree! The symbol exists within a construct (reality) that was created by the mind
God isn't a "reality" in the sense that we are using here. He isn't an objective "thing in itself" but rather, the indwelling of all. God is like Dao; The infinite cause. The unmoved mover. The essence of all.
"Reality" is really just our perspective of "The All." So reality cannot be The All or God or Substance or Dao, but merely an imagined construct within it. Remember, there are no straight lines in nature, only our perspective.
i didnt ask you what people would tell me 1000 years ago about stars. i asked if the actual stars were any different 1000 years ago:
"were stars not balls of gas irrelevant of popular opinion." please read properly.
reality was not disproven hundred of years ago, nor is this science. the symbol's interpretation is in the mind, but the symbol is in reality. if this is science, cite a single prominent, non fringe scientist stating this.
Are you saying that the only real thing is God and everything else is the product of his mind, as if all reality is just a dream of God?
Yes. That's the theory of noumena. You're proposing the theory of noumena.
Okay? Still doesn't make any sense why you're proposing this theory that was disproven hundreds of years ago, and not only that; it's also shown to be false through modern science.
If you travelled to 1000 BC, do you really think people are going to tell you the sun is a big ball of hydrogen? I mean, come on. This is common sense. The concept "sun" wasn't the same as our concept. Furthermore, our concept is by no means the "truth," it's simply what we have gathered and constructed from our perspective, and it is equally subject to change as the previous interpretations.
Just because we disagree on whether the symbol is 6 or 9 doesn't mean the symbol is noumena by any means. The symbol was created and interpreted by the mind, not an objective reality
There are no individual minds in reality, only in the imagination. All is one. All is mind. All is God. There is no internal/external or "I"/"not I" in nature, but only in your imagination/individual perspective.
im proposing an external reality exists, nothing more.
i dont know how that is exclusive to christian theology, or what other nonsensical assumptions you are running off of. i know you are not referring to the christian god, but that doesnt change the fact that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT MENTIONED ANY FORM OF GOD, and im still wondering where you got the idea that i am pushing a religious narrative.
i asked you: 1000 years ago, before people understood stars or even gasses, were stars not balls of gas irrelevant of popular opinion? did other galaxies not exist 1000 years ago before we knew of them?
just because we disagree whether the symbol is a 6 or 9 depending on perspective does not change the fact that the symbol still exists. relativety =/= imagination.
If there is nothing external to our minds, then what is it that connects one mind to another?
Yes. I proposed that noumena does not exist. You have been arguing against this stance the entire time.
your the one who brought up the term nuomona...
If you are an Atheist then why do you insist on Christian cosmology? Noumena is a theory created to support Christianity. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, considering the fact that Atheism is the final product of Christianity; both equal in ignorance and from the same source. I have already told you, my God is not the religious God.
The object in itself doesn't even exist. There only exists an appearance of an object. Remember, there are no true shapes in nature. A circle only appears to be a circle, while the little dots or atoms that make this appearance are appearances in themselves, ect. until infinity. There are no straight lines. Shapes change depending on their appearance because they are phenomena.
what religion do i insist on? what are you smoking? im an atheist, and you are the only one to have mentioned god.
and yes, the black hole bends *the light* from an object (planets would not be visible). it does not bend the actual object as you claimed. thus the shape of the actual object remains unchanged regardless of our perceptions. that was what we were talking about. wtf are you talking about?
full response later, just a few standout foolishnesses that needed addressing.
(2/2) .. all while it's literally supported by modern science, logic, and philosophy. Your theory is only supported by the dogma of priests and people who don't want to accept their own reality / would rather wish that this world is merely an illusion. This world is not an illusion clouding over the "true world." The sooner you accept that, the sooner you get your head out of the clouds with these nonsensical religious fantasies.
Yes, the actual sun becomes different because there is no "true sun." Our concept of "sun" will most likely be laughed at in a thousand years from now, and so will their concept, and so on. Nobody will ever hold a "true" concept of anything in science because the concepts themselves are constantly changing and adapting. It's like the line analogy I gave earlier. From one perspective it is curved, from another perspective it is straight. There is no true reality of this line because it depends on your perspective thereof.
Yes, thousands of years ago some people probably thought the stars were holes in the sky. Now our concept of a star has changed drastically. Again, I ask how this is "stoner logic." How is modern science and philosophy "stoner logic?" If anyone here is smoking something, it's the religious ideologist who thinks noumena exist.
Yes, it 100% will... Literally just look it up. Ever notice that ring of light that forms when something is behind a black hole? That's light from behind the black hole being warped into a donut-like shape. I never said imagination distorts reality, so idk why you're making that strawman... I said all space-time is warped, so I ask: where is this "unwarped" portion of space-time you're insisting upon?
How am I trying to describe how the world "actually is" when there is no true world? I could literally ask the same thing about language. What are we interpreting in language? Noumena? No. We are interpreting concepts that we created. Language was not made by some objective creator.
I don't see how you blatantly assume that geometric proof is a "possible" answer and not an "actual" answer. Is 1+1=2 a "possible" answer too since it uses the same reasoning and philosophical ontology? How is this "handicapped?" Are you just throwing insults at arguments you don't understand or do you have an actual reason to think euclidean geometric formulas aren't 100%?
No, a comet is still phenomenon. Let me ask you, when you see a circle on an LED screen, is it actually there? Or are the LEDs just positioned in a way that makes a circle appear? If you understand that there is no actual circle, but just a bunch of dots that appear to make a circle from the human eye, then you'll also understand that what you may call a "real" circle is still just a bunch of dots/atoms that only appear to be a circle. Even atoms aren't what they seem. You think there is an objective end to science, but you're wrong. There will always be new scientific theories to replace the old.
Quantum mechanics. Einsteins general relativity. Ignorant? Stoner theories? Are you for real? Two of the most famous perspectivist theories in modern science along with most of the philosophers of the last century, and you have the balls to say you're above them all? What makes your Christian theory of noumena so superior? It's a paradox and only supports spirits and sky wizards. What makes you so high and mighty?
By "higher reality" I assume you mean heaven? Look, I get that you may really want heaven to exist, but it's not only an unsupported theory, it's a paradox. There is no magical reality beneath it all. The cosmos is just a string of phenomena overlapping eachother for eternity.
I find it ironic that the man who insists upon a blatantly false religious conviction is calling this ignorant (1/2)
"but you did conceive of the gasses collapsing and therefore your idea of the sun does exist. had you been ignorant of the existence of gasses, etc your concept of the sun would be different"
yes, perceptions are subjective, nobody is disputing that. but are you implying that if his perception of the sun is different, the actual sun becomes different? im honestly curious.
1000 years ago, when most people thought stars were chinks in the floor of heaven, does that mean they were not balls of collapsing gasses? does reality change with popular opinion? how is this not stoner logic?
