Philosophy: Prove you exist

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

How much of that immanence belongs to us, though? How much of that "we" is truly "ours". What do I possess that may not be taken from me? That has not been given to me? What is inviolably mine?

This is relevant only if self is 'a being.' 'A being' is not the same as 'being.'

What is inviolably mine is my choice to observe 'being' and my choice to experience 'being.'

When I observe 'being' then immanence and self are separate. I am 'a being.'

When I experience 'being' then immanence and self are not separate. I participate in 'being.'

Observation rests on experience. We cannot observe what we cannot experience.

[123rock]

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

Are you saying that ideas are not corporeal?

Is 'being' corporeal?

Particularly information does not exist in a physical sense per se. It only has a physical counterpart - that which carries it. I guess, the clearest example would be DNA. The bases are material, but they don't convey much information if they are not arranged in a certain manner. They may or may not carry the same information as the original copy, yet they are always the same bases, so what changes is not the physical, but information itself. In that sense, information itself does not exist except for its expression by the physical.

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

In absurdism, the character reaches the crossroads of choice, sits down, and refuses to move.

Heh heh. Pretty.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Vanity in this sense--the argument will ensue, and we will convince ourselves one way or another and congratulate ourselves on the "achievement."

Yes, much like a hockey game.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

But what has been achieved?

Either of the following:

a) Failure as the true test of greatness.
b) Success as a ground for the next leap of faith.

The true test of greatness by the way is the ability to find success in defeat.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

What joy can there be in such a proof, knowing that it's fabricated by our own intelligence, or even fabricated by our own observations of our intelligence (or the universe or what-not).

If there is a God and God tells us to use His gifts, then the joy is in using our intelligence which is a gift.

Other than that, for some of us it's just plain fun. It serves the function of play.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

what joy is there in knowing that we just imagine ourselves being?

I don't know, but in any case that is not exactly what I said. I have already linked to what I have said. So please reference that.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Proof of our being or non-being must come from elsewhere, not from us.

This may or may not be true, but it is as yet undemonstrated.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

I'm not setting up an artificial dichotomy between faith and reason, but merely attempting to underscore the idea that we're attempting to prove to ourselves something which religion teaches is proven to us by other means.

Other means is what exactly? Faith? Or Reason? What are the other means to which you point us?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas.

Undemonstrated.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

"The quest for proof of our existence" itself seems a funny phrase to me. And, yes, solipsistic.

Necessarily sollipsistic?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Are you saying that philosophy/theology is like hockey?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Just around to keep us entertained during the "long dark march towards whatever it is we're marching towards" (in the words of Tennessee Williams)?

Is that what hockey is for you? That seems at first glance to be sollipsistic. Have you referenced what folks other than yourself might consider to be the ends of hockey? Perhaps you have and I missed it?

continued...

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

"nothing to do with anything" is also a funny phrase, given the context of this discussion. But it's a phrase I enjoy. And I maintain, this topic has nothing to do with anything.

Again: a sollipsism? I am wondering if you like the freddie mercury lyric: Nothing really matters? Do you?

If this topic has nothing to do with anything why are you posting on this thread at length?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Seriously though, what does my own proof of my existence have to do with anything. Perhaps it's comforting. But who needs it?

Do you think you need it? Do you think other folks need it?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

I'm not sure if your highlighting job was meant to emphasize the difference between Christianity and Buddhism, as if they were intellectual opposites or some such.

It's a shorthand for myself to refer to points already made in threads which sometimes get very detailed and long. In the same way, I might underline a book with pencil or hilight a notebook with yellow marker.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Read some of the Saints and Mystics of the church.

The assumption being that I have not read some of the Saints and Mystics of the Church?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Check out the Cappadocian fathers, or Dionysius the Areopagite. You may be surprised by what you find there re: Being v. Non-Being, the Nothingness v. the Void, the Fullness v. the Emptiness.

Your point of view merits examination. Referencing your point of view with specific quotes and links is useful to clarifying your point of view. But sending us on rabbit chases serves what purpose exactly?

