Does this god proof work?

[Magnolia5275]

A:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind


---------------------------------------------------------------
B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

Can't find a single problem. I think it is perfect!


(Edit):____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even better! Proves existence outside the mind is impossible:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind

1. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
2. I know language so it is in my mind
3. Words in language can only reference things I know
4. Words in language can only reference things my mind[4]
5. "Truth" is a word in language
6. "Truth" can only reference things in the mind
7. All truths only reference things in the mind
8. Reality corresponds to all truths
9. Reality only references things in the mind
10. Reality is in the mind
11. The mind is greater than reality
12. The mind is All-Knowing of reality
13. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
14. Reality is the mind's creation
15. The mind is All-Powerful
16. The mind is God[5][8][9]
17. God exists

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Edit:) New argument fresh from the oven. It's v2 of A. This is my finest proof yet:

• It is not possible to know the unknowable

• A world outside the knowing is unknowable

• Mind is the knowing

• A world outside the mind is unknowable

• The world outside my mind is unknowable

• I don't know the world outside my mind

• I know only the world inside my mind

• I am my mind and the world is me.

[FlashDangerpants]

No, there's really no argument to bother picking apart there.
You need to start over entirely.

Try to use premises that you can actually justify rather than writing silly pseudiferous shit like "The mind is God"

[Iwannaplato]

A:

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable

There's a jump here to 3. That the world is outside the knowing. You need to justify that.

3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing

4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind

And here also. First you need to demonstrate that the world is outside the mind. IOW that these are separate. Then you need to explain why one cannot know something that one isn't.

6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
7. The world is my mind

It's good that you worded it as about yourself. Since you couldn't know about anyone else's mind, since they would be outside your mind, it would seem.


---------------------------------------------------------------

B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

You have a solipsism here. Fine. Some missing steps. Why must a mind know itself completely. Even if the mind is everything, why can't a mind be fallibel about self-knowledge?

How do you experience your all powerfulness? What is that claim grounded on? Can you (oh, Jesus, I will sound like Roydop) stop thinking for half an hour?

Can you control your dreams perfectly every time?

Can you stop thinking about sex, in any way, for a year?

You never experience forgetting something?

Did the parts of your childhood that you can't remember, never happen?

Can you feel about your bathroom sink exactly what you feel about your best friend, say for half an hour?

[Skip]

A
7. The world is my mind

Wrong!

9. The mind is God
10. God exists

Wrong!

Can't find a single problem.

Look harder.

I think it is perfect!

You're wrong.

[Magnolia5275]

There's a jump here to 3. That the world is outside the knowing. You need to justify that.

unknowable = not possible to know

A world outside the knowing is [unknowable] = A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know]

A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know] = It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing

[Iwannaplato]

There's a jump here to 3. That the world is outside the knowing. You need to justify that.

unknowable = not possible to know

A world outside the knowing is [unknowable] = A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know]

A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know] = It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing

Right but a world outside need not be unknowable. What's wrong with perception theories. That things outside us we can get information about?

that's the leap. You need to demonstrate that if something is outside me, I can't know anything about it.

[Magnolia5275]

There's a jump here to 3. That the world is outside the knowing. You need to justify that.

unknowable = not possible to know

A world outside the knowing is [unknowable] = A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know]

A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know] = It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing

Right but a world outside need not be unknowable. What's wrong with perception theories. That things outside us we can get information about?

that's the leap. You need to demonstrate that if something is outside me, I can't know anything about it.

There are 7 steps. Show me exactly in my language, of the argument where there is a false step.

[Iwannaplato]

unknowable = not possible to know

A world outside the knowing is [unknowable] = A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know]

A world outside the knowing is [not possible to know] = It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing

Right but a world outside need not be unknowable. What's wrong with perception theories. That things outside us we can get information about?

that's the leap. You need to demonstrate that if something is outside me, I can't know anything about it.

There are 7 steps. Show me exactly in my language, of the argument where there is a false step.

I'm not saying false. I am saying there is a leap. You have not demonstrated that we cannot know things about that which is outside us. You have simply assumed that. And I still don't understand who you think you are talking to.

2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable

That's a claim. Justify it.

[Magnolia5275]

No, there's really no argument to bother picking apart there.
You need to start over entirely.

Try to use premises that you can actually justify rather than writing silly pseudiferous shit like "The mind is God"

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind

1. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
2. I know language so it is in my mind
4. Words in language can only reference things I know
5. Words in language can only reference things my mind[4]
3. "Truth" is a word in language
4. "Truth" can only reference things in the mind
5. All truths only reference things in the mind
6. Reality corresponds to all truths
7. Reality only references things in the mind
8. Reality is in the mind
9. The mind is greater than the reality
10. The mind is All-Knowing of the reality
11. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
12. Reality is the mind's creation
13. The mind is All-Powerful
14. The mind is God[5][8][9]
15. God exists

Are you smart? Can you tell me where exactly there is a problem?

[Magnolia5275]

Right but a world outside need not be unknowable. What's wrong with perception theories. That things outside us we can get information about?

that's the leap. You need to demonstrate that if something is outside me, I can't know anything about it.

