Prove to me that i didn't create the universe and everything in it. Please try....and I want proof....not what you "think" or "feel".....proof....solid facts in black and white. If you can, i will become the first priestess of your worship as i will start a new religion devoted to you. A friend and i once said this to another friend and she was in hysterical tears because she couldn't even proove to us that she existed, even less that we didn't create her. hey, if anyone can proove conclusively that they exist, same deal goes.

The way you sound it doesn't seem like you want to be disproven of your non-existent immortality. You simply want an argument and no matter what anyone says you will be in opposition because you are confident of your stand and POV on creation.

You simply want someone to argue with, not learn from or listen to. Save the offer for something worthwhile.

This should be interesting.

BTW, daydream_believer, that is a cool screen name. It is almost a shame that you will have to re-register here as Silverback's High Priestess in a few minutes.

First the ground rules that you laid out. What is thought and felt does not count. Only evidence. Ok, that is fine. But we both play by those rules.

How old are you? In reality? Go get your birth certificate to make sure. I'll wait.

hum de dum... *drums fingers on desk*

Ah, you have it? Ok, look at the date listed as your birth. Guess what. I am older than you. Thus, I pre-existed you. I was aware of my own existence before you came into being. Hence, you did not create me as I was already here.

You are holding in your hand solid, concrete, physical evidence that you came into existence on that date. It is a valid and binding legal document accepted as such in any court of law in every jurisdiction in the world. You wanted evidence? You are holding it.

Now you may make claims that you think you created that, or whatever, but that is just what you claim to think or feel. You have in your hand irrefutable proof that is accepted by authority and laymen worldwide. Other than your personal claims to the contrary, can you prove it incorrect? No. In fact even now that tiny voice in your head accepts the fact that the document speaks the truth.

I always wanted a High Priestess. It's nice to meet you, dear. :)

You're joking around, right, Silverback... ?

... because you didn't even come close to proving anything.

Silverback,
Ever hear of the concept of reincarnation?

I want proof....not what you "think" or "feel".....proof....solid facts in black and white.
All she asked for was documented proof.
hey, if anyone can proove conclusively that they exist, same deal goes.
A separate request that indeed, I did not address. It was two separate requests.

And yes, I do realize the comical nature of this whole topic (if that was not obvious from my first post).

Ever hear of the concept of reincarnation?
The concept, yes. A concept is at best a theory, not documented proof.

there's no such thing as proof, unless you make some assumptions. assumptions are tentative articles of faith in that you do not question them for the purposes of the conclusions drawn from analysis based on the assumptions (assuming the analysis is valid).

The concept, yes. A concept is at best a theory, not documented proof.
That doesn't matter.
It is not up to daydream to prove that it is possible that (s)he COULD have created existence, the onus is on YOU to proove (s)he didn't.
Unless you proove that reincarnation is not possible (or at least that daydream has not been reincarnated) then there is the possibility that daydream lived long ago and is now in this particular life.

hmm.. I was just thinking that the burdon of proof is only really valid if you've agree on your assumptions. I doubt most who have touted burdon of proof arguments really specified and agreed to all the assumptions they really made. Hrmph. whatchoo think raven?

You have some good points guys, and I agree that proving or disproving existence in a free flowing discussion is difficult, if not impossible. In the end you fall back on "I think, therefore I am", and her guidelines said what you think or feel does not count.

As far as "there is no such thing as proof", try saying that in a court of law. The burden of proof question was simply her own requirement: "solid facts in black and white", hence, a document. I was just having fun with that request. She specified what was required, not me. ;)

I think you are right, and I think this is an impossible task.
Since daydream_believer has so much to lose (reputation... freedom of religion... soul...) (s)he loaded the challenge so that it is not only beyond reason, but beyond any logic.
Daydream specifically worded the challenge not conceeding ANY assumptions at all.
This can go as extreme and absurd as daydream wants it to such as, "Well proove that the world even exists. Proove YOU exist. Proove you are not just a character in a dream that I am having..."
Some people try and sell it as philosophy, but I am not buying.
It is not really an excersize in reason or a proper debate.
It is not genuinely attempting to find the truth in anything.
It is a simple game that has no valid solution.

