Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

I don't see why.

If this reality were a simulated reality created by a very intelligent being, an omnipotent, omniscient, and conscious creator could exist.

I don't believe this, I'm just saying.

On what basis do you form these "God" premises? I mean... you define "God" (on what basis, for what purpose?) and then make statements about that defined entity, yet there is no connection to anything real. Basically you just made up an entity, claimed properties and reasoned from there.

Unless there is some relevance to this in terms of what really exists I fail to see how it is more than an exercise in logical reasoning, arbitrarily defining words and statements to form conclusions.

As in:

(God defined as a banana peel)
P1: God can fly.
P2: God is yellow.
P3: God exists in the real world.
P4: The real world allows no object to fly higher than 30 ft.
C1: God cannot fly higher than 30 ft.

And as for theism, I don't want to sound rude but I think there are already plenty of reasons not to believe in God and I don't see a particular need to come up with more, especially if they involve arguing with a word that denotes an arbitrarily made up concept ("omniscient being").

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see why.

If this reality were a simulated reality created by a very intelligent being, an omnipotent, omniscient, and conscious creator could exist.

I don't believe this, I'm just saying.

This is circular logic though. It is presuming that the God has consciousness in it to make the statement.

My argument is that it cannot be said from the beginning. An omni-God cannot have a form of consciousness because that subjects the God to time and Gods cannot be subject to anything.

Originally Posted by Serkat

On what basis do you form these "God" premises? I mean... you define "God" (on what basis, for what purpose?) and then make statements about that defined entity, yet there is no connection to anything real. Basically you just made up an entity, claimed properties and reasoned from there.

The atypical omni-God. I presumed this was intuitive to readers.

Unless there is some relevance to this in terms of what really exists I fail to see how it is more than an exercise in logical reasoning, arbitrarily defining words and statements to form conclusions.

As in:

(God defined as a banana peel)
P1: God can fly.
P2: God is yellow.
P3: God exists in the real world.
P4: The real world allows no object to fly higher than 30 ft.
C1: God cannot fly higher than 30 ft.

Please do not strawman me. You know what God I referring to - it's intuitive. Don't be dumb.

And as for theism, I don't want to sound rude but I think there are already plenty of reasons not to believe in God and I don't see a particular need to come up with more, especially if they involve arguing with a word that denotes an arbitrarily made up concept ("omniscient being").

Realize that I am arguing against Theism and offering further reason that any God that is omni ought not to have any form of consciousness. A God should not be subject to anything and consciousness denotes subjectivity to linearity and tangibility.

~

This is circular logic though. It is presuming that the God has consciousness in it to make the statement.

Um... not remotely?

It's a counterexample, and unless you can deal with it, your argument has been formally disproved.

I think you are confusing consciousness and awareness. Awareness is dependent on change, but consciousness is not.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The atypical omni-God. I presumed this was intuitive to readers.

Yes. But why would you reason from that basis? What's the point? If some mental patient came up to you and started talking about random concepts he made up that make no sense whatsoever, would you go ahead and write a long-winded essay about why they are logically flawed? I think not.

Please do not strawman me. You know what God I referring to - it's intuitive.

See above.

Realize that I am arguing against Theism and offering further reason that any God that is omni ought not to have any form of consciousness.

Yes, which is precisely my point... why would you pay a completely made up idea respect by arguing with it? And even so, it isn't exactly breaking news that the concept of God is full of logical flaws and makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of ways in which this is the case, but all of them are just mental masturbation with an idea that has no merit.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Yes. But why would you reason from that basis? What's the point? If some mental patient came up to you and started talking about random concepts he made up that make no sense whatsoever, would you go ahead and write a long-winded essay about why they are logically flawed? I think not.

It is because this is insightful to the thesis I am working on for my degree.

Yes, which is precisely my point... why would you pay a completely made up idea respect by arguing with it? And even so, it isn't exactly breaking news that the concept of God is full of logical flaws and makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of ways in which this is the case, but all of them are just mental masturbation with an idea that has no merit.

You're asking me basically why I am doing this. It is because it will garner me a philosophy degree. It is exercise in analysis and a useful tool to debate with.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think you are confusing consciousness and awareness. Awareness is dependent on change, but consciousness is not.

Please avoid semantics.

They can both be semantically seen as the same thing as they are both housed in the same body (ie. brain). The crux of this point is that consciousness is a function of the brain. Please do not make the leap to say that "awareness" is something intangible and special.

Originally Posted by Xei

Um... not remotely?

It's a counterexample, and unless you can deal with it, your argument has been formally disproved.

If this reality were a simulated reality created by a very intelligent being, an omnipotent, omniscient, and conscious creator could exist.

"If reality was a simulated reality -> omni god creator could exist"

I will be blunt then - this is a stupid argument. There is nothing here. Here are the problems:

- The mention of simulated reality is redundant as we are still discussing a creator even of those that are simulating reality. No matter who is doing the "simulating" there still must be a beginning to things.

- You are saying that even in a simulated reality, or any reality, a being "could" exist. This means nothing, you are not saying anything nor proving anything nor contributing anything. You could also say, "There may be such thing as Santa" but you are not actually saying anything substantial besides the notion of plausibility.

- It is not a counter-example because it has nothing to do with anything that I have said. I am arguing over the foundations of consciousness, time, and the self. Simulated realities are irrelevant. Furthermore, simulated realities are still subject to every issue I mentioned which does not affect my arguments integrity in the slightest.

At best, the point you made is irrelevant. Please review and let me know what you think about the pertinent issue within the thread.

~

It's not hard.

Your argument is that it is impossible for any possible omnipotent, omniscient creator to have consciousness.

If I can give an example of a single possible omnipotent, omniscient, conscious creator, hypothetical or not, as I have, then your argument is wrong.

Either accept that this is the case or redefine your terms.

I agree with your definition of God as an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and I also agree that consciousness cannot exist without time, but you do not explain how timelessness follows from your two God criteria.

I should also ask you to tell us what you mean by 'kinetic energy' or 'static energy', considering the first is apparently being used to mean something completely different from how it is actually defined, and the second doesn't even exist.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's not hard.

Your argument is that it is impossible for any omnipotent, omniscient creator to have consciousness.

If I can give an example of a single possible omnipotent, omniscient, conscious creator, hypothetical or not, as I have, then your argument is wrong.

Either accept that this is the case or redefine your terms.

Your example does not succeed.

Even in a simulated example, the creator of the simulation is not "everywhere".

For example:
- The Matrix. The creators are still not omni-beings in their actuality. The Matrix is irrelevant as we are directly speaking of the creators themselves who are, in fact, not omni-beings.

- Take an example of a simulation in which there is just 1 creator with a machine controlling other variables like androids or something (it does not really matter). The fact remains that, in that creators reality, they are still not omni-beings.

So, your argument still fails because the examples you cite or simulated realities are not counter-examples to omni-beings that would be at the beginning of everything. This being omni-beings.

~

Perhaps if you had properly defined God as the creator of reality rather than the universe.

In the latter case my argument applies.

I edited my previous post with some more questions.

Originally Posted by Xei

I agree with your definition of God as an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and I also agree that consciousness cannot exist without time, but you do not explain how timelessness follows from your two God criteria.

What? I don't understand the question.

I should also ask you to tell us what you mean by 'kinetic energy' or 'static energy', considering the first is apparently being used to mean something completely different from how it is actually defined, and the second doesn't even exist.

Although this is not pertinent to my argument (static energy, that is) I will divulge.

Kinetic energy is what we all know it to be. However, I am saying that kinetic energy is the reason for our existence. Kinetic energy is the world that we know. Without kinesis, our existence is null. So, everything we are, everything we know of, is made up of kinetic energy.

This part can be proven as we know that kinetic energy is utilized in nearly everything in our environment. I do not think I need to divulge further in this.

Static energy is, respectively, the problematic part. However, I am trying to reference it in a very vague way that works for everyone. The reason being is because it is not really important. Let me explain:

Whoever you are, whatever the belief system is, there is a "beginnig" to everything, a moment before existence. In this moment, it had to be timeless, it had to be vacant of kinetic energy. If it was not vacant of kinesis, then it is not the beginning of everything. Thus, whatever it is, it is static.

I simply call it static energy because I'm not sure what to call it. I am avoiding "God" because I want to make sure this is seen as neutral and open to interpretation.

I hope you can see how it is not exactly pertinent and that I explained it well..

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please avoid semantics.

They can both be semantically seen as the same thing as they are both housed in the same body (ie. brain). The crux of this point is that consciousness is a function of the brain. Please do not make the leap to say that "awareness" is something intangible and special.
~

Actually, I'm saying awareness is a function of the senses, and consciousness is an unknown variable. You may say that it is a product of the brain but as of yet, there is no evidence for that.

P5) Gods are not subject to time or Gods are timeless
P6) Gods cannot be a contigent of anything

For all I've ever heard about God, these statements don't apply. God is pretty much just a regular supernatural being, except he created the universe and then went with it. So really he is pretty much here all the time and pretty much not timeless, just more awesome than everybody else.

