Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

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.
~

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").

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

See above.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Um... not remotely?

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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..

~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

~

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

This thread suffers from the same problem as asking "Can God create a rock he can't lift?". You're certainly not going to change anyone's minds here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Same applies to omnipotent cheesecakes.

---

My point exactly. its so pointless to argue about something that is supposedly "omnipresent" if by that very definition they can act how they want in reality. I dont buy the invisible sky god either, Im just saying from a logical standpoint using reality to argue against something that can control all reality seems a little flawed to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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.

---

Wrong, there are many empirical hypothesis about this. There is numerous evidence in psychology to show that consciousness is the facilitation of attention. It functions on an evolutionary sense to determine which things require awareness/attention and thus developing the senses and consciousness for further survival.

Now, of course, there is much empirical debate over the functions of this. However, in the world of neuroscience, there is most definitely evidence of what the purpose of consciousness is.

Quote:

---

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?

---

I think what you are describing is the exact reason why we have consciousness - to communicate with other humans and thus create a community which solidifies our survival. Realize that I am utilizing consciousness as an evolutionary tool. I do this only because it is what the contemporary neuroscientists do with consciousness.

Quote:

---

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 don't think we disagree here but I do not make the leap of saying that a God embodies all things. Here is where we differ, allow me to simply express my ideas to make better sense;

I hold that the idea of God comes from the humans incentive to look at absolutes (eg. absolute beauty). Thus, when we look at our own consciousness, we imagine what an absolute consciousness is and this is the typical God. However, the limited conscious mind is not what a God would be.

I think I can see us potentially agreeing here as I get the impression that you do not imagine a "God" to have a consciousness of any sorts relative to our own, no?

Quote:

---

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.

---

From what I gather, I think you will find that you and I do not differ in many ways.

Quote:

---

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.

---

What you are asking is why I deliberately stated the sorts as such. I do not know what can initially cause kinetic energy, but it makes the most logical sense to frame it as such as no theory has an explanation of this yet. No one can explain it, so the best we can do is reference it as a 'static' time as the beginning of everything also had to be the beginning of time.

I think what you ought to be pointing out to me is if there really is a beginning to time. If there was no beginning to time, then there is a flaw in my argument. However, there are many problems with that argument. If you'd like to pursue that, then I think there is fruit to bear.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You are right. However, we both know that far too many people do not think consciousness requires a brain. I am going around this argument and getting straight at the point that, if there was a God at the beginning of time, then it ought not be subject to what it has created.

It really boils down to this;
- God created time and time created consciousness
- Thus, God cannot have consciousness because it then requires a creator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

This thread suffers from the same problem as asking "Can God create a rock he can't lift?". You're certainly not going to change anyone's minds here.

---

Your are significantly wrong. What you quoted is an illogical impossibility for anything. What I am stating is not tautological or an illogical impossibility. If you can actually assert or explain how what I have said is an illogical impossibility, then you will have actually contribute something. What you are doing is just a desperate attempt from obviously not reading nor understanding my point at all.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

My point exactly. its so pointless to argue about something that is supposedly "omnipresent" if by that very definition they can act how they want in reality. I dont buy the invisible sky god either, Im just saying from a logical standpoint using reality to argue against something that can control all reality seems a little flawed to me.

---

But you're using 'reality' to make that argument that we're flawed.

By your own argument's conclusion, your own argument can't be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Personally after some thought I have come to define consciousness as awareness. Many others in neuroscience have taken the same approach.

I should point out that consciousness does have empirical consequences. For example, this conversation. Philosophical zombies could not have this conversation, which helps to show how the entire idea of such zombies is flawed.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I don't believe so. I believe the physical acting of an algorithm of a certain type (nobody can currently say what type, though) causes consciousness. This means any sufficiently advanced lifeform in this universe or in fact some exotic process in another universe, and indeed a computer, could potentially cause consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Our minds are the result of the functioning of our brains.

---

This is an assumption, a working hypothesis. Even the best of modern science has hardly proven that.

And do you equate "mind" with "consciousness>?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

...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.

---

While it's true that LaBerge's studies showed time equivalence, other reports from dreamers occasionally show a time compression, with the dream seeming to take much longer than the time asleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What are auras and chi?

---

I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question. If it's sincere, see Wiki: Aura (paranormal) and Qi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Why would you think they exist?

---

I believe evidence of Kirlian photography, and innumerable mystics who report seeing energy fields surrounding the body, the character of which, color, size, shape, and dynamics, accurately predicts health and mental state.
I belive in Chi/Qi because I've felt it in my body doing Qi Gong and Tantric practices. A couple of thousand years of Taoist study, while not conforming to Western ideas of acceptable science, should hardly be disregarded. It is an explanation, a working hypothesis, if you will, that explains certain facts and phenomena in martial arts and Chinese medicine that are not otherwise satisfactorily explained by Western "hard science" concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But you're using 'reality' to make that argument that we're flawed.

By your own argument's conclusion, your own argument can't be taken seriously.

---

no, Im using reality to mean the known universe. Which at this time is all we know that has time. My argument is simply if we have an "omnipresent" god who can control the known universe, how exactly can he be controlled by its properties for consciousness. Its like saying we created the way a computer thinks, therefore we must also think in a 1s and 0s type fashion and are constricted to the virtual world of the computer.

Quote:

---

This is an assumption, a working hypothesis. Even the best of modern science has hardly proven that.

And do you equate "mind" with "consciousness>?

---

I take it to be self evident. If consciousness has nothing to do with our brains, why the strong association? Why does taking drugs alter our consciousness? Why does conscious activity show up as brain activity in MRI scans? If all matter is conscious, the probability that just by chance we should 'happen' to be the most complex known object in the universe tends to zero.

I think mind is probably pretty much synonymous with consciousness and awareness. All of these terms are just debris from our dualistic history. Perhaps mind has a slight connotation of thought processes as opposed to experience and qualia.

Quote:

---

I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question. If it's sincere, see Wiki: Aura (paranormal) and Qi

---

Please sincerely try to answer the question, I am trying to argue something.

Quote:

---

I believe evidence of Kirlian photography, and innumerable mystics who report seeing energy fields surrounding the body, the character of which, color, size, shape, and dynamics, accurately predicts health and mental state.
I belive in Chi/Qi because I've felt it in my body doing Qi Gong and Tantric practices. A couple of thousand years of Taoist study, while not conforming to Western ideas of acceptable science, should hardly be disregarded. It is an explanation, a working hypothesis, if you will, that explains certain facts and phenomena in martial arts and Chinese medicine that are not otherwise satisfactorily explained by Western "hard science" concepts.

---

If there was evidence for these things, science would test them and verify them. Just think about the profit there is to be made if these 'alternate therapies' were actually successful. Do you not understand how huge the drugs industry is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Please sincerely try to answer the question, I am trying to argue something.

---

The Wiki sections explain consensus opinion better than I could. I'm certainly not an expert. Can you make your argument based on what's posted there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If there was evidence for these things, science would test them and verify them. Just think about the profit there is to be made if these 'alternate therapies' were actually successful. Do you not understand how huge the drugs industry is?

---

Several disagreements. I think there is evidence, though it rarely conforms to modern science's requirements for repeatability and double-blind tests.

But surely science would test them if it could, however I believe the nature of mind-body interaction is too subtle and nebulous for current methods to get a handle on.

I disagree about the supposed profit potential. Acupuncture has shown great results in lots of illnesses, but there's hardly any billion dollar industry potential. Mediation as a stress-reliever shows promise in relieving society of things from heart disease to depression, but again there's no profit potential for a corporate health-provider industry. And the real argument, if everybody is healthy and happy, the mega health care industry collapses. Things have been written about the current world health organizations having a vested interest in keeping people sick and afraid. It's like car manufacturers making cars that only their shops can repair. They don't have any payback for making cars that last forever. It's said that light bulbs could be built for the same cost that do last effectively forever. But the companies would soon be out of business.

But you've discovered a whole new field of medical technology. Who knows what the practices could bring if it was scientifically understood?

Quote:

---

The Wiki sections explain consensus opinion better than I could. I'm certainly not an expert. Can you make your argument based on what's posted there?

---

No. This is my point. Nobody can even explain what 'Chi' or 'auras' even are, because they themselves are lost in a turbulent sea of semantics. They are just words. I could say something now like, 'chi is a source of essential life energy'; this is quite simply a meaningless statement. What is life energy? What does it do? Where does it come from? They're just comforting words with no meaning, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

from a logical standpoint using reality to argue against something that can control all reality seems a little flawed to me.

---

But isn't this an argument from a logical standpoint:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

My argument is simply if we have an "omnipresent" god who can control the known universe, how exactly can he be controlled by its properties for consciousness. Its like saying we created the way a computer thinks, therefore we must also think in a 1s and 0s type fashion and are constricted to the virtual world of the computer.

---

?

What about a creature that doesn't utilize consciousness, such as a bacteria? They do not have memory, either. Yet aren't they phenomenological (meant as "observable," I assume)? They still exist in a kinetic world... And although I know that this does not relate to a God having consciousness, I'm still asking, for clarification. (In this case, I would call their DNA "memory," but it does explain memory and consciousness in the individual.)

What if a God programmed us from somewhere (another dimension, or whatever) that had its own time and space. Technically, the story would still go "First there was nothing (in our universe), and then there was God." ... But you can see the weakness of that argument. The Christian who tries using this point only bring up more questions, which will end up weakening whatever point they are trying to prove about creation and God as a whole. :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTTman

The Wiki sections explain consensus opinion better than I could. I'm certainly not an expert. Can you make your argument based on what's posted there?

---

What would be the point of arguing the Wiki here if there is no one that can offer a discussion about it? You say you're not an expert and should not be regarded, so why talk about it here?

Quote:

---

Several disagreements. I think there is evidence, though it rarely conforms to modern science's requirements for repeatability and double-blind tests.

---

Precisely. Just as you said earlier, you "know" because you "felt" it. This is directly parallel to any other Theist and "God" - they know because they felt it.

This is called bias. I think you know this.

Quote:

---

But surely science would test them if it could, however I believe the nature of mind-body interaction is too subtle and nebulous for current methods to get a handle on.

---

I do not mind remaining optimistic of the idea. But I won't integrate it into my life till it shows benefits that are not parallel to placebo effects.

Quote:

---

I disagree about the supposed profit potential. Acupuncture has shown great results in lots of illnesses, but there's hardly any billion dollar industry potential.

---

Acupuncture has not shown to work and this is because it is pseudo-science. The original acupuncture contained only 360 points and modern acupuncturists now claim that there are more than 2000. Within this, there are far too many forms of acupuncture from Thai, Korean, and Indian. All of these mean nothing as tests have shown one important thing; the therapy only works effectively if you believe it will work.

Tell me what you think that means.

(See George Ulett's study on acupuncture for details).

Quote:

---

Mediation as a stress-reliever shows promise in relieving society of things from heart disease to depression, but again there's no profit potential for a corporate health-provider industry.

---

No but spiritualists will certainly attach a lot of dogma to something that is just slowing your body to basal metabolic rate and then ask for donations or to buy books. I believe this is called Sahaja Yoga.

Why do you think they do this..? There is no rationale or proof that these methods work - it is all mere placebo effect. Of course, profiting off of placebo effects is certainly a wealthy business.

Quote:

---

And the real argument, if everybody is healthy and happy, the mega health care industry collapses.

---

Are you truly relying on our feebleness to avoid offering proof for these beliefs?

Quote:

---

Things have been written about the current world health organizations having a vested interest in keeping people sick and afraid. It's like car manufacturers making cars that only their shops can repair.

---

You're American arn't you? This is merely an argument more about media attention. Please avoid conspiracy theory for the sake of severe digression.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But isn't this an argument from a logical standpoint:




?

---

mm, I was just trying to create the closest analogy I could think of when I was trying to describe how if God were indeed the creator of reality then he would not be bound by its limits...like how a programmer isnt bound to the same properties as a simulated world like WOW or the like. If God were not omnipresent the original argument would indeed be flawless...but if he is omnipresent, he is like that programmer.

Of course, I dont think even if there is some kind of "god" he is omnipresent, Im just trying to do what the OP said and find ways people would try to counter it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

mm, I was just trying to create the closest analogy I could think of when I was trying to describe how if God were indeed the creator of reality then he would not be bound by its limits...like how a programmer isnt bound to the same properties as a simulated world like WOW or the like.

---

Derp, forget it.

lol, Im sorry I missed your point. Was youe point that I was using logic when I had previously said that arguing about an omnipresent being bounded by reality was flawed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

lol, Im sorry I missed your point. Was youe point that I was using logic when I had previously said that arguing about an omnipresent being bounded by reality was flawed?

---

You said we can't talk about an all-powerful being with logic.

But you argued to that point using logic.

Thats all.

oh, I didnt mean talking about an all powerful being at all. I meant talking about an all powerful being constricted by a force of reality. Because then he is not all powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

'Chi' or 'auras' ... are just comforting words with no meaning, in my opinion.

---

Are you, like O'nus appears to be, a scientific skeptic that refuses to believe anything that science and logic can't prove?

For myself, I'm with the White Queen: Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. :)

But you still haven't answered the basic question of what these things even are.

This more than anything is why they don't exist; they aren't even concepts. They're floating blobs of semantics. As Pauli famously said; you're not even wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Acupuncture has not shown to work and this is because it is pseudo-science.

---

My goodness. Such a quick leap from "lack of evidence" to complete conclusion and labeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

...tests have shown one important thing; the therapy only works effectively if you believe it will work.

---

I think there are tests that have shown quite the opposite. I'll see if I can dig up references for you.

Onus, you clearly have an impressive intellect. I will roll over and decline to get muddy with you in logically debating your contentions, because frankly you've got me out-classed. However even acknowledging your superior intellect, you should know that there's no way you will convince me that science and logic can deduce all the answers. I would like to point out that one of the problems that can arise with stong intellects is that you may not see your own bias. Do you refuse to believe anything that can't be proven by science or argued persuasively with your admittedly powerful logic? That's the way it sounds. And that is bias, pure and simple.

---

On the question of consciousness, albeit man's rather that God's, which is where this all started, have you read Hofstadter's "I am a Strange Loop?" I haven't read it, though I have read his "Godel, Escher, and Bach," which develops his thesis on consciousness, though not as completely as in IAASL. If you haven't read him, I highly recommend it. I personally was a bit overwhelmed and never felt like I had a good grasp of Godel's theorem, but you are obviously brighter than I am and can probably make sense of it.
In a summary he says:
"GEB is a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"
[from Wiki] "In IAASL he seeks to demonstrate how the properties of self-referential systems, demonstrated most famously in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, can be used to describe the unique properties of minds," including consciousness.

I'd be interested to know if you've read him and what your position is on his ideas. I am sincere in this, as I'd be interested in an assessment from someone like yourself that has the capability to understand what he's talking about, which I frankly don't quite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTTman

My goodness. Such a quick leap from "lack of evidence" to complete conclusion and labeling.

