 Re: Different planes of reality to disprove god
Why God Isnt Real
By Jon Petersen & Andrew Parisci
At Model UN in shrewsbury massachusetts yesterday, me and my friend andrew didnt really feel like contributing too much (even though he did on several occasions) so we got into a phylisophical discussion on whether or not there is a god, after him asking whether or not i was still buddhist seeing as how i didnt agree with some of the spiritual aspects. By the end of the day (and about 4 hours of debate, the rest of it on paper) we agreed that we had disproven god.
Here is basically how we came upon the conclusion of the unexistence of a god in the sense of a mystical spirit that knows all and sees all. The conclusion of how god does exist in some sense comes later.
The following are the pages we wrote to each other, with some commentary made when we were having 5 or 10 minute caucouses or at lunch :
Andrew: All natural things must be products of natural things.
Me: What about things that were product of a natural thing, but were produced by unnatural means?
Andrew: For example
Me: Nuclear reactions and the steam being put off in nuclear power plants, seeing as how water in liquid form and the certain type of plutonium (238?) dont occur in the same enviroment normally.
Andrew: No, it follows natural cause therefore, it has been created by natural means, such as the heat from the fusing atoms. It may be proposed that beauty is a natural thing becauseit changes, a concept of what is beautiful exists in all cultures. All cultures value water calling lakes and streams beautiful. Therefore, it must be a product of a collective unconcious, something people are born with that is acceptable to change as we grow, like someones ******d appearance.
Me: (Beauty is in the eye of the behloder?) so a computer may be able to find a certain thing it learned or was told to be beautiful as such.
Andrew: But only what it is told, where as humans may have new experiences, such as seeing a beautiful girl or a something, and make their own judgement, which is impossible in computers. Therefore, we can conclude that perhaps we are born with labula rassa (a blank slate on which we can make our own experiences shape who we are basically), but we are able to make judgements on new experiences, not just what we are told.
Conversation at lunch; some things may have been left out but basically
Me: Personally i think that people ARE just really complicated computers. We just process experiences and use them to judge experiences we have later. We can just program computers to think the same things as we do. Besides all that memories are and how we all act is all chemical reactions in our brains.
Andrew: No, we have cognative functions that happen differently in our brain that arent reactions.
(the rest of the conversation is a blur)
Back to the confrence, we were writing again:
Andrew: Yes! Logically we have agreed why we are not computers. Now what is the nature of the faculties seperating us from computers? Can it be possible that the mind exists on a seperate level of existence than the body because it is not physically observable and measurable. We merely see its effects. For example, i react to beauty percieved by the senses by walking towards the beautiful thing. Now the question becomes is there a seperate level of existence above the body and mind.For example, it is not observable that we thing, but obviously we do because we reason, we can have proven the minds existence. Thusly, just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. Thusly we have acknowledged that the further we get from physical existence, physical observations is more difficult. The only way in which we can detect the presence of the mind is through reason. We can hardly observe the effects of the mind on the body, but it is there. Analogously, we can attempt to hardly observe the existence of a spirit (being the level of existence above the mind) through reason. Diagram of planes of existence that you and i have agreed upon.
? ---> slight effects observable by reason
__________________________________
mind ---> observable through reason
__________________________________
body ---> physically observable, effects from mind
Me: But the thing is there are physical necessities to the mind, or we would be seeing more effects of the mind that are not with a body on objects that have no mind.
Andrew: Exactly, they are not independent, but they exist on seperate planes. The only way our mind can affect the physical world is through our body. Thusly they are dependent upon one another to influence seperate planes. This is is like the different dimensions. We know they are there, even if we cannot observe them. Now, the first dimension is length. The second is height. We all know about them and can observe them. The third is width, and that is how we percieve everything currently. But what we cannot observe, but is theoretically possible is the fourth dimension, which is called lengthos or something... i cant remember. But basically it folds in upon itself to make more space and can hold more in it than can be in this dimension. And the existence of god?
Me: Wouldnt there be a plane higher than god?
Andrew: God obviously must exist on the spiritual plane if he is to judge spirits. But to claim that it exists as a conciousness. If it existed on a concious level, a mind that cannot be spiritual. It is also impossible that god exists on more than one plane, he can not be both a spirit and a mind. Being that we cannot see him, he also cannot exist on the physical level!
This is basically where it stopped. Now i had to ask this: What about the devout christians that would just be like: God can do anything; God works in mysterious ways; God isnt physical. Well, he explained it to be like this:
Some people just wont accept logic.
|
2004-12-11, 19:38
