My Theory On God

What if God made the universe in such a way as to appear Godless? I know it’s like saying he put fossils in the earth to confuse geologists, but yeah, it is a bit like that.

Everything in science can be explained - that’s true. Indeed, so-called “supernatural” experiences can always be explained scientifically. But what if these explinations are actually the portals God works through?

Example; you’re in a car wreck, and in the middle of life saving surgery you see Jesus and God in heaven. Yeah, it was because of an overload of endorphins, but that’s because the rush of endorphins was the very mechanism that allowed you to experience this meeting with God, even if it was via a hallucination?

Not only that, but think of science in general - it’s getting more theoratical and metaphysical. Quantum science is dreamland sci-fi, to anyone who knows anything about it. So what if God made the universe to appear God less, and what if the true meaning is to forever be without any evidence of God?

By what? Theology?

What if my ass was a gateway to hell, pretending to be an exit when it’s an entrance?

What if Santa were Stan trying to win our hearts using materialism?

What if black were white and white were black?

What if…?

Jesus, is there no end to the bullshit weaklings will submit to to save themselves from oblivion?

Your quality of mind exposes your identity.

A telltale sign of weakness is that it begins with a conclusion and then uses empiricism to pave the road there.
Why start with a God at all?

What if God made the universe in such a way as to appear Godless? Well, then it would seem like a test or experiment, possibly a game for God.

Finally an intelligent answer, thanks Murex. Satyr, get an open mind, would ya?

An extremely open mind is usually one full of rubbish.

What if intelligence was God’s way of marking the damned?
What if stupidity were His way of marking His own?

“The meek shall inherit…”

What if everything we wished were true, was actually true, but we had to earn it by discovering it behind the facade of a universe that doesn’t give a shit?
How wonderful would that be?

Have I offended you? All I am saying is that God made the universe to appear godless, and that he put humans here to see what happened. Occam’s Razor - all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. So, the reason the universe appears Godless is because God made it so, and we are here for one reason - to see what we can do.

Don’t worry Empty

Satyr is always harsh…

I think he’s a satanist or some other such “power” worshipper… From his perspective we are all at war with eachother to establish a dominance and progress the evolutionary process among humans… so naturally he thinks whomever disagrees with him is “weak”… pay no heed… he does not realize that the strongest trees are those that can bend the most

Some mr. miyagi wisdom for ya :sunglasses:

The above statement is so shameful that I respond to it with misgivings.

You offend humanity and rational thought. You are an embarrassment to the human race.

That’s the “simplest” explanation?
The simplest explanation is that the universe is as it appears and nothing more hides behind it, or lurks in its basement.
What basement?

I love how you know "God made it that way’, with no accompanying reasons or arguments. Just a simple statement of fact.

Maybe Vampires do exist and they live amongst us, hiding their true nature, like some kind of Illuminati.
Maybe the Illuminati are vampires.
It’s Occam’s Razor, again.

Vampires Do exist, - that’s a given that requires no complicated justifications or definitions - and they appear like they do not exist and are figments of our imagination because that’s how they intend it.
Simple.

Voila, I’ve proved an absurdity by remaining simple.

Let’s keep it even simpler.
Santa Clause exists and maintains a low profile so as to not ruin the magic of Christmas.

Mad Man P

God bless you…you made me laugh.

Hell, let’s see what else we can “prove” using this mutilation of thought:

Pretty much everything.

I cannot prove vampires exist because they intend to remain mysterious or unprovable. Fascinating mental acrobatics here.

Allah?
Same thing.

Big Foot?
Same thing.

Leprechauns?
Same.

Satyr

It’s not that I don’t agree with you…

It’s just that while I believe it would be productive to argue for your case and show any flaws there might be in another person’s arguments…
I find it counterproductive to bash the person you are arguing against… no matter how badly he is asking for it… If it’s soo horribly stupid that you do not even know where to begin… then don’t begin… you’re not acheiving anything…

P.S. I’m glad I could bring a smile to your face :smiley:

LOL That may be the case. If it were, the billions of raging God worshippers kinda mean he failed… abysmally!

Conversely, the universe exists in such a way as to appear “created” (by God). That we are here to ask such questions proves a much abused starting point or “proof” for many theists.

Satyr:

The simplest explanation is that reality is only certainly the subjective experience of a single conscious observer. That’s as simple, I think, that you can get.

(With the term “certainty” used here being David J. Chalmers’ “knowledge beyond skepticism”—the possession of an epistemic position [such as direct sensory experience] that allows an individual to rule out all skeptical counterpossibilities that deny that which an individual has perceived “with one’s own eyes”)

Given this, the universe appears as it appears due to the fact that our perception of the world is actually…(drum roll, please)… a virtual reality simulation of (some type of) world due to the fact of electrical activity within the neocortex (according to pertinent popular belief that the brain causes and determines the nature of conscious experience).

(One can beg the question of why a physical object such as the brain, shaped the way that it is with it’s particular appearance and chemical substrate,should be so lucky as to have the power----given the inability of every other object in the universe to possess the same power----to generate a virtual reality perception that is somehow believed to be a “facsimile” of the reality beyond the VR)

However, the virtual reality that is human perception is generic. We make attempts to explain the VR (and make individual choices to “settle down” in our convictions concerning the true nature of the VR) by creating formalisms and essentialisms to it.

We create essentialisms to the VR by calling the virtual reality “the real world” or “the physical world”. We explain the observation of “forces” (or David Hume’s “dynamic correlations between objects”) within the VR by calling these “physical forces”, and so on.

Therefore, with all due respect you can’t really know that “nothing more hides behind it (the virtual reality)”, or lurks in it’s ‘basement’."

Does this inability to know the true nature of the reality beyond our individual VR’s automatically imply that something must hide behind it? (God? Zeus? Satan? Quetzcoatl?)

Of course not.

It is not an a priori necessary that God must exist. Yet “evidence” for the existence of God is not necessarily nonexistent (as this insistence upon “nonexistent evidence for God” is itself only another essentialism that a person creates due to their conviction [with the conviction essentially caused—according to the pertinent belief—by electrical activity within a particular area of the cerebral cortex] of the "true"nature behind their VR perception).

Given this, one can argue that the evidence between the “no-God” and “yes-God” view is indistinguishable.

Following Chalmers and his logical defense of Type-E dualism (epiphenomenalism) within his online article: “Consciousness And It’s Place In Nature”—despite the fact that something does not turn up within our virtual reality perception of (a type of possible) world, it nevertheless cannot be ruled out by the “evidence” presented within the VR (due to the fact that it’s existence within the VR is indistinguishable from it’s nonexistence).

As such, skeptical assertions of the “absolutely not” are just as eyebrow-raising as absolute assertions of the “absolutely must”.

Just a friendly reminder,

Jay M. Brewer
blog.myspace.com/superchristianity
superchristianity.com

Yes, and yet we still seek to compare this subjective view with that of others because we know that objective reality doesn’t care about our interpretations and so we might face the ultimate price for our errors.

If in my subjective reality I can fly and I jump off a building, certain that I will safely float to the ground, the world doesn’t give a shit.
I still die splattered on the cement, my brainless head cracked because I made a mistake in judgment.

There is never a certainty, unless you suffer from the ubiquitous disease known as simplicity.

Dude, I think you’ve watched the Matrix far too much and you took it far too literally.
Movies, like all art forms use metaphors and similes and symbols.

This facsimile is the abstraction constructed by the mind using sensual stimuli.
This abstraction uses these stimulations - interprets them - to construct simplified models of experience trying to incorporate as many details within them - order them by finding patterns - as it is capable of doing. the simpler the mind the leas details it manages to compute and to incorporate within its models.
These abstractions/models are either in error or not in error, or varying degrees of each.
This determines its success.

This is why the simpleton constructs simplistic models and is convinced of the most childish arguments and it is why for the simpleton life and the world are mysterious and incomprehensible and they are always surprised by reality - either negatively (most often) or positively (less often).