There are 7 steps. Show me exactly in my language, of the argument where there is a false step.

I'm not saying false. I am saying there is a leap. You have not demonstrated that we cannot know things about that which is outside us. You have simply assumed that. And I still don't understand who you think you are talking to.

2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable

That's a claim. Justify it.

It is not possible to know the unknowable

unknowable = not able to be known [source: Oxford Languages]

"A world outside the knowing is [unknowable]" = "A world outside the knowing is [not able to be known]"

Think about it like a box, if "knowing" is a box, outside the knowing, is outside the box of knowing, we there is "no knowing".

where there it "no knowing" it is unknowable. "no knowing" = unknowable

Therefore: "A world [outside the knowing] is unknowable" = "A world [unknowable] is unknowable"

[Iwannaplato]

It is not possible to know the unknowable

This is the second time you've brought this up in response to me. This sentence is not the one I had a problem with. It is by definition true. It's an analytic truth.

"A world outside the knowing is [unknowable]" = "A world outside the knowing is [not able to be known]"

Think about it like a box, if "knowing" is a box, outside the knowing, is outside the box of knowing, we there is "no knowing".

This is conflating something physical with an abstract category. You are asking me to imagine that X is like Y. Your argument depends on my accepting that this imagined comparison is true. I don't think it is. So, you need to explain why we must conceive of knowing this way.

where there it "no knowing" it is unknowable. "no knowing" = unknowable

This is the same analytic truth. Please don't repeat this on again as if I have an issue with it.

Therefore: "A world [outside the knowing] is unknowable" = "A world [unknowable] is unknowable"

You are still not explaining why I can't know something that is outside me. For example, why can I not get information about something outside me? You know, like when you somewhere else type words into a computer and this sends messages somewhere, outside of you, and I read them on a screen and get information about what you think. Or the general conception of vision in science, where photons from objects (outside of us) impinge on the retina which in turns sends signals to the brain/mind and I get information about the shape of X. Why can't we get information about things outside us?

Even the box metaphor. Put me in a box. Then tap in code on the outside of the box. Or yell.

Knowing is not a box. If knowing is like a box, demonstrate that it is like a box.

Depending on me imagining that thie metaphor is a rule does not a proof make.

And there's still the problems in the other one...

B:

1. We know a world
2. The world we know must be in the mind[A]
3. The world is in the mind
4. The mind is greater than the world
5. The mind is All-Knowing of the world
6. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
7. The world is the mind's creation
8. The mind is All-Powerful
9. The mind is God
10. God exists

You have a solipsism here. Fine. Some missing steps. Why must a mind know itself completely. Even if the mind is everything, why can't a mind be fallibel about self-knowledge?

How do you experience your all powerfulness? What is that claim grounded on? Can you (oh, Jesus, I will sound like Roydop) stop thinking for half an hour?

Can you control your dreams perfectly every time?

Can you stop thinking about sex, in any way, for a year?

You never experience forgetting something?

Did the parts of your childhood that you can't remember, never happen?

Can you feel about your bathroom sink exactly what you feel about your best friend, say for half an hour?

[FlashDangerpants]

No, there's really no argument to bother picking apart there.
You need to start over entirely.

Try to use premises that you can actually justify rather than writing silly pseudiferous shit like "The mind is God"

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind

1. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
2. I know language so it is in my mind
4. Words in language can only reference things I know
5. Words in language can only reference things my mind[4]
3. "Truth" is a word in language
4. "Truth" can only reference things in the mind
5. All truths only reference things in the mind
6. Reality corresponds to all truths
7. Reality only references things in the mind
8. Reality is in the mind
9. The mind is greater than the reality
10. The mind is All-Knowing of the reality
11. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
12. Reality is the mind's creation
13. The mind is All-Powerful
14. The mind is God[5][8][9]
15. God exists

Are you smart? Can you tell me where exactly there is a problem?

Are you joking? That whole thing is a complete mess.

1: "It is not possible to know the unknowable" I suppose it is tautologous that the unknowable cannot be known. But as Wittgenstein says: In order to be able to set a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable. In other words, better men than either of us have tried and failed to make use of the same tautology you are weilding here, so it's not a promising starting point even without being wrong.

2: "A world outside the knowing is unknowable" is a pointless application of the previous tautology, you are padding your argument to make it look fuller, while adding nothing.

3: "It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing" are you doing this to take the piss? That's three lines of one vague and pointless tautology.

4: "Mind is knowing" <---- what is that supposed to mean? It's worthless crap from a bumper sticker. I can't even tell if you are saying that as a noun relationship (mind is made out of knowings) or a verb (mind is the activity of knowing things). Either way this is reductive and spurious.

5: It is not possible to know a world outside the mind <---- Bullshit. Your specious line about the mind being "knowing" doesn't get you to here at all.

6: It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind <---- fruit of the poison tree, the low quality of all the preceding components renders this conclusion worthless.

