The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

[Abstract]

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?

[Jayson]

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.

[Abstract]

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?

[Jayson]

If the hydrogen atom is separated from the oxygen atom it is by our perception that they are separate.

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.

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?

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.

[Abstract]

If the hydrogen atom is separated from the oxygen atom it is by our perception that they are separate.

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.

You mean no perceptible "entanglement".

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?

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.

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...

[Jayson]

You mean no perceptible "entanglement".

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.

So it is possible, I would think that if it is possible and time is endless that it is bound to happen.

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.

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...

Yeah, and the unicorn might do a double backflip.

[Abstract]

You mean no perceptible "entanglement".

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 skateboards 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.

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.

[Jayson]

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Abstract]

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

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why should I believe in this?

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?

[Jayson]

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.

I fail to notice the difference between the two in the idea of accountable plausibility.

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.

I'm not strictly an empirical defendant.
There are plenty of things which cannot be empirically measured which yet still exist.

However, the ideas that you are talking about present themselves from your descriptions into the physical world with which empiricism has the ability to lend information as to how matter works and functions, and your choice of presentation provided the means by which you wanted to traverse down logically.
The leg you chose was by using the universe and standard empirical concepts as the justification of the probability when mixed with uncertainty of possible arrangements of what is empirically known.

Under those circumstances why would I not use the empirical standard by which you are addressing?

Just an aside though, if God is the everything in terms of tangibility you would always be touching it.

Yes.
And if the entire universe were really an expanding pair of underwear, then in terms of tangibility I would always be touching it.

What makes a god more likely than underwear?

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?

You missed the point of the question and that could be my fault.

Let me rephrase.
What's in it for me?
What's the gain in believing in an ALL, 7.4 duodecillion atoms quantum entangling, and the same universal byproduct accomplished by two non-identical yet somehow identical atomic universes and timelines.

What do I get from that?
What's the sales pitch?
Why should I buy that car over some other one?

[Abstract]

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.

I fail to notice the difference between the two in the idea of accountable plausibility.

It is a matter of just believing... When you take any idea that you have it is based on logic, even ideas of how the brain works, and logic is not proven but assumed. Ultimately it would seem that everything has a non-decernable definitive probability.

In otherwords. When we deside when something is true or false. There is asserted as being evidence to suggest it is true and evidence to suggest it is false. But the amount of evidence that can be stacked up is endless, and even when we reach what seems like an end there is no sure way of telling it is the end rather than just seeming so by logic or something. So what happens is that different people begin to belive things based on different levels of evidense. it is not like some particular probability is suggested by a particular amount of evidence. If you don't have any evidense it remains possible, and thus the possibility is greater than zero even when you have zero evidense (sort of, you could say that what it amounts to is that the idea of a thing is evidence in itself, thus not knowing of that thing constitutes zero probability, but that would seem even not to be true because one can recognize that it is possible otherwise, in otherwords that what you don't know might be true...abstract but logical) So when you say get 50 pieces of evidense stacked up on the side of truth, one can't specify that such a thing is actually of a particular level of certainty. Especially considering that we likewise don't know what accuracy our method of probabilistic assert ion has....
As such one could say that in reality everything, even the idea of a unicorn , is equally possible, it is just a matter of believing that it doesn't be believing in what evidense seems to suggest otherwise, and of course believing in that evidense requires believing in the idea that evidense is good...At some point it required just believing...

There are plenty of things which cannot be empirically measured which yet still exist.

What lead you to believe in these things? And if you don't mind could you give me an example?

However, the ideas that you are talking about present themselves from your descriptions into the physical world with which empiricism has the ability to lend information as to how matter works and functions, and your choice of presentation provided the means by which you wanted to traverse down logically.
The leg you chose was by using the universe and standard empirical concepts as the justification of the probability when mixed with uncertainty of possible arrangements of what is empirically known.

See above on believing, we all use legs...

Under those circumstances why would I not use the empirical standard by which you are addressing?

I use it myself, I'm not suggesting not using it, but just realizing it is a "leg" just a means to justify what you choose to believe in. Rather than thinking it is some thing that cannot be wrong, or even something that has a tendency to be less wwrong than anything else. It may by use of its self show that useing it has a tendency to "work" but there is of course no gurantee that it won't stop working in the future. and relative to the amount of possible future time and thus the time possible for alteration in acuity the overal likely hood that it is the best method is equal to the number greater than zero but as close to zero as possible. In fact the overall likely hood of any method depsite tendency to be correct over some observable time does not lend to an overal increase in likely hood that it is or will continue to be a functional means at arriveing at beliefs.

Just an aside though, if God is the everything in terms of tangibility you would always be touching it.

Yes.
And if the entire universe were really an expanding pair of underwear, then in terms of tangibility I would always be touching it.

