God Metaphysical Proof #3- Unique Unrestricted Reality

[KeepOnRebelling]

you can not find god anywhere, because it does not exist

[SenariXarn]

Thoughts are merely the end-result of a transfer of electrons through the brain's vast network of neurons. Neurons transmit neurotransmitters (gasp) to one another to relay messages. These neurotransmitters are simply molecules (wikipedia, gogo). This is how the brain works.

You are achieving no revolutionary thought in the process of applying physical theories to the presence of self-awareness. Giving credit to some god for this, however, would be redirecting praise to an undeserving host.

[Mkvine]

I was not talking about how the thought process works or that God gave us thought. I was saying that we could only imagine/think about things that already exist. We cannot imagine/think anything that does not exist, if we try, we end up using things that already exist in order to imagine it. This is not the case for God; however, we can think of Him and yet there is nothing that exists that can lead us to that thought, at least non abstract things. Just something to ponder on...

[SenariXarn]

Saying that we can think about things that don't exist, such as fantastic creatures that are mixtures of others that we know of, doesn't particularly give credibility to the argument that thinking about God means that he must exist, for he gave us thought.

It's circular reasoning, bad idea. However, on the point that nothing in existence could lead us to thinking about God, that leaves a lot to be desired: Parents loyal to the religion instill the idea of God, just as...

[SenariXarn]

thinking of the long chain of "creation" would. Inevitably, if one were to assume that something was created, the thought of what created the creation's creator would come to mind. The answers to these questions, as per thinking of a car, would be a robot made the car, the robot was made by a man. The next thought would then be what made man?

This thought is kind of like the math question of adding 1000s alternating with tens and twenties, eventually leading to 5000 when the answer is 4100.

[Mkvine]

Yes, I agree about your last point, I believe some of my other video adress that. But in regards to our parents teaching us about God, what about the "first people," how did they think about God?

[SenariXarn]

They didn't. They observed things like the movement of the sun across the sky and denoted it as the life giver through other observations, such as certain plants opening leaves to revel in its glory (speaking in more aesthetic terms).

The first people would not be the ones to implement the idea of a grand creator; rather, it would be those that followed. Those who took the explanation of such events from their predecessors and explained it to their offspring. The childhood game of telephone.

[Mkvine]

However, this is just my assertion and does not have anything to do with the video.

[JackBP2001]

"This is not the case for God; however, we can think of Him and yet there is nothing that exists that can lead us to that thought" Not true at all, and for many reasons. Each human has a different level of knowledge, so it is not strange that we can imagine a being with infinite knowledge. The same goes for power and love. Our minds can easily imagine a God without the necessity of such a God existing. Its simply combining the ideas of cause and effect, knowledge, parents, ect.

[Mkvine]

the point that i was trying to make is that we can only think of things that already exist, or use different things that already exist to make a new thought. But we could never imagine something that does NOT exist.

[JackBP2001]

I know. Which means god is no different than a unicorn. A unicorn doesn't exist in reality, but I can combine ideas of a horse, purity, horns, ect. to imagine a unicorn. Its no different with god. How was a unicorn first imagined? Someone combined certain ideas to create a fictional being. How was God (as defined by organized religion) first imagined? The same way. I'm all for personal spirituality and beliefs, but completely against religions and their arrogance.

[Mkvine]

Your right, the only thing I would say is that we cannot imagine what God looks like or even know what he is, yet we can still think about him. We have nothing to compare God to and nothing to make him exist in our thoughts, except abstract ideas, which themselves cannot be pictured. What I'm trying to say is that we cannot think of things that do not exist and since we can think of God, that means he exists.

[JackBP2001]

I guess I should have asked what your definition of god is, my fault. I personally believe in god, because no matter what science accomplishes, it will never obtain absolute truth. God is what lies outside human understanding. We only see the world as it appears to our five senses, and that means we may not get an accurate description of it. God is what we don't know, what we can't know. Which is why the ancients saw God in the sun and the moon and the other natural phenomena.

[JackBP2001]

Now that we have objective explanations for the movement of the cosmos - it is absurd to see God as the ancients did. Herein lies the problem of religions, as they hold onto doctrine, tradition, and scripture - all of which are eventually outdated. Our belief in God, just as all our other beliefs, should cohere with the larger web of beliefs.

[JackBP2001]

In this way, "religious believers" are simply those that believe in an outdated system. Most of the precepts that the worlds major religions are founded on have long been proven false. Theists brand atheists as non-believers. As sick, morally corrupt beings. They could not be further from the point. Most atheists are those that realize the absurdities of religion and seek their own answers. They are those that realize no religion accurately describes god, because doing so is impossible

[Mkvine]

In regards to the unicorn... Unlike God which cannot be compared to anything that exist, we CAN compare a unicorn to things that DO exist, like a horse, ect. So the question is, how can we think about something (God) that according to atheist does not exist?

[JackBP2001]

By arrogance, I mean the absurd notion that religion can describe "god". That they know god's will. That they know god created us in his image. That an afterlife exists and they can describe it. All these things are completely absurd. After the existence of trillions of species over billions of years, God created humans in his image?Yea right. Look into yourself and find your own answers. Find the answers that work for you. But please,stop attempting to prove "god" through reason. Its impossible

[Mkvine]

At least in my religion, what we mean by made in the "image of God" is that our soul or spirit is made in the image of God, not our physical nature.

[SenariXarn]

On the wave-particle duality: Waves and particles are both models, much like Bohr's model of the Hydrogen atom.

This model doesn't quite fit for further elements, so a better model was adopted, one of defining electron orbitals in a three dimensional space, as per reality.

Applying better models to phenomena helps understanding. Wave-particle duality is waiting for this new model.

There are no thought-particles or thought-waves. It'd be nice if there were, but there aren't.

[Censeo]

"We can tell a particle and a wave at the same time only after we find out its not a dog?

What a load of horse shit."

The dog was just an example, I mean something have to be recognized as well which isn't the thing we have defined for us to recognize that thing.

[Censeo]

For us to be able to recognize that something can be a particle and a wave at the same time is because we can still recognize that there is something else which it still isn't (a dog for example). Things become when we can recognize something which it is not. So infinite can't be anything.

[Mkvine]

So basically are you saying that we can define what doesn't exist because we of things that we recognize as existant?

[Censeo]

Here is the way you should think to not get confused. Everything exist, cause existence is not a property. When you imagine God, you create a concept (that exist), and when you imagine God, you don't imagine an infinite being, cause you recognize that some things aren't part of what you imagine.

[Mkvine]

Doesn't that prove God exists, because according to what your saying, things that you imagine have to exist, so if you are imagining God, then he exists. About infinity, we do not fully grasp that idea, but we do have some sort of understanding on it, so we could somewhat imagine it.

[Censeo]

Well it proves that the concept exist. You can't say that anything you imagine doesn't exist in this sense. Therefore everything exist in this sense.

[Censeo]

but like the square circle doesn't exist, because you can't imagine it, infinite god doesn't exist, because it is as unimaginable as the square circle.

[Mkvine]

Actually, the problem I see with this analogy is that we are usings things that already exist (square and circle) to try to think about something that doesnt exist, like the square-circle. With God, however, we are not using things that exist to think about Him, yet we still think about him. So why are we imagining something that doesn't exist, given that we have nothing to compare it to?

[Censeo]

Actually, I think god is a concept out of many things that already exist, such as the loving father, the judge, etcetera. Brain scans also show that when people think about god, the same brain activity is computing these thoughts as when they think of people.

[Censeo]

Let me also put it another way. Imagine you stare at mona lisa, imagine then that Leonardo painted on an infinite canvas and on all sides of mona lisa he painted infinite amount of things and landscapes. To see what the painting all together is about and what it would look like when you see the whole painting, you need to step backward infinite distant, and you be too far away seeing any finite object (things with borders) painted on it.

[SenariXarn]

Some questions are: How can we imagine? How can we postulate? How can we simulate? These are the same question, in fact.

Some people would say that God gives us imagination, that this intrinsic quality owes its existence to a supreme creator, as no other animal or plant can simulate occurrences.

Someone with the motivation to take a psychology course or an anatomy course would very simply answer that our pre-frontal cortex is the culprit...

So the question is: God or adaptation?