I think that with infinity you mean "the set of everything that exists". Infinity cannot be something within our minds, since if so, our minds would not be part of infinity and therefore it would no longer be infinity, so there are only two options: or infinity is something external to our minds, or infinity is our minds. Taking the second case we could define infinity as "the set of all minds". But those minds cannot be isolated, you said that it is the same infinity that connects them, but in that case the infinite would stop being "the set of all minds" and would become "the set of all minds and something else that connects them". That which connects them cannot be within our minds nor can it be our minds, therefore it has to be something external to our minds. Reality is not created in our minds, it is created in something external and that sends the information of reality to our minds.
A perception of the infinite, Dao, or God.
Wavelengths are a perception of energy fields. Mass and energy are perceptions of space. Space and time are perceptions of spacetime or "extension." Extension and thought are perceptions of nature. Nature is a perception of the infinite.
But you did conceive of the gasses collapsing and therefore your idea of the sun does exist. Had you been ignorant to the existence of gasses, gravity, science, ect, your concept of the sun would be far different from what it is today. Imagine what humanity's perspective of reality or even the sun will be like in thousands of years.
Exactly, our mind cannot be isolated from eachother as independent "egos" that exist separate from nature. We are part of the same infinite mind. Like I said above, your perspective of the sun is far different than that of an ancient society who thinks it's a god, or even that of a flat earther who thinks it's tiny and revolves around the earth. Being part of the same nature doesn't mean that reality is external. We constitute the existence of nature. We create the construct of our reality and attempt to reconcile everyone's viewpoint into a coherent reality. This reality is nevertheless still constructed/created rather than discovered. This is truely how Dao/God creates reality.
Any measurement implies consciousness. Without a consciousness, who is there to do the measuring?
typo: your argument is that the phenomena, the streak, *exists*
but any explanation for it is imagined.
i left out the word exists.
phenomena: a streak of light passes across the sky
nuomona: a comet, or a meteor.
your argument is that the phenomena, a streak of light, witnessed independently by thousands of people around the world; but any explanation is fantasy no matter how confirmed. you are not discussing knowledge, you are preaching ignorance.
your use of philosophy has you twisting in logic and confusing cause and effect. it is the streak of light, the phenomena, (our perception of events) that is imagined, yet the ultimate truth exists. we did not perceive the comet, we discovered it.
and even if there is a "more true" underlying reality, the higher level reality that results from that underlying truths is nonetheless true. and even if the final result of 1 factor is distorted by its interactions with all the other factors of reality, that end result is still reality in its entirety.
your claim of interpretation of nothing is more bonkers than the brain in a jar and leads to the same conclusion of perpetual ignorance. no thank you.
could it be real? maybe. is it real, you have no way to say. is it functionally useless be best disregarded except for mind experiments? absolutely. it is not truth, it is stoner logic.
viewing the earth behind a blackhole will not create a donut looking earth. and again, this is an example of reality distorting the image of reality. not imagination distorting reality.
the paper analogy, as you say, "a good description of how *we see* the world." you however tried to use it as a description of what the world *actual is.* we are interpreting something. how do you interpret nothing?
and what objective proof besides poetic speech do you have that this is *the actual answer*, and not simply *a possible answer?* this is why philosophy is handicapped. its fun, but its not effective.
Reality is not a perception, if it were, perception of what it is? Colors are perceptions of wavelengths, perception of what are wavelengths?
You say things only exist when we perceive them, so if I didn't perceive the gasses collapsing it means they never existed, then how come the sun exists?
If our perspectives are similar, our minds cannot be isolated from each other, since if this were the case, each mind would create a completely different world. Therefore, there must be something external to our minds that connects them to each other so that our world is similar, that is reality.
The double slit experiment confirmed that measurements collapse superposition, but those measurements do not necessarily imply consciousness.
Where else would an imaginary dichotomy exist? Reality is a perception, so how could it exist within anything other than a mind?
The sun was probably formed billions of years ago when gasses collapsed into a dense ball. How does that have anything to do with this?
People see the sun in a similar manner because their perspectives are similar.
How is this not confirmed? Every test concerning superpositions have confirmed this to be true. The double slit experiment is one of them. What are the other interpretations? I've certainly never heard of any.
I don't understand how you conclude that reality resides in the mind. If the sun only exists when we perceive it. How was it formed? Did it just appear already formed? If there is no external reality in which it has been formed from the gravitational collapse of matter. Why is it right there? Why do all people see it the same color, with the same shape and in the same position? If there are no external signals to indicate its characteristics, everyone would see it in color, in the shape and in the position that their mind decides.
That consciousness is what causes the superposition to collapse is only one interpretation and is not confirmed. However, that would not prove that reality is created in the mind, it would only prove that the mind affects reality
When viewing the earth from behind a black hole, it will be a donut-like ring. Shapes are just images that we construct, not actual properties of things in themselves. Spacetime always distorts perception, so why do you insist that there exists a "correct" perception when every perception is merely a warped image? We could even bring dimensions into this. We only perceive physical shapes in 3 dimensions because we are 3 dimensional beings.
Yes, poetic and subjective to human perspective as it may be, God is no less real than any shape or perception of reality that we possess. (It's also worth noting that my God is not the Christian God. My God is a necessary perspective of science and causality).
How is the paper analogy not a good description of how we see the world? I don't see how it's any different from the infant. Our perspective just contains more shapes, more complexity.
Noumena is the theory that you are proposing. Noumena is any thing in itself that exists in the "real world," apart from subjective experience, as opposed to phenomena, which is merely an appearance. The theory of noumena is one that was proposed by Christian metaphysicians, and only supports the nonsensical existence of spirits and heaven and external beings. Reality is an infinite string of phenomena -appearances overlapping appearances for eternity- not a transcendent reality that the wise man or the sage or even the pope can attain.
Gravity by no means implies the existence of noumena. Gravity is a phenomenon.
Yes, that's exactly what perception is! The simple fact that in order to perceive reality one must create a mental dichotomy means that reality must exist within the mind as a construct or perspective in itself. Does the sun exist within reality? Yes. But where does reality reside? Within the mind. ?As long as you still experience the stars as something "above you," you lack the eye of knowledge." -Nietzsche
If you're talking about simple physical interactions with the clock analogy then I do not understand the point you're trying to make.
I'm glad we agree here. The shape changes depending on your perspective. You are what ultimately decides what shape it is; you are the observer.
The observers perspective influences everything! The observer is the only one who can collapse the superposition into a reality.
side note to the shape argument. being distorted by a known physical force is not an argument against external existence. the key part of your argument, gravity, is part of an external existance.
shapes can be affected, but they nonetheless exist. a massive collision can make the earth not circular, but it still is/was circular, and will have some other shape after.
your god argument sounds like philosophy at its finest and why it has fallen to the way side. beautiful, poetic, but completely subjective.
i said the paper analogy is good for representing how infants see the world, not for how the world is. please revisit my earlier point.
idk about your nuomona talk, but your brain receives external stimulation. there is an external environment.
Perceiving means receiving a signal from reality and turning it into a sensation. To perceive colors in your mind you need to receive wavelengths of reality, to perceive shapes in your mind you need to receive shapes in reality.
