To the Quantum Depths of the Poetic Universe:

Lost in the Haystack? — PoeticUniverse

It seems clear that even if God existed, God doesn't intervene human affairs based on the history of the world and the current affairs on what's happening in the world. There is nothing one can do about that.

And from my observations, experiences and reasoning, the only place where God exist is the word God. Nowhere else in the external world I could observe God at all. Therefore my proof God exists in the keyboard of my computer still stands.

My points were,
1. There is no ultimate proof that demons don't exist. Could you prove demons and dragons don't exist? — Corvus

I'm trying! That is indeed one of the things that I have been working on for the past year and a half, more or less. To prove, logically, definitively, that demons, dragons and other fictional entities do not exist. But it's a really difficult thing to prove, because that discussion is about the concept of existence itself. Mario Bunge, my philosophical hero, says that fictional entities (such as Pegasus, demons, dragons, ghosts, God, angels, etc.) have "conceptual existence", while ordinary objects such as this table or this computer have "real existence". Unlike Bunge, I want to prove that fictional entities do not exist, not even conceptually.

2. Even if demons don't exist (lets presume that they don't exist), the fact that demons don't exist doesn't stop people imagining and thinking about them. People have been talking about demons and fire breathing dragons for thousands of years, and still will be doing so until the end of human civilization creating them in art form i.e. movies, novels, paintings and sculptures. — Corvus

Indeed. And I, as a metaphysician, should be able to talk about all of that, in a way that makes sense to the common person as well as the philosopher and the scientist.

3. The fact that people imagine, think and talk about demons implies that abstract existence has significant meanings in the human mind, which suggests that abstract objects can exist. Perhaps abstract objects exist in different forms, and should it be said that abstract objects axist? instead of exist (in physical objects?) :) — Corvus

Hmmm... this is where the discussion gets extremely complicated, because it has to do with the very concept of existence, it has to do with what the word "existence" means, and that is not an easy thing to understand. The easiest solution is to use a dictionary, for example an online dictionary, and look at the definition of the word "existence". But that's very basic. Philosophers have some very complicated things to say about existence, and they don't agree with each other on that point.

Of course my points are just assumptions and inferences from your claims. You can disagree, if they don't make sense. But it is interesting to see different opinions on these aspects of existence. — Corvus

They make perfect sense. The problem is that these problems (i.e., the problems about existence) are not easy to solve.

Philosophers have some very complicated things to say about existence, and they don't agree with each other on that point. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, this is true. Existence is an interesting topic. We could further analyse and discuss on the nature of Existence. If you would open an OP, I would follow, read and try to contribute if I have any relating ideas cropping up in my head.

Yes, this is true. Existence is an interesting topic. We could further analyse and discuss on the nature of Existence. If you would open an OP, I would follow, read and try to contribute if I have any relating ideas cropping up in my head. — Corvus

Thanks, but I already have 3 Threads that I started, and I don't want to monopolize the main page with my presence. Perhaps if you began the Thread about Existence yourself, I could contribute to it, to the best of my ability.

You both share informative, pleasing, and detailed posts. I wouldn't see myself taking part in a thread started by one of you because a philosophical content such as 'existence' holds a lot of complexity in it. Yet I always tend to read your debate, although I don't post a reply ever.

But, as a reminder folks -- God's existence depends more on the encouragement of the believers to believe rather than the existence itself.

Thank you very much @javi2541997.

And from my observations, experiences and reasoning, the only place where God exist is the word God. Nowhere else in the external world I could observe God at all. Therefore my proof God exists in the keyboard of my computer still stands. — Corvus

Yes, all we have is a Ground Of Determination - the Quantum 'vacuum'.

That is indeed one of the things that I have been working on for the past year and a half, more or less. To prove, logically, definitively, that demons, dragons and other fictional entities do not exist. But it's a really difficult thing to prove, because that discussion is about the concept of existence itself. — Arcane Sandwich

There are no mythological creatures yet.

There is only the Permanent Existence; its rearrangements into temporaries are still It.

There is only the Permanent Existence; its rearrangements into temporaries are still It. — PoeticUniverse

Hmmm...

Hmmm... — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, but not Himmm.

Gracias por tus amables palabras, amigo.

Yes, all we have is a Ground Of Determination - the Quantum 'vacuum'. — PoeticUniverse

I don't have it, sir. Where can I find one?

I don't have it, sir. Where can I find one? — Corvus

Amazon has 'Quantum X Upright Water Filter Vacuum'.

