• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
    Results 51 to 75 of 182
    Like Tree49Likes

    Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

    1. #51
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      I'd still like to hear how omnipotence and omniscience imply timelessness.

      Then your conclusions will logically follow from your axioms.

    2. #52
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei
      I'd still like to hear how omnipotence and omniscience imply timelessness.

      Then your conclusions will logically follow from your axioms.
      A creator had to create time. A creator cannot be what they have created. Thus, God cannot be subject to time or consciousness. This is the most simply I can put it.

      Quote Originally Posted by invader_tech View Post
      Scenario: I'm asleep, and dreaming. I attain lucidity and decide to try something new. I erase the entire setting so that I see nothing but the black void before me. I want to create a universe that is mechanically identical to this one, and we'll assume for the sake of the example that I have processing power capable enough of keeping track of every bit of energy (and therefor matter, etc) in this created existence. I create a simple set of rules that will act as the basis for the universe, and these rules will be identical to current physical laws. An innumerable amount of planets will be able to harbor life, and many will allow for the evolution of a sentient species.

      You can see where I'm going with this. Because it's in my own head, I do retain the property of omnipotence within that universe. It might be argued then that none of my sentient creatures have any free will since they're really just a part of my imagination. There is, however, a direct relationship to the free will of my creatures and the free will of any standard DC in a non-lucid dream. DCs exibit largely different behaviors when they are being directly controlled or influenced by you, as opposed to when you just "stand back to see what they do". For the sake of my example, my little sentient creatures will have this similar "free will" in that they may appear to be more like pieces of my subconscious will acting themselves out.

      Now, if my created universe follows the same principles as the one we're experiencing right now, why should the "god's" consciousness in either universe be challenged? In my universe, surely I must still be conscious to maintain it. If I were to become unconscious, the dream would fail and the universe would die along with it.

      I tried to state that as simply as I could, so I hope it makes sense the way I intended.
      The problem is that it is not a precise or analogous to "the creator". This is because you set your example on the premise as being a conscious being already being in another existence - the one the dreamer is in. Thus, no matter how complex the dream is, the reality is that the dreamer is still sleeping within another objective reality separate from the dream.

      Thus, it is not the same as the creator of all things.

      I was reading over Aristotle and have come across an argument that could be utilized against me.

      If those are curious as to how to defend this.. I think I am going to create a thread about it because it warrants its own specific discussion: Can something come from nothing?

      ~

    3. #53
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      The Weak and the Wounded
      Posts
      4,925
      Likes
      485
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      Can something come from nothing?

      ~
      In fact, can there 'be' "nothing"?


      Isn't nothing dependent on the existence of something as contrast, thereby making it idneed something.

      Or is this all very metaphysical and meaningless.

      Hurm.
      acatalephobic likes this.

    4. #54
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      A creator had to create time. A creator cannot be what they have created. Thus, God cannot be subject to time or consciousness. This is the most simply I can put it.
      Now, how does creator follow from omnipotence and omniscience?

    5. #55
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Now, how does creator follow from omnipotence and omniscience?
      The Creator is often ascribed as being an omni-God. Realize I am only arguing against this type of creator (eg. Christian God).

      ~

    6. #56
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      The Weak and the Wounded
      Posts
      4,925
      Likes
      485
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      The Creator is often ascribed as being an omni-God. Realize I am only arguing against this type of creator (eg. Christian God).

      ~
      So not "Gods" in general, as the title suggests?

    7. #57
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Or in fact as your original definition suggests...

    8. #58
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      SLC, UT
      Posts
      834
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      This has been discussed earlier, but I want to place emphasis on my point in this argument - any sort of God cannot have a consciousness.

      Memory allows a functional linear relationship between chronolgical phenomenological experiences. Without memory, these phenomenological experiences become independent and isolated, alienated from the rest of the phenomenological experiences sought from the relative kinetic energy invested being. This is where we must begin.

      In theory and in idealised, it is nearly impossible to re-enact the beginning of all things as it is impossible for a kinetic bound being to enforce static energy. How can this be worded simpler? In the beginning, that is to say the beginning of a linear kinetic model, static energy existed. Static energy, not being subject to phenomenological experiences or tangibility, merely existed as energy without mass. This energy can best be visualised as the essence of things that is transferred with one another to cause interactions - but without a mass. All things posesed this energy as it is necessary for an existance.

