The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

No.

Yes.

If a god or gods exist in any fashion, then they already do.
If they already do, then they are already accounted for in the system of the universe and my acceptance or lack of acceptance of their presence makes no difference to their impact on reality.
And if by some far stretched chance my disbelief or belief does matter on such a grand scale for their account of existence, then my state of disbelief is already accounted for in the system as it stands and poises with no direct need of change.

86%+ of the world’s population (~6.02 Billion, OK; probably more around 5 to 5.5 Billion once we remove non-theist forms of Buddhism) already believe gods exist in some fashion.
If the gods do exist, then you showing a logical conclusion of how they could exist won’t have any variance on that statistical effect and impact that is already present.

I’m not delusional.
I don’t expect anything I do to fit everyone.
Hell, I don’t want it to.
All it will be attempting to do is reduce the rigidity of form so that the modules are more adaptable to each person as they want them for their body and mind’s fitting, if they so want to use a given module.

I would think you are wrong there, as so long as something exists it impacts everything. For if it impacts anything that thing impacts something that impacts something that impacts eventually you and all other things.

That would seem only to be the case so long as you thought it would only matter that you always believed, i tend to think that in most these things what is important is that you believe at a point before one is simply made to know.( in fact I tend to think making kids know is very wrong…) And while I can see how simply believing doesn’t seem to be relevant, it might be in so far as in understanding it makes it easier to do things that are right though they may seem not fun, eventually to the extent that they begin to seem fun simply in that they are right. Of course what others think are right most often seem illogical to others.

There would be variance, but i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to the whole, but I believe every little bit counts.

I didn’t intend to imply I thought you were delusional, though I see that you may not be implying that you thought I did. :smiley:

I think in summation, this is apt.

Except, I would change that to:
“i think what you mean is that the effect would be insignificant relative to you

Let’s say that you could prove gods exist to me.
Now, then you would have to prove that I should care that they exist.

Let me put it another way.
M-Theory proposes that there is an 11th dimension.
If you could prove to me that the 11th dimension exists, then you would also have to prove to me how that matters to me since I don’t interact with the 11th dimension in any way directly or indirectly in which my belief in it existing will grant me any added leverage for the control that I personally have over reality.

Well the first thing i would suggest is subsiding the Idea of “proof” in the sense of there being something that is 100% probable.
There is always the possibility that something, or someone is wrong about something no matter what it is.
Even though math deals with 100% possibilities it does so hypothetically through hypothetical situations.

We arrive at most things, including math, by logic:

“In order to prove the overall validity of logic one must use logic, and such a method, of proving a thing by assumption of that thing, is shown to be a fallacy by logic.” Quoting my self from elsewhere.

But that can be a minor thing…And I’m not sure that you would disagree.
But I would suggest that it would not be a matter of “proving” God exists or that God matters but of showing you that it is highly likely that he does and that it would/should matter to you.

This is a very hard thing to do.
I might start with this:

What does end mean, to you?
And what have you witnessed ending?

Start with the end. :smiley:

A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.

It would be a far shorter list to cite what I haven’t witnessed ending.
That would be pretty easy; not one thing.

I don’t know, however, what you specifically mean by the word “end”.
There are roughly 15 to 20 different meanings of that word.

It is good that you don’t allow yourself to prescribe to simply one definition of a thing…

i should have said based on your definition what have you witnessed ending?

“A boundary marker defining the limit of a thing in some manner; either physically or conceptually.”
How do you know what the limit of a thing is?

Then again, it would be easier to ask the opposite question of what I have NOT witnessed ending: Not one thing .

That depends on which kind of end is being described and what condition a thing is in.
For instance, I know the end of a ball because it has a skin that is visible as the properties of being a ball and to which can be observed in interacting with other things by the limitation of that skin which defines its shape.

Or, I can know the end of my meal because the plate is now empty and my belly is full; therefore indicating the properties identifiable as the end of the meal.

