Proof god doesn't exist

[warpus]

And maybe they would then qualify to be gods. Not in the Abrahamic understanding of God, perhaps, but they would be gods in another sense. For example, in the science fiction webcomic Schlock Mercenary, an advanced AI has essentially become God, or at least a god. Not only is he powerful beyond the ability of mortals to even create, he acts as a god. If he really wanted he could rule the galaxy and possibly make everyone, if not immortal, than live for a very long time. Is he a god?

I don't think it matters what label we dump him under, but some people would not call him God because he did not create the Universe.

God is consciousness and it is infinite and eternal. Creation (the physical universe) is that consciousness with constraints that give the appearance of individuality and separateness. The individual consciousness we all experience is in Reality god-consciousness, but physical form keeps us from experiencing it directly. When consciousness is freed from all the constraints of the universe, it experiences itself as what it has been all along, god.

Is the connection clear now?

Yes, but I'd like to know how you were able to deduce all that

You still skip over the points being made and questions you get asked because you are evading and playing word chess.

I don't understand why you continue to accuse me of this. I am doing nothing of the sort.

If consciousness is a 'process' - follow that trail of logic to its conclusion. You stopped short of the answer. It is the very reason you evade and avoid the most critical questions I ask - you are not being honest and you know it.

It is obvious because you simply ignore all the questions that I ask that lead to real answers.

The reason NO ONE, has ever - under any circumstances - seen the entry of consciousness is because it does not have one. Logical necessity if consciousness is a process - do the math.

It is a process, hello?

I'm not evading anything. There is no such thing as consciousness suddenly popping up from nowhere and "turning on" or whatever. It's a gradual process that starts with 1 cell and ends with trillions. As the brain grows and neural connections are made, the brain is able to perform more and more calculations and becomes more functional. It slowly becomes more and more aware until it is what you would call 'conscious'.

Does that answer your question?

I don`t see what is arbitrairy, could you actually point it out this time?

"God's greatest desire is to be you"

This statement is arbitrary because you are not basing it on anything concrete. You could not explain how you logically deduced this statement, could you? That's what makes it arbitrary.

Last chance or I am not interested; if you just keep clouding meaning instead of communicating. Go play with someone who wants to.

Your hostility is misguided. From my point of view it is you who is clouding meaning, yet I try to listen and understand your point of view.

You said what was arbitrairy is the premise of God himself.

Not the premise of God, but assigning qualities to God (such as your quote i used above) would be arbitrary.

Conversation is quid pro quo, it is not a one way street. Answer my questions, respond to what I say, or I am completely done talking to you.

You don't have to talk to me if you don't want to, but I seriously don't know where all your hostility is coming from. Shrug.

Answer this question: how does energy(chemical/electrical) decide to be conscious?

It doesn't. I never claimed that it does, nor did the original author of what I posted. The energy isn't conscious. You wanted to know what consciousness is based on, I provided information that explains the framework on which consciousness is based. It is something very measurable and not supernatural.

Some believe

Yes, they believe, but they don't have any evidence.

Do cells have consciousness, are they alive? So the underlying cause of consciousness is life? Who makes the "decision" to become aware?

The structure of our brain and the complexity is what gives rise to consciousness. Nothing decides to become conscious though. It just happens.

Its all theory

Everything in science that helps explain the world is a theory. That particular theory you are quoting is the best explanation we have for consciousness.

Feel free to quote a theory which explains it better than the one I did.

skip over my questions like I never asked you one

I think I skipped a couple, but they simply did not make any sense to me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I personally don't see how a being must have created the universe to be labelled a god. In many mythologies, there were creator gods, and other gods who had not been involved in creation but were still worthy of the title.

 

[Greek Stud]

Ok lets assume that christians are 100% right about creation for a second.
If god created man then god came from somewhere, thus we can infer that he was either.
a) created
b) he evolved.

God is not created, He is the Creator. You cannot put your finger on His existence just like how there is not a start or end to the shape of a circle. When Moses spoke to the burning bush on Mount Sinai, this was explained. Moses asked for God's name, God said I have no name, I am what I am. He is the light, He is life, He is Creation.

Turn to science, matter is not omnipresent. Many philosophers were aware that there must be a void outside of existance and that all we know to exist as matter only transfers its existence. You cannot reasonably conclude that matters exists of its own existence. Its perfection in composition and its mechanics can only led to it being created.

b would make the original statement ludicrous so we must assume that god was created. This however creates several paradoxes first the Christians believe in only a single god but if he was created by another then there are clearly more than one. It also means that each earlier god was ore powerfull than his successor god barring the belief that god has absolute power.

Finaly we must then ask who created gods creator? The only availabe answer is an even greater god if we folow that out we get several paradoxes.
*#(gods)>Infinity
*If there are infinity gods then there must also be infinity matter and energy in the universe which there isn't.
*This destroys the second law of thermodynamics.
*It causes a blatant paradox with passages from the bible.

A Creator is the means of existence and stands outside of it. The idea of having a Creator cannot be explained by stating that the Creator was Created; nor does that compute with the idea of monotheism. One God, One Creator. Existence stems from One Creator.

I want to know how those of you who still believe can refute this perhaps I made a mistake somewhere but I doubt it..

Maybe not in refute but Christian thought regards God as not being in some place, or at a particular time, but as having some kind of universal existence that was independent of place and time. The individual Christians that exist in our everyday world, and the particular courageous actions that believers perform, are always fleeting, but they partake of the timeless essence of true existence; and this is an indestructible ideal.

