Lets say the universe created itself, the universe expanded from the big bang, and we evolved from it.
-Aren`t we the universe made self-aware?
-Does that make the universe God? (Self-creating and conscious in the form of us)
Just a tought.
Printable View
Lets say the universe created itself, the universe expanded from the big bang, and we evolved from it.
-Aren`t we the universe made self-aware?
-Does that make the universe God? (Self-creating and conscious in the form of us)
Just a tought.
It seems rather pointless to give new names to things. What do we learn from it? Nothing, really. It's just a rose by another name.
It doesn`t change the definition of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But, if we are a conscious part of the universe, and the universe created itself, we would be a part of God, and the universe would be God. It`s a new way of thinking, it wouldn`t change anything, but it`s a thought.
Some people, when they say "God", are actually reffering to the universe.
How the hell did you go from bullet one, to bullet two? You clearly stated in your opening clause that the universe created itself, not that some god thing did, so no, in response to bullet two, we wouldn't. Unless you call the universe god, which is pointless as Xei said.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
It's a clarification of terms. The universe and God are two words meant for the same entity, rather than one being the creator of the other. As soon as we realize this misconception, we can start learning even more cool things.
Yeah, like how spoons are actually forks, and how we've had these words mixed up this whole time-- Oh, wait, it doesn't fucking matter what we call them, as long as the meaning is understood. So by calling the universe god, of course then your definition of god exists. Just in the way tht if I call this pen on my desk the invisible pink unicorn, then it exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I hate semantics games.
Sounds pretty correct doesn't it? We are one with the universe, so the Divine Source of the Universe would be within us also. And so comes the saying, the "Father is in you." When we find our Source, we discover what we are, "we" are in bliss, the Kingdom of Heaven. All questions are answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
The semantic issue is that there is no need for "God", if God is the Universe. However, I like to point out that the "Universe" is more of an objective term, whereas "God" is just one name for subjectively realizing what "the Universe" is, perhaps as God (unmanifest), Universe (manifest). God and the Universe are one, as the unmanifest is one with the manifest, however the former is not subject or limited to the constraints of manifest physicality. You could say God is the infinite potentiality out of which physical existence is possible.
If the universe made itself, and we are a conscious form of the universe. The universe is conscious and self-creating.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Isn`t that the definition of God?
A conscious creator of everything?
Does God have to be supernatural?
It wouldn`t change anything, but an intresting tought making the universe God and we a part of it. It might be pointless to call the universe God, but it only seems logical considering the universe has always existed or created itself, that God and the universe are the same thing. Just like Omnius Deus said.
No, not ''the father is in you'' we are the ''father/God'' we are a conscious part of the Universe. Us, God and the Universe is the same thing. We are just a little, conscious part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I completely agree with the OP, thats how I see things.
People complain you can't call God the universe, but realizing God is the universe, is the key to unlock the wisdom in all religious scriptures talking about God. If you assume God is superman with a beard, the Bible will indeed not make very much sense.
This discussion is very much like people insisting that DNA means candycane. And then those people reason evolution couldn't possibly exist because candycane can't possibly fit into a human cell.
The solution to this problem is very simple.. DNA is not candycane. God is not superman with a beard. Realizing the true nature of DNA will make you understand evolution, realizing the true nature of God will make you understand religion.
I also completely agree with the OP. Saying that the universe is God, to me, is simply the correct definition of what God is, and the result for me, is that religion does make a lot more sense. While there are those who believe in other definitions of what God is, based on literal interpretations of whatever scripture they have read or heard, I assume that when someone speaks of God, they are talking about the Universe, and everything in it as a single entity, perceptively subdivided however it may be.
Having not been to any church in over a decade, I have been gradually moving towards my current beliefs about the universe. Recently I was talked into going to a church service, and with my new perspective, it all made complete sense to me, and had a lot of very good points about how life should be lived, and how we should treat others. The main point was unconditional love.
There are countless definitions people have for God, however, this is one I believe to be the most accurate. We are the finite branches of consciousness, stemming from a common single source, the universe, in which we experience only an extremely tiny fraction of it that makes up our entire lives.
