I ouldn't possibly be wrong if I'm right. I'm gonna go now and let you atheists try to solve the mystery of your anal retention. — theRiddler

Great comment! I am sure there are gods. No one can prove me wrong how well they try scientifically (on which grounds I usually am the better).

.

1. If I don't believe in God then what risk do I run to start believing in God if there is no God?
2. If I do believe in God then what risk do I run to stop believing in God if there is God?
6m — SpaceDweller

What risks you refer to? I can't see what kind of risk one runs if he make a change in belief. You say the are no risks. But what risks there could be? Not having arrived at the truth?

There is a gap in mutual understanding here. All gaps can be logical, while at the same time being being realty-detached. Which logic is. A gap can exists litterally in spacetime, as a hole in a black.Though a gap in the common physicists mind is due to this gap. There can be gaps between all possible worlds of knowledge, as is surely the case in this case. There simply is no universal gap, and to pretend there is to deny the gaps of fellow people turning the discussion into a battle between the gaps.Which is very interesting, articulating the various gaps we have as human beings. The articulation of the gap seems, in my humble mind, a nice philosophical discussion, savely remote from standard lexicon like that standard dictionaries of Stanford and related institutions. Ah yes, the gap. How many of them I still have jump over, before reaching Nirvana? How many bridges I try to build, they always seem to crumble right after. Poor me. Luckily I have the power of the word, imagination, and sense of relativity, a God-given present, which came packed inside the God-given gift of life and existence. I rejoyce in the mad fool having found a logical proof of the obvious! Though I'm not sure what Quantum ElectroDynamics have to do with it.

If I say an argument is invalid it means there's a world in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. — TheMadFool

Already here you make a mistake. There exists a logic for which this doesn't necessarily hold. Even necessity looses it's usual meaning in this logic.

As I would like to say so myself -- I did not create a bullshit account so I could log in to this nonsense! — Caldwell

Abstract nonsense sense even more. You created a bs account to ventilate an abstract missing intelligence, depleted of any humanity and respect for others. To ventilate a sense of abstract divinity showing a sense of abstract detachment from human reality. I have read some stuff of yours, as most others. Most of you, and luckily there are exceptions, are science aging freaks, without having actual knowledge, well maybe in that abstract greedy modern phony philosophical way,, without truly wanting to understand each other or trying to really know something. That's not what philosophy looks like. I have eagerly looked around here, and found truly interesting stuff. But as the abstract philo imperative says, all thought here here seems to be reduced to an abstract system. Without content. Showing any true physics or math or science, except tiring endless references to the both. Linger on, in your abstract, phony philosophy way. Linger on in your abstract beauty, your abstract no humor derived jokes (an inconsisteny). I set up as many bs accounts as I like, and I realize what you are doing. You are joining forces with other abstract minded phony philosophers, to get rid of someone who more in his mind than just abstract bs, to which modern philosophy is reduced. Linger on in your reality detached world. If I was standing near you I would gave you a wake-up slam in the face. Djeeezus, the envy that radiates from you and most of your fellow "philosophers". No signs of intelligence, no signs of being fun, no humanity left, except abstract definitions of it and quibbling about it. If philosophy is reduced to this...well, then luckily I will not call myself a philosopher. I will help on setting up bs accounts. This forum is the best way for coming to know closer the modern western way of thinking. The abstract way. I don't see philosophy as a part of it luckily. You gave me even more material to use. I'm thankfull for that! You confirm my substance. What a great argument you gave on my comment. If reality is just a perception, the hey, what do you care? Just close your eyes and all will be gone.

So, objects exists, if and only if we perceive them. — Caldwell

Nonsense. If I don't perceive you, you still exist.

So think thy. I think there lies a matter reality behind our brainy reconstruction, simulation of it. That's why the dream is dreamlike and reality solid. Which is not to say that isolation is good. Nothing can exist in isolation. And which is not to say that all is matter, for who knows the true nature of matter. Only inside the matter you can know. We are just our body, partial inside the charge in matter, partially connected to the outside of the matter in which the charge is contained. Inside you feel the difference, outside you see the difference. We, our bodies , are unseparably connected with the charge inside us, and the mattershell of the same charges surrounding us in the physical world. We live between our inner and outer world. Something like that. That's why consciousness can never be explained matterialistically. It overlooks the charge of matter.

You are right! The simulation becomes the same as the simulation of itself, the simulation can only be vacuous. For every simulation in the infinite line. No contradiction at all!

But what if God only possessed the knowledge of good and bad. Why should the devil give this knowledge to Eve? What did he gain? Why giving the knowledge of the good too?

That doesn't seem to follow. If it's all simulations, then there is no need for a material world; every simulation is explained by it's parent simulation. — Banno

As I said, a circle can be projected on the infinite line. That means that both infinities, at the end of the circle become the same. That means that a simulation is the same as the simulation of itself. A contradiction.

Meh. Like the turtles, there is no first in an infinite sequence, yet every item has a previous one on which to stand. So I disagree. Your's is the same argument as the theists who insist on a first cause - it's trivially wrong. — Banno

Your view is trivially wrong, as you can't point to a material world that is not simulated. Thus, the simulations are vacuous.

Beauty is the perfection or near perfection of form and function. — boagie

Question remains: what is perfection? What is perfect? One man's perfection is the other's worst nightmare.

Apparent reality is a simulation, it is a simulation of your biological interpretation — boagie

However reasonable that may sound, it contains a flaw. If that is so, the the simulation has no substance. The dream would be indistinguishable from reality. The dream, that ultimate simulation.

Unless, like the turtles, it's simulations all the way down... — Banno

This would mean, objective reality is vacuous, non-existent. And it's not. There has to be a first simulation. The infinite line can be mapped on the circle. If it's simulation all around, then where is the world that is simulated?