If you feel that CF, DA have some useful insights into the topic of the thread then by all means quote them in the context of your own points of view on being, nonbeing, nothingness, void, fullness, emptiness and how those concepts relate to the topic of the thread.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Oh Heidegger.

The anthem?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

By the way, just so my own shortcomings are not attributed to Ms. Weil, only the stuff in quotes was a quotation from her.

Yes, I believe I preserved your quoted material. Did I not?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Your point about observing and being is interesting. It seems like a very nice story.

'Nice story'? Not following you. I don't see how 'nice story' furthers any growth in understanding on a philosophy forum. Can you clarify please? Thank you.

By the way the mods have asked us to preface certain threads with 'philosophy.' That way they can survey the need for a new forum. So this is definitely a philosophy forum.

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by 123rock

Particularly information does not exist in a physical sense per se. It only has a physical counterpart - that which carries it. I guess, the clearest example would be DNA. The bases are material, but they don't convey much information if they are not arranged in a certain manner. They may or may not carry the same information as the original copy, yet they are always the same bases, so what changes is not the physical, but information itself. In that sense, information itself does not exist except for its expression by the physical.

Fair enough. I think 'corporeal' is a contextual word. Some writers need ideas and words to be more closely linked to corporeal than other writers. But I can accept your definition for the time being. Thank you.

[Deo Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Before I go on, and for whatever it's worth, I just want to say, Ani Ibi, that reading your last two posts made me smile. A lot.

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

Other means is what exactly? Faith? Or Reason? What are the other means to which you point us?

Purely supernatural--i.e., the Incarnation. The Incarnation is the proof from outside of ourselves that we exist: the absence is filled with presence.

Now, absence, you may say--did not the absence exist prior to the advent of the presence? Not really--the absence exists only conceptually, not actually. It exists when we observe it--otherwise, we may not notice it. When it is *filled*, however, then we realize just how much we have been lacking.

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

Again: a sollipsism? I am wondering if you like the freddie mercury lyric: Nothing really matters? Do you?

If this topic has nothing to do with anything why are you posting on this thread at length?

There is a very particular sense in which nothing really matters--that is, it matters to God. We (inexplicably) matter to God. And mattering to God makes us real.

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

Do you think you need it? Do you think other folks need it?

Let's not confuse needing and wanting. We may want it. We don't need it.

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

The assumption being that I have not read some of the Saints and Mystics of the Church?

Far be it from me to suppose such a thing. My fear, though, is that you were looking down on a possible "Eastern" philosophy I was espousing as not properly Christian--my point is that it's there in the Saints.

Which made me think--clearly my observation of you through your words here led me to an incorrect idea regarding your person. Who I thought you were does not exist. Chances are, who I think you are now does not exist. And if I were to meet you, even then, my impressions of you would not add up to you--the complex of thoughts, feelings and associations cojured by the thought of you having little to do with you. To me, you do not exist, because I cannot know you as you are. I assume it's the other way around for you--I do not exist for you, I am only a thought of me.

If I were to observe myself, I would find a similar difficulty--I do not exist, I am only a thought of me. Is observation, therefore (even the capacity to observe) such a reliable foundation of being? Isn't consciousness a better word? (not that it changes much...)

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

The anthem?

I wish!

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

'Nice story'? Not following you.

That we do or do not exist is simply a lovely story we tell ourselves. Theologically speaking, what I truly am is hidden in Christ. What I appear to be now is nonsense in comparison--a comfort in the face of the Radical Divine Other who threatens to love me so much that I forget myself in him. That can be scary, particularly if I'm in love with a story of my own being that I enjoy telling myself and from which I would rather not be parted.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

[Keikiolu]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

I've never had an atheist take me up on this challenge. They are to prove they exist, using the same standards they use to disprove the existence of God.

Since this is the internet, I cannot see or hear the atheist. I cannot be sure it really is an atheist. I have to believe the poster really is an atheist. Maybe it is someone's sockpuppet.

Any takers?

I'm a pretend atheist.

Do you believe I'm a pretend atheist?

