The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Belinda]

I am not an "anti-intellectual."

No, I am an "anti-buying into false conclusions" type of person who, based on my own explorations and studies, can see when someone (such as Hume) doesn't know what they're talking about.

Hume may have been an eloquent and highly respected philosopher who put forth many good ideas,...

...however, if from the depths of his reasoning he came to the conclusion summarized in the following quote from Wikipedia (emphasis mine),...

...then he simply wasn't awake enough to see (or visualize) the "self" (the "I Am-ness") for what it really is.
_______

When I introspect I feel that Hume's bundle notion of the self is credible. You don't.

You say the self is "I Am-ness" and add that I Am-ness accompanies a sort of wakefulness. Seeds, for philosophers , wakefulness is reason not mystical consciousness. Mysticism is not usually addressed by mainstream analytic philosophy as mysticism is impervious to reason.

From Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine),,,

mystical

adjective

1 (a): having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence

In this case, what is "not obvious to the intelligence" is how there can be a "bundle of perceptions" (let's call that a "bundle of qualia") without the existence (or presence) of "something" that is capable of "experiencing" (i.e., seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, and tasting) those perceptions/qualia.

Hume's denial of the self...

(which, for the purposes of this immediate argument, means the denial of the "thinker" of thoughts)

...while insisting that the self is...

"...nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas..."

...is the equivalent of presuming that there can somehow exist the multi-sensory features of a vivid dream without the existence of the "dreamer" of the dream.

Such presumptions are nonsense.

And just because some famous philosopher (a fallible human) from the 18th century had nothing better to do than to devise a clever argument that denies the very existence of the deviser of the argument that the deviser of the argument is devising, doesn't mean that that famous philosopher wasn't wrong.

How is that not obvious to the introspecting "I" that calls itself Belinda?
_______

"...nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas..."
...is the equivalent of presuming that there can somehow exist the multi-sensory features of a vivid dream without the existence of the "dreamer" of the dream.(Written by Seeds)

(Written by me)Some dreams lack the dreamer as an agent of what happens . Modern neuroscience supports the view that “the self” is not a single, constant entity but a dynamic collection of mental states. Dream research shows this clearly: in some dreams, there’s a sense of “I” acting and choosing; in others, that sense of self disappears entirely, yet experience continues. This aligns more with Hume’s bundle theory — that what we call the self is just a shifting bundle of perceptions — than with the idea of a fixed, unchanging ego.

[Immanuel Can]

So again, what is this "evidence" that Idealism is capable of explaining better than the alternatives? If it's not at least better, then it's not a real objection to anything at all, is it?

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same. So, any evidence you suppose supports materialism, or whatever your metaphysical beliefs may be, supports idealism equally well.

As for Descartes, if you understand him...

That you cannot understand underdetermination, not a complicated idea, doesn't inspire confidence that your understanding of Descartes might be any better.

But I have given proper reasons for both, and can give more. And you can't even tell me, apparently, what "evidence" you think Idealism is up to explaining.

[Will Bouwman]

...you can't even tell me, apparently, what "evidence" you think Idealism is up to explaining.

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Here's a piece of evidence: you show no sign of understanding underdetermination. There are different explanations for why that might be. The simplest is that you genuinely are too stupid to understand. Another is that you're just being a dick. You might have a different explanation, which i would be pleased to entertain, but the two I mentioned both account for the evidence equally well and hence are underdetermined.
The evidence for realism and idealism is exactly the same.

[Immanuel Can]

...you can't even tell me, apparently, what "evidence" you think Idealism is up to explaining.

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Here's a piece of evidence:

That's not evidence for Idealism. You keep saying there is some, but you offer nothing. I think you have none. What else can I conclude from your behaviour?

The evidence for realism and idealism is exactly the same.

Of course it's not. The evidence for no two things is "exactly the same." To say "all the evidence is the same" is to say, "there is no evidence relevant to any particular hypothesis," which is exactly the same as to say, "there is no evidence," because nothing counts as "evidence FOR" anything.