Sorry no. You are lost in a maze of semantics. Why on Earth would you call the universe 'God'? Just call it the universe and stop confusing everybody.
What is the right definition of God, in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
A conscious creator and/or potent presence in the universe.
So according to your definition, any artist is God. Because any artist is a conscious creator of an artwork. Also any human is God, because every human is a potent presence in the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
No wonder you think God doesn't exist lol... that's one of the worst definition I have ever heard.
Creator of reality, obviously. And omnipotent.
Would call a conscious creator of the universe that was not omnipotent, God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes. God is a conscious creator and/or omnipotent ruler of reality.
Interesting argument I just realised:
God created reality.
Hence God is apart from reality.
Hence God is not real.
^^actually, that has been used in some arguments before as to why you cant prove there is a god in sceintific terms...but it usually gets blown off.
anyways, to the op. I agree with this except I would like to know what exactly this changes in a religious perspective?
So if we never evolved to be self conscious, the universe wouldn't be god?Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
To quote myself:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
If the universe made itself, and we are a conscious form of the universe. The universe is conscious and self-creating.
We are a consciousness created by the laws of the universe.
That is very different from the laws of the universe being created by a consciousness.
Depends on if there are other life out in the universe which I think is VERY probable. However I see what you mean. If there was no conscious life in the universe would the universe be God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
In my opinion, no. For one simple reason, the universe wouldn`t be conscious.
Ahar. good.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
IF we were the only conscious part of the universe would that make the whole thing conscious?
IF a rock has moss growing from it, does it make the whole rock life?
Yes, but as long as we are a part of the universe, and we are conscious, the universe should be defined God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Why?
We have the consciousness to observe the universe. Making it self-aware. The more we explore the more self-aware the universe gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
?Quote:
IF a rock has moss gorwing from it, does it make the whole rock life?
Because we are a part of the universe and we are conscious. If the universe created itself/always existed and is conscious in the form of life. The universe is God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Well, I think that would be to confuse the causality of the issue, as I said... an unconscious universe and set of laws has led through causality to conscious beings. The conscious beings did not cause the universe to be created.
Yes, I agree. But the main question is: Lets say a universe exists. It`s unconscious. While unconscious it creates another universe. Later it becomes conscious. Is it still God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
(This ofc has to include parallel universes to be possible)
Or if the universe has always existed. But doesn`t become self-aware before now. Is it still God?
No, the universe is everything that exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Very different from the idea of a deity.
Besides, consciousness AROSE, it wasn't 'created' because the universe isn't conscious, therefore the universe could not have creatred itself, therefore your argument has pancaked in on itself :-/
If everything that exists (the universe) has always existed, then became conscious in the form of us. Isn`t that the definition of God?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Also, are you saying the idea of parallel universes are impossible?
Did I ever claim consciousness was created?Quote:
Besides, consciousness AROSE, it wasn't 'created' because the universe isn't conscious, therefore the universe could not have creatred itself, therefore your argument has pancaked in on itself :-/
Are you claiming the universe has always existed?
To repeat myself: If everything that exists (the universe) has always existed, then became conscious in the form of us. Isn`t that the definition of God?
Consciousness arose and we, as a part of the universe made the universe self-aware, no?
If that is the definition of God, we'll just have to change it then. We wouldn't want God to actually exist would we?
What are you reffering to?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
No. Get a dictionary. Use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Depending on your definiton of 'universe', yes. Everything that exists or that can be said to be is a part of the universe. So there can't be more than one.Quote:
Also, are you saying the idea of parallel universes are impossible?
You said that the universe created consciousness.Quote:
Did I ever claim consciousness was created?
Are you claiming the universe has always existed?
To repeat myself: If everything that exists (the universe) has always existed, then became conscious in the form of us. Isn`t that the definition of God?
Consciousness arose and we, as a part of the universe made the universe self-aware, no?
Yes.
NO.
NO. Just like the fact that forks exist does not make the universe a fork.
It doesn`t have a clear definition. A universe that has always existed and became self-aware. Always existed, conscious/self-aware. Seems like God is the right word to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Dark matter is something in this universe that could also be matter in another universe. Making something impossible because all we know to exist is in this universe is very narrow-minded. I hope you realise that.Quote:
Depending on your definiton of 'universe', yes. Everything that exists or that can be said to be is a part of the universe. So there can't be more than one.
