The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Will Bouwman]

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

But there's no evidence.

Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

[Belinda]

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.
_______

Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am.” — implying that the subjective self is the first certainty and foundation of existence.

Kant, in contrast, said: “The ‘I think’ must be able to accompany all my representations.” — but he doesn’t treat that “I” as a concrete self. Rather, it’s a transcendental condition — a necessary structure that unifies experience.
(credit ChatGPT research)
Which of the above is closest to ,or identical with , your theory of existence?

I do understand the natural sciences are heuristics which I gather is what you allege I don't understand . My claim is the natural sciences are better heuristics than mysticism.

[Immanuel Can]

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

But there's no evidence.

Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)? That's your alleged "evidence"?

If a detective were in court, and the lawyer were to ask him, "What evidence did you find that this was a murder," and he were to reply, "All I saw, heard, tasted and touched," what would the lawyer have to ask him next? And if he asked nothing further, just how solid would the case against the accused be?

Right. Zero.

[Belinda]

But there's no evidence.

Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)? That's your alleged "evidence"?

If a detective were in court, and the lawyer were to ask him, "What evidence did you find that this was a murder," and he were to reply, "All I saw, heard, tasted and touched," what would the lawyer have to ask him next? And if he asked nothing further, just how solid would the case against the accused be?

Right. Zero.

The lawyer would ask the detective to specify the evidence which would have to be as irrefutable as possible----finger prints, DNA,dental records ,original documemnts. Circumstantial evidence such as that the accused was in a certain place at a certain time would also be relevant.

Theories of existence may depend on evidence from the senses i.e. empirical evidence such as what is acceptable in a court of law; or alternatively theories of existence that depend solely on rational thought.
Empiricists (like Locke or Hume): trust sensory data as the source of knowledge.
Rationalists (like Descartes): trust reason as the source of certainty, and only later justify the senses through reason.
Law courts use empirical methods to find truth, and rational methods to apply it.

Idealists talk about experience a lot — but they don’t use experience as evidence in the empirical sense.
They analyze what experience must be like, or what it presupposes, using reason.

So, while empiricists ask, “What do we observe?”,
idealists ask, “What makes observation possible at all?”

[Immanuel Can]

Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)? That's your alleged "evidence"?

If a detective were in court, and the lawyer were to ask him, "What evidence did you find that this was a murder," and he were to reply, "All I saw, heard, tasted and touched," what would the lawyer have to ask him next? And if he asked nothing further, just how solid would the case against the accused be?

Right. Zero.

The lawyer would ask the detective to specify the evidence which would have to be as irrefutable as possible----finger prints, DNA,dental records ,original documemnts. Circumstantial evidence such as that the accused was in a certain place at a certain time would also be relevant.

Absolutely. So my asking Will "what evidence?" is perfectly reasonable -- and his declining to provide any...not so much.

But again, it's all moot. The infinite regress problem is confirmable and, so far as I can find, irrefutable, as well, on mathematical, not merely empirical grounds.

[Belinda]

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)? That's your alleged "evidence"?

If a detective were in court, and the lawyer were to ask him, "What evidence did you find that this was a murder," and he were to reply, "All I saw, heard, tasted and touched," what would the lawyer have to ask him next? And if he asked nothing further, just how solid would the case against the accused be?

Right. Zero.

The lawyer would ask the detective to specify the evidence which would have to be as irrefutable as possible----finger prints, DNA,dental records ,original documemnts. Circumstantial evidence such as that the accused was in a certain place at a certain time would also be relevant.

Absolutely. So my asking Will "what evidence?" is perfectly reasonable -- and his declining to provide any...not so much.

But again, it's all moot. The infinite regress problem is confirmable and, so far as I can find, irrefutable, as well, on mathematical, not merely empirical grounds.

But it is not reasonable to ignore that law courts use rational methods (evidence not involved ) to apply evidence.