If you have two clocks and you put one in a rocket, the clock in the rocket moves slower than the other, that's what I mean they experience the deformation of spacetime.
I already said that the shape of the line depends on the speed at which you move.
The superposition does not depend on the observer's perspective. The Scrodinger's cat is in a 50% live and 50% dead superposition, the observer's perspective does not influence anything.
You do realize Christians have the same type of speculative "proof" that you do, right?
islam based on many factors, one being the prophecies and signs to happen before the end where more than half have already become true.
Unfortunately, science does not allow for paradoxes to exist, nor does it utilize dogma as valid evidence.
I have, many times and in many debates. Remember the one where opposites can't exist in nature? That's the one. At this point I am tired of over-explaining it. The LED was an analogy to help you understand it, even though the entire point has flown right over your head. If light has no color then are you insinuating all light is the same wavelength? If color is not real because it's a perception then why are shapes and other phenomena real when they are literally perceived in the same way?
Are you trying to say that individual objects have brains and therefore conceive of the world? How can an object have an experience?
I'm still asking what the true shape of the line is; is it curved or straight?
Yes, the literal position of a photon depends on the perspective of an observer. This is common knowledge within the sphere of quantum mechanics. Have you ever heard of a superposition? Schrodinger's cat?
Also, there is no such thing as chance. Chance is imagined. Everything is pre-determined.
You have given no argument to prove that paradox. Last time you gave the example of the LED screen, but that didn't prove anything because in that example there was something real (the light) and something apparent (the colors) and there was no contradiction.
The shape of spacetime is relative to the observer. That does not mean it is created by the mind, as mindless objects also experience the deformations of spacetime, which means it is different depending on the speed you are going. So the reality is that if you move at a certain speed the line is straight and if you move at another speed it is curved.
The position of a photon does not depend on the perspective of the observer, it depends on chance
You could use science to prove the existence of God. The bible is evidence. All prophecies in the bible have been proven true so far. The earth is perfect for life. If anything were different we would all die. The sun is the perfect distance away. That is not a coincidence it is a act of God.
@nemiroff. I just noticed a typo. Where I say "there are no phenomena," I mean to say "There are no noumena, only interpretations of phenomena;" a minor difference that may make more sense. Noumena are things in themselves, or objective objects/actions, versus phenomena which are merely appearances, like how a TV screen makes an image appear to be there.
No, you are creating a false dichotomy between the two. We have already discussed this; there are no phenomena, only interpretations of phenomena. Separating the two creates a paradox -- a paradox that I have mentioned many times and a paradox that you have ignored many times.
Yes, I'm saying it had no shape at all. You claim to like science, so you should know that spacetime can warp depending on your relative perspective within it. What appears to be a straight line to one person can be a curved line to another person in an area where the fabric of spacetime is different. Which perspective of the line is true? Wormholes bend spacetime like it's nothing, so to say your euclidean geometric construct of the world is "objectively true" is just downright false, both scientifically and logically. What if we use quantum mechanics as another example? The position and behavior of a photon depends on the perspective of the observer. How can an objective reality exist when the observer essentially decides where a photon is? If you are going to dismiss colors as "fake" because it's a construct of the mind, then you must also include other constructs such as geometry.
There was no "before thought." God is the infinite mind, and within his nature there are conceived infinite things in infinite ways. Simply conceiving of time is your way of preconceiving everything that ever has and will happen.
So you agree with the paper analogy? Then I don't see why you're going on to cry that it's false and foolish simply because you feel a type of way about it, especially without any reasoning to support your claim. I have not only demonstrated how your claim is logically paradoxal, but I gave real life examples of why it is false.
you paper analogy is somewhat apt at describing how we believe an newborn sees the world. they do not see a room, people, tables etc. they just see a mess of undefined blurs and lines. their brain does not know how to process neither the items in the image, nor the image itself, and uses feedback from the coming months to make the image and other senses functional. much of what we see as reality is a formulation of the mind making blind adjustments to electrical input in the dark....
however we do not invent those external inputs, that is foolishness. our view of reality might be altered and interpreted, but reality is most certainly there. we are interpreting something, as opposed to your claim that we are interpreting nothing.
you are conflating the idea of the named shapes we came up with, with the physical shapes of objects.
are you saying that before humans existed the earth was not spherical? trees were not cylindrical? star fish were not hexegonal? even if the shape has no name, are you saying it has no shape at all?
is your argument that before thought there was nothing? then where did thought come from? do you not see the contradiction?
Its ironic that you would claim colors do not exist but then go on to say that shapes do. Do you see where you are contradicting yourself here?
The shapes did not exist before they were conceived because, once again, the essence of existence is thought; thought constitutes the existence of anything.
How could time be something other than what we perceive when time is a perception in itself??
You're not answering what I was asking. I asked what the true nature of this line was; is it curved or straight?
What if we used the double slit experiment? Is the true nature of a photon a wave or a particle? Even the position of a photon depends on the perspective of the observer as shown in more recent renditions of the experiment.
I understand by ocean wave "set of water molecules with a certain shape." There have been sets of water molecules with that shape since before thinking beings existed, therefore ocean waves have existed before being conceived. Just because they are part of a molecule soup does not mean that they are just that molecule soup.
Colors do not exist, they are created by the mind, but the fact that we perceive them means that there is something real that we perceive as colors, that something is the wavelengths of light.
Maybe time is not how we perceive it, but the fact that we do it means that there is something real that we perceive as time.
The shape of spacetime is relative, but it is not created by the mind. An object without a mind also experiences the deformations of spacetime.
Shapes do not need to be conceived to exist. There are infinite shapes although not all are conceived.
Do two ocean waves really exist, or are they simply the same soup of molecules just imagined as separate things? Do colors really exist, or are they just mental images created from wavelengths of light? Does time really exist? Or is that just our way of cutting reality into different shapes with our mental "scissors?"
How about we get scientific with our analogy? Spacetime can warp depending on your perspective/position within it. What is a straight line from one perspective is a curved line from someone who is in a different position in spacetime. Is the line straight or curved? It's both.
How would these shapes exist if there was nobody to conceive of them existing? Thought constitutes the existence of any particular thing
Your analogy is not correct. Reality is not a blank paper. The sky already had its shape from before we noticed it, unlike the shape on paper that was not formed until you cut it.
A better analogy would be paper with shapes drawn, and you just cut out the shapes that already exist.
Concepts are invented far before they are named. We create concepts within the womb from the time our thalamo-cortical complex activates and we start thinking. A concept can be a simple perception.
Lets break it down with this analogy:
Imagine you have a piece of paper. This paper is blank, and for all intents and purposes of this analogy, represents reality as a whole. Now take scissors and cut out a shape. Did this shape exist before you cut it? No, there was nothing there until you made something out of it. However, the material or substance in which you cut the shape from existed prior to the shape. This is why you assume the sky existed prior to us conceiving of a sky. The sky is like the shape that you cut out of this substance (your eyes and brain serve to be the scissors in this instance).