Plato's theory of Ideas or Forms explains the whole of reality in this world as being a decaying copy of something whose ideal form has a permanent and indestructible existence outside of space and time. Plato and Pythagoras both believed the whole cosmos seems to exemplify order, harmony, proportion- the whole of physics can be expressed in terms of mathematical equations. This theory is very revealing that, under this messy and chaotic world, there is an order that has all the ideality and perfection of mathematics. This order is not perceptible to the eye, but it is accessible to the mind, and intelligible to the intellect. Most import of all it is there, it exists, it is what constitutes underlying reality.

Plato liked to put it, everything in this world is always becoming something else, but nothing ever just permanently is. Everything comes into existence and passes away, everything is imperfect, everything decays. This world in space and time is the only world that our human sensory apparatus can apprehend. But then there is another realm which is not in space or time, and not accessible to our senses, and in which there is permanence and perfect order. This other world is the timeless and unchanging reality of which our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses. But it is what one might call real reality, because it alone is stable, un shakeable - it alone just is, and is not always in the process of sliding into something else. The soul is timeless and spaceless, they are our permanent forms and constitute ultimate reality.

 

[Smidlee]

God is not created, He is the Creator. You cannot put your finger on His existence just like how there is not a start or end to the shape of a circle. When Moses spoke to the burning bush on Mount Sinai, this was explained. Moses asked for God's name, God said I have no name, I am what I am. He is the light, He is life, He is Creation.

Pretty much sums it up except I disagree He is creation.. thus He is Holy; apart from his creation . If God was created then he's not Holy. This is one thing that set God apart from idols ( most false gods were nature gods /materialism) ; thus forbid the Jews from making any kind of image of God.

P.S According to scriptures materialism/naturalism isn't the ulimate reality.

 

[Greek Stud]

He is Creation is in reference to the Holy Trinity. Most Christians believe this if they believe that Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Creator are one in entity. The Arians were the first Christians to deny Christ as being the Creator and say Christ is separate from the Creator and thus do not believe in the Holy Trinity.

 

[beingofone]

Your post seems sincere so I will answer.

beingofone:
You still skip over the points being made and questions you get asked because you are evading and playing word chess.

Warpus:
I don't understand why you continue to accuse me of this. I am doing nothing of the sort.

Then stop hitting the snooze button on your alarm clock.

I'm not evading anything. There is no such thing as consciousness suddenly popping up from nowhere and "turning on" or whatever. It's a gradual process that starts with 1 cell and ends with trillions. As the brain grows and neural connections are made, the brain is able to perform more and more calculations and becomes more functional. It slowly becomes more and more aware until it is what you would call 'conscious'.

Does that answer your question?

This is a great example - either you are playing games, not paying attention at all, or you lack the comprehension skills to what is clearly written.



Reread what I wrote SLOWLY and comprehend what I said, here it is again:

beingofone (snip):
If consciousness is a 'process' - follow that trail of logic to its conclusion. You stopped short of the answer.

The reason NO ONE, has ever - under any circumstances - seen the entry of consciousness is because it does not have one. Logical necessity if consciousness is a process - do the math.

It is a process, hello?

Do you see why your response makes absolutely no sense to what I just said?


Warpus; if you can acknowledge that your response was not related to what I actually wrote, we can continue. If not; I wish you well.

 

[Birdjaguar]

God is consciousness and it is infinite and eternal. Creation (the physical universe) is that consciousness with constraints that give the appearance of individuality and separateness. The individual consciousness we all experience is in Reality god-consciousness, but physical form keeps us from experiencing it directly. When consciousness is freed from all the constraints of the universe, it experiences itself as what it has been all along, god.

Is the connection clear now?

Yes, but I'd like to know how you were able to deduce all that.

I'm not sure deduce is the right word. Your foundation (unproved assumption) for thinking and understanding our world begins with "Reasoned knowledge is the source of truth." From that beginning everythig is built one small piece of knowledge at a time. All the small pieces begin to take larger shapes, but you cannot ever present a "picture" that is greater than the sum of the small known bits without some speculating. When you begin where and how you do, there is never a "whole". There can never be complete knowledge or Truth unless you know everything that there is to know, which is not likely. There can never be a "god" when you start on such a path. All that is important is the finite, the measureable, the next distinction that separates one thing into two.

I, and perhaps a few others here, begin differently. My assumption is "God alone is Real". I begin with the "whole": that which is infinite, eternal, pemanent and unchaging. That "entity" is the fundamental nature of all exisitence. From that starting point I must conclude that the separateness, measureablility and distinction you seek out are nothing more than finite, changing and impermanent objects that are not Real (cap R). Whatever the eternal, infinite unchanging existence experiences (its consciousness) pervades everything including the hard bits of matter you adore.

We each approach the puzzle of existence from the opposite end. The difference is that I accept that all the knowledge you collect is "true" within the context of your methods and reasoning.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do you see why your response makes absolutely no sense to what I just said?

Warpus; if you can acknowledge that your response was not related to what I actually wrote, we can continue. If not; I wish you well.

Beingofone, I have a pretty good idea about what you are trying to say in this thread and I have to admit that your posts can be very difficult to grasp. It seems sometimes that you are writing in a shorthand that you fully understand, but is missing phrasess or clauses that would make it clear to others less well versed in your thinking.

 

[beingofone]

Beingofone, I have a pretty good idea about what you are trying to say in this thread and I have to admit that your posts can be very difficult to grasp. It seems sometimes that you are writing in a shorthand that you fully understand, but is missing phrasess or clauses that would make it clear to others less well versed in your thinking.

I appreciate your trying to improve communication Bird.

Could you give me an example of something I said that is unclear?


For example this quote by me:

If consciousness is a 'process' - follow that trail of logic to its conclusion. You stopped short of the answer.

The reason NO ONE, has ever - under any circumstances - seen the entry of consciousness is because it does not have one. Logical necessity if consciousness is a process - do the math.

It is a process, hello?

