We cannot deduce the existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
  1. Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
  2. Awareness occurs in consciousness
  3. Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
  5. We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
  6. We cannot deduce the existence of God
 
Bahman said:
  1. Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
  2. Awareness occurs in consciousness
  3. Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
  5. We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
  6. We cannot deduce the existence of God
Click to expand...
Please, speak for yourself, and let the free thinkers of the world unite, to welcome ET.
 
Bahman said:
  1. Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
  2. Awareness occurs in consciousness
  3. Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
  5. We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
  6. We cannot deduce the existence of God
Click to expand...
I really don’t have a clue what you are trying to say but I agree that “We cannot deduce the existence of God” however, as far as, “we can deduce that God cannot be experienced”, I, totally, disagree with since God can and does reveal Himself to some.

In other words, some do have an “experience” of God.

I have said many times, here and elsewhere, that only God can “prove” that God Is.
 
Tom_Baum said:
I really don’t have a clue what you are trying to say but I agree that “We cannot deduce the existence of God” however, as far as, “we can deduce that God cannot be experienced”, I, totally, disagree with since God can and does reveal Himself to some.

In other words, some do have an “experience” of God.

I have said many times, here and elsewhere, that only God can “prove” that God Is.
Click to expand...
So lets see if we could agree on the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience:

First, Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist as awareness in consciousness. This means that S cannot objectively exist when it is experienced. In simple word, how it could be objectively there when it is inside your mind.

Second, Could God be experienced? No, since by definition God is pure existence meaning that it does always exist hence and because of (First) we cannot experience what always exist.
 
Bahman said:
So lets see if we could agree on the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience:

First, Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist as awareness in consciousness. This means that S cannot objectively exist when it is experienced. In simple word, how it could be objectively there when it is inside your mind.

Second, Could God be experienced? No, since by definition God is pure existence meaning that it does always exist hence and because of (First) we cannot experience what always exist.
Click to expand...
As far as, “So lets see if we could agree on the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience:”

No, we can’t.

And as far as, “the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience”, I don’t consider this a “fact”, you can but I don’t.

You can say that reality doesn’t exist, at least that is what it seems that you are trying to say, wouldn’t that mean that us speaking about this, doesn’t exist either?

Also, considering, “Could God be experienced? No, since by definition God is pure existence”.

You are wrong, I have met Dad.

I would say that “by definition”, God Is a Being of Love.
 
Tom_Baum said:
As far as, “So lets see if we could agree on the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience:”

No, we can’t.

And as far as, “the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience”, I don’t consider this a “fact”, you can but I don’t.

You can say that reality doesn’t exist, at least that is what it seems that you are trying to say, wouldn’t that mean that us speaking about this, doesn’t exist either?

Also, considering, “Could God be experienced? No, since by definition God is pure existence”.

You are wrong, I have met Dad.

I would say that “by definition”, God Is a Being of Love.
Click to expand...
I have met many. Believe it or not. They are gods but non is God. How you could be sure that you haven’t met Satan?
 
Bahman said:
  1. Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
  2. Awareness occurs in consciousness
  3. Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
  5. We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
  6. We cannot deduce the existence of God
Click to expand...
If you mean by #1 that we can experience hallucinations, wherein what we perceive is not real, granted.
#2 is granted.
#3 is granted as one definition of God.
#4 does not follow from 1 and 2
#5 is granted.
#6 may be true but isn’t proved by the previous statements.
 
seagal said:
If you mean by #1 that we can experience hallucinations, wherein what we perceive is not real, granted.
#2 is granted.
#3 is granted as one definition of God.
#4 does not follow from 1 and 2
#5 is granted.
#6 may be true but isn’t proved by the previous statements.
Click to expand...
Excellent, I can use that on another network on the guy postulating space time equations.

Thanks.
 
seagal said:
If you mean by #1 that we can experience hallucinations, wherein what we perceive is not real, granted.
Click to expand...
No. In simple word I mean that what is experienced does not exist any longer. The argument is as following: Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist as awareness in consciousness. This means that S cannot objectively exist when it is experienced. In simple word, how it could be objectively there when it is inside your mind.
seagal said:
#2 is granted.
#3 is granted as one definition of God.
#4 does not follow from 1 and 2
Click to expand...
It does follow from (1), (2) and (3). By definition God is pure existence meaning that it does always exist hence and because of previous argument we cannot experience what always exist.
seagal said:
#5 is granted.
#6 may be true but isn’t proved by the previous statements.
Click to expand...
You accepted (5) and I discussed that (4) is true hence from (4) and (5) we can deduce that God cannot be deduced since it cannot be experienced and something that cannot be experienced cannot be deduce. Sorry for my convoluted and unclear logic.
 
Bahman said:
So lets see if we could agree on the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience:

First, Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist as awareness in consciousness. This means that S cannot objectively exist when it is experienced. In simple word, how it could be objectively there when it is inside your mind.

Second, Could God be experienced? No, since by definition God is pure existence meaning that it does always exist hence and because of (First) we cannot experience what always exist.
Click to expand...
You could use your first example to prove that it is impossible to pick up a pencil. Since anyone with use of their hands, feet or mouth can indeed pick up a pencil, that obviously is not true. Your example is a paradox, as further evidenced by your statement “we cannot experience what always exists”. You can’t prove a paradox.
 
Bahman said:
No. In simple word I mean that what is experienced does not exist any longer. The argument is as following: Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist as awareness in consciousness. This means that S cannot objectively exist when it is experienced. In simple word, how it could be objectively there when it is inside your mind.

It does follow from (1), (2) and (3). By definition God is pure existence meaning that it does always exist hence and because of previous argument we cannot experience what always exist.
Click to expand...
What did you experience?
 
Bahman said:
So lets see if we could agree on the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience:

First, Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist as awareness in consciousness.
Click to expand...
I think you can have coexistence of two states to produce a mixed state.
 
Bahman said:
  1. Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
  2. Awareness occurs in consciousness
  3. Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
  4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
  5. We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
  6. We cannot deduce the existence of God
Click to expand...
  1. This is a violation of the principle of contradiction. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same way.
  2. Correct
  3. True
  4. Cannot be deduced from 1, 2, or 3 either singlely or in some combitnation.
  5. True but this to do with the previous false deductions.
  6. False for all the above reasons.
Cheers
Linus2nd
 
  1. Experience of reality just can[not?] happen in absence of reality and vice versa
Click to expand...
I think I’ve corrected your typo.

Here is my counterargument:
  1. Experience of reallity cannot happen without reality, and v.v.
  2. Experience occurs in consciousness
  3. Assume God is pure existence (i.e, He is the only fully “real” thing)
  4. All real humans have the quality of existence (i.e, they are at least partially “real”)
  5. God is experienced in the very act of Being
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top