Quote me that please.Quote:
You said that the universe created consciousness.
Straw man.Quote:
NO. Just like the fact that forks exist does not make the universe a fork.
A fork is a part of the universe, just like everything else.
But, the universe isn't conscious. Just some things in it, which is where you start to make no sense and lose track of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Dark matter is hypothetical and unproven.Quote:
Dark matter is something in this universe that could also be matter in another universe. Making something impossible because all we know to exist is in this universe is very narrow-minded. I hope you realise that.
...and just like consciousness. It is a product of the universe, not a definition for it. How is that a straw man? That is exactly what you are saying.Quote:
Straw man.
A fork is a part of the universe, just like everything else.
All it takes are some things in the universe to be conscious, for consciousness to exist in the universe. It can be claimed that we are all a part of the universe, drawing our own distinctions between things that are separate from us, but not completely. So as ourselves are conscious and part of this universe, you can it contains consciousness. But as the universe is everything that makes it up, it too is conscious. If you consider evolution to be a tool of the universe, consciousness was created using that tool, by the universe in which it operates.
This link seems relevant to consciousness in the universe:
All the same, really. I get what you're saying. The Father is in you, you are in the Father, you are the Father (in the grand sense). Usually, if we are still a "part", we are not the Father, which is the Whole. However, we are one with the Whole, thus one with the Father from that perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
That's a common deception, it's been covered in the Intelligent Design Topic. God is always Creating Reality, united and beyond physicality, however is not subject to its dimensions (time, space), hence omnipresence/omnipotence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Eh, that depends also on how you're defining consciousness, which doesn't always necessarily have to be related to awareness. There is consciousness in bacteria for example, however that doesn't mean that bacteria is aware that it exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The conscious intelligence in this sense, exists prior to life in order for it to grow and evolve intelligently. Otherwise, what do you think is witnessing its own existence?
Conscious in the form of us. Those 'things in it' are a part of the universe. We are a part of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
We know dark matter exists, however, we don`t know what it is. Now, the point with the statement was to make you see that your previous statement was narrow-minded.Quote:
Dark matter is hypothetical and unproven.
WE are a part of the universe, just like everything else. And when WE become conscious/aware. WE are a conscious part of the universe, making it possible for a part of the universe to experience itself. Making us (a part of the universe) SELF-AWARE. The more WE observe about the universe, the more self-aware the universe gets.Quote:
...and just like consciousness. It is a product of the universe, not a definition for it. How is that a straw man? That is exactly what you are saying.
JustSoSick you should start a new religion. Not only does this theory make a lot of sense, but this religion could finally unite the entire world population... because who doesn't want to be a part of God? :D So what are you going to call it?
Again, forks.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Why does the existence of forks not make the universe a fork? What makes 'consciousness' (Self-awareness-- Not senses... BIG difference) so special that, since it exists, makes the whole universe conscious?
Anyway, the universe is a concept, not a thing, like 'infinity'. It represents all of reality. Just because we're conscious DOES NOT make 'it' conscious. That doesn't even make sense.
Yeah good point there, but, we were created by the forces of the universe and with the material of the universe. So you could reason, that we are the living incarnations of the universe. The universe may have no purpose, but if you look at evolution, you can't deny the fact it's going into one certain direction, creating more and more consciousness. So if you would be forced to make up a purpose for the universe, it would be us. (or some more intelligent, more conscious life form)
Same goes for forks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Oh, and everything else in the universe. Created by the forces of nature.
Cascades of systems of systems~ that go on into infinity. Consciousness isn't even as complex as a society, which is less complex than an economy. Why aren't those concepts (Which come from consciousness... They're emergent) used over 'consciousness'?
Same goes for forks? So your claim is we are as conscious as forks?
Chayba you seem to consistently fail with basic logic.
The post clearly says that forks, like us, are
Not conscious.Quote:
Created by the forces of nature.
Nobody buys your ridiculous strawmen.
Yeah indeed, just like use forks, are the pinnacle of consciousness.
.Quote:
Consciousness isn't even as complex as a society, which is less complex than an economy. Why aren't those concepts (Which come from consciousness... They're emergent) used over 'consciousness'?
Agreed, but society is a form of consciousness isn't it? Just like an ant colony or a bee hive has a form of shared consciousnes, so does our society. I guess this shared consciousnes is indeed superior to our individual consciousness.
No, it's a product of conscious beings interacting.
Ants do not have a society, though they can perform incredible tasks without consciousness.
I call it shared consciousness, you call it a product of conscious beings interacting. I don't see any difference.
Our consciousness is also a product of conscious cells interacting.
:|Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
How about using some arguments to make this discussion a little bit more interesting?
Then you might as well just say that you aren't really you, you're just a conglomeration of self replicating, fueling, and autonomous chemicals. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
You keep oversimplifying everything when it's convenient for your own ideas.
You can't argue, because something is simple, that it is false. Oversimplification is not a valid argument. Try again :P
Err, yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Because nothing exists but energy, therefore your entire argument is now meaningless because 'consciousness' is just a concept made up by humans and therefore the unvierse cannot have it.
So, let's try again.
The sum of systems are more systems, blah blah blah etc etc so then you have Consciousness. Then you have things like societies, and economies. Which are made up of conscious interactions. So, once more, your argument has fallen apart.
According to Occams Razor, the simpler, the better. Also, consciousness is something very real and measurable, not just a concept made up by human beings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._consciousness
Yea, as opposed to something that is lacking. Not oversimplifying something to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
A society is the PRODUCT of consciousness, not a form of it. So answer the question already.
What question?
I agree that consciousness is real, but only on the solipsic principle of Descartes.Quote:
According to Occams Razor, the simpler, the better. Also, consciousness is something very real and measurable, not just a concept made up by human beings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._consciousness
There is no empirical evidence for the above theory, and the scientific study of consciousness has hardly made any progress at the moment.
Why you use consciousness instead of something like a society or economy, which are made up of the latter.
In other words, this doesn't make any sense. Again, by the same logic, since forks exist, the universe is also a fork, because it contains them and the more forks there are, the more forkery the universe becomes.
Anyway, are you like a troll, or something? Or are you just stupid? I'm out of this thread.
The universe is a fork.. and I'm a stupid troll. LOL. :D
I welcome skepticism, although I am having trouble seeing the fork argument clearly.
Us being conscious, as parts of the universe, makes parts of the universe conscious. Similarly, parts of the universe are forks. The difference being humans have consciously created forks, where as the universe created us. Another big difference between forks and consciousness, is that forks are clearly defined and composed of observable physical matter, and consciousness is neither.
Being from physical matter, which makes up the universe, we as humans developed this consciousness that we are utilizing to have this discussion, and have utilized in the past to create forks, also from physical matter.
The existence of consciousness doesn't make the entire universe conscious, nor does the existence of forks make the entire universe a fork. However, the existence of both forks and consciousness, makes them present as parts of the universe, giving the universe properties of forks, and consciousness.
I would say that I am conscious, despite the fact that 100% of me is not consciousness, as there is this entire body that sustains this consciousness, yet is not a part of it.
Similarly, you could extrapolate that the universe is conscious, because it has consciousness in it. Consciousness is a slightly different property than fork. Although with that extrapolation, you could also conclude that the universe is any number of qualities, which I would probably agree with. So long as they aren't "fork" or "banana" Those are more along the lines of material possessions, than qualities or traits.
I for one am honored to live in such a forktastic universe.
Back on the OP's point, it seems the universe's deity status is based on whether or not we believe in the existence of existence outside the time-space of our universe.
Take a hearty bite out of that mind-burrito. :3
We are all apart of the one, but ...
A fork is not THEEEE universe, but a PART of the universe. Don`t know how many times I said that already. So if a FORK becomes conscious, the fork would be a way for the universe to experience itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
If we ARE a part of the universe and we become conscious, and we can observe and experience the universe doese`t make the universe conscious?
How does that not make sense?
If my sofa is part of the universe and my sofa becomes entirely covered in pretzels, doesn't that make the universe covered in pretzels?
It makes part of the universe covered in pretzels. But pretzel coverage is not a very good analogy to consciousness. Pretzel coverage is more similar to fork-ness, than to consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Consider the following:
I would say that I am conscious, despite the fact that 100% of me is not consciousness, as there is this entire body that sustains this consciousness, yet is not a part of it. Similarly, the universe is consciously perceiving itself, by means of parts of it (most notably us) being conscious, and perceiving other parts of it (the world around us).
However, I would not say that I am hair, because there is hair growing on parts of me. Nor would I say I am fingernails, despite my fingers and toes having finger and toe-nails respectively. Similarly, the universe is not forks, pretzels, or even bananas, even though it contains all of those.
Look one post above you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Anot THEEEE universe, but a PART of the universe. Don`t know how many times I said that already.forkis
Well said. Totally my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Okay... So, part of the universe is conscious.
How does this make the universe 'god'? It just makes part of the unvierse conscious...
Parts of it is conscious, the more those parts of the universe experience, the more self-aware/conscious the universe becomes - And if it has always existed like you believe. Conscious/self-aware and eternal. God?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
In other words, it seems like the whole known universe should be defined God.
No. Because the universe isn't observing itself, parts of it are.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
The universe is the universe, not a deity, dude. Consciousness isn't eternal anyway. When you die, all of your memories and your consciousness ceases.
Lets see what I said shall we:Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
To use Schmavens example if I may. You aren`t observing yourself, parts of you are, but you are fully conscious/self-aware.Quote:
Parts of it is conscious, the more those parts of the universe experience, the more self-aware/conscious the universe becomes
A part of consciousness dies, while others live on and new consciousness arise.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE SO THE UNIVERSE ISN'T CONSCIOUS NOR OBSERVING ITSELF.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Get it now? :)
Just like some parts of the universe may indeed be composed of forks, that does not make the universe a fork, nor function like one.
I don`t even know if you are doing this on purpose anymore. And ofc, like I said earlier, when I say the universe - I am talking about the whole known universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
''You aren`t observing yourself, parts of you are, but you are fully conscious/self-aware.''
Get it now? :)
You aren't the whole universe, dude. Thus, the universe isn't consious.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Your head is not your whole body, thus you are not consciousQuote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Following your reasoning?
''You aren`t observing yourself, parts of you are, but you are fully conscious/self-aware.''
(Captain Obvious) All conscious parts of the universe are conscious parts. Not just me.
Now if you make me repeat moreI`ll jump off a bridge. No, wait scratch that last.
Well yes. Your body isn't conscious. Poor counterexample.Quote:
Following your reasoning?
You seemed to have missed the entire point of analogy. Here, I believe, is what you are saying:
-Conscious beings are a part of the universe
-Hence the universe is conscious
This does not follow. As a counterexample,
-Chocolate foodstuffs are a part of the universe
-Hence the universe is chocolate
My head isn't conscious. Consciousness is an emergent property and doesn't require a 'body' or anything like that... Anyway, what Xei said, basically :/Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
I`m not following you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Please explain to me how this:
-You aren't the whole universe, dude. Thus, the universe isn't consious.
-Your head is not your whole body, thus you are not conscious.
relate to your example?
'You' are conscious. Your head is not. Your analogy doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Anyway, back to the ORIGINAL point-- Forks. You still haven't explained this.
''Consciousness is a type of mental state, a way of perceiving, particularly the perception of a relationship between self and other.''Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
''Mind collectively refers to the aspects of intellect and consciousness manifested as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination; mind is the stream of consciousness. It includes all of the brain's conscious processes.''
All that matters is that we are conscious, as we can observe, experience the rest of the universe, the universe is self-aware/conscious. Which was the most important point, which you skipped.
Er...Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Consciousness, -- or metacognizance-- is the ability to think about yourself thinking. It is an emrgent property or a system. Humans and many other animals are metacognizant, but other things, such a computers could also become conscious if they are given the same opportunity for it, such as neural networks large enough to allow a computer to think about itself thinking.
