We cannot deduce the existence of God

[Bahman]

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-?

I think you misunderstood me. Of course other beings exist apart me. We are talking about experiencing others.

 

[Ignatius]

1. Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa

I would have to dispute the first statement, unless it is a typographical error.

Perhaps you do not have the capacity, But Plato, Aristotle and many others did have the capacity and have been able to.

 

[Bahman]

I would have to dispute the first statement, unless it is a typographical error.

Perhaps you do not have the capacity, But Plato, Aristotle and many others did have the capacity and have been able to.

This I have discuss it on other posts. 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 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”.

 

[clem456]

This I have discuss it on other posts. 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 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”.

What is a system? What is a state? You need to be more specific. Is a system a human being? Human experience? An event?
Your hypothetical assumes that two “states” cannot coexist. Prove that.

You also assume that for the future to be, the past must “die”. Prove that. In fact, prove anything other than the present.

We believe God is outside of time.

To use an inadequate but sufficient analogy…
If time is a line, we as created human beings live at a point on the line.
God sees the whole line. All time is present to him (thank you Augustine). He is not bound by time. Which makes perfect sense. If he created all things, he is not bound by time, which he created.

 

[Tomdstone]

Your hypothetical assumes that two “states” cannot coexist. Prove that…

I don’t think it can be proven because there are mixed states in the real world.

 

[Bahman]

What is a system?

Universe for example.

What is a state? You need to be more specific.

Any form that can be experienced.

Is a system a human being? Human experience? An event?

Sum of everything.

Your hypothetical assumes that two “states” cannot coexist. Prove that.

How many things as whole you expect to experience? Do you experience two whole?
The whole is one and fills the universe as a unique form and if you have two wholes then they are not whole.

You also assume that for the future to be, the past must “die”. Prove that. In fact, prove anything other than the present.

We know the past and future through the experience of the whole at spot. There can only exist one whole at any instant. Hence, what is there as whole must die to give room for new whole.

We believe God is outside of time.

To use an inadequate but sufficient analogy…
If time is a line, we as created human beings live at a point on the line.
God sees the whole line. All time is present to him (thank you Augustine). He is not bound by time. Which makes perfect sense. If he created all things, he is not bound by time, which he created.

What I am arguing is that God can only exist outside of the boundary of what can be experienced since it is pure existence.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t think it can be proven because there are mixed states in the real world.

Please read post #46.

 

[John_Martin]

How many things as whole you expect to experience? Do you experience two whole?
The whole is one and fills the universe as a unique form and if you have two wholes then they are not whole.

We know the past and future through the experience of the whole at spot. There can only exist one whole at any instant. Hence, what is there as whole must die to give room for new whole.
.

This is the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead in his work “Process and Reality”.

It posits that with supposedly enduring objects, nothing is the same from this moment of now to the next moment of now (try to find those two neighboring points on a linear [not digital] timeline of zero dimensional temporal p(name removed by moderator)oints).

The being of this moment of now “dies” to make way for the being of the next moment of now in line with the inertia of movement that it apprehends from the being of the previous moment of time (which died in making space for the being now present).

Thus it appears there are enduring objects in space and time, but always new in the now (according to Whitehead’s theory). Because the current now’s objects cannot occupy the same space as the previous moments objects the prior abandons being in generating the being of the present moment (with like inertia to match its own inertia plus any apprehended collisions of varying inertia). So, objects appear to endure but also to change while viewing along a timeline. It is an attempt to reconcile the understanding of material only existing “now” while the sensitive apprehension (of animals, at least) maintains a “memory” of material spanning a linear progression of “nows”. And Human Animals plan trips to Mars by analyzing their memories and temporal observations.

 

[seagal]

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

“Lets consider a system being in state P (past). This state can only cause one state F (future) and nothing exist as a state at the moment N (now).”
I can’t accept your first premise without some kind of proof. You’re jumping from past to future. Something has to be happening now, in the present time. It’s obvious there is a present time because I’m experiencing it now in this moment.

 

[Bahman]

This is the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead in his work “Process and Reality”.

It posits that with supposedly enduring objects, nothing is the same from this moment of now to the next moment of now (try to find those two neighboring points on a linear [not digital] timeline of zero dimensional temporal p(name removed by moderator)oints).

The being of this moment of now “dies” to make way for the being of the next moment of now in line with the inertia of movement that it apprehends from the being of the previous moment of time (which died in making space for the being now present).

Thus it appears there are enduring objects in space and time, but always new in the now (according to Whitehead’s theory). Because the current now’s objects cannot occupy the same space as the previous moments objects the prior abandons being in generating the being of the present moment (with like inertia to match its own inertia plus any apprehended collisions of varying inertia). So, objects appear to endure but also to change while viewing along a timeline. It is an attempt to reconcile the understanding of material only existing “now” while the sensitive apprehension (of animals, at least) maintains a “memory” of material spanning a linear progression of “nows”. And Human Animals plan trips to Mars by analyzing their memories and temporal observations.

Thank you for the reference.

 

[Bahman]

“Lets consider a system being in state P (past). This state can only cause one state F (future) and nothing exist as a state at the moment N (now).”
I can’t accept your first premise without some kind of proof. You’re jumping from past to future. Something has to be happening now, in the present time. It’s obvious there is a present time because I’m experiencing it now in this moment.

Now is the moment of experience hence nothing is there and what you are experiencing as we agreed is what happened in the past. Now is the moment of experience, decision and creation.

Argument for this in full details is given in the link.

 

[seagal]

Now is the moment of experience hence nothing is there and what you are experiencing as we agreed is what happened in the past. Now is the moment of experience, decision and creation.

Argument for this in full details is given in the link.

Again, I don’t agree that nothing is there. What we experience may be in the past but there is always something there. I think the post from John Martin about the philosophy of Alfred Whitehead expressed it more clearly

It posits that with supposedly enduring objects, nothing is the same from this moment of now to the next moment of now (try to find those two neighboring points on a linear [not digital] timeline of zero dimensional temporal p(name removed by moderator)oints).

**The being of this moment of now “dies” to make way for the being of the next moment of now in line with the inertia of movement that it apprehends from the being of the previous moment of time (which died in making space for the being now present).
**

If this is what you’re trying to say then I can go along with that as an argument. Our “now” may be the past for something else, but there is always another moment coming along. The way you put it, events jump from past to future with nothing in between, which is not possible.

 

[Tomdstone]

Now is the moment of experience hence nothing is there .

Non sequitur.

 

[John_Martin]

Again, I don’t agree that nothing is there. What we experience may be in the past but there is always something there. I think the post from John Martin about the philosophy of Alfred Whitehead expressed it more clearly

If this is what you’re trying to say then I can go along with that as an argument. Our “now” may be the past for something else, but there is always another moment coming along. The way you put it, events jump from past to future with nothing in between, which is not possible.

Actually, Whitehead would say that everything is in the current now, but you will not experience the knowing about it. Some future version of you in its current now will know about the things parallel to you in the now that is now. Fun, isn’t it?..

When you reach out to touch something, you are speculating on the apprehension of the past observed trajectory and inertia of the “other thing”, speculating that it will be at a certain place in the upcoming “now” and you are then “dying” as a being with a hand at your side in one “now” to become a being with your hand stretched out to where you speculated the “other thing” would be in the “next now”. And in the third “now” you will recognize whether you actually touched it…

However, this is all an attempt to provide a metaphysics for objects being enduring and yet only existing in less than a p(name removed by moderator)oint in time, ever. There is no answer in it, however, for the mechanism whereby an object can, in dying, make itself into the new object built on the old combined with the old’s contact with other objects (which never happened).

There is a mystery of material being, even though it changes in time, yet it is in a way like the being of God (“timeless” while it endures and changes), yet will come to an end. Timeless, but not eternal. I am not sure how to express this clearly, but being is not bound to time as Whitehead and Bahman (and many) would argue, even though it experiences time.

 

[seagal]

Actually, Whitehead would say that everything is in the current now, but you will not experience the knowing about it. Some future version of you in its current now will know about the things parallel to you in the now that is now. Fun, isn’t it?..

A little hard to wrap your head around. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but the way you phrased his hypothesis made more sense than what Bahman is saying. I’m not sure if it’s the same thing or not.

 

[Rhubarb]

What does “We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience” mean?

 

[John_Martin]

What does “We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience” mean?

That would mean that your propulsion into the next moment of your existence cannot be nudged by things really existing in this same “now of time” because their “pressure” on you is never noticed until a future moment. You are only “moving and moved (in new directions)” by what you apprehend as affecting you, and that is from the past.

However, “cognitively” you can have “faith that other things are existing right now” that you have not yet felt (like the sun whose rays will still be hitting you in 9 minutes) and cognitively move yourself to a new location in the next now of time based on your belief about all reality that will be felt some later moment. If that were not true, a dog would never chase a rabbit, nor a bear catch a salmon, nor a man propose marriage to a woman.

Yet this understanding does not provide for “intelligence” in the moment of “now” for faith in these other things existing now, but only provides trajectory to individual particles of matter, and treats of moments of now as if they were not continuous, but individual and “steppable from this now to the next now”. Yet we know that for two points of “now” on a line, there are an infinite number of points between them, always. In a way, you cannot define two neighboring “now points” because there is no temporal dimension of duration to them.

It is a “deistic” philosophy, with a god that is hoping all the created trajectories have meaning in them in any given moment.

 

[seagal]

What does “We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience” mean?

That would mean that your propulsion into the next moment of your existence cannot be nudged by things really existing in this same “now of time” because their “pressure” on you is never noticed until a future moment. You are only “moving and moved (in new directions)” by what you apprehend as affecting you, and that is from the past.

However, “cognitively” you can have “faith that other things are existing right now” that you have not yet felt (like the sun whose rays will still be hitting you in 9 minutes) and cognitively move yourself to a new location in the next now of time based on your belief about all reality that will be felt some later moment. If that were not true, a dog would never chase a rabbit, nor a bear catch a salmon, nor a man propose marriage to a woman.

Yet this understanding does not provide for “intelligence” in the moment of “now” for faith in these other things existing now, but only provides trajectory to individual particles of matter, and treats of moments of now as if they were not continuous, but individual and “steppable from this now to the next now”. Yet we know that for two points of “now” on a line, there are an infinite number of points between them, always. In a way, you cannot define two neighboring “now points” because there is no temporal dimension of duration to them.

It is a “deistic” philosophy, with a god that is hoping all the created trajectories have meaning in them in any given moment.

Hmmm. I would have said that it means we cannot know what we don’t experience.

 

[John_Martin]

Hmmm. I would have said that it means we cannot know what we don’t experience.

In the instant called “now”, which is of no duration in time (like a point on a line) it is impossible to know anything, because by the time you focus on a thought you are an infinite number of now points down the road.

This theory is more for material causation from instant to instant over time than for conscious thought.

 

[Tomdstone]

In the instant called “now”, which is of no duration in time (like a point on a line) it is impossible to know anything, because by the time you focus on a thought you are an infinite number of now points down the road.

This theory is more for material causation from instant to instant over time than for conscious thought.

How do you know that time is not discrete and that a time line interval is not composed of a finite number of quantum points?