Proof of God

When you publish your e-mail address, you hear from a lot of interesting people. Some time ago I got a message from a guy who said something about having a four-sentence proof of God. I must have replied that I’d like to see it. Anyway, he sent it. I deleted the message months ago, but I keep getting reminded of the proof. It went something like this:

Proof of God

1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another.

2. By definition, a reality you can’t enter via any form of transportation is another dimension.

3. You comprise 100% of your dimension, because no one else can share exactly your perception.

4. If you are the entire universe within your dimension, you are God by definition, since you are everything within your own dimension.

Then he said that other people are really your perception of other dimensions, or Gods. You can see a representation of the other Gods, looking like people, but you can never experience their reality.

He went on to explain that if I send a message from my universe to yours, it always gets scrambled along the way. Sometimes it is mildly distorted, and sometimes entirely altered, as you’ve seen in my recent posts, but it is never exact.

How could you test this theory to see if it’s true? For one thing, you could verify that most messages you send out are misunderstood by the recipient. (Check) And there’s no doubt that no one sees reality the way you personally experience it, and never can. (Check)

Another thing you might look for is the number of non-interfering experiences. By that I mean, how many times is your perception of something completely different from everyone else’s perception, and the contradiction is never noticed? For example, if you and I see a dog in the park, and I come away remembering it as brown, and you remember it as white, it makes no difference if we never discuss that dog for the rest of our lives.

99.999% of what you experience is never verified with anyone else’s experience.  And that’s not even counting the times you are asleep. Only occasionally do our perceptions collide. Have you ever heard a friend (another God) tell a story in which you participated, only to think “It didn’t happen that way”? That’s because all memories are personal, and to a large extent manufactured. Your reality is truly your own.

So according to “some guy on the Internet,” you are a god.

Comments

[rüya tabirleri]

thank you veyryy

[Jesse Teshara]

Define God. Love? Creator of the universe? Father of Jesus, and omnistuff? What are we talking about? Creator of a 'dimension'? What is a dimension? I thought a single dimension was just a point. Am I making a point? I only know space (3d) and time (the fourth dimension). So what's this talk of m-theory and 11 dimensions? Maybe it IS possible to see reality from another's perspective? Like if you're a telepath, and can read people's minds, or a remote viewer? I like the comment that defined the paperweight as God. "Everything within your own dimension" is God? This is all a bit confusing. -God (read my blog: http://jesseteshara.blogspot.com)

[prefabrik evler]

Thank you for nice post.
http://www.aryol.com.tr/Afetkonut.html

[Viana]

Olá Galera sem Dúvida é Show de Bola esse Assunto, em breve estarei

aqui para comentar mais a respeito,

Abraços

Leandro

http://www.soletrasdemusicas.com.br Musica Gospel etc
http://www.sabetudo.net/web
http://www.sabetudo.net/comrpar
http://www.kit-direito.com

[MissBliss]

WOW!! had this very discussion earlier...looking for insite, I found this...it makes alot of sense. I would love to read your thoughts on the King James Bible...great way to provoke thought. ~!excellent post~

[rüya yorumları]

thanks good post

[Jesus freak]

you want to know what I think?
you cant be God even though God exist a God is defined by something that has power over you cant have power over your self! if you did then you'd be A God but not the one and true GOD makes sense?

[Physik]

nice post!

[Brant Boucher]

This "proof" doesn't prove you're God. It proves that you are a Monad. The guy has obviously never read Leibnitz.

[Karenalien]

I read this:
"what's the probability that the message he sent you reached unscrambled? He could be saying you are a pig in your own dimension and you interpreted it as God????"
just as http://www.radioparadise.com
played a song called "Angelhead" and I heard the words "I'm a pig and you're a pig"
I think you and the man who runs that site are both watching (over?) me. Does that make you both gods?

[kingfisher]

I am a God dreaming that I'm mortal. The universe and everything in it are just figments of my imagination.

[KRKR8M]

dug-lass "2+2=4 is a fact." Thank you for restating my point. Without the ability to at least partially percieve anothers point-of-view, it would be impossible to communicate or agree on what "1" is let alone "2+2". There would have never been a basis for communication let alone a language to communicate with. e.g. Caveman A holds up 2 bannanas with the intent to represent 1+1=2 Caveman B percieves that as a sexual advance and violates Caveman A with the bannana.

[nyky]

This all really funny because God doesn't exist.

[Brazilianguy]

Seeing those statements in a different perspective, that doesn't say you are god. Another possible interpretation for this would be that all your interactions with reality are filtered by the way your perceptions and senses measures those interactions. So, in a sense, no one can experience reality the same way as another. That doesn't exclude communications, however, it only means that the person you are interacting with will have filtered and altered the information with their own perceptions.
But that doesn't mean you are god, only if you believe that reality itself is an extension of your perceptions and your mind (which is called "solipsism"). Considering that not to be true, because the opposite would mean all this doesn't exist outside your mind, a true god would be something that encompasses all possible perceptions or, in another approach, the true reality, unmodified by any perceptions.
The concept of reality existing only as we perceive it or the existance of something beyond from which we all draw our perceptions from is one of the pillars of philosophy and I don't expect that to be solve here.

[Flavio]

The problem with this guy's "proof" is that it is based on a quite circular or at least very loose definition of "god"...

[ande986]

I thought that theories existed to be proven wrong? By using a theory to evaluate a situation we become biased in our perspective of both God and human beings. And hey, my dad is LLP if that means anything to you.

[tdouglas]

"If not a single speck of reality [truth] can be perceived as perceived by another person, then anything communicated by someone cannot be understood even partially as intended. This of course is nonsense."

I wouldn't go to the length to assume that nothing communicated by one can be understood by another. This is conceivable as far as experiences go. But as far as facts go, much can be clearly communicated from one to another. 2+2=4 is a fact. We can prove it, we can show it to others, and 99% of people can understand this.

[matt m]

If everyone one is God, who cares? It's a meaningless concept.

[Jerry McLellan]

I perceive; therefore I am God?? I'm not buying it.

[Alexandra]

Try this:

In a bright room, open one eye while keeping the other closed - for, say, 5 minutes.

Now enter a moderately lit room and alternate opening your eyes: you will perceive two somewhat different realities, one through each eye. Even the colours will look different to each eye. Which is the true reality? Both? Neither?

If we cannot even rely on our two eyes to see things in the same way, how can we make the giant leap to trying to see things through the eyes of another person? How do we know if their left eye or right eye was the closed one?