I find it virtually impossible to describe what I was saying as this:

Warpus:
There is no such thing as consciousness suddenly popping up from nowhere and "turning on" or whatever.

Could you explain to me how this conclusion was derived by what I said?

 

[Swedishguy]

He is Creation is in reference to the Holy Trinity. Most Christians believe this if they believe that Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Creator are one in entity. The Arians were the first Christians to deny Christ as being the Creator and say Christ is separate from the Creator and thus do not believe in the Holy Trinity.

If everyone on Earth got the question 'Is the Holy Trinity true?' 80% would answer an emphatic 'NO!'

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

By the way, I don't believe in the Trinity but I do believe that Christ helped create the Earth.

 

[Greek Stud]

If everyone on Earth got the question 'Is the Holy Trinity true?' 80% would answer an emphatic 'NO!'

I did not choose my beliefs to become popular; I want to believe what is right and what is truth.

 

[Swedishguy]

I did not choose my beliefs to become popular; I want to believe what is right and what is truth.

OK, so why did you go for christianity? It's the most popular religion and got many flaws in it regarding right and truth.

 

[Abaddon]

- When i do something that harms me, but benefits the world.. it still punishes me... THEREFORE no God..

..that or i cr@ped in Karma's briefcase recently without realising...

 

[Greek Stud]

OK, so why did you go for christianity? It's the most popular religion and got many flaws in it regarding right and truth.

Well the obvious answer would be that I understand it to be truth, and that you made a choice not to. I don't have to accept your perception just because you've come to understand it not to be true, nor do you have to believe Christianity is truth.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I appreciate your trying to improve communication Bird.
Could you give me an example of something I said that is unclear?

I will find some and post them.

 

[warpus]

This is a great example - either you are playing games, not paying attention at all, or you lack the comprehension skills to what is clearly written.

Reread what I wrote SLOWLY and comprehend what I said, here it is again:

No need to insult me.

Your point is that consciousness must have had a beginning, right? Well, my claim is that that's not how it happens - and that the process is gradual, with no clear beginning. Conscoiusness is not 1 'thing', it is trillions of 'things', that slowly come into being, building up 'consciousness'.

It's sort of like a plant doesn't suddenly grow all of its leaves at 1 clear moment, but rather grows them slowly, over time.

I, and perhaps a few others here, begin differently. My assumption is "God alone is Real". I begin with the "whole": that which is infinite, eternal, pemanent and unchaging. That "entity" is the fundamental nature of all exisitence. From that starting point I must conclude that the separateness, measureablility and distinction you seek out are nothing more than finite, changing and impermanent objects that are not Real (cap R). Whatever the eternal, infinite unchanging existence experiences (its consciousness) pervades everything including the hard bits of matter you adore.

But you're basing your entire world view on an assumption. If your assumption is incorrect the your entire world view falls apart.. and there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that the assumption is correct.

You could pretty much use any sort of assumption as the base for your world view - the one you have chosen yourself is not special in any way.. There is an infinite amount of things you could have picked and you picked one.. arbitrarily.

Being a man of logic, I would not trust deductions coming from an unsupported assumption.

Beingofone, I have a pretty good idea about what you are trying to say in this thread and I have to admit that your posts can be very difficult to grasp. It seems sometimes that you are writing in a shorthand that you fully understand, but is missing phrasess or clauses that would make it clear to others less well versed in your thinking.

Thank you very much. I have been very patient with beingofone, because this is an interesting discussion, but.. yeah, beingofone, you are often very hard to understand..

If consciousness is a 'process' - follow that trail of logic to its conclusion. You stopped short of the answer.

The reason NO ONE, has ever - under any circumstances - seen the entry of consciousness is because it does not have one. Logical necessity if consciousness is a process - do the math.

It is a process, hello?

Wait.. so you're saying that consciousness is eternal? something with no start and no end?

And what do you mean to suggest when you say it is a process?

 

[FredLC]

You seem to take your own seriously, yes?

Yup, I do, but not in this topic. There is a smile of sheer amusement in my lips as I type this, and that is perhaps the reason why you mistake my tone for irony. But I’ll dwelve in this little particularity in good time…

Why do you value your life?

Lack of alternative?

Seriously, I fail to see the relevance of the question to this thread, but I value life because I’ve been enjoying the ride so far.

This is where we begin.

Could you tell me your first conscious experience?

Could you tell me anyone in the history of mankind that witnessed the beginnig of consciousness?

I can tell you the first one I remember. Why assume I was even conscious before I started remembering things?

Seriously now, you place a great deal of importance in the subject of conscience. However, what you mean as “conscience” is rather vague in this thread. I, for one, agree with the opinion that gaining conscience is a gradual process, a slow awakening. Under this perspective, your question makes no sense, and the reason why the exact moment someone becomes conscious is too subtle for a precise identification – like asking when white becomes black, or one becomes two, and forget the myriad of states in between, when signs are suggestive but imprecise, and the change is still fluid and erratic.

I really don’t know what you want to prove with the insistence with this subject, but if you feel it’s pertinent, fine, I’ll listen to you. But for the sake of understanding, could you please define, as precisely as you can, what is “conscience” to you, and what you hope to accomplish evoking it? (I’ll lay my own concept in the fllow up of this reply).

This is flawed - how can you separate yourself from your experience? Give me one example of something you experience and at the same time do not experience same event.

I am sure, I am my experience.

Where did I do that? The “some” relation I evoked does not speak a single letter of the level of integration. It can absorb from “conscience and beings are completely separated entities” to “conscience and being are just aspects of the same thing”. I didn’t ever even entered that debate.

Since you brought it up, I too think that conscience and being are inseparable. More than that, I think they are ingrained. I do, however, that the reason for that is just that this is the way our brain works, and, simply put, “separating” self and conscience is nonsense, like trying to imagine that our dreaming isn’t quintessential of our sleeping. In short, I think of conscience as just the corollary of our brain’s functionality – the manner it process information.

