How do I get over that "feeling" that god exists?

[robvalue]

Sure. My opinion is I don't care if God exists or not. If it does, it's having no noticeable impact on anything.

I'm sure it's got better things to do than watch people have sex and crying because it doesn't like the way they are doing it.

[AdamLOV]

Nothing exists, and that is the only truth worth knowing, in my opinion. Recent advances in theoretical physics have brought attention to the possibility that the Universe is a hologram. This thought is comforting, for it would entail a complete absence of meaning and, therefore, make possible a lighthearted ethics that does not take anything too seriously.

[Cato]

Nothing exists, and that is the only truth worth knowing, in my opinion. Recent advances in theoretical physics have brought attention to the possibility that the Universe is a hologram. This thought is comforting, for it would entail a complete absence of meaning and, therefore, make possible a lighthearted ethics that does not take anything too seriously.

I suspect that you don't understand what the holographic theory is. Also, the GEO 600 blurriness at 10^-16m of gravitational waves which gave some credence to the theory has been experimentally disputed with non-blurry gama-ray burst measurements at much smaller intervals.

[AdamLOV]

Nothing exists, and that is the only truth worth knowing, in my opinion. Recent advances in theoretical physics have brought attention to the possibility that the Universe is a hologram. This thought is comforting, for it would entail a complete absence of meaning and, therefore, make possible a lighthearted ethics that does not take anything too seriously.

I suspect that you don't understand what the holographic theory is. Also, the GEO 600 blurriness at 10^-16m of gravitational waves which gave some credence to the theory has been experimentally disputed with non-blurry gama-ray burst measurements at much smaller intervals.

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-b...am-1.14328

It may be claimed that simulations are unreal, and should not be taken too seriously. However, the very fact that Nature saw the hologram-theory of the universe as a hypothesis worthy of representation would, at the very minimum, entail that it is a hypothesis with a claim to scientific truth. The logical leap from hologram to non-existence is, of course, a substantial one, and it is by no means compulsory to accept this wildly speculative notion. However, holograms generally lack the objecthood of the objects they represent. Their own objecthood is merely derivative, and therefore cannot be said to be authentic. Therefore it is not so implausible to assume that if the universe is a hologram, all objects that seem to be within it, lack objectivity.

[robvalue]

Nothing exists... so we shouldn't talk about anything except the fact nothing exists? I have no idea what this means. If nothing exists, no one is talking about anything, so why should it concern you?

What is "real" is not a trivial matter to define. Whatever "I" am, I'm experiencing something. That is as much as I can be certain of. Whether or not what I'm experiencing is "real" from any other point of view, it is real to me. So it matters to me. If I don't exist and neither does what I think I'm experiencing, then you're not there to tell me I'm wrong, nor does it matter that a non-existent person is wrong about a non-existent reality. I'm argueing with a figment of my imagination right now if so. Maybe I am, but it's not helpful to assume that I am.

You seem to be addressing solipsism. I agree that to get past it, we need certain base assumptions. You may not agree with those assumptions, that's fine. But you cannot use the position of solipsism to make any other point at all, because you've just said nothing is real or reliable. Either we all agree, for the sake of argument, that this reality is somehow real and we can know stuff about it, or there is no further conversation to be had.

If that's your point and you're just telling us to stop talking, then I'm afraid you are doomed to failure.

[AdamLOV]

Nothing exists... so we shouldn't talk about anything except the fact nothing exists? I have no idea what this means. If nothing exists, no one is talking about anything, so why should it concern you?

What is "real" is not a trivial matter to define. Whatever "I" am, I'm experiencing something. That is as much as I can be certain of. Whether or not what I'm experiencing is "real" from any other point of view, it is real to me. So it matters to me. If I don't exist and neither does what I think I'm experiencing, then you're not there to tell me I'm wrong, nor does it matter that a non-existent person is wrong about a non-existent reality. I'm argueing with a figment of my imagination right now if so. Maybe I am, but it's not helpful to assume that I am.

You seem to be addressing solipsism. I agree that to get past it, we need certain base assumptions. You may not agree with those assumptions, that's fine. But you cannot use the position of solipsism to make any other point at all, because you've just said nothing is real or reliable. Either we all agree, for the sake of argument, that this reality is somehow real and we can know stuff about it, or there is no further conversation to be had.

If that's your point and you're just telling us to stop talking, then I'm afraid you are doomed to failure.

The position I am elucidating is a non-sollipsist, non-objectivistic anti-realist position. As you correctly note, sollipsism is a manifestly inadequate response. Accepting the non-self position advocated by Buddhism, Humean philosophy and cognitive science, one cannot infer that the hypothesized non-existence of the "outside" world would entail the existence of an inner self. As to where this leaves discourse, I should think that there is no problem with speaking, provided that one recognize the greater value of silence. Silence is golden. Negative universalism (ontological antinomianism) by no means implies that we should not deal with transient problems, merely that we must take note of their inherent ungroundedness and contingency.

[robvalue]

Erm...

Okay. I followed you right up to the bit where you say people should be silent more. Sure, silence is nice. Inaction due to self-defeating thinking however is not so great. And explaining to yourself and others that everything you do is objectively pointless every time you do it seems like a waste of effort.

[Jericho]

Indeed. That is basically giving up before you even begin, which is a waste of time and effort.

In regards to the original post, I will always beg the question, is it possible that your 'feelings' are just the result of your subconscious? This could happn because you want to believe base don social acceptance. Just a thought.

[LastPoet]

I am nothing, nothing is perfect and only god is perfect, therefore I am god.

Take that, logic!

[AdamLOV]

I am nothing, nothing is perfect and only god is perfect, therefore I am god.

Take that, logic!

It is no stretch of the imagination, provided that one adequately define "God". Divinity would then be the God-that-is-not, the non-divine.