Seeing as that hopeless first deduction is intended to provide the input for the whole of the second one, I can't see much point in doing the breakdown. But I gotta say it has a whole heap of its own troubles.

[Magnolia5275]

No, there's really no argument to bother picking apart there.
You need to start over entirely.

Try to use premises that you can actually justify rather than writing silly pseudiferous shit like "The mind is God"

1. It is not possible to know the unknowable
2. A world outside the knowing is unknowable
3. It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing
4. Mind is knowing
5. It is not possible to know a world outside the mind
6. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind

1. It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind
2. I know language so it is in my mind
4. Words in language can only reference things I know
5. Words in language can only reference things my mind[4]
3. "Truth" is a word in language
4. "Truth" can only reference things in the mind
5. All truths only reference things in the mind
6. Reality corresponds to all truths
7. Reality only references things in the mind
8. Reality is in the mind
9. The mind is greater than the reality
10. The mind is All-Knowing of the reality
11. All that is in the mind are its conceptions
12. Reality is the mind's creation
13. The mind is All-Powerful
14. The mind is God[5][8][9]
15. God exists

Are you smart? Can you tell me where exactly there is a problem?

Are you joking? That whole thing is a complete mess.

1: "It is not possible to know the unknowable" I suppose it is tautologous that the unknowable cannot be known. But as Wittgenstein says: In order to be able to set a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable. In other words, better men than either of us have tried and failed to make use of the same tautology you are weilding here, so it's not a promising starting point even without being wrong.

2: "A world outside the knowing is unknowable" is a pointless application of the previous tautology, you are padding your argument to make it look fuller, while adding nothing.

3: "It is not possible to know a world outside the knowing" are you doing this to take the piss? That's three lines of one vague and pointless tautology.

4: "Mind is knowing" <---- what is that supposed to mean? It's worthless crap from a bumper sticker. I can't even tell if you are saying that as a noun relationship (mind is made out of knowings) or a verb (mind is the activity of knowing things). Either way this is reductive and spurious.

5: It is not possible to know a world outside the mind <---- Bullshit. Your specious line about the mind being "knowing" doesn't get you to here at all.

6: It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind <---- fruit of the poison tree, the low quality of all the preceding components renders this conclusion worthless.

Seeing as that hopeless first deduction is intended to provide the input for the whole of the second one, I can't see much point in doing the breakdown. But I gotta say it has a whole heap of its own troubles.

4: "Mind is knowing" <---- what is that supposed to mean? It's worthless crap from a bumper sticker. I can't even tell if you are saying that as a noun relationship (mind is made out of knowings) or a verb (mind is the activity of knowing things). Either way this is reductive and spurious.

Are you serious? oh, I don't know, it's only the strongest feeling of truth that can be known! Let me ask you this, are you as a mind knowing that mind is knowing? Yes! Mind is knowing, also 2+2=4, this is silly.

5: It is not possible to know a world outside the mind <---- Bullshit. Your specious line about the mind being "knowing" doesn't get you to here at all.

3. It is not possible to know a world outside the [knowing]
4. Mind is knowing (please, no silliness, it's true!)
5 It is not possible to know a world outside the [mind]

If mind is knowing then: mind = knowing. So we can just replace the knowing with mind. Simple!

I know you might try to say: car is driving >> car != driving, but that is not the case with mind. The function of the mind is what the mind is! There is nothing more to the mind then what it does. The mind is purely functional.

Now that we established that "It is not possible to know a world outside the mind" it simply follows that:

"It is not possible for me to know the world outside my mind"

I have scientifically and logically proven it.

[Knowing = Truth], [unknowable = False], {see longer argument 3,5,6}

1. It is not possible to Truth the False
2. A world outside the Truth is False
3. It is not possible to Truth a world outside the Truth
4. Mind is Truth
5. It is not possible to Truth a world outside the Truth:[mind]
6. It is not possible for me to Truth the world outside my Truth:[mind]
7. The world is my Truth:[mind]

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you serious? oh, I don't know, it's only the strongest feeling of truth that can be known! Let me ask you this, are you as a mind knowing that mind is knowing? Yes! Mind is knowing, also 2+2=4, this is silly.

You didn't even bother to explain what sort of relationship "mind is knowing" refers to.

You have to stop marking your homework you have far less talent that you assume. If the knowing is the mind then what knows the knowing? This is circular stupidity.

[Magnolia5275]

Are you serious? oh, I don't know, it's only the strongest feeling of truth that can be known! Let me ask you this, are you as a mind knowing that mind is knowing? Yes! Mind is knowing, also 2+2=4, this is silly.

You didn't even bother to explain what sort of relationship "mind is knowing" refers to.

You have to stop marking your homework you have far less talent that you assume. If the knowing is the mind then what knows the knowing? This is circular stupidity.

If the knowing is the mind then what knows the knowing?

The knowing knows the knowing.

The knowing knows the [knowing] = The knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [[knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the [knowing knows the... (Infinity...)]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Welcome to infinity bitch!

Edit: This is a God proof after all, you really thought there will be no infinity in it? God is all-powerful and Infinite!, dah...