Philosophy: Prove you exist

[Everstruggling]

the latter: god is a necessary being, which means he exists in all possible worlds, which means that any world without him is impossible.

Explain exactly how God would be necessary in a static universe, or a cycling universe, or a null universe. I’ve never seen it done.

And what exactly does this “necessary being” entail? Would Shiva count or does it need to be the Trinity?

 

[Truthstalker]

img=birthcertificate.jpg
img=socialsecuritycard.jpg
img=pictureofparentalunits.jpg
img=recentpaystub
img=my2007taxreturnform
img=driverselicense

That should do it

To be fair, our friendly neighborhood atheist (if he exists) would demand you show the same for God, as what we are discussing is the same standard of proof.

 

[john_doran]

Explain exactly how God would be necessary in a static universe, or a cycling universe, or a null universe. I’ve never seen it done.

i assume that you mean that you’ve never seen it done to your satisfaction, 'cos i’m sure i’ve seen you on a bunch of threads that have dealt with the concept of (divine) necessity.

the physical constitution of any universe has got absolutely nothing to do with the nature of necessary being, since necessary beings are also non-corporeal (they have their existence necessarily, while all corporeal entities are contingent).

Everstruggling:

And what exactly does this “necessary being” entail? Would Shiva count or does it need to be the Trinity?

generally, it entails existence in all possible worlds and non-corporeality; thus, if shiva is corporeal, then shiva can’t exist necessarily.

 

[Everstruggling]

says you. but the theist that uses the argument in this thread is responding to the typical atheist claim “you believe that god exists. prove it to me”…

you may not believe that proof of the sort for which the atheist is asking is necessary for reasonable belief, but every single atheist that i’ve ever encountered certainly does, which makes this a perfectly reasonable response:

All right. If you consider silly, round-about arguments, in which everyone feels misunderstood and frustrated to be “perfectly reasonable responses” then who am I to disagree.

if there is an argument that makes my position unlikely, and i demonstrate that such an argument is, in fact, unsound, then i have eliminated a defeater for my belief. which strengthens the reasonableness of my position.

Actually, it just proves that you are a better debater or more knowledgable than your opponent.

I posit that there are real, live unicorns in my livingroom. You counter that can not be real, live unicorns in my livingroom because real, live unicorns do not exist. I counter that you can not prove the non-existence of unicorns. How much more likely is it that I have unicorns in my livingroom?

If there are in fact no unicorns, it would defeat my belief. It is also true that you can not prove the non-existence of unicorns.

If you were to establish all possible solutions to a problem, and then eliminate the majority of the solutions, then the remaining solutions are more likely. But defeating unsound solutions does nothing to bolster your case.

Sorry, have to go now. The unicorns just made an awful mess on the carpet.

 

[Gunger]

I can feel my entire reality unravveling around me…NOTHING EXISTS.

Wait.

There is actually nothing unravelling because nothing exists to begin with.

Wait.

There isn’t even any such thing as nothing because nothing can’t exist. So there isn’t even nothing there for there to be nothing to unravel.

And I can prove that nothing doesn’t exist.

Wait.

Isn’t the opposite of nothing not existing that something does exist?

AHA!!! I’ve done it!!!

Therefore I AM.

G.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

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 don’t know how an atheist would respond, but a Zen Buddahist would probably smack you upside the head.

 

[Everstruggling]

i assume that you mean that you’ve never seen it done to your satisfaction, 'cos i’m sure i’ve seen you on a bunch of threads that have dealt with the concept of (divine) necessity.

Yes, I have taken part in the conversations. No, no one has explained how “God” is necessary in every universe. Whether I am satisfied is immaterial. Either it can be shown or it can’t.

the physical constitution of any universe has got absolutely nothing to do with the nature of necessary being, since necessary beings are also non-corporeal (they have their existence necessarily, while all corporeal entities are contingent).

Being*** incorporeal*** hardly equates with being necessary. Take a real necessary being: property. In all possible universes property can be shown to exist. In the null universe the property is nothingness. In the static universe every has the property of being unchanging. You can not come up with a universe that doesn’t have property. That is what “all possible universes” means. What is this “God” that must exist in every universe?

Incorporeality? Well, I guess that it must exist in every universe. It is impossible to have a universe in which everything is corporeal because the state “everything is corporeal” is not corporeal. Congratulations, you have argued for incorporeality.

generally, it entails existence in all possible worlds and non-corporeality; thus, if shiva is corporeal, then shiva can’t exist necessarily.

So your definition of “God” is “An incorporeal being that exists in all possible universes, and that has to exist in all possible universes.”

It seems I have wasted my time. All the while I have been trying to justify my disbelief in God, but it turns out that “God” is something too trivial to bother refuting.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

All possible universes must contain a universe in which proof that I exist exists.

The truth is out there.

So is a lot of other stuff.

 

[Truthstalker]

All possible universes must contain a universe in which proof that I exist exists.
quote]

You haven’t shown that this is a requirement of all possible universes. It may be impossible to prove that you exist, in which case that universe doesn’t exist either, because it is not possible.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

All possible universes must contain a universe in which proof that I exist exists.

Truthstalker:

You haven’t shown that this is a requirement of all possible universes.

By definition, all possible universes contain a universe in which proof that I exist exists.

Truthstalker:

It may be impossible to prove that you exist

And the universe(s) in which it is impossible to prove that I exist must also be possible.

Truthstalker:

in which case that universe doesn’t exist either, because it is not possible.

Nope. Non sequitur.

But I will give you the following:

All possible universes must contain a universe in which proof that I exist exists.

However possible universes are not necessarily universes which exist.

Therefore the possible universe in which proof that I exist exists does not necessarily exist.

:crying: :hypno:

Therefore I cannot yet prove that I exist. But I can prove that it is possible that I exist. Somewhere. Therefore it is not impossible that I exist. Somewhere.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

OK! Ask me! Ask me!

:bounce:

I observe therefore I am.

Feynman suggested that the way to interpret quantum phenomena such as the double-slit experiment was to assume that when a particle travels from point A to point B, it doesn’t simply take one path - it takes every possible path simultaneously; the photon travels through both slits at the same time and interferes with itself, for example…

In this scheme, when a photon travels from a lamp to your eye it moves in a straight line, but it also dances about in twists and swirls, travels to Jupiter and back, and ricochets off the Great Wall of China. The obvious question, then, is why do we see only ever see one path, straight and simple? Feynman’s answer was, because all the other paths cancel each other out…

In the sum-over-histories interpretation, each path can be mapped out as a wave. Each wave has a different phase (effectively a starting time), and all the waves added together create an “interference pattern”, building upon one another where their phases align and cancelling each other out where their phases are mismatched. The sum of all the waves is one single wave, which describes the path we observe…

Applied to the universe, this idea has an obvious implication. Just as a particle travelling from point A to point B takes every possible path in between, so too must the history of the universe. In one history, the Earth never formed. In another, Al Gore is president. And in yet another, Elvis is still - well, you get the idea. “The universe doesn’t have a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability,” Hertog says…

But there is a twist: the history that we see depends on the experimental setup. In the double-slit experiment, it has been shown time and again that if we use a photon detector to find which of the two slits the photon went through, it no longer creates an interference pattern, just a single spot on the film. In other words, the way you look at the photon changes the nature of its journey.

The same thing happens in Hawking and Hertog’s universe: our observations of the cosmos today are determining the outcome - in this case, the entire history of the universe. A measurement made in the present is deciding what happened 13.7 billion years ago; by looking out at the universe, we assign ourselves a particular, concrete history.

I observe the universe.

That universe is determined by the act of my observing it.

Therefore I exist.

Bwa-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! :tiphat:

 

[Everstruggling]

That universe is determined by the act of my observing it.

Therefore I exist.

Bwa-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! :tiphat:

Actually it exists because *I *observe it. Had I observed your observation then you would have existed too. But I didn’t.:nope: Sorry.