What do you believe about me?

Even if you don't believe anything about me, you know of me, or you can't say that you've read this.

Therefore, since it doesn't matter whether you believe any particular characteristic of mine, but only that you know of me, for you to have known me,...

I exist for you.

..and I'll take your word for it that I exist, just to be agreeable.




All that nonsense amounts to:

• Me: "Hi..!"
• You'all: "Darn,.. now we're all convicted to believing that he/she/it exists!"

Bummer for you....



Mahalo ke Akua..!
E pili mau na pomaika`i ia `oe. Aloha nui.

[Everstruggling]

Hi Ani Ibi,

I've tried to limit my comments to the parts of the post that seem the most relevent to our postion. Arguing about the nature of possible universes isn't really my cup of tea, and the analogy doesn't seem to be getting us very far.

Yes. That is one way of looking at it. I offered another way of looking at it when I suggested that God might be the imaginary-time, pre-Big-Bang universe from which the real-time, post-Big-Bang universe was created. A so-called external cause but one which flowed into its effect.

The only reason I brought up the example of the static universe was to demonstrate that it was possible to conceive of a universe without a cause. Any other ways of looking at it aren't really important (interesting, but not important).

John Doran suggested that God is necessary in all possible worlds. It is, goes his argument, that it is impossible to conceive of any world of any type in which God could not exist. If I establish even one world in which it is possible that God could not exist then I have refuted the argument. I don't have to show that God is impossible in every universe to refute the argument.

But let's look at God in the terms you suggest.

God might be the imaginary-time, pre-Big-Bang universe from which the real-time, post-Big-Bang universe was created.

I have never met anyone who believes that this is what God is. This seems like a very strange thing to worship.

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

The only reason I brought up the example of the static universe was to demonstrate that it was possible to conceive of a universe without a cause.

A static universe can be caused.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

John Doran suggested that God is necessary in all possible worlds. It is, goes his argument, that it is impossible to conceive of any world of any type in which God could not exist. If I establish even one world in which it is possible that God could not exist then I have refuted the argument.

The ability to conceive of any universe in which God could not exist is different from whether or not it is possible for there to be a universe in which God does not exist

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

I don't have to show that God is impossible in every universe to refute the argument.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

I have never met anyone who believes that this is what God is. This seems like a very strange thing to worship.

Because you have not met anyone who believes that God is an imaginary-time pre-Big-Bang universe does not mean that God is not exactly that.

Would you agree that it is possible for God to be the First Cause for all possible universes?

Would you agree that it is possible for an imaginary-time pre-Big-Ban universe to be the First Cause for all possible universes?

Well then we are left with these options as to First Cause for all possible universes:

1. God and the PBB universe are the same thing.

2. Both God and the PBB universe were joint First Causes.

3. God and the PBB were not the only First Causes.

4. Only God was the First Cause.

5. Only the PBB universe was the First Cause.

6. Neither God nor the PBB universe were the First Cause, which means something yet unknown was the First Cause.

The latter two are examples of universes in which God is not the First Cause.

Therefore they are examples of universes in which God does not exist, because we have defined God as a possible First Cause.

Looking at this another way: If the Pre-Big-Bang universe was the only First Cause or if something yet unknown was the only First Cause of a universe then we could not conclude that God existed in that universe. Because the First Cause would have to have caused God and, by definition, we have said God cannot be caused.

I have conceived of a universe in which God does not exist. Therefore I have defeated John's hypothesis.

Conceiving of and proving are two different things. Let's proceed with proof that God has to exist in all possible universes.

Let's first see if we can knock some options off our list.

We know from Hawking's work that the PBB universe is sufficient to have caused all possible universes. Therefore let's knock (3) and (6) off our list.

3. God and the PBB were not the only First Causes.

6. Neither God nor the PBB universe were the First Cause, which means something yet unknown was the First Cause.

No useful purpose is served by splitting hairs between God and the PBB universe: there is no good reason to think that God is not the same as the PBB universe. Therefore let's knock (2), (4) ,and (5) off our list.