The prima facie evidence favours Common Sense Realism. In fact, that's why it's called "Common Sense" Realism, because the unreflective person is bound to opt for it naturally. It's what our eyes suggest to us. Everybody passes through some form of it in the early stages of their lives, even if they go on to believe other things later. By contrast, Idealism isn't obvious to anyone, and isn't the default. So it needs evidence. And you've not provided any, so what's to be concluded?

But you want me to believe Idealism is some sort of important hypothesis, one that should challenge our grip on reality. I see no reason to concede that without asking what your evidence is. Nor should anybody.

[Age]

When I introspect I feel that Hume's bundle notion of the self is credible. You don't.

You say the self is "I Am-ness" and add that I Am-ness accompanies a sort of wakefulness. Seeds, for philosophers , wakefulness is reason not mystical consciousness. Mysticism is not usually addressed by mainstream analytic philosophy as mysticism is impervious to reason.

From Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine),,,

mystical

adjective

1 (a): having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence

In this case, what is "not obvious to the intelligence" is how there can be a "bundle of perceptions" (let's call that a "bundle of qualia") without the existence (or presence) of "something" that is capable of "experiencing" (i.e., seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, and tasting) those perceptions/qualia.

Hume's denial of the self...

(which, for the purposes of this immediate argument, means the denial of the "thinker" of thoughts)

...while insisting that the self is...

"...nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas..."

...is the equivalent of presuming that there can somehow exist the multi-sensory features of a vivid dream without the existence of the "dreamer" of the dream.

Such presumptions are nonsense.

And just because some famous philosopher (a fallible human) from the 18th century had nothing better to do than to devise a clever argument that denies the very existence of the deviser of the argument that the deviser of the argument is devising, doesn't mean that that famous philosopher wasn't wrong.

How is that not obvious to the introspecting "I" that calls itself Belinda?
_______

"...nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas..."
...is the equivalent of presuming that there can somehow exist the multi-sensory features of a vivid dream without the existence of the "dreamer" of the dream.(Written by Seeds)

(Written by me)Some dreams lack the dreamer as an agent of what happens . Modern neuroscience supports the view that “the self” is not a single, constant entity but a dynamic collection of mental states. Dream research shows this clearly: in some dreams, there’s a sense of “I” acting and choosing; in others, that sense of self disappears entirely, yet experience continues. This aligns more with Hume’s bundle theory — that what we call the self is just a shifting bundle of perceptions — than with the idea of a fixed, unchanging ego.

In the G.U.T.O.E. the word, 'person', is in relation to the invisible thoughts and emotions within a human body, sometimes known as the 'self'. Which, when not holding a belief, is always changing, anew. Whereas it can be said that human bodies get 'older’ it can be argued that you people become 'a/newer'.

Now, these lots of individual human 'selfs' within individual human bodies although are changing, when the individual and invisible thoughts and emotions are changing within the individual visible human bodies, these 'selfs' are also aware, of some things, whereas times. That is 'you', the individual, invisible 'person', within an individual, visible physical human body.

Whereas, there is only One 'I', which is within all 'bodies'. To be able to see, and understand, from this 'I's' perspective is done when just 'looking from' every thing's perspective. 'I' know all things, as 'I' am aware of all things, when things like 'you', 'selves', are taking notice and thus are aware of things, instead of 'being' the thoughts and emotions, themselves.

All of this will continually make more sense the more 'we' move along, and progress, here.

The, individual and personal, 'self' is a single, constant entity in that this 'self' is the single or individual constantly changing thoughts and emotions within an individual human body, the 'self' is a dynamic collection of mental, and emotional, states.

Whereas, the, individual and collective, 'Self' although also a single, constant Entity, is in a constantly always Aware state. Rather than being in a dynamic state of 'thinking' this 'Self' is always in a constant state of knowing.