      The question stares us in the face - what caused kinetic energy to begin? During the timeless state of static energy, an event must occur to cause motion; kinetic energy. This is the one fatal flaw of this whole ordeal as I have not delved into the cause and find it very difficult to as the very thought of cause and effect is subject to the very dissimilation I am attempting. Cause and effect are subject to memory and it's relationship on a linear model. Cause followed by effects are merely the interaction of kinetic energy recorded by phenomenological beings. Let's pass this for the moment.

      Given that kinetic energy is the world we live in, we are subject to a constantly changing world. This kinetic energy is, however, bound by rules and laws. These laws function on a level of constant growth such as stochastic model growing expotentially. During this process, the phenomenological beings must find ways to exist within a constantly changing and growing world (the kinetic world). The kinetic world is what the phenomenological beings experience.

      In order to survive, phenomenological beings must formulate a way to maintain a consciousness throughout the constantly changing world. This consciousness is what connects moments to moments in a constantly changing body and world. The body is constantly changing just as the world. The essential point here is that consciousness is necessary for any liviing being (phenomenological being) to exist or survive. Each moment is novel. Without memory, all beings would die, nearly instantly. Memory allows phenomenological beings to survive in the kinetic world.

      Within this survival comes the rules of evolution whereas some are better fit at surviving than others. This is simply attributed to the ability to adapt to the kinetic world better than others.

      Chaos theory meets evolution.

      In the kinetic world, the stochastic system is a driven model by phenomenological beings in attempt to record evolution which is the survival of beings through the kinetic world.

      Contemporary time does not exist. Time is not an externally existing entity.

      Time is a concept created by phenomenological beings in order to survive in the kinetic world. With the concept of time, we can record, relate, and recall what we refer to as ourselves. However, the past recollection are of entirely different entities and phenomenological experiences. Every moment is a new being, minutely changed, but related to by memory. Time allows beings, especially humans, to survive so well.

      Humans requrie the concept of time and consciousness in order to survive. Without the concept of consciousness, or being able to tell others how they feel, humans would die. It was necessary for the humans to develop the ability to communicate what they are thinking to others. This, simultaneously born with time, creates the self. The self exists as a social self and personal self. The social self being as perceived by others and the personal self being as perceived by the same body of kinetic energy (remember, you are a house of individual kinetic energy born from static energy).

      Summary:
      (God defined as an omniscient, omnipresent being)
      P1) Consciousness is necessary for phenomenological beings to survive
      P2) Time is necessary for consciousness to exist
      C1) Consciousnes is subject to time
      C2) Phenomenological beings are contigents of time and consciousness
      C3) Phenomenological beings, time, and consciousness are all contigents of kinetic energy

      P4) Time and consciousness are necessary for phenomenological beings to exist
      P5) Gods are not subject to time or Gods are timeless
      P6) Gods cannot be a contigent of anything
      C3) Gods do not have a consciousness nor kinetic energy

      What does it mean if a God cannot have a consciousness? This means that a God (an omniscient, omnipresent being) cannot make any sort of ethical judgment. Gods cannot make judgments on good or bad nor anything of that matter that is subject to a phenomenological being. Thus, any ideas of a God making a phenomenological action cannot occur as a God cannot and is not subject to a phenomenological existance.

      This, of course, means that nearly all contemporary ideas of God cannot exist. Most importantly, the contemporary Christian God cannot exist as humans have conceived it and that the bible is cleary arbitrary.

      This is a dramatic argument for all Theists alike and I welcome you to argue any part of it. I want it to grow and I want to see where it can go. Please, if you see any fatal flaws, please show them to me.
      ~

      Exactly!!! Ive been trying to tell people this, it completely goes against the laws of nature that 99% of the world has come to accept and what is taught in schools. It completely goes against the logical grains.

    9. #59
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by Car˘usoul View Post
      So not "Gods" in general, as the title suggests?

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Or in fact as your original definition suggests...
      Any God that is considered a creator. This is a common trait of "God's". Any God that existed before time should not have consciousness.

      ~

    10. #60
      Antagonist Invader's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Location
      Discordia
      Posts
      3,239
      Likes
      533
      It likely that the Creator and time came into existence together. If it is not possible to be free of the constraints of time, then the creator's existence would depend on time. Time's existence, in turn, would have to be sustained by the creator (Much the same way the physical laws of my own created universe would have to be sustained by my consciousness alone), being that the Creator would be the only conscious being currently perceiving the movement of time. It's in this way that your omni-God can still claim responsibility for the creation of time, since time's existence was forced as a result of the Creator's existence. Time (or timelessness) would end up being more or less a property of God this way.

      We also have to consider the nature of rules (or laws). Rules have to be maintained in order to exist. If there is no intelligence and/or consciousness there to see to the enforcement of those rules, the rules can be broken. I, somehow, cannot manage to break any of the rules of the universe (laws of physics, rather). Why? What conscious will is there to reinforce the rules of even one universe? "Stuff" requires conscious/intelligent maintenance in order to exist. This second paragraph is my theory.

      [[Edit: Did you just become a moderator in the midst of my typing that? o_O

      Congrats, hahaha.]]
      Last edited by Invader; 01-22-2009 at 02:58 AM.
      acatalephobic likes this.

    11. #61
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by invader_tech View Post
      It likely that the Creator and time came into existence together. If it is not possible to be free of the constraints of time, then the creator's existence would depend on time.
      If the creator did not create time, then it is not the creator of everything which is typical of most Gods. Also, considering Gods that ideally existed before everything was created. It's almost non sequitor.

      We also have to consider the nature of rules (or laws). Rules have to be maintained in order to exist. If there is no intelligence and/or consciousness there to see to the enforcement of those rules, the rules can be broken.
      It is not necessary for an omni-being in order to laws of nature to work. We can easily describe many things in nature with logic without implementing any sort of supernatural arbitration.

      I, somehow, cannot manage to break any of the rules of the universe (laws of physics, rather). Why? What conscious will is there to reinforce the rules of even one universe? "Stuff" requires conscious/intelligent maintenance in order to exist. This second paragraph is my theory.
      I'm not sure I follow - are you saying that there ought to be something there to synonymously punish you if you break the laws of physics..? I realize this may be a silly question, it's just so I can understand what you are saying.

      [[Edit: Did you just become a moderator in the midst of my typing that? o_O

      Congrats, hahaha.]]

      Yes I did thank you!

      ~

    12. #62
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      The Weak and the Wounded
      Posts
      4,925
      Likes
      485
      Quote Originally Posted by invader_tech View Post
      It likely that the Creator and time came into existence together. If it is not possible to be free of the constraints of time, then the creator's existence would depend on time. Time's existence, in turn, would have to be sustained by the creator (Much the same way the physical laws of my own created universe would have to be sustained by my consciousness alone), being that the Creator would be the only conscious being currently perceiving the movement of time. It's in this way that your omni-God can still claim responsibility for the creation of time, since time's existence was forced as a result of the Creator's existence. Time (or timelessness) would end up being more or less a property of God this way.

      We also have to consider the nature of rules (or laws). Rules have to be maintained in order to exist. If there is no intelligence and/or consciousness there to see to the enforcement of those rules, the rules can be broken. I, somehow, cannot manage to break any of the rules of the universe (laws of physics, rather). Why? What conscious will is there to reinforce the rules of even one universe? "Stuff" requires conscious/intelligent maintenance in order to exist. This second paragraph is my theory.

      [[Edit: Did you just become a moderator in the midst of my typing that? o_O

      Congrats, hahaha.]]
      How does time 'come in' to existence, when coming into something is a process that occurs within time. It implies there was a period of absence of the object, and so a temporal nature.
      acatalephobic likes this.

    13. #63
      Antagonist Invader's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Location
      Discordia
      Posts
      3,239
      Likes
      533
      Quote Originally Posted by Car˘usoul View Post
      How does time 'come in' to existence, when coming into something is a process that occurs within time. It implies there was a period of absence of the object, and so a temporal nature.
      I'm saying that time could not have existed without something to maintain it's existence. If you have a better way of phrasing "when time started", please let me know, because I'm at a loss for words to describe it properly.

      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      If the creator did not create time, then it is not the creator of everything which is typical of most Gods. Also, considering Gods that ideally existed before everything was created. It's almost non sequitor.
      Maybe we need to rework our understanding of time then (or maybe it's just me!). I've never given this much attention to the nature of time before. But, outside this universe, in the 'realm of God', I can agree that I don't believe time is something that can even be created, for that would imply that it could be destroyed. If it were destroyed, the stream of consciousness would end. But I also believe that time goes beyond just being a dimension, in that I'm beginning to consider it a state of being. States of being can be altered, and that would hold true for the changes that occur because of the 'flow of time'. I'll work on this thought a bit more tonight, and probably for the years to come.


