Incorrect. The “entropic rating” of an infinitely-old universe cannot be deduced.
You should have a better understanding of probability than this, Lib…
—But as you carefully worded it, defining A as necessary existence does not mean that A exists in actuality.—
I carefully worded it so as to ask a specific question… so why did you act as if you were correcting me… and then note that I was being so careful? We’ve been over those things before, and I’m not questioning them.
—The set of all possible worlds is the set of all worlds that have at least one true statement.—
Yes, I know that. But why would they be limited such that they’d all contain the same being? How can we prove that they could be? It seems that doing so is something that needs to be done prior to the proof, seeing as it takes its premise from the idea of a supreme being meaning a being that exists in all possible worlds. Is THAT possible? How do we know?
—Being and existence are synonyms. Whatever exists in all possible worlds is being in them. As I explained before, G is not a particulate of existence, but existence itself.—
Either God is a being in all possible worlds, or it’s just what someone is calling existence this week. God can’t be a particulate being in some parts of the proof (in which we’re logically looking inside all possible worlds to prove that they all contain the being God) and simply a name for reality itself in others. If God is simply what you call the fabric of existence, then what’s the need for the proof at all, since everyone agrees that existence actually exists.
—<>G in the proof does not mean <>G, either. It means simply that it is possible that God exists in actuality.—
But this God is said to exist necessarily, or else it isn’t God (and isn’t the same G as in the other premise), it’s just some non-necessary particulate being called God.
Sister Wendy Beckett: “I have no faith, because I’ve never experienced doubt. Faith is to believe what you do not know.”
I don’t profess belief or disbelief in a God.
I take events as they come and assess my (dis)belief based on my firsthand experiences.
That said. Humans are “conscious”. We sense via our five senses. These inputs are feed into our brain. We “remember”. We “reason”. And finally and probably most importantly we “feel”.
IMHO, the only thing we as humans know for sure is that we don’t know everything.. SO, using our faculties from above, we construct a judgement of what is enough and fundamental. Then, based on that axiomatic judgement, we believe a number of diverse viewpoints.
What makes these discussions interesting but inherenty pointless is more related to social understanding rather than any perceived merit of either side.
Given that I believe that we don’t know everything, its impossible to know if we know enough. Which makes any of your axiomatic beliefs your own personal beast with no shred of universality or transcendence. Anything you “experience” or don’t experience is no more a proof of “God” than it’s just reflecting on your axioms and their deductions.
The more relevant question is
- Should a belief in an anthropomorphic entity affect decisions for society as a whole ? **
*Let What actually happens be irrelevant here.
Thanks for clarifying. I of course do think that the Judeo-Christian god has mutually negating descriptors, as you put it, but that’s an argument for another day. Just remember that if you’re going to make a logical argument for this “god” of yours, you better be prepared to contend that his attributes are logically consistent, none of that “god’s ways are unfathomable to us” stuff. If god is knowable through reason, and not simply through revelation or religious experience, then you should be able to have knowledge of his attributes that can be explained by reason. All the traditional arguments for why the Judeo-Christian god is logically inconsistent, I wonder how you respond to those? Of course, that’s an argument that’s been done to death around here at various times.
And I drive a Dodge, you really should try one, most cab space of any of the smaller pickups, totally dwarfs the S10 and the Ranger 
** Gyan9**
A belief in the existence of a god is not the same as other beliefs, because the belief questions the nature of who has the belief.
Questions of gods existence and what constitutes that existence is questions of my existence and what constitutes it.
I disagree. I think once you know enough you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists. (or does not exist, which I think is impossible). Otherwise what does enough mean?
I think it would be beyond all that. Although I agree that knowing a god is a personal knowing and possibly unshareable.
It depends what from it takes.
If a group of several hundred prominent scientists came forward and made the following statement:
“We can prove beyond any doubt that what we take to be the material universe doesn’t in fact exist. The existence of this perceived, apparently physical universe is an illusion, a common illusion shared by all. As a group are not solipsistic but what we mean to say is theach of us is alone in our own perceptual world but don’t know it."
What do you think the effect would be?
hmmm
Please don’t close this thread…
I’ll be back.
The last post was posted premature, sorry for the errors.
corrections;
It depends what form it takes, and whether or not it is the truth.
If a group of several hundred prominent scientists came forward and made the following statement:
“We can prove beyond any doubt that what we take to be the material universe doesn’t in fact exist."
What do you think the effect would be?
