We cannot deduce the existence of God

[Bahman]

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.

What I am trying to say is that things exist in absence of experience and does not exist when they are experienced.

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 in consciousness.

In simple word, past has to die because it has to be replace with future. We only experience what was there and it is not there at the moment, namely “now”.

Lets me know if we could agree on this, because the rest is based on this.

1. Correct
2. True

Good.

1. Cannot be deduced from 1, 2, or 3 either singlely or in some combitnation.

It does follow. Things does not exist there when they appear as awareness in consciousness considering the first argument. God in another hand is pure existence hence it cannot be experienced.

1. True but this to do with the previous false deductions.

What do you mean?

1. False for all the above reasons.

Lets see if we could agree on (1) and (4) since you agree with (2), (3) and (5).

 

[Bahman]

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.

What I am trying to say is that things does not exist at the moment of experience but they do exist before and that is why we can approach them.

 

[Bahman]

And what was your experience, of you?

Many many beings. Father, Mother, Satan, Lucifer, Jesus, Mary, and many other brothers and sisters.

 

[Bahman]

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

What I wrote was what I meant. Here you can find an argument supporting it:

What I am trying to say is that things exist in absence of experience and does not exist when they are experienced.

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 in consciousness.

In simple word, past has to die because it has to be replace with future. We only experience what was there and it is not there at the moment, namely “now”.

 

[John_Martin]

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

1. Correct: Nothing touches anything. The light you experience as the sun came from the sun many minutes ago, not now. The sound of a plane overhead was from several seconds ago, not now. The sense of someone touching your hand is for an event that happened several micro- or nanoseconds ago before you understand being touched. In the “now” of time, there is no sensing of other being, but only apprehension of past events, whether nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, or light-years ago. And on a sub-atomic level, the forces separate all matter above absolute zero, so that all apprehension is, time-wise, of a “now” that is actually “past”. All things exist “now”, but we only sense them “after the fact”.
2. Not necessarily - consciousness is purely a phenomenon of animals, yet all things (living or non-living) apprehend what “touches them” (what affects them).
3. As long as you acknowledge God is in no way material, nowhere in time (not before, not now, not future - but eternal). And, of course, he cannot, then, be experienced by material reality. He can be thought about and reasoned about, however, by rational entities such as you and I are.
4. Number 3 alone suffices to say that God cannot be experience in his essence, which is his act of being
5. If we are unable to reason we are closed, however, we have the capability to imagine an ideal star based on our experience of the sun and other stars. We have the ability to reason about an ideal tree, from our experience of individual trees, deciduous, coniferous, etc. And we have the ability to conclude things about the ideal rational being based on our experience of non-living, living, non-rational, and rational beings. All that reasoning begins in cognitive thought.
6. Many have come up with the understanding of the existence of God based on reasoning about what they can experience. This is a phenomenon that has happened.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

1. Correct: Nothing touches anything. The light you experience as the sun came from the sun many minutes ago, not now. The sound of a plane overhead was from several seconds ago, not now. The sense of someone touching your hand is for an event that happened several micro- or nanoseconds ago before you understand being touched. In the “now” of time, there is no sensing of other being, but only apprehension of past events, whether nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, or light-years ago. And on a sub-atomic level, the forces separate all matter above absolute zero, so that all apprehension is, time-wise, of a “now” that is actually “past”. All things exist “now”, but we only sense them “after the fact”.
2. Not necessarily - consciousness is purely a phenomenon of animals, yet all things (living or non-living) apprehend what “touches them” (what affects them).
3. As long as you acknowledge God is in no way material, nowhere in time (not before, not now, not future - but eternal). And, of course, he cannot, then, be experienced by material reality. He can be thought about and reasoned about, however, by rational entities such as you and I are.
4. Number 3 alone suffices to say that God cannot be experience in his essence, which is his act of being
5. If we are unable to reason we are closed, however, we have the capability to imagine an ideal star based on our experience of the sun and other stars. We have the ability to reason about an ideal tree, from our experience of individual trees, deciduous, coniferous, etc. And we have the ability to conclude things about the ideal rational being based on our experience of non-living, living, non-rational, and rational beings. All that reasoning begins in cognitive thought.
6. Many have come up with the understanding of the existence of God based on reasoning about what they can experience. This is a phenomenon that has happened.

Do the images in your brain, touch your mind…

 

[seagal]

What I am trying to say is that things exist in absence of experience and does not exist when they are experienced.

This makes no sense. Things exist when we don’t experience them, but don’t exist when we experience them?

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 in consciousness.

In simple word, past has to die because it has to be replace with future. We only experience what was there and it is not there at the moment, namely “now”.

Lets me know if we could agree on this, because the rest is based on this.

No. I can agree that we don’t experience a thing at the exact moment of its existence, because of the infinitesimally small amount of time and space it takes for its existence to register on our consciousness. In a sense we are experiencing its past, not its present. But we continue to experience its past over and over again. Its state of being does not jump from past to future. It’s one long string of past instances.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with God because God is outside of time and space. His existence can’t be measured the same way that things inside the universe can because He is not in the universe. This is the point we have been trying to convey to you over and over again. Also, this timelessness is part of the definition of God – it’s a given attribute, not something that needs to be proven. If you conceive of a God that exists in time, then that entity is not God. Until you grasp this concept you won’t understand any of it.

 

[Bahman]

1. Correct: Nothing touches anything. The light you experience as the sun came from the sun many minutes ago, not now. The sound of a plane overhead was from several seconds ago, not now. The sense of someone touching your hand is for an event that happened several micro- or nanoseconds ago before you understand being touched. In the “now” of time, there is no sensing of other being, but only apprehension of past events, whether nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, or light-years ago. And on a sub-atomic level, the forces separate all matter above absolute zero, so that all apprehension is, time-wise, of a “now” that is actually “past”. All things exist “now”, but we only sense them “after the fact”.

Good.

1. Not necessarily - consciousness is purely a phenomenon of animals, yet all things (living or non-living) apprehend what “touches them” (what affects them).

I can argue that any change is subjected to experience by consciousness since we agreed that past has to die to allows future. How past could cause future if it is dead?

1. As long as you acknowledge God is in no way material, nowhere in time (not before, not now, not future - but eternal). And, of course, he cannot, then, be experienced by material reality. He can be thought about and reasoned about, however, by rational entities such as you and I are.

My argument is more general if we agree that nothing exists in the moment of experience and accept that God is pure existence. In simple word, nothingness exists at the moment of experience hence God does not exist unless it is outside the boundary of experience.

1. Number 3 alone suffices to say that God cannot be experience in his essence, which is his act of being

No, it is not enough since what I am arguing is that God if exist as pure existence cannot be experienced at all. Please read the previous argument for further illustration.

1. If we are unable to reason we are closed, however, we have the capability to imagine an ideal star based on our experience of the sun and other stars. We have the ability to reason about an ideal tree, from our experience of individual trees, deciduous, coniferous, etc. And we have the ability to conclude things about the ideal rational being based on our experience of non-living, living, non-rational, and rational beings. All that reasoning begins in cognitive thought.

Our imagination is based on what we experienced. We are cognitively closed to concepts that requires a specific experience.

1. Many have come up with the understanding of the existence of God based on reasoning about what they can experience. This is a phenomenon that has happened.

That is false understanding. Please read previous comment.

 

[John_Martin]

Good.

I can argue that any change is subjected to experience by consciousness since we agreed that past has to die to allows future. How past could cause future if it is dead?

I have not agreed that the past dies, only that experience senses only past events. All reality exists in the present moment, however my experience of what is existing right now does not happen until some future moment.

My argument is more general if we agree that nothing exists in the moment of experience and accept that God is pure existence. In simple word, nothingness exists at the moment of experience hence God does not exist unless it is outside the boundary of experience.?

As I said, everything exists in the present moment, even though my apprehension is of a past moment, and I act in certain faith that my action will impact the now existing reality at some future moment.

No, it is not enough since what I am arguing is that God if exist as pure existence cannot be experienced at all. Please read the previous argument for further illustration.?

Since God is not material reality he cannot be experienced at all, so no further requirement is needed other than that he is not material.

Our imagination is based on what we experienced. We are cognitively closed to concepts that requires a specific experience…?

But the concept of God as ultimate rational being is proportionally experienced in our experience of each other (you and me) as rational beings, and therefore can be speculated about in his infinite being. We experience one another, and so we can reason God from this.

That is false understanding. Please read previous comment.

I am not about to say that Aristotle had a false understanding of the being of God (existence of God). I am very fond of his reasoning and his skill. You can find his works online at any number of sites if you care to have a look and experience him.

 

[seagal]

ISince God is not material reality he cannot be experienced at all.

Are you saying you don’t believe in a supernatural experience of God, such as saints like Theresa of Avila and others have reported?

 

[Bahman]

This makes no sense. Things exist when we don’t experience them, but don’t exist when we experience them?

It makes sense. You passed my argument: 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 in consciousness.

No. I can agree that we don’t experience a thing at the exact moment of its existence, because of the infinitesimally small amount of time and space it takes for its existence to register on our consciousness. In a sense we are experiencing its past, not its present. But we continue to experience its past over and over again. Its state of being does not jump from past to future. It’s one long string of past instances.

I can argue that nothing exist at present but experience. Please follow my other thread
here.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with God because God is outside of time and space. His existence can’t be measured the same way that things inside the universe can because He is not in the universe. This is the point we have been trying to convey to you over and over again. Also, this timelessness is part of the definition of God – it’s a given attribute, not something that needs to be proven. If you conceive of a God that exists in time, then that entity is not God. Until you grasp this concept you won’t understand any of it.

What I am trying to say is more than this. God cannot be experienced at all no matter in this state or other since nothing exist at the moment of experience hence God has to be outside of boundary of experience if it is pure existence.

 

[Nixbits]

Bahman, how can you say that “nothing exist at the moment of experience”? By your logic, we cannot determine what exists at the moment of experience, only what was in the past when the process of experiencing began. In other words, we do not know what is, only what was. That’s not the same as saying ‘nothing exists at the time when the experience is available to our consciousness’.

By repeated example, things are found to exist each and every time we experience existence. If we ever get to a stage when nothing exists, then there will be no-one to experience it anyway, so it’s a trivially pointless case to consider.

Or are trying to say this: ‘The specific thing, or set or arrangement of things, that is experienced does not necessarily still exist at the time that we are conscious of that experience.’?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, how can you say that “nothing exist at the moment of experience”? By your logic, we cannot determine what exists at the moment of experience, only what was in the past when the process of experiencing began. In other words, we do not know what is, only what was. That’s not the same as saying ‘nothing exists at the time when the experience is available to our consciousness’.

By repeated example, things are found to exist each and every time we experience existence. If we ever get to a stage when nothing exists, then there will be no-one to experience it anyway, so it’s a trivially pointless case to consider.

Or are trying to say this: ‘The specific thing, or set or arrangement of things, that is experienced does not necessarily still exist at the time that we are conscious of that experience.’?

Please read this for further elaboration.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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?

I have also met satan and not only have I met God the Father but I have also met the Holy Spirit.

I knew that it was God the Father because when it happened, I just knew, I can not tell you how I knew but I knew, if something like this happens to you, I would imagine that you would not know how you knew but you would know just Who it Is.

Meeting the Holy Spirit was completely different from meeting Dad except for knowing just Who it was.

By the way, when I met satan, he came down, he did not come up as some might think.

When I met Dad, He didn’t say a word, when I met the Holy Spirit, He didn’t say a word either but He did reveal to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus.

However, when I met satan, he said quite a few words.

When I speak of Dad and the Holy Spirit, I use Male pronoun for the simple reason that pronouns can be handy to use but neither Dad nor the Holy Spirit are Male, the Second Person of the Trinity became a Male in the Incarnation but before the Incarnation the Second Person of the Trinity was NOT a Male either.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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

Are you saying that God Is Real but everything that God created is NOT real or at least only partially real, whatever that might mean?

Do you think that God considers what God created as only paritally real, not fully real?

Why would you think/believe that a “Real Being” created only "phoney beings?

 

[Nixbits]

Bahman, I don’t agree with the explanation in your other thread. You’ve structured it in such a way that the Past state (P) becomes the Future state (F) with the experience of state P being completed at time Now (N). I don’t agree with your statement (points 4 and 5 in Proof of C) that awareness or consciousness are a necessary part of the transition between the past and the future. I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated any justificatio for this assertion.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, I don’t agree with the explanation in your other thread. You’ve structured it in such a way that the Past state (P) becomes the Future state (F) with the experience of state P being completed at time Now (N). I don’t agree with your statement (points 4 and 5 in Proof of C) that awareness or consciousness are a necessary part of the transition between the past and the future. I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated any justificatio for this assertion.

Then you need to explain how S can cause S’ without interfering with coexistence of two states. We have to agree that S is annihilated before S’ otherwise S’ can take place yet if S is annihilated then nothing exist to cause S’.

 

[Bahman]

I have not agreed that the past dies, only that experience senses only past events. All reality exists in the present moment, however my experience of what is existing right now does not happen until some future moment.
As I said, everything exists in the present moment, even though my apprehension is of a past moment, and I act in certain faith that my action will impact the now existing reality at some future moment. Since God is not material reality he cannot be experienced at all, so no further requirement is needed other than that he is not material. But the concept of God as ultimate rational being is proportionally experienced in our experience of each other (you and me) as rational beings, and therefore can be speculated about in his infinite being. We experience one another, and so we can reason God from this.I am not about to say that Aristotle had a false understanding of the being of God (existence of God). I am very fond of his reasoning and his skill. You can find his works online at any number of sites if you care to have a look and experience him.

In simple world we have one universe and only one form could exist at any moment hence what we experience so called past could not exist if it is replaced with other form.

 

[Bahman]

I have also met satan and not only have I met God the Father but I have also met the Holy Spirit.

I knew that it was God the Father because when it happened, I just knew, I can not tell you how I knew but I knew, if something like this happens to you, I would imagine that you would not know how you knew but you would know just Who it Is.

Meeting the Holy Spirit was completely different from meeting Dad except for knowing just Who it was.

By the way, when I met satan, he came down, he did not come up as some might think.

When I met Dad, He didn’t say a word, when I met the Holy Spirit, He didn’t say a word either but He did reveal to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus.

However, when I met satan, he said quite a few words.

When I speak of Dad and the Holy Spirit, I use Male pronoun for the simple reason that pronouns can be handy to use but neither Dad nor the Holy Spirit are Male, the Second Person of the Trinity became a Male in the Incarnation but before the Incarnation the Second Person of the Trinity was NOT a Male either.

I still have problem to deal with Satan and his faction. They can easily fool me that they are others which is quite fun.

 

[clem456]

Me?

So in short, you are proposing that all of existence is bounded by your own experience. Is that correct?

If you do not propose that you are the sum of all existence (you did answer the question, “Me” ), then there exists something that is -not you-.

What is that something which is -not you-?