(Part 2/2) ..and you would assume that a scientist of Einstein's caliber would know what he's talking about.
So you agree that epistemology is the backbone or basis of science? Then why are you so apt to dismiss it?
Again, I ask why the findings of a system would possibly alter the basis of a system. The answer to 1+1 does not change the foundation of addition. Physical conclusions do not change the foundation of metaphysics. What "findings" do you even have? I have yet to hear any that make a difference to the topic of God and religion.
If one man is hot and one man is cold in the same room, is the "one truth" hot or cold? Truth is not always binary. Truth is only binary when perceived as binary. Truth is ever-changing and never static. Truth pertains to the perspective of the observer. Even quantum mechanics shows us this fact.
1: The only one not understanding this is you. The false dichotomy that separates REAL and APPARENT causes misconceptions of the WORLD. Please stop putting words in my mouth just because you don't understand the ones I'm saying...
The only thing im actively doing now is looking for the part where I mentioned that this world is an illusion??.. why I would I choose the other side of the dichotomy I specifically and repeatedly explained to be false?
"The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one."
If you said "the true direction is left" and I said "left and right are perspectives" why would I be insinuating that right is the true direction? You're confusing this with black and white thinking.
2: Yes it does. I explained it but maybe didn't get the point across. Descartes proves the evil genius wrong because, through his "I think therefore I am," we know that knowledge and truth are created by us. Thought constitutes the essence of any particular thing's existence and therefore cannot be controlled by some omnipotent illusionist or external entity. This power of creating knowledge constitutes one of our freedoms as living beings.
As for Nietzsche's critique on the "cogito" or the proposition "I think," we must understand that when we say "I" we are presupposing the existence of the ego or the self. Not only is the ego an intangible illusion (meaning it only exists in the imagination, as opposed to the world, which exists in the intellect as well as the imagination), but in "I think" it is simply granted to exist without any proof. Furthermore, it is simply assumed that we know we can think or even know what thinking is. Does this mean the quote is false? No! It just means that it is unfinished. One must recognize that the feeling of self or really any sensation that gives you empirical knowledge, like hunger or sight or thought, are only verified by the inverse proposition. Here, we realize that thought = existence.
3: Why would the findings of a system alter the system itself? Why would the answer to an equation change the core foundations of mathematics? Why would your scientific findings alter the truth of reality, God, substance, Dao, ect? Your findings haven't done anything except over-explain an LED analogy that I made. Even Einstein believed in the metaphysics/epistemology proposed here by Spinoza and Nietzsche.
science is as much a branch of philosophy
as chemistry is a branch of alchemy
it is an evolution.
what epistimology contributed to science is the scientific method, a central tenant of science, but it is only the process. the findings of that process is what we are discussing. the scientific method + peer review was created to transcend the ego in the search for knowledge.
logic is a flawed tool. it can be twisted to prove contradictory conclusions. many things are possible, only one is actually true. in the several centuries of science's mass utilization, our world has been transformed. was that imagined?
1." misconceptions of the world come from the illusion of a 'real world'"
this is what i mean by you not knowing what you are talking about. you mocked me for bringing up the brain in the vat, but as i said, i only brought it up cause you keep actively describing it.
the brain in the vat is just a thought experiment to ask what if all reality is an illusion, just as you are here claiming.
2. i think therefore i am does not solve the brain in a vat problem, it is the conclusion of that problem. even if you are just a brain in a vat, manipulated by an evil genius, and all your reality is a false illusion, the one thing you can know is that you yourself are real, because you know that you yourself are thinking. you have not explained how any of this is debunked.
the think in i think is not knowledge, but sentience. i would not call the sensation of hunger, pain or warmth as knowledge (although one can twist logic around this), but that is part of our train of thought, and that is what im referring to. please do literal breakdowns in english, it is easier to follow.
3. i always made it clear i was speaking of scientific findings, not epistimology. i dont know of your assumptions.
The person who invented the concept of sky did not invent sky, he just named something that already existed.
If sky did not exist before the concept of sky, what was that concept referring to when it was invented?
(part 2/2) You are literally the only thing that validates the basis for ALL KNOWLEDGE. Next time you imply that I don't understand a certain concept, I would suggest researching it first. The inverse of "Cogito ergo sum" is what literally started the entire existential movement of the 20th century.
8: What I'm talking about is Nietzsche's critique of Descartes. One cannot prove the existence of the ego without first presupposing an external reality. The only thing Descartes got right was his proof against the "evil genius" and his epistemological assessment that thought verifies existence.
1: Any idealistic/religious or materialistic/atheistic misconception of the world comes from this illusion of a "real world" or "external world" so I would say that this is exactly on topic. My proof of God relies on the monistic nature of existence.
2: I assumed you knew, because even you brought up "I think, therefore I am," the most well-known philosophical statement. The entire purpose of "cogito ergo sum" was to solve the "evil genius problem" which is essentially the same as the "brain in a vat" problem. It also served to establish a basis from which all knowledge is based on. The fact that one cannot doubt their doubts proves that, even if we are dreaming or in a vat, we have indisputable knowledge of the aforementioned - of our reasoning. This means that reasoning, knowledge in itself, is self-contained. "Cogito" proves "Sum" but "Sum" proves "Cogito." All knowledge is constructed from itself in the way that language is. All that exists are interpretations of this "language." You can even see this in the fact that there are multiple systems of logic, each with their own axioms.
3: Again, I only assumed you knew about it because you brought up "I think therefore I am" and then proceeded to call me ignorant on the topic.
4: I think I have gotten my point across, but you were the one to mention it, not me.
5: Any self proclaimed scientist that dismisses philosophy is no scientist at all... Science is literally a branch of philosophy, a branch that is focused ENTIRELY on epistemology... (epistemology is the study of knowledge). It's like saying math > ontology. Math is a form of ontology just as science is a form of epistemology.
6: There is no distinction. The distinction you are making is imaginary -- based on a false dichotomy. There are no phenomena, only interpretations of phenomena. Imagine if I claimed that language exists in the "real world." I would sound ridiculous; language is a construct; only interpretations of languages exist. There is no difference between phenomena and interpretations of phenomena.
7: Once again, you have claimed me to be ignorant of this philosophy all while dismissing this philosophy... The irony is rich. Tell me, please, what validates any force of nature? Is it not your mind? Is it magic? What validates "cogito?" Is "I think" not a presupposition? How do you know that your ego exists? How do you know you have the ability to think? How do you know what thinking is? The answer: "Sum;" YOU! (continued)
no sign of any outright dismissals on the cogito, ergo sum (a direct latin translation of my quote) wiki page, even the criticism section was full of semantics to improve the quote, which still stands.
what are you talking about?
saying a scientific theory (like theory of gravity) is a man made concept is one thing. to say that the force of gravity is a man made concept is lunacy. you failed to make that distinction.
i believe diecin just acknowledged that our knowledge is made up but the reality it explains is nonetheless real. and no, the inverse makes no sense. the existence of reality has nothing to do with knowledge of our internal selves. just like last time you claimed i think therefore i am was reversible. it is not. perhaps thats why you disregard it, because you dont understand it.
