God does not truly exist

I think all this proves is that if I define "exist" in a certain way, and then define "God" in a certain way (or fail to define the term but describe "God" in a way that places "God" outside the parameters of my definition of "exist"), I can show that "God" doesn't "exist."

Put more concisely, it just shows that "God," as I conceive "God," does not "exist," as I conceive "exist."

I don't think anyone can prove that God exists, especially without defining the term, but I don't think the opposite can proven either.

If god does exist, he is probably waiting on us to figure out how to solve our own problems. lol

So what you are telling me is that you are not conscious?

Consciousness is not physical. As god's existence is not proven by his lack of physical form, so your is not proven by your having a physical form. To me, you are letters on a screen. Prove to me that you exist.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I believe in god. As a matter of fact I try not to believe in anything. I am merely pointing out that your argument is flawed from an empiricists stand point because you have yet to observe your consciousness and yet you know it is there. This means that you have to consider the possibility that God is, at least, a consciousness, perhaps without a body.

I think all this proves is that if I define "exist" in a certain way, and then define "God" in a certain way (or fail to define the term but describe "God" in a way that places "God" outside the parameters of my definition of "exist"), I can show that "God" doesn't "exist."

Put more concisely, it just shows that "God," as I conceive "God," does not "exist," as I conceive "exist."

I don't think anyone can prove that God exists, especially without defining the term, but I don't think the opposite can proven either.

"Consciousness is not physical."

Consciousness is not physical according to you. We humans love to mystify things. I see little difference between your concept of consciousness (or the mind) and the ancient concept of a ghostly soul. You are separating consciousness from the brain. Consciousness deals with the philosophy of the mind, and the position of dualism is in the trash bag of bad ideas. The brain, the mind, and consciousness are all one and the same. Mind-body dualism becomes more discredited the more we learn about the brain. When I say the only things that exist are physical, I am not just speaking of matter; I am speaking of anything that is described by physics, including not just matter, but energy, space, time, physical forces, wave particles, etc. Anything other than that is just something that you came up with (idealism). Physicalism and functionalism are the only positions that deserve credit when dealing with the philosophy of the mind. Functionalism is the thesis that mental states are functional states consisting of causal relations among components for processing information. To get more information on physicalism go to this link.

Physicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy of mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I am merely pointing out that your argument is flawed from an empiricists stand point because you have yet to observe your consciousness and yet you know it is there."

If you have seen a brain, then you have seen consciousness. I know that may sound disenchanting, but it is what it is. You know that you have consciousness, because one, you are human, two, you can feel, taste, smell, see, and hear, like most animals. You're just putting a word (consciousness) on the sensory system that most animals have, and that mystifies it a little bit.

"Stop over-complicating things. The universe is a ball of string and we are only going to unravel it one knot at a time"

I like this quote.

I am an empiricist/positivist. Empiricism is an epistemological position, which states that knowledge arises from experience, and evidence. Empiricism only proves that God exists as an idea, and thus far, it has discredited ideas of the supernatural, and therefore God. Belief in the metaphysical idea of God depends on the doctrines of idealism and fideism, none of which actually correspond with reality. Agnosticism is based on the ignorance of the principle of parsimony, and a redundant restatement of the principle that synthetic propositions are subject to doubt; it is as ignorant to this principle as absolute skepticism is. Parsimony demands that supernatural agencies be held not to exist until proven otherwise. The idea/concept of deism is not only unparsimonious, but logically flawed, because it depends on the first cause argument, and that argument is flawed because it begs the question - then what caused or created God. Pantheism, the thesis that the universe is a supernatural agency, is incorrect because it is also unparsimonious, and the universe shows no sign of supernaturalism. With that said, I am a naturalist, and therefore an atheist until someone can show and prove that supernatural agency does exist.

First of all, explain to me this. If the brain is consciousness, explain the passing of single particle streams (which store what seems to be th whole of our knowledge) between nodes in our brain?

So we know that particles do not get destroyed when we die... So what happens to the sum of knowledge which is stored in them?

Also, perhaps you can explain how we can interact using "brain waves" which carry our "intentions" to others which is part of how we percieve emotion?

I was not trying to say that you were wrong. There is a possibility that you could be correct. All that I am saying is that you should never believe you know anything. 1000 years ago we knew the earth was flat. 3000 years ago we knew that the night sky was really a blanket with holes in it. What we know today is nothing more than the fact that we are here. The rest is just something we have on good word.

Also.... When was the last time that you saw your own brain?

I am guessing never so again i say... you have never seen your consciousness.

"First of all, explain to me this. If the brain is consciousness, explain the passing of single particle streams (which store what seems to be th whole of our knowledge) between nodes in our brain?"

You are simply explaining processes that go on in the brain. The matter, the particles, the electric pulses, are all physical.

"So we know that particles do not get destroyed when we die... So what happens to the sum of knowledge which is stored in them?"

The energy that makes up the atom is not destroyed (as far as I know - I'm not an expert), because energy is neither created nor destroyed, but you are assuming that those quantum particles belong to us, when we really belong to them. In other words, the atoms and the quantum particles make us, we don't make them. This is a very flawed argument I have heard before the suggest that consciousness survives death. If the brain and the sensory system is not responsible for self-awareness and environmental awareness then explain why it is that when a person's brain is injured in life there self-awareness and awareness of their environment is also diminished (for a good example, remember Terry Schiavo)? With this in mind, how can someone honestly believe that self-awareness and environmental awareness survives death (wishful thinking)? I am not saying that is doesn't survive death, but I am saying that everything indicates that it is highly unlikely (emphasis on highly and unlikely).

"Also, perhaps you can explain how we can interact using "brain waves" which carry our "intentions" to others which is part of how we percieve emotion?"

I knew that posting this topic was going to have me explaining things I shouldn't have to explain, but I couldn't help it. We perceive other people's emotions, not from some brain waves floating through space, but from facial recognition and empathy. That's why people with autism can't recognize our facial expressions; it's all in the brain. Evolving highly developed empathy was necessary for our highly social species to survive, and it may have even been favored in sexual selection.

Even domestic dogs can recognize when we are sad or angry, not because they understand our language, but because they understand our body language; and humans communicate mostly through body language.

"I was not trying to say that you were wrong. There is a possibility that you could be correct. All that I am saying is that you should never believe you know anything. 1000 years ago we knew the earth was flat. 3000 years ago we knew that the night sky was really a blanket with holes in it. What we know today is nothing more than the fact that we are here. The rest is just something we have on good word."

I doubt that you are an infinite skeptic, but this is usually an argument for infinite skepticism. We didn't know that the Earth was flat, we thought that the Earth was flat. We didn't know that night sky was a blanket with hole in it, we thought that the night sky was a blanket with holes in it. Now we know that the Earth is not flat, but a sphere; and now we know that the night sky is not a damn blanket. Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and that the Earth's surface therefore could not be flat. He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.

The idea that we can't know anything is called infinite skepticism, and it is not only unparsimonious, but it also just doesn't make much since - lol.

"Also.... When was the last time that you saw your own brain?

I am guessing never so again i say... you have never seen your consciousness."

Seriously guy, your joking right? Maybe I just can't take a joke, but I've had an X-ray done on my sinuses and I saw my skull, so I'm pretty sure my brain was underneath that - lol. Not to mention that the brain has been observed by almost everyone on the planet these days. I'll get back to you on my own brain if I ever get an MRI scan.

Also, we know about our consciousness, because of our intelligence, and because we are conscious (self-aware, and aware of environment).

It is clear that some of you didn't fully take in what I wrote.

This is once again a statement that ignores the principle of parsimony. Any re-conception of the word God is unparsimonious; that includes deism and pantheism, and I explained that already. If you disagree then fine, but I shouldn't have to rebut a counter argument that I already dealt with in the initial post.

Any conception of exist that is not physical (can be described by physics) is idealism. You can't just make stuff up in your head and say that they exist.

Some of my conceptions of physicalism and its consequences:

If the mind is indeed separate from the physical reality through which it acts, ...

Now I will introduce my conception of logic:

Logic is a tool.

Man uses this tool by instinct ...

Just some thoughts.

Before we decide what or who does or doesn't exist, we must understand what existence means. Then, there is the question of whether or not we want to exist as God's servants, or as autonomous units. It is my belief that we should consider our stance on eternal servitude? just as much as on Gods existence. When dealing with such things, we should always ask, "What then?"