The variations on this experiment are endless....so why are people still going on as if there were ONE REALITY for each of us?

[KRKR8M]

If "It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another." than all communication is impossible.
If not a single speck of reality (synonym in this usage - truth) can be perceived as perceived by another person than anything communicated by someone cannot be understood even partially as intended. This of course is nonsense.
Empathy is the non-supernatural ability to understand what others are communicating. Some people have very limited ability like those who cannot understand what is directly said/written to them (many of your readers). And others have the ability to read “body language” and other forms of non-intentional communication (I am reminded of the TV show Mind Control, could be all fake though I expect most of it is real).
To be God is to have all knowledge, including reality as seen through the eyes of another. Everything can be understood with enough knowledge.
As a side note, I do not believe in the supernatural yet I believe in god (God/Allah/Deus/Eloah). – Eloah is the Hebrew word for God and has the same root as Allah. Most Hebrew scripture is written with Elohim which is the plural of Eloah or in another word Gods. Have fun with that!

[Nick]

Basically this boils down to you being a perspective. An individual is only a perspective within their own reality. Nothing more. I would like the guy that said there were obvious flaws in the theary to point them out instead of acting like they were so obvious anyone could see them. Personally I think he was a liar that couldn't handle the possibility of this being true.

We as a race tend to only think of humankind when considering such thought provoking items. I believe that's one of our greatest flaws. I've wondered if insects would also have such a god consciousness. At times they seem to act as if they are one consciousness. Is it one perspective, or many? We humans also do this. We get in these big metal boxes and take them down a line to another location. We follow a pattern that may give the same sense to a higher being what we sense when looking at insects. Does that mean at some level we as a group are really just one perspective? We definally have group rules that define when it's OK and not OK to do certain actions. If I went out and killed someone that would be considered bad by the group and probably a prison term with the possiblity of being executed(a group decision). Now if the group says it's ok to kill such and such, the group allows it. War for example. The group decides that killing is OK in this case. Does that mean that a group has a perspected separate from the individual?

[Harry Roberts]

I knew it! I'm a God! No, very interesting and provoking article, thanks!

[Yuriy]

Ah, yes, this reminds me of the classic proof that women are evil.

1. money = root of all evil.

2. time = money.

3. women = time x money = (root of evil) x (root of evil)

Therefore Women are EVIL.

[No one]

From Stranger in a Strange Land: Thou art God.

[Bob]

What this proofs is how far off your conclusions can be when your logic is flawed. But you knew that, it's one of your trademarks to alter a logical statement just a little bit so that the result becomes absurd.
Sometimes however I get the impression that you use this trick so often that you don't realize it anymore(?)

I'll leave it to others to point out exactly where the flaw is.

[Sandra]

It took you this long to find that out?

[gordon_goosemonster]

If I'm a God how come I've just shit my pants?

[Seán]

I make mistakes, therefore I think, therefore I am. "God" is incapable of mistakes therefore he doesn't exist.

[Alexandra]

I hope you're happy: now I will have to undergo an identity crisis!

I always knew I had the body of a Goddess - a paleolithic fertility goddess, but goddess none the less.

And now, this guy on the internet says I am really a God? Does that make me a God trapped in the body of a Goddess?!?!?!

Of course, I would first have to accept the unfounded assertion that there IS such a thing as reality.... There could be, but having only imperfect sense-perceptions to draw on simply does not provide us enough reliable data.

Oh my Me! Does that mean that I am not a God any more?

[gazza666]

As many others have noted: if you are free to define god however you like, then obviously you can define it in such a way that it exists.

But that's not really proving anything other than that you understand pedantry. :)

[Jess]

i enjoy this new perspective =) keep up the ego-inflating, scott =p

[Chris @ Martial Development]

If I remember correctly, Spinoza proved God in eight lines, and his premises were more compelling.

http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/spinoza-old-master-philosopher-of-the-west/

[CmdrSue]

I have come to worship the One True Paperweight on Scott's desk.

[amenot]

"I am God and you are God... "
I agree.
And who the hell is the Almighty, Omnipotent, Omniscient GOD, the One described in the Bible?
Does it mean we're Atheists?

[thieves44]

I don't buy it. This might show that we can see ourselves as god-like in our preceptions but it does not show that we are like a creator-god. If I was a creator-god I would have done many things differently, perhaps giving larger breasts to more women etc. ;)

Also - does this mean that if I didn't preceive something - it never actually happened?

[eddie]

nuh uh

[Jonathan]

Step 1: Define paperweight on your table as "God".
Step 2: Claim said paperweight exists and get others to confirm it.
Step 3: Therefore, God exists.
Step 4: Collect tithes.

[Paul]

This sounds like a form of solipsism, which isn't necessarily to say the idea doesn't have any merit - or that it does.
To take the dog in the park thing a step further, what if we both agree the dog is brown, but in reality you see brown the way I see red, for example, and I see brown the way you see blue. We just can't appreciate the fact that we see the dog differently, because we're using the same label - brown - to decribe disparate perceptions of the same thing.

[Mike Mandell]

Almost nobody perceives things the way I do.

Does that make me the head god?

[Doug Withau]

So if I get what you say in this blog, mostly, am I a God like you?
Now it is all an argument about who has the biggest God. Can't we just whip out our Gods and measure them to settle this? It will probably end up in a war over using metric or "normal" units. Sigh.

[Andy Watt]

(without wanting to turn this into a messageboard!)

Nick For Now -

I have read Lila - I only quoted the first book as I figured it was a quick and easy way to help without starting to go into static and dynamic quality, latching, etc etc etc...

Besides, I figured that the differences in view about how the motorcycle worked - it's either the "whole thing" and it does what it does, and you give it to a motorcycle mechanic to fix because you don't want to know the minute details (romantic), OR it's an integration of components(classical), etc etc.

They are good books and do unite some seemingly disparate metaphysics. They're cool too, man.

[James]

Good one, Scott, you've whipped up all kinds of cognitive dissidance on this one. Allow me to evaluate each one of the statements and shoot them down as strawmen arguments that don't hold their own weight under scientific scrutiny.

" 1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another. "

This assumption doesn't go far enough, maybe? If the mind is a self-delusion generating machine, then it could be said that it's impossible to see reality through your own eyes, much less somebody else's.

"2. By definition, a reality you can’t enter via any form of transportation is another dimension."