To put it simply when a sensible person wants to know the facts about what to do they find evidence. THEN they use reason to APPLY the evidence.
Example: Is this fish wholesome? Evidence---smell, texture, bright or dim eyes, reputation of the fishmonger. Reason---- I must eat but am not 10O% sure about the fish so I use my reasoned judgement what some people call common sense.

[Immanuel Can]

The lawyer would ask the detective to specify the evidence which would have to be as irrefutable as possible----finger prints, DNA,dental records ,original documemnts. Circumstantial evidence such as that the accused was in a certain place at a certain time would also be relevant.

Absolutely. So my asking Will "what evidence?" is perfectly reasonable -- and his declining to provide any...not so much.

But again, it's all moot. The infinite regress problem is confirmable and, so far as I can find, irrefutable, as well, on mathematical, not merely empirical grounds.

But it is not reasonable to ignore that law courts use rational methods (evidence not involved ) to apply evidence.

A law court in which "rational methods" that do not involve "evidence"? Give such a case, if you would be so kind. To my knowledge, in a genuine court there has never been a conviction as a consequence of no evidence, regardless of what "rationality" was summoned.

[Will Bouwman]

Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)?

No, one is not supposed to deduce anything. The point is that one can deduce a number of things from the same sensory data. Do you understand that?

[Immanuel Can]

Anything you see, hear, smell, taste or touch is evidence. Do you understand that much?

So the "evidence" is both nothing (since it's not distinct to Idealism in any way) and everything (since one is supposed to deduce idealism from all sensory data)?

No, one is not supposed to deduce anything. The point is that one can deduce a number of things from the same sensory data. Do you understand that?

If "nobody is supposed to deduce anything," then there is no such thing as knowledge -- and you cannot possibly be having the knowledge that this is so, since that would undermine your own theory. So that's utterly anti-educational, anti-science, and anti-intellectual, as well as being self-contradictory. So there's nothing to "understand" about that, except that it's absurd.

Again, you're also mixing up epistemology with ontology. Somebody "can deduce" -- or better, can estimate -- many things from sensory data. But as the data changes, so too ought the estimations. It's called "learning." And these estimations can often be wrong, or they may be right; either way, it makes no difference to ontology.

Ontology refers to what really exists, whether anybody estimates it correctly or not. If not a single person in the world knew what "gravity" was, gravity would still kill those who step off cliffs. In that way, ontological reality pre-exists us, it compels our sensory inputs, and delimits what we can reasonably estimate about what's 'out there.' But no matter how faulty somebody's epistemology may be, ontological reality does not alter. It is always whatever it is. Epistemology doesn't change that. And when faulty epistemology runs into ontology, then ontology wins, every single time.

But again, all this is totally irrelevant to the infinite regress problem. It's like you're trying to argue against pythagorean theorem with reference to watermelons. There's no logical connection there. So let's go back to that issue, and we can simply dismiss all this speculative rubbish about "Idealism." It's not relevant to the topic. Even if you somehow managed to win on the empirical point (which I think you can't, and that's why you can't specify evidence) you would still lose to the mathematics.

[seeds]

Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am.” — implying that the subjective self is the first certainty and foundation of existence.

Kant, in contrast, said: “The ‘I think’ must be able to accompany all my representations.” — but he doesn’t treat that “I” as a concrete self. Rather, it’s a transcendental condition — a necessary structure that unifies experience.
(credit ChatGPT research)
Which of the above is closest to ,or identical with , your theory of existence?

Well, if you've paid any attention to what I have been promoting in this forum for the last 9 years, then you would know that what Chat had to say about the Cartesian axiom is closest to my theory of existence.

Indeed, to me, the "I Am"...

(which is simply just another name for our eternal soul, or, again, the "locus" of our being)

...is what is truly real and permanent, while all else is but mere illusion.

However, the word "illusion" might be misleading, for without the existence of the illusory substance that comprises the soul's thoughts, and dreams, and the phenomenal features of the universe, then not only would the "I Am" find itself in the hellish state of having nothing to see, feel, hear, smell, or taste,...

