The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

If you really believe this, then I’m not sure why you bother listening to any one or talking to anyone, because you could reduce every conversation into uncertainty, and you could permit yourself to believe anything because any given thing may have at least one billionth of a possibility.

Do you question whether you actually exist?

The relationship of love between people is not accountable.
We can account for the emotion and even measure it, but we cannot empirically account for the relationship of love itself.

That is the simplest example.
Human behavior is full of relationships with their own selves, others, and objects in manners not capable of being quantified by the empirical form.

Another example of such; faith.
Faith exists, but the faith in a thing is not able to be quantified empirically.
Wall Street tries every day and they can never get the values correct so the values keep changing as fickle and wild as human faiths move in their investment of money.
We could better predict storms, which is one of the harder empirical macro events to predict, than accurately predict human faiths.

Again I must ask…do you believe that you exist?

You conveniently mitigate everywhere, but your mitigation offers nothing. They are empty and implausible.
Basically, your only common theme seems to be to say that anything is possible.

Yes, anything is possible.
Like a fly getting hit 3 times by lightening and surviving is possible.
But the stretches by which they are probable?

Do you try to shoot the moon with a pellet gun?

OK, then the point wasn’t really worth making if we can’t make any differentiation between a god and underwear.

You have problems with it; that is clear.
I think you need some time to get over this stage of your experience.
Everyone goes through the questioning age of their foundations, but hopefully you’ll see at some point that always bringing up the 100% concept is really not useful to anything unto yourself.

We don’t need 100%.
We need better than beyond imaginably improbable.
Do you know what the probability of 7.4 duodecillion atoms quantum entangling is?

Again, you have a moon set pellet gun.

Why would things not be permitted to pass through concentrated bonds of complex atomic compounds?
Do you need that explained on the macro level really?
And honestly, not everything works that way; but in the case of the cup, do you really need atomic compound electron fields explained?
Your question more boils down to asking why atoms work in the manner in which they do.

And even if I did answer that for you, you would ask me why the constituents of that answer work in the manner in which they do, and then the same of that answers constituents, and that answers constituents.

You are losing my faith because you have invested no reasonable logic in your faith placing.
You simply mitigate out of uncertainty, even if the uncertainty is ridiculously small, and allow the smallest of possibilities to be in play in your logic instead.

Essentially, I see you simply doing nothing more than flipping the standard approach to logic from probability on its head so that the more improbable a thing is the more likely it is that you will be backing it and the more probable a thing is the more likely you will be to refute it.
Neat.
And?

Spiritually I work with what produces pragmatic results to my person directly and offers a psychological control over a neurological condition or state for a positive gain of satisfaction.

Ultimately though what this really comes down is not what you suggest here. It comes down to everything being indeterminate. But if everything is indeterminate it is also indeterminate that things are indeterminate, and as such one simply resorts to both recognizing that everything is or could be indeterminate, but that thinking things aren’t or at least to some degree probable may be good as well. So instead of deciding to believe in a specific way, one begins to believe in all ways. using all methods…that one knows of at least…and thus forms an interesting state of…unity I guess one would call it.

Yes.

Thinking about it now I’m not sure why i asked that question unless I thought to be rather asking why you would believe in the capacity for anything to be empirically proven…But anyways I would think that depends on the person as to whether one thinks that. Some think emotion can be quantified, and the same with love, those who equate them to merely the bodily reactions…But I would agree only in that i think nothing can really be quantified in any perfect sense, it can be adjudged to likely be of a given nature or quality, and that might be all. Although i wouldn’t go so far as to say these things are undefinable, or anything, one can arrive at what is likely by assumption of things being of variant likely hoods.

I might say I think it is possible that it is possible that I exist…I’m not 100% certain though, or of any discernible numerical value of certain other than less than 100% or more than 0%…so it would seem.
I’m probably not completely sure of anything, including this.