Fine. But how does that change the course of reaching that point of belief while alive ? You still sense via your senses and reason within your brain. You are observing yourself.
I’m not sure what your stance is. Are you suggesting that it is possible to know enough ?
My definition of enough is “all the information necessary to proceed to form & reason your beliefs”. Since you don’t know what information you don’t know, you can’t decide if your current information base is “enough”.
Mine was more of a political/social question. Given that x% believe in an anthropomorphic deity, how much consideration should that be given in social decisions. Your example wouldn’t be valid since by not knowing “enough” you can’t prove anything without a doubt.
If you’re simply stating what would happen if the group stated that, then you’re heading off into predicting how society will react. My question is to examine how social/moral/ethical issues should be handled given the belief of x% in an anthropomorphic deity.
** Gyan9**
wrote:
Because the nature of one’s self identity may change, where you as consciousness cease identifying with the body/brain and identify with the totality of existence, or with god or a transcendent self. And one comes to know that they are something other, perhaps far greater then what they otherwise thought.
Some call it ego death.
So your statement, “You are observing yourself.” Would take on a new meaning.
It’s life transforming.
Yes you can. You don’t have to know how much you can possible eat to know that you have [had] enough.
Of course you don’t know what you don’t know, but you will always be in that situation.
Your position seems to be; “that one has to know all there is to know to know if one knows enough.”
If that is the case I disagree.
It is impossible for one to know every idea ever thought concerning house building, but I can still build a house with enough information. That the building stands for a hundred or so years is proof I had enough information at the time.
You appear to contradict yourself with;
**My definition of enough is “all the information necessary to proceed to form & reason your beliefs”. **
I agree, but then you go on;
**Since you don’t know what information you don’t know, you can’t decide if your current information base is “enough”. **
Maybe you could clarify.
enough is understaood as what is needed or necessary to form a belief, as you stated in your first sentence.
Who decides what is enough?..The believer I guess.
What does…* , how much consideration should that be given in social decisions.*
Have to do with….* since by not knowing “enough” you can’t prove anything without a doubt.*
It’s not about proving anything without a doubt. If the majority of humans believed in one transcendent god and they were correct…What effect would that have?
And I have said it depends on what that truth IS.
It’s true. I think proofs of a gods existence are subjective. No thing can be proven without a doubt because we don’t know the nature of this existence.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said ”beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
The point in the example was most humans believe that a physical world exists, and most would probable claim that they know as opposed to believe that it exists.
so trying to address you question:
***Should a belief in an anthropomorphic entity affect decisions for society as a whole ? ****
Even though their knowing and believing are in doubt, if the majority claimed to know that the physical world did not exist, what effect would it have?
Or to apply it to your question;
Would this wide spread belief *** affect decisions for society as a whole ? ****
I say yes, initially it would have a major effect.
Yes, I see the distinction you are making.
It depends what the belief is………The question might be answered in the belief especially if x% is a majority.
As I understand it, if you’re looking for “ego death” you’re probably on the wrong track with the Western notion of monotheism. The Eastern philosophies, like Buddhism, seem to tie into this idea of destroying the self through a process of awareness.
** RexDart**
wrote:
It’s not so much destroying the self (as ego, body/brain) as it is to recognize it for what it is, an illusion.
What is the difference between monotheism and nondualism? Taking into consideration that in nondualism it’s not that there is no deity by rather that there is no deity separate from you.
This doesn’t make sense to me. You never consciously identify with the body in the first place to cease identifying with it. What you seem to be saying is you metaphorically or cognitively “leave the body”. I respectfully say those feelings are themselves feed to “you” by your brain. How do I know this ? I don’t and I can’t. It’s simply what I believe is the best answer based on a mixture of science and empirical observation and reasoning.
You rely on various physiological signs and past experience of ignoring those signs or advice from someone who has , to “tell you that”.
If we’re contemplating reality and existence itself, our signposts are based on assumptions and on our collective past experience and reasoning. But that past experience and reasoning is bound by our senses and brains.
My position is as you stated above.
But we are not the house. We’re a detached consciousness from the house we’re constructing. According to my position, the house if it were “conscious” wouldn’t know everything about itself.
You can’t. You don’t have all of the info to know whether what you know is enough or not. That’s my point.
They “know” because the world is a consistent reality or illusion. If the world is a perception and the laws of gravity inverted or changed tomorrow , then people would not “know”. Which is my point. You can’t prove or disprove the world is “real” or an “illusion”. You base these beliefs on the input your senses provide and how your brain processes it.