[Age]

...you can't even tell me, apparently, what "evidence" you think Idealism is up to explaining.

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Here's a piece of evidence:

That's not evidence for Idealism. You keep saying there is some, but you offer nothing. I think you have none. What else can I conclude from your behaviour?

The evidence for realism and idealism is exactly the same.

Of course it's not. The evidence for no two things is "exactly the same." To say "all the evidence is the same" is to say, "there is no evidence relevant to any particular hypothesis," which is exactly the same as to say, "there is no evidence," because nothing counts as "evidence FOR" anything.

you have, once more, missed the point completely, and utterly.

The prima facie evidence favours Common Sense Realism. In fact, that's why it's called "Common Sense" Realism, because the unreflective person is bound to opt for it naturally. It's what our eyes suggest to us. Everybody passes through some form of it in the early stages of their lives, even if they go on to believe other things later. By contrast, Idealism isn't obvious to anyone, and isn't the default. So it needs evidence. And you've not provided any, so what's to be concluded?

That you do not see what has been provided does not mean that 'it' has not been provided.

I have clearly seen the evidence provided, you just have not, yet.

And, I have already explained numerous times, here, how and why people like "yourself" do not see some things. Even though they are blatantly obvious to others.

For example, others can see, very clearly, that it is an absolute, logical and physical, impossibility for a thing with a penis to create the whole Universe, Itself, but you, still, do not see this.

But you want me to believe Idealism is some sort of important hypothesis, one that should challenge our grip on reality. I see no reason to concede that without asking what your evidence is. Nor should anybody.

And, just like 'we' give you not just the 'evidence', but give you the irrefutable 'proof', that God is not a "he", you, still, do not see this, also.

So, even when you see no reason to concede some thing, without asking for evidence, even when not just evidence, but proof, is provided because of 'the way' you are, you are not able to, this nor do, see the evidence, nor proof, anyway.

[seeds]

Hume wrote that the self is:
"...nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas..."

seeds wrote that Hume's denial of the self:
"...is the equivalent of presuming that there can somehow exist the multi-sensory features of a vivid dream without the existence of the "dreamer" of the dream..."

And Belinda wrote:
"...Some dreams lack the dreamer as an agent of what happens..."

By your own words, Belinda, you seem to be allowing for the existence of an "agent" who controls what happens in a dream. If so, then good for you.

And yes, some dreams (known as "lucid dreams") do indeed contain a controlling "agent" who (allegedly) can willfully choose the structure, contents, and course of the dream.*

*(All of which is no surprise to me seeing how I am alleging that we each possess the inherent potential of eventually being able to create a literal universe out of our dream substances).

Anyway, if I can just get you to realize that the "agent" doesn't simply cease to exist in non-lucid dreams, but functions as a "passive observer" in normal dreams, then we'll be making some progress here.

Modern neuroscience supports the view that “the self” is not a single, constant entity but a dynamic collection of mental states. Dream research shows this clearly: in some dreams, there’s a sense of “I” acting and choosing; in others, that sense of self disappears entirely, yet experience continues.

Can you not understand how utterly nonsensical it is to suggest that "experience continues" without the existence of an "experiencer" of the experience?

This aligns more with Hume’s bundle theory — that what we call the self is just a shifting bundle of perceptions — than with the idea of a fixed, unchanging ego.

What's that old saying? Oh yeah...

"...Two wrongs* don't make a right..."

*(1. False assumptions made by modern neuroscience, and 2. Hume's bundle theory.)
_______

[Fairy]

Unmoved Mover. = God

The eternal seer without eyes. = God

Seer without a face. = God


There’s loads more evidence… that’s just the tip of the truth iceberg.

In silent stillness beats an unknown God knowing IT’self as and through IT’s conception.

[Fairy]

The duality of (knower and known) was necessary for God to Know ITself as this (Not-Knowing Known) reality.

This non dual not knowing known. Not known, and yet, Not not known.

[Fairy]

How do you know you don’t know?

By being conscious of the absolute nature of something, grasping that deeply - and then you'll see for yourself and naturally lose interest in speculating about it. That’ll be all you know. This is it.

What more evidence do you need.

[Will Bouwman]

Here's a piece of evidence:

That's not evidence for Idealism. You keep saying there is some...

No, I keep saying:

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Idealism and realism are different ways of interpreting the same evidence, all evidence. Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

To say "all the evidence is the same" is to say, "there is no evidence relevant to any particular hypothesis," which is exactly the same as to say, "there is no evidence," because nothing counts as "evidence FOR" anything.

Prior to Galileo pointing his telescope upwards, there were competing theories for how the universe worked. By studying the movement of celestial bodies, Ptolemy worked out a way to predict the future positions of the Sun, Moon and planets very accurately. Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements. The geocentric and heliocentric models were empirically equivalent; the evidence available was "evidence FOR" both. Of course we now know that neither explanation is correct, or more precisely, that the odds of either obtaining are vanishingly small.
Today, there are still many phenomena that even different scientists interpret in different ways. There are loads of interpretations of quantum mechanics, or gravity for example. Those different scientists are not privy to some data that is denied others; they are all interpreting exactly the same evidence. If you have followed that so far, we get to the step where you stumble: just like the scientists interpreting the same evidence differently, a realist and an idealist can look at the same cat and disagree about the fundamental nature of the particles the cat is made of. One thing that is certain is that common sense realism isn't much help.

[Belinda]

Hume wrote that the self is:
"...nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas..."

seeds wrote that Hume's denial of the self:
"...is the equivalent of presuming that there can somehow exist the multi-sensory features of a vivid dream without the existence of the "dreamer" of the dream..."

And Belinda wrote:
"...Some dreams lack the dreamer as an agent of what happens..."

By your own words, Belinda, you seem to be allowing for the existence of an "agent" who controls what happens in a dream. If so, then good for you.

And yes, some dreams (known as "lucid dreams") do indeed contain a controlling "agent" who (allegedly) can willfully choose the structure, contents, and course of the dream.*

*(All of which is no surprise to me seeing how I am alleging that we each possess the inherent potential of eventually being able to create a literal universe out of our dream substances).

Anyway, if I can just get you to realize that the "agent" doesn't simply cease to exist in non-lucid dreams, but functions as a "passive observer" in normal dreams, then we'll be making some progress here.

Modern neuroscience supports the view that “the self” is not a single, constant entity but a dynamic collection of mental states. Dream research shows this clearly: in some dreams, there’s a sense of “I” acting and choosing; in others, that sense of self disappears entirely, yet experience continues.

Can you not understand how utterly nonsensical it is to suggest that "experience continues" without the existence of an "experiencer" of the experience?

This aligns more with Hume’s bundle theory — that what we call the self is just a shifting bundle of perceptions — than with the idea of a fixed, unchanging ego.

What's that old saying? Oh yeah...

"...Two wrongs* don't make a right..."

*(1. False assumptions made by modern neuroscience, and 2. Hume's bundle theory.)
_______

Seeds, you need to understand that dreaming consciousness is not waking consciousness, so the waking self/agent is not the same as the dreaming self/agent. Forget lucid dreams---they are not the same neural events as dreams that include awareness of self/agent.

Dreaming consciousness often shifts between concerning an agent/self and passive onlooker. Dream do not require a stable self model.

Really all this consciousness business is material for neuroscience not metaphysics.

Seeds wrote:-

Can you not understand how utterly nonsensical it is to suggest that "experience continues" without the existence of an "experiencer" of the experience?

Certainly it intuitively seems nonsensical to me as to you. I too am a Westerner in my habits.
Hume’s point still stands: there’s experience, but no experiencer apart from it — the self is just the habit of stitching moments together. Western thought assumes a subject because its framework demands one, but Eastern traditions saw long ago that experience doesn’t need an owner any more than a flame needs a separate ‘burner’ — it’s a process, not a possession

[Will Bouwman]

As a footnote to Mr Can's preference for common sense realism, and since we had been discussing Descartes, here's the great man on the subject:
"Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess."
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm

[Immanuel Can]

Here's a piece of evidence:

That's not evidence for Idealism. You keep saying there is some...

No, I keep saying:

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same.

Idealism and realism are different ways of interpreting the same evidence, all evidence.

Again, if it's ALL evidence, and none of it is BETTER for any hypothesis, then there is no "evidence." It doesn't relate to the proving of any particular thing, so it's not what we call "evidence," nor can we have any way to recognize it AS "evidence." The only way we know a thing is "evidence" is if it tends us toward a particular hypothesis rather than some other.

That's definitional. You can't avoid it. You can't make sense of the idea of "evidence" that is not FOR any particular conclusion.

Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

Oh, that's very easy. Your senses are giving you prima facie evidence of a cat. Your natural default is to say, "There's a cat." So the burden is on the person who says to you, "That's not a cat; it's just an idea." It's they who would have to provide the reasons for you to disbelieve your eyes.

This is what I mean about Idealism: it's not intuitive, natural or the default. We all begin as Common Sense Realists, so it's up to the Idealist to disprove what our eyes testify.

Using exactly the same evidence, Copernicus also created a way to predict planetary movements.

This isn't the case. Galileo selected DIFFERENT evidence, ADDITIONAL evidence. Copernicus got things started, but he didn't actually have everything Galileo had.

The geocentric and heliocentric models were empirically equivalent;

They were not. And as it turned out, both models were flawed. The reason flawed models persisted for any amount of time was that the RIGHT evidence was not yet being taken into account. You see this both in the Galileo-Copernicus pairing, and in later cosmological models that took into account things like the configuration of the milky way. And each subsequent model not only included NEW evidence, but also better explained the EXISTING evidence; which is precisely why the new models were to be preferred.

You're just dead wrong about that. Sorry.

Those different scientists are not privy to some data that is denied others;

Yes, they are. They are not being "denied" by anybody; they're simply selecting what evidence they will regard AS evidence, or which evidence they will prioritize. But if there's no means of arbitration among hypotheses, then there is never going to be even one hypothesis that is more scientific or more tenable than any other. And that's clearly not the case, and has never been.

Your supposition is throughly anti-scientific, you must realize. If all hypotheses are equivalent, then there can never be any truth to the claim that any one hypothesis is more or less "scientific" than any other. You would incline us to the belief that the hypothesis that disease is caused by bacteria is no better than the belief that disease is caused by fairies. And if that's where we end up, then science becomes nothing important at all.

One thing that is certain is that common sense realism isn't much help

Well, Common Sense Realism is not necessary to mathematics, because mathematics is not empirical. But you're trying to invoke Idealism as a way of doubting the infinite regress problem, a proof which is mathematically demonstrable as well as empirically demonstrable.

My conclusion has to be that you don't have evidence that Idealism is capable of being any serious challenge -- or even being plausible at all. Your word, "underdetermined," in this context, means no more than "speculative and devoid of particular evidence." And that means it's just not up to the task of being a challenge to anything.

[seeds]

Your common sense realist looks at a cat and says, "I see a cat." To which an idealist might reply that, yes there is a cat, but the fundamental constituents are sub atomic particles, and what are they made of? How does your common sense realist reply?

Oh, that's very easy. Your senses are giving you prima facie evidence of a cat. Your natural default is to say, "There's a cat." So the burden is on the person who says to you, "That's not a cat; it's just an idea." It's they who would have to provide the reasons for you to disbelieve your eyes.

This is what I mean about Idealism: it's not intuitive, natural or the default. We all begin as Common Sense Realists, so it's up to the Idealist to disprove what our eyes testify.

Will, apparently you could take "Clara" to Oz, show her what's behind the curtain, and she will still insist that the Wizard is real and that you have proven nothing to her.
_______