Do you agree?

The burden of proof question was simply her own requirement: "solid facts in black and white", hence, a document.

Actually, my birth certificate is blue and green. ;)

"I think therefore I am" is an assumption too. So is the validity of logic.

IMO, they are completely reasonable assumptions, but people aren't necessarily interested in being reasonable, nor are they necessarily able to determine exactly what is reasonable.

What relevance does the court of law have on this conversation? Law is consensus, there is nothing fundamental of it except its power, which is not at issue. Note that a course of law considers "reasonable doubt" as the requisite for proof. This basically amounts to "hedging your bet" and many people are wrongly convicted, and some of laws are retarded. Proof as in scientific proof IMO requires irrefutable evidence. Which falls back into assumptions, and around we go. There's no such thing as proof, though confidence is a reasonble substitute.

There's no such thing as proof, though confidence is a reasonble substitute.
In real life? Sure.
In pseudo-philosophy games? Of course not.

I think you are right, and I think this is an impossible task.
Since daydream_believer has so much to lose (reputation... freedom of religion... soul...) (s)he loaded the challenge so that it is not only beyond reason, but beyond any logic.
Daydream specifically worded the challenge not conceeding ANY assumptions at all.
This can go as extreme and absurd as daydream wants it to such as, "Well proove that the world even exists. Proove YOU exist. Proove you are not just a character in a dream that I am having..."

Booya, I'm down with that.

Some people try and sell it as philosophy, but I am not buying.
It is not really an excersize in reason or a proper debate.
It is not genuinely attempting to find the truth in anything.
It is a simple game that has no valid solution.

Do you agree?

Not with that part. I take all those questions very seriously as they are quite valid. I simply skirt them with faith (assumptions). I see a beautiful duality in such questions. I think they are rendered irrelevant by practicality, but wholly relevant to issues of mind and the nature of knowing. Wholly valid, yet wholly ridiculous at the same time. To me, that shit is conceptually beautiful. A duality that I cannot doubt due to my faith that it is reasonable to be reasonable, which in and of itself would condemn the article of faith if it did not define itself. That shit is tight. I think that as long as one realizes the assumptions they indulge in, they have met the requisite comprehension that knowledge is tentative.

In real life? Sure.
In pseudo-philosophy games? Of course not.

Maybe I didn't read far enough, did I miss the someone's definition of proof? Seems like an absolute term to me, but maybe it was qualified and I totally missed it?

Okay so here I offer proof of my existence:

I assume that I exist.

Praise now please.

The only qualifications of proof that I addressed were hers.

But once you reach the inevitable conclusion that all knowledge is tentative and what we base our "truths" on are nothing more than reason, faith and faith in reason, to varying degress, (which is not really that difficult of a conclusion to come to) then what is the point in debating it any further?
Sure, some aspectes of epistemology can be fun and mind bending, but where is the incentive to just keep digging deeper into the same absurd hole of, "Oh yeah? Prove it! Prove you exist, prove I exist, prove existence exists, prove that there is even the copncept of existence for it to exist..."
What can really be gained when your goal is not reasonable truth, but rather to prove that nothing can truly be "proven", when that is already a given to any reasonable person?
(other than making girls cry, that is ;))

What can really be gained when your goal is not reasonable truth, but rather to prove that nothing can truly be "proven", when that is already a given to any reasonable person?
(other than making girls cry, that is ;))

people aren't necessarily interested in being reasonable, nor are they necessarily able to determine exactly what is reasonable

Many people argue with reasonable people with the expressed or stealth purpose of making them unreasonable. If I am irrational, so are you. ;)

Hey that's a good quote, I like it.

Maybe I didn't read far enough, did I miss the someone's definition of proof? Seems like an absolute term to me, but maybe it was qualified and I totally missed it?

Okay so here I offer proof of my existence:

I assume that I exist.

Praise now please.
You lost me with that question.
I was saying that in real life people accept (whether they know it or not) that nothing can be proven beyond all doubt when you bring the concept of questioning existence itself into play.
However, in challenges such as these (without the caveat of reasonable faith and doubt as supporting evidence) the request is to prove beyond any possible doubt with no agreed upon concessions, which, of course, is impossible.