1. my argument was on topic to the post i was responding to, and considering the topic of this thread is religion, all of this is off topic.
2. or people who dont actively pursue philosophy. it seems like a perfectly sound theory. instead of sounding pompous, please debunk it.
3. i have no idea what you were saying in your previous #3. your point was unclear and assumed i was familiar with every famous latin saying. i do not care to study philosophy, i have my hands full with other tasks, and when i have time, i prefer science. if you wish to make an argument, make the argument, but i do not know every latin phrase, i learn them pro re nata.
4. again, assuming everyone knows these phrases outside philosophical circles is foolish.
5. i repeatedly stated my argument was based on science, not some epistemological concern. it is not my fault you did not read my repeated clarification. science > philosophy any day.
Knowledge in no way implies an external reality. I, for instance, have knowledge that 1+1=2. Mathematics are man made concepts just as anything else. Addition, calculus, and even numerical values are all inventions of the mind. As is color. As is language. As is any scientific theory. As is any interpretation at all.
You say our internal reality is nothing more than the knowledge of the external reality, to which the same could be said about the inverse; our external reality is nothing more than the knowledge of our internal reality. How do we know anything? How do we know the sky is blue? Because of our interpretation of the concept we call the sky. How do we know that thoughts even exist? Because we think. See how it is self contained and not externally derived?
By knowledge I mean "what we understand about reality", so I agree that knowledge is created by the mind, but the existence of knowledge implies the existence of an external reality, from which we obtain it. Our internal reality is nothing more than the knowledge we have about external reality.
If there is no external reality, then where do we get knowledge from? We cannot obtain it from internal reality because knowledge is internal reality, and cannot be obtained from itself.
1: Then I find your argument to be off-topic. I already know how wavelengths and LEDs work. All that is left is a question of metaphysical and epistemological coherency, and if you're not arguing that, there's nothing left to argue as these subjects exist prior to any science; any scientific finding or evidence you can conceive of will have no impact on the facts that I am stating simply because the philosophy of science is built upon said facts.
2: Classical philosophical examinations of truth? You mean some old skeptic's theory that has been debunked ever since Descartes? You won't need to dive that deep in order understand that these ideas are paradoxal in themselves. Only half-baked idealists hold on to these theories.
3: You say "no idea" but then claim I am ignorant of the topic... I highly suggest that you actually read into epistemology before trying to strike up a counter argument against it. Your scientific explanations hold no water here because, again, they are founded and based entirely upon this philosophy. None of your findings have anything to do with the objective or subjective nature of being.
4: "A famous historic concept" that, I repeat, was famously debunked hundreds of years ago. "Sum ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum."
I am not the one "muddling the waters." This is a debate about metaphysics and epistemology. You were the first to try and explain how wavelengths were epistemologically objective (despite that notion being entirely paradoxal).
The mind is compromised of both the intellect and the imagination, not one or the other. Intellect and imagination are intrinsically and interdependantly connected, just as truth/apparent or objective/subjective. All knowledge relies on the imagination as well as the intellect. All knowledge is actively created by the mind, even knowledge of God. Our sensations are merely impulses that exist as chaotic nothingness, that is, until a mind creates a whole reality off of them in the way that we create shapes in the clouds or the constellations.
I thought you were saying that all reality is created in our mind, that is, that reality is completely imagined. If that's not what you wanted to say, then what is it?
1. i am not. i mearly stated a fact about color. earlier i stated a fact about sensation vs perception. i dont do philosophy, im simply explaining scientific findings.
2. they are not weak stoner theories, they are classic philosophical examinations of truth. i dont subscribe the the matrix/testtube view, but that seems to be what your argument was implying. that everything is subjective, or that nothing is. either way, both extremes are wrong.
3. no idea.
4. its not my concept, it is a famous historic concept. and it was in reponse to your scenario. again, i was simply stating a fact regarding the existence of colors. you were the one who muddied the waters regarding what exists.
it is not a strawman just because you are ignorant of it. it is a famous thought experiment that is found in many textbooks. and i brought it up in response to your bonkers argument. my argument was that the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are real and objective, no matrix required. the brain in a vat was brought up to discredit your philosophical question regarding my scientific fact.
1: Then why are you arguing against my monism? If you agree with me then why are you trying to prove me wrong?
2: "What if we lived in the matrix?" "What if we lived in the eye of a giant?" and "What if our brains were in a vat?" are all weak stoner theories.... Imagine if you tried to explain basic addition to someone and they replied with "what if the government just tricked us into thinking 1+1=2?" See? it has NOTHING to do with the topic. Please stop trying to act like it holds any water in this debate.
3: Are you talking about "cogito ergo sum?" If you are, I highly suggest you read up on it, as it hasn't been considered to be a valid epistemological argument in over 200 years.
4: I never said anything about a completely imagined reality, but it is sure seeming like that is where you reside. If having the ability to create concepts means "the only explanation is that my brain is in a vat" to you, then I believe you may be suffering from some form of dissociation, or at least struggling with a false association between creativity and cerebral vats.
I understand who I am talking to. Many of the others on this app understand the concepts I am presenting. You are the only one who has continuously brought up strawman arguments about brain vats.
1. i am not arguing for dualities.
2. it is not a stoner theory, it is a classic mind experiment.
3. just because i failed to convince you of that argument does not mean you succeeded in convincing me, or anyone else, against it.
4. you are the one who brings up the argument of a completely imagined reality, and this brain in a vat mind experiment is the only possible way to accomadate the bonkers argument you were making to me.
aside from that theory of electrical stimulation in a test tube, the physical interactions that interact with our senses must be real, and your argument of unknowability irrelevant.
perhaps you should pay attention to who it is you are speaking to as there are several people on this app, and threads are not restricted to only 2 people.
This is the second time you mentioned this basic stoner theory of yours and is, yet again, the second time that I have to ask how it relates to epistemology, metaphysics, or ontology. I would, again, suggest that you stay away from this irrelevant topic. Why are you trying to derail the debate once again with this nonsense?
"I think therefore I am" and all other arbitrary forms of rationalism have been thoroughly disproven since the 19th century. "Cogito ergo sum" is not only a presupposition contradicted by "sum ergo cogito," but also exists as a presupposition based on the paradox of substance dualism. Why are you bringing this up either? Why not stay on topic?
Please try to address your paradoxal ideal of substance dualism instead of trying to convince people that their brain may or may not be in a jar, which has absolutely no bearing on epistemology, ect.
Dualities do not exist in nature. Bottom line. Your imaginary brain experiment has no relevance to epistemology, ect.
it is possible that our brains are being falsely manipulated via electrical signals while simply sitting in a test tube and everything we experience is false. that is called a brain in the vat experiment. in which case the only thing we can know is "i think therefore i am."....
however, for the sake of sanity, we try to ignore that far fetched scenario and focus on realistic conclusions.