      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      I'm not sure I follow - are you saying that there ought to be something there to synonymously punish you if you break the laws of physics..? I realize this may be a silly question, it's just so I can understand what you are saying.
      Oh, no, I meant that the laws of physics appear to be unbreakable at present. I relate it to a computer program (more specifically: a video game). You have a generated world that has code on which it depends to function. You cannot actually effect the code by interacting with the game world, it requires that you go 'outside' the game to mess with the code directly. The code, in turn, is maintained by the computer's processor, or what I call the "intelligence that maintains the rules". I believe the same holds true for our world in that we cannot interact with the actual laws of physics by doing anything to the physical world, but that it requires going 'beyond' the limits of the universe. I was also inferring that there must be some kind of processing behind the scenes in order to maintain these basic laws of physics, just as a computer processor would make the code for a computer game possible to run. That makes better sense now, right?

      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      Yes I did thank you!
      ~
      And you're welcome
      acatalephobic likes this.

    14. #64
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      54
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Now, how does creator follow from omnipotence and omniscience?
      Omnipotence, as I see it, allows for an absolute Universe, with absolute existence. Existence and Reality are invincible, and it can only transform into different forms under the application of force. All Reality as a totality is infinitely powerful. Likewise, The Law of Conservation of Energy does never change.

      Omniscience - you can see that in all nature and its profound intelligence and evolutionary growth. The Laws of Physics and a perfectly operational Universe are not different than its Source of Perfection. Omniscience implies a synchronous Cosmos, as ours.

      Quote Originally Posted by Carôusoul View Post
      How does time 'come in' to existence, when coming into something is a process that occurs within time. It implies there was a period of absence of the object, and so a temporal nature.
      Very well said! In order for there to be time, there must be a timeless substrate, such as Reality itself. Reality is the timeless context in which only specific objects therein are subject to time.
      Last edited by really; 01-22-2009 at 11:48 AM.

    15. #65
      Sleeping Dragon juroara's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2006
      Gender
      Location
      San Antonio, TX
      Posts
      3,865
      Likes
      1171
      DJ Entries
      144
      Onus, its not semantics

      You just lack understanding.

      Instead of just getting angry, take the time to contemplate what does it mean if God is consciousness

      "Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul Ś the true "self" of every person, called the ātman Ś is eternal.[37] According to the monistic/pantheistic theologies of Hinduism (such as Advaita Vedanta school), this Atman is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit. Hence, these schools are called non-dualist.[38] The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul."

      Look up Universal Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or I AM. there are many names to this type of belief

      all of these beliefs are centered around the idea that there is only one mind, only one consciousness. that consciousness is, was and always will be. it is all that really exists. Everything is either an expression of this consciousness, or an illusion.

    16. #66
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by juroara View Post
      Onus, its not semantics

      You just lack understanding.

      Instead of just getting angry, take the time to contemplate what does it mean if God is consciousness
      What you are doing is exactly what semantics is.

      You are saying:
      - Consciousness = God
      - God = consciousness

      This is semantics. You're attaching a conceptual word to another.

      "Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul Ś the true "self" of every person, called the ātman Ś is eternal.[37] According to the monistic/pantheistic theologies of Hinduism (such as Advaita Vedanta school), this Atman is ultimately indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit. Hence, these schools are called non-dualist.[38] The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul."
      Unfortunately, there is no objective means to understanding this. Language functions on objective means. You are trying to objectively define God. God cannot be objectified.

      Thus, your argument falls in on itself for your own reasoning. It's not like you're "wrong" just trying too hard to defend yourself when I'm not really arguing anything. You just can't arbitrarily label "consciousness" as "God" an expect it to fly.

      Look up Universal Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or I AM. there are many names to this type of belief
      I have extensively read about the collective consciousness via Carl Jung - the originator of that term and synchronism.

