How an Agnostic Might Come to Believe the Universe Cannot Possibly have been Created by a God

[nPeace]

The OP presents a hypothetical and is not meant to be taken as representative of any known notions of god.

I was not thinking of any

known notions of god

But okay, if there is a possible consequence, it would also mean the thing can be inferred or detected.
If it is ruled out that it can't be detected or inferred, there still could be consequence, since it just means that the observer has not used the means to see the possible consequence.

Th consequence doesn't become one due to the limits of the observer... in other words.

 

[PureX]

Our consciousness does physically exist according to my statement--that is, it has physical consequence.

Everything that we humans can possibly conceive of will have some physical consequence as a result of our having conceived of it, and therefor, will "exist". So what are we trying to discuss, here, then? Because anything we could possibly discuss will have been conceived of, and will thereby have physical consequence, and will then "exist". It's a discussion with no possible opposing opinion or view. We cannot discuss what we cannot conceive, and anything we can conceive of will "exist" by the fact of it's conception. So what is this conversation about?

 

[Curious George]

Everything that we humans can possibly conceive of will have some physical consequence as a result of our having conceived of it, and therefor, will "exist". So what are we trying to discuss, here, then? Because anything we could possibly discuss will have been conceived of, and will thereby have physical consequence, and will then "exist". It's a discussion with no possible opposing opinion or view. We cannot discuss what we cannot conceive, and anything we can conceive of will "exist" by the fact of it's conception. So what is this conversation about?

The notion of things has a physical existence in those instances. This does not mean that the thing about whatever the notion is has an actual existence. A character in a book is different than a person. You can imagine a drawing of a perfect circle. That imagining has a physical existence because that imagining has physical consequence.

 

[PureX]

The notion of things has a physical existence in those instances. This does not mean that the thing about whatever the notion is has an actual existence. A character in a book is different than a person. You can imagine a drawing of a perfect circle. That imagining has a physical existence because that imagining has physical consequence.

The 'character in a book' is the idea of a person generated in my mind by the words I'm reading there. My next door neighbor "Don" is the idea of a person generated in my mind by a collection of experiences I had of him. Both exist as ideas in my mind, generated by "real" experiences that I've had in the physical world. So how, exactly, are you trying to claim that one is more or less "real" than the other, except through some irrational bias toward physicality as a requirement for reality. And I say 'irrational' because as we have already noted, ALL human concepts are "real" in that they all derive from our experience of the physical world, and they all have effecting consequences, through us, within the physical world as a result. So what, ... more molecules equals "more real"?

My point, here, is that what we call "reality" (and the 'truth of reality') is a conceptual abstraction generated in our minds; derived from our very limited experiential perception and understanding of the phenomena of existence. What I think you are trying to point to as your 'reality degree meter' is the level of complexity involved in that conceptual abstraction. If I write a story about my neighbor, and you read the story, to you, my neighbor becomes "just a character in a book" - not a 'real' person. The level of abstraction has increased, for you, because you did not experience the man directly, you experience him through my writing of him. But I would submit that the level of abstraction that stands between any one of us and any aspect of existence varies wildly, relative to each of our individual circumstances and experiences. And so the "reality" that we conceptualize from our experiences are likewise highly relative and very subjective. Science may create the illusion of providing us with a way around all this relative and subjective conceptualizing of the 'truth of reality', but it doesn't provide us any way of escaping or transcending the limitations of who and what we are, and so the illusion remains just that, an illusion.

 

[Curious George]

The 'character in a book' is the idea of a person generated in my mind by the words I'm reading there. My next door neighbor "Don" is the idea of a person generated in my mind by a collection of experiences I had of him. Both exist as ideas in my mind, generated by "real" experiences that I've had in the physical world. So how, exactly, are you trying to claim that one is more or less "real" than the other, except through some irrational bias toward physicality as a requirement for reality. And I say 'irrational' because as we have already noted, ALL human concepts are "real" in that they all derive from our experience of the physical world, and they all have effecting consequences, through us, within the physical world as a result. So what, ... more molecules equals "more real"?

You have already proven my point. You see the distinction. Yes you do have a notion of Don, but the source of that notion is not of the same type that occurs from reading a story about a different Don. In this example we are agreeing that two notions of Don exist, however we are also agreeimg that a separate Don exists and that Don is not a notion. That Don is from whom you derived one of your notions of Don.