What can really be gained when your goal is not reasonable truth, but rather to prove that nothing can truly be "proven", when that is already a given to any reasonable person?

And I think that is basically what Sargentlard was getting at in the second post on this thread. :)

And I think that is basically what Sargentlard was getting at in the second post on this thread. :)

Yep.
Pretty much.

Pretty bright guy, that sarge.

You lost me with that question.

I think I'm clear now and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out exactly why I asked that question. It was something to do with me thinking something like you'd implied something about proof being possible in psuedo philosophy games and i thought something about if those games had qualified proof as lesser than absolute it's be possible to establish what would consist of proof given that definition or something.

[QUOTE]I was saying that in real life people accept (whether they know it or not) that nothing can be proven beyond all doubt when you bring the concept of questioning existence itself into play.

However, in challenges such as these (without the caveat of reasonable faith and doubt as supporting evidence) the request is to prove beyond any possible doubt with no agreed upon concessions, which, of course, is impossible.

I'm down with all that.

An interesting note is that if you don't recognize your concessions, they aren't concessions, but proven knowledge, regardless of the logic of the matter, the limiting factor is the comprehension of the subject.

An interesting note is that if you don't recognize your concessions, they aren't concessions, but proven knowledge, regardless of the logic of the matter, the limiting factor is the comprehension of the subject.

'Splain, please.

Originally Posted by wesmorris
An interesting note is that if you don't recognize your concessions, they aren't concessions, but proven knowledge, regardless of the logic of the matter, the limiting factor is the comprehension of the subject.

'Splain, please.

Like a christian's faith in jesus. You know the deal as well as I, so that's all good for us, but if a person (the subject, pardon if I was vague) can't understand the deal, then it's not a deal at all to them. They believe whatever the shit they can believe... whatever they've learned to believe at any given moment. If you are inable to know the deal because you're already got a different one, or the real deal just won't fit in your head, or hell maybe it's true for prety much anyone... your comprehension of your environment at any moment is always the limit of your knowledge of the isness of your environment. So if you don't get the whole tentative nature of knowledge, no amount of information will change your pre-existing rejection of the potential knowledge injection. It is rejected like an incompatable organ.

I know I should have been able to say that more succinctly. Meh.

OK. I think I get you.
a.) But does that make the Christian's faith in Jesus proven knowledge, thereby insisting that everyone creates their own reality?
b.) Or does it simply state that people will believe what they will, regardless of reality, as a result of ignorance and lack of insight?

If you say that (a.) everyone creates their own reality, then you just conceeded that those Christians who believe that Jesus=God is a FACT are correct, and in effect nullified everything you just said, and proved that, in at least one reality, daydream_believer is not God, and I just got myself a personal slave and worshipper.

If you say that (b.) people will believe what they will regardless of truth, due to ignorance and lack of insight:
a.) How do you know you are not the ignorant one? And since you may be, then you, in effect, just nullified everything you just said because you conceeded that you may not know jack-shit, including the fact that you don't know jack-shit, so option (a.) could very well be true.
b.) Who defines truth and who judges reality? If you can't answer that key question, then, of course, you are back to option (a.) again, in that everyone creates their own reality and no one can judge them and tell them they are wrong because everyone is the sole judge of their own reality.

So, no matter what course you choose, you are the sole judge of your reality and what you say is fact simply IS.

I say that daydream_believer is NOT God.
daydream_believer, I will be expecting 10% of your paycheck in the mail, and, of course, you have to evangelize and get me a whole flock to pay me 10% and be my slaves.
Also, on the 1st, 9th, 14th and 23rd of each month, I will be expecting a burnt offering of an infidel that does not believe in me (150 of them every February the 29th).
Eventually everyone will either believe that I am God, thereby fulfilling my prophecy, or I will have accomplished my goal of ridding this world of the human disease.
*snickers and wrings his hands like a maniacal evil villain*

Stand in line one_raven.

OK. I think I get you.
a.) But does that make the Christian's faith in Jesus proven knowledge, thereby insisting that everyone creates their own reality?

