The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[seeds]

Note: I just asked Oliver that question and he is right now, like old Ahab in a sea-storm, walking the curtain rods in what seems to me extraordinary concentration as he ponders what “thought” is …

Expect on-going reports.

Maybe it would help Oliver figure it out quicker if you told him that thought is that stuff he sees in his little birdbrain when he dreams...

Yes, birds do dream, and studies show their dreams likely involve practicing songs or reliving experiences like flying.

_______

[seeds]

Anyway, my old friend, once again I ask you...

(with the addition of the word "please" this time)

...to please present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

Well, since you put it like that, I don't personally believe that there are thoughts without a thinker, but I can't prove it.

ChatGPT:-

The canonical “great philosopher” who explicitly claims that there are thoughts without a thinker is David Hume, though the idea resonates deeply with Buddhist and later existential thought.

Concerning Seeds's request for a scenario of thought without a thinker please see David Hume:- The mind is a bundle of perceptions.

Come on now, Belinda, you know better than to offer up the old "appeal to authority" fallacy...

The appeal to authority fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted as true simply because an authority figure believes it, rather than based on actual evidence or the strength of the argument.

How about rather than appealing to the musings of some fallible authority, you instead use your own sense of logic and reasoning to address the challenge I gave to Will...

"...please present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought..."

Do you really need the dubious assumptions made by some dusty old coot from the 18th century to sort that out for you?
_______

[SpheresOfBalance]

The facts are that no one can either "know" something exists, that has never been proven, or that they can "know" something doesn't exist, because as of yet, it hasn't been proven. No one "knows" what they don't "know", and no one "knows" what they only believe they "know". "Knowing" requires empirical data and possibly double blind studies. All things can only be "known" using the scientific method.

And where is the empirical data that justifies that empirical data collection explains everything?

Last time I check empirical data is a distinction just like an abstraction is a distinction.

It seems that you've allowed the meaning of words to slip your mind. Something being Distinct/Discrete, is all about facts and Abstract is not. Not a very good way to make any kind of real point. (Be warned: at university my best capability in dealing with the English Language was Reading Comprehension. But in all other aspects, I Suck!)

distinct
dis-​tinct di-ˈstiŋ(k)t
adjective
1: distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same

discrete
adjective
dis·​crete di-ˈskrēt
ˈdis-ˌ
1: constituting a separate entity : individually distinct

abstract
1 of 3
adjective
ab·​stract ab-ˈstrakt
ˈab-ˌstrakt
1a: disassociated from any specific instance
an abstract entity
b: difficult to understand : abstruse
abstract problems
c: insufficiently factual : formal
possessed only an abstract right

The only thing that remains is distinction...even truth and falsity are subject to this as they are distinctions.

Sorry that you're so lost in the meanings of words and the point you're seemingly trying to make, I speak of classical Greek marble sculptures that are said to be idealistic but are in fact very close to being realistic, so I beg your indulgence, while you speak of abstracts, like a stick man on a piece of paper.

[Eodnhoj7]

The facts are that no one can either "know" something exists, that has never been proven, or that they can "know" something doesn't exist, because as of yet, it hasn't been proven. No one "knows" what they don't "know", and no one "knows" what they only believe they "know". "Knowing" requires empirical data and possibly double blind studies. All things can only be "known" using the scientific method.

And where is the empirical data that justifies that empirical data collection explains everything?

Last time I check empirical data is a distinction just like an abstraction is a distinction.

It seems that you've allowed the meaning of words to slip your mind. Something being Distinct/Discrete, is all about facts and Abstract is not. Not a very good way to make any kind of real point. (Be warned: at university my best capability in dealing with the English Language was Reading Comprehension. But in all other aspects, I Suck!)

distinct
dis-​tinct di-ˈstiŋ(k)t
adjective
1: distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same

discrete
adjective
dis·​crete di-ˈskrēt
ˈdis-ˌ
1: constituting a separate entity : individually distinct

abstract
1 of 3
adjective
ab·​stract ab-ˈstrakt
ˈab-ˌstrakt
1a: disassociated from any specific instance
an abstract entity
b: difficult to understand : abstruse
abstract problems
c: insufficiently factual : formal
possessed only an abstract right

The only thing that remains is distinction...even truth and falsity are subject to this as they are distinctions.

Sorry that you're so lost in the meanings of words and the point you're seemingly trying to make, I speak of classical Greek marble sculptures that are said to be idealistic but are in fact very close to being realistic, so I beg your indulgence, while you speak of abstracts, like a stick man on a piece of paper.

Nonsense. The only universal nature to reality is that of distinction. If things are indistinct they cease to be actual.

What we understand of God, as a universal power or law, is evident in the simple observation that distinction is universal. We know being of the distinction of knowing.

We know "this" because of "that". We only know because of distinction and the only absolute nature we know is the act of attention for without the act of attention our distinction of reality ceases for reality is a distinction that emerges from attention.

You claim empirical data is the foundation, but there is a foundation beyond empiricism: distinction.

Empiricality is distinction.

So does that mean abstraction reigns? No, that is a distinction as well.