---

You say this as though there is something wrong with it and then you continue to actually agree with me. You say in the next paragraph that science cannot solve everything thus creating a dichotomy between science and non-science. You then continue to say that you can dig up scientific facts supporting acupuncture but simultaneously say that it ought not to require it?

I think what you are doing is defending something while completely acknowledging it is pseudo-science.

Let me establish something for the benefit of both of us; even if it is not science or has no proof, the fact is that it works if you believe it works. Don't ignore that I fully support and fervently enjoy the power of the mind. Just acknowledge that it is the MIND and not the METHOD that is bringing the results.

I imagine we can run off to numerous grandiose claims off of that notion.

Quote:

---

I think there are tests that have shown quite the opposite. I'll see if I can dig up references for you.

---

I would honestly be inclined to read them.

Quote:

---

...you should know that there's no way you will convince me that science and logic can deduce all the answers.

---

I won't say that, ever. Science can never tell you who "you" are or what you think of something. Subjectivity is always up to the individual and most scientists acknowledge this. This is why there is no science of art.

Furthermore, realize that what you are saying is actually bias; you will believe in it no matter what.

Quote:

---

I would like to point out that one of the problems that can arise with stong intellects is that you may not see your own bias. Do you refuse to believe anything that can't be proven by science or argued persuasively with your admittedly powerful logic? That's the way it sounds. And that is bias, pure and simple.

---

I think it is important that you know that no science claims to know something beyond a doubt. The most scientific fact that a scientist can claim is something at 98% certainty (p=.05 for you statisticians). My point here is that science always gives room for falsifiability and change. Science looks at the empirical data that we can objectively prove and systematically observe.

Quote:

---

If you haven't read him, I highly recommend it. I personally was a bit overwhelmed and never felt like I had a good grasp of Godel's theorem,

---

lol Godel is pretty hard, even for graduate philosophers.

Quote:

---

but you are obviously brighter than I am and can probably make sense of it.

---

STOP SAYING THAT!

Quote:

---

In a summary he says:
"GEB is a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"
[from Wiki] "In IAASL he seeks to demonstrate how the properties of self-referential systems, demonstrated most famously in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, can be used to describe the unique properties of minds," including consciousness.

I'd be interested to know if you've read him and what your position is on his ideas. I am sincere in this, as I'd be interested in an assessment from someone like yourself that has the capability to understand what he's talking about, which I frankly don't quite.

---

I will follow up on this with a thread. I won't lie, it does take a bit of work to discuss Godel and Russell.

~

the belief that God is consciousness is not a play of words

It is an ancient belief that PREDATES christianity

look up hinduism for one

My argument is simple. Your argument is useless and is largely spoken from ignorance in what God means for many, many, many. And I mean... A LOT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

the belief that God is consciousness is not a play of words

It is an ancient belief that PREDATES christianity

---

The belief that the sun is a God has been around longer than any recorded history. Does that make it true? Oh yeah, Zoroastrianism has been around before Christianity as well. Is it true nor regarded anymore? Of course not - time does not warrant truth.

Furthermore, are you defining God as consciousness? In that case, it is semantic. You are not offering anything further than a semantic definition. "God=consciousness" is all that you are saying. "X=Y". Perhaps you mean something more, but none of use can know this because you are failing at expressing it.

Quote:

---

My argument is simple. Your argument is useless and is largely spoken from ignorance in what God means for many, many, many. And I mean... A LOT

---

Your argument actually completely fails to encapsulate anything other than conjecture. Please do not try and base your arguments by attacking others. Realize that you are entirely guilty of what you are accusing.

I'm not even sure who you are speaking to.

~

I believe I understand how your argument works O'nus, but something about it doesn't feel quite right, and I don't know how to pin-point the problem. I'm going to give you a scenario I thought up, and maybe you can tell me how that works (or doesn't work) with your argument.


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.

I'd still like to hear how omnipotence and omniscience imply timelessness.

Then your conclusions will logically follow from your axioms.

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

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?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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).

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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?

Or in fact as your original definition suggests...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

~

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.]]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :P thank you! :D

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

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

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

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

Yes I did :P thank you! :D
~

---

And you're welcome :boogie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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

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.

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 — the true "self" of every person, called the ātman — 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

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.

Quote:

---

"Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul — the true "self" of every person, called the ātman — 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

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?

Quote:

---

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.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

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)

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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)

:rolllaugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

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

:rolllaugh:

---

Yup

So I guess we might as well not talk about anything but the weather.

Boy is it cold.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yup

So I guess we might as well not talk about anything but the weather.

Boy is it cold.

~

---

Not for me. It is Hot!

Hot Hot Hot!!!

I'm gonna buy an air conditioner, for this long summer. Thus:

God doesn't need consciousness, being All That Exists.

:lol:

I think it likely that any gods would not have consciousness, or at least no free will.

I say this because of a dream I had where I was everything. I was the air, the ground, the people, the buildings, absolutely everything. Some might consider that a god like attribute.

As the scope of my awareness grew, sinking down to the molecular level, I began to lose all will to do anything. I was just aware of everything humming away, and I couldn't do anything but just be aware of it. I couldn't have done anything if I wanted to, and I don't even think I could have wanted to.

When your consciousness encompasses everything, you can't make the distinction between one thing and another, and a person is no different than a speck of dust. They are all part of the same thing.

Suppose a "god" was simply an intelligent being that instantiated a computer simulation of a universe that spawned a virtual intelligence, call it O'nus, that questioned whether gods can be conscious. Is this "god" not conscious?

See post #2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Suppose a "god" was simply an intelligent being that instantiated a computer simulation of a universe that spawned a virtual intelligence, call it O'nus, that questioned whether gods can be conscious. Is this "god" not conscious?

---

I assimilated the response of mine to this issue as already brought up by Xei:

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 argument.

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 this argument is inadequate 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.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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.

---

From the perspective of the simulated reality, the 'beginning' is the instantiation of the simulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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.

---

You claim that no omniscient, omnipotent, creator could be conscious. I just gave a counter-example. Therefore, your claim is false unless you assume that this universe is not a simulation, which is not testable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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 argument.

---

Simulated realities are what appear to be required to invalidate what you are asserting. It may be true that no conscious god can exist as an actor within the simulation, but I don't think any religious person would say that, and to prove such says nothing about a simulation-initiator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

---

The Matrix is a movie. It is, in fact, perfectly conceivable that the creator of a simulation would be omnipotent within the simulation. Afterall, he could pause the simulation at any time, change variables at his leisure, and resume it without the inhabitants being any the wiser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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.

---

Circular logic. You appear to be defining "God" not by the properties he exhibits in local reality, such as omnipotence and omniscience, but by not being "God". Clearly, the initiator of a simulation does have omni-everything within that reality, so to bring up the fact that he's not a god in the larger reality would imply that an unknowable characteristic of the god is relevant in discussing his properties within the simulation, which makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

From the perspective of the simulated reality, the 'beginning' is the instantiation of the simulation.

---

Right, but there is still a creator for the thing that is creating the simulated reality.

Quote:

---

You claim that no omniscient, omnipotent, creator could be conscious. I just gave a counter-example. Therefore, your claim is false unless you assume that this universe is not a simulation, which is not testable.

---

Been over this one already as well - this is not a counter-example. First of all, the simulated reality is created by something that is created. Thus, it is not an omni-being.

Quote:

---

Simulated realities are what appear to be required to invalidate what you are asserting. It may be true that no conscious god can exist as an actor within the simulation, but I don't think any religious person would say that, and to prove such says nothing about a simulation-initiator.

---

No, simulated realities are irrelevant because we still must speak of the beginning of the creator of the simulated reality.

Quote:

---

The Matrix is a movie. It is, in fact, perfectly conceivable that the creator of a simulation would be omnipotent within the simulation. Afterall, he could pause the simulation at any time, change variables at his leisure, and resume it without the inhabitants being any the wiser.

---

It is still not a counter-example as the creators of, say, the Matrix are, in fact, not omni-Gods in their own right world. I am taking the immediate stance of an omni-God.

Quote:

---

Circular logic. You appear to be defining "God" not by the properties he exhibits in local reality, such as omnipotence and omniscience, but by not being "God".

---

That is what I am saying you are doing actually.. lol.

Quote:

---

Clearly, the initiator of a simulation does have omni-everything within that reality, so to bring up the fact that he's not a god in the larger reality would imply that an unknowable characteristic of the god is relevant in discussing his properties within the simulation, which makes no sense.

---

Okay, this is a good point and I want to point out the necessity of making this assumption:

I am using this argument against monotheists who claim that God has a consciousness. This is, as you say, something we do not know for certain.

Thus, at most, I would say my argument is a redundancy. There are far better arguments to say that God does not exist, but I am making the explicit argument that God could not have a consciousness because mono-theists are functioning on the basis that could does have a consciousness.

Does this help..?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Thus, at most, I would say my argument is a redundancy. There are far better arguments to say that God does not exist, but I am making the explicit argument that God could not have a consciousness because mono-theists are functioning on the basis that could does have a consciousness.

Does this help..?

~

---

If we're talking about a "true" god, I don't disagree with you. However, there's no way for an inhabitant of the simulation to distinguish between a true god and the simulation creator, so it seems better to define a god in terms of what he can do, does it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

If we're talking about a "true" god, I don't disagree with you. However, there's no way for an inhabitant of the simulation to distinguish between a true god and the simulation creator, so it seems better to define a god in terms of what he can do, does it not?

---

An omni-God is simply everywhere, knows everything, created everything, etc. etc.

That is the God I am tackling. We could re-define this, of course, but I am making this argument towards the typical mono-theistic omni-God.

Where the inhabitant of a simulation may not be able to distinguish, this does not really affect the characteristics of an atypical omni-God.

It opens the door to something different. I am trying to contrive this really.

~

Why does God have to be Conscious? How do you not know that there is somthing other than conscious?

God or Higher Intelligence watever you want to call it, could not have consciousness, but have something higher which in return is why they are called Higher Intelligence.

You seem to have defined consciousness from a physical standpoint, but you forget the typical mono-theistic omni-God is supposedly not of the physical realm. Subjecting this sort of scrutiny to a being whose consciousness is believed to have been in existence for all eternity is a bit silly and ignores the spiritual concept inherent in the argument.

If you believe in the existence of the spirit - a form of consciousness beyond synaptic patterns, environmental adaptation, and kinetic, temporal interactions - then a conscious, spiritual God is entirely possible. You though, seem to be to be of the mindset that God, if he does exist, must so exist physically and immediately provide himself to the scientific community of the world so they can take his shoe size and put a volt-meter across his fingertips.

There seems to be a fundamental incompatibility between theism and atheism: that theists believe reality exists beyond the tangible, while atheists believe it does not. To judge one by the standards of the other is often unfair and frustrating.

[Edit:] Awwww man. Seems everyone's already settled out. Should'a lurked the thread more. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorge

Why does God have to be Conscious? How do you not know that there is somthing other than conscious?

God or Higher Intelligence watever you want to call it, could not have consciousness, but have something higher which in return is why they are called Higher Intelligence.

---

Right. They could have something more. My point was simply that they could not have the same consciousness as us.

~

Who makes these "God has consciousness" claims? I never hear them. Actually, how can God "have" anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Who makes these "God has consciousness" claims? I never hear them. Actually, how can God "have" anything?

---

Any Christian will say that God has a conscious process that has decided several ethical claims.

I am not speaking of any other God.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Any Christian will say that God has a conscious process that has decided several ethical claims.

I am not speaking of any other God.

~

---

Though I get your point, don't you say "any".

Not really. I wouldn't say that (I was a Christian).

Literally, Christian is a name. Not all people called Christians, know God the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right. They could have something more. My point was simply that they could not have the same consciousness as us.

~

---

I get you my friend. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Though I get your point, don't you say "any".

Not really. I wouldn't say that (I was a Christian).

Literally, Christian is a name. Not all people called Christians, know God the same.

---

lol ok.. we can become pedantic about the wording, but you get the overall argument.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Not all people called Christians, know God the same.

---

lol, indeed. The different sects of Christianity, depending on which you talk about, can have remarkably different views on God. Arianism, which is it's own kind of Christianity, denies the idea of the trinity, isn't that right? Not to get off topic or anything. I'm overdue for my own special thread, aren't I.... Trying to keep up with my university papers is my excuse, alright? Alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

lol ok.. we can become pedantic about the wording, but you get the overall argument.

~

---

I am pedantic; wording is important. "Any Christian" is nothing like "Some Christians I know."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

lol, indeed. The different sects of Christianity, depending on which you talk about, can have remarkably different views on God. Arianism, which is it's own kind of Christianity, denies the idea of the trinity, isn't that right?

---

Yeah, but I don't really pay attention to those "sub-groups." That wasn't my point, but you can still count that, I guess. I think "God-views" are quite broad, people can be Christians and believe, say for example, that God punishes them. Ask another Christian, and they understand that God is Love and punishment is not the case.

Arianism has something to do with the Father and Son, though I don't quite understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Arianism has something to do with the Father and Son, though I don't quite understand it.

---

If I'm not mistaken, it denies the whole concept of the holy spirit and son as being a part of God. They believe in a single God that is one in essence, as opposed to other Christians who believe that God either divides his spirit or his appearance between the aspects of the Trinity (the trinity was a concept they stole from paganism anyways), or what have you. Does that make sense? In this case, Arianism is a Christian branch that behaves more like Judaism and Islam in terms of how they perceive God as a being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

If I'm not mistaken, it denies the whole concept of the holy spirit and son as being a part of God. They believe in a single God that is one in essence, as opposed to other Christians who believe that God either divides his spirit or his appearance between the aspects of the Trinity (the trinity was a concept they stole from paganism anyways), or what have you. Does that make sense? In this case, Arianism is a Christian branch that behaves more like Judaism and Islam in terms of how they perceive God as a being.

---

Ah yeah, cool. Makes sense.

From my good old "New Oxford American Dictionary":

Quote:

---

Arianism |ˈe(ə)rēəˌnizəm|
noun Christian Theology
an influential heresy denying the divinity of Christ, originating with the Alexandrian priest Arius ( c. 250– c. 336). Arianism maintained that the Son of God was created by the Father and was therefore neither coeternal with the Father, nor consubstantial.

---

God can do anything he/she/it pleases...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shotbirds

God can do anything he/she/it pleases...

---

Yes but we're talking about the actual characteristics of God. Simply saying this is not enough to justify it's attributes.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes but we're talking about the actual characteristics of God. Simply saying this is not enough to justify it's attributes.

---

So what are they? I'm curious how you understand them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

So what are they? I'm curious how you understand them.

---

Again, I was simply debating about the typical omni-God. Nothing further, for the sake of this thread.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right. They could have something more. My point was simply that they could not have the same consciousness as us.

~

---

I think you sometimes do an extremely poor job of explaining yourself in your O.P. The only other option is that you are intentionally misleading in order to spark debate over something that really doesn't need to be debated. There are very few people who would think that a god and a man have the same sort of consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think you sometimes do an extremely poor job of explaining yourself in your O.P. The only other option is that you are intentionally misleading in order to spark debate over something that really doesn't need to be debated. There are very few people who would think that a god and a man have the same sort of consciousness.