...and are you suggesting that these phenomena are not verifiy through the senses?? This is what I've been asking. You keep insisting that there is this magical source of knowledge that exists beyond ourselves, yet you can't give an example of one piece of knowledge that is not gained through our perspective.
we can confirm their existence through math, and experimentation. yes we witness the results of the experiment with our eyes, but if you point wavelengths at an object and it heats up or has some other reaction, that is not an illusion of perception, that is 100% something real occuring.
What verifies the supposed fact that wavelengths are "100% real?" Your subjective perspective? Some magical entity beyond yourself? No, of course it's your perspective.
If we remove brains from the equation then who would there be to conceive of these presupposed wavelengths?
..and you mean to tell me that the wavelength of something is verified through something other than the mind?
our brain's interpretation of a certain wavelength is subjective and not representative of reality... but the wavelengths are 100% real.
wavelengths do not have inherent color. our brain simply reads a photon of a certain range as green and another as red... but if you remove the brain from the equation you are simply back to mathematical waves with no.inherent color.
That the sensations are not "real" does not mean that nothing is real. For example, the wavelength of a photon is real.
If colors are not real then any sensation and therefore any truth is "not real" according to your standards.
I understand atoms don't have a color. This is my point.
The length of the individual wavelengths wasn't at question. The color of the object was at question. What color is the object?
Mind you, this is still an analogy. You don't need to dive deep into the technicality of a LED to understand that opposites don't exist in nature.
colors are not real, it is our mind falsely coloring the world based on the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation hitting our eyes.
atoms are too small to reflect specific wavelengths of light. they can be stimulated to release their own wavelengths like in neon, but that is not their usual state. atoms are falsely colored so we can tell them apart when we look at molecular models.
By colors I mean wavelengths that we interpret as colors. Atoms do not have, but light does.
How did your leap to that conclusion? If our perception of EM waves do not constitute the existence of EM waves, then what does?
...so the red and green aren't interpretations of our mind? What makes the third option false? Atoms do not possess any color. Why is it suddenly an objective truth that their color is red and green when that is clearly not the case at a microscopic perspective??
the perception of color is based on our perception, but the existance of electromagnetic radiation in various wavelengths is independent truth.
The true light is red and green, these do not depend on our perception. The yellow light is just an interpretation of our mind, it does depend on our perception.
There is no reason to think that true light depends on our perception, so external and internal reality are not opposites like left and right.
Is nature not part of our reality???
By claiming there to be a "true" reality separate from this "virtual" or "apparent" reality is EXACTLY the pair of opposites I'm referring to. You claim them to be separate and distinct when they are not.
Forces in nature do shape our reality, but you fail to realize that nature itself is a construct of the human mind.
So, if the light is real, then which light is true? Red & Green? Yellow?
By "separation of nature" I mean any pair of opposites. Opposites cannot exist in nature so they must be apparent by their own logic.
Claiming there to be an "external" and "internal" reality is an example of one of these false pairs of opposites. If both are reliant on our perception, how can you claim one to be independent? Independent substances share no attributes.
Your perspective is YOUR reality, not nature's reality. YOUR reality isn't nature's material reality. It's closer to a 'virtual' reality that exists in the electrochemical structures in your brain. We experience it, it's all we ever know, but that doesn't make it truth. It makes it perspective.
And I never said apparent and real were opposites. Not sure how you're making that leap. I said they have a dependent relationship. Real is the input, apparent is the output. Forces in reality shape our apparent reality. If they were independent or a dichotomy that couldn't be true.
The light emitted by the diode is not apparent, it is real. If I wasn't seeing the led screen, the light would still be there.
What do you mean by separation of nature?
Your perception is your reality, but there is an external reality on which your internal reality is based. Internal reality depends on external reality, but external reality is independent of internal reality.
You say they are not a dichotomy, yet they are opposites? This does not follow your logic. I believe what you are saying is actually in agreement with what I am saying. You simply do not realize it. Your explanations match, but not your resolve.
Your perspective IS your reality. This is what I've been explaining
Is the light emitted by the diode not apparent? Is any separation of nature not apparent?
We experience the real through a lense filtered by our feelings, senses and thoughts. That is all the apparent is. Our faculties interpret real stuff in a way that our consciousness understands it; as sensations, feelings, and thoughts. So the apparent is just our experience of the real. That means 'the real' and 'the apparent' are not independent. They have a very dependent relationship. That doesn't mean they're a dichotomy.
You're right that they're are in conflict when there's interpretation error. For example, believing objects move on a screen vs the reality of still images flying by at 30 fps. But, that conflict does not form a dichotomy as both my perspectives and reality can coexist in conflict. An erroneous perspective is just a view that doesn't exist in the real.
Colors only exist in the apparent. The real thing is that diodes emit light at certain frequencies. That is independent of the apparent.
Dogs and cats aren't antithetical to eachother so they do not apply. Implying a dog's existence does not imply a cats existence in the way that the existence of left implies the existence of right. Left and right are the same thing just looked at from different perspectives. Apparent and true are just like left and right.
Take your LED screen for example. When you look at a picture of a lemon, you see yellow. However, look closer and you'll see that there are no yellow diodes, only green and red. Look closer and those diodes aren't green or red at all. What is the true color in this scenario? It's like asking about the true color of a mirrors reflection or the center of a sphere's surface; it doesn't exist.
How can it be independent if they're literally a dichotomy?
Both "real" and "apparent" are part of the whole but are not the same, in the same way that both dogs and cats are part of the whole but are not the same. The real exists independently of the apparent in the same way that dogs exist independently of cats, even though all four are part of the whole.
The subject matter of this debate is proof of religious concepts. The first book of the geometric proof I mentioned is labeled "Concerning God," so if you're insinuating that it is irrelevant, it's not.
However, you seem to be focused on the "real world" argument, and that is fine.
If you agree that there cannot be two wholes, then how are you suggesting that "real" and "apparent" can exist as substances and not perspectives? This would make two wholes, aka an absolute dichotomy.
The geometric proof you gave only says that the substance is the whole and there cannot be two wholes, it says nothing that the external and internal reality are the same
Based on nothing? Are we simply ignoring the geometric demonstration I cited or the explanation I gave pertaining to overlapping attributes?
Your paradox of dualism is based on nothing. You just gave examples like left and right and black and white. Just because some things have that behavior doesn't mean that everything has it. Reality and what we perceive of reality do not have that behavior.
Sorry if my last reply seemed hostile. It has just become frustrating because you are not addressing any of the points I have made and are instead opting for various unrelated "stoner theories" and strawmen arguments that I never implied, and it almost seems intentional, as if to derail the debate. You have never once mentioned substance, nor are you addressing the paradox of dualism that my initial argument was based upon.
