You are God, and I do not exist.

I want to first begin by deeply apologizing. Writing limits us as compared to speaking. I did not mean to be abrasive and rude. When I said that I'm utterly annoyed, I meant that any philosopher would be. It's just a natural reaction. I should have not used the word "blabber" for it does have negative connotation, I apologize. And for the course of this debate you are a skeptic. I didn't mean who you really are, because you're right- I don't know you. But with what you told me, I have much deep respect at your inquiring for truth. I myself am a Christian as well and I do know what you mean that most people follow the faith blindly. Now keep in mind, I don't call it Skepticism. It's the official Philosophical term that labels the stance you're taking in this debate. No philosophical argument can fully overturn Skepticism. The only way to overturn Skepticism, which is the course I take in this debate, is not by philosophical means, but by pragmatic means. In other words, I'm showing that one can't live in the world of Skepticism (Jessica Alba's panties). I only used philosophy sparingly to merely support my stance (Descartes). I apologize for sounding harsh and did not mean it to go that way. Please understand, as a philosopher, it is just a natural reaction I get when I face a skeptic in an argument, who can readily throw any philosophic argument out the window. Final Argument: Skepticism does result in a purposeless existence. For if I believe that my mind is the ultimate creator of this world then I can take advantage of such a belief. Like I said, I can kill myself infinite number of times till my God-like brain creates a world that I find satisfying (Jessica Alba's Panties). Or the other viewpoint, like I said earlier, if I kill myself right now then my brain might die as well, so this whole world would be destroyed as well and so everything would be meaningless. This is where my Descartes argument comes in where I argue that not all things are dependent on other things. For if this world is a concoction of my brain, then this world is dependent on my brain- which means that if I die, then this world dies with it and everything is meaningless. -> Either way, this is no way that human being can live from this skeptic point of view. After a brief skirmish below with a commentator, I would like to reiterate that I merely wanted to show the POSSIBILITY of an external God and not argue necessarily for one in this debate. Now, when I argue for an external God I also argue for an Omnipotent, and thus Omniscient, God- meaning that this God is beyond human comprehension. And when I argue for this, it follows that we cannot understand this External Omnipotent God's purpose and plans. But it gives the possibility for this God to have a purpose for this Universe, if he is a creator and/or manager of this Universe. Now what I say is that if my own God-like brain limits me in this world that it created for me, then I'm not a "thinking thing," as Descartes would call it. For a thinking thing is not limited by contradiction (as the God-like brain would be in limiting me in this world but make feel that I am ultimately free) or restriction (my God-like Brain that created this world for me determines everything for me, including my thoughts). Arguing for an external God does allow for contradiction, only if He were omnipotent (for we can never understand things beyond our comprehension) and an external God can allow restriction (laws of nature, physics, time, etc). I don't say that I, in this world, will be able to control time, space, events, etc, but my God-mind would be able to. But if that is the case then there is a contradiction – while my brain is ultimately God-like, this world limits my brain – which I just stated above, cannot happen. You're right, I'm ASSUMING that my Brain is God-like. And if take this assumption (skeptical viewpoint) and make it a lifestyle, I end up dying- so thus living as a skeptic is no real way to live (e.g. Jessica Alba's Panties). As for believing in an external omnipotent God, I can readily say that I can never understand what God has in plan for me until after the fact (as most Christians would say). Keep in mind there is no such quest for me to find proof of an external God. I have no quest, I merely have faith that one exists. (This of course is another debate) Wisdom, Philosophy, Logic etc cannot prove the existence of an omnipotent God. Faith is the only thing that can. So, you can say as a skeptic, that my God-like brain gave me false faith to believe in an external God- which again is another contradiction between my God-like brain and myself in this world, which cannot happen. I assume that my God-like Brain has control over the world it creates, not myself in this world it created for me- because obviously I don't have control over this world. Hell, if I did, then I would use my powers to have Jessica Alba in front of me naked right now! The assumption I take though, is the fact that my God-like Brain has control over this world. And if that's the case, I can manipulate that control. I can kill myself right now and hope for a better life next time my God-like brain creates a world for me (assuming that my death in this world doesn't lead to an ultimate destruction of my God-like brain as well). It's like blackmail. I think my main and overarching point that I believe voters will side with me on is that no one person can live as a skeptic. Living as a skeptic will lead to these ludicrous assumptions that I can kill myself infinite amounts of times or that I can manipulate my God-like brain so I can have the life I want. I can readily commit suicide right now if truly grasped Skepticism. Now a brief answering of the question you raised- The reason why an infinite existing God-like brain is not possible is exactly what links back to the C.S Lewis quote. If my brain created a world every time I died, I should be able to understand what perfection is. Because perfection is not something apart from this world (external God) but IS this world, if we assume that my God-like brain is infinite existing. By that assumption, I should be able to understand perfection by just studying how the world is constructed. But that's not the realistic case, and man (or "me") don't know what perfection is and just grasp an inference of what it can be. St. Augustine's famous inference of the Divine (Just think of the Pythagorean Therom- we can't see a2+b2=c2, but we can conceptualize it). If it was the "desire of my mind to create a realistic world" for me, then it is in contradiction with who I am in this world. My God-like mind may have wanted to create a realistic world for me, but who I am in this world does not want to live in this realistic world. If I had the power right now I would end this world's hunger, stop global warming, give money to all people, etc. My argument of contradiction is that my mind did not create this world because their can be NO contradiction between a God-like mind and me in this world- in which there is if you argue as a skeptic. And I would not be a "thinking thing" because I would be limited in what I think because my God-like brain tells me what to think in this world. As Descartes argued, a thinking thing is not restricted in his thoughts. I do believe it's a waste of time, no offense. Because if I lived as a skeptic I would just kill myself. You are not a true skeptic, but argue as one. And so in that case, I don't believe you fully grasp how it is like to BE a skeptic. "When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others... Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless" -Bertrand Russell