Amazon has 'Quantum X Upright Water Filter Vacuum'. — PoeticUniverse

How does it relate to the entity that you claimed that we have i.e. "a Ground of Determination"?

The argument doesn't prove a "God" exists. It proves there is an autonomous, bottom layer of reality. This is metaphysical foundationalism. — Relativist

Are you suggesting any other candidates?

Not specifically, but it seems more plausible that it be something natural than for it to be some sort of complex intelligence with vast knowledge and power that just happens to exist uncaused.

I would think that the metaphysical foundation of everything must be different than what it is the foundation of. If it were not, then the metaphysical foundation would not be a foundation at all. Put another way, if "A" changes, then there must be something that changes "A," but in that case "A" would not be the foundation because there would be something else changing it of which it is not the foundation. What do you think?

Point being: "A" would have to creatively make everything else in order to be a veritable metaphysical foundation. A mere alteration of "A" would render it no longer foundational.

What makes you think that?

Because I think change or alteration implies a kind of dependence on another. If the foundation merely changes form, then it is dependent on what changes it and so is not really a foundation. That is why I think a metaphysical foundation has to create, not merely transform.

A (pure state) quantum system evolves without an external cause. It's in the intrinsic nature of the quantum system.

And that pure quantum system can be applied to God, right? Or the candidates you were thinking of.

What if we focus on epistemology instead of metaphysics in order to understand this question? We can use propositional knowledge or practical knowledge in the form of skills with the point of proving God's existence. I mean, what if we try to prove it through belief, truth, or justification instead of focusing only on the origin of God?

I'm not a scientist so I have no idea what you mean by a "pure state quantum system" or that it "evolves." Would you explain?

If you have an argument for God's existence on the basis of belief, truth, or justification, I'm all ears.

I would like to know if it is plausible to prove God's existence through belief, truth, or justification and then elaborate an argument. This is why I asked if God's existence can be approached by epistemology. :sweat:

Because I think change or alteration implies a kind of dependence on another. — NotAristotle

Conceptually, change only depends on time. And time depends on change - it's a mutual dependence. What neither concept requires is a magic man pulling the strings from behind a curtain.

A (pure state) quantum system evolves without an external cause. It's in the intrinsic nature of the quantum system. — Relativist

You don't have to go as far as quantum mechanics to illustrate the idea. Galilean physics will do just as well.

Seems plausible to me although I do not have a specific argument in mind.

You say that change depends on time, I don't see why that would be wrong. But it also seems to me that a specific thing or substance cannot change itself and must rely on something else to change it.

For example, when a billiard ball moves and changes position, it does not do so of its own accord, but because another billiard ball has imparted motion to it. Similarly, and in accordance with Newton's (1st?) Law, the billiard ball will remain moving unless it strikes another ball or hits the boundary of the table, or encounters friction. And so, all change (of some thing) really depends on another to change it.

A quantum system evolves (from one state to another) in a manner than can be described by a Schroedinger equation. A "pure" state means there are no entanglements (interactions) with anything outside the quantum system.

And that pure quantum system can be applied to God, right? Or the candidates you were thinking of. — javi2541997

Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting God could be a quantum system?

The only candidate I had in mind was the hypothesis that the universe is fundamemtally a quantum system. Some refer to this as the "wave function of the universe". But it's just a candidate; my only point is that it's not unreasonable to think a fundamental layer of reality could evolve from an initial state, without an external cause.

Yes, I am suggesting that, but only if we try to prove God's existence from a metaphysical point of view though. I agree with you that a fundamental layer of reality (God?) could evolve from an initial state without an external cause. But I would like to stop here because, as far as I am concerned, it is not plausible to approach God through a fundamental or quantum system because God is not a set of elements. This is why I stated that we might be able to approach his existence through belief or any kind of epistemology. Sadly, I don't have a strong argument to convince you.

For example, when a billiard ball moves and changes position, it does not do so of its own accord, but because another billiard ball has imparted motion to it. Similarly, and in accordance with Newton's (1st?) Law, the billiard ball will remain moving unless it strikes another ball or hits the boundary of the table, or encounters friction. And so, all change (of some thing) really depends on another to change it. — NotAristotle

The orthodox thinking in Western philosophy used to maintain that what we now call inertial motion (such as that of a billiard ball rolling on a flat surface) required a motive force, like everything else. You seem to have internalized Galilean relativity, but otherwise retained the same intuitions regarding motion (change).

But the Galilean revolution (I am using the term loosely) was more thoroughgoing than just admitting the autonomy of inertial motion. People have come to realize that we don't need to appeal to external agent causation in every instance. The world can go about its business absent any will to push it around.