It makes it proven knowledge to them yeah. The validity of it, or applicablity to the isness of their environment is utterly disconnected from them because of the arrangement/limit of their comprehension. Fail to ask the right questions and you can live in your own little fantasy world until your hand is forced. Given that most people don't even know epistemology is a word, nor do they spend much time or question the foundation of knowledge, they simply cannot get the reason that knowledge is tentative... so to them it simply isn't real. Again, unless their hand is forced (which is damned near impossible especially given that what like 90% of the planet is with them), they can simply pretend your reasoning is wrong or they truly can't understand it (and maybe are not at all motivated to do so). Do they create their own reality? Well, everyone does in the sense that "this is what I think reality is". Again, that is not necessarily attached to the isness of their environment or anything of cognitive substance at all. in essence, all personal reality is fantasy... but if you don't know that, you can't start at a place (like reason) which attempts to agree on some common ground.

b.) Or does it simply state that people will believe what they will, regardless of reality, as a result of ignorance and lack of insight?
Yeah mostly B.

If you say that (a.) everyone creates their own reality, then you just conceeded that those Christians who believe that Jesus=God is a FACT are correct, and in effect nullified everything you just said, and proved that, in at least one reality, daydream_believer is not God, and I just got myself a personal slave and worshipper.

They create their own virtual reality.

If you say that (b.) people will believe what they will regardless of truth, due to ignorance and lack of insight:
a.) How do you know you are not the ignorant one?

Can't. Only have levels of confidence based on evidence.

And since you may be, then you, in effect, just nullified everything you just said because you conceeded that you may not know jack-shit, including the fact that you don't know jack-shit

Such is true, but I've made the concession that it is reasonable to be reasonable in an attempt to establish a building block for myself and a foundation for mutual comprehension (since to me it is reasonable to assume you exist, even though you might not - it is of no difference to me as you seem to exist and I can find no evidence to the contrary so effectually you do exist, regardless of the isness of anything).

so option (a.) could very well be true.

Sure.

b.) Who defines truth and who judges reality?

We have to agree to try to be reasonable and hash it out from there. Ultimately, I do this for myself.. but I keep it as tentative. Things for which I've see no exception recieve less attention in practical application. Gravity is pretty reliable as far as I can tell. Most of that whole phsyics thing seems pretty worth paying attention too. Really, the ultimate judge of reality is "i think therefore I am". It's up to you to decide how to continue to be. Generally, it behooves us to give a little respect to physics or we tend to get dead pretty quick.

If you can't answer that key question, then, of course, you are back to option (a.) again, in that everyone creates their own reality and no one can judge them and tell them they are wrong because everyone is the sole judge of their own reality.

You only have your impression of reality to go on. I tentatively judge my environment and use that data to survive and endeavor to increase my capability for comprehending my environment, even though it might all be bullshit. It seems to me that there does exist an environment external to myself, and thusly it seems that there is a maximum and minimum correlation of one's personal reality and the isness of the environment.

So, no matter what course you choose, you are the sole judge of your reality and what you say is fact simply IS.

I have faith in reason, so I tentatively judge the isness of reality with full knowledge that it could all be incorrect.

I say that daydream_believer is NOT God.

I agree.

daydream_believer, I will be expecting 10% of your paycheck in the mail, and, of course, you have to evangelize and get me a whole flock to pay me 10% and be my slaves.
Also, on the 1st, 9th, 14th and 23rd of each month, I will be expecting a burnt offering of an infidel that does not believe in me (150 of them every February the 29th).
Eventually everyone will either believe that I am God, thereby fulfilling my prophecy, or I will have accomplished my goal of ridding this world of the human disease.
*snickers and wrings his hands like a maniacal evil villain*

Good luck with all that! I think your hand will be forced. :) Of course you have every right to pretend that is isn't even if it is. That might cause an impass in our respective perceptions though eh?

