God Probably Exists

Interaction Argument Against A Non-Mental Reality For God The Conscious Mind Exists Without A Shadow Of A Doubt The mental exists, and this is not a reasonably doubted position. It is not a reasonably doubted position because "doubt" is itself a mental state. Ergo, to "doubt" presupposes that the mental exists (this would be a self-refuting doubt to doubt that the mental exists as doubt is mental itself). However, anything one posits as non-mental can be doubted with no such trouble. Perhaps the wet and mushy brain is all an illusion (as in a perception that doesn't exactly correspond to a non-mental reality), just as the rest of the universe. However, the mind cannot be an illusion as an illusion implies a mind that is having the illusion. As Neuroscientist Sam Harris notes: "Consciousness is the one thing in this world that cannot be an illusion. Consciousness is the fact of experience, the fact that something is happening, the fact that the lights are on in some basic sense even if we don't understand anything... So, I think consciousness cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris [2] Also, empirical claims of knowledge about the world fall in the category of a posteriori knowledge: "Something that is known a posteriori is known based on logic that is derived from experience."[3] For example, if someone experiences a "tree" and makes the inference that a tree exists based on that experience; that is a posteriori knowledge. The point being that the very idea that a physical world exists is based on our experiences. If consciousness doesn't fundamentally exist, and is just an illusion or emergent epiphenomenon then this undermines the very reason to believe in a brain and physical reality to begin with; which is conscious experience. The Father of Quantum Theory, Max Planck, drives this point home: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard 'matter' as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck [4] This isn't confusing epistemology with ontology either. The mind must be ontologically fundamental in order to have experiences and epistemic knowledge. So, the mental has to exist to have knowledge, and it has to exist in order to posit anything physical like a brain or anything of the sort as we only know these things through conscious experiences. We cannot downplay consciousness or the mind using physical data, because what we call "physical data" is only realized through consciousness in the first place. If There Exists A Non-Mental/ Physical Universe Exists, It Interacts With The Mental I think we would all agree that if a non-mental reality exists, it interacts with the mental and vice versa. For example, the only reason we believe in the computer screen in front of us is because it is obviously interacting with our minds producing the image due to perception of such an object. Ergo, if we believe the computer screen is essentially non-mental, then we believe this non-mental reality is interacting with our minds. There would be literally 0 reason to believe in a non-mental reality in the first place if we didn't believe a non-mental reality was interacting with our minds somehow to apparently give us knowledge of such a reality. Someone could say that a non-mental reality may exist that is not a physical universe but just never interacts with us and we would never know about it... Even if this was logically possible it is a completely useless assumption. If it doesn't interact with us at all (not even indirectly) then why posit it even exists? It would just be useless fat to a model of reality that without substantiation we are rational to rule out, just as we would be rational to rule out invisible fairies in my backyard that we cannot detect in a model of reality. The Interaction Problem The reason interaction is even possible between two objects is because their properties cohere and "recognize" each other (excuse the anthropomorphic fallacy). If I hit ball in pool and it hits another one and causes it move the reason this interaction can even occur is because their properties cohere...They would be both be just objects made of atoms moving around in space, and because they share properties between the two objects, the interaction can occur. However, if there exists a non-mental world of particles, fields, spacetime and what not, how could it possibly interact with my the mental images, feelings, thoughts, and emotions associated with my mind which seem so distinct from the physical world (assuming it is non-mental for the sake of argument)? Something non-mental trying to interact with the mental would seem to be as futile as someone who only knows Chinese trying to understand what a person who only knows English is yelling at them; it won't work. They simply aren't "speaking the same language". This creates a huge problem for someone who claims that the non-mental can interact with the mind and vice versa. In Conclusion Basically, either a non-mental reality exists that interacts with our minds, a non-mental reality exists that doesn't interact with our minds, or there is no non-mental reality at all. We can rule out the idea that a non-mental reality exists that interacts with our minds due to the interaction problem I mentioned. It is possible that a non-mental reality exists that our minds never interact with, but if our minds never interact with it then there is no reason to believe it exists in the first place. This indicates that there probably is no non-mental reality. If there is no non-mental reality then that means only a mental reality exists. This means that our contingent minds aren't dependent upon some grand mindless universe, but upon a grand mind (I explain later why only one is preferred). Since this is the definition of God for the debate at hand, then this argument shows that God most likely exists. Digital Physics Argument For God When we introspect, we encounter integrated information and this is what are consciousness is. This is also entailed by the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness[5]. Also, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation describes all the information in the universe[6], and it is integrated as the wave-function of the universe entails that everything is entangled and quantum entanglement entails integration. We already know the universe most likely boils down to information based on Digital Physics (Which has been shown to be a better way to model reality [7]), but the fact that it is integrated entails the universe is a conscious state. Thus, it must either be a conscious mind or an aspect of a conscious mind. Either way, it becomes pretty clear that all reality that we can reasonably infer exists around us depends on a mind. Any other made up claim of a reality that we have no interaction with probably does not exist just like a fairy that we can't see probably doesn't exist. Random claims with no basis are probably not true by probability alone, as there are more things that we can make up than things that actual exist in the reality we collectively share. Therefore, I have successfully shown God to probably exist based on Digital Physics. If any elaboration is needed, I expect my opponent will let me know.The Safe Bet Argument This is a weaker argument, but I would say this alone suffices to establish the resolution. As I have already concluded, we cannot doubt that mind exists (or at least some form of mentality exists), as doubt itself is essentially mental. People assume that because objects that we perceive (like chairs, tables, books and what not) seem to be beyond our minds, that we can invent a whole new category of non-mental to explain it. The problem is that we don't know that anything non-mental can actually exist. Again, we know that our minds exist as we cannot rationally doubt them, but anything non-mental we can doubt without any such inconsistency as non-mentality could just be an "illusion". The Mind cannot be an illusion though, as an illusion requires a mind to have the disassociated perception in the first place. Thus, if we are going to create a model of reality sticking with what we know is going to yield more probable results than taking a gamble on a non-mental substance that might not even exist. Since we cannot doubt mental substance and mentality, but we can doubt non-mentality (non-mentality is just a theory with no basis), then reality being mental is the safe bet and most likely the case. However, if our minds aren't dependent upon a mindless physical universe, then they are dependent upon a mind. One might ask why there is only one mind? I would say because there is no reason to posit additional minds. It is just added fat to the theory, and theories that stick with what we know without multiplying entities for no reason usually end up being true. It is no different here, ergo, God probably exists.Master ConclusionI presented three arguments in favor of the notion that the universe and reality we experience is most likely mental and thus exists inside a mind. One can always posit the possibility of additional minds that are just as fundamental, or a non-mental reality that never interacts with the mental, but there are zero reasons to believe any of those things are true. They just entail extra fat, and theories that have extra fat trend to be wrong most of the time. So, probability is still on my side, and the resolution has been established. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Video Source (Sam Harris Explains Why God Exists) [3] http://www.philosophy-index.com... [4] http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk...[5] http://journals.plos.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://brianwhitworth.com...http://www.youtube.com...