If you wish to continue, I only ask that you refrain from talking about any theories. Theories have no place in a conversation concerning ontology, metaphysics, or epistemology, as all of these topics follow from logical deduction and do not rely on external possibilities or "what ifs"
No. Why would I claim that I knew everything? Why would you even insinuate that I said that?
I asked you what validates the truth of an MRI. You said "by seeing it." So you finally admit that you are the sole proprietor and creator of this truth?
Sensation has nothing to do with the brain? Then what is perceiving sensation? Magic? Some spirit or ego? I thought you didn't believe in any of that nonsense.
I don't know why you keep insisting that I said "the eyes and the brain are the same" because I never did... I never even implied it.
Once more, cogito ergo sum is a presupposition that attempts to assert itself without any proof. It's actually based on a paradox called substance dualism. If dualities cannot exist in nature, then how to you suppose that there can be a metaphysical duality between ego and non-ego?
And no, a psuedo-theory is not required to understand a simple concept like epistemology.
are you saying we know everything? im confused. there are things we know, and things we dont know. we know the brain involves many physical processes. we can see them happening with an MRI. there are some process we do not understand, are the also physical, or are they metaphysical, we do not know.
sensation is the eyes. nothing to do with the brain. you stated "they are all nervous system, so they (eyes and brain) are the same." i explained that they are different.
the brain is perceiving the sensations sent to it from the eyes. if our eyes, ears, and other sensory organs are damaged, our brain will be without input and will not have any sensations to perceive.
i dont remember saying anything about knowledge in general. our senses can be manipulated. our perceptions of the outside world are knowledge "beyond a reasonable doubt." the only thing you can truly know beyond ANY doubt is that you yourself exist as evident by the fact that you think.
because that pseudo theory is the only explanation i have for why you would doubt your eyes and what the fMRI is showing you.
How do we "not know?" That's like saying "we know right exists, but not left...." Right implies left. Up implies down. Opposites justify eachother.
I never said the eyes were the brain... I don't know why you're trying to imply that I did.
You tell me "your brain perceives but does not sense..." then what is it perceiving if not senses...?
So you agree that knowledge comes from perception?
Why are you bringing up this pseudo-philosophical simulation theory BS again? It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and only serves to derail the debate. I'm asking a rather simple question that has nothing to do with "false information" or whatever conspiracy theories you are concocting. My question is this: What validates the MRI?
the fact is that the brain has physical. it may have mental as well, we do not know... but we know it is also physical.
saying that your eyes are the same as your brain because they are both part of the nervous system is like saying your stomach is the same as your colon cause they are both part of the digestive system. your nervous system both perceives and senses. your brain perceives but does not sense, your senses sense but do not perceive.
you are right. sensation is not perception, it is simply an electric signal generated from a physical interaction.
you asked how i know the mri is showing reactions in the brain... what is it showing then? is it showing a manipulated lie?
@nemiroff ..and what fact is that?
The sensory organs are literally extensions of the nervous system... lol. Claiming they're "independent" from eachother is like claiming you're independent of the laws of nature.
You've only further proven my point that only interpretations exist, not phenomena in themselves. Only conceptions of reality exists, not reality itself.
Your only reply is that it interprets sensations... I dare you to run a humans nervous system into a Dell laptop or a calculator and see if they're able to recreate what we call "reality" or if they're simply going to be overloaded with 1's and 0's that don't mean a goddamn thing to them.
Without our mind, what you call "sensation" is nothing but random code.
Why are you asking if something is "manipulating the image?" When did I ever insinuate that some mysterious entity was "manipulating truth?" Please. Stay on topic. All I asked you was a (rather rhetorical and self explanatory) question: "what validates the MRI?"
i am not proclaiming any dichotomy, i am simply stating fact to the best of our knowledge. Also, you are confusion sensation with perception.
perception is in your brain.
sensation is in your sensory organs (eyes, ears, nose).
you said it correctly at the end without even noticing. "the brain perceives (interprets) the sensations that come from the outside world. it does not create sensations, it simply interprets them into perception.
also, if the mri is not showing activity in the brain, what is it showing? is it lying? is there something manipulating the image? did you skip my first sentence when i stated that "unless your assuming something wild like the brain in a vat mental experiment" which should account for whatever philosophical twisting you are applying to this reasoning.
I should also point out that God, the bond between being and nothing, absolute and relative, man and nature, is a conscious creation of the universe. WE consciously create our own existence through dichotomies.
Fair enough, but the term "God" has spanned over far more than the three Abrahamic religions we are used to. One could still say that my God even possesses the same tri-omni attributes as the Abrahamic one, just from a different (active) perspective. I include God into my vocabulary precisely because he can fit, just like Dao or the hermetic "ALL," or Spinozas "natura naturans." The point is to recognize them all as stemming from the same concept. This is why you find religion in every corner of the world; it is essentially the dogmatization of philosophy.
And when people think of the term "God", they generally think of a conscious being who created the universe, so it is also not an appropriate term to describe the whole.
Ok, now I see where that confusion was coming from. My bad for not being direct; the question was meant to be rhetorical. The answer to what ultimately justifies any truth is you! Any ideatum is verified by an idea, and any idea is verified by an ideatum.
I still don't think "universe" is a proper term to use when describing the "whole" simply because when people think of the term "universe," they typically think of a physical reality that has laws like gravity, a reality that we can learn from through science and experiments. Substance, Dao/Tao, The All, God, natura naturans, "the way," or whatever you would like to call it, is something that we cannot fathom. It is absolute and without parameter; you cannot put it into a box. To prescribe a science to it, like we do the universe, would be incorrect.
When I say "universe" I mean everything that exists, not just the physical.
When you said "How do we know physical reactions happen in the brain? Is it not your own brain who is convincing you of this fact?" I thought you were implying that the information that our brain gives us is not real, that is, that it deceives us. If that wasn't what you wanted to say, what was it?
How can the whole be the universe when physicality is opposed by mentality? You're completely dismissing this fact. How can a song be "just sound waves" when a song has many other attributes?
Why you are insinuating that our brains are "cheating" on us is unknown to me, and it seems rather off topic. I'd like to stray away from any pseudo-philosophical theories about simulations or "brains in jars" because they have absolutely nothing to do with ontology and metaphysics.
The whole is the universe, not God.
The cause of thoughts are the physical reactions in our brain, not God. You say we can't know that because it's our brain that convinces us of that, so you think our brain is cheating on us? If so, then it is impossible to know what is outside our mind, therefore it would be impossible to prove that God exists.
It is self-evident. All we experience are contingencies, reactions, effects. This constitutes the existence of a cause. Every effect must have a cause. Every part must correspond to a whole
And why do you think that substance exists?
Maybe you are confused in what I mean. I'm saying that substance holds both the attributes of mental and physical, just as the song holds the attributes of sound and notes.
So what you say is that ideas are a part of the monistic substance that can be conceived with the mind?