Ultimately what I am getting at is that it would seem to me that what most people think of as an end is not accurate. Things don’t cease to be all that they are, unless you define them to be something specifically finite. And it would seem then that when something ends it is more a matter of perceiving an alteration in the state of a thing such that it is no longer recognizable as what it was. Would you agree?

Yes, and no.
Yes, in the sense of matter and energy within a system. What you described is the physical truth of the matter.

No, in the sense of what counts as an identity of a thing to the human consciousness.
If I cut off my hand and burn it to ashes, I don’t say that my hand still exists.
Yes, it does according to physics, but effectively to the identification of function being my hand; it does not.

i believe that might be my point that the idea of ending is a matter of perception/consciousness, it only ends so long as it we/you don’t recognize what we/you thought of as it.
The hand when cut off may not be there by our recollection but all that it was continues to have an affect, the seeming absence of it would be a continuously altering aspect of our lives.
Rather it would seem what really ended was a particular state.
What I am getting at is that what typically happens is just a matter of change/alteration, end is just a type of alteration/change?
So what I might then ask is have you ever seen anything actually stop changing, rather than it just seem like it has?

No, that would be a physics impossibility.
If any single thing stopped changing, regardless how small, every law of physics would shatter to pieces and the universe would implode faster than observation could notice.

So would you think that the consciousness would stop changeing after death?

Consciousness is a state, not an object.
It is like asking me if running would stop after the race, or if the engine would stop after the car was shut off.

It’s not like asking me if my legs would still exist after the race, or if the engine would still exist after the car was shut off.

No, it is like asking me if the current still exists in the circuit after power has been removed from the battery and the circuit decays into being separated matter of another form.

Let me put it this way to elaborate further.
Water is a collection of water molecules.
When together, we have water.

If I take a cup of water and stir the water therein, then I can say that I have current.
If I take away the cup and let the water move to another basin, then there is still water with current.
If, however, I put the cup down and walk away, then the current will eventually cease over a long enough time.
Once it stops, it will rest.
Could I regenerate the current in that water?
Sure, that’s easy; I walk up and excite the water. It is a simple compound so that is not too difficult.
The more complex the compound, the more difficult such an event becomes.
But if I leave that water alone, it will evaporate.
The hydrogen will begin to separate from the oxygen slowly.
Essentially, the water will begin its version of decay.
Eventually I will be left with an empty cup.
The current was first to stop, then the water separated its bonds and departed.
If I wait long enough, the cup will also decay, separating its bonds.

Once the water separated its bonds and hydrogen and oxygen left in separate motives, it is no longer water.
The atoms still exist that existed in that cup of water, but they do not exist in their arrangement that made them the water, nor do they exist in proximity to each other in their respective and individual forms they have taken in leaving the unity of being water.
Instead, they have atomically left to join and bond with other atoms and create other compounds useful for other means that are not the body of water that they were a part of previously.

And in even this, the current that was present in the body of water hasn’t any relation at this point of existing at all.
It now only exists as a concept of what has taken place in the past but is no longer taking place.
That specific arrangement of atoms moving in that specific manner in which they could; that current; it is no more and never will be.

If the hydrogen atom is separated from the oxygen atom it is by our perception that they are separate. one might could think that even after death of this state, that even after seeming separation to our current state, that after say death, one’s consciousness continues regardless of separation…But I wouldn’t think of it that way.

But I might ask if time is to continue endlessly, wouldn’t it be inevitable that eventually, even maybe a relatively infinite distance away in time, that all those particles that make you would come back into form?

That does not occur.
Quantum entanglement does not take place in grand network design from regular networking’s of atomic mass on the macro level.

No.
Because even if you could get the probabilities to line up to allow for the exact 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 Octillion) atoms to bond once again (which you really can’t because what would be needed is for the parents’ atomic structure to rejoin so that the birth of those atoms in their origin of starting atomic mass could be accomplished to arrange in the same fashion as before, which would require their parents to be rebonded, and their parents, and their parents, and their parents, and well…all the way back to the beginning), you would not get the same interactions and behaviors of the atoms each in the same fashion that occurred in existence before; and that is because you would be absent the rest of every other person and their 7 Octillion atoms being in existence along with that far, far, beyond miraculously rejoined 7 Octillion atom person.