Although it would seem that either way you wouldn't make much attention of it being there because it had always been there, assuming it had always been there I guess.

What makes a god more likely than underwear?

For me personally when I began to understand the problems with our systems to arrive at beliefs stuff happened.

You missed the point of the question and that could be my fault.

regardless can you think of an answer to this question:
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?

Let me rephrase.
What's in it for me?
What's the gain in believing in an ALL, 7.4 duodecillion atoms quantum entangling, and the same universal byproduct accomplished by two non-identical yet somehow identical atomic universes and timelines.

What do I get from that?
What's the sales pitch?
Why should I buy that car over some other one?

You won't by it if you don't buy that the reasons are good in the first place.
Why do you buy what you buy?

[Jayson]

It is a matter of just believing... When you take any idea that you have it is based on logic, even ideas of how the brain works, and logic is not proven but assumed. Ultimately it would seem that everything has a non-decernable definitive probability.

In otherwords. When we deside when something is true or false. There is asserted as being evidence to suggest it is true and evidence to suggest it is false. But the amount of evidence that can be stacked up is endless, and even when we reach what seems like an end there is no sure way of telling it is the end rather than just seeming so by logic or something. So what happens is that different people begin to belive things based on different levels of evidense. it is not like some particular probability is suggested by a particular amount of evidence. If you don't have any evidense it remains possible, and thus the possibility is greater than zero even when you have zero evidense (sort of, you could say that what it amounts to is that the idea of a thing is evidence in itself, thus not knowing of that thing constitutes zero probability, but that would seem even not to be true because one can recognize that it is possible otherwise, in otherwords that what you don't know might be true...abstract but logical) So when you say get 50 pieces of evidense stacked up on the side of truth, one can't specify that such a thing is actually of a particular level of certainty. Especially considering that we likewise don't know what accuracy our method of probabilistic assert ion has....
As such one could say that in reality everything, even the idea of a unicorn , is equally possible, it is just a matter of believing that it doesn't be believing in what evidense seems to suggest otherwise, and of course believing in that evidense requires believing in the idea that evidense is good...At some point it required just believing...

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?

What lead you to believe in these things? And if you don't mind could you give me an example?

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.

I use it myself, I'm not suggesting not using it, but just realizing it is a "leg" just a means to justify what you choose to believe in. Rather than thinking it is some thing that cannot be wrong, or even something that has a tendency to be less wwrong than anything else. It may by use of its self show that useing it has a tendency to "work" but there is of course no gurantee that it won't stop working in the future. and relative to the amount of possible future time and thus the time possible for alteration in acuity the overal likely hood that it is the best method is equal to the number greater than zero but as close to zero as possible. In fact the overall likely hood of any method depsite tendency to be correct over some observable time does not lend to an overal increase in likely hood that it is or will continue to be a functional means at arriveing at beliefs.

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?

Although it would seem that either way you wouldn't make much attention of it being there because it had always been there, assuming it had always been there I guess.

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

For me personally when I began to understand the problems with our systems to arrive at beliefs stuff happened.

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.

regardless can you think of an answer to this question:
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?

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?

You won't by it if you don't buy that the reasons are good in the first place.
Why do you buy what you buy?

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.

[Abstract]

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.

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.

Do you question whether you actually exist?

Yes.

What lead you to believe in these things? And if you don't mind could you give me an example?

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.

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 use it myself, I'm not suggesting not using it, but just realizing it is a "leg" just a means to justify what you choose to believe in. Rather than thinking it is some thing that cannot be wrong, or even something that has a tendency to be less wwrong than anything else. It may by use of its self show that useing it has a tendency to "work" but there is of course no gurantee that it won't stop working in the future. and relative to the amount of possible future time and thus the time possible for alteration in acuity the overal likely hood that it is the best method is equal to the number greater than zero but as close to zero as possible. In fact the overall likely hood of any method depsite tendency to be correct over some observable time does not lend to an overal increase in likely hood that it is or will continue to be a functional means at arriveing at beliefs.

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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

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.

For me personally when I began to understand the problems with our systems to arrive at beliefs stuff happened.

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.

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.

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?

The question itself indicates it is most likely unlikely.

regardless can you think of an answer to this question:
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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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?

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.

[Jayson]

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.

[Abstract]

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...

[Jayson]

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?

[Abstract]

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?

[Jayson]

No gods seems the most sensible to me.

[Abstract]

No gods seems the most sensible to me.

why?

[Jayson]

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

[Abstract]

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?

[Jayson]

I would imagine that you might say because there hasn't been any hard evidence or you haven't seen it.

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

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?

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.

Do you think one person's suggestion is better simply because you were taught to think those are better?

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.

how does any evidence of anything "proven" show a lack of the possibility of God?

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?

[Abstract]

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.

Good too many people don't

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

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)

[Jayson]

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

[Abstract]

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...