Really, I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
In other words parts of the universe experience the rest of the universe making it self-aware, and conscious in the form of the conscious parts of the universe.Quote:
A fork is not THEEEE universe, but a PART of the universe. Don`t know how many times I said that already. So if a FORK becomes conscious, the fork would be a way for the universe to experience itself.
No, that just makes parts of the universe aware, as you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Which is what I've been trying to point out and what you have been failing to understand.Quote:
Conscious is not THEEEE universe, but a PART of the universe.
Just because B is a member of the set of ABC, and B is conscious does not make ABC conscious as well unless A and C are also conscious.
So you need to think to be conscious, thus you need your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
No. I just need my brain. Or more generally anything like it that can store all of my memories.
''I would say that I am conscious, despite the fact that 100% of me is not consciousness, as there is this entire body that sustains this consciousness, yet is not a part of it. Similarly, the universe is consciously perceiving itself, by means of parts of it (most notably us) being conscious, and perceiving other parts of it (the world around us).Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
However, I would not say that I am hair, because there is hair growing on parts of me. Nor would I say I am fingernails, despite my fingers and toes having finger and toe-nails respectively. Similarly, the universe is not forks, pretzels, or even bananas, even though it contains all of those.''
Schmaven already explained.
The universe is conscious in the form of us, preceiving it.
If your arm is A, your brain is B, and your leg is C try to apply the same rules to yourself. By your same reasoning, you are not conscious.
Already been over the first part a dozen times, so:Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
My body is not conscious.
Just because my brain is the object that my consciousness is created by, does not make my arm or leg conscious, or indeed my body. It is something in itself, just like my arm is not my leg, and vice versa.
What aren't you understanding? :?
Which was my point, you need your brain which is in your head. You need your head to be conscious.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
But... That still doesn't make my brain OR my head conscious.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Just because a hydrogen atom needs one electron and one proton to exist, does not mean that protons and electrons are Hydrogen atoms.
Get it?
However your leg is a part of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
And you are conscious.
The universe is conscious too, in the form of us, preceiving it. However our galaxy is not conscious. Just like your arm is not conscious.
What`s the difference?
Your leg isn't conscious. :/Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
No matter how much you twist words, reality will not change. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, it has nothing to do with your legs.
Your brain is not conscious, your arm is not conscious and so on, but you need your brain to be conscious. That was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
I agree, legs are not conscious, but you are and your legs is a part of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Okay. And?Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
That doesn't make the rest of your body conscious. Period. I've explained this twelve different ways-- I'm out of here.
No, but you are conscious. Your body is not. Just as our galaxy, the androma galaxy, our sun and so on are not conscious. However we are conscious.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
We are the consciousness of the universe, preceiving the universe. Just as you are preceiving yourself.
The universe is not completely conscious, but it is conscious. Similarly, I would say the universe is chocolate, but it is not 100% chocolate. The universe is everything that makes it up, consciousness, being one of the constituents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The universe is observing itself in much the same way we observe ourselves. I can look at my arm, using my eyes, although this does not make me 100% eyes, nor 100% arm.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The point isn't that there is a single being of consciousness, just that there is consciousness, which fits the description of a God. We will all die eventually, but there will be more consciousness arising after us, making the universe still conscious.
A whole can have a property, without being entirely that property. The universe does not have to be 100% consciousness for it to be conscious. Forks, bananas, monkeys, even men made of straw, all exist in a conscious universe. Just as a story can be exciting, without containing 100% excitement.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Although, given that everything we perceive is through our limited 5 senses, all we will ever know to exist is a product of our own consciousness, which takes data from these senses, and compiles it into our holographic version of reality.
Protons and electrons are parts of Hydrogen atoms, and are protons and electrons, not themselves Hydrogen atoms. It takes both to form a hydrogen atom. In the same way as ink and paper are combined to form words, but before together, neither are words.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The universe is made of everything, including hydrogen atoms. As every possible example we can think of will contain a component of something that is part of the universe, it is difficult to make the analogy between the two.
Dude, you're confusing componenets of something with that something.
More semantics bullshit.
All language is semantics. The point of this thread is proposing a more fitting definition of God, which you can't really have without semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The consciousness of something, is what we're talking about here, more specifically, of the universe. The point being that as parts of the universe are conscious, the universe is conscious, along the same reasoning that parts of humans are conscious (our mind), and as human beings, we are conscious.
