Even God couldn't prove he exists.

[Age]

So then, what defines the Christian God that Descartes perceived?

Of course, as a Christian myself, I will if required take the challenge on.

I not so much 'require' you to but I will 'request' you to.

So, what does define the "christian" God that "descartes" perceived?

And, what is the ACTUAL difference between that so-called ' "christian" God ' from ' thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE God '? Surely there is SOME difference, correct?

[attofishpi]

.

[Age]

AND...there it goes. AGE can you ignore this thread of all the threads of the forum, please, I implore you not to get involved.

WHY?

1. Because I can't read your writing where you are SHOUTING IN CAPITALS.

OBVIOUSLY you can NOT READ my writings. BUT, NOT because I am 'shouting in capitals', but for some OTHER reason. For the "others" WHO CAN and HAVE READ my writings, as I have PREVIOUSLY INFORMED them, I am NOT 'shouting in capitals' and have NEVER 'shouted in capitals'. So, if ANY one proposes that they can NOT read words because of LOUD NOISES, or LOUD VOICES, then they are OBVIOUSLY LYING for THREE reasons.
1. I am NOT shouting.
2. The size of letters does NOT stop the ability of one to be ABLE TO READ.
3. There is NO noise given off in written words.

2. You talk irrational shit where you think you have proof of something, and it never materialises.

1. 'It' NEVER materializes because NO one BELIEVES that 'it' COULD.
2. 'It' NEVER materializes because I NEVER ACTUALLY give 'it' up.
3. I will NEVER give 'it' up UNTIL someone SHOWS that they are Truly INTERESTED in SEEING, and/or HEARING, 'it'.
4. I ONLY offer 'it' up. I do this for a VERY SPECIFIC REASON, which if one was Truly OPEN would ALREADY KNOW that REASON. I HAVE IMPLIED or ALLUDED to that reason MANY TIMES ALREADY, if NOT ACTUALLY SPECIFIED that reason.

3. You stated somewhere here in this thread, that I wrote the WISEST thing you've read on the forum, if that was such for you, it certainly wasn't for me and anyone else that has ever written anything on this forum, ergo, stop writing bollocks, this thread COULD be interesting if you just kept the FUCK out of it. (no offence).

1. NO 'offence' could NOR would EVER be TAKEN, well by me anyway.
2. How do you KNOW that I WROTE what I DID when you just CLAIMED that you can NOT read where I SHOUT (or accurately, WRITE, IN CAPITALS? By your very OWN words here you ARE CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self'.
3. ALSO, I NEVER MEANT what you WROTE and CLAIMED here. But this is just bevause you have, ONCE AGAIN, taken my ACTUAL WORDS out of context.
4. What I ACTUALLY SAID, WROTE, and MEANT was;
Now this is one of, or the, WISEST thing/s I have SEEN written here, in this forum.

BECAUSE you, SUPPOSEDLY, can NOT READ what I WRITE, then this would EXPLAIN WHY you MISSED the 'or' word there.

[attofishpi]

You have no idea that you ruin pretty much every thread going. People stop reading your crap..simple as that.

[Age]

.

I REALLY WISH you LEFT the question you just asked. I was just about to answer it.

[Age]

You have no idea that you ruin pretty much every thread going. People stop reading your crap..simple as that.

THEN, OBVIOUSLY, to those people MY WRITINGS could NOT 'ruin those threads'.

If people STOP reading MY WORDS, then that could be EXACTLY what I am WANTING TO ACHIEVE, and HAVE DONE SO by MANIPULATING them TO. I do this in order to SHOW and 'PROVE' WHY 'you', human beings. in the oldend days, were taking SO LONG to REACH thee ACTUAL Truth of things HERE.

People can NOT learn certain things if they STOP READING, and LISTENING.

[Impenitent]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

Rene cheated. He knew his mathematics went against the church's teachings and he knew what the church did to Galileo. A simple variation on Anselm and viola!