What we know of reality at the foundational level is that distinctions occur and are universal within the act of attention.

Neither empiricism nor abstraction are foundational outside of specific distinct contexts.

You claim I am lost in the meaning of words and yet you are the one resorting to a dictionary.

If "distinction" is ambiguous to you "form", "limit", "boundary", etc. can be used synonymously.

[SpheresOfBalance]

And where is the empirical data that justifies that empirical data collection explains everything?

Last time I check empirical data is a distinction just like an abstraction is a distinction.

It seems that you've allowed the meaning of words to slip your mind. Something being Distinct/Discrete, is all about facts and Abstract is not. Not a very good way to make any kind of real point. (Be warned: at university my best capability in dealing with the English Language was Reading Comprehension. But in all other aspects, I Suck!)

distinct
dis-​tinct di-ˈstiŋ(k)t
adjective
1: distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete (see discrete sense 1) or not the same

discrete
adjective
dis·​crete di-ˈskrēt
ˈdis-ˌ
1: constituting a separate entity : individually distinct

abstract
1 of 3
adjective
ab·​stract ab-ˈstrakt
ˈab-ˌstrakt
1a: disassociated from any specific instance
an abstract entity
b: difficult to understand : abstruse
abstract problems
c: insufficiently factual : formal
possessed only an abstract right

The only thing that remains is distinction...even truth and falsity are subject to this as they are distinctions.

Sorry that you're so lost in the meanings of words and the point you're seemingly trying to make, I speak of classical Greek marble sculptures that are said to be idealistic but are in fact very close to being realistic, so I beg your indulgence, while you speak of abstracts, like a stick man on a piece of paper.

Nonsense. The only universal nature to reality is that of distinction. If things are indistinct they cease to be actual.

That's not the point and you know it, everything is distinct, but logically not everything is abstract. Quit trying to LIE your way through this contention, is this Trump I'm talking to? The Big Liar? Absraction is nonsense as it's insufficiently factual and so is your god. If not prove it. Grow up and admit that you can't. Be a MAN for a change, I'm growing tired of you boys and your lying.!!!

What we understand of God, as a universal power or law, is evident in the simple observation that distinction is universal. We know being of the distinction of knowing.

We know "this" because of "that". We only know because of distinction and the only absolute nature we know is the act of attention for without the act of attention our distinction of reality ceases for reality is a distinction that emerges from attention.

You claim empirical data is the foundation, but there is a foundation beyond empiricism: distinction.

Empiricality is distinction.

So does that mean abstraction reigns? No, that is a distinction as well.

What we know of reality at the foundational level is that distinctions occur and are universal within the act of attention.

Neither empiricism nor abstraction are foundational outside of specific distinct contexts.

You claim I am lost in the meaning of words and yet you are the one resorting to a dictionary.

If "distinction" is ambiguous to you "form", "limit", "boundary", etc. can be used synonymously.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nonsense. The only universal nature to reality is that of distinction. If things are indistinct they cease to be actual.

What we understand of God, as a universal power or law, is evident in the simple observation that distinction is universal. We know being of the distinction of knowing.

We know "this" because of "that". We only know because of distinction and the only absolute nature we know is the act of attention for without the act of attention our distinction of reality ceases for reality is a distinction that emerges from attention.

You claim empirical data is the foundation, but there is a foundation beyond empiricism: distinction.

Empiricality is distinction.

So does that mean abstraction reigns? No, that is a distinction as well.

What we know of reality at the foundational level is that distinctions occur and are universal within the act of attention.

Neither empiricism nor abstraction are foundational outside of specific distinct contexts.

You claim I am lost in the meaning of words and yet you are the one resorting to a dictionary.

If "distinction" is ambiguous to you "form", "limit", "boundary", etc. can be used synonymously.

No...I never said everything is abstract.

If you actually read, rather than throw a temper tantrum like a child you would have seen that I said:


Neither empiricism nor abstraction are foundational outside of specific distinct contexts.


I said pure empiricism cannot be logically used as a primary foundation given both empiricism and abstract are distinctions. There is a foundation beyond empirical and abstract awareness.

Distinction is purely the limits by which there is an occurrence. We know because a limit occurs.

Empiricism is a distinction.
Abstraction is a distinction.
Both are limits and neither one can be reduced to the primary seed of reality.

Given limits are everpresent within reality there is an everpresent order by which things occur. This everpresent order can be called "God".

[Eodnhoj7]

The everpresent nature of distinctions repeating observes an inherent underlying symmetry, conducive to a cycle, by which order occurs.

The variations of each distinction under new appearances gives rise to an order spontaneity by which diversity occurs.

The nature of any distinction being composed of and composing other distinctions necessitates an inherent underlying connection of all things to all things.

In these respects reality is fundamentally an expression of a divine law given that 3 fundamental nature's occur within and as reality: Repetition, Variation of The Repetition, and the Compounded Nature of All.

The fourth aspect to all of this is that is the very nature of distinction itself, the everpresent limits and boundaries that give the inherent order that allows the occurrence of existence.


God exists.

A Divine Plan exists.

The nature of Distinction gives light to this.

[Will Bouwman]

The connection you didn't make is why something, which is infinite, is an appropriate representation for something you insist can't be.

Try it. You can't do it.

My point precisely.

That fits perfectly with the claim: you can't produce an actual infinite on paper, nor can you do it in real life.

I can't make an actual cup of coffee on paper.

That's because an actually infinite regress of prerequisites is impossible.

And yet it is not impossible for me to make a cup of coffee in real life.

So there cannot be an infinite regress of causes that produced the universe.

It's so simple. I don't believe you can't grasp it.

Well again, it is because I can grasp it that I can see it for the limp dick piece of sophistry that it is.

Anyway:

What evidence do you think is inconsistent with idealism?

[Immanuel Can]

The connection you didn't make is why something, which is infinite, is an appropriate representation for something you insist can't be.

Try it. You can't do it.

My point precisely.

That fits perfectly with the claim: you can't produce an actual infinite on paper, nor can you do it in real life.

I can't make an actual cup of coffee on paper.

No, you cannot. But you can represent one. However, you can't even represent an actual infinite regress of prerequisites. Cups of coffee are possible: infinite regresses of causes are impossible.

[Will Bouwman]

Cups of coffee are possible: infinite regresses of causes are impossible.

So you keep saying, but you cannot prove that.
Anyway:

What evidence do you think is inconsistent with idealism?

[Immanuel Can]

Cups of coffee are possible: infinite regresses of causes are impossible.

So you keep saying, but you cannot prove that.

I have, but you refuse the evidence of your own eyes, it seems.

Just write down the sequence of numbers I pointed out to you. You can't. And that should prove it to you, even if you say can't see it does. But I don't believe you can't see it. I just think you prefer not to.

Anyway:

What evidence do you think is inconsistent with idealism?

I've mentioned two critiques already. But this is a distractor from the main topic, so I'm not being diverted to it. It's up to you to show Idealism is the default belief, if you think that's important.

[Will Bouwman]

Cups of coffee are possible: infinite regresses of causes are impossible.

So you keep saying, but you cannot prove that.

I have, but you refuse the evidence of your own eyes, it seems.

Just write down the sequence of numbers I pointed out to you. You can't. And that should prove it to you, even if you say can't see it does. But I don't believe you can't see it. I just think you prefer not to.

Congratulations, you agree that belief is a preference.

Anyway:

What evidence do you think is inconsistent with idealism?

I've mentioned two critiques already.

Without proving they are sound. There isn't an idea that can't be critiqued, other than that there is thought. There is nothing that logically follows from that. You don't understand that, therefore you don't understand philosophy.

But this is a distractor from the main topic, so I'm not being diverted to it. It's up to you to show Idealism is the default belief, if you think that's important.

I don't think, nor have ever claimed that idealism is the default belief. I am confident it is an underdetermined hypothesis, because it is consistent with the evidence. You prefer not to believe that, which I attribute to your lack of understanding. Mathematics and logic only prove conclusions that are valid given certain premises, nothing more. To prove a conclusion, you must first prove the premises. You haven't done that.

[Immanuel Can]

So you keep saying, but you cannot prove that.

I have, but you refuse the evidence of your own eyes, it seems.

Just write down the sequence of numbers I pointed out to you. You can't. And that should prove it to you, even if you say can't see it does. But I don't believe you can't see it. I just think you prefer not to.

Congratulations, you agree that belief is a preference.

It seems that this particular one is.

Anyway:

I've mentioned two critiques already.

Without proving they are sound.

Not my burden-of-proof. You're the one who said Idealism is the default. I'm waiting to see what evidence you have for that.

I don't think, nor have ever claimed that idealism is the default belief.

Then it's not any kind of objection to realism.

Glad we settled that.

[Belinda]

Well, since you put it like that, I don't personally believe that there are thoughts without a thinker, but I can't prove it.

ChatGPT:-

The canonical “great philosopher” who explicitly claims that there are thoughts without a thinker is David Hume, though the idea resonates deeply with Buddhist and later existential thought.

Concerning Seeds's request for a scenario of thought without a thinker please see David Hume:- The mind is a bundle of perceptions.

Come on now, Belinda, you know better than to offer up the old "appeal to authority" fallacy...

The appeal to authority fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted as true simply because an authority figure believes it, rather than based on actual evidence or the strength of the argument.

How about rather than appealing to the musings of some fallible authority, you instead use your own sense of logic and reasoning to address the challenge I gave to Will...

"...please present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought..."

Do you really need the dubious assumptions made by some dusty old coot from the 18th century to sort that out for you?
_______

I am not appealing to the authority of David Hume but to Hume's power of reason. Don't you know there is in Edinburgh a statue of David Hume that is located where Hume calmly outfaces a similarly -sized statue of John Knox.
Philosophers today regard Hume as a giant of philosophy.
Seeds, I had not placed you as an anti-intellectual.

[Will Bouwman]

You're the one who said Idealism is the default.

In which case, one of us is as mad as a box of frogs. You can prove it is me by showing where and when I said that. Otherwise, it's you.