But what makes you think that there is a monistic substance? You said that black and white are part of the same thing, but physical and mental are not
You're not addressing the question. How do we know the MRI is showing reactions the brain? You say "looking at it" but fail to address that "looking at it" is literally the only way that you're validating "truth." Foolishly claiming that things are "only physical" leads to into yet another false dichotomy. I find it odd that you would suggest sensation to be independent of the brain. If not the brain, then what perceives sensation? Magic?
If a song can be conceived through both sound waves and through notes on sheet sheet music, does that mean the song "is soundwaves?" No. It simply means the song can be CONCEIVED through sound waves. You're conflating the attributes of a thing with the actual existence of a thing.
If physical and mental are part of the same thing, then thoughts would be something physical and therefore the monistic substance could be a physical field.
If physical and mental are not part of the same thing, then there is no monistic substance
So then you agree? I am correct in my logic?
unless you are assuming something wild, like all our perceptions are false, like the brain in vat mind experiment, then we know reactions happen in the brain because a) we can see it live with MRI. and b) we know the brain is made of cells, and we know cells dont work on magic.
also sensations are physical and dont involve our brain. it is the interaction of the outside world with our senses. hence SENSation. this is before those senses get turned into an electrical signal and sent to our brain. in the brain, interpreting that data into our consciousness is called PERCEPTION, not sensation.
It is proven that physical reactions occur in the brain and that they are related to our sensations. If ideas are not caused by the brain, what do you think causes them?
And if physical and mental are not part of the same thing, there is no monistic substance
How do we know physical reactions happen in the brain? Is it not your own brain who is convincing you of this fact? Is it not an idea that justifies the ideatum just as you claim the ideatum justifies the idea? How can you claim one and not the other without a blind bias?
All thoughts need a thinker according to the laws of causality, so you are wrong to assume that one polar end can exist without its counterpart or opposite.
Substance, again, cannot be any concept arising from a dichotomy. Physical/mental is one such dichotomy.
Substance monism does not suggest that "everything is the same." Substance monism only suggests that everything is part of the same thing. Your "white/hot" analogy still doesn't apply because it isn't a dichotomy.
Thoughts are caused by physical reactions in the brain. Something does not need to have thought to cause thought, so the substance can be a physical field.
From what I understand, that there is a monistic substance means that ultimately everything that exists is the same thing, therefore if light and heat are not the same there is no monistic substance, so that does apply to this problem
No opposites in nature means that substance is monistic because of the fact that it forbids the existence of any opposing substance. Because there is no possibility of any opposing substances, this means that substance is without limit (infinite). If nothing is to oppose substance, this also means that substance is active, aka the cause of all things. Substance cannot exist as the cosmos or any physical plane of existence precisely because that would imply yet another false dichotomy between physical and mental. This is why I say substance is of the mind, meaning that it possesses thought as an attribute. Not only is it a thought, but because it is purely active, it exists as actively thinking/creating (you will find that these are also one in the same thing). I do not know why you brought up the difference between heat and light, as they are not opposites and thus do not apply to this issue.
That there are no opposites does not mean that the substance is monistic, that black and white are the same thing does not mean that white and heat are the same thing.
Even if the substance were monistic, that sounds more to me like a physical field (like the electromagnetic field) than a god. When you say that it is infinite, of the mind, and entirelly active, infinite in what sense? And what do you mean "of the mind" and "entirelly active"?
Firstly, a "completely dark place" cannot scientifically exist due to the laws of thermodynamics. Secondly, before we are able to grant that anything "dark" exists, we must first grant that something "light" exists by comparison. Otherwise, there would be no basis in which to conceive of darkness at all! People who are born blind do not even know what "dark" means. Claiming that black can exist without white is like claiming left can exist without right.
All opposites being a product of the mind versus a product of nature has everything to do with God. If there are no opposites in nature, it means that substance (the indwelling of reality) is monistic. Like I said before, a monistic substance is infinite, of the mind, and entirely active. This is God.
a completely dark place would be black without any white. And I don't understand how this is related to the existence of a god
There are many, but every proof is centered around the truth that all is one, that God is natura naturans (nature naturing). Spinoza's proof is laid out in the form of a geometric demonstration, which I find very appealing and straight forward. He demonstrates how no two substances or "things in themselves" can co-exist due to the fact that thought constitutes existence/essence, thus any two substances would naturally share a similar attribute, resulting in paradox. This one substance must be infinite, of the mind, and completely active (God). Hermetic philosophy similarly points out that all opposites are not two opposed entities, but the same in nature, just to a different degree. Hot cannot exist without cold, black without white, ect. This can then be applied anywhere, like creator and creation, good and evil, ect. Once we realize that all dichotomies or opposites are necessarily products of the mind, not nature, we are able to denounce false, dualistic, beliefs like Christianity and even Atheism.
What are those ontological and metaphysical proof?
Hermeticism, Taoism, or really any panentheistic religion comes with ontological and metaphysical proof to back it up. Abrahamic religions are filled to the brim with dogma and paradox, but those religions who posit a monistic existence rather than a dualistic cosmology have the benefit of being logically supported.
Ark: Not enough Hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere.
Being Swallowed by a whale: Not one Species of whale has an Esphogus wide enough to swallow a grown adult male (max whale esophagus,10 inches wide)
Losing your long hair doesn't cause you to lose muscle mass: Self explanatory.
Unless the bible is a bunch of confusing cryptic metaphors.
It's clearly bullshit scientifically.
Aka, Christianity is an easy one.
Notice how there isn't a single argument here. That's all you need to know.
Just because you would like God to exist does not mean that he exists, I would also like him to exist.
And if you are not willing to change your mind I do not understand what you do in a discussion app
ok,this is last I answer to you, because u kind make me to think how u think 100%
my reason I belive that God exist is because he (already/only) making heaven and hell to us to go(choose) finally which mean I will not PERISH. and because of that I belive ISLAM the only Way that have those cateria to me belive about the ONE perfect God that never born and and don't have wive or any single child.....
I'm making more short (I am human and we all not the God, and I don't want feel perish inside his hellfire) . #gochangeaccount
So you have no reason to believe in God? Do you just think it exists without any reason to think that?
show me the way(Maher Zain)..hehe
I need arguments to believe
btw,if I could choose other then debating .. surely i will.
reason why I "into" this apps nothing else except sharing knowledge that I believe goodEQ+excellentIQ people will understand maybe if they fine enough to believe it
This is a discussion app, so I want to know your reasons to debate
can you reveal some detail questions to me? because idk why you would like to know about my reason..... don't you know we had many different background
so I will wait. Tq
So why do you think what is written in the Quran is true?
true... but hard to them to accept, because lazynest and many reasons more
Just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it's true
you can prove how jesus isreal bnysearching for him and reading the bilbe. also people who killed and hated jesus had wrote about his exsistent
yes, we have Quran (book of Muslim religion) Islam
proof:already 1400+years and yet nothing changing .
explanation:it no just book to look but it reveal to human to"read" it .so grab the translation and start proof by Ur self
and hmm. can u believe in something that always changing like all religion "base/book" if not u should find anything else that have power like Quran "pure"