The brain is a tool.
nothing more and nothing less.
The only way a brain turns on itself and becomes introspective, sometimes to the point of self-realization and nihilism, is when it is so successful as to require less effort to sustain itself and so it becomes bored or enjoys leisure.

You know I often come across individuals who try to use perspectivism or solipsism to defend the absurd or to escape the comparisons.

Truth is that the only reason everyone’s perspective is equally valid is because there’s a system shielding the mind from the dire consequences of an erroneous perspective.
Even a schizophrenic can live to a ripe old age because he will be protected against reality and an imbecile will be doubly defended against the indifference of the universe.

This eventually leads to decadence.

Mind /body differentiations are non-existent.

No I can never be certain.
But neither can I be certain that unicorns do not exist.
Projecting an unnecessary phenomenon where no evidence supporting its existence can be found is how even an idiot or a child can claim that anything is possible, including their God upon whom they have placed their needy hopes and expectations and use to placate their fears.

I want you in your punk-pop world view to create a VR where you can live forever.
Get back to me.

For someone proposing perspectivism you sure sound certain.

The biological mechanisms say nothing about God’s existence.

Given your position then in your reality nothing is impossible. This is a hypothesis based on ignorance.
I am unable to be certain, therefore I cannot exclude anything, therefore all is equally possible.
What a convenient way to remain delusional.

Maybe Middle Earth is a real place and Tolkien was writing his autobiography. It’s possible.

Wow, that’s extraordinary thinking, right there.
I love how the ‘prove a negative’ is used to equate all opinions and so it makes the selection of the opinions that satisfy our vanity all the more ‘logical’.

Fascinating.
I think you just proved every imagined world and creature man has ever conjured up.
Congratulations.

Huh?
I don’t know what you’ve been smoking but you are on your way to oblivion.

You mean ‘just a simplistic assertion by a simpleton’.

Satyr:

(1) You are correct in your first caveat: Objective reality doesn’t care about our subjective interpretations, but we also can’t know the nature of the objective reality–such that it might be completely different from the nature of sensory perception (or it may not).

I was not referring to the “subjective reality” of imagination: in the sense that one imagining and unwaveringly believing that one can fly ends in tragedy with the individual splattered on the cement.

The “subjective reality” to which I referred is our sensory perception itself.
Which is “nature’s VR simulation” of the “external world” (if it even exists)

(My use of the term “nature” rather than “God” above is a courtesy that I, a theist, extend given your atheistic viewpoint. Actually, my tongue is planted firmly in cheek [the symbolic upper cheek, mind you] when I use the term: “nature” in it’s popular implication of the absence of God)

(2) As to your second caveat, true, there is never a certainty qua certainty, save the certainty that we experience (that is,unless one is an idealist, who believes that experience is not experience and that we are not really experiencing…HUH???).

I was using Chalmer’s definition of “certainty”, or knowledge beyond skepticism…the situation when you are “certain” that you are wearing a black shirt, for example, while everyone else in the world is telling you your shirt is yellow (without their being able to look to see that your shirt is black).

(3) Your description of our sensory perception in terms of “abstractions” and “interpretations” is nothing more than another way of describing our virtual reality simulation of a world. That’s basically what our sensory perception is.

The Matrix movie is a symbol-laden fictional tale that takes incredible liberties with this simple observation of the nature of human experience. It’s pretty ground-level stuff.

As to the fallibility of the VR compared to “what might be out there”…you are correct, and it is a given.

(4) It is widely believed that the brain is the sole arbiter of consciousness, such that it is widely believed that electrical activity within a particular physical object-(possessing a particular shape, size, appearance, chemical composition, and electrical potential)—alone out of every other object in the universe formed by atoms, somehow possesses an inscrutable power to create subjective experience.

Concepts such as “logic”,“reason”, “common sense” and so on are what they are due to the fact that electrons flow through a particular physical object (the neocortex)—and these cognitive constructs are linked to sensory perception. Given this, our logic and reason can only rationally extend as far as what the VR “tells” us.