It seems everyone proposing counter-arguments has been confusing components of things, with those very things (forks, chocolate, bananas, etc.). While I would agree that when talking about the universe, you can say that the universe is forks, chocolate, bananas, and conscious, when you take that out of context, such as by saying, my couch is forks, then it loses any sense it once had.
The Universe (and beyond) is consciously aware through its living beings. Are the beings separate from the Universe? If not, then what is aware?
How does the self see truth in anything while it is believing in illusions? It thinks it is separate, then it wonders why there isn't a God. In the meantime, it blames a lot on God. What is really happening is that we're believing in the false self, thereby believing in its claimed validity and its thoughts.
We are the great universal eye slowly opening to see it self.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
No. Your body is not conscious. Your brain is the engine for this, so even if you ahd a brain, it doesn't mean you are conscious. Consciousness is an emergent property and it's separate-- Not a thing, a concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmaven
Just because the universe contains consciousness, does not, in any way, make the universe conscious. The original argument made here was that since the universe contained consciousness, it was therefore conscious and thus god.
I'm not saying that our bodies are conscious, but that we are conscious. As people, we are conscious people. Conscious people, who use our consciousness to operate our bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The universe contains consciousness in much the same way we ourselves do. Would you say that the universe is unconscious?
No, but I would say that it has consciousness 'in' it.
Okay, so we agree that the universe has consciousness in it. So in other words, it contains consciousness.
I guess it comes down to how you view the universe. I would say that the universe is everything. Being everything, it is also conscious.
It is also forks, spoons, knives, chop sticks, bowling balls, volcanoes, stars, bananas, spider monkeys, bowling balls, pianos, gold, good, evil, forgiving, harsh, gas, liquid... the list goes on.
However, for this thread, we're ignoring (for the sake of brevity) those other aspects of the universe, and focusing on the consciousness of it.
The universe is defined by us, using our conscious thought patterns. Consciousness itself is defined by us as well. Both our perception of the universe, and its very concept would not exist without our consciousness. So to me, consciousness is inseparable from the universe as we know it, as there would be nothing without consciousness. In order for something to exist, it or its effects must be perceived in some way, and the only possibly way to perceive something, is to observe it, and you can't observe something without awareness or consciousness.
Clearly each of us has our own opinions and beliefs about such topics, which results in inevitable disagreement over them. I'm doing my best to explain my point of view in an understandable way.
What do you mean by 'in'?Quote:
Okay, so we agree that the universe has consciousness in it. So in other words, it contains consciousness.
There is no location of consciousness.
He has it from Rox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
He was claiming that, and that`s what they are discussing. Trying to reach some kind of agreement.Quote:
No, but I would say that it has consciousness 'in' it
I feel like Rox `haven`t thought true the idea he is arguing against in this thread. Doesn`t look like he`s trying to understand our perspectives.
Your perspective is that since A has the property 'x' and is apart of the system ABC, that the system ABC is 'x'. That's not true. It may contain the property 'x', but that doesn't make the entire system that property.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSoSick
Basically, your argument is redundant because the universe is, by definition, everything, and the only attempt your argument makes is to take once concept from the universe and say that that is what the universe is. That's out of context. Like calling 'nature' 'god'. It's redundant.
By 'in' it I mean that this universe has conscious beings existing in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm saying that because A has property 'x', that ABC also has some level of that same property 'x'. I acknowledge that ABC nor A is composed of 100% 'x', but for this argument, the only condition is that some of ABC has 'x'.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
I think your point is that as there is much of the universe that we perceive and classify as not having consciousness, that the entire universe is not conscious.
I am claiming that all you need are parts of something to be conscious, for the sum to have consciousness.
I feel that my analogy of us, as human beings fits well here. Clearly my toes are not conscious, nor my arms. Not being physical in nature, much of my body is not conscious. However, I, as a person, am conscious.
Another interesting point, is that we don't know the origin of our consciousness, although our physical origin is this universe. As all physical matter is part of this universe, and we are mostly physical matter that reproduce ourselves, we are created by the universe. I would assume that by some means, the universe also created our consciousness.