I would hope it might at least aid some into seeing that because everything is possible(greater than 0% probable) then at least everything is less than 100% probable. And thus to aid against the limitation of thinking any particular thing cannot be wrong, and thus to prevent avoidance of listening.( although i would think you are quite the listener, even with respect to what is beyond merely the words). But I hope you don’t mean to really think that all I have done is simply offer-less mitigation in all topics, i can understand how you might relate that to this particular topic or at least where it has lead?

If one were to be far-sighted enough they could see how a particular small action might lead to a greater result later, and do more by doing less. not meaning that last bit in the verbal contradictory way, but to say that one can do greater things with respect to the consideration of more time, than what is normally done when one does something big to alter things within a short period of time. I’m not so concerned with what i will see but what I might lend to after my seeing ends. In other words I love my children, their children, their children, their children, their children, their children…And really all things. And as such I do what seems small to lead to particular things much later.

i have a tendency to think much of human differentiation is a matter of perception. We have ideas of things like opposites but all opposites are similar things of a lesser degree of similarity than those things we consider as being of a higher degree of similarity, due to the way we associate things, and in other words perception. I.E. The most opposite things you can think of are still the same in that they are both opposites.

Why stop questioning things, even foundations? I would seem to presume less and less, if anything at all, and as such listen to all things.

The question itself indicates it is most likely unlikely.

The point of the question is to indicate that everything boils down to an unknown. That while we might think certain things answer things, how can we be certain of those answers if we don’t know why everything works the way it does work. Or if it is impossible to work another way, why is it impossible to not work another way, why can’t it just some how be logical for it to work in this other way regardless of contradictions…

it would seem I don’t normally go that far, part of the point in doing such would be to show that the why’s are endless, nothing is completely explained, and thus at some point we just have to accept a particular thing if we want to believe in it, regardless of really knowing why anything ultimately works. We have to just accept some why, without knowing why to that, if we want to think something is absolutely certain. Different people accept different things at a different points along the stream of whys only so that they can be absolutely certain. And I suggest not giving up but rather continuing and learning more. So really I don’t simply continue asking why to show these things, I also simply want to learn as much as i can, I mean even if it is seem-ably an in-answerable why, that can lend to teaching but also lead to conversations like this where I learn things.

it would seem that if i had no reasonable logic, and was using no reasonable logic that i wouldn’t be able to communicate with you at all. And ultimately I use logic quite abundantly when I consider having faith in something. For example with the unicorn, i did not say I have Faith that it exists. But rather that I recognized it being possible. Such is different. 9 for example a unicorn could really exist on some other planet or maybe even another dimension if such exists…)

A reasonable assumption. But by no means my intention. i don’t think everything i have said was of low probability, some might have been but it would seem to be a logical fallacy to think all that I assert is as such. Rather it might be that what I am suggesting seems unlikely to you, where as it seems likely to me. But mostly i am simply indicating that things might be probable I don’t think I am typically asserting any particular likely hood to most things.

Again…neat.
That didn’t say much except what, at this point, I’m well aware is a favorite topic of yours: that anything is possible to some degree thereby removing absolute certainty.

Yep, I don’t care.

Now, back to the topic.
The topic wasn’t about how everything has a probability of some kind.

The topic was rather the existence of a god.

The proposal which you eventually outlined for consideration of an ALL and how such could seemingly work is quite unlikely.
Possible?
Sure.
But not likely much at all.

Now the whole point of the start of this conversation was, “I mean it would amount to me trying to convince you that God exists…”

Not to show that gods might exist, possibly, in a really small but still present probability.

The outline that was presented just isn’t likely.
Now, keep in mind, personally…I don’t even really care how likely gods are. I’m just telling you that your proposition doesn’t come out as likely.

The point of me pointing out the lack of certainty of things is to suggest that it is, highly likely to me at least, that when we try to seek answers through all these various means they don’t lead to much and that ultimately God is really the best answer( it is by no means that simple there are many things that came together for the thought to become seemingly evident), unless you somehow assume that things “just are the way they are, Just because”
But then at this point, it would seem that of course that wouldn’t be your deduction and i have no way of lending to that idea further without giving examples of experiences in my life that lead to further-than-that recognition that God must exist, and of course it would seem that you either won’t believe my accounts, or you will chock it up to a misinterpretation of what was actually going down, because you have a specific belief as to how things work otherwise.

i don’t mean to insult you it just seems to be what will happen…

You didn’t insult me.
I’m not hesitent to continue, I’m rerouting to the topic at hand because we were too far off topic to a subtangent.
Now that the subtangent is well versed, let me address the point.

Why do you see God as the only likely option?

I typed about 1,113 words to summarize the experiences in my life that lead to my understandings and further acceptance of the idea but i figure it is best to start simply:

I don’t see a better answer.
What are the other alternatives that you might suggest?

No gods seems the most sensible to me.

why?

Why does no unicorns doing backflips on skateboards seem the most sensible?

Thats a rhetorical way of saying you don’t think it is logical…my question was why don’t you think it is logical, basically? or more specifically what particular thing stands out the most as being unreasonable with respect to God existing, any more than any other thing… I would imagine that you might say because there hasn’t been any hard evidence or you haven’t seen it. but have you seen a black hole? have you seen an electron…did you watch everything the scientists did to be sure they were correct and not erring? Why is anyone else suggestion of how things might be better than any others? Do you think one person’s suggestion is better simply because you were taught to think those are better? how does any evidence of anything “proven” show a lack of the possibility of God?

I could say that, but I don’t state that as the reason.

With blackholes, I actually disagree with many accounts of them.
With electrons, I also disagree with many accounts of them, but agree on the macro process.
Why?
Because I don’t just take their word for it.
I do read and investigate personally.

Hardly.
I think what accurately accounts for what is accounted without introducing more unaccounted variables into the solution as that which makes the most sense.

It doesn’t.
It just doesn’t show a possibility for gods either.

I hold the likelihood of gods right up there with string theory being correct.
Actually, that’s not entirely true.
I hold gods to be just a degree beyond string theory in regards to making sense.

Simple reason really…
What is the description of a god?
What do I look for?

Good too many people don’t

I think i have already pointed to what I would think to look for: How can there be anything greater than that which as a whole is the combination of all things… In which case if it is the everything all you have to do is look at anything to see it…or at least a part of it

Clearly the everything exists, if it is God that is harder to say and would really depend on if it is sentient or not…I proposed that it is most likely that it is…I don’t see why it would be less than 50% likely that it wasn’t, what would you think?

(I know this might seem a little repetitive but after this i think things will Diverge from the previous path…In otherwords i don’t plan on going into the whole things are uncertain thing…I’ll play more with certainty sort arguments)

So how would you propose we discern whether everything in existence is a holistic being with a consciousness?

I wouldn’t say it is easily assertable after recognition of coincidences that fall in line such as to be conducive to odd events…But that is hard for anyone to accept unless they just experience such…
But further i would think that probabilistically it is most likely that a thing thinks if it is of a whole that contains thought, and as a whole must be more complex thereby…as things which recognize themselves as thinking do make up at least a part of it.

but then i thought you already disagreed with this…

And how would we be able to determine if the entire universe has conscious thought unto itself?

What would that conscious thought look like?
What are we looking for as a sign of conscious thought in the universal being?

Wewll coincidences of sorts could be, but then I would say it is hard to determine such, unless say there is a relative frequency of the conincidneces to aid you or do something with regards to your life…Of course there would allways be an alternative explination as for anything it would seem…
I imagine thinking the thought had an appearance itself would be like asking what my thought “looks” like, as far as the physical mass itself, it might appear simply as galaxies and what not to us… that might seem slow for example to us, but relative to perhaps its recognition of the passing of time such would be different…Imagine what say the known universe would look like if it was speed up by 5,000,000,000 times or something, or maybe an infinite amount of time…or just consider all the interaction simply happening on the micro level, beyond our obvious perception of sight…

So there’s no means to verify the neural activity of a thing which is around us at all times.

OK, then what kind of behavior of the movement of the universe does this give us?
Does it predict the nature of how the universe enteracts in some manner, considering we are asserting a function to it that has an executive motive?

It would seem there is really no way of being sure anything thinks, rather than just being some sort of automation…

There would not be a means of arriving at definitive behavior of a thing which you yourself are a part of. in other words any calculation you did would be subject to alteration by that larger set, and thus of a uncertain probability.

It lends to the idea that by some alteration resultant of that thing we came into existence. and it would be imaginable that we came into existence well known if we are fully a part of that thing which has an infinite capacity of recognition. As such it would become evident that many events would have a reason and would be lending to something…although it would be hard to assert what those events were actually lending to…unless you then perhaps realized that they may not be lending to a particular finite result with regards to our perception of what will be but rather some thing beyond any capacity we had to recognize, or be sure of.(in other words we fart and think it smeels bad, it might see a fart and what it results in every living moment afterword, but might at the same time not simply recognize the event of the fart as all events relating to its coming of existence and passing and results…) But then you can begin to question why it is that such a thing might allow certain things to happen like say a religious text, or the idea of there being one God to pervade to the degree it has especially when it is somewhat evident that it could exist and have a hand in such. Which then lends to the idea that there may be some truth of sorts to the texts, and perhaps everything really in so far as having a purpose, and that there may be some level of care it has for us otherwise why would we be thinking of it. and ultimately you could assert that anything with such a capacity to be aware of all that it is and within would be capable of foreseeing all that happened and arranging that things happened in a manner that was best…

It’s rather simple to determine whether neurological function is taking place with executive command.
We do so daily.
I know, you’ll cite certainty again. I don’t care.
For all intents and purposes, we can successfully determine executive capacity in a functioning neural network.

Why should uncertainty stop us at this point versus any other since everything is uncertain to you anyway?
Accepting uncertainty in everything, by what process would we calculate?
What would we be accounting for?

That might help someone that is concerned with such questions.
But what does it offer someone that doesn’t have a problem with good or bad things happening, nor cares about divine purposes?

I would say that there is no way of being certain that neuroligical events, or having what seems to be a brain constitutes thought…but this is not so significant… the question might be why does something have to have what looks like our brains in order to think?

Consider looking at our brains from a perspective such that you perceived them as all the moving atomic structures; protons, neutrons, electrons, and maybe even deeper instances…would that seem vary different then perceiving such as all those galaxies and parts within the known universe on the typical macro scale…it surely would have a difference but this suggests that perception of the thing with respect to certain qualities is a larger decider with respect to recognition of what that thing may be…

There are means of asserting probable reactions of course…as is shown by science…but there isn’t exactly a guarantee that the pattern won’t be changed such as to alter the validity of any predictive behavior we might arrive at…As for now though it would seem the best thing is to open the mind…everything is effectively a coincidence it depends on how you look at it and how far you look back in order to assert the cause…which domino you blame in other words (in a possibly relatively endless stream of dominoes…relative to us at least…)(one person says it is because bob hit the glass with the bar, the other says the glass broke because bars have a high density and capacity to resist alteration of molecular consistency…or something like that) The thing I would look for is just when you personally recognize something as being coincidental, or having an odd number of correlations, the fact that something was recognized as a coincidence by yourself, is often the biggest sign. in other words looking in with respect to what is outside often helps.

Well the books if accurate representations as affected to be by the All…do suggest Heaven and Hell…which it would seem perfectly possible for any “Everything” to self alter such as to allow the existence of…
I would ask do you have the capacity to prevent your mode of thought from being altered such that you do care?
Be that in say a place like Hell, or even on earth…say if certain parts of the brain were altered…