(5) Perspectivism and solipsism are sometimes used to defend the “absurd”, yet they are also good for pointing out the fallacy of those who unequivocally deny the logical and metaphysical possibility of certain things that are erroneously called “absurd”.

(6) The equal validity of everyone’s perspective is explicable to electrons flowing through a particular area of the cerebral cortex.

Here’s the thing:

Brains are really no different than cars in a used-car lot. Lots of cars. All working on the same basic principle. So despite differences in their outer appearance (some are Fords, some are Chevy’s), they all run the same way when they’re going down the road. Lots of brains. All similarly shaped, with similar structure and substructure, with similar chemical substrate.

Everyone possesses cerebrums, cerebellums, and spinal cords. which work together to give rise to similar perceptions. Doesn’t mean that the objective reality beyond this vast and almost innumerable consensus of similar VR’s must be a facsimile of the sum of the relevant VRs.

The nature of the objective reality of that supports the “system” (manifest by the consensus mentioned above) that shields the mind from “dire consequences of an erroneous perspective” is anyone’s guess. It could even be God.

(7) Mind/body differentiations are non-existent for both the Type-A materialist (one who believes that subjective consciousness does not exist, and all is physical) and the idealist (one who believes that all reality is mental).

(8) As for your statement: “Projecting an unnecessary phenomenon where no evidence supporting it’s existence can be found…”

Remember, our “evidence” of the world is a VR simulation of a (possible) world. It’s probably safe to rule out the existence of unicorns, as unicorns are what I call: “sensory wannabes”—imaginary concepts that, if they did exist, should show up on the doorstep of the skeptic to say: “Here I am!”—yet continually fail to do so.

Concepts such as God (depending upon one’s conception of God, say, a universe-controlling humanoid [male] conscious mind without a physical embodiment) cannot qualify as “sensory wannabes”, and as such our VR perception yields indistinguishable “evidence” concerning the existence or nonexistence of this conception of the Judeo-Christian God.

(9) Never said I could create a VR world where I live forever. I can’t rule out one coming to exist through the actions of God, however.

(10) I was only certain that God cannot necessarily exist (in an a priori sense), due to the fact that given my epistemic situation, it is logically coherent for me to make that statement of “certainty”.

(11) Biological mechanisms don’t actually “say nothing” of God’s existence, unless you habitually apply a certain mental essentialism to knowledge or conception of biology at work that, such that when one imagines biological cells “doing their thing”—this somehow causes an individual to conclude:

"Because cells look the way that they do, move the way that they move, and need the things that they need or else they will die…gosh!..you know what this means??.. why…this means that God does not exist! "

(12) I am not saying that nothing is impossible. I’m probably sure that there is impossible stuff, and as such I cannot include everything. My position is that…(drum roll, please)…

…the atheist position is ITSELF an argument from ignorance…

(gasp!)

That is to say, that in the same way that one could use perspectivism and solipsism to “include anything” such that all “is equally possible”, one can appeal to the perspectivism and “quasi-solipsism” (One is "quasi-solipsistic if one believes that one cannot prove the existence of an external, mind-independent objective physical reality yet believes that other minds exist) of the atheist—to note the inadequacies of the atheist’s [u]very powerful sense of “certainty” that God does not exist[u] based only upon the atheist’s convictions that arise only from his VR perception of reality.

(13) Last (but by no means least) By using David Chalmer’s defense of Type-E dualism, I did not “prove” every imagined world and creature man has ever conjured up…the use of Chalmer’s defense is an ample tool against atheistic assertions that—God “absolutely, undeniably, and unequivocally does not exist”…in the sense that the atheist’s own epistemic powers do not permit him (or her) to rationally make such a powerful assertion, given that the existence of God cannot be ruled out by the VR “evidence”.

Now this (I hope) functions as a true “friendly reminder”.

Jay M. Brewer
superchristianity.com

phenomenal_graffiti

What a clever way to avoid an absurdity.

Let’s see.
Okay, not a unicorn…a sprite or a Leprechaun. I say they exist in a beyond which man can never hope to understand nor prove nor perceive.
Let’s call it Never-Ever-Land.
Peter Pan’s there, as well.