Yes, the whole problem here is this 'I' business. What are you defining as you?Quote:
However, I, as a person, am conscious.
It is certainly not your body. If your legs are amputated, do you feel that a part of 'you' has been removed? I don't think so. If you had a heart transplant, would you consider yourself to be 5% of somebody else? Are you the food you eat? If you and another person had a mutual brain transplant, would you consider yourself to be your old body in any way? No.
Neither is 'you' the matter which constitutes you. The atoms that make up your body are not the same ones that made you at the start of your life. Biological molecules are constantly entering, leaving, changing form and being recycled in your body.
What do you mean by I?
It's super effective!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Thread.health = 0
God is everything, so yes, God is us.
But we are not God.
Except that this idea typically allows for the possibility that the existing consciousness in the universe can all work in concert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
How does this conflict my idea? Do you think your body is a part of you? It doesn`t matter if do or don`t. If my leg gets amputated I would feel like a part of my body is missing. BUT, my consciousness and thought process would be the same. Remember, we are the consciousness and thoughts of the universe. It doesn`t matter how you define yourself, we are still a part of the universe, and we are still conscious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by WakataDreamer
Why are you making this a contest?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
We are part of the all, whether we are a part of god per see...
We all came from the same place.
Where?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
It's funny! We all arise out of a non-place! :D The Source of the Universe is beyond localization, thus it is everywhere present.
When describing someone, usually physical attributes are given, thus assuming that the body is part of the person. Although I see your point, as we say, I have two arms, not I am two arms, and I have legs, not I am legs, so with the structure of our language, it is as if we possess our bodies, but are not our bodies. This makes it seem to me that even our language is based upon our existence outside of the physical realm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I would call my physical self, just a small fraction of the infinite whole. As there are interactions among everything at the atomic level, where we draw the boundaries for things is arbitrary, and depends only on the problem we're trying to solve.
For my body, I would say that it is composed of the food I eat, if I had an arm removed, my arm would be gone, and if I had someone else's heart inside me, I would be made up of 5% of someone else's material.
It is very difficult to quantify this "I" business, if not impossible, as there is no way we can measure consciousness. Our consciousness (which I consider to be the main part of the "I") is the means by which we measure things, and perceive, and as such, it cannot be perceived. The effects of its actions can, but not consciousness itself.
I still see this universe having conscious beings in it, being parts of it. Similar to if you have a group of 100 people, and 2 of them are extraordinarily brave, taking extreme risks for everyone else, and facing what normally scares them and others all the time. Considering that group as a whole, I would say that there is braveness in that group. While only a part of that group is actually being brave, brave acts are still being conducted by the group, just not everyone in the group.
It's not the best example, but when comparing parts of the universe to the entire universe, there are no best examples.
I would say that hippos are aggressive, even though some hippos within the hippo population are most likely passive.
My point is not about how much of something there is, nor whether a fraction of something applies to the whole. Simply that consciousness exists, and through it, pieces of the universe that have consciousness (ourselves, animals, possibly plants if you've seen the earlier video) are experiencing other pieces of the universe.
Consider drawing boundaries on the universe around your head. In that case, that part of the universe is conscious. With your head alone can see, hear, taste, smell, and feel (given ample blood supply, and the other essentials from the body, but consider that an outside source for now). The difference between considering your head, and the universe, is that there is more stuff to be experienced in the universe than in the small box around your head. While you can hear yourself speak, see your nose and cheeks, taste your mouth, feel your face, and smell your breath, all with just your head; in this universe, you can experience much more than that, as well as interact with other beings, doing the same.
What are your reasons for believing the universe is not conscious? (assuming that is your belief)
The question is...what IS god? Most people will say that it is the default state of existence, the "first" existence before existence. Whatever it may be, a personal creator, impersonal force of creation, or maybe the universe itself, if it qualifies as the original state of existence, then we are infact a part of it. Unless god is a combined form of something, which can be divided into lesser parts. Then we can ask, is god just another way to re-arrange reality, or is god reality, regardless of whatever form it takes?Quote:
Are We A Part Of God?