Evidence of God existence

[Walterbl]

If something exists, there is a means for it to be known.

There my be something beyond the edge of the universe, but we will never know it because of the speed of light constraint.

 

[viole]

The idealism described in this video is the best evidence for something beyond the dogma of realism:

We don't get to choose which quantum state gets realized. But we participate with some greater mind that DOES decide which quantum state gets realized. If our consciousness were not part of this larger Universal mind then we would never have been able to discover the strange rules that govern quantum mechanics. If you accept the falsification of realism as shown in the video then we are not separate from the mind of God. We are participating in it! God is observing us observing reality ensuring quantum states get realized in a timely fashion.

Dogmas have a very powerful grip on people. Most people just ignore the evidence presented in this video or discount it as invalid. But the truth remains. Idealism is currently winning over realism.

All I have to do here is to invoke an alternative interpretation of QM, demoting thereby consciousness back to where it belongs. And undermine the whole argument from the start.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

I'm not objecting to a question science can't answer, I'm objecting to requiring science to answer logically illegal questions; questions outside its purview.

Why are questions outside the scope of science "logically illegal"? What does that even mean?

You're dismissing science because it can't answer an impossible question that has nothing to do with science.

I am not dismissing science. I am dismissing "scientism": the presumption that science is the only pathway to truth. I am saying that science is just one method among others, and a limited one at that. It is not the 'fountain of truth' that those who have fallen for the religion of "scientism" so often claim.

Science isn't averse to studying "who," it just has no evidence to work with yet.
What would they be? Keep in mind exploration requires objective evidence.

That's the giant bias in the room. There is not such thing as "objective reality" that any human can perceive of cognate. So even if it exists, it's not accessible to us. And secondly, what you and many others are calling "objective reality" is really just material reality. But reality is NOT material. Matter is just one effect of a very complex and wholly integrated phenomena we call "reality".

"Why" presupposes an intentional purpose -- and an "intender."

I don't object to the question, per se, I just see no way to research it in a way that would generate objective evidence.

There is a great deal of evidence that is not "objective". In fact, NONE of it is objective, really; as we are the subjects referred to under the heading of "subjectivity", and we cannot possibly escape ourselves. Or escape the bias of our own limited experience and understanding. The same bias that determines what is and is not pertinent evidence.

It's a question presupposing an intentional God; an answer seeking a question.

No, it's a logical question to ask given the order and complexity of existence as we experience it. That order and complexity implies intelligence, and that intelligence implies purpose. You may not like that it does, but it does. And that's why humans have been asking about this purpose from the time they became cognitively complex enough to recognize the possibility.

But you're seeking nothing; you believe there's nothing to be resolved.

How do you know this? How is this presumption anything other than your own completely unfounded bias?

I'm saying natural selection selected for useful traits, and curiosity was just one of many.
So what, exactly, needs' resolution'?

Existence itself 'designed' us to ask; to look for an answer. It is thus our apparent 'intended purpose' to seek that answer beyond ourselves.

It means that you insist every effect must have a cause, then you drop this claim in the question of God by 'defining' Him out of the requirement. Why posit this special exception, if not to remove this exception from consideration?

It is because every effect has a cause, and because every effect has a limit, that we seek the original cause, and the ultimate limit. The universe itself had an originating cause, and it has a limit. Or at least this is how it appears to us so far. So we recognize the great and profound mystery in this, and we wrestle with that mystery in all sorts of ways. One common way is to name it, and for many, to anthropomorphize it. But however one chooses to deal with this 'mystery of being', the mystery and the desire to resolve it is a part of us. It's part of who we are. It is what we exist to do.

You're making God axiomatic, so there may be no legitimate questions or criticism of the concept.

"God" is the ultimate "legitimate question". Because whatever God is, it will be the ultimate answer to mankind's greatest and most important question. That resolution, whatever it is, is what we call "God". The fact that we cannot resolve the mystery does not make the mystery go away. Nor does it make it "illegitimate". And the fact that science is incapable of exploring the ultimate question of source, sustenance and purpose doesn't make our wanting to know, meaningless.

 

[PureX]

Really, nothing new is ever discovered. Even new emerging characteristics in a species, existing before we learned of it. Rather, all we have over done is make discoveries of what is already there. As for the god concept, we have no way to know if it exist or not, and we don't even have a means to assess who's claims are accurate.

I agree. And yet the questions remain a part of who we are, how we survive, and presumably why we exist. So we keep asking them, or inventing answers for ourselves so we can stop asking them. Either way, these questions define us, both as individuals and as a species.

There isn't much other way to put it or more to add to it. Resurrections do not happen.

So far as we know. But that's not very far.

Like with Buddha or Muhammad, saying "the life of Jesus" isn't outside the realm of possibility for the "real character" to have existed. But when you add in "life and resurrection," it goes into the realm of mythology and superstition, where the "life of Jesus" typically includes not only the resurrection, but turning water into wine, walking on water, feeding the multitudes, healing the blind, and other events of religious miracles the Gospels refers to.

Mythology and superstition have their purpose. And that purpose is not serving you or anyone else when it's dismissed as nonsense.

 

[Audie]

I agree. And yet the questions remain a part of who we are, how we survive, and presumably why we exist. So we keep asking them, or inventing answers for ourselves so we can stop asking them. Either way, these questions define us, both as individuals and as a species.
So far as we know. But that's not very far.
Mythology and superstition have their purpose. And that purpose is not serving you or anyone else when it's dismissed as nonsense.

You find value and utility in superstition?
Can you be specific? WHAT superstiton
and why?

 

[PureX]

No, because there is literally zero proof and evidence of any resurrection. It doesn't happen.

There are numerous instances in which people who have been pronounced dead by modern medical techniques revived, and doctors could not explain how this happened. So to just flat out claim it "never happens" really is not exactly true. It does happen. We just don't know how.

This is why I think it's important that we humans try and keep in mind the extent to which we are ignorant/unknowing, and the degree to which existence is still a mystery to us. Otherwise, we become arrogant and close-minded, and thereby even more ignorant than we already are.

 

[PureX]

You find value and utility in superstition?
Can you be specific? WHAT superstiton
and why?

Yes. Our superstitions help to keep us safe and alive when our knowledge of existential mechanics comes up short. The examples are numerous and easy to recognize to anyone who is willing, so I'm not going to bother spelling one out. If you need me to do so, then you probably aren't willing to recognize it, anyway.

 

[Audie]

There are numerous instances in which people who have been pronounced dead by modern medical techniques revived, and doctors could not explain how this happened. So to just flat out claim is "never happens" really is not exactly true. It does happen. We just don't know how.

This is why I think it's important that we humans try and keep in mind the extent to which we are ignorant/unknowing, and the degree to which existence is still a mystery to us. Otherwise, we become arrogant and close-minded, and thereby even more ignorant than we already are.

People who actually do research are among the
most likely to be so aware of how much remains a
mystery, least to indulge in the arrogance you
speak of.

Religious fundies, prominent among those who do
think they have a handle on it. And closed- minded?

On dead / still alive, there is no bright line distinction.
Failure by fallible people to see the distinction on
occasion is not a surprise.

Few cells have died when someone "dies",
and cultures can be kept alive indefinitely-
making time of death harder still to determine,
or define. All familiar facts.

Doth thou suggest there is no point after which
there is no reviving?

 

[Audie]

Yes. Our superstitions help to keep us safe and alive when our knowledge of existential mechanics comes up short. The examples are numerous and easy to recognize to anyone who is willing, so I'm not going to bother spelling one out. If you need me to do so, then you probably aren't willing to recognize it, anyway.

I could make quite a list of stupid and harmful superstitions,
as well as point out how counterproductive superstitious
thinking is.

I will be impressed if you can find an example of a
superstition that keeps anyone safe.

You could have identified one or two, if they exist,
in fewer words than it took you to express your
attitude toward me for asking.

 

[PureX]

People who actually do research are among the
most likely to be so aware of how much remains a
mystery, least to indulge in the arrogance you
speak of.

Religious fundies, prominent among those who do
think they have a handle on it. And closed- minded?

On dead / still alive, there is no bright line distinction.
Failure by fallible people to see the distinction on
occasion is not a surprise.

Few cells have died when someone "dies",
and cultures can be kept alive indefinitely-
making time of death harder still to determine,
or define. All familiar facts.

Doth thou suggest there is no point after which
there is no reviving?

I could make quite a list of stupid and harmful superstitions,
as well as point out how counterproductive superstitious
thinking is.

I will be impressed if you can find an example of a
superstition that keeps anyone safe.

You could have identified one or two, if they exist,
in fewer words than it took you to express your
attitude toward me for asking.

I am not here to fight with or correct your bias. That's your job, if you're willing.

 

[Audie]

I am not here to fight with or correct your bias. That's your job, if you're willing.

Blame the audience when your trick fails.

 

[WalterTrull]

I will be impressed if you can find an example of a
superstition that keeps anyone safe.

Hmmm.... Penicillin comes to mind.

 

[syo]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

Immortality.

 

[Audie]

Hmmm.... Penicillin comes to mind.

It may be that our hero of the fatuous
assertion about the value of superstition
realized / read what a superstitionactually
is and has fled like a squid, leaving
behind an ink-screen! Saying I am biased
and should do his work for him.

Honestly, some people and their lack
of same!

As if humankind had not spent
millenia clawing its way out of the
mind trap of superstitious thinking
he wants to embrace and
encourage it!

Myths of course can be true, or
fanciful, anywhere in betwern, positive or
negative in their influencr ona culture
or individual.

Superstitions, though? No wonder he
fled the intrrview!

 

[Audie]

Immortality.

So, really, nothing.

 

[WalterTrull]

fatuous
assertion about the value of superstition

Love it, love it. "fatuous assertion" I haven't used fatuous for a long time. Have to keep it handy.

has fled like a squid, leaving
behind an ink-screen! Saying I am biased
and should do his work for him.

Wonderful simile there. Good on ya'

As if humankind had not spent
millenia clawing its way out of the
mind trap of superstitious thinking
he wants to embrace and
encourage it!

Oh now... let's not embrace superstition, let's find out what actually is superstition, debunk it, but mostly understand why it often works, and sometimes even works quite well.

 

[Audie]

Love it, love it. "fatuous assertion" I haven't used fatuous for a long time. Have to keep it handy.


Wonderful simile there. Good on ya'



Oh now... let's not embrace superstition, let's find out what actually is superstition, debunk it, but mostly understand why it often works, and sometimes even works quite well.

Please exemplificate a superstition working
well.

Other, that is, than as a way to control
people with fear.

 

[Valjean]

Why are questions outside the scope of science "logically illegal"? What does that even mean?

In maths or logic it means something violates operational rules or 'doesn't fit' the operation.

I am not dismissing science. I am dismissing "scientism": the presumption that science is the only pathway to truth. I am saying that science is just one method among others, and a limited one at that. It is not the 'fountain of truth' that those who have fallen for the religion of "scientism" so often claim.

The scientific method may not be universally applicable or effective in all situations, but it's the gold standard of research modalities. In determining objective truth I don't know of anything comparable. Nothing else has yielded such functional or repeatable results.

That's the giant bias in the room. There is not such thing as "objective reality" that any human can perceive of cognate. So even if it exists, it's not accessible to us. And secondly, what you and many others are calling "objective reality" is really just material reality. But reality is NOT material. Matter is just one effect of a very complex and wholly integrated phenomena we call "reality".

OK, if we're going to go this far afield metaphysically, you do have a point -- though I wouldn't say Reality is entirely inaccessible.

Personally, I believe there are levels of reality, with one objective Reality that few actually perceive, and multiple subjective realities corresponding to different levels of consciousness. For example, I believe this laptop I'm typing on is a figment of my imagination; a dream, entirely manufactured in my head, with no existential reality.
But this view was not arrived at by way of the scientific method, and I'd have serious doubts about the mental state of anyone who agreed with me.

So I do believe in alternative sources of knowledge, but, in metaphysical discussion, it's important to clarify what level of reality we're dealing with. Mixing, or not agreeing on a level beforehand will result in arguments such as our own.
I assumed this was a 3rd-state discussion, based in ordinary, everyday perception, but when you make statements about "no objective reality" you're raising the discussion to a whole different ontological level.

I suggest we stick to the ordinary world, where things are more black or white and people can follow the discussion.

No, it's a logical question to ask given the order and complexity of existence as we experience it. That order and complexity implies intelligence, and that intelligence implies purpose. You may not like that it does, but it does.

And here is where we disagree. Order and complexity require neither intelligence nor purpose, they're ordinary physics and chemistry; the automatic, undirected products of natural law.

And that's why humans have been asking about this purpose from the time they became cognitively complex enough to recognize the possibility.

They have been asking, but out of hubris and insecurity. Insignificance is a disturbing concept to most people.

Existence itself 'designed' us to ask; to look for an answer. It is thus our apparent 'intended purpose' to seek that answer beyond ourselves.

No intention needed, just natural selection of traits that promoted successful breeding.

It is because every effect has a cause, and because every effect has a limit, that we seek the original cause, and the ultimate limit.

I don't accept the premise. Why must every effect have a cause, and why, even given a cause, would we posit intentionality?

The universe itself had an originating cause, and it has a limit. Or at least this is how it appears to us so far.

It may -- or may not -- have had a cause, but why would the cause involve an intentional personage? Why couldn't it be just mechanical, like every other cause we're aware of?

So we recognize the great and profound mystery in this, and we wrestle with that mystery in all sorts of ways. One common way is to name it, and for many, to anthropomorphize it. But however one chooses to deal with this 'mystery of being', the mystery and the desire to resolve it is a part of us. It's part of who we are.

and here we're in agreement, save for your last sentence, which implies an unnecessary intentionality.

"God" is the ultimate "legitimate question". Because whatever God is, it will be the ultimate answer to mankind's greatest and most important question. That resolution, whatever it is, is what we call "God".

Wishful thinking. Why is a God necessary? What does S/He's resolve? Isn't S/He just a personification of natural law?
It makes us feel more secure to imagine that there's someone at the wheel.

The fact that we cannot resolve the mystery does not make the mystery go away. Nor does it make it "illegitimate". And the fact that science is incapable of exploring the ultimate question of source, sustenance and purpose doesn't make our wanting to know, meaningless.

"Source" may be explorable, but I don't think 'purpose' is within science's purview, and our wanting to know stems from our own insecurity.

 

[dfnj]

All I have to do here is to invoke an alternative interpretation of QM, demoting thereby consciousness back to where it belongs. And undermine the whole argument from the start.

Just because there are two possible subjective judgements to make doesn't make one of them invalid.

I think the whole idea of "proof" is a little overrated. Simple things have proofs. Nature is too full of subtle complexities to be encapsulated by such simple notions existing in language.

If you really want to impress me then give me an explanation of what is the IT that decides which quantum state gets realized in the double slit experiment. You just can't be smug about it. Either you accept the implications of materialism being pure fantasy or you choose to live a life of pure delusion. The choice is up to you.

 

[viole]

Just because there are two possible subjective judgements to make doesn't make one of them invalid.

I think the whole idea of "proof" is a little overrated. Simple things have proofs. Nature is too full of subtle complexities to be encapsulated by such simple notions existing in language.

If you really want to impress me then give me an explanation of what is the IT that decides which quantum state gets realized in the double slit experiment. You just can't be smug about it. Either you accept the implications of materialism being pure fantasy or you choose to live a life of pure delusion. The choice is up to you.

I am always smug when people hijack science for religious or new age nonsense. QM seems to be the favorite victim of these modern snake oil salesmen.

This is simple. There is no collapse of any wave function. Both possibilities are actualized. The observer gets entangled with the observed, and both outcomes/experiences are eigenvectors of the new observable.

Which is plausible, since there is no mechanism in the theory that explains the so-called collapses. The alleged collapse is an ad-hoc assumption that taints the parsimony of the theory and is not even needed. Unless you are a fan of D. Chopra.

By the way, even a microbe can collapse the wave function in your outdated interpretation of QM.

Ciao

- viole