Merely and ethereal manifestation of an strictly physical phenomena – this being why physical things – like drugs or traumas – have the capacity of altering it.

True but incomplete.

If the mystery of life is not unveiled, it leads to angst, guilt, and dissatisfaction with existence itself.

It is why the world is insane and has wholesale suicidal tendancies.

Sir, you please speak for yourself.

My ignorance before the vastness and complexity of life and the universe does not lead me to despair. Rather, it inspires me to seek further and dig deeper. And not for any answer too, but for meaningful answers, that relies in as solid axioms as possible, and resists to as much rigor as available. I’m willing to wait for these answer before I make any conclusion regarding the most intestine aspects of the fabric of reality.

Apparently, you think such patience is a rare curse (or virtue, if you see it through my eyes).

You just said:
"I don’t deny how astonishing it is that conscientiousness exists"

Which is it?

Who makes the determination of the worlds ordinary or astounding value? What is it that perceives these "ordinary things"?

There are two ways to live ones life.
1) Nothing is a miracle
2) Everything is a miracle

Both.

As I said, I do marvel before ordinary things. They are beautiful and meaningful. In fact, that ordinary things, randomness and patterns created by laws of nature are, for me, much more astounding than a world crafted by some anthropomorphic “conscience”. In my book, it’s the hocus-pocus that is gray and unimaginative. Nothing is a miracle, and that is what makes the universe so terrific and impressive.

In short, the ordinary can be astounding, hence “both”. Please do not think that my materialistic rigor means, in any way, that I lack a most satisfying sense of wonder.

Fair enough.

What is reality?
What was your first moment of awareness?
Do you remember a time you were not?

If you are going to be honest; these are the fundamental questions of existence that demand answers. Use Occams Razor and you will see me sitting here (grinning) waiting for you.

We do not resolve the puzzle by retreating from the tough questions, they must be answered or we are creatures of blind faith trapped in what we do not know or understand.

I know - do you?

Reality is the sum of all matter organized, in which some complex organics beings, amazed by it’s complexity, tries to find answers, and some come with answers better than others.

My first moment of awareness isn’t remembered… not that it is pertinent for this debate.

I could not remember a time I was not, for in a time I was not, there was nothing for me to remember.

Now the questions you asked are fundamental of philosophy. Not existence. Existence is not bothered by we humans and our errands or thoughts. It was here before we came, and will still be here, impervious, long after we are gone.

That said, you at this point remembered me of Birdjaguar in a debate of similar contours we once had. It’s not that I dodge the hard questions. I face them head on. And out of us two, it’s me who have the guts to say they are not answered. The hard questions are still impervious – and Occan’s Razor is one of the tools with which I tell the wheat apart form the tare.

Grin at will before my rigor. But know this, sir – the joke will be on the prankster.

It is a legitimate theory - thank you for your forthrite comment.

Mutual respect

Mutual respect, indeed, is necessary. I respect your idea, even though I disagree with it entirely. Cordiality is not to be mistaken for conformity, though, and the reverse is also true – my respect should never cloud the fact that my disagreement is profound.

I would say; this is true of 99.99% of religious dogma.

I am however, another kettle of fish - I do have the answer to any question you could ask.

Two things are required:
1) ruthless honesty
2) abject humility

If one can forgo their pride and take Truth to be the ONLY prize worthwhile of attaining, they will find.

Beingofone, under the risk of annoying you, even though it’s not my intention, I have to say, I find it rather amusing that someone can say that have all answers to all questions, and right after remark both his own honest and humility.

It is a conclusion of absolute logic. Most (including religious types) are not ethical enough for pure logic. Logic or the love of Truth must be the fundamental or we will stop short of the answer and settle for one that props up misdirection and presto! Momentary 'goody felings' - including religion.

Here I agree. A logical person should go all the way, and stick with logic. That said, I’m very interested in reading a description of the logical processes in which you concluded by “absolute logic” thyat there is a God. If you can post that convincingly, you have great possibilities of converting me, for I honestly don’t need absolute proof of God, just a model of him that makes sense, in order to increase tenfold my respect for that opinion.

Yes you did, you had a drive by posting that smacked of smugness.

My reply was written in satire.

No, don’t project on me the animosity on this thread. My reply was pretty objective. Under the claim that God only showed himself to those who would candidly seek him, I remarked on the convenience of that attitude. There was no emotion imbebbed.

This makes absolutely no sense.

If your consciousness is ordinary, could you show me your 'other' consciousness? Do you have more than one?

As I said, I feel that conscience is ordinary because it is just the phenomena of brain’s workings. I could say that my “conscience” changes every time, for example, I get drunk, when a physical factor interfere with normal processes, but this, of course, is not what you are talking about.

To see more than one conscience, you need only to look at more than one person.

That said, a more meaningful reply will have to wait until you offer your definition of conscience, so we can narrow down what the heck we are talking about.

This makes no sense.

Who is posting if not you? Are you blind and deprived of decisions?

I can only assume you lost me here.

I, of course, have conscience, and am not blind or deprived of will. However, it was not of mine’s or anyone’s conscience, that I was talking about – but of the natural process that go inside of someone’s head that ultimately becomes self-awareness. It’s that, the process, that is a headless horse.

There is no parallel of your consciousness.

What do you experience outside of your consciousness?

Very beautiful, but I have no reason to think that. Someone’s conscience may be very comparable to mine. And here, it’s you who are treating being and conscience as separated entities, and experience could be achieved “outside it”).

Who is thinking about "IT"?(1)

Who determined IT is an event?(2)

Who or what is thinking about gravity and collision?

(3)

1 –more people than “it” deserves. Much more.
2 – quite the contrary. The event was suggested by empirical, synthetic evidence. Calling such thing “God” or “it”, as it may be proper at that time
3 – Sientists all over the globe, and anyone who looses their balance in a hockey match.

Events have no volition, my friend. Nobody “thinks” for them.

Because they make no sense.

Could you tell me how your conscious experience is spatial? Can you give me the measurement of your awareness?

If you can answer these two questions(or will you avoid them like everyone else does) I will convert on the spot; but the answers must be cogent and logical.

Beware judging what makes sense and what does not. Quite frankly, IMHO it is your opinions and arguments that come across as rather meaningless and insufficient.

As for your question, it necessitates you definition of conscience. After that, conscience is spatial only as it is an aspect of brain’s working, lacking, however, a mass when we think of it only as the awareness we experience – that is what you seen to be referring to.

Your second question makes no sense, exactly because the more ethereal aspect of our conscience, the awareness, lacks mass, volume o dimensions (this being the reason it is ethereal). In short, this question is meaningless, and pretty much reminds me of the old debate of how many angels could fit in a pinhead – a pointless digression over a baseless assumption.

I agree that we disagree in a very profound way.

I disagree with most of religious dogma to.

Neither of you make a lick of sense and yet; when one comes along with the answer, everybody wants to show off how much they know.

Well, you may conscientiously agree on the depth of the difference, but that is not the quality of your attitude when you makes irony of non-believer as some “faith on randomness”, or something like that. Your actions mismatch your discourse, my friend.

besides, you don’t have THE answer. You have AN answer, no better than most. And one, IMHO, that do not convince.

As the Buddha said, the biggest blockage of enlightenment and Truth is the illusion of already having the answer.

Speaking of the admirable Siddhartha Gautama, here is a quote from your good self, in this very thread:

“I am however, another kettle of fish – I do have the answer to any question you could ask.”

Care to reconcile the two?

Here is what I see and hear:
"I do not have the answer to reality. I have never met anyone with the answer and therefore; there is no answer."

The Truth balances on the razors edge and yet; is so simple, children understand before the answer is stole from them.

Than brace yourself for a more descriptive and precise answer:

"I do not have the answer to reality. I have never met anyone with the answer and therefore; there is no answer yet, nor reason to project supernatural over the unknown."

As for the children, you can see that two ways; one, that they lost something of value they, in their innocence, had; two, that maturity and reflection, which comes with age, teach them to reflect with more zeal; to, as I said, seek further and dig deeper, and, just maybe, figure out that what once looked simple were only simplistic; that perhaps there is no “Truth” with a capital “T”, nor conclusive answers to reality to appeal those who can’t make peace with their own ignorance, and need to pretend to know, even to their own selves, ascribing answers such as “God did it” to the though questions, answers which in the end does not help one iota to understand the mechanisms behind nature.

But, as I said, for me, it’s the hocus pocus that is dull. I’ll wait for better answers, descriptive answers, for as long as it takes. And if it takes my whole life, well, I have plenty of time ahead. Me and mine do not have “suicidal tendencies”, just to address specifically, again, a point you yourself tried to make.

Regards .

 

[Birdjaguar]

But you're basing your entire world view on an assumption. If your assumption is incorrect the your entire world view falls apart.. and there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that the assumption is correct.

Everyone's world view is based on some unsupported assumption(s) that is unproven and if incorrect brings down their entire view of things.

I would suggest that quantum physics is pointing in the direction of less complexity to matter and not more. And a reasonable deduction would be that the trend will continue. Getting to a single uniformity is not out of the question at all. It is certainly as plausible as brane theory and multiple universes.

You could pretty much use any sort of assumption as the base for your world view - the one you have chosen yourself is not special in any way.. There is an infinite amount of things you could have picked and you picked one.. arbitrarily.

Being a man of logic, I would not trust deductions coming from an unsupported assumption.

You are correct that the one I have chosen is nothing special, but it does explain, to my satisfaction, everything important about people and existence without discarding things arbitrarily. And BTW, my adoption of this model was not arbitrary. It was based on experience, an experience that has no basis in reason.

 

[beingofone]

FredLC:

FredLC:
I don’t think it’s convenience at all (though I don’t deny how astonishing it is that conscientiousness exists).

beingofone:
You seem to take your own seriously, yes?
Why do you value your life?

FredLC:
Lack of alternative?

Seriously, I fail to see the relevance of the question to this thread, but I value life because I’ve been enjoying the ride so far.

If you cannot see the relevance of why you value your life as something serious, concerning the question of your very own existence, pertaining to it being "astonishing" (quoting you) - we need some ground rules as to what you mean when you say something.

Is your life "astonishing" or not? Is it just a "convienence" in the sense of nothing of value? How valuable is your life? Do you take your life seriously?

If it is nothing "astonishing" and is so very ordinary, why do you preserve it?

Do you see any relevance?

FredLC:
Philosophical constrictions aside, our humane experiences is: human beings exists; human beings have conscience. Yes, “all I know is I don’t know”, “I think therefore I am”, yata, yata, yata – as I said, philosophical constrictions aside, these two postulates are the axiomatic starting point.

beingofone:
This is where we begin.

Could you tell me your first conscious experience?

Could you tell me anyone in the history of mankind that witnessed the beginnig of consciousness?

I can tell you the first one I remember. Why assume I was even conscious before I started remembering things?

Are you saying you are not assuming consciousness because you cannot remember an event?

If you experience a ballgame and forget the event, did you experience the game and were you conscious while you attended?

Do you recall every moment of time for yesterday? Were you conscious yesterday?

The reality is our consciousness transcends our memory and therefore; your consciousness is not limited to your memory. Ergo; you were conscious before you can remember.

Using what is self evident and logic we can say, without assumption, but based in fact, 'our consciousness began before we can remember'.

Seriously now, you place a great deal of importance in the subject of conscience.

Consciousness not conscious. Your conscious is a subset of your consciousness.

However, what you mean as “conscience” is rather vague in this thread. I, for one, agree with the opinion that gaining conscience is a gradual process, a slow awakening. Under this perspective, your question makes no sense, and the reason why the exact moment someone becomes conscious is too subtle for a precise identification – like asking when white becomes black, or one becomes two, and forget the myriad of states in between, when signs are suggestive but imprecise, and the change is still fluid and erratic.

Take this thought to its conclusion.

If consciousness is a process without a beginning, it therefore; has no beginning. Tautology; when cold hard logic is applied.

I really don’t know what you want to prove with the insistence with this subject, but if you feel it’s pertinent, fine, I’ll listen to you. But for the sake of understanding, could you please define, as precisely as you can, what is “conscience” to you, and what you hope to accomplish evoking it? (I’ll lay my own concept in the fllow up of this reply).

Go to the link and read my post.

Consciousness by beingofone

FredLC:
Hence, there being humans, these being conscientious, some relation between the entities and the conscientiousness ought to exist, yes? And which is that?

Well, no one is sure

beingofone:
This is flawed - how can you separate yourself from your experience? Give me one example of something you experience and at the same time do not experience same event.

I am sure, I am my experience.

FredLC:
Where did I do that? The “some” relation I evoked does not speak a single letter of the level of integration. It can absorb from “conscience and beings are completely separated entities” to “conscience and being are just aspects of the same thing”. I didn’t ever even entered that debate.

Then I have no idea what you originally meant. Your post was - no offence - kinda jumbled.

If you now mean this:
Other conscious beings are integrated in the experience of consciousness and are aspects of its state. I agree.

Since you brought it up, I too think that conscience and being are inseparable.

Indeed

More than that, I think they are ingrained. I do, however, that the reason for that is just that this is the way our brain works, and, simply put, “separating” self and conscience is nonsense, like trying to imagine that our dreaming isn’t quintessential of our sleeping. In short, I think of conscience as just the corollary of our brain’s functionality – the manner it process information.

The "self" is a construct of the mind, we agree here. It is constructed by accessing memory.

It could be said; the brain is the effect and not the cause. That is much more coherent and is self evident.

Example:
Think of a quiet peaceful lake.

Who told your brain to think of a lake?

Now think of anything you want.

Who told your brain to image?

With this simple thought experiment, using Occams Razor(as you appeal to, and I agree). The brain becomes the effect of consciousness and not the cause, and therefore; exists within consciousness and the mind.

Conclusion of self evident cold hard logic, without a single assumption, follow?

Merely and ethereal manifestation of an strictly physical phenomena – this being why physical things – like drugs or traumas – have the capacity of altering it.

Since the brain is effected by drugs, it is self evident it is involved in processing perception.

Anthing more than this deduction is an assumption.

beingofone:
True but incomplete.

If the mystery of life is not unveiled, it leads to angst, guilt, and dissatisfaction with existence itself.

It is why the world is insane and has wholesale suicidal tendancies.

FredLC:
Sir, you please speak for yourself.

I did

My ignorance before the vastness and complexity of life and the universe does not lead me to despair. Rather, it inspires me to seek further and dig deeper.

Then why did you say; you could see no relevance in the seriousness of the value of your life?

If you are inspired to seek further and dig deeper, what are you seeking?

And not for any answer too, but for meaningful answers, that relies in as solid axioms as possible, and resists to as much rigor as available. I’m willing to wait for these answer before I make any conclusion regarding the most intestine aspects of the fabric of reality.

Again; mutual respect.

You just spoke from my heart`s desire and we may be more kindred than initially apparent.

Apparently, you think such patience is a rare curse (or virtue, if you see it through my eyes).

I have been a seeker of Truth for almost 40 years. I did not just whip my answers out by wetting my finger.

I have followed Truth wherever it lead me, and it cost me everything. That is not exaggerated talk - it is my experience.

That is why I am sure and not just guessing. I know that I know.

beingofone:
Who makes the determination of the worlds ordinary or astounding value? What is it that perceives these "ordinary things"?

There are two ways to live ones life.
1) Nothing is a miracle
2) Everything is a miracle

FredLC:
Both.

As I said, I do marvel before ordinary things. They are beautiful and meaningful. In fact, that ordinary things, randomness and patterns created by laws of nature are, for me, much more astounding than a world crafted by some anthropomorphic “conscience”.

There may be an alternative - your consciousness is theomorphic.

Your consciousness is all that you may know or can experience - follow that irrefutable trail to its conclusion.

In my book, it’s the hocus-pocus that is gray and unimaginative. Nothing is a miracle, and that is what makes the universe so terrific and impressive.

In short, the ordinary can be astounding, hence “both”. Please do not think that my materialistic rigor means, in any way, that I lack a most satisfying sense of wonder.

If nothing is a miracle, therefore; everything is a miracle - I agree.

The 'True miracle' is the infinite momentum that is our experience. One constant of the universe is change.

Reality is the sum of all matter organized, in which some complex organics beings, amazed by it’s complexity, tries to find answers, and some come with answers better than others.

Who determined that reality " is the sum of all matter organized"?

Who or what organized matter?
Who or what is amazed at complexity?
Who or what is trying to find answers?

My first moment of awareness isn’t remembered… not that it is pertinent for this debate.

We do not find answers by discarding the question, that is evasion.

We keep digging until we hit the mother load.

I could not remember a time I was not, for in a time I was not, there was nothing for me to remember.

If there was "nothing for me to remember" - this is Truth.

Not a subset of Truth, but the full or final set of Truth.

You just hit a very rich vein of Truth - SLOW DOWN.

Stop right here and contemplate what you just said.

Now the questions you asked are fundamental of philosophy. Not existence.

Philosophy is the reasoning of existence itself. It uncovers what is ultimately a tautology, just clouded by perception.

Existence is not bothered by we humans and our errands or thoughts. It was here before we came, and will still be here, impervious, long after we are gone.

Who made the determination "Existence is not bothered by we humans and our errands or thoughts"?

This part "It was here before we came, and will still be here, impervious, long after we are gone." This is a construct of your mind and an assumption. It contradicts what you just said in the above and is an interjection of abstract thinking.

That said, you at this point remembered me of Birdjaguar in a debate of similar contours we once had. It’s not that I dodge the hard questions. I face them head on. And out of us two, it’s me who have the guts to say they are not answered. The hard questions are still impervious – and Occan’s Razor is one of the tools with which I tell the wheat apart form the tare.

At this point, I can tell you do take questions head on and have gained my respect by your honesty. You are a good thinker.

I think what may have happened is you have heard some clap trap from religious types and tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I realize that is my assumption but it appears to me that is what you have done.

I have the guts to say - I do have the answer. You would not believe how much this simple statement has cost me. You think the statement "I have the answer to all questions" is not attacked vehemently? It is why Jesus was crucified.

I use Occams razor on almost all questions, or what is self evident. So here, we apply this razor, it is more usefull than a truth table.

You have a deal - no assumptions concerning Truth - only what is self evident, agreed?

Grin at will before my rigor. But know this, sir – the joke will be on the prankster.

I am the real deal; if you stay honest, you will see the answer for yourself and will no longer need to talk to anyone as to ultimate Truth.

Read my post in the link above and contemplate what is said, fair enough? You cannot Google my philosophy because (you would not believe at this point how I arrived at Truth) it is not on the internet.

All I ask is, we stick to what is self evident to determine Truth. In other words; no assumptions, only what is Truth of certainty.

Fair?

beingofone
It is a legitimate theory - thank you for your forthrite comment.

Mutual respect

FredLC:
Mutual respect, indeed, is necessary. I respect your idea, even though I disagree with it entirely. Cordiality is not to be mistaken for conformity, though, and the reverse is also true – my respect should never cloud the fact that my disagreement is profound.

I understand and agree - I would ask you to not agree if you do not see for yourself that the premise or conclusion is self evident. If what can be clearly seen as experience, you must agree or we will not progress.

I will do the same.

beingofone:
Two things are required:
1) ruthless honesty
2) abject humility

If one can forgo their pride and take Truth to be the ONLY prize worthwhile of attaining, they will find.

FredLC:
Beingofone, under the risk of annoying you, even though it’s not my intention, I have to say, I find it rather amusing that someone can say that have all answers to all questions, and right after remark both his own honest and humility.

I do not get huffy - I just have zero tolerance for dishonesty because no amount of reason can penetrate the deceptive mind. I am not saying you have done this.

On that note - drill away.

To answer your question, is it lack of humilty, if you ask a doctor, if he knows the cure for a headache and he answered "yes"? Hardly, it would be honesty if he said "asperin", yes?

It would be false humility and approval seeking if I said "I do not know" and it would also make me dishonest.

I know, and I know that I know is not a lack of humility or honesty.

Satire:
A church held a contest to see who was the most humble member. A man won and they gave him a blue button as a prize.

The next week they asked for the blue button back because he wore it.

Such is the thinking on humility - funny. Humility is surrender to Truth not appearing meek to others perception.

Here I agree. A logical person should go all the way, and stick with logic. That said, I’m very interested in reading a description of the logical processes in which you concluded by “absolute logic” thyat there is a God. If you can post that convincingly, you have great possibilities of converting me, for I honestly don’t need absolute proof of God, just a model of him that makes sense, in order to increase tenfold my respect for that opinion.

Cool and reasonable - read the post at the link, sorry to be redundant.

No, don’t project on me the animosity on this thread. My reply was pretty objective. Under the claim that God only showed himself to those who would candidly seek him, I remarked on the convenience of that attitude. There was no emotion imbebbed.

I did not project, I pointed out the obvious.

You have just stated that you are seeking and digging and then poo pood me for suggesting it. That is just seeing the apparent and pointing it out.

How can you find an answer without seeking?

beingofone
This makes absolutely no sense.

If your consciousness is ordinary, could you show me your 'other' consciousness? Do you have more than one?

FredLC:
To see more than one conscience, you need only to look at more than one person.

Who`s consciousness is perceiving another person?

That said, a more meaningful reply will have to wait until you offer your definition of conscience, so we can narrow down what the heck we are talking about.

Fair enough, but you still must answer the question if you have more than one consciousness?

beingofone
This makes no sense.

Who is posting if not you? Are you blind and deprived of decisions?

FredLC:
I can only assume you lost me here.

I, of course, have conscience, and am not blind or deprived of will. However, it was not of mine’s or anyone’s conscience, that I was talking about – but of the natural process that go inside of someone’s head that ultimately becomes self-awareness. It’s that, the process, that is a headless horse.

If it is a process, who or what decides what identifies this 'self' and headless horseman?

Do you ever ask yourself a question?

beingofone
There is no parallel of your consciousness.

What do you experience outside of your consciousness?

FredLC:
Very beautiful, but I have no reason to think that. Someone’s conscience may be very comparable to mine. And here, it’s you who are treating being and conscience as separated entities, and experience could be achieved “outside it”).

AH - you are kind. You think of others and enjoy giving - now that - is beautiful.

What a cool person I have met - namaste and maranatha.

I can only assume you misunderstood me - LOL. So, two wrongs make a right?

Experience may never be acheived outside of consciousness. If you can only experience your consciousness, it therefore; is reality, yes?

beingofone
Who is thinking about "IT"?(1)

Who determined IT is an event?(2)

Who or what is thinking about gravity and collision?

FredLC:
1 –more people than “it” deserves. Much more.

Who is thinking about "more people" thinking about IT?

2 – quite the contrary. The event was suggested by empirical, synthetic evidence. Calling such thing “God” or “it”, as it may be proper at that time

You avoided the question.

The question was; "Who determined IT is an event"?

3 – Sientists all over the globe, and anyone who looses their balance in a hockey match.

LOL.

Events have no volition, my friend. Nobody “thinks” for them.

Who determines whether an event is random or planned?

You can say people, others, all of us or whatever all you want, that is evasion and projection, follow?

Who determines or defines your reality? Someone else? A scientist?

Go all the way to Occams Razor and find what is self evident.

beingofone
Because they make no sense.

Could you tell me how your conscious experience is spatial? Can you give me the measurement of your awareness?

If you can answer these two questions(or will you avoid them like everyone else does) I will convert on the spot; but the answers must be cogent and logical.

FredLC:
Beware judging what makes sense and what does not. Quite frankly, IMHO it is your opinions and arguments that come across as rather meaningless and insufficient.

I just clarified what I said by my two questions.

I am not judging - I am just simply void of projecting my experience into concepts. I use concepts and logic to strip what is not self evident. That can appear as heartless but so does surgery cutting away cancer.

I learn from everyone, except dishonesty. I have had all of that experience I need and learn nothing new from deception.

As for your question, it necessitates you definition of conscience. After that, conscience is spatial only as it is an aspect of brain’s working, lacking, however, a mass when we think of it only as the awareness we experience – that is what you seen to be referring to.

If experience appears, consciousness is cognizing spatial dimension.

How can that which is spatial (brain), be perceived by its product (consciousness), in the nonspacial dimension?

In other words; how can the effect be greater than the cause? Logical impossibility.

The cause must, of necessity, be equal to or greater than the effect, logical neccesity of what is self evident, yes?

beingofone
Can you give me the measurement of your awareness?

FredLC:
Your second question makes no sense, exactly because the more ethereal aspect of our conscience, the awareness, lacks mass, volume o dimensions (this being the reason it is ethereal). In short, this question is meaningless, and pretty much reminds me of the old debate of how many angels could fit in a pinhead – a pointless digression over a baseless assumption.

My question makes perfect sense - think it through.

If consciousness is a product of the brain, it then is material in substance. If it is material, it must have dimension and therefore; measurement.

Give me one example of a product or effect of material resulting in ethereal.

If it is ethereal, it therefore; transcends the material and is not subject to the spacial.

Well, you may conscientiously agree on the depth of the difference, but that is not the quality of your attitude when you makes irony of non-believer as some “faith on randomness”, or something like that. Your actions mismatch your discourse, my friend.

I do not understand what you said, please clarify.

besides, you don’t have THE answer. You have AN answer, no better than most. And one, IMHO, that do not convince.

If you know who you are, you know what the Tuth is.

beingofone
As the Buddha said, the biggest blockage of enlightenment and Truth is the illusion of already having the answer.

FredLC:
Speaking of the admirable Siddhartha Gautama, here is a quote from your good self, in this very thread:

“I am however, another kettle of fish – I do have the answer to any question you could ask.”

Care to reconcile the two?

The illusion is in projecting a concept into experience.

If one is void of envy and resentment, one does not project into reality its model. Surrender and compassion results in clarity of being.

Most have ideas of how the enlightened should act, what they should say, what they should appear as. The ego projects these images to insulate itself from being stripped of its identity and points of references.

If something appears as less than the image in the mind of ideal reality (example: such as the idealized image of an effeminate Jesus or Buddha), the mind rejects the appearance and seeks to create something else to seek validation in an empty state to fill the void of existence.

The ego rejects what does not prop up its survival as surrender to the Ascendant meme of Truth is meaningless insanity to it. And so it seeks to devalue the messenger in a state of superior/inferior judgment of justification.

It survives in the relative - it dies in the absolute.

As for the children, you can see that two ways; one, that they lost something of value they, in their innocence, had; two, that maturity and reflection, which comes with age, teach them to reflect with more zeal; to, as I said, seek further and dig deeper, and, just maybe, figure out that what once looked simple were only simplistic;

Innocence is the original state. It is not neccesary to become brutal or a victim to experience reality and thrive. All that is necessary is forgiveness.

We must live - not just survive or we become victims all.

Reality is not a concept or a model. Reality is an absence of separation. Wherever the concept of "I" exists, there is desire and a void of satisfaction.

"I" not "-I" is a concept and brings polair pairs. If the I not I merge, the concept and separation evaporates.

that perhaps there is no “Truth” with a capital “T”, nor conclusive answers to reality to appeal those who can’t make peace with their own ignorance, and need to pretend to know, even to their own selves, ascribing answers such as “God did it” to the though questions, answers which in the end does not help one iota to understand the mechanisms behind nature.

1) Post modernism is a bag of wind. There are not currently 6 billion 'truths' now existing on planet earth. My Truth is your Truth as it can only be what is self evident.

2) "God did it" is evasion and so - another non answer. You would never hear Jesus give a lame answer like that.

There is an answer but it must not be relegated to a shoulder shrug or non thinking. It must be sought with ernest honesty and humility. It is a prize that may cost everything, but it is worth the price.

But, as I said, for me, it’s the hocus pocus that is dull. I’ll wait for better answers, descriptive answers, for as long as it takes. And if it takes my whole life, well, I have plenty of time ahead. Me and mine do not have “suicidal tendencies”, just to address specifically, again, a point you yourself tried to make.

Good - if you keep seeking, you will find.

Shalom