-Imp

[attofishpi]

Anyone who has read Descartes' Discourse on Method or Meditations will understand just how sceptical it is possible to be. Needlessly so, in many cases, but Descartes' radical scepticism threw out the one thing he didn't really want to get rid of. In order to reinstate God, Descartes fell back on the ontological argument. Basically, imagine the most perfect possible thing. Existence is a perfection. Therefore to be the most perfect possible thing, the most perfect possible thing has to exist. If that looks like a useless argument, that's because it is. It gets worse, because Descartes argued he could rely on God to give him 'clear and distinct ideas'. So having previously admitted that there are other potential causes for his ideas: dreams, hallucinations, confusions, illusions, delusions and whatnot, what clear and distinct idea could God give a person that could not be attributed to any other source? Is there anything a god could do to prove it exists?

I shall have a go using the defining features of God as I have thus far worked out from personal experience, below..

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD:
- What we perceive as reality, is 'generated' by this entity at THE most finite sub-atomic scale where either an event occurs or it doesn't - ergo, it has binary control over ALL matter, that includes our very own grey matter (if it wishes).
- IT has the ability to KNOW everything within the minds of wo/man.
- IT has the ability to switch ALL matter within our brains - our synapses - making us akin to biological robots - should serendipity or synchronicity be a desired outcome.
- IT has formed key words within the ENGLISH language - the common protocol for communication with anomalies and intricacies beyond natural language etymology.
- IT has the ability to appear to morph matter that you perceive as 'matter'.
- IT has ultimate control over ALL that we perceive as dimensions within our reality.
- IT is KARMIC.
- IT reincarnates US (souls) to within families - or other - that we deserve based on KARMA

Ok. So at GMT 00:00 <-- i think that's midnight in London!

EVERYONE on the planet are placed into a white space where all that exists is just a chair and upon it, Morpheus from the film the Matrix is sat upon it. So to each individual, he states that he is God, (in their native language). Only each individual person, is within an instance of the white space, with Morpheus and the chair. He tells them in precisely 5 minutes time, they will all return to the point in time of GMT 00:00, but their memories of this encounter will remain intact, and that they are all free to discuss the experience with anyone else. (Of course, anyone that was asleep at the time, also experience this, but are awoken after the 5 mins).

Would everyone on the planet, after such an experience believe that this was proof that God exists?

ps Instead of Morpheus, we'll use a copy of the individual that is having the experience, and have God state that he has purposely used THEIR image to make his point.

[uwot]

Rene cheated. He knew his mathematics went against the church's teachings and he knew what the church did to Galileo. A simple variation on Anselm and viola!

-Imp

I'm not sure it's that simple. I'm just riffing from memory, but someone (mighta been Bernard Williams) made a reasonable case for some alternative hypothesis. Galileo being Italian was more intimately involved with the Vatican than Frenchman Descartes who had allied himself with the protestant north anyway. I think he was serving pretty much as a mercenary for the Dutch (or some German state) when he had the episode with the heater he attributed his cogito insight to. On top of that, he was the first modern philosopher to write in the vernacular, rather than the Latin of Catholicism, and his books were published in Holland. It may be that he simply didn't think anyone would read his work if God appeared to be excluded; Descartes' essence was an intellect rather than a soul after all. It is also conceivable that he thought the ontological argument isn't the complete nonsense it so clearly is.

[uwot]

EVERYONE on the planet are placed into a white space where all that exists is just a chair and upon it, Morpheus from the film the Matrix is sat upon it. So to each individual, he states that he is God, (in their native language). Only each individual person, is within an instance of the white space, with Morpheus and the chair. He tells them in precisely 5 minutes time, they will all return to the point in time of GMT 00:00, but their memories of this encounter will remain intact, and that they are all free to discuss the experience with anyone else. (Of course, anyone that was asleep at the time, also experience this, but are awoken after the 5 mins).

Would everyone on the planet, after such an experience believe that this was proof that God exists?

That would probably do for me, but Descartes' point was that it would still be possible to believe that at any moment I will wake up, get sober or come to my senses. I do believe in an external world that may or may not include some god, but I don't have to.