      Keep in mind - they are beliefs which means there is no proof of it. The onus is on you to offer proof and reasoning and yet you cannot. Semantically dodging the idea by associating terms is not an effective means.

      all of these beliefs are centered around the idea that there is only one mind, only one consciousness. that consciousness is, was and always will be. it is all that really exists. Everything is either an expression of this consciousness, or an illusion.
      Maybe if all consciousness were one. However, the fact is that your phenomenological experience is independent from mine which means that cannot be - yet.

      It is just an idea. Don't arbitrarily throw words around and mingle with definitions to try and "prove" something.

      ~

    17. #67
      Sleeping Dragon juroara's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2006
      Gender
      Location
      San Antonio, TX
      Posts
      3,865
      Likes
      1171
      DJ Entries
      144
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      What you are doing is exactly what semantics is.

      You are saying:
      - Consciousness = God
      - God = consciousness

      This is semantics. You're attaching a conceptual word to another.



      Unfortunately, there is no objective means to understanding this. Language functions on objective means. You are trying to objectively define God. God cannot be objectified.

      Thus, your argument falls in on itself for your own reasoning. It's not like you're "wrong" just trying too hard to defend yourself when I'm not really arguing anything. You just can't arbitrarily label "consciousness" as "God" an expect it to fly.



      I have extensively read about the collective consciousness via Carl Jung - the originator of that term and synchronism.

      Keep in mind - they are beliefs which means there is no proof of it. The onus is on you to offer proof and reasoning and yet you cannot. Semantically dodging the idea by associating terms is not an effective means.



      Maybe if all consciousness were one. However, the fact is that your phenomenological experience is independent from mine which means that cannot be - yet.

      It is just an idea. Don't arbitrarily throw words around and mingle with definitions to try and "prove" something.

      ~


      this is very simple, follow me here

      I BELIEVE GOD IS CONSCIOUSNESS. I am not arbitrarily throwing around words and mingling definitions just to argue with you. I am telling you...what I HONESTLY BELIEVE. And I can honestly tell you, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE SAME, and yes that includes others who come from a hindu, christian, jewish, muslim or buddhist background. And I know because I have talked to them.

      this is NOT an argument that what I am saying is true. I dont have to bring you the burden of proof because that is not the point I was making

      but don't tell me what I do or what I don't believe in. okay?

      my argument was SIMPLE. very simple. pay attention. You can not argue with theists who believe God is consciousness, that God is not conscious. For OBVIOUS reasons.

      to theists such as me, you argument is pointless because it doesn't even consider our God in your little bubble

      just thought you should know.

      if you want to continue your stand, then you need to stop pretending that this is not a legitimate belief. Stop calling it semantics and accept it for what it means. Understand the belief, all that it implies, then argue.

      there is a difference between not understanding something, because its new to you, and refusing to understand something just so you can make your argument absolute. but all the latter does, is put your argument in a closed box

    18. #68
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Portland, OR
      Posts
      17
      Likes
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      Unfortunately, there is no objective means to understanding this.
      There you finally have the solution. This whole concept of God/gods is impossible to prove via logic and reasoning.

      Personally I subscribe to the Native American philosophy espoused by Casteneda's Don Juan. All of reality can be divided into the Tonal and the Nagual. The Tonal includes all those things that can be understood by our mind, by our reasoning intellect. Yet there exist a myriad of things that are no less real that belong to the Nagual, and they are experiential things that cannot be "understood."
      It's similar to the Tao. "The Tao that can be known/spoken is not the real Tao." That does not mean they do not exist or that they are not real.
      acatalephobic likes this.

    19. #69
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by juroara View Post
      I BELIEVE GOD IS CONSCIOUSNESS.
      Please explain how this is not semantics?

      I believe grapes are oranges.

      What's the difference? There's obviously more to how you define God, so it is vastly different than consciousness and contains more than what just consciousness contains.

      I am not arbitrarily throwing around words and mingling definitions just to argue with you. I am telling you...what I HONESTLY BELIEVE. And I can honestly tell you, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE SAME, and yes that includes others who come from a hindu, christian, jewish, muslim or buddhist background. And I know because I have talked to them.
      Please do not mention how many people believe what you believe to try and defend it... The whole world was convinced the earth was the center of the universe, and they were all wrong.

      This is besides the point though, obviously, just telling you for future reference that it is an ineffective means of argument.

      this is NOT an argument that what I am saying is true. I dont have to bring you the burden of proof because that is not the point I was making

      but don't tell me what I do or what I don't believe in. okay?
      I am not telling you anything. Stop acting like a defensive melodramatic teenager.