2. Both God and the PBB universe were joint First Causes.


4. Only God was the First Cause.

5. Only the PBB universe was the First Cause.

That leaves us with:

If God and the PBB universe are the same thing, and the PBB universe is sufficient to have caused all possible universes, then God must exist in all possible universes.

[Everstruggling]

If there is a First Cause, then it is God. By definition. (Damascene's idea of existence without reference to identity.) Where we run into challenges is in the identity of God (Aquinas's insistence that existence hinges on identity).

Again, you have me at a disadvantage. I don't know who Damascene is. But if the First Cause is God definition (I'd really like to see this demonstrated) then again the question that rises to my mind is, "So what?"

So what if there is a First Cause? So what if there is a God? Why bother with Christianity if "God" is nothing more than the conditions that brought about the universe?

It is merely impossible for some folks to conceive of a universe without God. Therefore God does not have to be something.

How do you know it is impossible for some people to conceive of a universe that God does not exist? Well, I guess that's possible, but then there are people who are unable to conceive of any universe at all. Which means that they can not conceive of a universe where anything doesn't exist. Therefore everything must exist.

Even so, by this logic "God" is an invention of those who believe in Him/Her/It/Them. "I observe God, therefore God exists".

There was a guy at Art School that wasn't sure he was a man. Does that mean that he wasn't sure he existed? Now this is no small matter. No small matter at all. I think he did question whether or not he existed

Sounds like an unhappy chap. I hope for his sake he began to believe in himself.

So this is 'being' as a function of ... well... 'function'.

He enlarges my world therefore he is.

I hope you didn't think I was trying to suggest, "I'm male therefore I am." This fellow fit the pattern of what you see as real. Your dreams don't, at least they don't after you wake up... usually. But your dreams can seem to enlarge your world.

Most people that we meet when we are awake and walking about fit our criteria of "beings" of real things. Some people put God in in the "real being" category. I am in the awkward position of thinking:

1. God is the name given to a real entity that isn't particularly "god-like".
2. God doesn't exist.
3. God is a metaphore for the mystical, hard to comprehend aspect of the world.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling
What is this "God" that can not only be proven to exist, but is worthy of worship?

Jesus. Before during and after His life on earth. In that sense the art student guy was a metaphor for Jesus.

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't find Jesus particularly inspiring. To me "Jesus" and "God" aren't the same thing at all.

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

I'm a pretend atheist.

I hear ya Mr K.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Do you believe I'm a pretend atheist?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

What do you believe about me?

I believe your a Catholic.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Even if you don't believe anything about me, you know of me, or you can't say that you've read this.

Yes I can. But it may not be true.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Therefore, since it doesn't matter whether you believe any particular characteristic of mine, but only that you know of me, for you to have known me,...I exist for you.

Damascene strikes again. Pretty move.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

...and I'll take your word for it that I exist, just to be agreeable.

Good idea.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

All that nonsense amounts to:

• Me: "Hi..!"
• You'all: "Darn,.. now we're all convicted to believing that he/she/it exists!"

Sigh... it goes with the territory.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu

Bummer for you...

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Again, you have me at a disadvantage. I don't know who Damascene is.

I have posted links to everyone I have referred to. Damascene is no exception. He posited that one could know the existence of God without knowing the identity of God.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

But if the First Cause is God definition (I'd really like to see this demonstrated)

It is not necessary to demonstrate a definition.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

then again the question that rises to my mind is, "So what?"

And I would ask that, given what I have already posted about First Cause in the last few pages, then where does the question "so what" come from?

I've already answered "so what" probably several times in several ways.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

So what if there is a First Cause? So what if there is a God? Why bother with Christianity if "God" is nothing more than the conditions that brought about the universe?

I didn't say that God is nothing more than the conditions that brought about the universe.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

How do you know it is impossible for some people to conceive of a universe that God does not exist?

Because I have already proven it on a previous post.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Well, I guess that's possible

Alrighty then.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

but then there are people who are unable to conceive of any universe at all.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Which means that they can not conceive of a universe where anything doesn't exist.

