Unit Offline

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,..."
-- William Shakespeare, As You Like It

I devised this (informal) proof of a non-benevolent god after reading Gödel, Escher, Bach and watching The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor. If someone could find the flaw in my argument, I would be very grateful. (I refuse to believe that this question -- the basis of all theology -- could be solved by some wise-arse 16-year-old.)

Premise: Existence is subjective and therefore based entirely on perception.
Evidence: From Plato's Cave Thingy to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

However, not all existence is based on our perception.
(Evidence: The objective order of the universe, our ability to discover things.)

Therefore, something must be observing that which we cannot. But in order to know what we are not observing, it must know what we are observing. This makes it omniscient re: our universe.

So where is this all knowing observer? It cannot be within our universe, for then it would necessarily be limited in its knowledge of our universe. It cannot be equal to our universe, because 1) the universe is not designed to be a conscious entity and 2) I think Kant said something about omniconsciousness being impossible. Ergo, it must be greater than our universe, "above and beyond" it on some higher plane of existence.

Problem is, when you introduce this higher plane, reality is built from the top down. You can't have a work of fiction without an author, no Matrix without a programmer, no cartoon without a cartoonist. Therefore, someone or something on that higher plane must have created our universe, and as such, is omnipotent re: our universe. Combine omnipotence and omniscience, and bickety-bam! God.

Note how this resolves the contradictions of omni-hood:

"If God is omniscient, how can God have free will?" God is only omniscient as regards our universe. He could be totally clueless (i.e. free-willed) otherwise.

"If God is omniscient, how can God be omnipotent?" Consider: one day in God's world, He decides to make Smith die three days back in our world. The next day, God decides to let Smith live. He changes our world to accomodate this whim, and as far as we know, Smith never died. It's like He has a big friggin' Men-in-Black neuralyzer.

"If God is omnipotent, why does He allow evil?" I never said he was a nice God. Besides, evil makes for conflict, and conflict makes for good drama. (I think 9/11 was just an exciting season finale for God.)

P.S. Since creative activity requires free will, and free will requires limited knowledge (limited perception), this same proof could apply to God, meaning there's something above Him. And so on, and so on. Conclusion: there's an infinite regression of gods and men, reality and fiction, with no ultimate "objective" level. Trippy.

P.P.S. What does this God require of us? NOTHING. Just play out your part in life.

P.P.P.S. I apologize if this argument has been done already. I've looked for it in many places, but I've never found it.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Jesus The Magnificent ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Existence is subjective and therefore based entirely on perception.

I disagree. That which exists can be perceived, but it is not based on it. This is a kind of solipsism, that something does not exist unless it is perceived. My first question would be, 'perceived directly?' only the World Cup is on and for all I know its ILM creating film of ultra realistica animated characters and crowds.

Also, now I can't see the carpet under my feet under the desk I'm sat at, does it blink out of existence?

Adrian

Unit Offline

Think of it as the contrapositive of this statement:
If something cannot be perceived or inferred from perception, then it does not exist as far as we need be concerned.

(If we had no way of detecting subatomic particles or their effects, how would we know they existed?... unless you had faith. )

Regarding your questions:
1) Hey, maybe it is ILM. Who cares as long as it's entertaining?
2) It was this "blinking out of existence" problem that led me to this proof. Since things have existed before and after we could perceive them, who the heck was and is perceiving them?

(edited to correct a spelling error)

