Can it not exist?

[George-ananda]

Except, of course, the reason we know it is there is because we *did* detect it: through its gravitational interactions. What we don't know is what it is made of and its detailed properties. But if it wasn't detectable *at all*, then we wouldn't say it was there.

I understand. Notice I used the words ‘not directly detectable’ to distinguish from indirectly detectable.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I agree 100% with that.

Hypothetically? I don't see why not.

Well, I think it gets to the question of what the verb 'exists' actually means. For example, we can agree that certain fictional characters do not exist (Santa Claus, Sherlock Holmes, an honest politician). But *why* do they not exist? What is it that separates them from those things that do exist?

Ultimately, it is because we can detect things that exist and not things that do not exist.

We (sort-of) know what 'exists' means in our everyday language. (There's actually a huge metaphysical question there.) The word 'exists' exists (!) in our language and we certainly use it often enough. And presumably we know how to define the referring expression that we are using. ('God' appears so often in religious speech and seemingly means whatever the religious people mean to say by using it.) So saying that *God exists* seems to be meaningful to me. It's assigning whatever the word 'God' refers to into the class of objects with mind-independent reality.

I think that the problem there is establishing reference. If we are talking about the unbounded set of all the things that exist that we know nothing about, how are we to pick out which object in that class (if any) the referring expression ('God' in this case) refers to?

I suppose that various theists would narrow down the applicability of 'God' to mean the deity revealed in the Bible, Quran or the Gita. So the word 'God' would pick out whatever occupant of the unknown corresponds to those descriptions. Did it appear on Sinai or to Arjuna or whatever the story is supposed to be?

Others (I find this line of thought more persuasive than the last) might define 'God' in the manner of natural theology. God is the first-cause, source-of-cosmic-order or ground-of-being. Then if we introduce the Principle of Sufficient Reason (for all X, if X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists) and if we agree that the universe exists, then we seem to have the makings of a logical proof of the existence of God. (Obviously it can be attacked and is only as persuasive as the assumptions built into it.)

Sorry, but Aristotelian philosophy and metaphysics needs to be left in the last millenium. There are just too many basic philosophical mistakes there to make the system useful.

No, I do not agree with the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason'. I don't believe that everything that exists has a cause.

So this line of thought delivers us to whatever unknown something(s) perform a particular set of metaphysical functions. It's an awfully austere God, but it's the God of Deism I guess. I won't say that I believe in it (I don't) but it's interesting from a philosophy of religion perspective.

I don't think it even works that far. For example, God exists (according to this logic), but has no sufficient reason to exist (a thing cannot be the sufficient reason for its own existence). So that is a contradiction to the system.

Ultimately, metaphysics tends to be a collection of biases that people claim are 'obvious' when, in fact, they are usually just false.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand. Notice I used the words ‘not directly detectable’ to distinguish from indirectly detectable.

If the detection of spiritual matters was anywhere close to being as consistent as the detection of Dark Matter, the whole issue wouldn't be subject to debate any longer.

 

[The Hammer]

Which is precisely why I doubt whether 'spiritual senses' actually exist and detect anything real. I ultimately think they are a type of self-delusion.

But we can test this. Have a couple hundred practitioners of several different faiths that claim to have access to 'spiritual senses' and ask them independently what they detect in some situation. If you get consistent (or even mostly consistent) results, I will agree that they have some access to information that is different than the ordinary senses. But if they are scattered and have little agreement between them, then can we agree that they aren't actually detecting anything and they are likely to be delusional?

I mean. Personally, I'm not against that at least being tried.

But come on, am I really THAT delusional?

 

[Polymath257]

I mean. Personally, I'm not against that at least being tried.

But come on, am I really THAT delusional?

What does it mean to be delusional?

 

[The Hammer]

What does it mean to be delusional?

You tell me.

 

[George-ananda]

If the detection of spiritual matters was anywhere close to being as consistent as the detection of Dark Matter, the whole issue wouldn't be subject to debate any longer.

I suspect spiritual matter is part of Dark Matter. It exists in dimensions beyond the directly detectable three dimensions.

 

[Lain]

Could you rephrase the last part?

Pretty much. From seeing conversations with bahai and Hindu that alone shows the concepts of God are drastically different even in language in both religions. It could be just the English language and finding a good medium for mutual understanding at least in part.

I think it's categorized differently by culture and language but I only know new age like religions to find common ground. Most I came across have distinct definitions of God that it's more tolerance than acceptance.

Basically what I'm saying is there is (I would think) little to no confusion about concepts of God, because they are all referring (from what I can tell) to radically different things. The last part was this:

It would seem weird to say that there was mass confusion about the word "hot" in the sentences "she's hot" and "she's hot," when it is known in the first refers to body temperature and the second to sexual attractiveness. Though they both use the same words they do not mean the same thing at all. Likewise, with the word "God" we should not treat all the definitions the same way and say "there is mass confusion as to what people are talking about" when someone who uses the word to mean their human selves and another who uses the word to mean some kind of non-human spirit are not at all talking about the same thing.

"She's hot" and "she's sweating in the heat" are different perspectives on the same thing. "God is literally just me, a human, nothing more" and "God is the Uncaused Cause of All" are not different perspectives on the same thing, but are two entirely different things. Though we call both of the latter "theists" this doesn't mean that there is confusion about God among theist, it just means we've far too broadly categorized beliefs into one box, and are inaccurately thinking of them as the same thing, when they aren't.

 

[firedragon]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Sometimes logic and reason can also be useful.

 

[George-ananda]

The normal 5 senses can not detect anything Spiritual or Supernatural. It's coming from somewhere/something we haven't quite pinpointed yet.

As I understand it from various wisdom traditions, we also have subtle bodies (i.e. astral, mental, causal) interpenetrating our physical body. These subtle bodies have their own senses that tell them about the astral and other planes not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments. When this sensory input bubbles up to our conscious acknowledgment in the physical we refer to that as psychic and clairvoyant sensing.

 

[rational experiences]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

The night time no light immaculate unseen is clear.

We know it exists as we live in an alight status. Know it is not alight and still protects us.

Is not dark but present. Is clear and cold. We see dark as it is not clear and cold. It is radiated with radiating bodies radiating radiation into darkness.

Science squaring constant energy is human sciences alight thesis.

Immaculate not alight.

How can a light constant thesis a theory about clear without light?

To falsify information only.

To then ask a human question why falsify information.

Human want is not human logic is the answer.

The native American father America's spiritual patriot. Americans. Thought about Roman Empire as a world DNA community only. Irradiated occult science believers.

Who would not listen.

History said they learnt by an inherited double satanic cause. Rome was burnt by burning star fall comets in Nero status.

Cooling ice melt allowed then to live on and establish holy church healing.

1000 years later irradiated minds inherited again. Lost their minds to their original disbelief of the holy life.

Is the natural history teaching why.

Pretty basic American advice. World community said their Rome statement you are mother abomination. Not even theoried how spiritual father's tell the story.

I heard the American father native Indian tell his truth. He told me science after the ice age began in his earth position also.

His memories eradicated in Moses causes as American plates owns less mass than other countries. Sits over a huge underground cavity.

In spiritual psychic advice Egypt and India predominates the advices. Americas advice is not rationally there.

Americas mind is involved with a deep space emptiness of planet earths body of space mind.

Which affects non Americans mind as a state. Is how he explains it. Native minds knew and by wisdom explain the dilemma of white man not listening to their nations teachings.

Father in America taught me what he knew.

 

[The Hammer]

What does it mean to be delusional?

de·lu·sion
/dəˈlo͞oZHən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...nt-a-delusion-in-psychological-terms-at-least

"delusions are only diagnosed if they’re not consistent with the person’s existing belief system and views. A devout creationist talks to God while in church, that’s fine. An avowedly atheist lawyer starts doing it in the middle of a meeting, they’re probably delusional. If both of them suddenly started saying the world is going to end in 30 minutes because of angry frogs living in the sun, they’d both be considered delusional."

 

[Clara Tea]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

Electricity doesn't exist because I can't see it....let me just touch these......ZAP!!!....Uh, let me just douse my hair for a second to see if I can control the grease fire.

Come to think of it, there are a few things that exist that we can't see.

Subatomic particles seem to be real.

I can see the effects of love, but actually seeing love seems to be a bit difficult.

It is possible that others understand something without having to see it.

 

[blü 2]

Does that mean that if a person say "in my belief" instead of claiming "this is how it is, because it is written in the scripture" it would be more easy to "accept" the one saying "in my belief" ?

I think in either case I'd be inclined to accept that the speaker believed what he or she said.

And in either case, I'd use my usual criteria to agree or disagree.

 

[Clara Tea]

de·lu·sion
/dəˈlo͞oZHən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...nt-a-delusion-in-psychological-terms-at-least

"delusions are only diagnosed if they’re not consistent with the person’s existing belief system and views. A devout creationist talks to God while in church, that’s fine. An avowedly atheist lawyer starts doing it in the middle of a meeting, they’re probably delusional. If both of them suddenly started saying the world is going to end in 30 minutes because of angry frogs living in the sun, they’d both be considered delusional."