      The point I was making is that there is obviously more to what you believe than just "God is consciousness" and there is obviously more to God than the confines of consciousness. Come on now, we both know that. You've studied these religions - you know consciousness is just a small part of what God is.

      my argument was SIMPLE. very simple. pay attention. You can not argue with theists who believe God is consciousness, that God is not conscious. For OBVIOUS reasons.
      I didn't say that.

      to theists such as me, you argument is pointless because it doesn't even consider our God in your little bubble
      I'm not in a bubble. Realize that you are contriving your God - not me.

      if you want to continue your stand, then you need to stop pretending that this is not a legitimate belief. Stop calling it semantics and accept it for what it means. Understand the belief, all that it implies, then argue.
      I await for you to elaborate beyond semantics then. It is all you have offered so far. That is my only point. Otherwise, if God is just consciousness, then every single person IS God. Furthermore, how does cognitive research affect that? blah blabh blahb lbahblablaba... irrelevant right? EXACTLY MY POINT. That is because, as you just read that, a flood of other things associated to God that are not just contrived to consciousness came in - and you have not shared that but made obvious leeway to it.

      there is a difference between not understanding something, because its new to you, and refusing to understand something just so you can make your argument absolute. but all the latter does, is put your argument in a closed box
      It is unfortunate how often people accuse others of exactly what they are doing.

      Quote Originally Posted by TTTman
      There you finally have the solution. This whole concept of God/gods is impossible to prove via logic and reasoning.
      Finally..? I've been saying it the whole damn time! You just "finally" realized that I'm not as stupid as you thought. Now who is the prejudice one?

      The very reason that it cannot be proven via logic and reasoning is the very reason why I don't believe in God. It goes both ways, realize. If you give leeway or truth to things that cannot be logically proven or reason; then I am God and you cannot prove otherwise.

      ~

    20. #70
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      54
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      The very reason that it cannot be proven via logic and reasoning is the very reason why I don't believe in God.
      Oh, why would you create a topic such as this one? Is it really about anything, or is it just conceptual entertainment?



      It's a matter of paradigm awareness. "God" has many synonyms, if that helps. "Self", "Nature" and "Reality" can all be used as "God". None can be objectively proven, and the latter term of "God" may be the most misleading of them all (wisdom of Buddhism). This is beside the point however, after all, Reality is nameless anyway.
      Last edited by really; 01-24-2009 at 12:33 PM.

    21. #71
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      I BELIEVE GOD IS CONSCIOUSNESS.
      Wrong. Please look up the respective definitions for those two words. Use the word 'consciousness' to mean consciousness in future. Congratulations, you are now an atheist.

    22. #72
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      Oh, why would you create a topic such as this one? Is it really about anything, or is it just conceptual entertainment?
      It's about the topic I set forth in the first post. Why are you asking me this? This argument takes on the premise of the idea of a creator. It's an analytical game, if you want to put it that way.

      I presume you think it is a bias argument?

      It's a matter of paradigm awareness. "God" has many synonyms, if that helps. "Self", "Nature" and "Reality" can all be used as "God". None can be objectively proven, and the latter term of "God" may be the most misleading of them all (wisdom of Buddhism). This is beside the point however, after all, Reality is nameless anyway.
      Please don't do that - I have already defined which God I am referring to.

      ~

    23. #73
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      54
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      It's about the topic I set forth in the first post. Why are you asking me this? This argument takes on the premise of the idea of a creator. It's an analytical game, if you want to put it that way.

      I presume you think it is a bias argument?
      I think it's just conceptual entertainment; analytical games. If you don't believe in God anyway, why put this forth?

    24. #74
      Bio-Turing Machine O'nus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      - Canada -
      Posts
      4,167
      Likes
      115
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      I think it's just conceptual entertainment; analytical games. If you don't believe in God anyway, why put this forth?
      I don't know - it's a paramount waste of time. Just like my education and life.

      What do you suggest..??

      (Note; this is not sarcasm)

      ~

    25. #75
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      54
      Quote Originally Posted by O'nus View Post
      I don't know - it's a paramount waste of time. Just like my education and life.

      What do you suggest..??

      (Note; this is not sarcasm)

      ~
      Why ask me? I have no idea who you are, let alone myself. (Hint)


    Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •