Does Awesomelyglorious exist?

Post Reply New Topic

You use words very carelessly. We live in a world integrated by our system for making some operative sense of our sensual input.. That we survive is justification for the system. If an invented "I" works for the system then it is useful. "Reality" is a very vague term since each different creature formulates a useful integration of sense input so the different "realities" most likely have many points that don't match. Nevertheless they match well enough so that we can live together to our mutual benefits. That is sufficient.

Awtistic topic

The OP misspelled AG's name, so technically "Awsomelygorious" does not exist at least here at WP. But "Awesomelyglorious" does, at least to me.

God (if existing) might, however, have some reservations about our AG, but since I do not believe in God ( as God has not posted, at least to my knowledge) then I would think it would be more of a certainty that AG does, in fact, exist outside my computer. I can live with this assumption.

^^ Greetings Awesomelyglorious. I perhaps believe your statement here is quite a paradox, since you assumed that Cristiano assumed.

So if I was to say I think therefore I am, then I assume the I, but then I assume and to assume is to think. But then I assumed the I again and so ad infinitum.

^^ Perhaps the "I" may be considered as an axiom a little as in Mathematics. I feel that Descartes' statement is perhaps the purest possible.

does awesomelyglorious exist to whom?

define who or what it is that is perceiving whether or not awesomelyglorious exists. if you cannot, then to me that makes the question void. and if you can, then you need to explain how we know it exists (and perceives), and so on. - who is perceiving that?awesomelyglorious is the only thing we know here. then it's a ray going backwards through perception of awesomelyglorious going on for infinity.

i know zero about formal logic or philosophy of any sort, so i fully expect someone to come along and shoot holes in this, but there it is as i imagine it.

(and there must be a precedence for this - ?)

Interesting way of looking at it. AG exists to me as a name and smiley avatar that keeps showing up on my computer screen that has told me that I am just a “useful cognitive illusion created by my brain”, but is AG any more than that? He won't say.

But let's look at your questions in the light of the debates going on in this forum that this thread is making fun of. If I am nothing more than an illusion created by my mind, then God exists in my mind to the same extent that I do. AG defines himself as the Plus Alpha-Atheistic anti-theist of Wrong Planet so we can conclude that God does not exist in his mind. My question is how significant is that when we don't even know if he does?

But what do you mean "If he does?"If something is imperceptible there is no reason to assume existence. If there is a consensus of perception then those within that perception consensus assume existence. Unfortunately there can be a group delusion and those outside the group can easily deny existence to that delusion. We each exist in the universe we construct within our heads and when we agree with others on an existence and find that workable then we endow existence. We assume there is something in the "real" world conferring that sense perception but we have to keep checking.

Immediately preceding that post of AG's I linked to on the previous page, you told me I was made of thoughts denying there was an owner. I don't doubt you cannot perceive an owner of your thoughts (or rather the thoughts located inside a brain dwelling somewhere in Finland) but I can perceive an owner of mine. You may think it is a delusion, and you are entitaled to your opinion, but I wish you would apply statements like that to yourself rather than to me.

Will you admit to what AG will not? That you cannot perceive yourself apart from your thoughts, therefore you do not exist outside of your thoughts?

Permit Admittance topic

I will admit to both, even if both refuse to admit it themselves.

I just love this "permitance" topic, and I am relieved, as it were, that Awesomelyglorious's name was edited to correct the typo.

You rephrased what I said in a way I find confusing. I said nothing about owners of thoughts. I said that what we know of each other is merely what we see on our screens. What we know of ourselves is how we integrate our sense perceptions. Thoughts don't exist outside of brains. Language can be symbolized to create thoughts of someone else in a brain. And that language can be transmitted via electronics. But that language is not a thought. It creates a thought when it is read and interpreted by a brain.

Perhaps we are talking about two different posts. You might want to revue the whole conversation which began here and goes on to the next page.

It is a pity Exclavius has not been seen in a while. He was my favorite atheist.

I reviewed all my posts and never used the phrase "owners of thoughts"

There is a difference between deluding ourselves in the way in which things exist (ie as something other than illusions or mental constructs) and deluding ourselves as to what does and doesn't exist for the world in a conventional sense.

To accept the conventional existence of something requires it be found or observed either directly or with reasonable assumption by an objective reasoning consciousness without error. For example a colour-blind person's assertion that a flower is green instead of red would not be accepted as real for the world.

There is a common agreement as to what makes up our conventional existence. Even the colour-blind person will concede that despite their mental construct that holds certain things to be certain colours it is not real for the world based on inconsistencies that they experience due to this.

Although all are mental constructs, concepts belonging in the realm of imagination do not exist beyond this except for cases of mental illness, intoxication or the dream state where imaginary things appear to be 'real'.

Although the belief in God can provide many benefits to some believers - and those benefits, positive thoughts and feelings that accompany the belief can be accepted in reality by observation of that person's happy state - it must be conceded that the God in which they believe cannot be said to exist in a proven way that can be accurately determined by a reasoning consciousness.

God exists as a mental construct in the minds of those who believe but it cannot be said to exist - not even as an illusion - in the conventional world due to it not meeting the criteria for conventional reality. The believer, however, exists due to being observed by accurate senses or determined with weighty reasonable assumption. The believer is also a mental construct and therefore exists as an illusion, but - they exist.

It is not logical to claim that that which is believed in also exists for the world without either direct observation or faultless logic and reasoning that supports the claim. Just because something makes sense for some people does not mean that their reasoning is objective and/or accurate. If we seek truth in the world we need to analyse even the firmest of our opinions and beliefs to test whether or not they stand up to reality.
This last I direct to both believers and non-believers.

There is no such thing as "direct observation" We each integrate our sense inputs to construct individual understandings as to the nature of the world. The "real" world is merely a matter of general consensus. Since we each have very similar sense inputs and our social environment trains us all into the same way of interpreting these inputs we can agree more or less on a general accepted reality. There are obvious wide variations on this due to slight differences in perception, different cultural tradition and differences in mental organization. But nevertheless, the world we as humans accept surely is different from those worlds in which different species exist such as bumblebees, bats, octopi and religious fundamentalists.

Why not?

AG exists (we assume) in the conventional world because he has a physical body that depressed keys on a keyboard to create his account and make his posts, but that body is an ecosystem itself composed of billions of microscopic life forms; yet we refer to Awesomelyglorious (and he refers to himself) as though he were a single entity.

In contrast (by all accounts) God does not have a physical body; he exists as a spiritual entity. Some of us (such as myself) believe we also exist as a spiritual entity which is what I refer to with the word “I”, not the illusion of myself. My image of God is a mental construct, but so is my image of you or AG, and he is as real to me as any of you are.

Who cares? This moment of metaphysical nihilism was entirely unnecessary. Good thing it doesn't exist.

Getting back to basics, does Mickey Mouse exist? Is he a spiritual entity. I have seen Mickey Mouse. I have never seen either AG nor God and perhaps they are the same thing. I am reasonably sure, but not positive that Mickey Mouse is not God.