Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

...homophoning...

Telecommunications to Elton John?

[Gary Childress]

I do not believe in God, so I don’t have an opinion on anything you’ve stated. My post refers to the omnipotence paradox, not the what and whys of ‘God’. A being who purportedly exists in another ontology. My argument is conceptual; your argument is ontological — I will not mix those categories.

So you do not believe in God. And yet you say that the human conception of omnipotence cannot be applied to God. What if God exists? If so, then how do you know the human conception of omnipotence cannot be applied to God?

Also, when you say you do not believe in God are you suggesting that God does not exist, that God is a completely human fabrication, such as unicorns or the tooth fairy, which are completely fabricated by humans and do not exist?

The whole point is that God, if it exists, does so in a different ontology — a different ontology is a different category of being. I'm not going to mix the ontology (or category) of humans with that of God; I hope I have made it clear this time. Also, I identify as agnostic.

Unfortunately, that could all be speculation on your part. How do you know that humans can't use human understanding to speak of God? The very fact that you call it a "category error" is you using a human conception to describe God. We can't not be human in understanding things. "Categories" are things we humans apply to a world that routinely defies categories.

[seeds]

This will be a bit weird, but let’s suppose that evolution, as it has been understood and presented, is not the true story. What are we left with, really? You [IC] (I think) believe the Genesis Story. Very well, let’s go along with it. As an outline of miraculous invention, of not only our world but Existence coming to be by the will of a Divine Author. More or less :::poof::: and there it is.

But now let’s theorize the Author. Here is where I think Seeds came up with an interesting hypothesis: Now that we understand Super intelligence, and we are right on the very brink of changes and dare I say evolutions in material power and domination, we must I think hypothesize an extreme, even rather god-like entity (I don’t know what word to use) that, if things continue, will advance science and material manipulation even farther than the trajectory of 400 years or so from the scientific revolution until now. It is quite plausible and the implications are even difficult to imagine.

Now, such an intelligence could very well create a Simulation that for all intents and purposes seems utterly real, but in truth is not. For reasons we do not understand we are cast or sent into this realm (i.e. the Cosmos) and, by some incredible force, cannot believe other than that it is absolutely real.

First of all, the reason why we believe that the “Simulation” is absolutely real can be likened to the same reason for why we sometimes believe that our dreams are real.

It all has to do with the fact that there truly does exist varying levels of consciousness (or varying degrees of wakefulness).

When we are under the thrall of the seeming “realness” of a dream, we are momentarily unaware of the higher level of wakefulness that exists above and outside of the dream we are experiencing.

Well, likewise, when we awaken from a dream, we...

(or at least most humans)

...do not realize that there is yet a higher stage of wakefulness --> above and outside of what you, AJ, have rightfully determined to be a “Simulation” --> a “Simulation” that fools us into believing that its phenomenal features are, as you stated, “absolutely real”...

...when, in fact, they are no more real than the phenomenal features of the dream you just awakened from --> (just more ordered and of a higher resolution).

And secondly, the notion that we have been, as you said...

“...cast or sent into this realm...”

...comes loaded with the mistaken presumption that we...

(our souls / minds / I Am-nesses)

...already existed prior to being “cast” into this “Simulation.”

However, what everyone needs to understand is that even the unfathomable intelligence who was able to create such a convincing “Simulation”...

(an intelligence commonly referred to as “God” by the beings who inhabit the “Simulation”)

...needed to come up with (create) an actual process or “mechanism” so to speak, by which new souls - (just like itself) - could be awakened into existence.

And that is in direct opposition to the commonly held (yet completely false) belief that a brand new eternal soul can be created...

(as in ":::poofed:::" into existence)

...from a simple little “snap” of divine fingers.

However, the truth is that it is via the workings of the human body and, especially, the human brain,...

(two of the more complex and purposeful features of the “Simulation”)

...that this "soul-creating miracle" is achieved.

The point is that we are not “...cast or sent into this realm...” as pre-existing souls who, apparently, are at the “beck and call” of the inner-workings of a “Simulation” in which a horny human male accidentally impregnates an equally horny female in the backseat of his parents' Chevy Impala at a drive-in movie.

No, the miracle of the manifestation of a brand new eternal soul is achieved because the highly ordered patterns of information from which the “Simulation” is constructed,...

...also include the unthinkably advanced “coding” that is not only capable of summoning-forth the life essence already present within the living fabric of the “Simulation,”...

...but is also able…

(again by design)

...to somehow cause that living essence to be formed and awakened into a new individualization of consciousness (into a new “I Am-ness” created in the image of the OLD “I AM-NESS”).

Good grief, how many different ways do I need to provide metaphorical descriptions of reality which attempt to point out the simple (“natural” and “organic”) fact that the universe...

(the “Simulation”)

...is God’s living “Womb”...

(hence how and why it is imbued with the essence of life)

...in which God is able to “self-conceive” her very own (and literal) familial offspring (us)?
_______

[Fanman]

So you do not believe in God. And yet you say that the human conception of omnipotence cannot be applied to God. What if God exists? If so, then how do you know the human conception of omnipotence cannot be applied to God?

Also, when you say you do not believe in God are you suggesting that God does not exist, that God is a completely human fabrication, such as unicorns or the tooth fairy, which are completely fabricated by humans and do not exist?

The whole point is that God, if it exists, does so in a different ontology — a different ontology is a different category of being. I'm not going to mix the ontology (or category) of humans with that of God; I hope I have made it clear this time. Also, I identify as agnostic.

Unfortunately, that could all be speculation on your part. How do you know that humans can't use human understanding to speak of God? The very fact that you call it a "category error" is you using a human conception to describe God. We can't not be human in understanding things. "Categories" are things we humans apply to a world that routinely defies categories.

Based on what you’ve stated here, I don’t see any reason to alter what I have already stated. Thanks for your time.

[Will Bouwman]

Then I take it that in your view — which you declare is philosophical or the one a philosopher will come to at the end-point of reason — is that nothing in the created manifest world has established, say, the right or the ultimate interpretation of a unified philosophical and religious set of principles?

No Gus. Many of the philosophers you will have heard of have presented the right or the ultimate interpretation of a unified philosophical set of principles - that is what makes some philosophers famous. The thing is, there is a smorgesbord of philosophical principles (religion is just philosophy with a dollop of magic and a thin skin) from which to choose; combinations of which can create unified sets. It is entirely possible that some clever sausage has nailed it: picked the right philosophical principles, applied the appropriate logic flawlessly and described reality precisely as it is.

Such does not exist and could not exist...

No, it can exist and possibly already does. The problem is there can be many equally compelling sets of principles to which logic has been applied flawlessly, the resulting hypotheses of which make the same predictions and yield the same results.

...therefore attempting to define it is a ‘fool’s errand’, or an aesthetic choice, and in all cases a whimsical choice.

Well, attempting to convince everyone that any particular interpretation is The Truth is a fool's errand. The choice of philosophical principles is aesthetic; and whimsy is as good a selection criterion as any. If theories derived from different sets of principles are not empirically equivalent, someone has to adapt their theory; either by including a premise to explain the anomalous observation, tinkering with the logic or shuffling their principles. Or they can stick their fingers in their ears and yell.

This is what Philosophy teaches, is that right?

The takeaway for anyone who does more than dip their toe in is Socratic and Cartesian scepticism. Keep those in mind, learn some logic, a bit of semantic analysis and philosophy is a playground. You'd think semantic analysis would be easy and on paper it is - look at the words and work out what they mean. However, people can read into a few words something that isn't there, as you have done above; part of the skill is to stick to what is actually said. Now, you don't need to be philosophically trained to manage that, but if you can't, it's a sure sign that you haven't been philosophically trained; it's one of the things that gives bullshitters away: Mr Can for example.

The people trying to sell you their integrated picture as truth are the ones who don't know what they are talking about.

Yes! YES! That’s why I say “Instruct me for thou knowest…”

Socrates, Gus.

[Gary Childress]

The whole point is that God, if it exists, does so in a different ontology — a different ontology is a different category of being. I'm not going to mix the ontology (or category) of humans with that of God; I hope I have made it clear this time. Also, I identify as agnostic.

Unfortunately, that could all be speculation on your part. How do you know that humans can't use human understanding to speak of God? The very fact that you call it a "category error" is you using a human conception to describe God. We can't not be human in understanding things. "Categories" are things we humans apply to a world that routinely defies categories.

Based on what you’ve stated here, I don’t see any reason to alter what I have already stated. Thanks for your time.

