Cogito Ergo Sum

[Danoff]

Thinking that everything is deception except my thoughts, that could EASILY be deception

So you'd question your own existance, you think you could be part of someone else's dream? You think that your thoughts might be someone else's thoughts? I thought you believed you had a soul.

is a rather arduous way to go on living. I've seen more then my share of proof of God in my life. If you haven't then that truly is too bad.

You've seen what you consider to be evidence. That's not the same thing as proof. As I have been saying here the whole time, you can't prove anything... you have no proof that God exists - not even your own personal experience. In otherwords, you cannot logically prove even to yourself that God exists. That leaves you with 2 choices.

1) Accept it and become an infidel. Be cast into hell for eternity for being unwilling to have faith in God.
2) Choose to have a belief where it is not warranted - where it is not the logically required solution. In that case, your belief in God is irrational - the very definition of faith.

My response to that last option is documented in my previous post.

 

[Swift]

So you'd question your own existance, you think you could be part of someone else's dream? You think that your thoughts might be someone else's thoughts? I thought you believed you had a soul.

No, I was just going along your lines of thought. You justify your existence by your thoughts that obviously can't be proven to anyone but you. And you stated that. However, how do you know those thoughts aren't being popped into your head by an outside source?

You've seen what you consider to be evidence. That's not the same thing as proof. As I have been saying here the whole time, you can't prove anything... you have no proof that God exists - not even your own personal experience. In otherwords, you cannot logically prove even to yourself that God exists. That leaves you with 2 choices.

Again, I do NOT define myself by the standards that you set forth at the beginning of this thread. So I can prove to myself that God exists. Whether or not that works for you is not what I'm after.

1) Accept it and become an infidel. Be cast into hell for eternity for being unwilling to have faith in God.
2) Choose to have a belief where it is not warranted - where it is not the logically required solution. In that case, your belief in God is irrational - the very definition of faith.

Also, the definition of Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. In other words, I don't have to see Jesus to see his blessings in my life.

 

[a6m5]

I think you know quite well that God's existance cannot be proven... or even proven likely. It requires faith to be religious. It requires a leap of faith to believe in God. A leap of faith that I have hopefully shown you is not required to accept science as humanity's best efforts at understanding our reality.

I'll further postulate, however, that you took your leap of faith because you wanted it to be true. Religion holds an easy answer to life. Do good and believe and ye shall be rewarded. Justice wil be done in the end. Death is not an end but a beginning. The lord works in mysterious ways. We must pray to help those in need. These are all very comforting notions and I believe that they hold the key to answer the "WHY?" that so many people ask when it comes to religion. These are why people choose to take a leap of faith. These are why people link unrelated events and derive a common religious cause to them. These comforting notions simplify the universe into a human centric - soul centric conept that puts the individual in a light of importance. Religion gives people purpose, it gives people comfort, it gives them simple understanding - all to confront a reality without real purpose, without comfort and without easy answers.

I think you're generalizing little too much. Your post make it sound like all religious people are silly, irrational people. There are many scientists who belive in existence of God. There are plenty of scientists that believe this universe is way to complicated to have happened by chance.

 

[Danoff]

There are plenty of scientists that believe this universe is way to complicated to have happened by chance.

I, for example, don't think that the universe happened by chance. I think it is very likely that we will find that our universe is a logical consequence of the lack of existance... but I've already gone on about that in some other thread.

No, I was just going along your lines of thought. You justify your existence by your thoughts that obviously can't be proven to anyone but you. And you stated that. However, how do you know those thoughts aren't being popped into your head by an outside source?

I defined my way out of that. I define myself as the orignator of my thoughts... so who or whatever it is that creates my thoughts - that is what I am.

Again, I do NOT define myself by the standards that you set forth at the beginning of this thread. So I can prove to myself that God exists.

You cannot simply choose whether it applies to you... either I am right or I am wrong. It is not right for me and wrong for you. You can either show me that I am wrong or accept that I may be right - in which case you accept that God may not exist - in which case you're going to hell.

Also, the definition of Faith is the substance of things hoped for...

That is exactly what I was talking about. You can't simply choose to believe in something because you want it to be true. You can't will heaven into existance by your desire for it to exist.

I don't have to see Jesus to see his blessings in my life.

You do not have to see Jesus to see blessings in your life... how you figure out what caused those blessings or their nature is another matter.

 

[a6m5]

I, for example, don't think that the universe happened by chance. I think it is very likely that we will find that our universe is a logical consequence of the lack of existance... but I've already gone on about that in some other thread.

Right on. Which thread was that? Sounds interesting.....

 

[Swift]

I defined my way out of that. I define myself as the orignator of my thoughts... so who or whatever it is that creates my thoughts - that is what I am.

So you don't even know who is putting thoughts in your head, but that's you? Man, talk about shaky stuff.

You cannot simply choose whether it applies to you... either I am right or I am wrong. It is not right for me and wrong for you. You can either show me that I am wrong or accept that I may be right - in which case you accept that God may not exist - in which case you're going to hell.

If God doesn't exist, by definition Hell cannot exist. So that argument makes no sense.

That is exactly what I was talking about. You can't simply choose to believe in something because you want it to be true. You can't will heaven into existance by your desire for it to exist.

You do not have to see Jesus to see blessings in your life... how you figure out what caused those blessings or their nature is another matter.

Danoff, you don't believe anything exists. So, how does that invalidate what I DO believe exists? I mean sheesh, you say that your thoughts are you and they can be come from anywhere. I say God is my reason for existence and I can communicate with him at will. That's not that different.

I have no need to "prove" to you that what I experience is real. Faith is a personal issue. You either get it or you don't. Have you ever tried to explain to someone that loves a food that you can't stand why you can't stand it? They will generally think that you're irrational and should look at it from a different perspective. That's what we're doing here. You like chicken, I like fish. It's IMPOSSIBLE to tell you why one is better then the other unless you try it. I have tried living without God, have you tried living with him?

 

[Danoff]

So you don't even know who is putting thoughts in your head, but that's you? Man, talk about shaky stuff.

Not really. What I'm saying is that while I may not fully understand the nature of my existance, I define myself by my thoughts.

If God doesn't exist, by definition Hell cannot exist. So that argument makes no sense.

I never said God didn't exist. I said that if you admit the possibility that he does not exist, you'll go to hell (if it turns out that he does).

Danoff, you don't believe anything exists.

Except myself. However, I accept that much exists based on the notion that I have no real reason to think it doesn't.

So, how does that invalidate what I DO believe exists?

That is what this whole thread is about. What can we logically prove to anyone (including ourselves) exists? My very first post outlined why all that we can prove is that we exist, and that we can only prove that to ourselves. Anything else requires some sort of belief in something that we're not truly justified in believing.

I mean sheesh, you say that your thoughts are you and they can be come from anywhere. I say God is my reason for existence and I can communicate with him at will. That's not that different.

I went through a long explanation of why those are different. I say that I do not understand my nature, but that I define myself to be the originator of my thoughts. You say that you DO know something outside of yourself exists - I do not. You say that you CAN trust some of your perceptions - I do not. When you say that you can communicate with God at will, you assume that God exists, that anything besides you exists, that you can communicate anything outside of yourself, and that you can communicate it in the manner you inteded - I say that metaphysically, none of that is possible to truly know. That's how they're different.

Faith is a personal issue. You either get it or you don't. Have you ever tried to explain to someone that loves a food that you can't stand why you can't stand it? They will generally think that you're irrational and should look at it from a different perspective.

If only it were that simple. If only the issue were a matter of not being able to communicate your own perceptions to someone else. But that's not what this is about at all. I went into this discussion ASSUMING that you have percieved something you believe is God. I took that much for granted - and I still showed you why you cannot logically conclude that God exists.

 

[Swift]

Not really. What I'm saying is that while I may not fully understand the nature of my existance, I define myself by my thoughts.

Yes, really. You define yourself by thoughts that you admit might not be yours. How can that be a validation for your individuality?

If only it were that simple. If only the issue were a matter of not being able to communicate your own perceptions to someone else. But that's not what this is about at all. I went into this discussion ASSUMING that you have percieved something you believe is God. I took that much for granted - and I still showed you why you cannot logically conclude that God exists.

Danoff, just to let you know. Since you believe nothing, I'm really not worried about justifing my faith to you. That's an impossibility over an internet forum. And, from what you've been saying, I don't think it would be possible in person.

My logic is that God is God, the creator of all life and the captain of my life. Now, your logic is, My thoughts are me(wherever they might come from). I'm right, you're not. However, there is zero point of arguing and I'm actually sorry I posted in this thread in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, really. You define yourself by thoughts that you admit might not be yours. How can that be a validation for your individuality?

When did I say anything about my individuality? I said that I don't truly objectively know where my thoughts originate - that I don't know the nature of the origins of my thoughts. That doesn't mean they aren't my thoughts. I've made certain of that by defining myself as the originator of my thoughts.

I know nothing of my nature. That admits that I cannot validate my individuality.

Danoff, just to let you know. Since you believe nothing, I'm really not worried about justifing my faith to you. That's an impossibility over an internet forum. And, from what you've been saying, I don't think it would be possible in person.

I'm not really asking you to justify your faith to me. I'm asking you how you've justified it to yourself. I've put you in a difficult position. On the one hand, if you accept the possibility that your perceptions could be false, then you have accepted that you may have had no personal interaction with God - which leaves you not knowing God and having no evidence/experience/reason even to have faith in God. Which means that if it turns out he exists you go to hell. Or you can have faith that your perceptions of God are truth and ignore the possibility that you're plugged into the matrix and the machines are feeding you your entire perception of reality - how can you justify that to yourself?

My logic is that God is God, the creator of all life and the captain of my life. Now, your logic is, My thoughts are me(wherever they might come from). I'm right, you're not. However, there is zero point of arguing and I'm actually sorry I posted in this thread in the first place.

Well if it comes down to "I'm right, you're not." then yes there is zero point in arguing. If your logic is that you believe in God even if you don't trust your own perception of God or the existance of the bible... then I'd like to ask you how you've managed to convince yourself that you're right.

 

[Swift]

When did I say anything about my individuality? I said that I don't truly objectively know where my thoughts originate - that I don't know the nature of the origins of my thoughts. That doesn't mean they aren't my thoughts. I've made certain of that by defining myself as the originator of my thoughts.

I know nothing of my nature. That admits that I cannot validate my individuality.

Then who are you? If you think, therefore you are...who are you?

I'm not really asking you to justify your faith to me. I'm asking you how you've justified it to yourself. I've put you in a difficult position. On the one hand, if you accept the possibility that your perceptions could be false, then you have accepted that you may have had no personal interaction with God - which leaves you not knowing God and having no evidence/experience/reason even to have faith in God. Which means that if it turns out he exists you go to hell. Or you can have faith that your perceptions of God are truth and ignore the possibility that you're plugged into the matrix and the machines are feeding you your entire perception of reality - how can you justify that to yourself?

Well if it comes down to "I'm right, you're not." then yes there is zero point in arguing. If your logic is that you believe in God even if you don't trust your own perception of God or the existance of the bible... then I'd like to ask you how you've managed to convince yourself that you're right.

To consider every single possibility and live in wonder is just plain stupid. There are infinite scenarios we could point out that would give us an "existance" I for one do not believe that you or I are accidents or hooked up to a huge virtual reality machine.

How about a third possibility. We are just pawns in a game played by super beings. Like the greek gods. We can go on and on.

I've validated my faith, but you didn't accept that as validation. You say you want me to validate it for myself. I'm living the life, that is validation. You on the other hand, appear to be existing in a constant confusion of what is "really going on" Thanks, I'll stick with God.

 

[Danoff]

Then who are you? If you think, therefore you are...who are you?

Not only do I not know. I don't think I can know. (That's what I mean when I say I don't know anything about my nature)

To consider every single possibility and live in wonder is just plain stupid.

Hmmm... Perhaps to consider every single possibility would be pointless - but to question one's perceptions is part of the search for truth. I wouldn't call that stupid, I'd call it necessary.

You say to live in wonder is stupid - I say it is the only choice. To believe that I know the answers wihle ignoring the possibilities would be... well... closed minded.

Now that doesn't mean I lie awake at night wondering whether my perceptions are real. I accept the world I am presented with because I have no evidence to suggest I shouldn't. That doesn't mean I "believe" it - that I think I have true objective knowledge of it... because I could be a brain in a vat.

 

[sukerkin]

Hey look, sukie wandered outside of the GT and OLR forums!

Yes I know; strange isn't it !

It's actually sort of interesting in parts and there are the kernels of some very thought-provoking discourses in some of these threads.

However, like any 'debating group', there are those in the works who appear to want to bait and gainsay whatever arguments are put forward. Sadly nothing kills a good conversation faster than that.

Then again, my father and I have been arguing religion and the existence of God for ... counts on fingers ... thirty odd years now, with no more sign of a conclusion being reached than Dan and Swift so perhaps continual "Yes, but ...'s" have their place after all .

 

[Famine]

Then again, my father and I have been arguing religion and the existence of God for ... counts on fingers ... thirty odd years now

You have thirty fingers?

That explains the DS2 setup you used...

 

[Swift]

Not only do I not know. I don't think I can know. (That's what I mean when I say I don't know anything about my nature)



Hmmm... Perhaps to consider every single possibility would be pointless - but to question one's perceptions is part of the search for truth. I wouldn't call that stupid, I'd call it necessary.

You say to live in wonder is stupid - I say it is the only choice. To believe that I know the answers wihle ignoring the possibilities would be... well... closed minded.