Your replies are excedingly clever by the way.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Everstruggling:

Actually it exists because *I *observe it. Had I observed your observation then you would have existed too. But I didn’t.:nope: Sorry.

If I can observe you then you exist. And if you exist then you might be able to not observe me. Then I would not exist.

But I cannot observe you. Therefore you do not exist. Therefore you are not able to not observe me. You therefore cannot help but observe me even though you don’t exist.

Therefore I exist. :extrahappy:

Your replies are excedingly clever by the way.

You flatter me. Therefore you exist. :blushing:

 

[Truthstalker]

If I can observe you then you exist. And if you exist then you might be able to not observe me. Then I would not exist.

But I cannot observe you. Therefore you do not exist. Therefore you are not able to not observe me. You therefore cannot help but observe me even though you don’t exist.

Therefore I exist. :extrahappy:

You flatter me. Therefore you exist. :blushing:

The way you post almost disproves you.

You are assuming you observe correctly. How do you know you observe correctly?

We are back to presuppositions. Mine is that God exists.
He is therefore I am. You, I don’t know about.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

The way you post almost disproves you.

True. But how do you know it is me posting? How do you know it is not you posting? If it is you posting, then you would be the one who is disproved.

Truthstalker:

You are assuming you observe correctly.

No. The correctness of observation is a non-issue.

The universe which I observe is determined by the act of observation.

If the observation is not accurate then by definition it is not an act of observation.

Truthstalker:

How do you know you observe correctly?

I know that I observe. When I was a First Nation I could not see the Europeans coming in big ships. Therefore they were not coming.

When the Europeans disembarked and came in small boats, I could see them coming. Therefore they were coming.

Firsthand experience of large ships changed the way I observed. Therefore I learned to observe the Europeans coming in big ships and surmised that it might be possible for Europeans to come in ways which I could not then imagine.

Truthstalker:

We are back to presuppositions.

No. You are. I am not.

Truthstalker:

Mine is that God exists.

If you can observe God, then God exists. Can you observe God?

Hint: If you cannot now observe God, then can you surmise that it might be possible for God to be observed in ways which you cannot now imagine?

Truthstalker:

He is therefore I am.

Possibly. But this is not proof.

Truthstalker:

You, I don’t know about.

You could flatter me, and then you would exist. :newidea: And if you existed, then you could observe me.

Think of the universe which would come into being if we could observe each other! Gadamer would call this the merging of horizons. Korzybksi would call this time binding.

:juggle:

 

[Truthstalker]

The universe which I observe is determined by the act of observation.

If the observation is not accurate then by definition it is not an act of observation.

I observe these are presuppositions.

I observe this thread is more surreal than real.

I do not observe anyone reading this thread. Therefore no one is reading this thread. This thread is unread.

Do not post to this thread. This thread does not exist.

 

[Truthstalker]

Why did you respond then?

I am ignoring this post.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

I observe these are presuppositions.

I can sell you unpresupposition glasses. Just for you. Special student price.

Truthstalker:

I observe this thread is more surreal than real.

What does Salvator Dali have to say about that?

Truthstalker:

I do not observe anyone reading this thread.

That was then. This is now. What about now? Now?

Truthstalker:

Therefore no one is reading this thread.

Is the existence of posts on this thread evidence of someone reading this thread? Oh… I guess not.

Silly me.

Truthstalker:

This thread is unread.

This thread may be called into the neighbourhood of being unread, but at one time it was in the neighbourhood of being read. Hence two pages of posts.

Can your observation of this thread being called into the neighbourhood of being unread be redeemed by either of the following:

a) theorizing the possibility of this thread being read in ways you cannot now imagine?

b) reading glasses?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I am ignoring this post.

I observe that you are.

 

[Truthstalker]

Can your observation of this thread being called into the neighbourhood of being unread be redeemed by either of the following:

a) theorizing the possibility of this thread being read in ways you cannot now imagine?

b) reading glasses?

The thread being unread is a presupposition. Observations to the contrary are due to unexplained phenomenae which will doubtless lead to a deeper understanding of the presupposition, and affirm it.