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.