The witness argument (yet again, I know, I know)

[Mystic]

I wrote this to Valk and didn't want to bore her but it was from the heart, and I think it maybe the best way to put it so far:

I believe personally the strongest proof when it comes to God, is that his witnessing reality to all things, is how things are defined and experienced through love, we all believe there is a true reality to our personhood, and we all know it's not a physical thing, but an idea, an idea that is real and we experience as ourselves yet we don't know ourselves fully, so where does the true idea of ourselves exist?  It's a command from God to exist, from his vision, and only the absolute judge can account for our actions and judge us. Yet what are we at the end, but a judgement from the absolute vision, that all the loving acts or hateful acts, good or bad acts, and hue and form of our personality, where is that but in the vision of God?

We see degree of it like we see stars from a far place, we don't experience the absolute judgement to who we are, even if we had 100% accurate vision, it would not be absolute vision, but we aren't partly existing, we are existing, and so our personhood is in the vision of God and no one truly knows us but him.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm not sure you are able to understand this, but it's important that you try:  To prove the existence of God, you cannot start by assuming that God exists.  Furthermore, you cannot take a 'feeling' as evidence for God, since that feeling (in this case, a feeling of personhood) may have other sources.  Lastly, you can't *know* that personhood is not a physical thing, thus you have no basis for assuming that it is non-physical (and, even if it were, it would not be evidence for God).

Boru

[Mystic]

 To prove the existence of God, you cannot start by assuming that God exists

Did not do so here.

Furthermore, you cannot take a 'feeling' as evidence for God, since that feeling (in this case, a feeling of personhood) may have other sources. 

Our sense of personhood and the facts we know from it are part of the argument. Whether people actually want to go so far and say they don't actually exist, it's up to them.

Lastly, you can't *know* that personhood is not a physical thing, thus you have no basis for assuming that it is non-physical (and, even if it were, it would not be evidence for God).

That is a fact whether the source is a physical thing or not, personhood is an idea experienced.... 

Who we are is an idea. What we are can be both physical and idea, but who we are is not the physical body.  It's in the naturalism paradigm a program idea created from the brain. But the other things we know like we don't fully know ourselves, yet, we accurately exist, and the knowledge only an absolute perfect judge can judge our actions and maintain perfect inheritance of our actions and value us accurately, is part of the argument.

It doesn't assume it's the source, it's realization with the other facts, that we know it's the source.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Did not do so here.

Actually, you did:
'I believe personally the strongest proof when it comes to God, is that his witnessing reality to all things,' (emphasis mine)

Our sense of personhood and the facts we know from it are part of the argument. Whether people actually want to go so far and say they don't actually exist, it's up to them.

I don't think anyone is claiming that a sense of personhood and the concomitant facts don't exist.  What is at issue is the source of the sense or feeling of being a person.

That is a fact whether the source is a physical thing or not, personhood is an idea experienced.... 

Correct me if I'm taking you wrongly, but you seem to be saying that ideas are not physical things.  How do you know?

Who we are is an idea. What we are can be both physical and idea, but who we are is not the physical body. 

I agree that what makes me 'me' isn't my physical form, but that in no way establishes that personal identity is non-physical.

It's in the naturalism paradigm a program idea created from the brain.

And programs are physical in nature. 

But the other things we know like we don't fully know ourselves, yet,

Agreed.

we accurately exist

Not sure what you mean by 'accurately exist'.

and the knowledge only an absolute perfect judge can judge our actions and maintain perfect inheritance of our actions and value us accurately, is part of the argument.

Again, you're assuming what you wish to prove.  How do you know this?  Not why do you believe it, not why does it make sense to you - how do you know it?

It doesn't assume it's the source, it's realization with the other facts, that we know it's the source.

But not all of your facts are facts.  They are either suppositions or wish-thinking.

Boru

[Mystic]

To know only a perfect absolute judge can accurately maintain us if we have an accurate reality is something I argued for. I will rephrase it here.

It's because we are not objective judges to who we are, and even if we all are, we aren't absolute judges to who we are, that is we don't have an absolute perfect understanding to who we are.

And if we aren't that which sees the "program us" and we control a lot of our brain, then neither is our brain.

It's really simple to understand this.

And just because a conclusion to some premises is stated in the beginning doesn't mean it is a premise and not a conclusion of other premises.

Of course, this would not prove God without the other facts, that we do accurately exist, and to know that, you just have to love yourself enough

[Ravenshire]

 To prove the existence of God, you cannot start by assuming that God exists

Did not do so here.

Yes, you did. And, you do in every argument you make. You presume the existence of your gawd, then proceed to build your "proofs" around your preconceptions.

And you wonder why we find you unfailingly unconvincing.

[Mystic]

Did not do so here.

'I believe personally the strongest proof when it comes to God, is that his witnessing reality to all things,' (emphasis mine)

A premise can exist in the beginning, but if elaborated on, it must be seen as a premise and conclusion of other premises, when talking in normal language. You can't just assume something is said before therefore it has no supporting premises.
[quote pid='1773484' dateline='1528670344']

Our sense of personhood and the facts we know from it are part of the argument. Whether people actually want to go so far and say they don't actually exist, it's up to them.

I don't think anyone is claiming that a sense of personhood and the concomitant facts don't exist.  What is at issue is the source of the sense or feeling of being a person.
[/quote]
Fair enough, the whole argument was about why we can't be the source

Correct me if I'm taking you wrongly, but you seem to be saying that ideas are not physical things.  How do you know?

I'm not assuming either in the argument, I'm saying we are an idea regardless.

I agree that what makes me 'me' isn't my physical form, but that in no way establishes that personal identity is non-physical.

See above.

Who we are is an idea. What we are can be both physical and idea, but who we are is not the physical body. 

Not sure what you mean by 'accurately exist'.

The who we are is accurately existing no matter how we judge ourselves, accurately or inaccurately.

Again, you're assuming what you wish to prove.  How do you know this?  Not why do you believe it, not why does it make sense to you - how do you know it?

The how we know it is more complicated, the question should be, do we know it? The how is by his connectors, the signs of God, the proofs of God, the navigating Captains who are the beautiful instances of his perfect name and word brought to life. That is how, but the question, really should be, do we know? And we do. And once God is proven, the how proves such connections exists.  The question then becomes is this connection through Angel(s) or humans. Quran argues the latter, while many paganistic religions argue the former.

---

Did not do so here.

Yes, you did. And, you do in every argument you make. You presume the existence of your gawd, then proceed to build your "proofs" around your preconceptions.

And you wonder why we find you unfailingly unconvincing.

You should take a logic course.  You can in language sometimes state the conclusion or a premise that is a conclusion from other premises. Order doesn't matter. You have to think and reflect, then see which are premises leading to others.

I've done that form of argument before of this, but people have a distaste for it. So this is in language we are use to talking.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wrote this to Valk and didn't want to bore her but it was from the heart, and I think it maybe the best way to put it so far:

I believe personally the strongest proof when it comes to God, is that his witnessing reality to all things, is how things are defined and experienced through love, we all believe there is a true reality to our personhood, and we all know it's not a physical thing, but an idea, an idea that is real and we experience as ourselves yet we don't know ourselves fully, so where does the true idea of ourselves exist?  

 
It doesn't.  No point to comment further.

[Mystic]

Love loves whom is there and appreciates the actor more then the actions of loved ones, the states behind the goal and it's true history which is known by God alone who makes us inherit our states and series of states with a goal in mind. May God guide and heal our hearts!

If it an accurate existence to who we are doesn't exist, then so is love delusional and built on false beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what if it is?