Prove it wrong.
If you cannot then you are an ignorant denier of a probability - a closed mind.
Open your mind, brother, and accept Peter Pan into your heart.

In fact I dub thee an A-Never-Ever-Lander.
If you were taught the ‘correct’ epistemology of Never-Ever-Landedness by the ‘right’ authorities/teachers, you would know the ontological truth of this magical place.

You must have faith in the Never-Ever-Land or else it will never expose itself to you, an infidel denier and disbeliever.
I read it in a book. One day I will play there for eternity with Peter Pan, my savior, and with the unicorns and Leprechauns and elves.

Your assertion that Never-Ever-Land doesn’t exist is no different than my assertion that it does.

You mean that this Being, which exists by not existing you’ve conjured up out of thin air, has no physical manifestation, thusly avoiding that pesky empirical trap?
Nice epistemology.
Let’s call it fantasy epistemology based on books and not the senses, written by humans which are the ‘correct’ authorities’ preaching the ‘right’ epistemology of the ontology of an imagined Being that cannot be defined nor proven.

So you HAVE created a reality where you live forever.
Good for you.
Now all that remains is to live it.
Good luck.

No, it only means that they “…look the way that they do, move the way that they move, and need the things that they need or else they will die”.
No other meaning is added.
It is your kind that adds the extras.

Bravo sir!!! Bravo!!! =D> You’ve stumbled upon the leveling of man in ignorance.
This, obviously, means that since we all equally don’t know and we all have equal intellectual abilities, therefore any stupidity is actually possible because…well because we don’t know…equally.

Nicely played sir.
Let’s see have I ever come across such bullshit…Yes, many a time.

Incredible. You, sir, have made the ‘prove a negative’ crap into an art.

Let’s see…we are all equally ignorant, therefore Leprechauns could possibly exist because nobody can prove that they don’t.
you can’t prove them because they exist in another dimension and are magical. Magic, obviously, explains nature and existence.

Well, this unavoidably results in the conclusion that everything ever imagined exists until proven that it doesn’t.
Reverse reasoning.

We do not look upon the world seeking truth, we look upon it already knowing it and seeking evidence.
Bravo, sir!!!
You are the epitome of subjective thinknig and selective reasoning.
You are a symptom of the decline of man.

Yes, of course.
Let’s see the starting propositions.

Reality is a fake.
Proven and fact.
Therefore empiricism is debunked.
Nice.
We’ve gotten rid of one hurdle.

God exists, based on the very existence of this faked reality.
The illusion proves the absolute…somehow.
Evidence is not possible because He is a beyond existence existent and because He cannot be proven to not exist.
Nice.
The reversal of the burden.
We’ve gotten rid of another hurdle and we are on our way towards retardation.

Let’s see, we perceive no beginnings nor any ends nor any absolutes, and yet we still believe they exist.

What is ‘exit’? As far as I know to use the word ‘exist’ is to describe what exhibits a temporal signature and therefore a spatial potential - a phenomenon.

It is not necessary for a God to exist, and yet we still posit it as necessary but deny the necessity for God to have a creator.

We do not take into account human conflict of interest in this matter nor any psychological needs, but assume we are being rational when we project into what we admit we can neither prove nor know that which most benefits us. Into the unknown we project the ultimate known.
We know the beginning and the end, even though no evidence of either is available, but we just can’t fill in the in-between. So we resort to clever little mind-games and childish logic and voodoo rhetoric.

Indeed, it is a reminder of how weak human beings are.
We’re fucked.

This is an act, right?
Tell me you aren’t this…challenged.

Will you be expecting a follow up?
Have faith, it might happen.

superchristianity.com/files/sccompt1and2.pdf

I can’t tell whether it’s a serious nut
Or an unserious joke.

Right…what I was saying about Occam’s Razor - I believe that God exists by nature of his creation, but at the same time his creation tends to evidence a lack of a creator, because of the totality of science. Therefore, God must have made the universe to appear as if there was no God, nor a need for one. It’s the ultimate ploy, but an honest one of sorts - God probably has a great interest in what people see and believe in this stage he has created. Those who believe in God are seeing past his creation, into the deeds that God does perform via the mechanisms he put in place that allow him to operate - like the endorphine rush desgned to cause hallucinations near death, for example.

Satyr:

(1) You see the concept of the “sensory wannabe” as a clever way to avoid an absurdity, yet I see a difference between certain types of imaginary being. There are three types of imaginary being: the “sensory wannabe”,the “imperceptible”, and the “inconceivable” (which is another term for an unimaginable sensory wannabe)

You insist that people who believe in God are trapped within a real-world position in which God actually does not exist, and deep down they know this in their hearts and are frightened, and thus they are forced to constantly invent explanatory stragegies to outsmart the skeptic.

As such, given that (according to you) God undeniably, unquestionably, and unequivocably does not exist… (you seem to know this with such infallible certainty)… anything that comes out of the mouth of the theist is pure desperate invention.

Really?

(1a) Sure, God avoids the “pesky empirical trap”…but then again, so does belief in the idea of the conscious experience of other people. The notion of alternate universes postulated by theorists of Brane-Theory within the 2001 edition of Discovery Maganzine also avoids the “pesky empirical trap”—yet these alternate M-universes are postulated to exist.

We might as well call belief that other people are conscious a “fantasy epistemology”, based upon powerful belief that physical objects that move and sound a certain way are subjectively conscious, and that anyone who believes that they are subjectively conscious are the “correct” authorities “preaching” the “right” epistemology on the ontology of a conscious state within others that cannot be proven.

See the parallel between other-consciousness and God?

(2) Theists indeed add the extras, but so also do atheists…are you trying to tell me that one doesn’t infer the nonexistence of God from biological processes (in terms of one forming an atheistic essentialism due to observation of how the world happens to appear and behave)?

(3) It is true that we equally don’t know and we all have similar intellectual abilities. My point is that certain non-empirical states of affairs are possible (or possibly possible???) due to the “empirical” example of other people’s consciousness.

If other people’s consciousness exists (if it exists) despite the fact that it is something that is forever beyond the reach of empirical observation, then what else ontologically defies empirical knowledge? More importantly, are all imperceptible states of affairs automatically impossible?

As Chalmers states within: “Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?”, there is a burden of proof upon one who claims impossibility of a certain non-empirical state of affairs to show how or why a certain state of affairs claimed to be impossible is impossible?.

(4) This is no assumption that everything ever imagined exists until proven that it doesn’t. There is the assumption that things might exist despite the fact that they cannot be proven to exist. The fact remains that I might be wrong, but it remains that they nevertheless might exist despite all naysayings to the opposite.

(5) When I look upon the world seeking truth, I see it for the VR that it really is, and I realize that the VR is dependent (presumably) upon electrons flowing through biological material of a certain area. This mechanism, it seems, does not guarantee an infallible representation (or a representation at all) of objective reality beyond the VR.

(6) The decline of man? Hmm. I would say the ascent of man is admitting the fallibility of the VR.

(7) Empiricism and the reason and logic that comes from it, once again, exhausts itself within the VR. That’s as far as it goes. You only project that a theist views empiricism as a hurdle because you have convinced yourself that God must not and cannot exist.

(8) The point is not that God absolutely exists because we live within a fallible VR “reality”…the point is that God might possibly exist (that is, the existence of God might be true “anyway” for all we know) beyond the VR, and that we have no reason to assert that he absolutely cannot exist—given our epistemic position within the VR.

There is not:

We live within a VR, ergo God must exist. (Admittedly an odd chain of logic)

My point is:

(a) We live within a VR that seems to “reveal” no evidence for God, ergo God (if God exists)might exist beyond the VR.

and:

(b) We cannot know that this isn’t the case, even if our lack of knowledge does not equal that due to lack of knowledge, it must be the case.

See the difference? The point is that the atheist assertion might be falsified beyond the VR, not that it is necessarily falsified due to the fallibility of the VR. (Must “possibility” exhaust itself within the VR?)