Prove to me that i didn't create the universe and everything in it. Please try....and I want proof....
hows this;
the matter/energy (the stuff the universe is made of) cannot be destroyed,only changed,so it obviously was never created,it always existed in some form/shape! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus loves you!everyone else thinks you're an asshole :D

one_raven....u wish! as if that is proof. I could have just imagined your reply on the screen, and imagined a birth certificate and imagined a world that says it's older than me, even though it isn't. I put this post up here because i think it's kinda funny that anyone can claim that they created the universe and no one can disprove it, or even proove they trhemselves exist to do valid disproving. i didn't mean to upset anyone or get there hopes up. i was just using an interesting way of pointing out a fact i think is rather funny and generate some discussion on the implications of it in our everyday lives. Now i better stop writing because tonight i am the bitch from hell and i'm blaming pms, but i am really a super bitch tonight.

But if your PMS is just imaginary... :p

But seriously, thanks, it was indeed an entertaining topic. :) Wesmorris and one_raven had some interesting spin on the subject. An enjoyable read.

hahahaha! Wes, I love you, man! You explain my theories better than I do!

I don't feel a need to write my book any more - you write it! I'll just sit here enjoying these fun threads. :)

I'm reading all your stuff, saying "he needs to add "truth for them" for it to make sense...", and then in the post above you put "proven knowledge to them" :D hahahaha! great stuff, great stuff.

God, I sound like a lunitic, don't I?
Wes, I'd love to try and clarify this theory down more - can we use the "your function" thread you started to attempt writing all this down in paragraph form?

Alright, if you created the universe than must know it pretty well. All i have to do is ask a question about the configuration of the universe that you cant answer correctly.

Lets start with and easy one. Describe my back yard.

but what if he created the universe purposely entering randomness into it such that even he wouldn't know everything about it? (sorry Neutrino, I'm an attention hog. :P )

but what if he created the universe purposely entering randomness into it such that even he wouldn't know everything about it? (sorry Neutrino, I'm an attention hog. :P )
Bugger. You know you could have at least given it a chance. He might not have thought of that and id have a religion devoted to me now. :D

Or... You don't have a back yard, you just think you do. If you can't prove you exist, you certainly can't prove you have a back yard. ;)

touche. But if the universe with Nutrino's backyard doesn't exist, then daydream couldn't have created it.

Proof I exist: I do.
Proof you're not God: Strike me down now you crazy fool! Still standing, oh? mercy you say? Well then, the sheer proof is this: you're not.

Esstazq - assuming that a creator of the world would be omnipotent in that world, you may have gotten it. If Daydream can't prove to you that he *is* God, then he can't be God...

hahahaha! Wes, I love you, man! You explain my theories better than I do!

I don't feel a need to write my book any more - you write it! I'll just sit here enjoying these fun threads. :)

I'm reading all your stuff, saying "he needs to add "truth for them" for it to make sense...", and then in the post above you put "proven knowledge to them" :D hahahaha! great stuff, great stuff.

God, I sound like a lunitic, don't I?
Wes, I'd love to try and clarify this theory down more - can we use the "your function" thread you started to attempt writing all this down in paragraph form?

Right on! Hehe.. hey though I would add one further clarification to "proven konwledge to them", and that is "tentative". If you consider all knowledge to be tentative, you would have responded "I see a black ball" when seeing a black ball, but it wouldn't take much to allow for the possibility that the other side of the ball is white even though you might not have seen it. It would seem feasible, but possibly hard to relate to until you'd seen proof to the contrary. Of course all of that would depend on the importance of the outcome of the labelling the ball as black or white. If it didn't matter, then I'd be much more inclined to believe you than if my life depended on the ball being black if you follow my meaning. I'll try to address it more specifically in the other thread.

Proove to me that you exist and i will strike u down.And as Goddes (i'm female btw) i will not strike you down nor will i give a reason for not doing so. "I refuse to proov ethat i exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing" - douglas adams. so as god i will not strike u down because;
a) u can't prove u exist to be struck.
b) as god i don't want to prrove my existence for some dogmatic and godlike reason
And there's this other reason i can't formulate into words properly that i will say when i can......maybe i can't think of it coz i can't proove my existence....

Love from God or Goddess (probably Goddess)

Byw, as ur goddess, i demand 20 teenage virgins a month delivered to my house for whatever i want with them.....hot ones too....no ugly fat ones.....

how did this happen? i started off offereing to worship others and now i'm demanding my own worship just coz u can't proove i don't deserve it.....*laughs manically and waits for teenage virgins to arrive*

God wouldn't have any typos.
;)

Because you can't prove something doesn't make it true. As your name so aptly describes, you are too wrapped up in daydreams. If you're in a Philosophy forum, you shouldn't ask for "Proof." Philosophy isn't about imperialistic, proof - based thought.

You can't prove you should be worshiped. You can't ask me to try to prove a negative, why don't you prove that you exist?

Dude, my name suggests i'm a big Monkees fan who likes the song. I just think it sounds cool.."Daydream Believer" one who believes in daydreams....not me.... But daydreams are a hell of a lot better than reality....where else can one have purple haired demons girls in their room? Don't dis the nic when you have a name like Ozymandias...and yes, i do know who he was. i'm not some sort of ignorant plebian. it is a philosophical point...what is proof? what is exisistence? Besides, everyone has to be nice to me, it's my birthday soon (now that is very bad reasoning and quite illogical). Bye y'all....I still want my virgins...

Early Happy Birthday. :)

ps, prove that I didn't send you 20 hot teenage virgins just now... ;)

(this could go on forever...)

I can, Silverback, you sent them to me! address mix up, I guess.


See, right here in my email "Hot virgins are waiting for you." those are your virgins, right?

I do exist if only as a thought in your pretty little head, you yourself have proven this by simple asking me to validate my existance. Beyond that i can't prove my existance anymore than you can prove my non-existance. Since no one has meet your standard for proof of your godlyness or their existance kindly prove to me i don't exist.

how about the fact your not old enough to have created the universe and you were born and are going to die one day? does that count as proof?

Day dreamer,
What is meant by the word or action of "Creat" Does creat mean violition or decision to create or are you suggesting that you can claim responsibility for an action you have no control over?

If you you wish to draw proof that you didn't all I ask is when did you and exactly what did you creat. If you created the photon can you tell me when and were and how you managed to design it. ( blue prints would be acceptable) or is creation a subconscious act and if so how can it be saifd to be your creation as you have not made any decisions about it. If ytou have not made a conscious decision to create the Universe then who did? If any.

I look around and see no label that says " made by "daydreamer" I see no use by date I certanly see no date of planning or descision, so there fore with out sufficient evidence of deliberate creation I have to conclude that you may have done is accidently and as such you can not claim that you created anything that wasn't already created.


hmmm.....I did enjoy writing that ha ha

I can, Silverback, you sent them to me! address mix up, I guess.
Well, that is our proof she is not omnipotent, if she can't even keep track of her virgins, eh? ;)

See, right here in my email "Hot virgins are waiting for you." those are your virgins, right?
Actually, I guess they are yours now! Enjoy! :D

"Iam, therefore I think"

Because you 'are' (in existance), then you may think as you please ;)

i have mathamatical proof that you arent God, its a bit strange
Not necesserily the universe, but something goes on forever, either the universe or the stuff on the outside of that
each area has a certain chance (very low) of being a new reality (proof, anything is possible)
therefore, you have a low chance of being God in each of these
therefore you are God in some of them, but arent in others *nuts, has just worked out where argument is going* oh well, mite as well finish now, therefore, your chance of being God is infinity, or infinity / infinity, which would be 100% anyway. Turns out u r God, need a priest?

From now on anybody starting a thread in a philospsophy forum with "Prove this/that" should be ignored because as we all know, u CANNOT prove anything!

Hey um, daydream, what if we all just worshipped you instead? Would that be OK?

The problem with this is that the OP thinks it matters if they created the universe.

Fine, you created the universe. Why should I care? Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Leprechans could exist and it wouldn't change my religion.

Athiests tend to have this complex that they need to prove God doesn't exist. Satan doesn't go around telling people God doesn't exist. He goes around telling people God's an asshole. Now THAT'S a discussion.

The issue isn't whether or not X exists. It's whether the existance of X matters.

Ben

kalvinB "The issue isn't whether or not X exists. It's whether the existance of X matters." God obviously matters, whether or not he exists, as people have done lots of things (good and evil) in his name

so isnt it really a question as to whether God leads to good or evil being done

EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! He works in the hearts of Christian Americans and Communists alike! Death to them all! ... ... ... ... *takes breath* ... ... ... i'm calm now.