...but it would also have no means by which to replicate itself as is witnessed in how the greater "I AM-NESS" of this universe (God) has replicated itself by forming its own mental (illusory) substances into a setting that has facilitated the manifestation of billions of new "I Am-nesses" (us).

We're talking about new "I Am-nesses" who have not only been created "...in the image of..." the greater "I AM-NESS" of this universe, but have each been imbued with the same potential of that greater "I AM-NESS."

And what all of that implies is that the Cartesian "I Am" and that of the illusory substance that the "I Am" uses to create reality out of, are, in fact, two complementary features of the same indivisible (Spinoza-ish) "?something?" that...

(like the wave/particle duality of matter)

...do not (cannot) exist independent of one another.

On the other hand, the only thing of value that I've derived from Kant's contribution to this picture is his theory of the "noumenal world" and the complementary duality that exist between what he called the un-experienceable (unknowable) "noumenon" and that of the experienceable (knowable) "phenomenon."

Which, to my mind, closely parallels the same complementary relationship that the un-experienceable "wave" has to the experienceable "particle" in quantum mechanics.

I guess my main complaint with Kant is that he introduced weeds and obfuscating fog into the (truth-revealing) pathway that Descartes had (at least rudimentarily) cleared for us by formalizing the importance and substantiality of the "I Am".

I do understand the natural sciences are heuristics which I gather is what you allege I don't understand . My claim is the natural sciences are better heuristics than mysticism.

Yeah, but the "natural sciences" (which limit themselves to the study of matter) have taken us about as far as they can go and have yet (and are unlikely) to yield any plausible answers to the mystery of how and why the universe exists,...

...and therefore, only a closed-minded fool would refuse to allow metaphysical avenues of investigation onto the table of possible routes to pursue in the quest for the Truth.
_______

[Age]

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.

But, you 'were' claiming that 'your misinterpretation' of what I was actually doing was 'separating' things [people]. Which, again, 'I' was not doing.

Oh, and by the way, 'I' was also not talking to you, people, as though 'you' are lower than 'I'.

When 'you' get to come-to-understand who and what 'I' am, exactly, then 'you' will see that 'I' was not doing what 'you' had, previously, thought or believed 'I' was.

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

And, 'you' can change from what 'your' previous claim was, all 'you' want, as well.

Just maybe 'the one' deluding "them" 'self', here, is who 'you' believe it is.

'We' can if you like go back through 'your writings', and there 'I' can point out what 'you' 'were' originally claiming, which 'I' said and claimed that it was actually 'you' doing 'that', and not 'I'.

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.

Have 'I' ever 'thought', let alone 'said' or 'claimed', that 'you' people 'have to listen, to me, or else 'you' are confused, lost, and still not t/here yet'?

The actual Truth might just surprise 'you'.

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.

Obviously 'you' are not HERE, yet. And, so it could be said, and argued, 'you are still playing catch up'.

Once 'you' also come to know thy 'Self', and thus know who 'I' am, then 'you' will understand, as well as have 'caught up'.

It’s no wonder most people ignore you here.

Maybe most people ignore me because I do not have a "side" for them to 'argue against'.

Also, and maybe, when 'I' point out the Wrong, in 'their words', which they can not counter, nor refute, then 'they' find 'just ignoring' 'me' their best option.

So just so you know, that’s not the way to speak to people.

'The way' you people have been speaking to each other for the last few thousand or so years, hitherto when this is being written, has not really produced a Truly peaceful and fun loving world, proved by the 'current' conditions. Therefore, just maybe 'the way' to speak to you people needs/needed to be changed.

Again, 'we' will just have to wait to find out.

That’s just closing yourself off from people,

That is from 'the people' who are, still, searching for and, still, seeking answers, correct?

Just maybe 'the way' you people have been doing things, for the last few thousand or so years has not been the 'best way' nor 'Correct way', and thus has not been in your best interests.

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.

Once again, I will suggest you people seek out and obtain and gain actual clarification, and clarity, first, before you make absolutely any assumption at all.