Height, width, depth, time, mass-energy, angular-momentum, charge.... a reality you can't enter!? I always thought that a dimension was a quantity that can be measured by any and all observers, not just a single observer.

"3. You comprise 100% of your dimension, because no one else can share exactly your perception."

If that is so, then why is there a such thing as group think? i.e. Your perception is actually an integral sum of all of the perceptions of every single living cell in your body. I consider that to be a case of biological 'group think'.... it is merely a matter of extending this idea to every living thing within an organization and then saying that an entire organization also exhibits an integral perception of reality too.

"4. If you are the entire universe within your dimension, you are God by definition, since you are everything within your own dimension."

You are merely an individual within an organization, and that oranization is merely an organization within an even larger organization, and so on and so forth, until you arive at the conclusion that the entire multiverse is God, and you are but a pawn in a much greater scheme of things.

But, other than stirring up a whole bunch of cognitive dissidance among the emoticons out there, what good is talking about philosophy anyway!?

[JayneMarie]

1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another.

I have long argued that there are core truths which we SHARE. (Yes, some people will NOT see the core truths, even when they are a part of your reality, and more people will never even be a part of your reality.) So, even though you (and everyone else) may be mostly misunderstood, we have enough shared reality to laugh at Dilbert, have this discussion, and for you to tell your wife that you love her. You even have shared realities with your cats which allow you to communicate with them to a degree. Without some shared reality or core truths, we would be completely isolated.

Having said that, Father Guido Sarducci DID ordain me as God.

[Andi]

I was just reading Candice's comment about Vampirella and the party, and thinking that Vampirella surely has an entirely different reality of what happened at that party.

I bet /her/ story would go something like this: "I was dressed up as Vampirella at this party, and my costume was so damn hot that all the boys were hitting on me. I started saying to some girl that I was afraid to walk home alone in this outfit, and she starts getting all preachy to me about how I should have covered myself up. Damn prissy bitch. Then I pushed her and she fell down the stairs, and her skirt went up and the whole party saw her fat ass. I never saw THAT girl at another party!"

Is that proof of God's existence?

[Nick For Now]

I am a God the same way one of my red blood cells is a God the same way the city of New York is a God. Since I'm not a consistent being (i have concious thoughts that contradict eachother) then I'm actually made up of hundreds of dimensions that I can't even verify with myself. just like new york, just like a cell. I think both are "alive" in the sense that they perceive and react with the environment around them, and that they created themselves. I think the food chain goes like this (in order of how concious they are):

cell < me < New York

Also, guy that read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", you should read his second book, Lila.

[right on man you are so correct -- Scott]

[No way did I actually reply to this lame post. -- REAL Scott]

[Berimbauone]

My sister says that when we were 3 and 6 we saw some gnomes or smurfs come out of the bookshelf and do a dance around us. The weirdest part is I remember it exactly as she does, but I thought I had dreamed it!!!
Here are the facts according to us:

1. We were sitting in the living room watching TV
2. We heard signing of many little voices from the bookshelf on the far end of the living room
3. A group of elfs or smurfs came out walking in line and they made a cicle around us; they were about 3" tall.
4. They sang and danced for a while, it was fun, we were laughing.
5. We have no recollection of how it ended.

Perhaps we were in the same universe for a moment or we both had the same dream.

http://berimbauone.blogspot.com

[Patrick M]

I know you are paraphrasing, but premises 2, 3 and 4 are false.

It is important to have the exact wording he used originally, because distinctions between 'seeing' entering' and 'comprisng' are vitally important in determining the soundness of the reasoning used.

As it is:

Premise 2 is false as well as irrelevant. We live in 3 dimensions that we CAN enter, therefore the definition is incorrect.

Premises 3 and 4 are invalid because they rely on 2 which is invalid.

[Cristian Cornea]

That's exactly the case when you and someone else see a red object that may or may not appear the same colour to both of you. What you know as red may not appear into the other person's eyes the same way, yet there is no way of finding out.

I guess if you can comprehend another person's universe, there'd be no autist people...

[Tom]

hmm... what happens if I send to myself an email via one of those services that sends back the email lets say two years later?

Can I probably misunderstand myself?

Sometimes I read in my diary and find that my memory is partly wrong. Am I a multitude of gods? Heaven!

[Mark]

"If that is so, then why is there a such thing as group think?
Posted by: James"

Ah, group think is much like "rich" or "left" or "right". It's always someone else. Group think can be phrased as "the thoughts of someone else that doesn't agree with what you believe and you wish to indicate that their incorrect thought is merely a parroting of someone else's incorrect line of reasoning".

[Kris]

i have this friend who insists i'm his god. is there any way he could be right and not contradict this theory? i don't want to lose my only worshiper because of *some guy on the internet* :(

[Mark]

"She cornered me and some friends out on the balcony, and was whining on and on about how she was afraid to go home alone with some guy because she'd get raped in that outfit. So I told her she should have brought a coat or something.

Posted by: Candice"

You could have offered to help her home or loan her a coat. She was probably fairly unlikely to get raped (unless US boys are a lot different from UK boys when I was one) though she might have been pressured into aquiescing to something, she would always be allowed to say "no".

You acted poorly because you saw her as "stealing the limelight" from you and therefore lost any sense of compassion for the predicament. If you'd offered some help and THEN said "mind you, if you were going to be worried about that sort of thing, you should have brought a coat yourself, or dressed a little less revealingly". If she'd pushed you downstairs, I would suggest that saying "OK, make your own way home" would be acceptable.

[rita mae]

Damn, Scott! You are some guy on the internet. So am I a God?

Thanks, I needed that.

Rita Mae

[Bill]

According to an Old Testament verse quoted by Yoshua Ben-Yosef in the New Testament: "God said, you are gods".

I still fall into the pond when I try to walk across it, though.

[yes]

"Christians are funny, consider this:

They ask who created the world.
They say God.
They don't ask who created God."

Why do things need to be created?

The temporal has a beginning and an end.

Does the spiritual? Why? On what basis can you infer the necessity of beginning and ending onto a spiritual being?

The easy answer is God always has existed. He created space, matter and time, so this concept of there being a time when He didn't exits is irrelevant.

[A God who couldn't create himself wouldn't be much of a God. -- Scott]

[John Radke]

Well, in my humble yet god-like opinion, you defined god as "somebody who has their own reality", then connected it with the fairly mundane truism that everybody has their own version of reality. So, sure, we're all gods, but it's got nothing to do with anybody else's definition of god.