[attofishpi]

EVERYONE on the planet are placed into a white space where all that exists is just a chair and upon it, Morpheus from the film the Matrix is sat upon it. So to each individual, he states that he is God, (in their native language). Only each individual person, is within an instance of the white space, with Morpheus and the chair. He tells them in precisely 5 minutes time, they will all return to the point in time of GMT 00:00, but their memories of this encounter will remain intact, and that they are all free to discuss the experience with anyone else. (Of course, anyone that was asleep at the time, also experience this, but are awoken after the 5 mins).

Would everyone on the planet, after such an experience believe that this was proof that God exists?

That would probably do for me, but Descartes' point was that it would still be possible to believe that at any moment I will wake up, get sober or come to my senses.

Well, I think the point in my scenario is that EVERYONE would have had the experience and could all agree (that at least some were sober!). So, had you alone experienced this, then I very much doubt that you'd accept that alone as any proof of a God.
I certainly would not, however, from my perspective having experienced 25yrs of many varied situations that allowed me to ascribe the above attributes to this entity, I have no doubt that at the minimum, there is an intelligence behind what we perceive as reality (beyond our own consciousness).

I do believe in an external world that may or may not include some god, but I don't have to.

Yes, it's a tricky one when one has experienced what I have, quite often I resort to Descartes' brain-in-a-vat idea, but then I look out at the garden as in right now and comprehend, stuff of DNA IS growing naturally...that the Sun is real and is doing its thang to that tree over there!

[uwot]

...I have no doubt that at the minimum, there is an intelligence behind what we perceive as reality (beyond our own consciousness).

I have never had an experience of any such intelligence, but, and much as I am loathe to agree with Mr Can, that doesn't mean nobody else has. My earliest memory in that regard is being told that Jesus is knocking at the door of my heart, and it is for me to open the door and let him in. I think this was in response to my bewilderment that some people apparently sensed this person in a way that I knew I didn't. I think I briefly felt a bit left out, so tried my best to open my heart, without the slightest clue what that meant. Nothing doing, so I just went along with it; singing in the choir and listening to the stories, but not with any commitment. For all I know Jesus didn't bother coming in, realising that I'm basically harmless and his time would be better spent on the type of creepy religious nuts who argue that if it weren't for christian morality, they would be fighting and fornicating all the time.

I do believe in an external world that may or may not include some god, but I don't have to.

Yes, it's a tricky one when one has experienced what I have, quite often I resort to Descartes' brain-in-a-vat idea, but then I look out at the garden as in right now and comprehend, stuff of DNA IS growing naturally...that the Sun is real and is doing its thang to that tree over there!

Well, if I were a brain in a vat, sunny days are the sort of thing I would probably try to dream up. For the life of me though, I can't think of any good reason to invent liver flukes.

[Age]

Rene cheated. He knew his mathematics went against the church's teachings and he knew what the church did to Galileo. A simple variation on Anselm and viola!

-Imp

I'm not sure it's that simple. I'm just riffing from memory, but someone (mighta been Bernard Williams) made a reasonable case for some alternative hypothesis. Galileo being Italian was more intimately involved with the Vatican than Frenchman Descartes who had allied himself with the protestant north anyway. I think he was serving pretty much as a mercenary for the Dutch (or some German state) when he had the episode with the heater he attributed his cogito insight to. On top of that, he was the first modern philosopher to write in the vernacular, rather than the Latin of Catholicism, and his books were published in Holland. It may be that he simply didn't think anyone would read his work if God appeared to be excluded; Descartes' essence was an intellect rather than a soul after all. It is also conceivable that he thought the ontological argument isn't the complete nonsense it so clearly is.

What is 'the ontological argument', which you FIND and CLAIM is CLEARLY NONSENSE.

Could it be at all POSSIBLE that the WAY you LOOK AT 'that argument' is Wrong, or NONSENSE, or that it is YOUR INTERPRETATION of 'that argument', which is what is Wrong or NONSENSE? Or is this just NOT a POSSIBILITY in 'your world'?