Non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Therefore everything must exist.

Non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Even so, by this logic "God" is an invention of those who believe in Him/Her/It/Them.

Non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

"I observe God, therefore God exists".

But I had a very specific conditions for 'observe.' Those I have already posted. At length.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Sounds like an unhappy chap. I hope for his sake he began to believe in himself.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

I hope you didn't think I was trying to suggest, "I'm male therefore I am."

You can, if you can prove it.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

This fellow fit the pattern of what you see as real.

OK. Let's see where you go with this. Lead on...

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Your dreams don't, at least they don't after you wake up... usually. But your dreams can seem to enlarge your world.

Not seem. My dreams can actually enlarge my world. Because they are experiences which can increase my ability to observe the universe.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Most people that we meet when we are awake and walking about fit our criteria of "beings" of real things.

This is a culturally specific point of view. The Australian aborigines do not totally share this point of view. Shamans do not totally share this point of view. The mentally ill do not totally share this point of view. Movie-goers do not totally share this view. Internet posters do not totally share this view. History buffs do not totally share this view.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Some people put God in in the "real being" category.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

I am in the awkward position of thinking: 1. God is the name given to a real entity that isn't particularly "god-like".

Fair enough. Why?

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

2. God doesn't exist.

Fair enough. Why?

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

3. God is a metaphore for the mystical, hard to comprehend aspect of the world.

At some point in history everything in the world was mystical and hard to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't find Jesus particularly inspiring.

The ability of Jesus to inspire you is relevant in what way to what I posted on Jesus?

Originally Posted by Everstruggling

To me "Jesus" and "God" aren't the same thing at all.

Fair enough. Why?

[Abiien]

So I will be one of thsoe hundred users who usually skip the whole entire thing and just start off by bringing up a topic that might have only been talked about in the beginning but i dont know because i wasnt there when ti happened.


My question is.

Is disproving God exists the same as disproving some random person from china exists?

Would believing in the existance of them be the same in believing the existance of God?

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

There is a very particular sense in which nothing really matters--that is, it matters to God. We (inexplicably) matter to God. And mattering to God makes us real.

To God. Was the question not directed to you?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Seriously though, what does my own proof of my existence have to do with anything. Perhaps it's comforting. But who needs it?

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

Do you think you need it? Do you think other folks need it?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Let's not confuse needing and wanting. We may want it. We don't need it.

Red herring. You introduced the term 'need.' I addressed your statement by asking you two questions. You are now evading my questions. Please answer them. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

Which made me think--clearly my observation of you through your words here led me to an incorrect idea regarding your person. Who I thought you were does not exist. Chances are, who I think you are now does not exist. And if I were to meet you, even then, my impressions of you would not add up to you--the complex of thoughts, feelings and associations cojured by the thought of you having little to do with you.

How is this different from what I have already posted on 'observation'?

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

To me, you do not exist, because I cannot know you as you are. I assume it's the other way around for you--I do not exist for you, I am only a thought of me.

For Damascene, this impacted not at all in discerning the existence of someone, specifically God.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

If I were to observe myself, I would find a similar difficulty--I do not exist, I am only a thought of me. Is observation, therefore (even the capacity to observe) such a reliable foundation of being?

Reliable at what point in time? Korzybksi said that reliability of observation is a direct function of time. On the other hand if one's whole world view is of self, then observation is not a reliable foundation of being. So, as Heidegger said, reliability of observation is also a direct function of culture.

I believe I used the term 'participatory foundation of being.' And I referenced -- not just Plato but -- Barfield.

If you are going to refute what I have offered, it would help if you were to quote what I have said and deal with it point by point. It is difficult to follow what you are saying out of context.

Originally Posted by Deo Volente

That we do or do not exist is simply a lovely story we tell ourselves.

This is dismissive and discontinous with what has been posted.

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by Abiien

Is disproving God exists the same as disproving some random person from china exists?

Would believing in the existance of them be the same in believing the existance of God?

What are your thoughts on each question?