Does any supernatural god exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

What would prevent a thing that exists as itself from interacting with anything else? If you mean the universe can't interact with us, we are as much a part of the universe as anything else. We are part of it, and interact with it. If there is something else out there that is not what we call the universe, it could interact with that too.

'In itself' does not mean incapable of being or becoming something that extends beyond how that thing is defined at any given time. A river has a certain definition of being in itself a river, as in a constant flow of water. That the water contained in the idea of river constantly changes doesn't prevent it from being a river.

Then there is no universe in itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Experience of self is part of the experience of the universe.

Yeah, but it is not external as for external sensory experince. You are conflating to different versions of empericism.

 

[Tomef]

Well, I don't see as with external experince understanding, so that is not relevant as a part of the universe itslef, since understanding is internal in me.
So I reject your "see the difference" as in effect a believer trick. Follow your own rule and only reference the universe itslef and not how you think.

I think you're a bit confused. Maybe you could try reading the posts again and responding to what it there. Imagining things are writing about those removes any kind of continuity, and goes nowhere. I'm interested in discussion, but you are only offering lectures on dogma not pertinent to anything I said.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but it is not external as for external sensory experince. You are conflating to different versions of empericism.

Nope, experience of self does not exist without something external. No-one has ever experienced a sense of self outside of some context, however limited.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you're a bit confused. Maybe you could try reading the posts again and responding to what it there. Imagining things are writing about those removes any kind of continuity, and goes nowhere. I'm interested in discussion, but you are only offering lectures on dogma not pertinent to anything I said.

Well, I get you know all experinces are not different, though some are internal and others are external. And you are a part of the universe itself and yet not a part of it, because your experince of it, is not the same as in itself.

Let me be honest. There is no system for evidence in itself. In the end it is always to far axiomatic assumptions without evidence as such, but rather how we think about evidence.

 

[Tomef]

Then there is no universe in itself.

#724

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope, experience of self does not exist without something external. No-one has ever experienced a sense of self outside of some context, however limited.

Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, but what the something is in itself as external to the experince is unknowable. That is the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

#724

Just answer the post below yours and above this one.

 

[Tomef]

because your experince of it, is not the same as in itself.

Of course it is. My experience of the universe is part of what makes up the definition of what we think the universe is. However defined, conscious interaction between consciousness - es (e.g. that of a human) and things that consciousness perceives are part of the concept 'universe'. 'What we think of as the universe itself' does not imply a separation between that concept and our experience as part of that concept.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course it is. My experience of the universe is part of what makes up the definition of what we think the universe is. However defined, conscious interaction between consciousness - es (e.g. that of a human) and things that consciousness perceives are part of the concept 'universe'. 'What we think of as the universe itself' does not imply a separation between that concept and our experience as part of that concept.

The point is that the concept of the universe itslef is empty of anything else that it being in itself. It is true that it is in itself, but empty for ianything else.
That it is the problem with being in itself. Everything you say about the universe is in relationship to you.

 

[Tomef]

Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, but what the something is in itself as external to the experince is unknowable. That is the point.

It may be a point, but it certainly isn't 'the' point. The actual point isn't complicated; our understanding of the universe, and ourselves as part of the universe, in other words what we think of as the universe itself, is different to imaging things we have no experience of.

 

[Tomef]

The point is that the concept of the universe itslef is empty of anything else that it being in itself. It is true that it is in itself, but empty for ianything else.
That it is the problem with being in itself. Everything you say about the universe is in relationship to you.

'You' are part of the universe in itself. Afaik there is no other universe we experience directly other than the one we are part of, that universe is the universe in itself, of which we are an integral part. However defined, we are part of it, whether as creators, participants, subjects, objects, or whatever.

 

[Kenny]

No .. his name is not "my father" and there are a whole lot more commands than that. What is the name of the God who says .. Kill the child for the Sin of the parents .. and why do you deny this Gods commands .. and worship of this God ?

Are you not understanding what you are being asked ? .. Do you not know the God you worship ? .. his name nor identity ?

Apparently you don’t know my Father. Sometimes I call Him Daddy.

I’m His child.

I love Him so much and know Him so intimately that “Kill the child for the Sin” is not in His vocabulary. The love of Jesus already paid for Sin.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Experience of self is part of the experience of the universe.

I have an idea for a collaboration between mathematicians and physicists in order to determine whether or not I (the self) exist.

The first step is for the physicists to give me a TOE (Theory of Everything). Let’s call that model “reality”, for lack of a better name.

The second step is to examine the reality that I got from the physicists, and try to find myself in the model. (Finding yourself was a popular activity back in the 70s, by the way.)

Then, once I’ve found myself, It’s just a matter of checking whether or not I am preserved under the automorphisms of reality, that is, the symmetries of reality. Am I a union of orbits under the automorphisms of reality?

If so, then I can at least claim to be pseudodefinable, which really is enough to convince me that I exist.

Certainly, if it turns out that I’m not even preserved under the automorphisms of reality, then obviously I don’t exist.

Anyway, that’s how I plan on settling this question once and for all.

I’m still waiting on the physicists to give me a TOE. It’s not the mathematicians who are the bottleneck, here.

I blame the physicists for the lack of progress in this area.

“I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians.” - Richard Feynman

The complete FUN TO IMAGINE with Richard Feynman​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It may be a point, but it certainly isn't 'the' point. The actual point isn't complicated; our understanding of the universe, and ourselves as part of the universe, in other words what we think of as the universe itself, is different to imaging things we have no experience of.

Yeah, but we don't all think of the universe like you do. You have no evidence for that we as universal for all humans. So learn to spot how that we work and that is not always universal.

 

[Tomef]

the universe itslef is empty of anything else that it being in itself

No, it isn't. My dog, my iPad, my peach tree all have an existence that is both part of the whole and in itself. You may wish to define in itself as excluding some other element for some reason, but that is the definition you choose, not some objective idea. My peach tree interacts with other things, as do I and my dogs. We take in water, air, whatever, we interact in various ways with various things. That does not preclude the possibility of existence as defined things, whether conceptual or physical. To get back to the original point, all of these things are directly or indirectly - or physically/intellectually - experiential. That is different to figments of imagination. I have a dog - experiential. I imagine that I own a pink elephant - an act of imagination.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

'You' are part of the universe in itself. Afaik there is no other universe we experience directly other than the one we are part of, that universe is the universe in itself, of which we are an integral part. However defined, we are part of it, whether as creators, participants, subjects, objects, or whatever.

Well, I am not a part of your idea of the universe itself, because I am not doing my thinking like you do yours. There is no we in the strong sense for this. There are different cogntions:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but we don't all think of the universe like you do. You have no evidence for that we as universal for all humans. So learn to spot how that we work and that is not always universal.

Do you mean that you think of the experience of what we think of as the universe as being something humans are entirely separate from? What would that mean?

 

[Tomef]

Well, I am not a part of your idea of the universe itself, because I am not doing my thinking like you do yours. There is no we in the strong sense for this. There are different cogntions:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Yes, but those cognitions do not take place in some entirely isolated and separate realm. If there is cognition, there is a context. The context makes up part of the concept we call 'the universe'.

 

[questfortruth]

supernatural god exist?

Have you watched any TV documentaries about ghosts and bigfoots? How can this be ignored? Hence, there is original source of that activity. That source I am calling god.