[Age]

EVERYONE on the planet are placed into a white space where all that exists is just a chair and upon it, Morpheus from the film the Matrix is sat upon it. So to each individual, he states that he is God, (in their native language). Only each individual person, is within an instance of the white space, with Morpheus and the chair. He tells them in precisely 5 minutes time, they will all return to the point in time of GMT 00:00, but their memories of this encounter will remain intact, and that they are all free to discuss the experience with anyone else. (Of course, anyone that was asleep at the time, also experience this, but are awoken after the 5 mins).

Would everyone on the planet, after such an experience believe that this was proof that God exists?

That would probably do for me, but Descartes' point was that it would still be possible to believe that at any moment I will wake up, get sober or come to my senses.

Well, I think the point in my scenario is that EVERYONE would have had the experience and could all agree (that at least some were sober!). So, had you alone experienced this, then I very much doubt that you'd accept that alone as any proof of a God.
I certainly would not, however, from my perspective having experienced 25yrs of many varied situations that allowed me to ascribe the above attributes to this entity, I have no doubt that at the minimum, there is an intelligence behind what we perceive as reality (beyond our own consciousness).

And, if you changed your words around a bit above, then you would be writing things that would be IRREFUTABLE.

What 'you' think and write is VERY CLOSE to what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, but some words used just destroy the whole lot.

I do believe in an external world that may or may not include some god, but I don't have to.

Yes, it's a tricky one when one has experienced what I have, quite often I resort to Descartes' brain-in-a-vat idea, but then I look out at the garden as in right now and comprehend, stuff of DNA IS growing naturally...that the Sun is real and is doing its thang to that tree over there!

The ONLY 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe that can be KNOWN, FOR SURE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL, are 'the thoughts' within themselves. However, what 'the thoughts' are of, are in relation to, or are referring to, could be 'in question' for the rest of eternity.

So, there are 'thoughts', this can NOT be questioned, but WHO or WHAT 'has thoughts' can be questioned and this is generally questioned with and by the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Work this out FULLY and Correctly, then WHO and WHAT 'God' IS, EXACTLY, becomes ALSO KNOWN.

[Age]

...I have no doubt that at the minimum, there is an intelligence behind what we perceive as reality (beyond our own consciousness).

I have never had an experience of any such intelligence, but, and much as I am loathe to agree with Mr Can, that doesn't mean nobody else has. My earliest memory in that regard is being told that Jesus is knocking at the door of my heart, and it is for me to open the door and let him in. I think this was in response to my bewilderment that some people apparently sensed this person in a way that I knew I didn't. I think I briefly felt a bit left out, so tried my best to open my heart, without the slightest clue what that meant. Nothing doing, so I just went along with it; singing in the choir and listening to the stories, but not with any commitment. For all I know Jesus didn't bother coming in, realising that I'm basically harmless and his time would be better spent on the type of creepy religious nuts who argue that if it weren't for christian morality, they would be fighting and fornicating all the time.

More time could also be spent on the type of creepy religious nuts who argue that if it were not for the scientific process, they would not be able to KNOW ANY thing AT ALL.

See, "the creepy nuts" can be SEEN in absolutely ANY one, who one has CHOSEN to NOT like, DISLIKE, or HATE.

I do believe in an external world that may or may not include some god, but I don't have to.

Yes, it's a tricky one when one has experienced what I have, quite often I resort to Descartes' brain-in-a-vat idea, but then I look out at the garden as in right now and comprehend, stuff of DNA IS growing naturally...that the Sun is real and is doing its thang to that tree over there!

Well, if I were a brain in a vat, sunny days are the sort of thing I would probably try to dream up. For the life of me though, I can't think of any good reason to invent liver flukes.

God PROVES God exists, but ONLY to those who are Truly Honest and OPEN, and who seriously Want to CHANGE for the better.

SHOW me one like that and I will SHOW you one WISE enough to LEARN, and UNDERSTAND.