See, just maybe 'I' do not have a 'condescending attitude' at all, and if, and when, clarifying questions are posed, and asked, then 'this' will become blatantly clear, and obvious. Again, until then, 'I' will just wait, patiently, until this Truly 'open attitude' is 'tried and tested' by you human beings.

'I' am not sure how many times I will have to say, and suggest, that becoming, and remaining, Truly open, which means not have nor holding absolutely any assumption, nor belief, at all, then, and only then, can the actual Truths, in Life, come-to-light, and thus be seen, and known, before you human beings come to understand, and know, this irrefutable Fact.

[Age]

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

——-

Response:
No,

Great answer.

Thank you for Correcting "your" 'self', here. And, especially so when, and after, you had, previously, claimed that it was blindingly obvious.

God is the creator and created both. Everything is God, God is all there is. God is infinity, everything for eternity.

Actually, every thing is a part of God, whereas God is Everything.

When and if 'you' ever come to understand 'this', then 'you' will be closer to coming to understanding, and knowing, thy Self.

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

But, this is not Correct, at all.

It could be said, and argued, that every image conceivable in 'this conception', including every concept, penis not excluded, is a 'part of God', but God is certainly not 'any of those particular perceived and/or conceived things'.

Come to learn, understand, and know, the difference between 'every thing', and, 'Everything', then 'you' are coming closer to learning, understanding, and knowing far more, here, and thus also 'catching up'.

[Age]

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."

To 'you' it may be, "Immanuel can". But, to 'us', that is not like saying what you said, and wrote, here, at all.

But, 'you' do have a very narrowed and closed way of 'looking' and 'seeing' things.

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, there is absolutely no fault, at all, in the assumption and belief that a thing with a penis created absolutely every thing, all at once, right?

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.

So, once more, I will suggest that you human beings just stop thinking/assuming that you know. Obviously this 'presuming' things just keeps letting you people down.

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.

It is, again, 'these types of beliefs' why these people, back when this was being written, took so, so long to just 'catch up'.

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.

What do you even mean by the words, 'the world', exactly?

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.

LOL Once again, another example of just how 'blind', and stupid, one can make "them" 'self', though their own distorted beliefs.

[Age]

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?

If you, really, want to say and claim that the brain, itself, does not feel or sense absolutely any thing, and that what does 'sense' and 'feel' is some so-called, 'I Am-ness', then what is 'this I Am-ness', (with capital 'I' and 'A'), exactly, to you?

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.

What is this 'God' thing, exactly?
What is this 'mind' thing, exactly, which some so-called God thing has?
And, are you saying and claiming that the Universe, Itself, is what you call and claim is 'God's mine'?

If yes, then how, exactly?

And that would be metaphorically similar to how your mother's womb is a part of the interior reality of her body.

Are you able to elaborate and explain more?

If yes, then great, will you?

If no, then why not?

Also, is what you saying and claiming, here, just conjecture, or just actual irrefutable Fact?

*(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.)

What?

Are you claiming to have some so-called 'truth of reality', here?

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.

But, how can 'ideas', themselves, 'feel' any thing, exactly?

Also, when, and if, 'you' people also come to finding, and knowing, the 'Right words', then 'you' will, also, find, and see, that the actual Truth is so much simpler, and easier, then all of these assumptions and ideas made up by you human beings.

The "self" is an inferred locus.

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

LOL But, there is 'no mystery', here.

'It' only remains 'a mystery' to you people, here, because you do not just 'look at' what is actually True, and Real, only.

Instead you are continually 'trying to' presume, and guess. As can be very clearly seen throughout this forum.

And, what is Truly funny to watch and observe, here, is when some of you then claim that only after 'you die', only then 'you will find the truth'.

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.
_______

Which is what can happen when 'you' people presume and/or guess things.

[Age]

Idealism doesn't amount to a refutation or even a challenge to the infinite regress problem.

Once more there is no 'infinite regress problem'. Except, of course, for some thing in "immanuel can's" imagination.