And as for semantics, I don't see why you're making a distinction between 'phenomenological' and 'consciousness'. That's like saying 'Consciousness is necessary for conscious beings to exist' which isn't really saying anything at all.

What? I don't understand the question.

Your argument is this:

1. Consciousness requires time.
2. Omipotent, omniscient beings are timeless.
3. Hence any omnipotent, omniscient being is not conscious.

So far you have only asserted 2, as Serkat says.

Although this is not pertinent to my argument (static energy, that is) I will divulge.

Kinetic energy is what we all know it to be. However, I am saying that kinetic energy is the reason for our existence. Kinetic energy is the world that we know. Without kinesis, our existence is null. So, everything we are, everything we know of, is made up of kinetic energy.

This part can be proven as we know that kinetic energy is utilized in nearly everything in our environment. I do not think I need to divulge further in this.

Static energy is, respectively, the problematic part. However, I am trying to reference it in a very vague way that works for everyone. The reason being is because it is not really important. Let me explain:

Whoever you are, whatever the belief system is, there is a "beginnig" to everything, a moment before existence. In this moment, it had to be timeless, it had to be vacant of kinetic energy. If it was not vacant of kinesis, then it is not the beginning of everything. Thus, whatever it is, it is static.

I simply call it static energy because I'm not sure what to call it. I am avoiding "God" because I want to make sure this is seen as neutral and open to interpretation.

I hope you can see how it is not exactly pertinent and that I explained it well..

~

Everything is made of energy, sure, but not kinetic energy. Light has no kinetic energy, for example, but it still exists, and causes change. Kinetic energy is just a function of mass and velocity. I do not see why mass or velocity are required for consciousness.

And I disagree about there being a point of stasis. Time started at the Big Bang, and at the Big Bang, matter was flying apart at huge speeds. It has not stopped. So there was never a time during which there was stasis. It is wrong to think of a singularity existing for some period of time before expanding to form the universe, because time simply didn't exist before it expanded.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, I'm saying awareness is a function of the senses, and consciousness is an unknown variable. You may say that it is a product of the brain but as of yet, there is no evidence for that.

There is no evidence of what? That awareness is a function of the brain? All of neuroscience shows this. Just google it. I think you are trying to distinguish something "special" of awareness compared to consciousness. If you can distinguish the two, please do.

Originally Posted by Serkat

For all I've ever heard about God, these statements don't apply. God is pretty much just a regular supernatural being, except he created the universe and then went with it. So really he is pretty much here all the time and pretty much not timeless, just more awesome than everybody else.

The idea is that a God that created everything ought not to be subject to time.

And as for semantics, I don't see why you're making a distinction between 'phenomenological' and 'consciousness'. That's like saying 'Consciousness is necessary for conscious beings to exist' which isn't really saying anything at all.

I was not making a distinction - they are both the samething. Phenomenology is simply the act of being aware of your experience or awareness (and others).

Originally Posted by Xei

Your argument is this:

1. Consciousness requires time.
2. Omipotent, omniscient beings are timeless.
3. Hence any omnipotent, omniscient being is not conscious.

So far you have only asserted 2, as Serkat says.

Everything is made of energy, sure, but not kinetic energy. Light has no kinetic energy, for example, but it still exists, and causes change. Kinetic energy is just a function of mass and velocity. I do not see why mass or velocity are required for consciousness.

I'm not really debating about energies here.. all I know about physics tells me that there is a heated debate over light and whether or not it has energy.

Regardless, is this really pertinent to my argument? Gods created everything, including time. Time is what gives rise to consciousness. Thus, Gods ought not to have consciousness. Nothing about energy really.

And I disagree about there being a point of stasis. Time started at the Big Bang, and at the Big Bang, matter was flying apart at huge speeds. It has not stopped. So there was never a time during which there was stasis. It is wrong to think of a singularity existing for some period of time before expanding to form the universe, because time simply didn't exist before it expanded.

That's fine. I humbly admit that it is a problematic part of my own personal theory. However, it is not pertinent to my point. I am just filling in the background really.

Does this really affect my main argument? I don't see how. If it does, I truly want to.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

There is no evidence of what? That awareness is a function of the brain? All of neuroscience shows this. Just google it. I think you are trying to distinguish something "special" of awareness compared to consciousness. If you can distinguish the two, please do.

You have my position reversed.

Yes, awareness is a simple process of gathering information from the senses. Thats what I said. Consciousness, on the other hand has no known (empirically speaking) cause or purpose and is subtly but profoundly different from awareness.