And based on what you've stated, I see no reason to think I am necessarily making a "category error" in my musings about God based on the nature and happenings of the world that God allegedly created or presides over. Sound fair?

[Fanman]

Unfortunately, that could all be speculation on your part. How do you know that humans can't use human understanding to speak of God? The very fact that you call it a "category error" is you using a human conception to describe God. We can't not be human in understanding things. "Categories" are things we humans apply to a world that routinely defies categories.

Based on what you’ve stated here, I don’t see any reason to alter what I have already stated. Thanks for your time.

And based on what you've stated, I see no reason to think I am necessarily making a "category error" in my musings about God based on the nature and happenings of the world that God allegedly created or presides over. Sound fair?

In my view, unless the discussion is conceptual, it is a category error to attribute human evaluative categories to God and potentially judge God by them because God is not in the same category as humans. We may think that God is x, y, or z, but we cannot prove that as a matter of fact. I will note that the topic of our discussion shifted. My initial post was on the omnipotence paradox, but you did not comment on that. I don't know why we ended up here, but I'm happy to end our discussion here.

[Gary Childress]

Based on what you’ve stated here, I don’t see any reason to alter what I have already stated. Thanks for your time.

And based on what you've stated, I see no reason to think I am necessarily making a "category error" in my musings about God based on the nature and happenings of the world that God allegedly created or presides over. Sound fair?

In my view, unless the discussion is conceptual, it is a category error to attribute human evaluative categories to God and potentially judge God by them because God is not in the same category as humans. We may think that God is x, y, or z, but we cannot prove that as a matter of fact. I will note that the topic of our discussion shifted. My initial post was on the omnipotence paradox, but you did not comment on that. I don't know why we ended up here, but I'm happy to end our discussion here.

So is God omnipotent, or is God not omnipotent? Can God stop an asteroid from destroying the Earth, or can God not stop an asteroid from destroying the Earth? If God cannot stop an asteroid from destroying the Earth, then can we or can we not conclude from that that God is NOT omnipotent? Or should we say that God is still "omnipotent" even if s/he cannot stop an asteroid from destroying the Earth? What does it mean to say that it is a "category error" for a person to think that God is "omnipotent"?

If God is in a different "category," then how does one conclude that God is in a different "category"? What if it is a human "category error" to think that God is in a different "category" than humans? Since we cannot know anything about God, then how can we know God is in a different "category"? As an agnostic, wouldn't you have to say that it either may or may not be the case that it is a "category error" to categorize God as omnipotent or not omnipotent? How is proposing that it is a "category error" to judge God as not omnipotent? If God cannot stop something in the universe from happening, wouldn't that indeed make God NOT omnipotent?

[Gary Childress]

Based on what you’ve stated here, I don’t see any reason to alter what I have already stated. Thanks for your time.

And based on what you've stated, I see no reason to think I am necessarily making a "category error" in my musings about God based on the nature and happenings of the world that God allegedly created or presides over. Sound fair?

In my view, unless the discussion is conceptual, it is a category error to attribute human evaluative categories to God and potentially judge God by them because God is not in the same category as humans. We may think that God is x, y, or z, but we cannot prove that as a matter of fact. I will note that the topic of our discussion shifted. My initial post was on the omnipotence paradox, but you did not comment on that. I don't know why we ended up here, but I'm happy to end our discussion here.

If it is a "category error" to judge God as having a certain quality based upon the character of a person's life, then doesn't that pretty much make us humans unable to say anything at all about God? And if we cannot say anything at all about God, then can we even say that we cannot say anything at all about God? Does that not render us mute and unable to even begin the question of what God "is"? Does that not make us unable to assert that it is a "category error"?

[Fanman]

Gary, the distinction is conceptual. We can have ideas about God and what God is like and not like; however, taking those ideas as a matter of fact is a category error without an accurate model of God to base our ideas on. I've stated the reasons why that is the case, and I think they're coherent, friend. We aren’t going to agree, so let's call it a day.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, the distinction is conceptual. We can have ideas about God and what God is like and not like; however, taking those ideas as a matter of fact is a category error without an accurate model of God to base our ideas on. I've stated the reasons why that is the case, and I think they're coherent, friend. We aren’t going to agree, so let's call it a day.

Fair enough, friend. Enjoy life while we have it (if that's possible, considering all the misery so many others experience around us).