Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[Quintessence]

You made a statement in post 52

Eh, quite frankly, the whole concept of "real" is a contrived, human construct. I did away with it a very long time ago and replaced it with something more useful.​

I replied to that in post 56

What is more useful than real?​

You replied in post 103 in an attempt to move the goalposts. Thats what it has to do with real.

*sigh*

To clarify my intentions in this conversation, there are no "goalposts" when one's goal is not to "win" some sort of argument. I'm expressing myself, and that's all; any "goalposts" set were yours, not mine. If you don't like the perspective, you can leave it. I really don't care. At this point it's apparent you're not interested in understanding a perspective and instead just interested in arguing. I'm not interested in arguing, so... we're done here I guess.

 

[Mindmaster]

But it DOES put god(s) in the same category of credibility as bigfoot and unicorns.

The inability to perceive something doesn't mean it's not there, it's just you're unable to figure it out. Many religions don't have the idea that God is part of the creation but rather exists outside it or through it to some extent. (Like mine, lol.) Your simple argument might work versus more conventional religions where the divine is anthropomorphized. In mine, the "differences" are fake, as in the differences between the creation, created, and creator. From that perspective, you're just riding around in a vehicle and reality is just a fancy video game. You're part of the Brahman (the life force/god) experiencing itself through the Atman. (soul) There is no real difference between the two conceptually in Advaita, but it is convenient to understand that the apparent separation in this context is only a delusion. So, of course, if we're working logically how do you disprove that? It's the type of thing that isn't able to be answered outside of the context of one's own awareness.

But, you sort of lost the point of my conversation on manifestations versus truth. To simplify, just because you see something doesn't mean that's what it is. If you analyze the properties of something physically first you see its dimensions and form, keep measuring you find molecules, and then atoms, and then sub-atomic particles, and then things get even smaller most likely... But, what will eventually happen is you'll figure out that they're made of nothing. It'll happen, just give it time. Both religion and science will probably end up at the same destination, given enough time.

 

[Nakosis]

You can't see love, you can't hear it, you can't touch it, taste it, or smell it, therefore it doesn't exist for atheists. So, therefore, all atheists are psychopaths.

Logic.

You can feel love. You left out feel. Feelings are an electrochemical process of the brain. So we don't need a supernatural or non-material explanation for feelings. Feelings exist as a physical process. We can learn how to initialize these feelings. Listening to music. Thinking about happy events. Watching a sad movie. Emotions are a physical process. We have a cause and effect understanding of them.

Love is a physical process that is internal to the brain. For us to feel love, nothing external to that process need exist.

 

[Nakosis]

Eh, quite frankly, the whole concept of "real" is a contrived, human construct. I did away with it a very long time ago and replaced it with something more useful.

I usually use "real" to denote something that is actual vs imagined. IOW if I say something is real, it means it is not something I've consciously imagined. Seems a useful word to differentiate the two.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem ultimately is science can test the truth of everything, but itself. Ergo, it has an obvious failing in regard to being considered the source of the _absolute_ truth. It's perhaps content to say that science provides a relative truth (within the limits of our understanding), but there is always a gap (and probably always will be). However, if the truths it provides are relative then we simply are chasing a thread like a cat here. We must realize whatever we think we know it's all subject to change. If it were providing absolute truth then, of course, that wouldn't be possible.

That notwithstanding, materialistic observations are largely useless for proving the existence and non-existence of things. For example, you cannot detect thoughts and you presume gravity is there but we actually see nothing but secondary manifestations. No one here would deny either would exist and herein lies some of the dilemmas. It's a minor step from that to being able to scientifically explain religion, but it sees the manifestation and has no means to measure the cause.

What manifestation?

If something manifests it can be measured. We determine the existence of a thing by its effect on other things. If it has an actual effect, that effect can be measured.

For something that has no effect on anything, there is no reason to have any concern about it. Hard to imagine a thing that has no effect on anything else.

 

[Super Universe]

You can feel love. You left out feel. Feelings are an electrochemical process of the brain. So we don't need a supernatural or non-material explanation for feelings. Feelings exist as a physical process. We can learn how to initialize these feelings. Listening to music. Thinking about happy events. Watching a sad movie. Emotions are a physical process. We have a cause and effect understanding of them.

Love is a physical process that is internal to the brain. For us to feel love, nothing external to that process need exist.

I didn't leave out feel, the video left out feel. You blame me but the video logic was that since you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell God that He doesn't exist. I used the exact same logic to explain that you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell love either.

Now you've decided to add another sense, that's fine, but some people say they can feel God.

Feelings exist as a physical process? No, they don't. If that was true then ascended beings and angels would not have feelings. I could explain it to you, how it really works, but I won't because it would be a waste of my time. You don't want truth, you want truth according to you.

You're stuck inside a box trying to figure out what's outside the box using only what you can sense from the box.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What manifestation?

If something manifests it can be measured. We determine the existence of a thing by its effect on other things. If it has an actual effect, that effect can be measured.

For something that has no effect on anything, there is no reason to have any concern about it. Hard to imagine a thing that has no effect on anything else.

No, this no can't be measured using science yet it is real, because I have shown something which can't be measured. Let me show you something which can't be measured. This sentence - "only that, which can be measured by science, is real" - can't be measured by science, because it doesn't apply to any scientific measurement standards.
That is the limit of science. That science is real, is not real, because you can't measure that. Science is a limited belief system, that works on a limited part of the world.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[ChristineM]

That definition is nothing but playing with words. You believe in the magic of words. If you say something, it is so, because you say so.
Here is the definition of ChristineM - doesn't exist. It says so, so therefore it is so. You have to learn to understand this: To believe in a world independent of you, requires that you exist, so reality can't exist without you. Your very idea requires you to exist, so it amounts to an absurdity.

That is the general definition, you dont like it is not my problem.

As for the rest of your irrelevant nonsense, irrelevant to reality

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes it does exist. It can be observed and measured on an mri
And people who say otherwise could possibly be psychopaths

Then I know a lot of neuroscientists who are by your definition psychopaths.
Firstly, MRI is a structural imaging methodology. Second, in fMRI studies or functional imaging more generally, one works with neural correlates of abstractions one hopes to measure such as love. This means that in order to associate neural activity in specific brain regions with something like love, one has to essentially ask the individual if they've been in or are in love. In other words, if we don't know from the person that they are or have experienced love, then brain imaging is useless.
I should point out that this is not true in general of all neuroimaging experimental paradigms, even in cognitive neuroscience. But they answer different types of questions.

All you see on an MRI is the electronic signature of brain activity.

MRI uses primarily hydrogen-based spectroscopy via quantum mechanical spin. Functional MRI uses mostly the hydrogen in your blood via BOLD contrast. EEG, ERP, and other technologies use electronic measures of brain activity, not MRI or fMRI.

 

[ChristineM]

You still don't seem to grasp the irrelevance of this. EVERYTHING, including the idea of reality vs unreality itself is generated by electrical and chemical interactions in the brain that can be measured and monitored.

So what?

This has no bearing on the question of the 'reality of God'. Or on the 'reality' of anything else.

You don't seem to grasp the basic understanding that the brain is an elecro chemical device that produces signals that can be measured.


Try hitting a brick wall and see how real it is.

 

[ChristineM]

*sigh*

To clarify my intentions in this conversation, there are no "goalposts" when one's goal is not to "win" some sort of argument. I'm expressing myself, and that's all; any "goalposts" set were yours, not mine. If you don't like the perspective, you can leave it. I really don't care. At this point it's apparent you're not interested in understanding a perspective and instead just interested in arguing. I'm not interested in arguing, so... we're done here I guess.

Then why make a statement to cannot justify?

 

[ChristineM]

Then I know a lot of neuroscientists who are by your definition psychopaths.
Firstly, MRI is a structural imaging methodology. Second, in fMRI studies or functional imaging more generally, one works with neural correlates of abstractions one hopes to measure such as love. This means that in order to associate neural activity in specific brain regions with something like love, one has to essentially ask the individual if they've been in or are in love. In other words, if we don't know from the person that they are or have experienced love, then brain imaging is useless.
I should point out that this is not true in general of all neuroimaging experimental paradigms, even in cognitive neuroscience. But they answer different types of questions.


MRI uses primarily hydrogen-based spectroscopy via quantum mechanical spin. Functional MRI uses mostly the hydrogen in your blood via BOLD contrast. EEG, ERP, and other technologies use electronic measures of brain activity, not MRI or fMRI.

I know what an mri does, but thanks for the input.

You know a lot of neuroscientists? Interesting

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What exists can be measured.

Agazzi, E., & Pauri, M. (Eds.). (2000). The Reality of the Unobservable. Observability, Unobservability and Their Impact on the Issue of Scientific Realism (Vol. 215). Springer Science & Business Media.
A place to start. I can provide you with copies of any of the papers in the above volume if you wish.
In general, much that can be measured doesn't exist and much that exists can't be measured.
To see this quite simply and simplistically, consider gravity, which is readily and easily understood in terms of an attractive force we know doesn't exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You know a lot of neuroscientists? Interesting

My start in physics was in brain imaging from quantum mechanical signals in neuroscience.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Start by learning the difference between evidence and proof.

Proof is for mathematics. Evidence is what we deal with in the sciences (and elsewhere, of course).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is the general definition, you dont like it is not my problem.

As for the rest of your irrelevant nonsense, irrelevant to reality

Here is a definition of God. God is the source of reality. Now that doesn't mean that it is correct, with evidence or proven. That is the same with your definition. It simply states how some words are used. Just like the definition I gave of God. So you have not shown that the definition you use is correct, with evidence or proof. You have just dogmatically claimed that that is how reality is, because you use the word "reality" in this manner. But the word "reality" and its definition is not reality as such. If that was the case then words would be magical and you wouldn't, exist because ChristineM means non-existence.

In effect you have made a believer argument. A lot of people believe in the reality I believe in, therefore reality exists so. Now compare with this. A lot of people believe in the God, I believe in, therefore God exists so.
That is the quality of your argument. You in effect treat words like being magical.
If the definition of a words is so, then it is so, because that is the definition and that makes it so.

Now there is more. You have proven and given evidence to the fact and reality, that my writing is irrelevant nonsense. Now either that is a part of reality or irrelevant nonsense is real, yet not a part of reality.
So ChristineM, how is irrelevant nonsense real? You treat it as real? So how do you know, that it is irrelevant nonsense? What is your evidence?
Well, I will answer for you. It is based on, how you think. That there is irrelevant nonsense wouldn't be the case without humans and yet you treat it as being a part of reality, because you only speak of reality and it is independent of humans, yet irrelevant nonsense is not independent of humans.
That is the problem with your worldview. You treat parts of it as real, yet it is not real according to how you claim, that reality is.
Irrelevant nonsense is not real, yet you treat it as real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Proof is for mathematics. Evidence is what we deal with in the sciences (and elsewhere, of course).

Tell that to ChristineM. I know it. She doesn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't seem to grasp the basic understanding that the brain is an elecro chemical device that produces signals that can be measured.


Try hitting a brick wall and see how real it is.

Try throwing the word "real" against a brick wall and then tell us, how real the word "real" is. You are doing first person subjectivity. You believe in a word "real", which is not real according to your own test.
Try again.

 

[`mud]

Like talking to a mirror !
Minus the steam !

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So Google it is. Materialism is "PHILOSOPHY - the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."

The I am not a materialist. In fact, under that definition, I actually don't know of anybody who is.
I am a materialist in the sense that "matter / the physical is all that seems to or can be shown to exist".
As in: there is no reason to believe that there is an "immaterial" aspect to the universe (or humans or whatever) at this point. Because zero evidence supports it.

You are doing bad philosophy and you don't even know it.

Google as for reality - "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

The problem is that this idea of yours, that reality is independent of humans, is not independent of you, because you believe in it. So there is a part of reality, which is not independent of you, but that is not possible, because reality is independent of you. That is how stupid your belief system is.

The only thing I recognise here as being "stupid", is how you think this in any way is a reply relevant to the point you are quoting...........

You say something which is illogical and amounts to a contradiction. You say, that which is not you, is real, but that requires that you are real and can say it. That is the contradiction.

I don't see how you concluded that that is what she said.