Practically, none. Unless you can detach yourself from the real world, it would make no difference to your life as long as the perception remains consistent with your experience.
That’s the problem with being detached and ceasing to identify your consciousness with your mind. Unless there’s a separate detached party which can witness this detachment, you can’t say if you’re really detached or just in a different cognitive state. You can’t know everything about yourself or about things in a metaphysical sense.
** Gyan9**
you wrote:
I think most identify with their body and thoughts. Some more so then others. A sage perhaps only 5%.
What isn’t? But I think in the case of a sage there is more to it then that. It can’t be simply explained away through materialism.
I’m not saying it would. I agree.
I understand your point, in that you are using the word enough in an absolute sense.
My point is that one can know enough in relation to act or not to act, or believe or not believe. I.e my computer/internet knowledge is enough or sufficient to post these words on straightdope, otherwise it wouldn’t happen. That it happens is evident of the possession of enough knowledge of skill or whatever for it to happen.
If all the conditions are present for an event to take place it not only can take place, it has to. If it doesn’t there is something missing.
I believe that one can know that this perceivable world is an illusion. Although I agree that they cannot prove it to others, but only inform them of their insights.
If you knew this perceived world was an illusion you would already be detached. You cannot know this existence is an illusion and not be detached, ** that’s the point.**
When you wake up from a dream you know it for what it is, fiction.
Yes you can.
Consciousness or awareness is distinct from its content in that it is not content. You can’t observer the observer.
Awareness (or consciousness) is in a subject–object relation in which the awareness is never an object to itself.
Of course not.
God is love
Love is blind
Therefore
Ray Charles is God.
Don’t let the Stevie Wonderists hear you say that. They’re a rather intolerant bunch. 
Yes, but when you’re analyzing yourself, you can’t. If you look in the mirror, you’re looking at an image processed by your eye off an object in front of you. You can’t observe yourself ever.
You can choose to believe that. You can’t know it.
But that’s what I’m saying. You can’t know. You wouldn’t know which was the dream part and which the “reality”. Both might be a dream. Maybe, only one of them. The discovery of illusion comes from inconsistency with past experience.
No. not when the question of your debate is the nature of your consciousness, your existence. your being
** Gyan9**
Yes. Okay so we agree about the various definitions and applications of the word enough
I agree that you cannot observe your self.
I think you can come to know this existence for what it is, an illusion. I also think that others know, i.e. sages.
As I mentioned before you would know it in a similar that we know a night dream is not real, when we wake up. Although the illusion would continue.
It is always the case that you cannot turn the awareness into an object of its own observation.
You cannot perceive the consciousness that you are because it is a singularity.
An analogy is: An eye cannot see itself seeing…Cannot see its unmirrored self.
My point is how do you know the night dream is not real ?
You can guess, you can’t know
You said pondering God is pondering your own existence.
We agree that one can’t observe oneself. One is.
If you can’t observe yourself, how can you meaningfully ponder yourself ? What would make such beliefs truth other than the fact you believe in it. How would you know that what you “know” is the truth ? You would need a detached separate entity to verify it. But you can’t detach you from yourself. Because then you would be observing yourself to make that observation and like we agree, one can’t.
** Gyan9**
wrote:
The night dream is real in that it happens; the thoughts and images are real in that they are perceived to exist, as percepts. And at the time it is happening, while I’m a dreamt character the dream is real to me……UNTIL I wake up.
Upon awaking I enter another level of awareness in which the night dream appears as illusion.—in relation to what we call the waking state. So we call it an illusion only from the perspective of this other state.
But many apparently have woken up from this “awakened state” while it continues and perceived it also as an illusion.
The waking state is considered an illusion because from another perspective it appears very similar to the night dream. That is, it has no intrinsic nature, it is dependent upon being perceived for its existence. What we take to be the material world is understood to be the contents of one’s own mind. The only “real” is the awareness, which is who we are.
You do and you don’t. You ponder, reflect upon what you perceive and take to be your self, small s and eventually recognize that what you perceive to be this self is being observed so it can’t be you, because You are observing it.
This observing Self is the awareness or consciousness and cannot be pondered, perceived or thought of.
I don’t know. I think the truth is something that you are not so much something known. All “knowledge” ” is dualistic is it not?
As you are saying detaching is more duality; observer----observed. One knows by “being” not by knowing…so I think.
You are it