Now that doesn't mean I lie awake at night wondering whether my perceptions are real. I accept the world I am presented with because I have no evidence to suggest I shouldn't. That doesn't mean I "believe" it - that I think I have true objective knowledge of it... because I could be a brain in a vat.

Wow, you don't know who you are. Now that is rough.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, you don't know who you are. Now that is rough.

I'm also saying that you don't (and can't) know who you are.

 

[Swift]

I'm also saying that you don't (and can't) know who you are.

Ok, so YOU saying to me that I can't know who I am makes it true. But me saying that I know who I am makes it false.

Hmm...all because you don't have any belief, faith, or assurance in your very existance. That's too bad.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so YOU saying to me that I can't know who I am makes it true. But me saying that I know who I am makes it false.

No. My simply stating something does not make it any more true than you saying something makes it false.

I gave you reasons why you cannot know your own nature any more than I can know mine.

Hmm...all because you don't have any belief, faith, or assurance in your very existance. That's too bad.

Swift! It isn't hard to keep track of. I've only said I can believe that ONE thing is true. Just one... and that thing is that I exist. I believe, have faith, and assurance in my very existance. That is the ONE THING that I can actually believe. I've stated that many times in this thread.

Please stop claiming otherwise.

 

[Swift]

Swift! It isn't hard to keep track of. I've only said I can believe that ONE thing is true. Just one... and that thing is that I exist. I believe, have faith, and assurance in my very existance. That is the ONE THING that I can actually believe. I've stated that many times in this thread.

Ok, if you don't know who you are or what your thoughts are coming from, how do you know you exist? I'm serious. You could just be an afterthought of some other supreme being. Your thoughts prove nothing of identity or existance. You don't know who or what you are. But you know you exist? Nope, I'm still looking for some proof that you exist right now.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, if you don't know who you are or what your thoughts are coming from, how do you know you exist? I'm serious. You could just be an afterthought of some other supreme being. Your thoughts prove nothing of identity or existance. You don't know who or what you are. But you know you exist? Nope, I'm still looking for some proof that you exist right now.

I can't prove it to you (as I mentioned earlier). But I can prove to you that I can prove it to myself.

If my thoughts are originated by a supreme being, then I am the supreme being. If my thoughts are originated by a machine, then that is me.

In otherwords (I feel like a broken record), I don't know who I am, but I know I exist as the originator of my thoughts.

 

[Swift]

I can't prove it to you (as I mentioned earlier). But I can prove to you that I can prove it to myself.

If my thoughts are originated by a supreme being, then I am the supreme being. If my thoughts are originated by a machine, then that is me.

In otherwords (I feel like a broken record), I don't know who I am, but I know I exist as the originator of my thoughts.

Uh, if you are the originator of your thoughts, should you not know where they are coming from?

Originator: someone who creates new things

or

Originator: the person who first thinks of something and causes it to happen:

 

[Sage]

Come on Swift, this isn't too hard to follow. He's saying that, for all we know, life could be an illusion – the computer I'm typing this on right now could be a holographic image, and my consciousness could be nothing more than a machine that Big Bob controls by twiddling his thumbs.

The point being, we only have sensory perception as our gateway to the rest of the world – and we have to use that perception, combined with logic, to observe the world as best as we can, not knowing whether or not any of it is even real. But if we go on wondering if any of it is real, we'll never get anywhere (for example, say you find evidence that it's real – but hey, the evidence could be fabricated by Big Bob to look like evidence!).

This, in turn, leaves science and religion as our choices for "processing" our sensory perceptions – analyzing what they mean and so forth.

Good?

 

[Green Gloves]

Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I exist)

Descartes postulated this phrase as he asked some very fundamental metaphysical questions about the nature of knowledge and reality.

danoff, what a coincidence! I posted the same topic on my blog on the same day. Your arguments are more elaborated. I just asked one basic question. http://utoddpia.blogspot.com/2005/07/cogito-ergo-sum.html .

 

[Danoff]

Uh, if you are the originator of your thoughts, should you not know where they are coming from?

I don't see why that's necessary (or even possible for me).

Originator: someone who creates new things

or

Originator: the person who first thinks of something and causes it to happen:

number 1.

 

[Swift]

Sage, my point is that he's contradicting himself. How can you be the orginator of something and have no clue where it came from or what you are?

 

[Danoff]

Don't you think it's a bit too arrogant? Isn't a bit more like "I think, therefore I must have existed at some point, and might still do."

What if the world has already ended and what our senses tell us are just memories? Your argument is rationally going to be "who is remembering the memories then?" Well the universe is. We are the universe's memories and well-documented ones at that. There's got to be more than just five dimensions (X, Y, Z, time, and possibly wormhole). I suspect one of them is where the memories reside.

This is a similar argument to what swift was posting on this thread - that we could be someone else's dream - that we might not exist at all and are simply a figment of someone else's imagination.

But this idea is thwarted by the fact that I can choose to create thought at will. Right now I can decide to think of anything I want - it is at my control. Swift can't even argue this one because otherwise why would God hold us responsible for what we do in life - if we aren't in control of our minds, why would God punish us for what we do?

When one is questioning one's existance, one looks for the ways in which one alters one's environment (<- It does sound strange when you don't use "their" in place of "one's"). But since we can't trust our senses, we can't know if anything we have done has truly altered our environment.

What we do know is that we can create thought at will. I can think about whatever I want to right now. Sure when I stop trying to control my thoughts they wander off onto things that I perhaps don't even want to think about - but if I make a concerted effort, no matter how peroccupied I am, I can always think about a dog wearing glasses in a suit with a bowtie teaching at harvard.

Whatever it is that just came up with that concept, that's what I call me. If this is all a dreamer and the dreamer's mind just came up with that idea - that's me. If I am actually a manifestation of God and God just really likes the idea of a dog teaching a class (dog is God spelled backward afterall) - then I am God.

But if this were all a memory there would be no control - I could not alter the memory. If it is a special kind of memory where the rememberer can reinvent the memory - then I am the rememberer. In any case, I exist.

 

[Danoff]

And for the record. I didn't choice God, he chose me. Now, you're going to say, how do you know it's God? Because I do, just like Danoff knows he's the originator of his thoughts.

Swift, we've been over this. I have defined myself as the originator of my thoughts.

Sure, you can define god to be whatever experiences or influences you want - but you can't logically tie that in with any religious teachings.

You can say: "I define the cause of my car accident to be God." Or "I define the cause of my lemonade to be God." Or "I define the color red to be God." That's fine, you can make arbitrary definitions (just as I did with my own existance).

What you CANNOT do is say "I define the cause of my car accident to be God - and furthermore, that God is the same God they talk about in the bible."

You would have to logically PROVE that the God spoken of in the bible is the same force that caused your car accident. How can you prove that when you can't prove anything besides the fact that you exist?

 

[Swift]

Swift, we've been over this. I have defined myself as the originator of my thoughts.

Sure, you can define god to be whatever experiences or influences you want - but you can't logically tie that in with any religious teachings.

You can say: "I define the cause of my car accident to be God." Or "I define the cause of my lemonade to be God." Or "I define the color red to be God." That's fine, you can make arbitrary definitions (just as I did with my own existance).

What you CANNOT do is say "I define the cause of my car accident to be God - and furthermore, that God is the same God they talk about in the bible."

You would have to logically PROVE that the God spoken of in the bible is the same force that caused your car accident. How can you prove that when you can't prove anything besides the fact that you exist?

Danoff, I am SO done trying to prove anything to anyone that doesn't believe in his own hand, eyes, face or body. I'm just done. It's really rather boring. "I don't believe in anything(but my own thoughts) so there! Prove something different." Well duh! For someone that trusts in nothing and believes in nothing, the proof os something outside of his head is nonexistant and never will be.

Oh well. Have fun bud.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I am SO done trying to prove anything to anyone that doesn't believe in his own hand, eyes, face or body. I'm just done. It's really rather boring. "I don't believe in anything(but my own thoughts) so there! Prove something different." Well duh! For someone that trusts in nothing and believes in nothing, the proof os something outside of his head is nonexistant and never will be.

That's fine and dandy, but don't draw parallels between what I'm saying and what you're saying - they're quite different.

...and this isn't some absent minded conclusion I draw. It's quite carefully laid out. You're very quick to dismiss it - which is why we've had trouble getting anywhere in this thread.

 

[Swift]

That's fine and dandy, but don't draw parallels between what I'm saying and what you're saying - they're quite different.

...and this isn't some absent minded conclusion I draw. It's quite carefully laid out. You're very quick to dismiss it - which is why we've had trouble getting anywhere in this thread.

Your conclusion makes it easy for you to deny any and everything and then say prove it. Since it's impossible to prove anything to you beyond your own thoughts, what's the point? You can "think" whatever you want.

 

[Danoff]

Your conclusion makes it easy for you to deny any and everything and then say prove it. Since it's impossible to prove anything to you beyond your own thoughts, what's the point? You can "think" whatever you want.

Think about what you just said and how meaningful it is. It is impossible to prove anything beyond your own thoughts because of all of the possibilities!!! That's a profound metaphysical conclusion that says volumes about what we consider to be truth or knowledge.