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jesus The Magnificent ]</p>

Automaton

This is somewhat of a post-modernist argument similar to Prof. Berkeley's argument but based on epistemontology rather than quantum physics. It's easy to point out the flaws, but don't worry, I'm even younger and more of a wise-ass than you.
This cannot be so, because subjectivity requires a subject, and for a subject to be, it must exist.
This does not necessarily follow from "existence is subjective," as it logically possible for an object to be both a subject and lacking in perception.
This is not evidence, this is still within the realms of speculation.
That space and time are (partially) relative to the observer doesn't make existence itself relative to the observer. Neither are space and time themselves, in essence, relative.
You have just contradicted yourself. Your previous statement was a synthetic a prosteriori inference about the existential nature of the universe, and so is this, only it is antithetical to it. This would only work if the former was a priori true.
Again, this is self-refuting. Observation requires that there is an object to be observed in the first place. So there must be an objective universe out there anyway, and this destroys the notion that there must be a "something" observing it.
If this reasoning is sound, then we are omniscient as well: In order to know what we are observing, we must also know what are not observing. Why is this entity a special case in the fact that it is able to observe the negative space of facts and we are not?
How does spatiotemporal proximity limit knowledge?
Given that existence is subjective, how do you know this? Could not the universe be subjective of itself?
Quote? Perhaps his reasoning in your own words?
What is a higher plane of existence, and how can there be an objective existential situation of "greater-ness" if existence is subjective?
This is self-refuting. If the universe necessarily needs a cartoonist, why does God not need a cartoonist for exactly the same reasons?
Omnipotence and omniscience to our universe is not actual omnipotence and omniscience, and these two properties are not solely those used to determine if something is God (especially the God of classical theism.)
That is not all-knowing. That is knowing about the universe.
Huh?
Great. We're all here for some big stupid motherfucker's enjoyment, like a psychotic kid plays with ants. What a charming philosophy.
Too bad infinite regress is impossible. And, if each God in an infinite chain has finite knowledge, one necessarily having a greater amount of finite knowledge then the next, then how is that different from one God with infinite knowledge? Finally, why does free will require limited knowledge?
How do you know what this God requires of us?
I don't believe I've seen an argument quite like this one before, although there are indeed similar (and similarly flawed) ones.

Daggah

Your proof is inane.

Ron Singh

Mr. Mutton,
I offer you warning, for I too am a wise-ass.

I believe J.C refers to the subject being the observer. The observer being the being, perceiving and subjecting the perception of other non-self 'things'. What J.C might be alluding to is a hazy solipsist position that what is existing other than self can not be empirically draught, and hence is subjective.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh

Panta Pei

"I believe J.C refers to the subject being the observer. The observer being the being, perceiving and subjecting the perception of other non-self 'things'. What J.C might be alluding to is a hazy solipsist position that what is existing other than self can not be empirically draught, and hence is subjective."

Or...maybeee...it's the other way around in reverse

Automaton

Hey sick, He is stating that observation has metaphysical primacy over objects, but it must be the other way around, because there must be an object for observation to occur in the first place. Epistemic subjectivism does not entail ontological subjectivism (whatever that is).

Adrian Selby

"(If we had no way of detecting subatomic particles or their effects, how would we know they existed?... unless you had faith. )"

How could the act of perception bring them into being? DO we make them up? Sorry, I just don't follow you.

Lets take the Hubble telescope. We point it at a part of the universe we've not pointed it at before. We see some galaxies. Now, are you saying their existence is dependent on us seeing them, such that we are the cause of their existence. Does the act of perception bring things into being, or does it instead inform us of what exists external to us?

"then it does not exist as far as we need be concerned."

It's the as far as bit that I have trouble with, just because we are not concerned about something we can't perceive doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Atoms didn't exist I take it till we perceived them, or are you only saying, we didn't talk about them or see them so they couldn't have existed.

Also, your evidence from Plato's Cave, can you extrapolate how that is evidence for your position, or does it merely reflect or compare to your position.

"Since things have existed before and after we could perceive them, who the heck was and is perceiving them?"

Nobody, they existed then we perceived them. Things have always existed since the dawn of time, though I can see we'll get an interesting debate out of the origin of the universe topic.

Why should someone need to perceive something in order for it to exist?

"What J.C might be alluding to is a hazy solipsist position that what is existing other than self can not be empirically draught, and hence is subjective."

Something might not be empirically verifiable, but that does not mean its existence is merely a matter of faith, rather, we have faith that it exists, but that doesn't determine whether or not it exists.

Adrian

Jayhawker Soule

Are you saying that 'it' does not exist, or that 'it' is not relevant to us?

Anton Van Leeuwenhoek and Robert Hooke fathered microscopy in the 17th century. Did bacteria only become instantiated or relevant in the 1600's?