(8a) “The illusion proves the absolute…somehow” (This is the same type of reasoning by which most believe that there is a mind-independent objective reality beyond the VR).

(9) We perceive no beginning nor any end to physical energy (qua: the first law of thermodynamics “energy is neither created nor destroyed”)…yet we still believe physical energy exists.

(Be careful now: the VR does not reveal the existence of physical energy, it only demonstrates subjective experience believed to be “physical energy”)

(9a) “What is ‘exit’?”----I think that was a typo, I probably meant to type “exist”.

(10) One denies the necessity for God to have a creator in the same way that one can posit a conception of God that holds that God (if one believes that God exists) happens to be as eternal as physical energy, and exists in such a state by chance.

(11) Some theists do posit God as a necessity. I do not (in the sense that I do not propose that God is an a priori necessity).

Sure, some theists insist upon the existence of God out of human conflict of interest or psychological needs (such as fear and hatred of consignment to eternal oblivion after death)—yet given the generic nature of the VR, I think that the atheist essentialism doesn’t exhaust everything else. And to a degree, it seems somewhat dishonest.

(12) One can argue that we only believe what constitutes “the beginning and the end”, and that despite absence of evidence, possibility carries the ball despite belief in impossibility from the skeptic.

(13) God incapable of definition? What is indefinable about:

“A multiverse controlling humanoid male mind (existing eternally without a creator by sheer random chance) independent physical embodiment?”

(13) Challenged? I prefer intellectually and epistemically honest concerning the possibilities inherent within the non-empirical.

Jay M. Brewer
superchristianity.com

This last post is proof that a little faith can produce miracles.

Since I’ve been reprimanded for exploiting simplicity and forcing the obtuse to look into mirrors, I will try to abstain from being overly patronizing…even though it is so fuckin’ hard when dealing with certain minds.

phenomenal_graffiti
Notice how convoluted things need to become so as to pretend that something profound is being expressed when only the absurd is talked about.
Occam’s Razor?
The funniest part is underlined.

The last type is the “imagined unimaginable”.
What?

Here we see a mind desperately trying to separate his fantasy world from all fantasy worlds.
His fantasy is of a different type.

Is that what I said?
Then again I cannot “…undeniably, unquestionably, and unequivocably…” deny the existence of unicorns either.
God remains relevant, despite the fact that he is often defined in oxymoronic ways, because he remains indefinable.

I do?

If someone tells me he has a billion dollars in his pocket and that if I give him my car he’ll hand it over to me, will my skepticism mean that I’m “infallibly certain” that he doesn’t have a billion dollars or that he will not hand it over to me or am I just being rational?
If a child tells me that a monster woke him up, will my doubt mean that I’m unequivocally, certain that it didn’t?

Really?
And what is this conversation, then?

I’m not 100% certain that there isn’t any life on the moon that is hiding from us, but this doesn’t mean that I equally doubt the existence of life on the earth.

Please tell me you are kidding.
I’ve lost enough hope in humanity and I already believe most people are garbage, so please save me from a deeper cynicism by telling me this is all a joke.

Really?
Is that what the term “theory” means?

Brane-Theory is like…like…like God-Theory?

And here I was thinking that they were hypothesis based on empirical knowledge.

Are there many of these M-Theory faith healers and churches and clergy?
Do they also promise eternal life?
If so then where do I sign up?

You are free to believe otherwise, of course.

Are you saying that you’ve seen God move and speak and that you’ve interacted with Him?

What I see is pathetic…but I refrain from posting my honest opinions.

Given your very wise and well-thought out positions anything can be proven to exist merely based on the fact that nothing can be proven absolutely.
This, of course, opens the gate for your preferred fantasy.
No matter how absurd or lacking empirical verification your fantasies might have - including the ones that result in wet sheets - they are actual because the consciousness of another can only be surmised by your own consciousness.

So the invisible is proven as equally real as the visible.
Excellent.
You, sir, are talented.

Hmmmm, let’s see.

I see a flower.
I study a flower and from my studies and analysis, and in comparison to other phenomena, I construct a hypothesis on how flowers work.

Along comes a midget. He tells me that all my studies are useless since he already knows that flowers were produced in a flower-shop in another dimension.
I doubt the midget’s claims and so I become a disbeliever in his absurd hypothesis.
He argues that both hypothesis are equally right and/or wrong.

My opinion is equal to his?
I begin from the subject and try to extrapolate the general.
The midget starts from the general and fills in the details all the way down to the subject.

All we can say is that there is an appearance - phenomenon.
The rest are your conjured up additives.
How afraid you must be of existence and how special you want to feel.

Ahuh…as other people’s movements proves the non-empirical inertia?

How nice of you to add the “certain” in the “…certain non-empirical states…”. this is where your selective, and quite imaginative, reasoning falls on its ass.

All has cause and effect…except…!!!
All is created…except…!!!
All is imperfect…except…!!!

You, sir, are an artist. A poor and struggling one, but still an artist.

I loved how empiricism proved non-empiricism.
The mental acrobatics involved in that feat were breathtaking.

Consciousness is “beyond empirical observation”?
News to me.

I can observe a cat next to a rock and know which one is conscious.

Consciousness, my mental acrobat, is stream of thought that directs activity.
Did you think it was soemthing mysterious or magical?

We cannot know what another thinks - although given enough time even this is possible - but we can know that he does think.

Consciousness isn’t soemthing that exists, it isn’t an object, it is existence.
existence is that which has a temporal character and therefore spatial possibilities. Consciousness is stream of thought and so it is temporal and its spatial possibilities is the physical body.
There is no dichotomy here.

Who the hell cares?!

Improbability dear, sir, not impossibility.

Impossible is a concept that contradicts itself like: black whiteness or Christian think-tank or an existing non-existence you call God.

And?

Does this fantasy world of VR’s and shit, exist?

Are you for real?
The previous portion makes me wonder about your mental stability.
Wanting the world to be fake doesn’t make it so, dear.

The only reason the concept of God persists as a projection of man’s hopes and fears is because the concept remains indefinable and unprovable.

as a conception of the Absolute it contradicts itself since the absolute would be timeless and spaceless and so inert - inactive.
it would create nothing because it would have no reason and no need to.

Creativity and activity is a result of lack.
consciousness is a temporal phenomenon.
There can be n o consciuosness without movement or activity or need.
Therefore the concept of an absolute consciousness is a contradiction in terms.

Indeed, and so can anything my mind can conjure up.

God, proven by not being provable. The concept that depends exclusively on ignorance.
‘I do not know’; ergo god, or anything really, is possible.’

Every time i turn on the lights, I wonder if there are no hidden dimensions in the parts where the light doesn’t shine. There I imagine fantastic creatures, and incredible worlds and i safely tuck them away where my light cannot disturb their comforting presence.

Huh?

Oh I’m tiptoeing along, dear. you are soooo precious.

Has anyone ever seen solipsism being used to support the transcending?
It’s like a matter/anti-matter juggling act.

Let us take the simple and complicated, shall we.

I perceive fire.
Therefore spirits cause it so as to dance around it.

A male? God has sex?

'Multiverse"? you deny the universe but posit multiple universes as a fact?

“Humanoid”?
Jeez, please oh please tell me this is a hoax.
God is a humanoid?! He evolved within a non-existent existence outside time and yet exhibiting all the temporal characteristics of man?

“Random Chance”? Of what in what?

No…really…are you being honest?

An “independent physical embodiment”? Last I checked physical is determined and so not “independent”.

I do beleive I’ve wasted enough time with you.
Satyr.

It seems to me that the application of occams razor would tend to remove god from a universe that appears godless. ie the simplest solution to answer a universe that appears to have no god would be a universe that actually has no god.

You are pointing out one of the flaws in the standard “god hypothosis”. Because god can do anything then anything can be evidence of god, including the lack of evidence for god. :slight_smile:

As Stephen Jay Gould said “an answer the answers everything, answers nothing” (or something to that effect)