[GeneH]

So what does this prove? It says nothing about a loving creator of the universe, which is what most of us mean when we talk about whether "God" exists. At best, if it works, the proof shows that "gods" exist. Big deal.

[Andy Watt]

Interesting to see some quotes from eastern thought in the comments - the inherent cage that is the western style of metaphysical thought is one of the problems, hmmmm?

It's going to be a predictable thing to add, but Mr Adams, you should read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" if you haven't already (it goes some way to creating something which unites western and eastern structures).

A lot of the questions you've been asking lately were thrown into some very good relief by this book when I read it - in fact, you could see his opening question of "romantic versus classical understanding" as being a question on the "cognitive dissonance" you've been keen on in the last couple of weeks.

If you've already read it, then apologies for the inconvenience (note, should only be read at 10 point and not 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 point).

[Sam Davis]

The "you are a god" idea is close to the teachings of the Mahayana schools of Buddhism, which boil down to "the human being is the supreme being," and that each of us has the potential for "enlightenment" or "buddhahood." This squarely places the power over one's life within oneself.

[Dilbert's Rabbi]

Funny post! BTW, if I am God and if YOU are God... it makes me WANT to depend on an Almighty, Omnipotent, Omniscient GOD like the One described in the Bible.

[HALiverpool]

Doesn't that "proof" pre-suppose free-will? Since one is just a moist robot, one has no control over one's "universe". How could one with no control be considered a god? While "perception is reality" may be a useful retail business principle, it is not a physical law. If one walks off a cliff without perceiving the cliff or gravity, one will still fall and become flat at the bottom. How does a rock perceive the cliff or gravity?

Scott Adams and myself perceive the world differently and our communication is imperfect. That doesn't mean the world doesn't exist nor that we shouldn't communicate.

-HAL

[Candice]

I always figured men who needed women to have skinny little asses were really looking for little boys to *uck. But of course, that's just me. I am sure the women with the skinny little asses would disagree that guys like them from behind because then they look like little boys. :)

One time, back in college, I went to a party, and there was this girl dressed up like Vampirella. Everything was on display, and she got the most attention from the boys, and I didn't like it, and neither did all my friends, who wore jeans to the party. We just sat there while she got all the attention. But we were the ones who cooked for them and all that.

She cornered me and some friends out on the balcony, and was whining on and on about how she was afraid to go home alone with some guy because she'd get raped in that outfit. So I told her she should have brought a coat or something. She started yelling and shrieking, "You think you're my mother!! Shut up, bitch!!" She went on,"You're just dressing like that because you have a fat ass!!!"

She pushed me down the stairs and my knee length flared skirt shot up above my waist and everyone could see my perfectly shaped legs, hips and ass. I had bruises all up and down me for days for expressing some concern for her safety. I had just dressed down because I also enjoy the friendship of other women, and dressing to the hilt can mess with that.

So guess what? I never saw that girl at another party. ;)

[obiDonWan]

People who read your blog are weird.

[cr steuusy]

reminds me of bishop berkeley's proof of god which went something like; in oreder for things to exist they must be perceived. things outside of our perception continue to exist therefore they must exist in the perception of god.

also reminds me of "god's debris". funny you offer no link to that.

[friskybeaver]

If you let this guy reinterpret definitions however he wants, he could prove anything. I can prove God exists by making up definitions to:

1.People are, by definition, Gods.
2.I am a person, who exists, therefore God (me) exists.

It's just stupid, preachy, dribble.

[jerry w.]

O.K.,
I'm coming back, and I'm pissed!

And I don't mean that in the English way, I'm dead sober and after more than 2000 years of being dead and having an endless run of a-holes taking my name and using it to promote their agendas, it's payback time.

You ask for proof? I got your proof swinging right here. Those of you who fell under the spell of any of the tele-evangelists with bad hair, or gave money to any of the politicians on the religious right who claimed to have heard from me, you might ask Scott Adams exactly where he buys his flameproof underwear. I'd recommend Nomex, but then it might seem like an endorsement and I don't do those.

By the way, does anyone have a good deli they can point me to? I'd kill (just kidding, see my pops' 10 commandments) for a nice corned beef sandwich and a creme soda. And a pickle on the side.

Jesus H. Christ,

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Joshua]

But how could you be sure your message was misinterpreted? Maybe it was interpreted right, but you interpreted their response wrong. Maybe all forms of human interaction is obsolete now.

Anyway, I get emails from people trying to sell me "man pills", so I not sure if an inbox is a great place to get views about God.

[BobUK]

Eric posted a 'proof' of God from Jorge Luis Borges called 'Argumentum Ornithologicum'. There is but one response possible:

What a load of bollocks!

So, if Jorge had seen the vision for a few seconds longer and was able to count the birds, does that mean that God doesn't exist?

This isn't philosophy - it's over stretching a very poor use of mathematical set theory. 'Argumentum Arsehologicum' more like!

[Greg]

"So when my house got blown away by a hurricane and the insurance company says it's an Act of God, who are they blaming? Me? Them? Everybody?!!!!!"

They're blaming themselves, but only in a dimension you cannot hope to access.

[Neil Sampson]

Yes I am a God

and I am an angry God!

so you had all better duck.....

NOW!

[ml/nj]

My perceptions almost always differ from those of the Commodities Scam Queen.

[Enough Wealth]

Yawn. I think all this philosotainment has converted me from a weak atheist (or is that strong agnostic?) into a pragmatist.

Can't we get some posts that are funny for a change? If you've seen 298 dancing monkey comments, you've seen them all.

Regards
http://enoughwealth.com

[Homo Engineerus]

This is proven on a daily basis with when any man talks to a woman, the question "does my bum look big in this" the answer is complety imaterial as what is heard is "yes it does" and that starts a argument. So this proof women are god and men are the devil.

Possible answers and what is heard by the woman.
"no you look lovely" = "huge arse"
"thats fantastic" = "thats just as big as yeturday lardy"
"yes" = "I want a divorce because you are fat"

[Dramenbnejs]

Christians are funny, consider this:

They ask who created the world.
They say God.
They don't ask who created God.

So they traded bad question for a little mind numbing. They never meet with with anything like what-they-describe-as-God in real, so they are not tempted to ask where it comes from.

Bible is filthy brainwash, at least The Genesis which I have read.

[ShaunL]

I'm not a God- I have neither a trident, beard, nor a chariot pulled by swans.

[matt]

So when my house got blown away by a hurricane and the insurance company says it's an Act of God, who are they blaming? Me? Them? Everybody?!!!!!

[Kevin Kunreuther]

in response to Tutu:
"

I prefer the Douglas Adams text on the proof of God...

God... "I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing"

DA's character... "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it"

hee hee hee"

In the Universe of THGTTG, that simplified piece of logic is a syllogism, but is nevertheless very amusing. [My uncredited contribution to the saga, the inspiration for God's Final Message To His Creation (many years ago when I was a very young man, I suggested to Douglas Adams that God have a blinking neon billboard hundreds of thousands miles long spelling out, "Sorry about that," after seeing Don Adams as Maxwell Smart on a TV at the Airport bar say it, which Douglas Adams eventually translated to burning letters on the side of the mountain saying,"we apologize for the inconvenience") is something that makes me feel proud.]

The way I react to the Universe and how it responds to me is not a God vis a vis creation type relationship, so those four sentences is pooh. I'm not a god and neither is anybody else, unless we are lowering the standards for God or god around here (damn egalitarians!)

[random]

Funny, that is something I have said myself many a time (often fuelled by alcohol), we are each our own god. And I used a reasoning along same lines as well. Good to have someone agree with me, people usually just assume that I have a high opinion of myself when I say that.

[Andy Geers]

You and I have different definitions of 'God' - in the Biblical sense, a god is only a God if they are the creator - the first cause that owns and has rights over their creation. You didn't even create yourself, let alone anything else.

[Chris]

500 proofs of gods existence? You must be kidding...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

3
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
I define a 3-armed, 4-legged, 6-breasted woman to be X
Since I can conceive X, X must exist
Therefore, a 3-armed, 4-legged, 6-breasted woman exists. There's actually a drawing of her on my cubicle wall.

etc.

[GS]

God does exist, now, caring about anything, that's another issue...

[G. H. Diel]

Yes, it is true, I am God, (don‘t try to say my name).

First, I created the trees of ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil’ and the ‘Tree of Life’, each promising lots good stuff and immortality to boot. That didn't work out so well … several times.

Another eureka moment, and now, I have created the tree of ’Different Perceptions’, this time I think I got it right.

Warning again, especially Christians: Don't eat the fruit from this tree, either, ... or you shall constantly crash into each other and blindly fall over cliffs ... to say the least.

As for the rest of you: I created seventy-two virgins, only seventy-two. That seemed just about right at the time.

GHD

[G. H. Diel]

Yes, it is true, I am God, (don‘t try to say my name).

First, I created the trees of ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil’ and the ‘Tree of Life’, each promising lots good stuff and immortality to boot. That didn't work out so well … several times.

Another eureka moment, and now, I have created the tree of ’Different Perceptions’, this time I think I got it right.

Warning again, especially Christians: Don't eat the fruit from this tree, either, ... or you shall constantly crash into each other and blindly fall over cliffs ... to say the least.

As for the rest of you: I created seventy-two virgins, only seventy-two. That seemed just about right at the time.

GHD

[Manoj]

In Sanskrit, there is a phrase from one of the Vedas - "Aham Bramha-smi" - translating to "I am Bramha (God)". Could this be what the author had in mind when he wrote it.

Also, from the responses so far, doesn't look like anyone has latched on to the thought - shows how lossy the inter-universe communication is.

[Eric]

Jorge Luis Borges wrote one of the most poignant proofs of god which I include below (in an escape from the mundane hecklers and Douglas Adams fans previous) in a prose titled 'Argumentum Ornithologicum' from the collection "The Maker."

"I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer -- not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. -- is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists."

[Nick]

@heynoni

In your explanation what is everyone observing and adapting too? It would seem to be an objective reality we all share, are affected by, and subject too.

(Same Nick that made the original statement)

[neopolitan]

We are all gods to the same extent to which we are all Napoleon Boneparte (for a given value of "being Napoleon Boneparte").

For all those getting tied up in the logical fallacy argument, although "logical fantasy" is probably more accurate, it can easily be argued that gods are, or God is, immune not only to cognitive dissonance but also logic. There is even non-religious, logician sourced, support for the idea (see Gödel's incompleteness theory and Russell's theory of sets paradox).

Basically it boils down to self-reference, if you have a self referential statement then logic can tie itself into knots. "Everything I say is a lie" is an example of the problem. Is the sentence true? It can't be, if everything I say is a lie, but then this just proves that sentence is true, in which case not everything I say is a lie, and the sentence is a lie and hence the sentence can be true - in which case it is false ... and so on.

Thinking, as theists do, that god is all encompassing, then all statements about god will by necessity be self referential. Therefore logical inconsistencies, like the conflicts raised by god's purported omnipotence (can god make an immovable object, yes, can god move it, yes - how can it be immovable then?) should be expected.

This doesn't make god real, but it's worth noting that logic internal to a god's creation doesn't destroy the creator.

The logic of Scott's correspondent falls into a similar category. Whether right or wrong, any apparent logical fallacy is only to be expected. Therefore, the proof is no proof at all - if there is no logical fallacy, then the applicability of the proof is highly suspect but if there is a logical fallacy, then the proof fails immediately.

cheers,

neopolitan

[James]

" 1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another. "

This assumption doesn't go far enough, maybe? If the mind is a self-delusion generating machine, then it could be said that it's impossible to see reality through your own eyes, much less somebody else's.

"2. By definition, a reality you can’t enter via any form of transportation is another dimension."

Height, width, depth, time, mass-energy, angular-momentum, charge.... a reality you can't enter!? I always thought that a dimension was a quantity that can be measured by any and all observers, not just a single observer.

"3. You comprise 100% of your dimension, because no one else can share exactly your perception."

If that is so, then why is there a such thing as group think? i.e. Your perception is actually an integral sum of all of the perceptions of every single living cell in your body. I consider that to be a case of biological 'group think'.... it is merely a matter of extending this idea to every living thing within an organization and then saying that an entire organization also exhibits an integral perception of reality too.

"4. If you are the entire universe within your dimension, you are God by definition, since you are everything within your own dimension."

You are merely an individual within an organization, and that oranization is merely an organization within an even larger organization, and so on and so forth, until you arive at the conclusion that the organization of the entire multiverse is God, and you are but a pawn in a much grander scheme of things.

