The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel. Do you understand scepticism?

I'm seriously skeptical that you do, if that's what you mean.

idealism is more sceptical than materialism.

You've missed your own point.

"Skeptical" of what? Answer that, and you'll see why Idealism isn't a default position, and why it requires its own evidence.

Scepticism about one's own perceptions. One's own perceptions can be misleading. Evidence based on one's own perceptions may mislead one.

What are your "perceptions" telling you? It's a thing called "Common Sense Realism." You're being questioning of the things that, by default, seem true to you...your common sense, and your sense that what you're seeing is reality. So CSR is your natural assumption, and Idealism is the skeptical interloper that you're introducing into the equation. What reasons, then, do you have to trust Idealism rather than your perceptions? What evidence have you that Idealism is more reliable than the paradigm you're being skeptical of?

That's why Idealism needs evidence. It's not a natural or automatic way of seeing things, so we would need good reasons to abandon the natural and automatic for something so artificial and theoretical. What are those reasons?

[Age]

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism...

I'm afraid it is.

Fear not. Fear only that you have no evidence for Idealism.

Do you have any evidence that God has a penis?

If yes, there where is that evidence?

But, if no, then why do you call God a "he"?

But it's a moot point, anyway. Idealism is not capable of being an objection to the infinite regress problem, even were there any evidence for Idealism. It's a mere non-sequitur to suppose mathematical demonstrations can be refuted by a speculative epistemology. It's a category error. It's like trying to refute pythagorean theorem with reference to the availability of watermelons.

But, obviously, there is no 'problem', here, at all.

Although and obviously those with beliefs see things that do not actually exist. As "immanuel can" keeps proving over and over, again and again.

[Age]

I'm afraid it is.

That's the thing you don't understand.
Well, it's as serious as realism.

Immanuel. Do you understand scepticism?

I'm seriously skeptical that you do, if that's what you mean.

idealism is more sceptical than materialism.

You've missed your own point.

"Skeptical" of what? Answer that, and you'll see why Idealism isn't a default position, and why it requires its own evidence.

God having a penis and a beard is not a default position either, but yet, here, you believe this to be absolutely true, right, accurate, and correct. Do you have any evidence at all for your Truly insane position?

[Age]

No theory is 100% proved to be true. A theory supported by neuroscience is more probable than a theory supported by metaphysical suppositions.
(Seeds. you do realise in rebutting both David Hume and Antonio Damasio et al you have hard nut to crack?)

The only nut (or shell) that is hard to crack around here is the one that surrounds minds such as yours in an opaque casing that prevents you from realizing that all of the material sciences (which includes neuroscience) only concern themselves with the "superficial veneer" of what we call "objective reality" of which science itself has pretty much revealed to be nothing more than a holographic-like ("dream-like") illusion.

When, exactly, did 'science', itself, supposedly pretty much reveal this?

Also, and by the way, the words, 'minds such as yours', is an oxymoron and a Falsehood.

In other words, even though science has been studying the fabric of this grand "illusion" until the cows have finally come home, absolutely nothing in the scientific process of dissecting matter has yielded the slightest clue as to how the illusion (and especially mind and consciousness) came into existence.

The irony in your complaint is that it is science itself (more specifically, quantum theory) that has led us to look to (or at least be open to) "metaphysical suppositions" to answer the questions that cannot be answered in the study of matter.

Like what questions, exactly?

Compared with our resident evangelical whose reasoning is unhistorical, your reasoning is unscientific.

As I pointed out to you several months ago...

I have gone to great lengths to support my theory with scientific evidence.

As people do with 'beliefs' they 'look out' for absolutely any thing that might back up and support their beliefs/s in absolutely any way at all. This misbehavior also goes by the name, 'confirmation bias'.

Indeed, even a judge in the Writer's Digest, 16th Annual International Self-Published Book Awards contest had this to say about my book (emphasis mine)...

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book.

Obviously some people say and write the words, 'astonishingly ambitious', with a different meaning than others interpret those words to mean.

In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical..."

And, most of 'us' know what the word, 'mystical', is in relation to.

And as I stated back then, I simply can't help it if you are incapable of comprehending how certain scientific theories...

(again, more specifically, the theories emerging from quantum physics)

...support my claims.

Here, 'we' can very clearly see another version of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play.

The theory I tried to explain to you is not strong or weak emergence , i.e. the mind emerging from extended matter.

The theory I tried to explain to you is one of mind and extension as aspects of the same which we call brainmind.

Yes, I understand that, Belinda.

And what I tried to explain to you is how none of what you tried to explain to me truly resolves the mystery of how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter, which, again, in modern philosophical parlance is better known as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" as is described by Google's AI Overview (emphasis mine)...

The "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is the question of why and how physical brain processes give rise to subjective, conscious experiences, such as the feeling of seeing the color red or the pain of a stubbed toe.

Does any human being have a 'feeling' when seeing the colour red?

If yes, then what is 'that feeling', exactly?

And, why do 'you' have 'that feeling's for, exactly?

It's considered "hard" because even if we could completely map out all the neural activity in a brain, it wouldn't seem to logically explain the experience of what it is like to be that person.

_______

[Age]

I'm seriously skeptical that you do, if that's what you mean.


You've missed your own point.

"Skeptical" of what? Answer that, and you'll see why Idealism isn't a default position, and why it requires its own evidence.

Scepticism about one's own perceptions. One's own perceptions can be misleading. Evidence based on one's own perceptions may mislead one.

What are your "perceptions" telling you? It's a thing called "Common Sense Realism." You're being questioning of the things that, by default, seem true to you...your common sense, and your sense that what you're seeing is reality. So CSR is your natural assumption, and Idealism is the skeptical interloper that you're introducing into the equation. What reasons, then, do you have to trust Idealism rather than your perceptions? What evidence have you that Idealism is more reliable than the paradigm you're being skeptical of?

That's why Idealism needs evidence. It's not a natural or automatic way of seeing things, so we would need good reasons to abandon the natural and automatic for something so artificial and theoretical. What are those reasons?

Once more, "immanuel can" can not see and comprehend what is pointed out to it, by others, because it is so absolutely closed, and blind, here.

And, again, because it looks at' the world through its beliefs and presumptions, instead of from the Truly open perspective.

Which is why people like 'this one' take so, so long to 'catch up', and understand.

[Fairy]

Age wrote:
“Which is why people like 'this one' take so, so long to 'catch up', and understand.”

——-

Response:

The infinite formless interacting with itself as and through infinite finite forms, is not a play of catch-up. It’s the play of expression. Each form being the placeholder needed for awareness to know and understand itself as and through the world of it’s own creation, namely, the unlimited potential to create infinite variations of different dream characters. All of which are inseparable from the dreamer itself.

Infinite expression in the appearance of every thing including the “penis” All of which are within infinite Awareness, which is all one, all alone, infinitely for eternity. There is no other.

This pure indivisible oneness has no requirement to play “catch-up” with itself as if it could separate into two pieces where one piece is standing on the top rung of a ladder looking down on it’s separated other who is standing on the first rung of the ladder trying to reach the top rung to catch-up to it’s other piece of itself.

It’s just a ridiculous way to speak about the infinite one in that kind of terminology. Better to just speak to everyone as though they are the whole interacting with itself, rather than believing there’s a part of that whole that’s somehow able to detach from itself that then attempts to reattach itself to that which it was never apart from in the first place.

Age, please, don’t sell yourself short, this is not a competition, you don’t require to be in competition with your self.

God not only has a penis, God is the penis. This is just so blindingly obvious.

[Age]

Age wrote:
“Which is why people like 'this one' take so, so long to 'catch up', and understand.”

——-

Response:

The infinite formless interacting with itself as and through infinite finite forms, is not a play of catch-up. It’s the play of expression. Each form being the placeholder needed for awareness to know and understand itself as and through the world of it’s own creation, namely, the unlimited potential to create infinite variations of different dream characters. All of which are inseparable from the dreamer itself.

Infinite expression in the appearance of every thing including the “penis” All of which are within infinite Awareness, which is all one, all alone, infinitely for eternity. There is no other.

This pure indivisible oneness has no requirement to play “catch-up” with itself as if it could separate into two pieces where one piece is standing on the top rung of a ladder looking down on it’s separated other who is standing on the first rung of the ladder trying to reach the top rung to catch-up to it’s other piece of itself.

It’s just a ridiculous way to speak about the infinite one in that kind of terminology.

So, why are 'you' doing it?

'I' certainly never did.

Better to just speak to everyone as though they are the whole interacting with itself, rather than believing there’s a part of that whole that’s somehow able to detach from itself that then attempts to reattach itself to that which it was never apart from in the first place.

Obviously 'you' have missed the point and have 'your own' interpretation, here.

I never said nor implied any thing is separated. There are, however, parts of the One that have come to know thy 'Self' and thus also the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Which, literally, means that there are some parts that have not yet 'caught up' to 'us' (parts) who have.

Age, please, don’t sell yourself short, this is not a competition, you don’t require to be in competition with your self.

The words, "yourself", and, "your" self are oxymorons.

God not only has a penis, God is the penis. This is just so blindingly obvious.

Okay.

So, 'a penis' created every thing, all at once, in the beginning, right?

[Will Bouwman]

The problem's not my understanding of Idealism...

I'm afraid it is.

Fear not.

That's easy for you to say, but then you blunder on demonstrating a complete lack of understanding by writing irrelevant nonsense like this:

Fear only that you have no evidence for Idealism.

You don't need evidence for an interpretation of evidence. There are idealists who argue that some interpretations of quantum mechanics imply that properties of particles do not exist until they are measured; which some claim as evidence that the universe is a manifestation of observation rather than a mind independent substance. Note though, that is an interpretation of evidence, just as your common sense realism is.

But it's a moot point, anyway. Idealism is not capable of being an objection to the infinite regress problem...

Well, another argument for idealism is that material objects, in principle, are infinitely divisible, hence impossible. I think that is unsound for the same reason your infinite regress is unsound.

[Belinda]

No theory is 100% proved to be true. A theory supported by neuroscience is more probable than a theory supported by metaphysical suppositions.
(Seeds. you do realise in rebutting both David Hume and Antonio Damasio et al you have hard nut to crack?)

The only nut (or shell) that is hard to crack around here is the one that surrounds minds such as yours in an opaque casing that prevents you from realizing that all of the material sciences (which includes neuroscience) only concern themselves with the "superficial veneer" of what we call "objective reality" of which science itself has pretty much revealed to be nothing more than a holographic-like ("dream-like") illusion.

In other words, even though science has been studying the fabric of this grand "illusion" until the cows have finally come home, absolutely nothing in the scientific process of dissecting matter has yielded the slightest clue as to how the illusion (and especially mind and consciousness) came into existence.

The irony in your complaint is that it is science itself (more specifically, quantum theory) that has led us to look to (or at least be open to) "metaphysical suppositions" to answer the questions that cannot be answered in the study of matter.

Compared with our resident evangelical whose reasoning is unhistorical, your reasoning is unscientific.

As I pointed out to you several months ago...

I have gone to great lengths to support my theory with scientific evidence.

Indeed, even a judge in the Writer's Digest, 16th Annual International Self-Published Book Awards contest had this to say about my book (emphasis mine)...

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical..."

And as I stated back then, I simply can't help it if you are incapable of comprehending how certain scientific theories...

(again, more specifically, the theories emerging from quantum physics)

...support my claims.

The theory I tried to explain to you is not strong or weak emergence , i.e. the mind emerging from extended matter.

The theory I tried to explain to you is one of mind and extension as aspects of the same which we call brainmind.

Yes, I understand that, Belinda.

And what I tried to explain to you is how none of what you tried to explain to me truly resolves the mystery of how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter, which, again, in modern philosophical parlance is better known as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" as is described by Google's AI Overview (emphasis mine)...

The "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is the question of why and how physical brain processes give rise to subjective, conscious experiences, such as the feeling of seeing the color red or the pain of a stubbed toe. It's considered "hard" because even if we could completely map out all the neural activity in a brain, it wouldn't seem to logically explain the experience of what it is like to be that person.

_______

We don't feel our self like we feel an arm or a smell. This is because the brain lacks proprioceptors like what other tissues have. We infer we have a self.
You are of course correct that we feel qualia----subjective experiences---- however we can't locate those experiences to an anatomical locus. The "self" is an inferred locus . Neuroscience does not recognise self: psychology recognises self

[Fairy]

Age wrote: So, why are 'you' doing it?

'I' certainly never did.

————

Yes you did. You talk to people as though they are lower than you, whom you believe still need to catch-up.

Deny all you want, you’re only deluding yourself here.

Also, if like you’ve said many times on this forum before, that you are here to want to learn how to communicate with others better. Then you should be more mindful about how you speak to them and not be careless in your choice of words like telling people they are still playing catch-up, as if they are beneath you, and that only you know the truth, while everyone else has to listen to you, or else they are confused, lost, and still not there yet. Thing is, that’s a stupid thing to say to people, because you have no idea where other people are when it comes to true seeking, so it’s certainly not up to you to tell others they are still playing catch-up. It’s no wonder most people ignore you here.

So just so you know, that’s not the way to speak to people. That’s just closing yourself off from people, that condescending attitude runs completely contrary to what it is you are trying to achieve here in the first place, which is to communicate better communication with others.

[Fairy]

Age wrote: So, 'a penis' created every thing, all at once, in the beginning, right?

——-

Response:
No, God is the creator and created both. Everything is God, God is all there is. God is infinity, everything for eternity.

God is every image conceivable in this conception, including every concept, penis not excluded.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't need evidence for an interpretation of evidence.

That's pretty hilarious. That's like saying, "You don't need a book to read a book," or "You don't need a steak to eat a steak."

Of course you do.

But it's a moot point, anyway. Idealism is not capable of being an objection to the infinite regress problem...

Well, another argument for idealism is that material objects, in principle, are infinitely divisible, hence impossible. I think that is unsound for the same reason your infinite regress is unsound.

All you would be arguing then, is that our whole existence is impossible. Yet, here we are. So you can be quite sure there's a serious fault in that assumption.

But mathematics is not empirical. You're making empirical arguments. They just don't count, because you're persisting in a category error. However, if you have a mathematical demonstration of the "unsoundness" of the mathematical argument, go ahead.

However, even empirically, I don't think we have any reason at all to say we know that objects are infinitely divisible, except in the Xeno's paradox sense. I think what we've found is that the universe is a lot odder than we thought, and we know less that's definitive about it than we thought we did.

I don't think that goes one stroke in the direction of the entirely counterintuitive and impractical belief that the universe is dependent on OUR ideas. We are, after all, contingent creatures. We find reality as we find it, and know it only in a limited way. Most certainly its not our ideations that are generating that, because there was a time when we didn't even exist...and the world existed anyway. And there will be time when we will not be here...and still, the world will exist, independent of OUR ideas.

But it may well depend on Somebody's "ideas," or should I say "Word." That much, I would not at all be surprised to find.

[seeds]

We don't feel our self like we feel an arm or a smell. This is because the brain lacks proprioceptors like what other tissues have. We infer we have a self.

By "we,' don't you mean a "bundle of perceptions and passive ideas" are somehow inferring the existence of a self?

Again, if you are going to adopt and defend Hume's theory, then you forfeit the right to use certain words.

Furthermore, how many times do I have to point out to you that the brain itself doesn't feel or sense anything, and that it is the "I Am-ness" that senses, analyzes, and acts on (responds to) the information (qualia) relayed to it via the brain-body system?

In other words, the brain is the central connection (or "interface") through-which the "I Am-ness" gains access to the five sensory "windows" of the body,...

...which then gives the "I Am-ness" access to the interior reality of God's mind (the universe) of which the body and brain (but not the "I Am-ness") are a part of. And that would be metaphorically similar to how your mother's womb is a part of the interior reality of her body.*

*(I just don't know how to make the truth of reality sound more "natural" and "organic" than that. Which, in itself, should mean something.)

You are of course correct that we feel qualia----subjective experiences---- however we can't locate those experiences to an anatomical locus.

There you go again with this "we" business.

Let me reword that for you so that it's more in line with Hume's philosophy...

A "bundle of perceptions and passive ideas" that goes by the label of "seeds" are of course correct that "bundles of perceptions and passive ideas" feel qualia----subjective experiences----however, "bundles of perceptions and passive ideas" can't locate those experiences to an anatomical locus.

There now, that's how you need to be wording your responses.

The "self" is an inferred locus.

Right, hence the need to look to the aforementioned "metaphysical suppositions" for the answer to this mystery.

Otherwise, we find ourselves in the absurd situation of denying the existence of the very thing that is doing the denying of its own existence.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

You don't need evidence for an interpretation of evidence.

That's pretty hilarious. That's like saying, "You don't need a book to read a book," or "You don't need a steak to eat a steak."

Of course you do.

Well, if people being too dim to understand that implicit in an interpretation of evidence is all the evidence you need to make that interpretation is your idea of funny, then yes, you might find it hilarious.

Well, another argument for idealism is that material objects, in principle, are infinitely divisible, hence impossible. I think that is unsound for the same reason your infinite regress is unsound.

All you would be arguing then, is that our whole existence is impossible.

As beings composed of infinitely divisible matter.

Yet, here we are.

Indeed; conceivably, as some idealists might argue, as beings composed of a substrate that has qualities closer to mental, rather than those we generally attribute to what we observe as physical.

[Immanuel Can]

...implicit in an interpretation of evidence is all the evidence you need to make that interpretation...

But there's no evidence. You can't produce any, it seems. So there's nothing to "interpret," whether "implicitly" or explicitly. That's the point. One cannot interpret a nothing-in-particular.

Well, another argument for idealism is that material objects, in principle, are infinitely divisible, hence impossible. I think that is unsound for the same reason your infinite regress is unsound.

All you would be arguing then, is that our whole existence is impossible.

As beings composed of infinitely divisible matter.

You're appealing to Xeno's paradox, then? Of course, it's been answered. https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2020 ... s-paradox/

Yet, here we are.

Indeed; conceivably, as some idealists might argue, as beings composed of a substrate that has qualities closer to mental, rather than those we generally attribute to what we observe as physical.[/quote] And what would their evidence be for that, these folks who "might argue" this, these "some" you mention? That's what you never say.

But again: moot point. Idealism doesn't amount to a refutation or even a challenge to the infinite regress problem. It's a category error to suppose it ever could.