What does it even mean to be conscious? How does one recognize consciousness in other things? If a conscious being was unable to communicate with you in any way, how would you become aware of its consciousness? If something does communicate to you that it is conscious, does that necessarily mean it is true?

Consciousness, simply, is the knowledge of self. We can guess at how humans arrive at this knowledge, through awareness of the things around us, but a god embodies all things (in my view anyway) and so would seemingly have a knowledge of itself (if one can use such a term to encompass everything) through the innate knowledge of its creation. The 'birth' of reality and the god would immediately be accompanied by all knowledge of the totality of existence.

I'd like to make it clear also that this is only to argue against your assertion that consciousness requires time. I take issue with many of your other assertions as well.

For instance, much of this argument is based on your idea of 'static energy' which I don't see as a priori and must itself be justified. In my view, the statement, "what caused kinetic energy to begin? During the timeless state of static energy, an event must occur to cause motion; kinetic energy" makes no sense. How can an event occur in a timeless moment? Any causal chain of events would require a timeline, and this includes any beginning you might attempt to argue for. Even without the issue of time, how can you expect to rationalize any beginning for a causal chain? What caused the event that caused motion? What caused that and what caused that? There is no end to this line of inquiry.

I have a question. Do you believe that consciousness requires a brain? If the answer is yes, then that would be a much simpler argument against the consciousness of a god. If the answer is no, how else might the knowledge of self be contained? How else could knowledge in general be contained? I read a sci-fi book once that was based on the idea that the universe was only a storage of information; a history of sorts of the "real reality" that had preceded it. Disregarding the history aspect of it, it is still easy to imagine the universe as a compendium of all existing information. If god contains the universe, god contains all information, and with it, the knowledge if self (god's self being all information).

my definition of God IS CONSCIOUSNESS

so..I didnt bother reading your long rant

do you know what God's name means in holy text? I AM!

Originally Posted by juroara

my definition of God IS CONSCIOUSNESS

But that isn't the general definition of God.

:/

It isn't the definition of God at all.

If you want to play making up words, would you care to refute my argument that you are actually a talking bucket?

Honestly. Defining God as a banana and then having a party because bananas are real. How can you live with the doublethink.

One question...If he is really Omni-potent...couldnt he just bypass your logic with a paradox and say, "hey, I can do whatever because Im omnipotent"

Originally Posted by tkdyo

One question...If he is really Omni-potent...couldnt he just bypass your logic with a paradox and say, "hey, I can do whatever because Im omnipotent"

And then even exist when not existing etc.

I don't buy it.

Same applies to omnipotent cheesecakes.

I agree everything (ie all matter) is made of energy. This at least is supported by Quantum physics.

I don't see how anyone can argue that light is not energy. It's certainly not matter, in a Newtonian sense.

I don't see any basis for the premise that consciousness requires time. There's lots of anecdotal evidence of experiences (hallucinations? perhaps, but maybe not) of enlightenment/satori when the witness sees all time as inter-related, no past, no future, just everything IS.

Here's what I believe: there are forms of energy that current science has not yet been able to detect and study. Auras and chi for two examples. That doesn't mean they don't exist. If you limit your worldview to only what current science recognizes and "understands," what are you doing on a list about LD?

I also don't buy that awareness requires sensory (physical 5 senses) input. There's no proof, of course, but I believe intuition and ESP phenomena are real sensing ("extra" to the 5 senses) or perceptions of energy fields.

I agree everything (ie all matter) is made of energy. This at least is supported by Quantum physics.

No, you're thinking of Special Relativity, Einstein's famous theory, with which there is currently immense difficulty and a lot of research going into the problem of joining it with Quantum Mechanics.

I don't see how anyone can argue that light is not energy. It's certainly not matter, in a Newtonian sense.

Light is a wave. It carries energy.

I don't see any basis for the premise that consciousness requires time. There's lots of anecdotal evidence of experiences (hallucinations? perhaps, but maybe not) of enlightenment/satori when the witness sees all time as inter-related, no past, no future, just everything IS.

Our minds are the result of the functioning of our brains. It seems pretty obvious that, without time, no neurons would fire, there would be no function, and there would be no mind. Deluding yourself into thinking that there is no time is very different. There have actually been studies into this via Steven LaBerge's lucid dreaming techniques, and it was found that mental rate of time is the same as real time.

Here's what I believe: there are forms of energy that current science has not yet been able to detect and study. Auras and chi for two examples. That doesn't mean they don't exist. If you limit your worldview to only what current science recognizes and "understands," what are you doing on a list about LD?

What are auras and chi? What do they do? Why would you think they exist?