But what good is talking about philosophy anyway!?

[Ethan]

This kind of theory is what the dismissive philosophical label "uninteresting" was invented for. The god proved by this argument is obviously not the interesting god whose existence we usually debate. It's rather like "ending" an argument by pulling out a dictionary definition of one of the terms... it's not ultimately the terms that matter, but the idea. Turning "god" into a completely uninteresting concept that -- based on a laughably vague and over-reaching definition of a "dimension" -- bears no resemblance to the god whose existence has been discussed for the past ten thousand years, accomplished nothing. If you (or I, or especially you AND I) are "gods" as a result of a clever definition, that definition is prima facie not one that I care about.

Besides, it doesn't even work on its own terms. The generally accepted bar for God-hood is omnipotence and omniscience. You may have omniscience in your subjective reality by definition, but you sure as hell don't have omnipotence in it. And when did it become allowable to divvy up god-hood by dimension? If your "dimension" can reach out and affect mine, and it obviously can, then we will contest for omnipotence.

If you like an argument that turns the existence of subjective perception into proof of god-hood, I can put it into a smaller package for you:

"I'm god, because I don't know any better."

[Mr K]

It's about time someone noticed.

[the man in the trout mask]

This is just a rip off of "Subjective Omnipotence - Creation by Mass Delusion" written by Alfred Neurath von Puhl Richter zem Willig und Schlaufen (1743 - 1798).
Anyone who has read this - and I think that most of us have - will recall the passage ..... "Neurasmic gestalt is not merely the appearance of created plethora within a self ordained dimension but is,in fact,creation through the cerebral synapses and,as such,is an occluded reality, apparent only by random thought and sustained by a biological hypnosis of the autonomous nervous system."

Case closed - nothing more to say.

[Matt]

I don't give a shit about this topic.

I can't prove there is a god.
I can't disprove that there is a god.

Instead, I will deal with issues that will have an effect on my life and leave the 'god debate' to those who have nothing better to do with their time.

[Attie Naude]

How about the classic philosophical proof for the existence of god?

1.) God is, by definition, perfect in every way.
2.) It is better to exist than not to.

Hence god must exist.

I know it's lame and it has holes in it the size of goat's nads, but it's the only one I remember, damnit!

[The Sound of KOINK]

Boring and pedantic. Not up to snuff.

[Jackrabbit]

This news would be much more reassuring and believable if it hadn't come from another dimension.

[Robin Burchett]

If you were offered the job of god, would you take it? How about if 'some guy on the internte' got to write the job description?

Claiming that we're all god is cute, and helps sell new-age books, but lets be honest, what we'd be hoping for with that position is the ability to make shit happen. Volcanos! Orgies! Smiting your next door neighbor when he lets his dog bark after midnight. Getting stubborn stains out of the carapet from where the dog threw up behind the christmas tree. And world peace, of course, just like Miss America.

[Nicki Lagrange]

'So according to “some guy on the Internet,” you are a god.' ...well, duh!

[okgenuine]

Most confusing comments ever.

[freebert]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...do Gods have 'free will'? Because - wait....you don't have 'free will' - hmmmm...theory so blown...unless...wait...you...whoa...you might have, OH MY GOD...could it be...'free will'...

Ha!

Which is it?

[sp]

Thought provoking as ever. The answer to God is elusive. I really don't understand why the search for proof continues to be a matter of such importance. How would a definite answer change your life?

[Jim]

I don't need some guy on the internet to tell me that I'm God.

[Mark]

Perception and memory are not the same. And exact message transmission is quite easy, at least for simple declaratives.

[zarattustra]

thats explains my egocentrism... and my thirst of blood, you know, Im not crazy or psicotic after all.

[James]

That's not testing the theory at all. To actually test it, you'd need to distinguish an observable outcome from a world in which we are all gods and such from the outcome given identical input in a world where the prevailing theory, i.e. 'he is a nutbag' is correct.

Can't just say it fits the facts. To properly test it, you gotta find a predicted difference.

[Kevin Kunreuther]

That's not a definition of God or you as god of your own universe, that's self-delusion fed by quantum happenstances. It's entertaining stuff to contemplate in a forum such as this but dangerous to believe and practice. Sounds like the definition not of a God but the mandate of a sociopath or a psychopath on the verge of a rampage. (Check on the character Dwayne Hoover from book Breakfast of Champions and the havoc he wrought when he mistakenly believed everyone was a moist robot and he was the only human being with free will).

[Brad K.]

I am not God, nor a god. The fact that my perceptions define a procession of experiences (mine) through the time I experience certainly defines a set of perceptions. Labeling that set of perceptions a 'dimension', as if assigning that particular label also confers the mathematical and logical consequences of what is agreed upon that 'dimension' means .. sounds like a very loose analogy. Or comes from another dimension.

But allowing Bozo's terminology for the moment, and my perceptions define my dimension, that only describes my dimension. Whether I am god (not!), or my dimension is 'filled' with my soul, or my mind, or is a figment of historical hologram programming, this is poor logic. By extension of Bozo's paradigm, either everyone is 'god' in their own goddom, or we are all co-perception-defined dimensionalist occupants of the mortal persuasion.

That is, I think the four sentence 'proof' is flawed, and instead fails to prove that we are each a god, and also implies that there is a super-being or god, that permits the Babel of everyone having their own perception-defined universe or 'dimension'. Although I thing there is too much hand-waving, and the establishment of 'dimensions' by this 'proof is also suspect.

This 'proof' sounds like a missionary presentation to ignorant heathens. Only some of the concepts and consistency got lost in the translation from Divine Inspiration. But wait - doesn't the Perceived Dimension theory preclude divine inspiration? The words of God writ direct to mortal brain kind of loses it's impact if each individual is God within its own dimension..

Nope. I don't buy Bozo's Theory of Perceived Dimensional Godhood.

[Tutu]

I prefer the Douglas Adams text on the proff of God...

God... "I refuse to prove I exist because proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing"

DA's character... "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it"

hehehe

[seth]

This post was blogged under the category "General nonsense', Scott didn't explictly state that he agreed with the notion that we are all 'gods' in our own dimensions... relax guys, it's just something interesting to read on. We do not have to form clear-cut opinions on everything we read now, do we ?

[ceolaf]

So, what?

If we all are gods, then the term is meaningless. Then we need a new term for what we used to mean by 'god.'