So the only way possible would be to repeat ALL of existence in full twice.

You mean no perceptible “entanglement”.

So it is possible, I would think that if it is possible and time is endless that it is bound to happen.
And also your thinking that in order for the same thing to occur the same situation must cause it, that may not be the case.
one might say that if the All thought-by-complexity idea i had was correct that it would require only an alteration in thought to do such…

No, I mean that’s not how quantum entanglement works.
It takes some pretty extreme conditions for even two atoms to entangle, let alone a preserved network of a few octillion.
And by extreme, I mean that where they first popped up was in reference to black holes in Hawkins radiation.

If we say that unicorns that skateboard on hind legs while dancing in a hula hoop might possibly exist but just hasn’t been observed in our perception, then we would be closer to possible than by stating that a few octillion atoms may be quantum entangled in a networked manner together and that we have just not noticed it yet.

No, it’s not possible.
It was a hyperbolic statement of ridiculousness.
There is no standard observed in natural existence by which anything has ever shown even the farthest of remote capacities of reoccurring exactly the same twice sub-atomically.

Yeah, and the unicorn might do a double backflip.

While i agree with you about unicorns not existing, i would think it is inevitable that something we think doesn’t exist is going to be shown to exist…

But recognizing your irritation i think it might be best to desist.
Likewise it seems that you rely on the idea that things can be “proven” by empirical data even though as i think I said:
“In order to prove the overall validity of logic one must use logic, and such a method, of proving a thing by assumption of that thing, is shown to be a fallacy by logic.”
And it would seem that if logic is not 100% certain that neither can it be certain that empirical data is or always will be most accurate.

But I thought I might point out that Hawking radiation is actually a form of light…as such black holes might be more appropriately named dim holes, but understandably black holes in that they don’t emit visible light.

Firstly, don’t take me to be irritated. I’m not.

How can you agree with me on the unicorn and turn around and then say that it is inevitable that something we think doesn’t exist is going to be shown to exist?

Prapple jack lapper jocks in yonder par dancing fullaboons don’t exist.
Just because I conceived of them should have no indication that one day they will inevitably exist.

I’m not requiring empirical proof.
I do require relatable tangent of plausibility from what is understandable and relatable.
If you could but show one thing that works remotely similar in analogy, that would be fine.
To my knowledge, there is not even one thing that works by any merit that you’ve described as being needed to accomplish your proposition.

When we have to create and invent a mass array of estranged tangents to allow for a simple concept to be even the slightest bit possible, then it is quite fair to logically conclude that it is therefore simply not the case.

And the conditions that you are asking me to permit are far beyond the range of estranged tangents.

It hasn’t anything to do with empirical.
It has to do with plausible.

There’s a bunch of poorly named objects in science.
“Big Bang” is another terribly named concept.

That all said, let me just grant the existence of an ALL and a 7 octillion atomic quantum entanglement for 106 trillion humans and counting, and a repeating timeline of exact atomic levels, or the same byproduct accomplished by two non-identical yet somehow identical atomic universes and timelines.

Why should I believe in this?

Lol, Just to say that to me in particular it seems to be less probable than some of the things we think aren’t true.

But it would seem you have arrived at what works or not, and an idea of what is tangible, by primary reliance on empirical data.
As such it doesn’t seem evident to me that anything i might suggest would seem tangible to you.
Just an aside though, if God is the everything in terms of tangibility you would always be touching it.

I would think for the same reason you think it is worth believe in anything.

Perhaps I should be asking you a question like this: Why is it that there must be space between two things in order for a thing to pass?(in other words water doesn’t leave a container without a hole.) It seems illogical to work any other way as we are used to this way, but why was it not such that things were such as to logically work otherwise?