---

Is it not the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Again, I was simply debating about the typical omni-God. Nothing further, for the sake of this thread.

~

---

Omni-God - Did you make up the term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is it not the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?

~

---

How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Omni-God - Did you make up the term?

---

Obviously not. There is the quintessential referenced God as being omni-powerful.

Quote:

---

How?

---

Because that is how "God's" conscience is referenced.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Obviously not. There is the quintessential referenced God as being omni-powerful.

---

Omni-potent, Omni-scient, Omni-present are the qualities. Obviously not of linear, localizable or measurable dimension.

I've never heard of any "Omni-God"; that's not really a necessary term. Though, I have of the Perennial Philosophy, Advaita/Non-duality and Monotheism, if they hold any connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Because that is how "God's" conscience is referenced.

---

That's not the answer to how "...the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?" What is the incarnate "theory of theology?" Can you be more elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Omni-potent, Omni-scient, Omni-present are the qualities. Obviously not of linear, localizable or measurable dimension.

I've never heard of any "Omni-God"; that's not really a necessary term. Though, I have of the Perennial Philosophy, Advaita/Non-duality and Monotheism, if they hold any connection.

---

The term was coined by St. Augustine who is typically heralded as a significant Christian philosopher. Hence, I regard it as a profoundly necessary term as it encompasses the representation of most mono-theistic Gods.

I am not generalizing to all Gods, simply the omni-God.

Quote:

---

That's not the answer to how "...the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?" What is the incarnate "theory of theology?" Can you be more elaborate?

---

I mean incarnational as in the quintessence or general norm of the religious reference to God. Realize my difficulty in encompassing a vague term that is used very loosely and subjectively throughout the thousands of years. Incarnationally, the omni-God has similar or parallel consciousness as humans.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is it not the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?

~

---

No. Where did you get this idea? Incarnational theology in christianity would be the study of how god came to be Jesus Christ, although the bible makes it clear that god incarnate as Jesus does not have the same consciousness as god the father (as exemplified by his time spent in the wilderness, questioning god).

Incarnational theory, as far as I can gather, is a new age type of idea that seeks to study how the 'spiritual world' becomes part of the physical one.

A brief description I found on a new agey website;
"Incarnational theory is the study of the processes of intentionality, spirit and energy that create incarnation. Specifically these are the processes by which the soul of an individual manifests and engages with the physical world, but more generally it is about the means by which any idea or consciousness takes on form and expression within a particular environment."

(New agey website)

Maybe interpretted loosely, incarnational theory could be taken to mean that our consciousness is somehow a part of god's consciousness and that god is manifest through us and other things around us, but this still wouldn't put an individual consciousness on the same level as the whole of god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

The term was coined by St. Augustine who is typically heralded as a significant Christian philosopher. Hence, I regard it as a profoundly necessary term as it encompasses the representation of most mono-theistic Gods.

I am not generalizing to all Gods, simply the omni-God.

---

Ah ok, I see. Thanks for pointing that out! :goodjob2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I mean incarnational as in the quintessence or general norm of the religious reference to God. Realize my difficulty in encompassing a vague term that is used very loosely and subjectively throughout the thousands of years. Incarnationally, the omni-God has similar or parallel consciousness as humans.

---

I'm not really understanding what you mean. I guess Xaqaria has responded to your point, resolving the confusion between the nature of God and man's consciousnesses. The Self is one with God, but that is far beyond consciousness.

Word of warning: If your argument only applies to the "typical-omni God", which by my understanding refers to what most people believe to be the characteristics of God(please correct me if I'm wrong in this), my questions/ideas don't exactly apply.

Only a few questions:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

---

1. Isn't it possible that all that is required is communication of the brain to the body? I mean: if a man could be born and then raised without any human interaction whatsoever, his brain would express to his body hunger, need for sleep, etc. and it is likely that he would either react to these urges or else die (like the instinct we see in other animals). Is it really necessary that his feelings/needs are communicated to another being? Because I don't see how it is necessary to their being met, beyond the fact that to communicate them to a more adept being makes them easier to achieve.

Or is the expression of needs to oneself the communication you're speaking of?


also,

2. Is it possible that God could have the consciousness of its own self being alive, but yet not be conscious of the fact that he is in fact God to others? To be conscious of the self and being alive is one thing, but couldn't the consciousness of being in control of an entire universe require an entirely new set of perceptions? I mean: if you were to consider human or plant cells as a self-contained universe, they are in fact responsible for the whole of the host organism, and yet they are only concerned with the goings-on that occur within their own cell-walls. I know cells don't have actual brains, and so to some minds no concsiousness, but it is true that their only priority is to survive; just like the other trillions of cells in that organism, and in fact the whole organism itself. (To apply the same logic to the planet, humans, or even God, that we do to cells is a result of my own particular mindset, I realize.)

But I only ask because quite often I get the idea that the only way God could effectively and objectively control the universe is if it only applies it's personal, finite rationale--in all cases--to an infinite set of events (sometimes even without realizing they are doing so). Much in the same way humans apply their personal mindset to everything, without realizing that it may be sometimes yield contradictory in some cases. Or the way plants react on a finite set of "instincts" that dictate which path is the one toward infinite growth, even if that means absorbing acid rain or growing in places that will inevitably lead to their being cut down.

Any thoughts/reactions?


This isn't exactly an argument, merely questions and ideas...ideas of my own that I don't wholly accept as being absolute; just questions that help me evolve my ideas. I'm not as advanced in this line of thought as the others in this thread are, so you can ignore my questions as being silly. But I'm just curious as to how your ideas relate to my own.

Maybe I'm just to influenced by my own middle-school reaction to "The Lifes Of A Cell", or the end of Men In Black where the galaxy is contained within a marble around the cat's neck.

But heck, in philosophy there is room for dreamers, and people who question...isn't there?]



P.S. - I, for one, would be very interested in a thread dealing with "Can something be created out of nothing?"



:dreaming:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

Word of warning: If your argument only applies to the "typical-omni God", which by my understanding refers to what most people believe to be the characteristics of God(please correct me if I'm wrong in this), my questions/ideas don't exactly apply.

---

After reading your post, I must say that I am impressed with your approach to discussion. You seem like a rather well versed and open individual. I hope to see all the more from you on the boards. Now for your questions..

Quote:

---

1. Isn't it possible that all that is required is communication of the brain to the body?
I mean: if a man could be born and then raised without any human interaction whatsoever, his brain would express to his body hunger, need for sleep, etc. and it is likely that he would either react to these urges or else die (like the instinct we see in other animals). Is it really necessary that his feelings/needs are communicated to another being? Because I don't see how it is necessary to their being met, beyond the fact that to communicate them to a more adept being makes them easier to achieve.

---

You make the good point about feral children. Although humans can survive on their own just fine without needing to communicate to others, I speak of a much grander scale. As Thomas Hobbes said in the Leviathan, in the state of nature, even the week can survive and beat out the strong by teaming up and forming groups. Humans do this but on a much grander scale. Just like the prairie dogs chirp to one another to warn of danger, humans developed a grand language system to from communities and systems of survival. We learned over time the efficiency of telling one another about our feelings and thoughts and this reinforced our survival tenfold to the point of how we are now.

Quote:

---

Or is the expression of needs to oneself the communication you're speaking of?

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

2. Is it possible that God could have the consciousness of its own self being alive, but yet not be conscious of the fact that he is in fact God to others? To be conscious of the self and being alive is one thing, but couldn't the consciousness of being in control of an entire universe require an entirely new set of perceptions?

---

That is precisely my point actually! I think you had an intuition of this from the beginning. While this argument is intended to disprove the omni-God, it only does it for that. The concept of an all encompassing consciousness is that which can still survive this argument. However, I argue that that this form of consciousness would not be subject to moral reasoning as ours is because moral reasoning is the crux of our consciousness and subject to many other things, etc. etc. This leads to another discussion, obviously.

Quote:

---

I mean: if you were to consider human or plant cells as a self-contained universe, they are in fact responsible for the whole of the host organism, and yet they are only concerned with the goings-on that occur within their own cell-walls. I know cells don't have actual brains, and so to some minds no concsiousness, but it is true that their only priority is to survive; just like the other trillions of cells in that organism, and in fact the whole organism itself. (To apply the same logic to the planet, humans, or even God, that we do to cells is a result of my own particular mindset, I realize.)

---

Yes, we can essentially call this the rule of self-preservation. The typical animal and a lot of humans will inevitably be more focused on themselves. However, the humans are inclined to help their fellow communities in order to reinforce their ability to survive as a whole and to maintain the integrity of their youth. Plants do this in their own way, as you say, but they certainly do not need to survive as communities for the most part. The ones that you can find that do (eg. the ones that replenish and pollinate, etc.) do not need to inform others of their own experiences in order to reinforce their sense of community. Plants surviving as a community would be much different than a phenomenological being. An interesting thought, for sure.

Quote:

---

But I only ask because quite often I get the idea that the only way God could effectively and objectively control the universe is if it only applies it's personal, finite rationale--in all cases--to an infinite set of events (sometimes even without realizing they are doing so). Much in the same way humans apply their personal mindset to everything, without realizing that it may be sometimes yield contradictory in some cases. Or the way plants react on a finite set of "instincts" that dictate which path is the one toward infinite growth, even if that means absorbing acid rain or growing in places that will inevitably lead to their being cut down.

Any thoughts/reactions?

---

This part really depends on defining God. When you say God applies rationale, we have to explore God's capability and limits (or lack thereof) of rationale. I think I see what you mean though - a sort of top-down processing without realization of the sort.

Addition:

In this respect, you are actually utilizing your consciousness to conceive of how God's consciousness would operate which is a significant flaw for a God of consciousness. A top-down-processing modality insinuates that, at one-time, God was a bottom-up processing and had to "learn" how to use these senses and consciousness. If God is eternal or exists only consciously, then there had to be a beginning of God which is wrong as he ought to have been eternal.

Quote:

---

Maybe I'm just to influenced by my own middle-school reaction to "The Lifes Of A Cell", or the end of Men In Black where the galaxy is contained within a marble around the cat's neck.

---

While this is also intriguing, the question of a creator or God still applies to even these situations.

Quote:

---

But heck, in philosophy there is room for dreamers, and people who question...isn't there?]

---

A look at this board will significantly reinforce that the answer is most definitely yes! :D

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

2. Is it possible that God could have the consciousness of its own self being alive, but yet not be conscious of the fact that he is in fact God to others? To be conscious of the self and being alive is one thing, but couldn't the consciousness of being in control of an entire universe require an entirely new set of perceptions? I mean: if you were to consider human or plant cells as a self-contained universe, they are in fact responsible for the whole of the host organism, and yet they are only concerned with the goings-on that occur within their own cell-walls. I know cells don't have actual brains, and so to some minds no concsiousness, but it is true that their only priority is to survive; just like the other trillions of cells in that organism, and in fact the whole organism itself. (To apply the same logic to the planet, humans, or even God, that we do to cells is a result of my own particular mindset, I realize.)

---

Interesting post, so your point is that a human could as well be God, but just doesn't realize it because of his limited perception? Just like a cell is part of our body and is essentially us because we exist out of nothing but cells, but the cell doesn't realize it is us because of its limited perception? Of course this raises the question, if we were God, where are our magical powers? Then you could counter with the cell-anology again, cells only can reach their full potential if they work together as an organism. Which I think is the deeper meaning behind religion and the purpose of the God concept, to enlighten humanity to realize its infinite potential when combining forces.. Now that I start to think about it.. if all of humanity would work together for the greater good.. God, we would have no limits at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Interesting post, so your point is that a human could as well be God, but just doesn't realize it because of his limited perception? Just like a cell is part of our body and is essentially us because we exist out of nothing but cells, but the cell doesn't realize it is us because of its limited perception?

---

I don't think the cell realises anything, or even has the capacity to realise..

Yeah of course, it doesn't realize stuff like we realize things. It's not like cells have brains lol. But our brains are made out of nothing but cells. Cells do perceive things and react to them like it wants to or they wouldn't be able to function at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Yeah of course, it doesn't realize stuff like we realize things. But it does perceive things and reacts to them like it wants to or it wouldn't be able to function at all.

---

I don't think percieve is the right word.

It doesn't percieve things anymore than one pool ball percieves another when it hits it.


I would of thought "percieve" limited to consciousness.

You can pick whatever word you want, it really doesn't matter, its only an anology.... using images to get thoughts accross instead of words exactly for this purpose of avoiding discussion about "this is not the right word". I don't really care about words, it's the idea that counts.

I don't agree with a pool ball being as intelligent as a human cell... you can't put a billion pool balls together to create a human. You might wanna check wikipedia because I think you underestimate the complexity of a cell. Also, I'd love to see a poolball perform mitosis :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I don't agree with a pool ball being as intelligent as a human cell... you can't put a billion pool balls together to create a human. You might wanna check wikipedia because I think you underestimate the complexity of a cell. Also, I'd love to see a poolball perform mitosis :D

---

mitosis etcetera and all the ways in which a cell is more complex than a pool ball have nothing to do with consciousness, and in turn, perceiving..

If cells didn't perceive anything, all interaction would be impossible. But then again, it is only an anology, you can pick whatever words you want, I don't understand why you are still arguing about the incorrect use of words and insignificant details.. I think you're missing the point here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If cells didn't perceive anything, all interaction would be impossible. But then again, it is only an anology, you can pick whatever words you want, I don't understand why you are still arguing about the incorrect use of words and insignificant details.. I think you're missing the point here...

---

I can't pick whatever words I want.

I can't pick "squirrel" to mean cell.

Because then you wouldn't understand me.

I could be wrong, but I think maybe by "perceive", Chayba meant the ability to be aware of more complex things than a poolball can...? Like the fact that the cell is in danger of dying, and the ability to react in ways that could prevent it from dying.

Whether or not that is consciousness, I guess depends on how you define it.

I don't know, the whole idea may be looney, but I just think perhaps its possible that entire worlds can be contained within the smallest of things. Whether or not the living components contained within those small spaces have the capacity for consciousness on the level humans do, that's near impossible to know.

I just keep thinking...if our universe, as we try to comprehend it, is infinite...the only way I can picture it is it just goes on forever, unchanged (hard to understand), or it goes on forever because it is divisible in some way. The only way I can explain it is if you were to be some microscopic element of a cell, the universe (our universe) it exists in is infinite, because beyond its own cell is trillions of others making an organism, and organism that lives on a planet, that resides in a galaxy, and so on...

It's just that if you were part of a cell, it would be near impossible to be aware of the universe beyond your cell wall...if you were, the immensely broadened scope of awareness might inferfere with the cell's main purpose, of keeping its own world alive...which brings my back to the idea that a God's awareness of his divinity might interfere with his purpose.

But then again, my perception is quite limited. Like I said, the whole thing is just an idea I've got. More or less a feeling...


I hope I'm not hijacking or redirecting the purpose of this thread...I was just interested.



:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I can't pick whatever words I want.

I can't pick "squirrel" to mean cell.

Because then you wouldn't understand me.

---

If you would stop placing yourself outside of nature, you would understand what he is trying to say. Your ability to collect data and exert will is no more special than what a cell does, just more complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you would stop placing yourself outside of nature, you would understand what he is trying to say. Your ability to collect data and exert will is no more special than what a cell does, just more complex.

---

This is rather materialistic isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

This is rather materialistic isn't it?

---

That's the point.

I am not sure why this is often associated with a pejorative tone, but I see no reason for it. Materialism is the only empirical and certain thing that can be systematically observed and demonstrated. Along that, one can take the interactionist stance and say that materialism operates with subjectivity in a chaotic fashion.

However, I suspect that everything can be reduced to simple activity.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

That's the point.

I am not sure why this is often associated with a pejorative tone, but I see no reason for it. Materialism is the only empirical and certain thing that can be systematically observed and demonstrated. Along that, one can take the interactionist stance and say that materialism operates with subjectivity in a chaotic fashion.

However, I suspect that everything can be reduced to simple activity.

~

---

But Mary and her black and white room! >:[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But Mary and her black and white room! >:[

---

That's a whole other debate including epistemology. Remember, I am including the sense of interactionism with subjectivity.

Want to make a thread on this one? I'll see if I can dig up a good ol Dan Dennett video on the ordeal.

Basically, the argument will rest on the function of memories of colors rather than subjective learning.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

That's a whole other debate including epistemology. Remember, I am including the sense of interactionism with subjectivity.

Want to make a thread on this one? I'll see if I can dig up a good ol Dan Dennett video on the ordeal.

Basically, the argument will rest on the function of memories of colors rather than subjective learning.

~

---

OK.

There isn't one.

Make awayyyy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your ability to collect data and exert will is no more special than what a cell does, just more complex.

---

Although this may be true, I don't believe cells can perceive because there is no conscious awareness to begin with. Although cells require intelligence to grow, I think it needs to reach a certain extent until it has the capacity to become aware of its own existence.

My apologies - I see I made a mistake in contributing there. Please ignore what I have said.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Although this may be true, I don't believe cells can perceive because there is no conscious awareness to begin with. Although cells require intelligence to grow, I think it needs to reach a certain extent until it has the capacity to become aware of its own existence.

---

The perceiving must come from somewhere, if it doesn't come from the cells, where does it come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

The perceiving must come from somewhere, if it doesn't come from the cells, where does it come from?

---

Are you asking about the perception of humans? Do you really mean the awareness of human beings? To be aware of existence is not to perceive existence.

I understand your argument that consciousness requires memory and time, at least as it applies to consciousness that is rooted in mater. Energy is not rooted in mater though, it is the other way around, so I’m not sure why we should assume that a non physical consciousness would have to employ that particular survival mechanism in the first place. Energy is eternal, conscious biological life forms are not.

Consciousness requires memory? What do you mean by that?

From the original post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.
~

---

Just my thoughts, I don't know, yet.

God is a conscious individual in the same way that a single ant colony, or bee hive is a conscious individual. An ant colony is an architect that creates massive subterranean structures of immense complexity and great volume. This architect, however, is not an individual--self aware, but the sum of the ant colony. The ants, individually, do not have the master plan, they merely carry out their individual responsibilities in the whole project. The architect consciousness arises from a force that is unaware of itself. Pure universal energy, can "meta-function" as the conscious, personal, god in this way, in a very real sense--the personal god is a very real thing, just as the architect consciousness of the ant colony is.

Consciousness, is completely different from the self. The self is the invented concept, consciousness is inherent to this universe. Complete awareness, can be completely uncorrupted by any sense of ego of separate.

We invented the concept of consciousness, the concept of relativity (time) is very real.

Does 'God" have a consciousness? Of course he does, as consciousness is defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation". "I am who am" is an affirmation of being, i.e relative consciousness to humans. I don't believe in God but i think its hillarious you guys need 6+ pages to trifle over such an easy question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

We invented the concept of consciousness, the concept of relativity (time) is very real.

Does 'God" have a consciousness? Of course he does, as consciousness is defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation". "I am who am" is an affirmation of being, i.e relative consciousness to humans. I don't believe in God but i think its hillarious you guys need 6+ pages to trifle over such an easy question.

---

It seems surprising to you that people have long conversations about consciousness? Are you that narrow-minded or divinely inspired to think that such a profound topic is not worth "trifling"? Consciousness is a rather important matter.

Also, please pay attention to the definitions as given as you have invented your own arbitrary ones and ignored the original content at hand.

God does not have a consciousness.

God is a rather loose term and deserves defining when discussing it. I suggest you pay attention to the vernacular of a discussion before jumping in the middle of it and patronizing them.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness requires memory? What do you mean by that?

---

You must remember events to make any sort of thought at all. How do you think if you do not remember how to? How can you keep any sort of train of thought without memory? Without memory, you are basically a video recorder, looking at the world, but never understanding anything at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

You must remember events to make any sort of thought at all. How do you think if you do not remember how to? How can you keep any sort of train of thought without memory? Without memory, you are basically a video recorder, looking at the world, but never understanding anything at all.

---

There are several parts.

He is "reborn" each time mere seconds have passed. Must be difficult.

----
Memory is a property of consciousness, see "2." in http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...80&postcount=8

O'nus, are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your definition of God or Consciousness that they should not take part in your threads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

There are several parts.

He is "reborn" each time mere seconds have passed. Must be difficult.

----
Memory is a property of consciousness, see "2." in http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...80&postcount=8

---

He still has some memory. He remembers language and thinking, he knows how to compile thoughts, if even just briefly. He can eat and sleep...he still has some memory on his side. Starting from scratch, if you had a consciousness without any memory at all, then you would basically be little more than a camera. You could observe the world and understand nothing at all...even if you did have some form of consciousness, without memory, how is this any benefit to anyone at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarsier

O'nus, are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your definition of God or Consciousness that they should not take part in your threads?

---

As I remember, that was the general direction the thread was going in when it was fresh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarsier

O'nus, are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your definition of God or Consciousness that they should not take part in your threads?

---

I set forth certain arguments for a certain definition of God.

We could define God as energy or buddha and I would not be willing to apply these arguments to them at all as the context is different.

Why should I allow anyones arbitrary definition of God to fall under my select argument against God?

Are you suggesting I ought to make one argument and it ought to be universally applicable to ALL definitions of God?

I think it is ridiculous that I must fall under such scrutiny when I am making am amicable effort to make my criticisms and arguments select to certain contexts that I feel is fair. Obviously my argument for Gods consciousness is not applicable to everyones definition of God.

Also, I love having discussions with people about God. This thread, however, begun with a specific definition of God. Why ought we derail it and digress? To make people feel better? We could also discuss teddy bears if you'd like.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

He still has some memory. He remembers language and thinking, he knows how to compile thoughts, if even just briefly. He can eat and sleep...he still has some memory on his side. Starting from scratch, if you had a consciousness without any memory at all, then you would basically be little more than a camera. You could observe the world and understand nothing at all...even if you did have some form of consciousness, without memory, how is this any benefit to anyone at all?

---

Yes I agree. But there is no consciousness that don't have a memory. Memory is essential for its function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I set forth certain arguments for a certain definition of God.

We could define God as energy or buddha and I would not be willing to apply these arguments to them at all as the context is different.

Why should I allow anyones arbitrary definition of God to fall under my select argument against God?

Are you suggesting I ought to make one argument and it ought to be universally applicable to ALL definitions of God?

I think it is ridiculous that I must fall under such scrutiny when I am making am amicable effort to make my criticisms and arguments select to certain contexts that I feel is fair. Obviously my argument for Gods consciousness is not applicable to everyones definition of God.

Also, I love having discussions with people about God. This thread, however, begun with a specific definition of God. Why ought we derail it and digress? To make people feel better? We could also discuss teddy bears if you'd like.

~

---

It might be okay, if what you say here is true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Your initial statement in the OP was,

Quote:

---

...I want to place emphasis on my point in this argument - any sort of God cannot have a consciousness.

---

(emphasis added)


Now, you may have had a certain definition for god in mind, but you began your argument by applying it to "any sort of god". It is by your own statement that you are held rigorously to making a universal argument that might apply to anyone's definition of what a god could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It might be okay, if what you say here is true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Your initial statement in the OP was,

Now, you may have had a certain definition for god in mind, but you began your argument by applying it to "any sort of god". It is by your own statement that you are held rigorously to making a universal argument that might apply to anyone's definition of what a god could be.

---

Perhaps I should have stated it at the beginning for those that do not pay attention. But, if you had read the whole thing, you would have seen:

Quote:

---

Summary:
(God defined as an omniscient, omnipresent being)
...

---

Also, this being the type of God that is ascribed as creating everything. Or, before time existed.

Otherwise, if it is about a God that does not have consciousness, then I am obviously not speaking of that kind.

Really, this is a significant tangent for semantics. I thought this would be intuitive.

~

I know me and you have butt heads in the past before, but for me the opposite couldnt be anymore true!

I AM! I AM! I AM THAT I AM! This is God's name according to the bible. God is consciousness that is aware of itself.

Does this mean that your own consciousness is God when it is aware of the self? ....By definition.

Are you saying god is just an unconscious force?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I know me and you have butt heads in the past before, but for me the opposite couldnt be anymore true!

---

What opposite? That humans don't have consciousness..?

Quote:

---

I AM! I AM! I AM THAT I AM! This is God's name according to the bible. God is consciousness that is aware of itself.

---

And I am arguing that that is incorrect. Just because you quote the bible does not mean it is true. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Does this mean that your own consciousness is God when it is aware of the self? ....By definition.

---

No. That is also not how I am defining anything. I am just arguing that any potential God could not have a consciousness as we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradysdreaming

Are you saying god is just an unconscious force?

---

No, because even an "unconsciousness" is still a form of consciousness. Unconsciousness implicates that there is an existing consciousness that it resides within. I argue that that is impossible.

~

So what are you saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradysdreaming

So what are you saying?

---

A God could not have consciousness, if one existed.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

And I am arguing that that is incorrect. Just because you quote the bible does not mean it is true. Sorry.

---

Doesn't mean it's true? We have definitions for a reason, you're going up against the very definition of what God is or any definition of god and deities all together combined

The definition of God or gods require for said God or gods to be a 'being'. And being by definition has consciousness.

You can say God is not conscious. But all you are saying is "God does not exist". You can't argue that DEFINITION of God is something without consciousness. That doesn't work. God that does not have consciousness is not God, it is only a force. Do you understand what I mean? I am not attacking your beliefs. I am only saying you are ignoring that by definition God or gods define a BEING, and beings are always conscious!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Doesn't mean it's true? We have definitions for a reason, you're going up against the very definition of what God is or any definition of god and deities all together combined

The definition of God or gods require for said God or gods to be a 'being'. And being by definition has consciousness.

You can say God is not conscious. But all you are saying is "God does not exist". You can't argue that DEFINITION of God is something without consciousness. That doesn't work. God that does not have consciousness is not God, it is only a force. Do you understand what I mean? I am not attacking your beliefs. I am only saying you are ignoring that by definition God or gods define a BEING, and beings are always conscious!

---

Can you not say that a rock is being?

A stone has a sense of being. That does not mean it is sentient or conscious.

Also, consider that definitions have been revised constantly in the past. It is possible that you, or I, am wrong. Never presume that a definition or a belief is undeniably and irrefutably true.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Can you not say that a rock is being?

A stone has a sense of being. That does not mean it is sentient or conscious.

Also, consider that definitions have been revised constantly in the past. It is possible that you, or I, am wrong. Never presume that a definition or a belief is undeniably and irrefutably true.

~

---

No, you're right, definitions aren't the same as beliefs or truth. They're just convenient for conversations sake :D

I just discovered this thread, and I have read through many pages to get an understanding of what the arguments are about, however, I lost patience along the way and skipped to the end. I'd like to address a few things.

1. Ise ope twingotrord

2. If you ask me, consciousness is not dependent on time. But then that brings in the issue of what consciousness is. Nobody here can agree what consciousness is. Stop thinking about it. Let me offer my understanding: consciousness is that which I am pointing to when I say that you are conscious of reading this at this moment but without all the thoughts. Thoughts are the contents of your consciousness. But your consciousness can exist without thoughts, in which case you would see things for how they really are. Thoughts distort perception. If you were here in front of me in person I could demonstrate how by a wave of my arm and looking into your eyes. Thoughts are a filter between direct perception and consciousness. Consciousness is the screen that the movie of perceptions appears on. And, yes, the gross everyday day to day consciousness that you know of is dependent on the brain, but not pure consciousness.

2. Nature is unconsciousness, except in humans and other similar beings who are self-aware. Or rather, the mineral kingdom is unconscious, the plant kingdom is subconscious, and the animal kingdom has a spectrum of consciousness from subconsciousness to consciousness.

3. The contents of consciousness are dependent on time, but not empty consciousness.

4. What is time? You say it is a sequence of events, but look at time directly right now. How long is this present moment. When does the future become present? When does the present become past? Does the future exist? Does the past exist? Does the present exist? What is the reality? What exists? When do you exist?

Maybe you can argue that the past exists because you remember it, and other people remember it, or that you see the effects now that had causes in the past, but the future doesn't exist. And nevertheless, if the past exists your consciousness doesn't exist in the past, it exists now. The past exists in your consciousness, not the other way around. time is a horizontal line, consciousness is a vertical line, they intersect in the present moment. This is the mystery of dimensions revealed right here, right now. This intersection is the only reality. Observe your mind with your mind. Observe time. Observe the universe.

No need to look at god, look at your own consciousness, without thoughts because thoughts only hide the direct perception of consciousness. It is like looking at the trees instead of the forest.

5. I am not a scientist but I think that most educated scientists believe that there are dimensions that exist beyond time in which the third dimension which we are all familiar with is just one of maybe an infinite intersecting plane or line. Something which is in this higher dimension can affect a cause in this dimension hypothetically without being subject to it. For this thing, or being, it would be like putting the needle of a turntable down on a record album halfway through a song or at the beginning. Time would be irrelevant to it in the way that WE know it.

6. I think that your definition of God is a little childish and superstitious and human-centered. But that is not your fault. That is all that you were exposed to and able to understand in this backwards primitive culture. And the word God has a lot of stigma attached to it, it is basically a dirty word. So you say that a god is an omniscient omnipresent being. Funny, I wonder why that doesn't make sense logically? *sarcasm*

7. Your argument here reminds me of a fish in the tank trying to logically prove that there is no god sprinkling food on the surface of the water once a day. The fish is right, but for the wrong reasons. The fish cannot conceive that there is a whole universe outside its fish tank. So it denies there is one. But the fish is right that there is no God sprinkling food on the water miraculously everyday, because it is not a God, it is a human.

8. I see no reason to believe in a god. It is just nature to me. And forces of nature, but even nature, which is sleeping and dreaming, except for man, is vastly more intelligent than you or I even with all our rationalitiy. To think that whatever conclusion you reach about whether or not a god can have consciousness actually matters or affects the actual truth of reality is arrogant. Each word of the question is ignorant, and the logic used is both ignorant and arrogant. Be assured that no matter what conclusion you come to about the nature of reality (or God) you come to is wrong.


To Xei: As someone who can see auras and someone who feels chi I will tell you what I know of it:
Auras are an emanation of the chi. So I will define chi first. Chi is also called prana. There are different grades of prana. Every single one of us can feel the prana within us and we all do everyday, we just don't recognize it. Have you ever felt horny but had no outlet for it so you go run a few laps or you do some pushups or you get real ambitious to be successful in business or to prove that you are right or you masturbate or get laid? That is prana that you are burdened with. You are seeking to release it, to unburden yourself. That is it's expression through the sexual organs. You also feel it in your emotions. You also can feel it in your body, it is very easy, and you can affect the physical world with it if you practice harnessing it through your body. I doubt that you can argue that Martial Arts like Kung Fu, Tai Chi, and Aikido proves this. If you don't leak the energy through sexuality it will express itself through what people have called spiritual experiences. Just like sex is the desire to unite bodily, there is the urge to unite emotionally, there is an urge to unite menatally or to be understood, and the urge to unite spiritually. I realize that spirituality is a dirty word and a dirty subject because people get it confused with religiosity and supernaturalism, but it is not those. Spirituality is another level of our being just like we have physical, mental, and emotional.

So prana or chi is like the energy or elctricity that gives off the light of the aura. The aura is the emanation of the prana.

Where does prana or chi come from? It comes from food, it comes from air, it comes from sunlight, and a little comes from starlight. It is stored in matter, it is stored in our body, we have some from our mother and father.

If you like, you could just call it energy. But it is an energy that science has not understood yet.

Also:

9. googled definition of Reductive Materialism:

The view that only the material world (matter) is truly real, and that all processes and realities observed in the universe can be explained by reducing them down to their most basic scientific components, e.g., atoms, molecules, and everything else thought to make up what we know as "matter." For example, a reductive materialist would view the miraculous and unexpected healing of a supposedly terminal cancer patient as a random coincidence of solely biological and physiological processes in the person's body. While, on the other hand, some might view the healing as stemming from factors contributing to the biological factors, e.g., prayer or meditation.

It is a common misconception that science has proven reductive materialism to be true. In fact it is just an unscientific bias. There is a very big debate in the scientific community right now as we speak regarding this issue.

I understand and respect that whatever you viewpoint you all have it is self-evident to you, just as mine is self-evident to me and many others. But I laugh at the arrogance of trying to use rationality and/or logic to argue about God and/or the reality of th universe.
A lot of the time it seems to me that you are all just trying to show off how intelligent you are but you get logic and rationality confused with intelligence. What's more intelligent, a clam or an oyster?

Hypothetically, just because a fish uses logic to figure out that there must be a world outside the tank doesn't mean that it has any perception or experience of it, so it is all meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, science is the search for truth and therefore it is good, and it is a good method for observing matter and energy.

One question: has science ever observed energy, rather that just the effect of energy? Someone said that light is a wave that carries energy, so therefore when we see light what are we seeing? Energy or a wave or the effect of energy? Heat is the effect of energy on matter. Sound is the effect of energy on matter. I am trying to figure out experiencing raw energy rather than just the effect of it. Getting struck by lightning you are bound to experience energy, but logically I can say that what you experience is the effect of the energy. Any answers?

So:

If a God doesn not have consciousness, what does? Where is the source of your consciousness? Don't look to the internet or the books or the philosophers or the priests or society or the scientists to tell you. Forget all that you were told; You are conscious right now. Look for yourself, right here, right now. No, don't think, look, see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

You must remember events to make any sort of thought at all. How do you think if you do not remember how to? How can you keep any sort of train of thought without memory? Without memory, you are basically a video recorder, looking at the world, but never understanding anything at all.

---

Pretty much. I guess there are different layers of consciousness, or perhaps we're just speaking in different contexts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If a God doesn not have consciousness, what does? Where is the source of your consciousness? Don't look to the internet or the books or the philosophers or the priests or society or the scientists to tell you. Forget all that you were told; You are conscious right now. Look for yourself, right here, right now. No, don't think, look, see.

---

That's interesting. I think that stresses the importance that consciousness must be part of God; not something separate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

1. Ise ope twingotrord

---

...?

Quote:

---

2. If you ask me, consciousness is not dependent on time. But then that brings in the issue of what consciousness is. Nobody here can agree what consciousness is. Stop thinking about it.

---

If we stop thinking about it, then it will become entirely relative. I am not trying to make a subjective argument but to objectify it so that we can debate about it. If we avoid objectifying that which is subjective to the world, then we cannot properly debate about it.

Quote:

---

Let me offer my understanding: consciousness is that which I am pointing to when I say that you are conscious of reading this at this moment but without all the thoughts. Thoughts are the contents of your consciousness. But your consciousness can exist without thoughts, in which case you would see things for how they really are. Thoughts distort perception. If you were here in front of me in person I could demonstrate how by a wave of my arm and looking into your eyes. Thoughts are a filter between direct perception and consciousness. Consciousness is the screen that the movie of perceptions appears on. And, yes, the gross everyday day to day consciousness that you know of is dependent on the brain, but not pure consciousness.

---

Within cognitive psychology, we can objectively identify functions of consciousness. This is what neuroscience is doing as well! Ought we just cast aside and ignore all this tremendous work?

You can simply refer to your sensory memory as a form of consciousness, but what you are viewing right now is but a glimmer of the functions of your mind. You are not always aware of your decisions and psychology nor your own biology. This is what your "unconscious" is doing. However, I use that term loosely because I do not want to confuse the idea that you are actually a conscious being free of making any decision you want.

The fact is that you are not as conscious as you think you are. You are not in control of all your thoughts and you are not as sentient as we like to think we are. See my "Experience and Your Unreliable Consciousness" thread for more details.

The point is that you cannot be mislead into thinking you are a perfect sentient creature free from erroneous ways of thinking.

Furthermore, those forms of consciousness you are specifying are still dependent on time. Each one of them must be juxtaposed with time in order to function. Time is a key component of consciousness. Without it, there is no memory and without memory there is no consciousness.

Quote:

---

2. Nature is unconsciousness, except in humans and other similar beings who are self-aware. Or rather, the mineral kingdom is unconscious, the plant kingdom is subconscious, and the animal kingdom has a spectrum of consciousness from subconsciousness to consciousness.

---

You're using a lot of terms and not defining them for the sake of avoiding ambiguity. What do you mean unconscious?

Quote:

---

3. The contents of consciousness are dependent on time, but not empty consciousness.

---

What is empty consciousness? How is this different than no consciousness?

Quote:

---

4. What is time? You say it is a sequence of events, but look at time directly right now. How long is this present moment. When does the future become present? When does the present become past? Does the future exist? Does the past exist? Does the present exist? What is the reality? What exists? When do you exist?

---

I see, this type of debate has been around since the classical times and it still holds no water. I think you'll find that you are actually arguing yourself here then;

Each moment in time is a completely new moment in which all things have changed a minutely degree. Time is chaotic in that it is constantly an infinite number of variables changing gradually.

What holds it all together is memory. If we did not have memory in this chaotic thing called time, all things would be dead.

Quote:

---

Maybe you can argue that the past exists because you remember it, and other people remember it, or that you see the effects now that had causes in the past, but the future doesn't exist. And nevertheless, if the past exists your consciousness doesn't exist in the past, it exists now. The past exists in your consciousness, not the other way around. time is a horizontal line, consciousness is a vertical line, they intersect in the present moment. This is the mystery of dimensions revealed right here, right now. This intersection is the only reality. Observe your mind with your mind. Observe time. Observe the universe.

---

How can you simply just preposition the mind as such and give absolutely no justification? You cannot just whimsically reason something as such and have it be true just because it sounds proverbial.

Proverbial knowledge is just that; proverbial. And proverbial knowledge is not valid. If you want to rely on such reasoning, then you open the dam to a lot of unreasonable beliefs.

The fact is that memory is a key function to understanding time. I am not saying that it is reminiscence that creates an "illusion" of time but that the illusion is that you have an ultimate consciousness. Consciousness is an illusion and you are falling victim to it by believing it is something untouched and divine.

Consciousness is nothing more than a survival mechanism for time.

Quote:

---

No need to look at god, look at your own consciousness, without thoughts because thoughts only hide the direct perception of consciousness. It is like looking at the trees instead of the forest.

---

Again, proverbial knowledge. In fact, to the point that I am not even sure what you are trying to say. It is so vague that one could take many interpretations from this sentence. Perhaps you rely on that fact?

I understand the desire to think that you consciousness is an intangible and divine thing that "cannot be reasoned by objective means" but, the truth is, it can and you are using objective means to say so.

Quote:

---

5. I am not a scientist but I think that most educated scientists believe that there are dimensions that exist beyond time in which the third dimension which we are all familiar with is just one of maybe an infinite intersecting plane or line. Something which is in this higher dimension can affect a cause in this dimension hypothetically without being subject to it. For this thing, or being, it would be like putting the needle of a turntable down on a record album halfway through a song or at the beginning. Time would be irrelevant to it in the way that WE know it.

---

Whatever the fourth dimension or further dimensions are, they are not where your consciousness are. Again, do not be mislead by this thing called consciousness and think that you are special and allowed into these further dimensions via your self-awareness.

No, this is not true. Your consciousness is a fragile mechanism held together by a lump of flesh and it serves you best to survive this thing called life and time. It does nothing more than that.

If there was a God, it would not need this survival mechanism. It would simply be.

Quote:

---

6. I think that your definition of God is a little childish and superstitious and human-centered. But that is not your fault. That is all that you were exposed to and able to understand in this backwards primitive culture. And the word God has a lot of stigma attached to it, it is basically a dirty word. So you say that a god is an omniscient omnipresent being. Funny, I wonder why that doesn't make sense logically? *sarcasm*

---

I find it amusing that you attribute these sophomoric characteristics to me and yet here you are saying those things that I have already said you would say.

You think that a God would have the same type of consciousness as you?

If a God has a consciousness, it would be nothing at all like how ours is.

Your consciousness is objectively capable of being studied; a Gods would not be. We could only speculate.

However, our speculation can specify (to a point) what it is.

That point is that your consciousness is feeble and naive enough to think it is not bound to this physical realm.

Quote:

---

7. Your argument here reminds me of a fish in the tank trying to logically prove that there is no god sprinkling food on the surface of the water once a day. The fish is right, but for the wrong reasons. The fish cannot conceive that there is a whole universe outside its fish tank. So it denies there is one. But the fish is right that there is no God sprinkling food on the water miraculously everyday, because it is not a God, it is a human.

---

This is digressive. I think you are exaggerating something which I am not saying.

I have given room for the fact that there could be a God. I am saying that it could be.

However, I am saying that its consciousness would be nothing, whatsoever, like yours or mine. In fact, I do not think I would even call it a consciousness.

It would simply be energy without mass and consciousness without thought.

But you want to add adjectives to a noun-less concept.... and call me sophomoric. Go for it.

Quote:

---

8. I see no reason to believe in a god. It is just nature to me. And forces of nature, but even nature, which is sleeping and dreaming, except for man, is vastly more intelligent than you or I even with all our rationalitiy. To think that whatever conclusion you reach about whether or not a god can have consciousness actually matters or affects the actual truth of reality is arrogant. Each word of the question is ignorant, and the logic used is both ignorant and arrogant. Be assured that no matter what conclusion you come to about the nature of reality (or God) you come to is wrong.

---

Perhaps you should consider the depth of my argument then.

If it is just nature and forces around us, then consciousness is nothing more than physical energy emanating in our bodies. With that, a "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No morality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No subjectivity - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

Just existence.

Quote:

---

If a God doesn not have consciousness, what does? Where is the source of your consciousness? Don't look to the internet or the books or the philosophers or the priests or society or the scientists to tell you. Forget all that you were told; You are conscious right now. Look for yourself, right here, right now. No, don't think, look, see.

---

Interesting that you say to not look for an answer or seek that answer to what your consciousness is but then you lead the question by saying, "Where is the source of your consciousness?"

You're prepositioning your own argument and then contradicting yourself in such a way that you make it sound so proverbial than it must be true. But what are you saying?

What are you saying that is different from what I am saying?

Do you even understand that? Or are you so in love with your proverbial subjective knowledge that you completely plug your ears and close your eyes to what the objective can offer?

I'd like to elaborate, but I am really curious if you know. I've laid it out to you. I do not think we completely disagree at all. Yet you seem, just like really, to be willfully neglectful of what others can offer your side. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Pretty much. I guess there are different layers of consciousness, or perhaps we're just speaking in different contexts.

---

See this is where I'd agree. Although we only know of one form of "consciousness" there could easily be others. What they would be, I cannot imagine, and no one rightfully could.

Quote:

---

That's interesting. I think that stresses the importance that consciousness must be part of God; not something separate.

---

What? Did you not read that he does not think there is a reason to believe in God?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

...?



If we stop thinking about i...

---

Then maybe we can just look at it without our subjective thoughts and biases.

Quote:

---

Within cognitive psychology, we can objectively identify functions of consciousness. This is what neuroscience is doing as well! Ought we just cast aside and ignore all this tremendous work?

---

And mysticism like yoga and gnosticism and hermetics has bee doing it for 10,000 years. Ought we just cast aside and ignore this tremendous work?

Quote:

---

You can simply refer to your sensory memory as a form of consciousness, but what you are viewing right now is but a glimmer of the functions of your mind. You are not always aware of your decisions and psychology nor your own biology. This is what your "unconscious" is doing....

The fact is that you are not as conscious as you think you are. You are not in control of all your thoughts and you are not as sentient as we like to think we are.

The point is that you cannot be mislead into thinking you are a perfect sentient creature free from erroneous ways of thinking

---

.

I agree 100% with all of this. I believe that humanity is at least 98% unconscious. Or about that. Hence all the wars and violence and destruction of the Earth and the compulsive breeding.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, those forms of consciousness you are specifying are still dependent on time. Each one of them must be juxtaposed with time in order to function. Time is a key component of consciousness. Without it, there is no memory and without memory there is no consciousness.

---

This is where I don't get you. I just don't understand. We are speaking different languages. We have different worldviews that might not be reconcilable. But I respect that it makes sense to you and it must seem self evident but I just don't even get what you mean. Why does consciousness need memory? Consciousness as you know it might. But do single celled animals that hunt other single celled animals have memory? They don't even have a brain. Even plants have demonstrated that they have some kind of consciousness, mostly unconscious.

Quote:

---

You're using a lot of terms and not defining them for the sake of avoiding ambiguity. What do you mean unconscious?

---

Unconscious I mean consciousness that is asleep, not even aware of itself. For example: our temperature, our heartbeat, digestion and the dilation of our pupils are all unconscious. This is the realm of the autonomic nervous system.

Quote:

---

What is empty consciousness? How is this different than no consciousness?

---

Look at it this way: if you are lucid dreaming and you make the dream disappear without losing lucidity you have empty consciousness, sometimes called super-consciousness. It is extremely conscious, but without those pesky thoughts that hide the brilliant light of empty consciousness. This is the movie screen with just pure white light projected on it.

Quote:

---

I see, this type of debate has been around since the classical times and it still holds no water. I think you'll find that you are actually arguing yourself here then

---

I am not concerned that other people have also argued this. I am not arguing, I am saying try it. Look. Some say this, some say that, find out for yourself. I was not aware that others did this when I started doing it at the age of eight because I was curious about these same things. But what do you mean that it holds no water? How am I arguing myself?

Quote:

---

Each moment in time is a completely new moment in which all things have changed a minutely degree. Time is chaotic in that it is constantly an infinite number of variables changing gradually.

---

Agreed

Quote:

---

What holds it all together is memory. If we did not have memory in this chaotic thing called time, all things would be dead.

---

So single celled creatures are dead? Coral is dead? Clams are dead? Plants are dead? I don't understand this reasoning. Why do you insist that memory is life? Where is this coming from?

Quote:

---

How can you simply just preposition the mind as such and give absolutely no justification? You cannot just whimsically reason something as such and have it be true just because it sounds proverbial.

---

All I said about the mind is observe the mind with the mind. I didn't make any prepositions. Isn't the word presupposition?

Quote:

---

Proverbial knowledge is just that; proverbial. And proverbial knowledge is not valid. If you want to rely on such reasoning, then you open the dam to a lot of unreasonable beliefs.

---

Just because sometimes my talk sounds proverbial doesn't mean that I am wrong. If I stutter it doesn't mean that I am stupid.

Quote:

---

The fact is that memory is a key function to understanding time. I am not saying that it is reminiscence that creates an "illusion" of time but that the illusion is that you have an ultimate consciousness. Consciousness is an illusion and you are falling victim to it by believing it is something untouched and divine.

---

I don't think that I said anything about divine. What does divine mean? Consciousness is consciousness, that's all. I agree that memory is a key function to understand time. What is ULTIMATE consciousness? And I don't have it, it has me.

Quote:

---

Consciousness is nothing more than a survival mechanism for time

---

.

In order for time to survive? Or for us to survive time? We cannot survive time. No one gets out alive.

Quote:

---

Again, proverbial knowledge. In fact, to the point that I am not even sure what you are trying to say. It is so vague that one could take many interpretations from this sentence. Perhaps you rely on that fact?

---

Perhaps it is just that you don't understand me just like I don't understand you. I am not being vague on purpose. Let me see if I can explain it: If you are looking at a candle flame and you have a thought, for that moment that you are thinking your eyes still recieve the light and your brain translates it so that you are subconsciously aware of the flame, while your conscious attention is on your thoughts. However there are layers and layers of thoughts in the average person's mind going all the time that distract attention, hypnotize awareness and use up consciousness like when you have too many tasks going on on your computer at the same time and the CPU is overloaded. This is the average human state of consciousness. That is why I agree that we are not as conscious as we think. Everywhere we look we see our thoughts, presuppositions, biases, and beliefs. Like Jimi Hendrix's song Room full of Mirrors.

"I used to live in a room full of mirrors,
and all I could see was me,
So I took my spirit and smashed all the mirrors,
And now the whole wide world is there for me to see!"

Quote:

---

I understand the desire to think that you consciousness is an intangible and divine thing that "cannot be reasoned by objective means" but, the truth is, it can and you are using objective means to say so.

---

Is it tangible? Has it ever even been observed objectively? I am not talking about the effects of consciousness, I am talking about actual consciousness. Has anyone put consciousness under a microscope? But I never said the word divine, I don't know what that means.

I believe that thoughts are subjective so the only way people have objectively observed consciousness for at least 10,000 years is by stilling their thoughts until the screen is blank. Like being lucid without a dream or thoughts.

Quote:

---

Whatever the fourth dimension or further dimensions are, they are not where your consciousness are. Again, do not be mislead by this thing called consciousness and think that you are special and allowed into these further dimensions via your self-awareness.

---

All the dimensions are right here, right now. Where or when else would they be? I do not think that I am more special than anything or anybody else; we all are part of this Universe. It is not that we aren't allowed or are allowed into these dimensions, but the dimensions are right here and right now where I am (or you in your case) whether we are aware of them or not. But being aware of them makes us...well...aware of them.

Quote:

---

No, this is not true. Your consciousness is a fragile mechanism held together by a lump of flesh and it serves you best to survive this thing called life and time. It does nothing more than that.

---

Well we can agree to disagree on this point. Although I agree that what we know of as consciousness is dependent on the brain. But I know that there is a subtle consciousness that is not. But you will just say that I am deluded or it is wishful thinking. But it is like the stars and the sun. In the daytime you cannot see the stars because the sun is so bright. When the sun goes down you can see the stars. The stars don't come out, they were always there, you just couldn't see it because the sun was there. So as a metaphor, if you were born in the morning and by noon you were an adult and I said to you that there were stars in the sky you wouldn't believe me, and if I said that i've seen them you would say that I was deluded or that I have hypnotized myself into believing that. So I would no that there is no point in logically arguing the existence of stars with you, I would just wait and tell you to look up at the sky once it got dark out.

The consciousness that we all know of is dependent on the brain, it is like the sun. But it gets it's energy from a subtle consciousness that is not dependent on the brain. This subtle consciousness is always here, in you and me, right now. I can see it if I relax my mind and still my thoughts. I am aware of it through out the night while I am sleeping. This consciousness is not affected by chemicals or drugs. It can only be hidden by the ordinary bodily consciousness.

But you don't believe in all that. And, you won't look. You want the scientists to tell you that it is there.

Quote:

---

If there was a God, it would not need this survival mechanism. It would simply be.

---

Agreed. But not everything that exists is utilitarian. We don't need a sense of humor. We don't need music. But it helps make us happy. We are beyond evolving to survive. Now we are evolving to be happy. We are unique on this planet that we have a sense of humor. Nature is waking up in us. Let's help by becoming more lucid.

Quote:

---

I find it amusing that you attribute these sophomoric characteristics to me and yet here you are saying those things that I have already said you would say.

---

Sorry for saying that, I had a couple glasses of wine.

Quote:

---

You think that a God would have the same type of consciousness as you?

---

NO, I don't even believe in God

Quote:

---

If a God has a consciousness, it would be nothing at all like how ours is.

---

Agreed, that would be pretty scary.

Quote:

---

However, our speculation can specify (to a point) what it is.

---

What what is? Consciousness? Well, what IS it? I only know what it is not.

Quote:

---

That point is that your consciousness is feeble and naive enough to think it is not bound to this physical realm

---

.

What do you mean 'physical' realm, as opposed to what? What realms are there?

Quote:

---

It would simply be energy without mass and consciousness without thought.... (emphasis mine)


A "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality...

No morality...

---

By God, I think we agree!

Quote:

---

Just existence.

---

AMEN! Can I get a hallelujah!

Quote:

---

Interesting that you say to not look for an answer or seek that answer to what your consciousness is but then you lead the question by saying, "Where is the source of your consciousness?

---

"

I said don't think about it. I want you to look for it. Thinking about consciousness is thinking ABOUT consciousness. Actually pulling away the curtains of thought and looking out the window is different than thinking what might be out there if there is even a window behind that curtain or arguing whether or not there is a window behind the curtain or waiting for 'experts' to tell you that there is a window. The point is that I don't want you to believe anybody that tells you that there is a window behind the curtain, that is not the point; the point is that I want you to pull back the curtain, look out the window, and see what's out there for yourself.

It is like if a beautiful woman is in love with you and she wants you to fall in love but you say "first prove to me that love exists. Where is the scientific proof?" She doesn't want to prove anything to you, she wants to seduce you. She wants you to take a risk and experience it for yourself. She wants to share in the experience with you, because it is more beautiful than dry intellectual facts and figures and philosophies and account balances.

While I think we quintessentially agree, I will comment on what you have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Then maybe we can just look at it without our subjective thoughts and biases.

---

Yes, objectively. We can take both objective and subjective paradigms into consideration; not just one or the other.

Quote:

---

This is where I don't get you. I just don't understand. We are speaking different languages. We have different worldviews that might not be reconcilable. But I respect that it makes sense to you and it must seem self evident but I just don't even get what you mean. Why does consciousness need memory? Consciousness as you know it might. But do single celled animals that hunt other single celled animals have memory? They don't even have a brain. Even plants have demonstrated that they have some kind of consciousness, mostly unconscious.

---

Plants have memory.

Quote:

---

Look at it this way: if you are lucid dreaming and you make the dream disappear without losing lucidity you have empty consciousness, sometimes called super-consciousness. It is extremely conscious, but without those pesky thoughts that hide the brilliant light of empty consciousness. This is the movie screen with just pure white light projected on it.

---

I would much prefer to look at it as a phenomenological state of "epoche" than make a misleading term as "empty consciousness".

Quote:

---

I am not concerned that other people have also argued this. I am not arguing, I am saying try it. Look. Some say this, some say that, find out for yourself. I was not aware that others did this when I started doing it at the age of eight because I was curious about these same things. But what do you mean that it holds no water? How am I arguing myself?

---

Zeno's Paradox's:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

Quote:

---

So single celled creatures are dead? Coral is dead? Clams are dead? Plants are dead? I don't understand this reasoning. Why do you insist that memory is life? Where is this coming from?

---

I purported it in my OP; memory is the necessary function of time. Without time, there could be no consciousness.

Essentially, it goes like this;
- Time is necessary for consciousness
- If something created time, then it could not be subject to time
- If it is not subject to time, it cannot have a consciousness

Quote:

---

All I said about the mind is observe the mind with the mind. I didn't make any prepositions. Isn't the word presupposition?

---

No, I was saying that you are prepositioning the mind by saying, "The mind is vertical" etc.

Quote:

---

Just because sometimes my talk sounds proverbial doesn't mean that I am wrong. If I stutter it doesn't mean that I am stupid.

---

Right, but this also does not mean you are right. Actually, it means nothing. Proverbial is nothing but proverbial.

Quote:

---

I don't think that I said anything about divine. What does divine mean? Consciousness is consciousness, that's all. I agree that memory is a key function to understand time. What is ULTIMATE consciousness? And I don't have it, it has me.

---

Ultimate consciousness..?

Quote:

---

In order for time to survive? Or for us to survive time? We cannot survive time. No one gets out alive.

---

..

Of course.. you think I was arguing that..?

I am saying that consciousness is a contingent of time.

Quote:

---

Perhaps it is just that you don't understand me just like I don't understand you. I am not being vague on purpose. Let me see if I can explain it: If you are looking at a candle flame and you have a thought, for that moment that you are thinking your eyes still recieve the light and your brain translates it so that you are subconsciously aware of the flame, while your conscious attention is on your thoughts. However there are layers and layers of thoughts in the average person's mind going all the time that distract attention, hypnotize awareness and use up consciousness like when you have too many tasks going on on your computer at the same time and the CPU is overloaded. This is the average human state of consciousness. That is why I agree that we are not as conscious as we think. Everywhere we look we see our thoughts, presuppositions, biases, and beliefs. Like Jimi Hendrix's song Room full of Mirrors.

"I used to live in a room full of mirrors,
and all I could see was me,
So I took my spirit and smashed all the mirrors,
And now the whole wide world is there for me to see!"

---

Right.. I agree, of course objectively. In the science of cognition we can identify many of these "layers" of consciousness. This does not mean we should not be mislead into thinking it is anything more than that.

Quote:

---

Is it tangible? Has it ever even been observed objectively? I am not talking about the effects of consciousness, I am talking about actual consciousness. Has anyone put consciousness under a microscope? But I never said the word divine, I don't know what that means.

---

You can observe what parts of the brain are active during cognition.

You can create lesions and see what they affect the cognition.

You can articulate cognition and manipulate it via technology.

You can even specify parts of the brain responsible for morality:



We are even coming to the point of sharing consciousness:

Quote:

---

Well we can agree to disagree on this point. Although I agree that what we know of as consciousness is dependent on the brain. But I know that there is a subtle consciousness that is not. But you will just say that I am deluded or it is wishful thinking. But it is like the stars and the sun. In the daytime you cannot see the stars because the sun is so bright. When the sun goes down you can see the stars. The stars don't come out, they were always there, you just couldn't see it because the sun was there. So as a metaphor, if you were born in the morning and by noon you were an adult and I said to you that there were stars in the sky you wouldn't believe me, and if I said that i've seen them you would say that I was deluded or that I have hypnotized myself into believing that. So I would no that there is no point in logically arguing the existence of stars with you, I would just wait and tell you to look up at the sky once it got dark out.

---

See, you are doing it again and I do not think you are realizing it.

There is no difference between your "unconscious" and "consciousness" (that in which you are thinking right now). It is just the risen linguistic representation of your stimuli; nothing more than that.

But you give more credit to the consciousness than it deserves, as though it is something special and distinguished completely from the unconscious.

Quote:

---

The consciousness that we all know of is dependent on the brain, it is like the sun. But it gets it's energy from a subtle consciousness that is not dependent on the brain. This subtle consciousness is always here, in you and me, right now. I can see it if I relax my mind and still my thoughts. I am aware of it through out the night while I am sleeping. This consciousness is not affected by chemicals or drugs. It can only be hidden by the ordinary bodily consciousness.

---

Really?

Does this consciousness develop? How? What if I smash your head in with a hammer, is it the same as before?

Quote:

---

But you don't believe in all that. And, you won't look. You want the scientists to tell you that it is there.

---

You must realize that scientists spend a significant more time telling you what not to believe.

Quote:

---

NO, I don't even believe in God

---

I meant hypothetically.

Quote:

---

What do you mean 'physical' realm, as opposed to what? What realms are there?

---

The immaterial, intangible, etc. Energy without mass. This is even scientifically possible.

Quote:

---

By God, I think we agree!

AMEN! Can I get a hallelujah!

It is like if a beautiful woman is in love with you and she wants you to fall in love but you say "first prove to me that love exists. Where is the scientific proof?" She doesn't want to prove anything to you, she wants to seduce you. She wants you to take a risk and experience it for yourself. She wants to share in the experience with you, because it is more beautiful than dry intellectual facts and figures and philosophies and account balances.

---

As I said, we mostly agree. However, I think you still give too much credit to consciousness.

Consider my thread "Experience and Your Unreliable Consciousness" for more on what I would likely say to you here.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Really?

Does this consciousness develop? How? What if I smash your head in with a hammer, is it the same as before?
~

---

This consciousness doesn't develop, it is the same all the time. It is the background consciousness. It was there for as long as I could remember, it will be there if my head gets smashed in and if I become brain damaged. It is there if I drink too much and pass out. Once I stilled my mind via meditation I recognized it. I meditate every night in bed before I go to sleep and that is how I WILD. That consciousness is there throughout all stages of sleep.

You may think that I overestimate consciousness and I think that you underestimate it. But other than that, we both probably agree that if there is a God it isn't some dude with a beard who wants us to worship him and behave ourselves. It would have no desires but our desires we project on to it. Or, in other words, our desires are its desires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

This consciousness doesn't develop, it is the same all the time. It is the background consciousness. It was there for as long as I could remember, it will be there if my head gets smashed in and if I become brain damaged. It is there if I drink too much and pass out. Once I stilled my mind via meditation I recognized it. I meditate every night in bed before I go to sleep and that is how I WILD. That consciousness is there throughout all stages of sleep.

---

Can you distinguish this consciousness from nothing?

Quote:

---

You may think that I overestimate consciousness and I think that you underestimate it. But other than that, we both probably agree that if there is a God it isn't some dude with a beard who wants us to worship him and behave ourselves. It would have no desires but our desires we project on to it. Or, in other words, our desires are its desires.

---

I don't necessarily think you overestimate it, and I don't think I underestimate it. I think the mind is an incredible thing, even enough to mislead someone into thinking it is something more than it is. It's like Plato's cave, but can you come out of the restraints..? Perhaps you think I am in the restraints just because I pontificate materialism, but if I acknowledge that prospect, does that affect your perspective of my position..?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

See this is where I'd agree. Although we only know of one form of "consciousness" there could easily be others. What they would be, I cannot imagine, and no one rightfully could.

---

There may be varying degrees or intensities, but I think they're all the same in quality. Otherwise, how can there be more forms if there's nothing but consciousness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

What? Did you not read that he does not think there is a reason to believe in God?

~

---

Obviously I'm supporting my argument for God and not "just nature" arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Can you distinguish this consciousness from nothing?
~

---

How do you define "nothing?" If we're speaking of pure consciousness, its nature is the unbound reality where nothing and everything are indistinguishable, so no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Perhaps you should consider the depth of my argument then.

If it is just nature and forces around us, then consciousness is nothing more than physical energy emanating in our bodies. With that, a "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No morality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No subjectivity - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

Just existence.

---

I don't really see what you're getting at here. There is no existence without consciousness, and pure subjectivity and pure consciousness are inseparable. I also don't know why you're agreeing with this, Dannon Oneironaut (particularly, "Just existence").

I don't really have much to contribute except that video you posted Onus is absolutely fucking brilliant;I never knew most of that stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

There may be varying degrees or intensities, but I think they're all the same in quality. Otherwise, how can there be more forms if there's nothing but consciousness?

---

If there are varying degree's of intensities, but all the same qualitatively, then how do you distinguish them?

Quote:

---

How do you define "nothing?" If we're speaking of pure consciousness, its nature is the unbound reality where nothing and everything are indistinguishable, so no.

---

No, I mean absolutely nothing. Nothingness.

How can you distinguish this "ethereal consciousness" from nothingness? If it truly is not affected by the body or anything else material, how can you distinguish it from emptiness/void/nothing/imaginary?

Quote:

---

I don't really see what you're getting at here. There is no existence without consciousness, and pure subjectivity and pure consciousness are inseparable. I also don't know why you're agreeing with this, Dannon Oneironaut (particularly, "Just existence").

---

Of course, you are too wound up in subjectivity again that you fail to see the objective side of things. You really ought to take all sides into account, not just your own.

You won't understand the objectivity of subjectivity if you can only see the subjective side of things.

Observe the observer for a change.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

If there are varying degree's of intensities, but all the same qualitatively, then how do you distinguish them?

---

Consciousness layers/levels (etc) can be said to have differing qualities or experiential paradigms. What I am pointing out however is a generalization that these can be qualified in the same category, and distinguish them apart in their prevailing intensities or degrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, I mean absolutely nothing. Nothingness.

---

So do you mean non-existence? I will argue as if the answer is no, and that you mean, "void", because to compare anything with non-existence is absurd. Void is not non-existence, as it is defined as emptiness or nothingness while it still has a quality of existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

How can you distinguish this "ethereal consciousness" from nothingness? If it truly is not affected by the body or anything else material, how can you distinguish it from emptiness/void/nothing/imaginary?

---

I've already pointed that pure consciousness is no different than pure subjectivity, and at this level, nothing and everything are experientially identical. So what's your question? Consciousness is present in nothing and everythingness, or at least related to a prevailing degree. Hence the attribute of "all-encompassing."

According to my research, we can say it is energy, or power. It is hard to describe because of its non-linear properties, but without it, nothing has the intelligence to manifest life, much less a manifest universe, or even existence at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course, you are too wound up in subjectivity again that you fail to see the objective side of things. You really ought to take all sides into account, not just your own.

You won't understand the objectivity of subjectivity if you can only see the subjective side of things.

Observe the observer for a change.

~

---

What's the "objective side of things" you speak of, when consciousness itself is a radically subjective term? You can validly speak of neither observing nor objectivity while pretending that the all-prevailing subjective context: consciousness, doesn't exist! Nothing of observing, an observer, an observation nor even objectivity itself can independently exist, hence there cannot be "just existence" without consciousnesses. This is not only taking all "sides" of the argument into account, it is accepting the context that you seem to have ignored. You cannot escape the subjective context, which is infinite, and of course that means I'm not talking about opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness layers/levels (etc) can be said to have differing qualities or experiential paradigms. What I am pointing out however is a generalization that these can be qualified in the same category, and distinguish them apart in their prevailing intensities or degrees.

---

You do a very good job at making a circular argument seem not circular.

You cannot simply excuse something off as "outside of generalization" just because "it is beyond characteristics".

If you cannot distinguish it because it is indistinguishable.. then it is simply that; indistinguishable.

You, by your own words, have just shown that there is no difference in any of the qualities. Your own definition of consciousness defeats itself. You say that there are different levels, but that they cannot be distinguished because they are indistinguishable by the differing levels of distinguished consciousness.

In other words, there are no varying levels of consciousness.

Quote:

---

So do you mean non-existence? I will argue as if the answer is no, and that you mean, "void", because to compare anything with non-existence is absurd. Void is not non-existence, as it is defined as emptiness or nothingness while it still has a quality of existence.

---

Ok.. you didn't actually say anything here..?

Quote:

---

I've already pointed that pure consciousness is no different than pure subjectivity, and at this level, nothing and everything are experientially identical. So what's your question? Consciousness is present in nothing and everythingness, or at least related to a prevailing degree. Hence the attribute of "all-encompassing."

---

Again, if you cannot distinguish them, then they are the same.

Quote:

---

According to my research, we can say it is energy, or power. It is hard to describe because of its non-linear properties, but without it, nothing has the intelligence to manifest life, much less a manifest universe, or even existence at all.

What's the "objective side of things" you speak of, when consciousness itself is a radically subjective term? You can validly speak of neither observing nor objectivity while pretending that the all-prevailing subjective context: consciousness, doesn't exist! Nothing of observing, an observer, an observation nor even objectivity itself can independently exist, hence there cannot be "just existence" without consciousnesses. This is not only taking all "sides" of the argument into account, it is accepting the context that you seem to have ignored. You cannot escape the subjective context, which is infinite, and of course that means I'm not talking about opinions.

---

lol.. seriously really.. I cannot believe what's happening here.

You ask me to consider that it is the subjective person that's looking at all these consciousness.. but you ignore that this subjectivity can be objectively observed!

Why do you think psychology exists? Because there are consistencies in people's consciousness. We can objectively find characteristics common in all humans. For example, cognitive reasoning.

Are you willing to argue that there are no objective consistencies in peoples cognitive reasoning because, subjectively, we could all subjectively decide our own ways to cognitively reason?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

You do a very good job at making a circular argument seem not circular.

You cannot simply excuse something off as "outside of generalization" just because "it is beyond characteristics".

If you cannot distinguish it because it is indistinguishable.. then it is simply that; indistinguishable.

You, by your own words, have just shown that there is no difference in any of the qualities. Your own definition of consciousness defeats itself. You say that there are different levels, but that they cannot be distinguished because they are indistinguishable by the differing levels of distinguished consciousness.

In other words, there are no varying levels of consciousness.

---

Nevermind. It was simply another method of explaining the same thing. Don't worry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ok.. you didn't actually say anything here..?

---

You mean you think there is no difference between non-existence and nothingness/void?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Again, if you cannot distinguish them, then they are the same.

---

Thankyou, yes that was my point. Consciousness cannot be distinguished from nothing as it is in everything. However, it exists as a quality of all existence, which can be interpreted as the vague term "life force." This is nothing new in the spiritual world. You call it energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

lol.. seriously really.. I cannot believe what's happening here.

You ask me to consider that it is the subjective person that's looking at all these consciousness.. but you ignore that this subjectivity can be objectively observed!

Why do you think psychology exists? Because there are consistencies in people's consciousness. We can objectively find characteristics common in all humans. For example, cognitive reasoning.

---

That "subjectivity can be objectively observed" is a misconception. You can't truly escape or individualize subjectivity because it all boils down to the intangible substrate of consciousnesses itself. To (objectively) observe something is for it to become an object. Hence, infinite subjective context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you willing to argue that there are no objective consistencies in peoples cognitive reasoning because, subjectively, we could all subjectively decide our own ways to cognitively reason?

~

---

No, because that's not what I am saying. Not the "objective consistencies", but the one subjective consistency is far more profound and is worth our attention. What does cognitive reasoning have to do with this anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You mean you think there is no difference between non-existence and nothingness/void?

---

Non-existence is a prepositional adjective of something. It is saying that something does not exist. To say nothingness void is to say of all things non-existence. Nay?

Quote:

---

Thankyou, yes that was my point. Consciousness cannot be distinguished from nothing as it is in everything. However, it exists as a quality of all existence, which can be interpreted as the vague term "life force." This is nothing new in the spiritual world. You call it energy.

---

I call it energy but you attach conscious thoughts to it.

I do not understand why you would attach cognizance to energy and say that it varies in degree's.

Quote:

---

That "subjectivity can be objectively observed" is a misconception. You can't truly escape or individualize subjectivity because it all boils down to the intangible substrate of consciousnesses itself. To (objectively) observe something is for it to become an object. Hence, infinite subjective context.

---

What is psychology then?

If you can explain how the scientific paradigm of psychology is in subjective terms, then I agree with you.

The science of psychology is not a person, nor does it have a consciousness, it is the collection of data and research of many people. You may argue that all these people are it's collective consciousness, but psychology exists as a perpetuating science of peer reviewed journals, experiments, scientific method, and more. How could you argue that such a thing is "infinitely subjective" when it is often defined as the most objective thing to exist resting on an objective scientific grounding?

Can you not see why I accuse you of being grossly obsessed with the subjective?

Believe it or not, there would still be a universe if there was nothing to perceive it. A tree makes a sound when it falls down in a forest and there's no one to hear it.

Quote:

---

No, because that's not what I am saying. Not the "objective consistencies", but the one subjective consistency is far more profound and is worth our attention. What does cognitive reasoning have to do with this anyway?

---

I was using cognitive reasoning as a example of something objective we can observe of all humans psychology.

You are going to ignore this objective consistency in favour of something which you cannot define nor distinguish from nothingness.

Your subjective view of the world is so wound up in subjectivity that it loses all touch with objective reality.

I could be wrong.. please show me how you appreciate the objective side of life.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Non-existence is a prepositional adjective of something. It is saying that something does not exist. To say nothingness void is to say of all things non-existence. Nay?

---

Nay. I'm not using prepositional adjectives. I'm using broad terms as "in and of themselves." Non-existence is noun in my case. It means “the absence of existence” itself, and so objective references to such are only hypothetically true. I am saying there is a difference between non-existence and nothingness, as nothingness has a context in existence but has qualities of emptiness. In this way you can say nothing about consciousness being like non-existence, but rather, like nothingness, and therefore, everything. “All encompassing” is the attribute that makes “nothingness” and “everything” indistinguishable from each other, not to mention non-dual.

Also, going from what’s been mentioned a lot in this thread, the term “pure” can be said to be related to this. Pure consciousness can be analogously related to the screen background or light in a movie theater. Even when there are no objects displayed (I.e. nothingness), the screen/light is still present. This is the case regardless of what is displayed, hence again “all-encompassing.” Just because there is nothing on the screen doesn't mean that the background or light is also non-existent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I call it energy but you attach conscious thoughts to it.

I do not understand why you would attach cognizance to energy and say that it varies in degree's.

---

Huh? Please quote me where I’ve said that. That’s not what I meant at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

What is psychology then?

If you can explain how the scientific paradigm of psychology is in subjective terms, then I agree with you.

The science of psychology is not a person, nor does it have a consciousness, it is the collection of data and research of many people. You may argue that all these people are it's collective consciousness, but psychology exists as a perpetuating science of peer reviewed journals, experiments, scientific method, and more. How could you argue that such a thing is "infinitely subjective" when it is often defined as the most objective thing to exist resting on an objective scientific grounding?

Can you not see why I accuse you of being grossly obsessed with the subjective?

Believe it or not, there would still be a universe if there was nothing to perceive it. A tree makes a sound when it falls down in a forest and there's no one to hear it.



I was using cognitive reasoning as a example of something objective we can observe of all humans psychology.

You are going to ignore this objective consistency in favour of something which you cannot define nor distinguish from nothingness.

Your subjective view of the world is so wound up in subjectivity that it loses all touch with objective reality.

I could be wrong.. please show me how you appreciate the objective side of life.

~

---

Sorry I think we’ve got pretty lost here. I don’t see what this is really about. Let’s go back to the original point you made, which I'm sure had nothing to do with psychology or researching people:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Perhaps you should consider the depth of my argument then.

If it is just nature and forces around us, then consciousness is nothing more than physical energy emanating in our bodies. With that, a "God" would be nothing more than the energy within all things. It is nothing more characteristic than energy.

No personality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No morality - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

No subjectivity - as that would require consciousness as we know it.

Just existence.

---

The last line “Just existence” implies an independent, objective existence. Is that not what you mean? Are you not excluding subjectivity from the matter? I am saying this can never be done while speaking of consciousness, which is, for the third time, all-encompassing. As is infinite subjectivity as context (not content). You can have neither consciousness nor existence without subjectivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Nay. I'm not using prepositional adjectives. I'm using broad terms as "in and of themselves." Non-existence is noun in my case. It means “the absence of existence” itself, and so objective references to such are only hypothetically true. I am saying there is a difference between non-existence and nothingness, as nothingness has a context in existence but has qualities of emptiness. In this way you can say nothing about consciousness being like non-existence, but rather, like nothingness, and therefore, everything. “All encompassing” is the attribute that makes “nothingness” and “everything” indistinguishable from each other, not to mention non-dual.

---

I am going to take a clarifying approach to this reply. I think it is needed and you will agree.

The consciousness above you are speaking of; although it is within everything, it is not the type we are utilizing in everyday cognizance, right?

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

Also, going from what’s been mentioned a lot in this thread, the term “pure” can be said to be related to this. Pure consciousness can be analogously related to the screen background or light in a movie theater. Even when there are no objects displayed (I.e. nothingness), the screen/light is still present. This is the case regardless of what is displayed, hence again “all-encompassing.” Just because there is nothing on the screen doesn't mean that the background or light is also non-existent.

---

Again, this is not the same type of consciousness that we are using right now, correct? It is often used as an example that the light houses's light is directed in a certain direction, but it still certainly observes all directions.

But that is only one type of consciousness and actually completely irrelevant to my original argument.

Quote:

---

The last line “Just existence” implies an independent, objective existence. Is that not what you mean? Are you not excluding subjectivity from the matter? I am saying this can never be done while speaking of consciousness, which is, for the third time, all-encompassing. As is infinite subjectivity as context (not content). You can have neither consciousness nor existence without subjectivity.

---

Let me simplify my argument just for you;

+ Consciousness is a function of time
- Consciousness is dependent on memories
- Memories are dependent on time
+ Any being that had to of created time, could not have consciousness

Now, you've gone a different path and completely tried re-defining what "consciousness" is instead of my propositions.

You cannot simply define it as "everything" because I am including the creation of "everything" in the premise.

I am arguing that a conscious being that creates "everything" must also create that variables that function consciousness. A creator ought not to have any morality or consciousness, at least, as we know of it. It would be completely and utterly different.

It would just be existence. The very foundations in which you define subjectivity would have to have been created, as well as objectivity, by something. This something cannot be bound by subjective or objective terms, it is neither. As you said, it would be non-dual. Do not confused your affinity for non-duality to actually be subjectivity in disguise (I would say that you are inclined to do).

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am going to take a clarifying approach to this reply. I think it is needed and you will agree.

The consciousness above you are speaking of; although it is within everything, it is not the type we are utilizing in everyday cognizance, right?

[...]

Again, this is not the same type of consciousness that we are using right now, correct? It is often used as an example that the light houses's light is directed in a certain direction, but it still certainly observes all directions.

---

Not directly, but it still prevails and can be known as such. You cannot have cognizance if pure consciousness or subjectivity didn't exist. These fields are interacting in everything, regardless of what somebody thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

But that is only one type of consciousness and actually completely irrelevant to my original argument.

---

Why is it irrelevant? It's not "only one type of consciousness", it's pure consciousness. It's unwise to exclude it, so please tell me why it is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Let me simplify my argument just for you;

+ Consciousness is a function of time
- Consciousness is dependent on memories
- Memories are dependent on time
+ Any being that had to of created time, could not have consciousness

Now, you've gone a different path and completely tried re-defining what "consciousness" is instead of my propositions.

---

Perhaps I am justifying why these propositions are unfulfillable and limited. Is there anything greater than consciousness? You yourself may have even alluded to this, but I don't know where it's coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

You cannot simply define it as "everything" because I am including the creation of "everything" in the premise.

I am arguing that a conscious being that creates "everything" must also create that variables that function consciousness. A creator ought not to have any morality or consciousness, at least, as we know of it. It would be completely and utterly different.

It would just be existence. The very foundations in which you define subjectivity would have to have been created, as well as objectivity, by something. This something cannot be bound by subjective or objective terms, it is neither. As you said, it would be non-dual. Do not confused your affinity for non-duality to actually be subjectivity in disguise (I would say that you are inclined to do).

~

---

How so is this "just existence?" Without consciousness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Not directly, but it still prevails and can be known as such. You cannot have cognizance if pure consciousness or subjectivity didn't exist. These fields are interacting in everything, regardless of what somebody thinks.

Why is it irrelevant? It's not "only one type of consciousness", it's pure consciousness. It's unwise to exclude it, so please tell me why it is irrelevant.

Perhaps I am justifying why these propositions are unfulfillable and limited. Is there anything greater than consciousness? You yourself may have even alluded to this, but I don't know where it's coming from.

How so is this "just existence?" Without consciousness?

---

I think I can properly respond to all your points with this;

You only know of one type of consciousness.

You can and have only experienced one type of consciousness.

You cannot know or even could know of any other types of consciousness.

If there are other types of consciousness, they are not what we know of.

If there is a God, they would definitely not have a consciousness like ours.

What do you think...?

~

If you want to know what "God consciousness" is like, you can experience it in a lucid dream.

In one lucid, I realized that I was all the DCs, all the buildings, the ground the sky. My consciousness kept expanding to encompass more and more, until I got down to the molecular level. I was every molecule and atom, countless particles all just humming away.

A strange thing happened at that point. I lost all will to act or do anything. I couldn't even want to do anything, couldn't even think. All I could do was be aware, and no one thing was more important than the other. In fact, there was no separation, everything was one.

When you hear people say "How could a god allow terrible things to happen?", it's because he can't do anything other than be aware. It's just impossible. Try it yourself if you don't believe me, it's an interesting experience.

If god gave us free will, then he did so by limiting our consciousness so that we are not aware of everything. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to act. Would you really be able to wear Nike shoes if you were truly aware of the horrors of forced child labour? No way in hell! Our free will is born of ignorance.

If you've read Castaneda's books, they describe Don Genaro as being incapable of acting or wanting or desiring anything because he was trapped in the second attention. (he wasnt really trapped in that type of attention, it was just a trick the played on Castaneda to get the point across)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

If you want to know what "God consciousness" is like, you can experience it in a lucid dream.

In one lucid, I realized that I was all the DCs, all the buildings, the ground the sky. My consciousness kept expanding to encompass more and more, until I got down to the molecular level. I was every molecule and atom, countless particles all just humming away.

A strange thing happened at that point. I lost all will to act or do anything. I couldn't even want to do anything, couldn't even think. All I could do was be aware, and no one thing was more important than the other. In fact, there was no separation, everything was one.

When you hear people say "How could a god allow terrible things to happen?", it's because he can't do anything other than be aware. It's just impossible. Try it yourself if you don't believe me, it's an interesting experience.

If god gave us free will, then he did so by limiting our consciousness so that we are not aware of everything. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to act. Would you really be able to wear Nike shoes if you were truly aware of the horrors of forced child labour? No way in hell! Our free will is born of ignorance.

If you've read Castaneda's books, they describe Don Genaro as being incapable of acting or wanting or desiring anything because he was trapped in the second attention. (he wasnt really trapped in that type of attention, it was just a trick the played on Castaneda to get the point across)

---

It's interesting how our experiences can also be much like the dreamworld. This sounds very real as the higher states have been described, but I wonder how much a dream can influence our awareness compared to the waking state? I also wonder if your experience you describe could occur if you were not lucid. :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think I can properly respond to all your points with this;

You only know of one type of consciousness.

You can and have only experienced one type of consciousness.

You cannot know or even could know of any other types of consciousness.

If there are other types of consciousness, they are not what we know of.

If there is a God, they would definitely not have a consciousness like ours.

What do you think...?

~

---

You know of many states of consciousness through experience.

You can experience one state of consciousness at a time.

You can know of other states of consciousness, and can grow or descend from others.

Consciousness is infinite in dimension.

God would have to be related to any state of consciousness. There is no exclusion if God encompasses and has Created all.

Pure consciousness can be said to be the closest state to God in the human domain.

I like this way of debate! Very simplistic! Haha!

It really shows how much we really agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You know of many states of consciousness through experience.

---

Agreed.

Thought, you only know of one kind of consciousness.

Quote:

---

You can experience one state of consciousness at a time.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

You can know of other states of consciousness, and can grow or descend from others.

---

Agreed.

You can sleep, meditate, take drugs, etc. Though, it is still one kind of consciousness.

Quote:

---

Consciousness is infinite in dimension.

---

Disagree.

Consciousness is limited to the brains capacities. If the brain is damaged, so is your consciousness.

Quote:

---

God would have to be related to any state of consciousness. There is no exclusion if God encompasses and has Created all.

Pure consciousness can be said to be the closest state to God in the human domain.

---

I would say that a God would have to have a "pure consciousness" but that it is nothing like how ours is.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Agreed.

Thought, you only know of one kind of consciousness.

---

Then what are you agreeing on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

You can sleep, meditate, take drugs, etc. Though, it is still one kind of consciousness.

-

Disagree.

Consciousness is limited to the brains capacities. If the brain is damaged, so is your consciousness.

---

Isn't it all still one kind of consciousness? Then what is limited about it? Pure Consciousness is contextual and therefore invulnerable to the contents of consciousness, which are related to the mind, whereas Pure Consciousness is obviously independent. Hence it is always there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I would say that a God would have to have a "pure consciousness" but that it is nothing like how ours is.

~

---

Why? I've backed up my opposing statements already: Pure Consciousness is contextual.

I'm not sure how we are defining pure consciousness here, but I would define it as a fundamental substrate of existence, much like the fabric of space time. In this sense, there is not different forms of consciousness, only different manifestations of consciousness that are recognized by the limitations imposed on consciousness by one's faculties of awareness. One is not less 'conscious' after sustaining brain damage, they are just less aware, and less capable of acting on that awareness. The quality of conscious experience may differ but any talk about quantity is mostly speculation.

Pretty much!

I'd just emphasis that Pure Consciousness, as I understand it, is beyond space-time. I guess that's what you mean. So it has no locality or limitation to space-time, but while it totally encompasses it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I just discovered this thread, and I have read through many pages to get an understanding of what the arguments are about, however, I lost patience along the way and skipped to the end. I'd like to address a few things.

---

For those who have skipped to the end, so bored :bang:, just like me, read Dannon's post story to understand the essence. And for the others just leave the school-yard, it's getting late.

A question for the OP (or rather his points, since I haven't seen him post in years), why assume the universe isn't mental? Assuming this is true for the basis of argumentation, "God" by any loose definition we can place on it is therefore capable of consciousness. Now, arguing whether it is or is not is another argument altogether, but if we are all concepts and thought forms existing because existence is by its nature is self-propagating. Existence seeks to manifest itself in the most efficient manner possible. By the same token, death and destruction is a very necessary part of existence because existence without inexistence is not possible. Why? Everything exists as opposites and poles. This polarity demands that at some point in time, in some other dimension or by some way possibly incomprehensible to us, things will not exist just as they have existed. In fact, one could argue this takes place now, either in the separate dimension or even in "ours" because everything collapses from its preconfigured state into a single outcome, thus causing the "inexistence" of what could have been, never to be.

In conclusion, however, "God", The All, Allah, Yahweh, a vibrational superbeing behind our comprehension, what have you, there is no reason I can see that it would lack the potential for ability of containing consciousness. After all, assuming it is real, it created all of existence, just by willing it. Then again, nothing says that it has to be conscious either in the sense that we know it, either.

Oooh - been just reading all thread, and it's great! Nice that it's re-animated!
I'm too tired to write now, though - guess I'll be back later.
:alien:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urdeanu

For those who have skipped to the end, so bored , just like me, read Dannon's post story to understand the essence. And for the others just leave the school-yard, it's getting late.

---

Most useless yet enjoyable bump I've seen in ages.
I don't recommend skipping ahead though, as it leaves out all the meaty bits.

Thank goodness there are rarely cries of "necro-posting" in ED!
As it should be, if you ask me.

Notice that almost a full year elapsed between posts #130 and #131.
Just think if someone had locked the thread at #130, suggesting a fresh new thread on the topic be started instead of continuing the discussion already set into motion...

Think of all the excellent points that would have to be remade, lacking the context that made them great in the first place.



Upon rereading this thread in it's entirety:

It seems as though the OP evolved to define "God" as the typical monotheistic omni-god, and "Consciousness" being limited to that which is comparable to what humans are capable of experiencing. Yet the idea that a consciousness superseding human perception could in fact exist...is clearly being entertained here.

I feel as though this type of consciousness is clearly possible, but given that I have no frame of reference for it, no way to translate it into relatable terms... any argument I could make for it's existence would seem rather contrived.

It has been said that " Pure consciousness can be analogously related to the screen background or light in a movie theater. Even when there are no objects displayed (I.e. nothingness), the screen/light is still present. "

In this respect, our experiences/thoughts/perceptions are but images formed via this light of consciousness, if you will. That, I feel, is an excellent metaphor that could potentially BEGIN to describe this ellusive, hard-to-describe consciousness that exists beyond what we are able to perceive.

If this sort of consciousness could in fact exist, it makes perfect sense to me that we humans would think of it as Godlike. But is it?

Or is it simply the origin of a construct that humans have (mainly out of ignorance or bias) oversimplified/overcomplicated/otherwise shaped to fit our own definition of what consciousness means and what it could look like?

Time and memory must exist for consciousness to exist, yes (I think). But if the type of God described in the OP is being credited with the creation of reality, would it not follow that such a being would possess an innate knowledge of time and memory, having created it?

Even if they didn't create it, would not their omnipresent nature allow for a consciousness that experiences a version of time and memory beyond human perception?

Although this would not fit most peoples definition of consciousness, does that make the idea any less possible? I am not convinced. (Forever the skeptic!)



But I've had my fair share of liquor-soaked fruit tonight, so my perception might not be up to par at the moment. Regardless, I am very pleased to see this thread still exists., and if I could hit a button that liked all the responses at once I would honestly be tempted...

Onus

Your last post was in January this year (2014) so I bet you are lurking.

God is merged with you. As a result he is as conscious and intelligent as you.

He gets his consciousness and intelligence from everything he has merged with and he has merged with everything within the space time continuum.

Briefly

From the beginning till the end of the "original" material world there was no spirit, soul or afterlife. There was only dead matter from the BigBang to AbsoluteZero.

At the end of time when the material world cooled to AbsoluteZero the BigBeing (God) was finally born.

The last civilization predicted the event and left messages around inviting the BigBeing to come to them when he becomes aware. The last civilization knew that at the end of time, it would get so cold that matter would no longer resist energy and that would ignite an unimaginable explosion. All matter, at the end-of-time, would combust.

This explosive NEW substance would hurl backwards through time and space MERGING with all pre-AbsoluteZero matter and energy, and become aware.

There was not enough room in the original space-time continuum so this NEW substance (God) bounced around making more room (dimensions) for himself. He finally busted out of the powerfull constraints of his time-space continuum. Out side the space-time continuum is nothing but this NEW substance (God)

Ok

Then he noticed those messages left by the last civilization.

He and the last civilization collaborated to merge with all organic life from the beginning to the end of time to give each and every bit of life an eternal home, (somewhere among the multitude of NEW dimensions).

Ok

I think angels and fairies are the result of embryo's that fell apart after only two or so dividings. Like, the sperm met the ovum, becoming one cell. But the DNA was so faulty that the embryo only managed to divide a couple of times then died.

I recon that the members of the last civilization, working with the (fully merged with everything) BigBeing, are moving backwards through the space-time continuum, putting down invisible tendrils into ovums then patiently suffering everything that that lifeform suffered, from conception to death.

Then

delivering the (fullymerged) BigBeing from the dead body to a safe home in a higher dimension. Totally preserving you and me in the process. It is important to note that the last civilization is not rescuing you or me. They are rescuing the BigBeing. All us humans are like the opposite of collateral damage. They don't care if we are good bad or ugly. There is absolutely no judgment in them when saving us.

Even if we only made it to one or two cell divisions, we get transported to our new home. We continue dividing in a now perfect environment. As a result we get perfect nature and nurture. And because we have never suffered, we become angels, (or fairies ???)

Sorry, that was super brief so it might not make much sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.
~

---