This definition just plays with semantics. He made some observations about consciousness, perception and communication.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't this concept of some higher/greater power(s), which by definition we are not. Or most of us are not. Or most of YOU are not.

[randomness]

Scott, here's a page with over 500 proofs of god's existance.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[Eric]

So, if "some guy on the internet" says I'm god, does that make Al Gore the "meta-meta-god"? --- Satan

[heynoni]

NICK said:

"if everyone had a different, subjective account of reality freeways would not work."

Maybe said in jest, but just to be pedantic for a moment:

Freeways work because the majority of people are conditioned via time, observation and experience to assume that driving on the wrong side of the road, not giving way, not merging carefully, not exiting at the right time ... etc ... will cause themselves and others no end of grief.

Hence, despite our individual perceptions, many accepted norms are adopted by all of us in the name of social responsibility and personal safety.

[Andres]

Cool! What does it pay?
:-)

[BigFan]

One of the highlights of my cubical career was the day (many months ago)when Scott Adams answered a note I'd emailed to him. Thank you, Scott.

[Leushenko]

Isn't this pantheistic solipsism? I think it's not a new idea, but the ideas that you can't argue against and make no difference either way are always least popular.

[Sam]

Hmmm.... How do you/he define "God"? What are the necessary properties?

[Ned]

Thank "Me" for this post, Scott. It explains so much that I only occasionally got a glimpse of when reading Heinlein - and then only before I gave up drinking .

Seriously, while this rationale for God is absolutely useless (praying to myself is far less useful to me than playing with myself, and that doesn't get much of anything done, either) - it is nonetheless fascinating. And if I ever encounter someone who doesn't believe at all in anything beyond themselves, I can now prove to them that they aren't really atheists after all (in the process ruining their whole day - if not their whole life - and any day you can pull a mind(ahem) on someone who's obnoxiously doctrinare - well, that's got to be a good day.

Ned

PS - I've got nothing against agnostics - but I have no use at all for Strong Believers who try to impose THEIR BELIEFS on others - and nobody does this better than atheists (which makes no sense whatsoever - if they don't believe, why bother to care? - but none the less, they obsess over their belief in a negative - in the absence of something they claim not to care about).

[Marcus]

So you're saying that you believe you're a God and supreme ruler of the Universe?

:) Sorry couldn't resist. I'll guarantee that some fruitbat will blog that about you soon enough though.

[ComidaDos]

Point 3 is a fallacy and therefore the conclusion is not proven.

[Steveo]

I am a god... however, evidently othergods have determined that my p3n1s is still needing enlargement.

[Sam Thornton]

I'm God. I deny my own existence. Now what?

[Sam Solipsist]

Ye Gods!!!

[Keith Wooly]

This stuff is better than Jabberwocky.
Keep it up.

[Ian Blais]

Nice Thought Experiment Scott but unfortunately that is completely illogical. You can't verify that everything you say is misunderstood because if thats true then all responses would be scrambled again on the way back. It is therefore impossible to verify that they either did or didn't understand it. In fact this post was probably scrambled on the way to my brain... and my reply will be scrambled on the way to yours. Damn... well... i guess that whatever you're reading right now wasn't what I just said. But if you read that then I must have said something different! That means I Did Say that!! but then I... I... GAAAAHHH!!! HEAD IN PAIN!!! *falls unconscious*

[D. Mented]

That's.....disturbingly rational.....
D. Mented

[RavenBlack]

On a vaguely related note that you might find amusing, and kind of as a response to a couple of commenters mentioning the "reality is a computer simulation" thing, I have an amusing observation on that front.

If you know about computer games (the most common 'simulation' nowadays), you know that, for the most part, things that you are not watching are approximated. In, say, Grand Theft Auto, the city as a whole is not filled with cars moving around, avoiding each other, sometimes exploding. Even (in some versions), immediately behind you, cars just aren't there. There's an approximation of them, which kicks in when you look around. There's a vague "X cars per minute will round this corner" at the junction ahead of you. Only when they come [nearly] into view do they start being fully simulated. One side effect of this, for example, is that cars out of sight don't ever bump into each other.

Now consider 'reality'. As a curious guy, I expect you're vaguely familiar with the double-slit experiment as evidence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In summary, if you shoot individual photons at a pair of slits, an interference pattern will form as if they are waves, even though no photons are in fact travelling together, so (in any pre-quantum physics) they shouldn't be able to interfere, having nothing to interfere with. If you do the same thing but monitor which slit the photon goes through, no interference pattern forms - as you would have expected in the first place.

The parallel to the game-cars thing seems obvious. If you are watching, the photons will only 'collide' if there's something to collide with. When you're not watching, the game-state is approximated to save processor cycles - photons going through a double-slit en-masse will interfere. In ten minutes of not being watched, say, five hundred photons will have gone through and hit the receptor-screen. The effect of five hundred photons, then, can be approximated when you look ten minutes later - interference pattern of five hundred photons. Slightly lazy approximation programming, just as GTA cars never pile up out of sight, individual photons never don't-interfere out of sight.

[Regret]

semantics, person/god...

on a sidenote: this kind of god i can accept :P

[Dan]

I prefer the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy proof that god doesn't exist:

The Babel fish is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[Sean]

If you are willing to redefine enough words, you can prove anything.

I actually think there is a lot of wisdom in this idea, but let's face it, his use of the words God and dimension (amoungst others) departs from what people are actually discussing when they talk about God.

[bcammack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_Art_God

[QwkDrw]

A Sunday Moment, by A Useful Idiot.

He who is evil and conceives trouble gives birth to disillusionment.
He who digs a hole and scoops it out falls into the pit he has made.
The trouble he causes recoils on himself; his violence comes down on his own head.
I will give thanks to the Lord because of his righteousness and sing parise to the name of the Lord Most High.

From: Psalms 7:14-17, The Bible.

[Andrew]

Definitely food for thought. Although i am inclined to run away from the idea that I am a god. because if iam a god. the "god" helpus all

[Will]

BTW, a couple more reasons why this guy's theory sucks:

1) It's circular reasoning. He just made up his own definition of god - "you are everything in your own dimension" - then "proved it" by demonstrating "you are everything in your own dimension". Even the idea of "being everything in your own dimension" is circular, because he defined "your own dimension" as "everything you perceive". Well, we've already demonstrated that it's seemingly impossible to prove that everything we perceive doesn't come from inside of us (*). (See Descartes, "I think therefore I am")

BTW, using "dimension" to mean "plane of existence" or "universe" is a gross misuse that comes from watching too many cheesy sci-fi movies. (Just like using "hologram" to mean "sentient computer program") You're always dumbing down your blog for general audiences.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=dimension

2) Even if you accept the idea of subjective universes, are we *really* gods of our own universes? Have you ever felt hungry/tired/cranky/horny at a time when it was inconvenient for you? Can you really perceive ANYTHING YOU WANT, without the aid of mind-altering drugs. Can you snap your fingers and make that annoying co-worker disappear? Can you heal injuries, make your body younger, change the shape of your face by concentrating really hard?