All of me got together and outvoted the doctor--we're all perfectly sane. The paranoia allegation was from all those people who were plotting against me. I don't owe the psychiatrist anything because I wasn't crazy and he was treating me for it. On the other hand, he might be right, but then I still don't owe him anything because crazy people can't be held accountable. Sanity is greatly overrated.

Hmm....delusions of sanity?

 

[Clara Tea]

That's a belief. Also, something "greater than our self" doesn't have to be any God(s). I don't believe in any Gods but I realize the universe is "much greater than our self," for instance.
"Deeper than a belief" would be something you could demonstrate, which obviously, you can't.


Sorry then it's useless to me if I have to put logic aside. That's silly.
I mean, you can't even describe what a spirit is, let alone demonstrate they exist.

Can you think of anything else in your life where you suspend reason and logic and instead just believe? I can't. It seems it only applies to non-demonstrable religious beliefs.

Believe that your wife loves you and won't run off with the pool boy?

Believe that a car will stop for you at a stop sign?

The world would be a very dangerous place if we could not believe in anyone.

We live our lives with beliefs that we can't prove. Is it too much to ask to believe just one more thing (God)?

Many of our beliefs we've acquired by a lifetime of observation. That car stopped, my wife baked me a birthday cake, my cat purred at me instead of scratching me. We can then believe that the same behavior would persist.

What if we somehow figured out (or observed) some action of God. Do we trust that God will protect us?

Perhaps belief in God is more tenuous than belief in terrestrial things. Yet, to some, belief is mandatory.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think in either case I'd be inclined to accept that the speaker believed what he or she said.

And in either case, I'd use my usual criteria to agree or disagree.

Hmm...that National Enquirer article about Elvis coming back after being captured by an alien spaceship seemed rather plausible. It was in writing. We are supposed to believe everything that we read.

Puts on blue suede shoes. Thang gu (Elvis thank you).

 

[F1fan]

Believe that your wife loves you and won't run off with the pool boy?

This actually happened to me. I couldn't believe it.

But it made working at a pool worth it.

 

[rational experiences]

Believe.

My brother is a practicing liar.

Belief plus seen it.

Cannot see live. Cannot see live. He feels love. Most theists arguing don't feel love seem devoid of it to question its authentic human ownership.

Love is not seen. Behaviours are witnessed. A topic of I observe.

No. No claim to any condition observed as a human.

Theist says cosmic.

Even earth and it's heavens not in the review what I see in his sub atomic particle. Theory. Visionary.

Do you think maybe radiation is just transmitting it's image direct into mind visions?

Earth a planet observed is the planet. Is not a subatomic particle. A theory only.

Lying condition. To con and coerce by use of words explanation. By living humans first. Chosen topic. Ask a human question first.

Are you a human?

Yes.

Are you a sub atomic particle owner bodily?

No.

Why?

I would not use a machine I designed and built to experiment on my body.

Yet you claim a victim human experimented on by man's machines that I own sub atomic particles?

Yes.

Why?

I want to invent create electricity.

Oh. Does the human theory electricity equal electricity?

Yes. As I already created it.

So you already know,?

Yes.

Why are you coercing then?

chosen subject.

Why include human life?

You live in the atmosphere where I claim alien and radiation came from.

You must have it first.

Oh. So planet earth never was sun irradiated first when no life existed,?

Of course it had.

Aliens abducted Elvis.

I see Elvis shadow image emerge and Michael Jackson not coloured but shadows when brain burnt. And other humans think visionary about it why....reasoned.

The UFO caused it.

Now where nuclear dust creator of nuclear energy is nuclear in the atmosphere in your possessed mind science of man?

Inside metal contained bombs rockets. That move through atmosphere.

Your version a UFO designed machine by propulsion atmosphere gases?

Is where your science possessed mind is communicating from. Designer ownership.

Your ego says I am gods creator from the dusts.
Your ego says I build two types of machines both alien to natural life
I destroy earths atmosphere by my inventions alien to life.

Why don't you think you aren't already informed as just a human and a theist?

Alien fake stories.

Where are sub atomic particles released from?

Errrr.....my nuclear bombs all my testings I spied by my choices. All the chemical atmosphere spraying.

That type of real advice.

 

[rational experiences]

Human aware natural advice.

My space mother is holy a womb. Owns holds her God child planet earths and it's spirits. Heavenly body.

Gods mother I taught not mine.

Next thought. I am a human.

Holy mother nature nurturer of all earths children's keeps me safe.

Oh holy mother. In nature. Also not mine to own.

My mother gives birth suffers great pain to give me life. A human.

I am loved as I am so innocent.

Wait a minute my mother human is angry and hateful. What happened?

Oh that is right says her man baby son. I irradiated both our heads as a satanist scientist.

I drew a picture and made an idol to say look stars hurt their heads.