My point, here, is that what we call "reality" (and the 'truth of reality') is a conceptual abstraction generated in our minds; derived from our very limited experiential perception and understanding of the phenomena of existence. What I think you are trying to point to as your 'reality degree meter' is the level of complexity involved in that conceptual abstraction. If I write a story about my neighbor, and you read the story, to you, my neighbor becomes "just a character in a book" - not a 'real' person. The level of abstraction has increased, for you, because you did not experience the man directly, you experience him through my writing of him. But I would submit that the level of abstraction that stands between any one of us and any aspect of existence varies wildly, relative to each of our individual circumstances and experiences. And so the "reality" that we conceptualize from our experiences are likewise highly relative and very subjective. Science may create the illusion of providing us with a way around all this relative and subjective conceptualizing of the 'truth of reality', but it doesn't provide us any way of escaping or transcending the limitations of who and what we are, and so the illusion remains just that, an illusion.

My point is that things exist. Notions are some things that exist.

Defining a thing which exists by having physical consequence should not be that problematic for people to understand. Even you have given a wonderful example of how easily our mind can distinguish Don the neighbor from Don the mental construct of the neighbor. Both have physical consequence.

 

[PureX]

You have already proven my point. You see the distinction. Yes you do have a notion of Don, but the source of that notion is not of the same type that occurs from reading a story about a different Don. In this example we are agreeing that two notions of Don exist, however we are also agreeimg that a separate Don exists and that Don is not a notion. That Don is from whom you derived one of your notions of Don.

"Don" is an infinitely complex phenomena that has created a host of conceptualizations in the many consciousnesses that have encountered it. So which ones are "real" and which ones are not? (I thought we've already agreed that they are ALL "real" as they all generate consequence.) Or, which ones are "more real" and which are less? And by what criteria are we going to claim this determination?

My point is that things exist. Notions are some things that exist.

"Existence" is itself a "notion". So how does the subset logically contain the whole set, in your view?

Defining a thing which exists by having physical consequence should not be that problematic for people to understand. Even you have given a wonderful example of how easily our mind can distinguish Don the neighbor from Don the mental construct of the neighbor. Both have physical consequence.

If we ignore our own ignorance and bias, it's not hard at all. And we can feel quite certain that we are correct in all our perceptions of what is "real" and what is not. But if we do not ignore these, then we have to ask ourselves why the individual and subjective levels of abstraction we experience should be allowed to determine the 'degree of reality' we apply to a concept. Why should your conception of my neighbor Don be deemed any less "real" than mine? Less complete, sure. More 'abstract', OK. But less real? Or less accurate (true)? How so? And how could we even know?

 

[Curious George]

"Don" is an infinitely complex phenomena that has created a host of conceptualizations in the many consciousnesses that have encountered it. So which ones are "real" and which ones are not? (I thought we've already agreed that they are ALL "real" as they all generate consequence.)

All of the notions are real. But, so too is that "infinitely complex, [neighborly], phenomena" real.

Or, which ones are "more real" and which are less?

I am not so sure that reality is a spectrum here.

And by what criteria are we going to claim this determination?

we claim existence by the consequences according to the OP.

"Existence" is itself a "notion". So how does the subset logically contain the whole set, in your view?

The notion of existence is not existence. A point clearly illustrated by the don vs. notion of don discussion. Existence is the set by which we are defining things.

If we ignore our own ignorance and bias, it's not hard at all. And we can feel quite certain that we are correct in all our perceptions of what is "real" and what is not. But if we do not ignore these, then we have to ask ourselves why the individual and subjective levels of abstraction we experience should be allowed to determine the 'degree of reality' we apply to a concept. Why should your conception of my neighbor Don be deemed any less "real" than mine? Less complete, sure. More 'abstract', OK. But less real? Or less accurate (true)? How so? And how could we even know?

You are driving at a tangent here. My notion of Don is real. Your notion of Don is real. But, (in this example) Don is also real.

 

[PureX]

All of the notions are real. But, so too is that "infinitely complex, [neighborly], phenomena" real.

Sure, but where does it 'begin' and where does it 'end'? Is the idea of it in my mind, created by my experience of it, part of it? If not, why not? My idea of it is a direct consequence of my experience of it. And reality is defined by consequence, right?

I am not so sure that reality is a spectrum here.
we claim existence by the consequences according to the OP.

The notion of existence is not existence.

Actually, that's exactly what it is: existence IS A NOTION. It is a perceived experience, conceptualized.

It's whatever else it might be that is the unknown (and unknowable).

A point clearly illustrated by the don vs. notion of don discussion.

There is no Don apart from the notion. Don (existence) is phenomena. Our experience of it is what you call the "notion of Don". Remove the notion, and there is no experienced phenomena. There is no "Don". For we humans, perception/conception is experience. Whatever else there may or may not be, and however it may or may not exist, is beyond our ken.

You are driving at a tangent here. My notion of Don is real. Your notion of Don is real. But, (in this example) Don is also real.

It's ALL real, or it's oblivion.

 

[Curious George]

Sure, but where does it 'begin' and where does it 'end'?

i am not sure we need such well defined limits to make my point.

Is the idea of it in my mind, created by my experience of it, part of it?

That you can distinguish the idea vs the phenomena is enough evidence to illustrate you can see two separate existences. That we can also blur the lines between boundaries only serves to intentionally misunderstand the point made.

If not, why not? My idea of it is a direct consequence of my experience of it. And reality is defined by consequence, right?

Yes. But that does not serve as the grounds to deny that the complex phenomena of Don doesn't exist apart from the notions of Don.

Actually, that's exactly what it is: existence IS A NOTION. It is a perceived experience, conceptualized.

It's whatever else it might be that is the unknown (and unknowable).
There is no Don apart from the notion. Don (existence) is phenomena. Our experience of it is what you call the "notion of Don". Remove the notion, and there is no experienced phenomena. There is no "Don".

this is what the OP was saying also. Again, it is surprising he found so much disagreement. However I would point out that the argument has the same problems as the OP. Namely that lack of detection does not mean lack of consequence.

For we humans, perception/conception is experience. Whatever else there may or may not be, and however it may or may not exist, is beyond our ken.
It's ALL real, or it's oblivion.

The last statement does not follow from the previous ones.

 

[PureX]

That you can distinguish the idea vs the phenomena is enough evidence to illustrate you can see two separate existences.

But it's how we choose to distinguish perceived phenomena that is at issue. We can choose to separate a tree from the forest, a hill from a valley, but they are still all one phenomena. All our distinguishing them means is that we are ignoring the whole in favor of the part.

That we can also blur the lines between boundaries only serves to intentionally misunderstand the point made.

To make the counterpoint.

But that does not serve as the grounds to deny that the complex phenomena of Don doesn't exist apart from the notions of Don.

But ultimately, existence is one holistic phenomena that includes our notions of it, accurate or inaccurate. "Don" is both the phenomena apart from our notions and the phenomena of our varied individual notions. It's ALL "Don", though no one has a view of the whole. Not even Don himself.

I would point out that the argument has the same problems as the OP. Namely that lack of detection does not mean lack of consequence.

Consequence is, itself, a notion. So, no awareness/detection means no notion of consequence. You're proposing a consequence and therefor an existence that we cannot know to exist. What exists, is what exists, to us. Beyond that is oblivion. We can choose to believe that phenomena exists in that oblivion, but we have no knowledge or proof of it, and we never will have.

Just as with "God".

 

[Curious George]

But it's how we choose to distinguish perceived phenomena that is at issue. We can choose to separate a tree from the forest, a hill from a valley, but they are still all one phenomena. All our distinguishing them means is that we are ignoring the whole in favor of the part.

We are not ignoring the whole. As with you forest and the trees metaphor. The tree is still a whole tree. Differentiating a complete system in order to focus on that system is not a categorical error. If we are discussing a tree we need not focus on the forest. Hence why i explained your point is intentionally misunderstanding the point.

To make the counterpoint.

The "counterpoint" is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

But ultimately, existence is one holistic phenomena that includes our notions of it, accurate or inaccurate. "Don" is both the phenomena apart from our notions and the phenomena of our varied individual notions. It's ALL "Don", though no one has a view of the whole. Not even Don himself.
Consequence is, itself, a notion. So, no awareness/detection means no notion of consequence. You're proposing a consequence and therefor an existence that we cannot know to exist. What exists, is what exists, to us. Beyond that is oblivion. We can choose to believe that phenomena exists in that oblivion, but we have no knowledge or proof of it, and we never will have.

Just as with "God".

Unlike Don. Gods are not a "phenomenon apart from our notions." Hence I believe no god exists. When i say this i am not talking about notions of god, I am talking about gods "apart from our notions."

 

[PureX]

Gods are not a "phenomenon apart from our notions." Hence I believe no god exists. When i say this i am not talking about notions of god, I am talking about gods "apart from our notions."

It's ALL notion, or it's oblivion. There is nothing apart from our notions but oblivion. Whatever phenomena may or may not exist in the realm of oblivion is impossible for us to comprehend.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"God" could be a semi-mindless amoeba that goes about crapping out universes.

Bahahahahaha! That amused me.
Although the number of wars fought in the amoeba's name would be a little depressing.

Quick question...do amoebas get constipated, and if so, what is the impact on the fabric of reality?