(*) Seems to me we don't have all that much control over our subjective universes. If you were truly a solipsist, you'd have to believe some unconscious part of you is maintaining all of reality "against your will". Or you'd have to believe there really is SOMETHING out there besides "you". Maybe not other people, but something that is not "you" (i.e. objective reality).

----
Seems like to be a "god", you need to be more than the sole inhabitant of your personal universe. If you are a not all-powerful and all-knowing, you don't seem like much a god at all. What if I locked you in an impregnable bomb shelter with a lifetime supply of food? Would you become "god of the bomb shelter"? I don't think so.

[ShakeAndBake]

I see you are still defensive about being misinterpreted all the time.

To paraphrase a comic strip I heard about somewhere:
"Sixteen posts, sixteen misinterpretations... maybe it's YOU."

[Avi]

Oh, but ah'm a nice god, I like to give cookies to people.

In theory, if we verified all our expieriences with other people, they should be mostly the same, at least the facts should be - like the dog is maybe burnt sienna, not brown. But some things like emotional memories can be subjective. And some things can be unproovable.

[Ali Shamsَ]

Doesn't this explain why Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran? Yup. it does.

[miriam]

i knew that.

[Nick]

if everyone had a different, subjective account of reality freeways would not work.

[William Wishart]

Probably already posted, but too lazy to read comments: I'm pretty sure you already posted previously part of it, about how we're each in our own "bubbles" and whenever information gets passed from one bubble to another, it gets distorted. It was a precourser to your posts on cognitive dissonance.

[Mark Robinson, Eindhoven]

Perceiving something does not make it so. God, by (Biblical) definition, perceives all these "realities", not just mine. That's why I'm not God and He is.

[Will]

Scott, this is a fun "theory", but it's nothing close to rigorous logical proof (the kind that's used in philosophy, math and computer science.) And it's not a "testable theory" in the hard scientific sense.

It's just solipsism dressed up in different clothes. While this guy trivially says "we are all gods", it's just as just trivial for ME to say:

1) I think, therefore I am (see Descartes.) So, I am sure that I exist.
2) However, I can't be sure that anyone else exists. They could be figments of my imagination, or I could be a brain-in-a-vat (or stuck in the Matrix, or trapped on the "holodeck", etc., etc.).
3) Since I'm *sure* I exist, and it's possible that no else exists, therefore it's *possible* that I am a god in my own universe.

This guy's theory fails by focusing on SUBJECTIVE reality (personal universes), while ignoring the fact that we are all assumed to inhabit a single OBJECTIVE reality ("the real world"). Classically, God has been defined as: omnipotent, omniscient, the greatest being which can exist, the greatest being that you can think of, etc. All of those definitions refer to the objective reality that we all inhabit.

If you accept this guy's theory, you deny that we inhabit a shared objective reality. (BTW, I know that this is just a "fun" exercise in "philosotainment".) And I believe we do inhabit a shared reality, quantum mechanics and solipsism notwithstanding. And I'm sure you do, as well. That's why you treat other people as human beings not dissimilar to yourself and not figments of your imagination or mindless automatons. That's why you follow laws, and play the stock market. That's why, when you close your eyes to go to sleep, you assume the world will still be there when you wake up.

A much *simpler* explanation for the fact that we can't communicate perfectly, our experiences are all slightly different and we perceive reality differently is this:
NOBODY PERCEIVES REALITY DIRECTLY. Everything we experience is filtered through our imperfect senses and our fragile minds.

This is a widely accepted notion in philosophy and science that you would've been exposed to if you'd taken a simple 1st-year psychology class in college. (Where, by the way, they usually talk about "confirmation bias", despite the fact you assume none of your blog readers have heard of it.) There's a lot of evidence that our perception don't match reality:
- We are fooled by optical illusions (which by definition are not real)
- Some people are colour-blind, and therefore perceive reality differently than those who are not.
- Humans only perceive a certain spectrum of light (the "visible spectrum"), and not ultraviolet or infrared light for example. However, the colors we see don't really "exist" objectively; they're in our head.
- People can hallucinate, due to lack of sleep, mental illness, etc.

So, is it reasonable to say that because Joe is colour-blind and Fred is not, therefore they perceive reality differently and they must inhabit different universes, of which they are personal gods? Sure, I guess you could say that, but it would be pretty meaningless. Dogs perceive colour differently than us. Are they also gods in their own universes? Plants can respond to very limited stimuli (e.g. some plants bend towards the light). Is it possible they are conscious, and therefore "gods in their own universes"?

If you wanna run with this idea of personal universes of perception (which in itself is not bad), then a USEFUL definition of "god" would be: "A god has total power and control over SOMEONE ELSE'S universe." Now that would be impressive: if I were a god, I could snap my fingers and make YOU perceive something at will.

[David]

Sigh.

[Mickie]

The proof makes perfect sense to me. How ironic that all those scientists out there looking for evidence that there is no such thing as God are really trying to disprove their own existence.

[Giordy]

That works only if you define dimension as he does, and you define God as the "whole" of a *single* dimension.

Ok, so I can craft my own silly definitions so that it's "proven" that this guy on the internet is just one of my ass' hairs. Are you gonna blog about this too?

[Nick]

but what if the collective unconscious exists ? then we would all be own own god 99% and a collective god 1%.

[Jay Bee]

My wife doesn't think so. That I am a God that is. She and I seldom (if ever) agree on anything that we have encountered together - its called universal marital bliss. We both suffer from major cognitive dissonance!

[MafiaMan]

1. Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever! I am in shock that you cannot see that, still.

2. This guy is mangling the traditional definition of "god". Of course you are your "own god", because you can change what you perceive at will. But, just because you believe in something, that doesn't make it true. I could believe that I am making objects levitate in front of me at will.

3. Please don't get existentialist on us. I liked (most) of your blog before.