Wednesday, December 21, 2016

God No, Well Perhaps for Some

How do we define existence?
Or is god more like Schrodinger's cat, both exist and not exist at the same time?
Does something exist if we can see the effect of believing when we examine the lives of believers?

What I actually believe is twisted, but I need to explain it. Gods are at best concepts. Concepts are the only thing I know of which are beyond space and time. Concepts have no physical existence, but there existence can be inferred from there effect on people who believe. So, if we say that god is a concept only, then there is an effect which infers existence, but there is still no physical existence.
To believe is to use a full strength placebo, sort of effect. It is not real, but the effect is, to the point of having an effect. Based on observation the effect is real, yet we know that cause is only psychological. This, for some proves existence of a god.

So depending on the definition, god can be said to both exist and not exist at the same time, analogous to Schrodinger's cat. It all depends on the definition. We also see this in physics with some of the particles, where we cannot see the particle, only the effect. Some of this is waved off as a size issue. I have not yet heard a religious person claim there god is too small to see.

So we know now that god does not have a physical existence, but do concepts exist? Without a doubt, mathematics exists, yet has no physical existence. Schrodinger's cat. So god belongs to the concept class of objects that effects can be inferred but no physical existence in space nor time, and it's effects are equivalent to placebo effects. Well, OK.

This definition allows all people to be partly correct, or psychologically correct without understanding placebo effects, all the while praying to a non physical identity that is only an identity in their minds. So god only exists in the minds of the believer. End of.

After reading Peter Mickaelson, Why We Suffer, and seeing the multiple layers of emotion that Peter's muse conceives, while Buddha simplified it to "attachment to delusions", the placebo effect becomes a simple result of our "deadly flaw", or attachment to mental objects, emotions, thoughts, easily described as delusions. This we must learn to live with. For some, through a fluke of luck, the deadly flaw is weak, while for others it is strong. That attachment to our delusions is the basic problem, regardless or the delusion. The fourth Noble truth points to a solution for those of us with strong attachment to our delusions. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.   

No comments: