Against Agnosticism - or - God is Provable

[Prince_James]

By "God" let it be understood that I am referencing the classical philosophical theology concept of God. That is to say, a being which is construed as having perfections such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, et cetera. You know, the classical God with a capital G. Not Zeus, not the Hebrew God as shown in the Hebrew Bible, not Quezocaotl, or any other limited deity. Not Jesus Christ, either.

With the above taken into consideration, we're talking about a being which is deducible from reason alone. ANything which has a perfection which hinges upon whether it is coherent alone to determine whether it is existent, is a being which can be judged by rational methods, completely in the absence of empirical ones. In essence: God is either necessarily existent, or necessarily non-existent. If God is a coherent concept, or some of the aspects of God are coherent, then we have an existent thing which fits the description. If we do not, then we do not. The debate may not yet be resolved fully, but it brokers such a possibility. Indeed, it is inevitable that one way or another, eventually, we shall have a definitive answer as to whether God exists or does not exist, and if the former, which qualities he can have and retain coherence, or whether all of them can be coherently put together.

As such, agnosticism, which denies that God is knowable, or that there is no evidence either which way, is false. God is in fact, knowable as existent or non-existent, and there is evidence in discussion right now to determine which he is.

[spidergoat]

OK. Omniscience means he knows the future, and thus cannot be omnipotent. These qualities are mutually exclusive.

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat:

OK. Omniscience means he knows the future, and thus cannot be omnipotent. These qualities are mutually exclusive.

What is your reasoning behind this argument? I haven't heard this line of attack before.

[spidergoat]

So, thought experiment. God writes down the price that oil will sell for next week, on a specific date, per barrel. Then, can he make it actually be 5 dollars higher? If he can, he was wrong about knowing the future. If he cannot, he can't do everything.

[Prince_James]

This assumes that God has free-will. It has not been established that God, or anything else, does.

If free-will does not exist, then one can be omnipotent without being free to do anything but what one will do. Furthermore, the notion of freedom of the will is not itself inherently apart of omnipotence, only the ability to do anything non-contradictory.

[spidergoat]

Then he's not intelligent. He can't make choices. Indeed there is nothing for him to do at all but follow the program like an automaton. Thus, he is unworthy of worship.

[Prince_James]

This again assumes that there is an alternative to being as such. If everything lacks a freedom of the will, then one can hardly "penalize" God or conceive of him as flawed for being apart of "everything". Just as we cannot say that omnipotence includes the possibility of creating square-circles.

The matter of worship is not philosophical in and of itself, but to speak on it briefly: We are thankful for the food on our table, despite the fact that the processes that grew it are without choice. As such, we could be thankful to a God, who just like us, inevitably follows cause and effect.

[JDawg]

You're missing the point, Prince James. To attribute anything to a God at all is ridiculous, because you have never been given any reason to believe one exists. There has been no proof put forth, no reason argued. So if you attribute what you see to a Creator, then you invented the Creator.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

You're missing the point, Prince James. To attribute anything to a God at all is ridiculous, because you have never been given any reason to believe one exists. There has been no proof put forth, no reason argued.

You seem to have completely missed 2,500+ years of philosophical endeavour in the field of God. Longer if you count Eastern sources with philosophical undertones, like the Upanishads, and not merely Western philosophy.

There are plenty reasons to suggest he exists (and just as many that he does not). Philosophers have been arguing both ways for as long as I just referenced. Furthermore, as noted, God is a being which can be proven or disproven by reason alone, thus we can talk about whether there is or is not a God based on reasoning.

[Norsefire]

There is no reason to assume that, if there IS a creator, that he must be divine or supernatural. There is no reason to assume that this being or entity must have supernatural powers or be heavenly or holy. There is, perhaps, even more a likeliness that, if there is a creator, this creator is little more than an intelligent being, like we Humans, with technology of the ability to create universes. That is FAR more plausable than a being in the clouds throwing lightning bolts down at us:D

[Prince_James]

Okay.

Your point?

That doesn't attack the idea of God as omnipotent, omnipresent, et cetera.

In other words: We can make positive or negative statements about God and be epistemologically justified in doing so. Thus, Agnosticism is wrong.

[EndLightEnd]

Im with spidergoat on that one.

[Zephyr]

Furthermore, as noted, God is a being which can be proven or disproven by reason alone, thus we can talk about whether there is or is not a God based on reasoning.
If everything can be either proven and disproven, then the reasoning system (if sufficiently powerful) is inconsistent. See Gödel.

Pure reasoning cannot say anything about physical reality without making assumptions.

[Simon Anders]

So, thought experiment. God writes down the price that oil will sell for next week, on a specific date, per barrel. Then, can he make it actually be 5 dollars higher? If he can, he was wrong about knowing the future. If he cannot, he can't do everything.
So you don't believe in the possibility of a multiverse?

[Norsefire]

It is impossible to "reason" whether or not God exists. Evidence is required, but such evidence is perhaps near impossible to obtain. However, due to the plausability of the theory of intelligent design, I believe the origins of our universe or existence itself are questions that cannot be answered, and thus are not relevant. Frankly, whether or not there is a Creator, it doesn't matter. Not unless this entity has direct affect on our universe today, and that can be disproved.

[JDawg]

There are plenty reasons to suggest he exists (and just as many that he does not). Philosophers have been arguing both ways for as long as I just referenced. Furthermore, as noted, God is a being which can be proven or disproven by reason alone, thus we can talk about whether there is or is not a God based on reasoning.

You don't seem to understand what "prove" means. You can assume that God exists or doesn't, but you can't prove anything either way. Philosophize all you like, there is no evidence that speaks either way.

[Prince_James]

Zephyr:

If everything can be either proven and disproven, then the reasoning system (if sufficiently powerful) is inconsistent. See Gödel.

Incorrect. See: Euclidean Geometry (a system complete and consistent and not subject to Godel's incompleteness theorem).

GIT is for mathematics.

Pure reasoning cannot say anything about physical reality without making assumptions.

Untrue: The Laws of Thought are manifestly so and hold true in reality as inviolate laws.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

You don't seem to understand what "prove" means. You can assume that God exists or doesn't, but you can't prove anything either way. Philosophize all you like, there is no evidence that speaks either way.

Reasoning is either true or it is not. God is a being who can be discerned by reason alone or disproved by reason alone. As such, there is evidence out there, even if we have not gotten it, which will one day conclusively prove either which way. In fact, we might all ready have it, but owing to the intellectual controversies that any theory produces, has not been recognized as such.

[spidergoat]

So you don't believe in the possibility of a multiverse?

One can speculate on such a thing, but belief is something different.

[Prince_James]

Norsefire:

It is impossible to "reason" whether or not God exists. Evidence is required, but such evidence is perhaps near impossible to obtain. However, due to the plausability of the theory of intelligent design, I believe the origins of our universe or existence itself are questions that cannot be answered, and thus are not relevant. Frankly, whether or not there is a Creator, it doesn't matter. Not unless this entity has direct affect on our universe today, and that can be disproved.

God is a necessary being. As such, he can indeed be reasoned about. Evidence is absurd in regards to beings which are rationally discernable, not empirically verifiable. Furthermore, the idea of creator is not in and of itself part and parcel of God as a being. That would be "God as a being who acts in a specific instance". Even if there is the classic argument from Aristotle regarding the prime mover.

[spidergoat]

As far as I can tell, God is necessary only for resolving our lack of knowledge about the nature and origin of the universe. Knowing everything, the problem of free will is much more problematic for him than for us.

[JDawg]

Reasoning is either true or it is not. God is a being who can be discerned by reason alone or disproved by reason alone. As such, there is evidence out there, even if we have not gotten it, which will one day conclusively prove either which way. In fact, we might all ready have it, but owing to the intellectual controversies that any theory produces, has not been recognized as such.

You're just rambling now. First you say reason alone can disprove God, then you say there is evidence out there that can prove it...which is it? Is it evidence or reason?

And again, I beg you to tell me in what way God can be proven or disproven by reason.There simply is no way to do it.

[Prince_James]

Spidergoat:

As far as I can tell, God is necessary only for resolving our lack of knowledge about the nature and origin of the universe. Knowing everything, the problem of free will is much more problematic for him than for us.

To postulate it as a problem, we first have to come to give reasons for its existence: Do you have a good argument for how free-will can exist?

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



God is a necessary being. As such, he can indeed be reasoned about. Evidence is absurd in regards to beings which are rationally discernable, not empirically verifiable. Furthermore, the idea of creator is not in and of itself part and parcel of God as a being. That would be "God as a being who acts in a specific instance". Even if there is the classic argument from Aristotle regarding the prime mover.

er, say that in English please:)

Good vocabulary, but a bit over my head.




And technically free will does NOT exist. Our brains already have a quite rigid set of direction in which they will act, or influence our concious mind to act. Free will is an absolute impossibility.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

You're just rambling now. First you say reason alone can disprove God, then you say there is evidence out there that can prove it...which is it? Is it evidence or reason?

You misconstrue my words.

The evidence would be in intellectual argumentation. For instance, Epicurus' paradox has virtually destroyed the notion of God's omnibenevolence for the last 2000 years. That would count as "evidence either which way".

And again, I beg you to tell me in what way God can be proven or disproven by reason.There simply is no way to do it.

God is either omnipotent or not, for instance. Omnipotence depends on there being a logical extention to power (clearly "all power excluding that which can create a contradiction" is both meaningful and possible). Then we resolve from that to show whether or not it is actual. Et cetera, et cetera. This has what theology has been attempting to do (with notable successes both ways on various issues) for 2500 years.

[Prince_James]

Norsefire:

er, say that in English please

Good vocabulary, but a bit over my head.

Basically: If God is necessary, this necessity can be found out by rational, not empirical, processes. We're talking about philosophical arguments and logical deductions and such. We're not going to find God by peering into space or digging into the ground, but we will by thinking about it, or find proof positive that he isn't possible.

Our evidence will be in our arguments and reasoning, not in finding Mount Olympus, in essence. But it is something which we'll find out eventually one way or another: It is knowable, contra-Agnosticism.

And technically free will does NOT exist. Our brains already have a quite rigid set of direction in which they will act, or influence our concious mind to act. Free will is an absolute impossibility.

I agree.

[JDawg]

The evidence would be in intellectual argumentation. For instance, Epicurus' paradox has virtually destroyed the notion of God's omnibenevolence for the last 2000 years. That would count as "evidence either which way".

No it wouldn't. There is a difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy cannot prove or disprove anything, and can provide no evidence for anything, either. Yes, philosophy has an important role, but it is not science. It is based on assumptions, not evidence. I can't put it any more plain that that.

God is either omnipotent or not, for instance. Omnipotence depends on there being a logical extention to power (clearly "all power excluding that which can create a contradiction" is both meaningful and possible). Then we resolve from that to show whether or not it is actual. Et cetera, et cetera. This has what theology has been attempting to do (with notable successes both ways on various issues) for 2500 years.

I like to think of myself as a creative guy. I write, I like music, I'm big on movies and books...I dig the conversation, man. I think it's stimulating to have a philosophical debate on the existence of God. But what you have to understand is that philosophical debate cannot result in proof. In order to have these discussions, you must first assume a lot. You must assume that a god would require omnipotence, or be supernatural. You must assume that a god isn't just a race of hyper-intelligent beings that arrived to that state through natural evolution. You have to assume that the universe either requires or doesn't require a creator. You see? Yes, it's thrilling to discuss this stuff, but stop pretending that it's science. It isn't.

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



Basically: If God is necessary, this necessity can be found out by rational, not empirical, processes. We're talking about philosophical arguments and logical deductions and such. We're not going to find God by peering into space or digging into the ground, but we will by thinking about it, or find proof positive that he isn't possible.

Our evidence will be in our arguments and reasoning, not in finding Mount Olympus, in essence. But it is something which we'll find out eventually one way or another: It is knowable, contra-Agnosticism.





I would not think so. It is difficult to PROVE something by reason alone or even deduction with reasoning. That is because, first, you must find some set of ground, something, some frame of point, in order to base your reasoning upon. This is impossible in the sense that God is impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore reasoning is not reasoning, but rather a narrow discussion about things we cannot hope to comprehend.

It is like attempting to reason how stars work (let's assume we don't know) without even knowing what elements or atoms or gravity is.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

No it wouldn't. There is a difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy cannot prove or disprove anything, and can provide no evidence for anything, either. Yes, philosophy has an important role, but it is not science. It is based on assumptions, not evidence. I can't put it any more plain that that.

LOL.

Science can prove things? Tell that to Karl Popper. Science is the history of spectacular failures to grasp the universe. If anything, philosophy has a far better track record. We have found undoubtable facts in philosophy, such as the Laws of Thought.

But you are sadly mistaken. The proper way to phrase what you wanted is that "science is not philosophy". Yes, science isn't - thank God, or we wouldn't be certain about anything. Philosophy can and does prove truths and find things that are so. Hell, philosophy CREATED the concept of proof!

I like to think of myself as a creative guy. I write, I like music, I'm big on movies and books...I dig the conversation, man. I think it's stimulating to have a philosophical debate on the existence of God. But what you have to understand is that philosophical debate cannot result in proof. In order to have these discussions, you must first assume a lot. You must assume that a god would require omnipotence, or be supernatural. You must assume that a god isn't just a race of hyper-intelligent beings that arrived to that state through natural evolution. You have to assume that the universe either requires or doesn't require a creator. You see? Yes, it's thrilling to discuss this stuff, but stop pretending that it's science. It isn't.

There is no assumption at all needed in discussion of God. We are discussing a being which is construed as necessary, deducing from there, and then seeing whether that is coherent and fits the picture of reality rationally. You're discussing off-the-wall theories concerning what a creator of a universe could be. Sure, the universe (by which I mean a finite universe and not existence as a whole) could be created by super intelligent aliens. But that isn't God. God is a hypothetical being with certain rational attributes.

[Norsefire]

JDawg

No it wouldn't. There is a difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy cannot prove or disprove anything, and can provide no evidence for anything, either. Yes, philosophy has an important role, but it is not science. It is based on assumptions, not evidence. I can't put it any more plain that that.

Very well said, this is exactly my point. We can not reason out the existence of god, because we have no premise to reason with.

[Prince_James]

Norsefire:

I would not think so. It is difficult to PROVE something by reason alone or even deduction with reasoning. That is because, first, you must find some set of ground, something, some frame of point, in order to base your reasoning upon. This is impossible in the sense that God is impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore reasoning is not reasoning, but rather a narrow discussion about things we cannot hope to comprehend.

One need only find one undoubtable truth to begin that reasoning.

I'll give you one:

A = A (the law of identity as commonly given). Or to write it out: A thing must be itself in order to be itself and cannot ever not be itself while still being itself.

[JDawg]

Science can prove things? Tell that to Karl Popper. Science is the history of spectacular failures to grasp the universe. If anything, philosophy has a far better track record.

I hate to do this to you, but that statement right there proves you don't belong in this discussion.

There is no assumption at all needed in discussion of God. We are discussing a being which is construed as necessary, deducing from there, and then seeing whether that is coherent and fits the picture of reality rationally. You're discussing off-the-wall theories concerning what a creator of a universe could be. Sure, the universe (by which I mean a finite universe and not existence as a whole) could be created by super intelligent aliens. But that isn't God. God is a hypothetical being with certain rational attributes.

But how can you deduce something you have no evidence for? How can you apply rationality to the irrational? You can assume such things, but again, there's no proof.

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



One need only find one undoubtable truth to begin that reasoning.

I'll give you one:

A = A (the law of identity as commonly given). Or to write it out: A thing must be itself in order to be itself and cannot ever not be itself while still being itself.

But this is based on logic. It does not require evidence.

To prove a Creator would require evidence. Logic can't solve that problem because we have no premise to use logic.

[Zephyr]

Incorrect. See: Euclidean Geometry (a system complete and consistent and not subject to Godel's incompleteness theorem).
Because it's only a first order system. Can you prove or disprove god's existence using only first order logic?

GIT is for mathematics.
Logic is just one branch of mathematics.

Untrue: The Laws of Thought are manifestly so and hold true in reality as inviolate laws.
But you can't prove them without assumptions (axioms). You can't prove anything without assumptions.

[Norsefire]

Think of it like an algebraic equation: you can't solve it without first knowing the variables. In essence, we cannot prove or disprove a creator without first knowing what we are dealing with.

[Zephyr]

Not all algebraic equations are solvable.

No integer x satisfies
2x = 3
No real x satisfies
x2 + 1 = 0
No complex x satisfies
x = ln(0)

[Norsefire]

That makes them mathematical impossibilities. For all that happens, it is a possibility obviously, and some things that don't. I am dealing with possibilities.

God is a possibility, but we have no real knowledge of anything at all pertaining to such a possibility, no understanding of the concept, and therefore you could say the equation is there, and solvable, but we don't know the integars. We need to learn and understand more before we can attempt to prove or disprove the theory of intelligent design. Otherwise we are only wasting our time and will get no where; in essence, this makes atheism a belief. Not believing in God means you believe that there is no God.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

I hate to do this to you, but that statement right there proves you don't belong in this discussion.

Do tell me what the current status of Lamarckian evolution, Caloric, and the Myasmic theory of illness?

Oh right, they were all held to be true at one time, now clearly absurd. Hmmm.

Oh, let's add to that Newtonian mechanics (disproven by Einstein), the Aether Theory of Light Propogation, the current dichotomy between General Relativity and QM, the spectacular failure of String THeory to produce even one meaningful statement in nearly fifty years of theorizing...

Do not speak to me of science proving anything: Karl Popper is right when he affirms that science proves nothing. It gives possibilities, explanations, but no proofs.

But how can you deduce something you have no evidence for? How can you apply rationality to the irrational? You can assume such things, but again, there's no proof.

"No evidnece for"? We have existence. Existence has certain logical perfections to it - these are what we call the attributes of God. If we can figure out a way to reconcile them properly and conceive of them in the right light, we'll either prove or disprove God.

[Prince_James]

Zephyr:

Because it's only a first order system. Can you prove or disprove god's existence using only first order logic?

The history of theology has mostly been confined to first order logic when dealing with issues of pure philosophy.

Logic is just one branch of mathematics.

Actually, it is was thought to be the other way around: Mathematics was supposed to be a branch of logic. Mathematics, however, has been shown to not be able to be a logically consistent and complete system by Godel. As such, the two are two different things.

But you can't prove them without assumptions (axioms). You can't prove anything without assumptions.

To disprove the laws of thought are to use them and to therefore prove them. Furthermore, we can discuss the absurdities of the opposites of the laws of thought.

They are axioms in a double strong sense: They are both foundational and unchallengable.

[Zephyr]

God is a possibility, but we have no real knowledge of anything at all pertaining to such a possibility, no understanding of the concept, and therefore you could say the equation is there, and solvable, but we don't know the integars. We need to learn and understand more before we can attempt to prove or disprove the theory of intelligent design. Otherwise we are only wasting our time and will get no where; in essence, this makes atheism a belief. Not believing in God means you believe that there is no God.
Sure. Given lack of evidence, admitting there is no proof makes the most sense. It comes down to terminology. Most atheists if pressed will say they cannot prove there is no god. When they say they don't believe in god they really mean they don't pray to or worship any gods.

You could say that makes them agnostics, but they probably think of agnostics as people who are so unsure either way that they pray sometimes just in case.

In the end it's just an argument over terms and definitions.

[Norsefire]

Sure. Given lack of evidence, admitting there is no proof makes makes the most sense. It comes down to terminology. Most atheists if pressed will say they cannot prove there is no god. When they say they don't believe in god they really mean they don't pray to worship any gods.

You could say that makes them agnostics, but they probably think of agnostics as people who are so unsure either way that they pray sometimes just in case.

In the end it's just an argument over terms and definitions.

Yes. But, theist and atheist are not in the same boat as agnostic. Theist and atheist are both belief-based. Agnostic is logic based.

Edit: I like your heading. Based after mine? :)

[Prince_James]

Norsefire:

Think of it like an algebraic equation: you can't solve it without first knowing the variables. In essence, we cannot prove or disprove a creator without first knowing what we are dealing with.

We are not speaking of "a creator". We are speaking of God. God could be a creator, but possibly could not be. Even so, that would be presumably accidental to his nature, rather than intrinsic.

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



We are not speaking of "a creator". We are speaking of God. God could be a creator, but possibly could not be. Even so, that would be presumably accidental to his nature, rather than intrinsic.

God is merely a face, a concept created by the countless world civilizations to give voice to their belief. God is more fiction than fact. It is not based on science. The core belief is based on logic, yes, but God is little more than a product of the imagination.


If we are to be serious about discussion, we must first shed any bias or fiction. Therefore, I say "a Creator" without specifying anything. I do not specify his nature or features or intentions or abilities. I merely specify one of his actions, the creation of the universe.


And with this, we proceed with discussion. And with this, we make the concept not only plausable, but on equal grounds with nature.

[Prince_James]

Norsefire:

God is merely a face, a concept created by the countless world civilizations to give voice to their belief. God is more fiction than fact. It is not based on science. The core belief is based on logic, yes, but God is little more than a product of the imagination.

I am not speaking about Zeus and Jehovah - Quezacoatl and Indra. Those are cultural divinities. We can neither speak of proof nor disproof from reason for those. If they exist, we'll learn of them from empirical means.

God with a capital G is a philosophical idea deducible from pure reason.

If we are to be serious about discussion, we must first shed any bias or fiction. Therefore, I say "a Creator" without specifying anything. I do not specify his nature or features or intentions or abilities. I merely specify one of his actions, the creation of the universe.

This is again: Not an intrinsic part of the nature of God, which we are discussing. Of course, you could argue otherwise, in which case we're okay. But we're not discussing "a creator" or "the creator". God might be the creator, God could be the creator potentially, but creation is not "omnipotence" or "omniscience".

As such, attacking the idea of creator only attacks one interpretation of God's place in existence. It is not an attack against either the idea of God, nor of God as a coherent idea, except in as much as the notion of creator is bundled up with God, which is not as solid as historic prejudices would make us believe.

[JDawg]

Do tell me what the current status of Lamarckian evolution, Caloric, and the Myasmic theory of illness?

Oh right, they were all held to be true at one time, now clearly absurd. Hmmm.

Oh, let's add to that Newtonian mechanics (disproven by Einstein), the Aether Theory of Light Propogation, the current dichotomy between General Relativity and QM, the spectacular failure of String THeory to produce even one meaningful statement in nearly fifty years of theorizing...

We go by what we can see. And nobody ever said String Theory was consensus. As a matter of fact, the detractors of the theory call it "science philosophy".

You've got to get past the fact that science goes by evidence, whereas philosophy, or at least what you're talking about, does not.

"No evidnece for"? We have existence. Existence has certain logical perfections to it - these are what we call the attributes of God.

Who is "we"? Who decides that existence is attributable to God? And since when are the laws of it God's attributes? And where are the perfections?

If we can figure out a way to reconcile them properly and conceive of them in the right light, we'll either prove or disprove God.

Again, you're not proving or disproving anything. You're taking an assumption and running with it. That's all you are doing.

[Zephyr]

The history of theology has mostly been confined to first order logic when dealing with issues of pure philosophy.
I've never seen a convincing theological proof for the existence of god :)

Actually, it is was thought to be the other way around: Mathematics was supposed to be a branch of logic.
In a way - the foundation of modern mathematics is often said to be set theory, which is a branch of mathematical logic. But now some mathematicians think category theory is a better foundation.

Mathematics, however, has been shown to not be able to be a logically consistent and complete system by Godel. As such, the two are two different things.
By mathematics I mean the subject studied by modern mathematicians, which covers any system based on axioms. This would include Euclidean geometry. Gödel proved his result for arithmetic and many other branches of mathematics, but not all of them.

They are axioms in a double strong sense: They are both foundational and unchallengeable.
No axiom is unchallengeable. E.g. Non-Euclidean geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry)

At worst you might get a system where all results are both true and false, but you can't prove there's anything wrong with that system without making another assumption ;)

Mathematicians see A=A as an assumption regarding the equality symbol '='.

In the end we can rely on apparently useful assumptions like "consistency is good" or "reality is consistent" and "good logic should not contradict reality" but these are still assumptions. None of them can be proven.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

We go by what we can see. And nobody ever said String Theory was consensus. As a matter of fact, the detractors of the theory call it "science philosophy".

You've got to get past the fact that science goes by evidence, whereas philosophy, or at least what you're talking about, does not.

Detractors calling it "science philosophy" discredit both science and philosophy, while rightfully discreditting String Theory.

But no, philosophy has evidence, it is merely evidence of a rational, not empirical, nature. Of course, this permits philosophy to actually prove things and find truth, unlike science which cannot do any such thing - as evidenced again, by the nature of scientific inquiry, as discussed by Popper and others.

Who is "we"? Who decides that existence is attributable to God? And since when are the laws of it God's attributes? And where are the perfections?

Who is "we"? Rational humanity. Or at least, those amongst who are are rational and pursue the topic, too.

I never claimed existence was necessarily an attribute of God. Anselm does, but I am not at this moment claiming anything. In fact, I do not intend to prove or disprove God here.

As to the attributes, I spoke of them in the OP. They clearly go back to the nature of existence. It is ridiculous to speak of omnipotence without reference to existence, for instance.

Again, you're not proving or disproving anything. You're taking an assumption and running with it. That's all you are doing.

You are again mistaking philosophy for science. Science is the one that takes assumption and conjecture and hypothesis and runs away with it, without hope of proof. Rational philosophy does quite the opposite.

[Zephyr]

Yes. But, theist and atheist are not in the same boat as agnostic. Theist and atheist are both belief-based. Agnostic is logic based.
If you define agnostic as anyone who thinks the probability of god existing is not 0% or 100% I think a lot of atheists and theists would fall under that definition. Theists may think it's over 99% and atheists may think it's below 1% but very few people are actually 'sure' (except kids who believe whatever their parents tell them.)

Edit: I like your heading. Based after mine? :)
Yes, I thought it was a good idea but too restricted :p

[JDawg]

Detractors calling it "science philosophy" discredit both science and philosophy, while rightfully discreditting String Theory.

No, they call it science philosophy because it is based on assumptions rather than evidence...just like philosophy.

But no, philosophy has evidence, it is merely evidence of a rational, not empirical, nature. Of course, this permits philosophy to actually prove things and find truth, unlike science which cannot do any such thing - as evidenced again, by the nature of scientific inquiry, as discussed by Popper and others.

Dude, you really need to get off Popper's junk. Seriously. But let's have an experiment here...if philosophy can prove or disprove God...what is the answer? Is he real or isn't he?

I do not intend to prove or disprove God here.


Because you can't.

Nice cop out.

You are again mistaking philosophy for science. Science is the one that takes assumption and conjecture and hypothesis and runs away with it, without hope of proof. Rational philosophy does quite the opposite.

Well, whatever planet you're from, I'm sure that's how they do things. Here on Earth, however, you've got it backwards.

[Prince_James]

Zephyr:

I've never seen a convincing theological proof for the existence of god

Try the Ontological Argument, specifically with the Godel and Platinga's additions/amendations of it.

Yes, Kurt Godel wrote a proof of God.

In a way - the foundation of modern mathematics is often said to be set theory, which is a branch of mathematical logic. But now some mathematicians think category theory is a better foundation.

But of course, neither can be, as GITS has prohibited a consistent, complete mathematics that ascribes to a logicist paradigm, so long as that mathematics includes arithmetic.

By mathematics I mean the subject studied by modern mathematicians, which covers any system based on axioms. This would include Euclidean geometry. Gödel proved his result for arithmetic and many other branches of mathematics, but not all of them.

Sorry: I was being too imprecise here. You are correct, arithmetic and the other branches of mathematics won't be consistent and complete, but some branches (the geometries) will be.

Mathematicians see A=A as an assumption regarding the equality symbol '='.

In the end we can rely on apparently useful assumptions like "consistency is good" or "reality is consistent" and "good logic should not contradict reality" but these are still assumptions. None of them can be proven.

Affirm the opposite and see what occurs, specifically, pay attention to what it means to affirm the opposite.

The laws of thought are more than mere assumptions. One cannot debunk them without using them and one can show their primacy by means of the absurdity of their opposite wedded to their internal consistency and self-evidence.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

No, they call it science philosophy because it is based on assumptions rather than evidence...just like philosophy.

No, again, that would be science.

Dude, you really need to get off Popper's junk. Seriously. But let's have an experiment here...if philosophy can prove or disprove God...what is the answer? Is he real or isn't he?

The matter is under investigation. Since 500 BC. I'll get back to you when the controversy is done for.

Because you can't.

Nice cop out.

No, because that isn't the point of this thread. What I am attempting to do is show how absurd agnosticism is. Theism and atheism are the only two rational positions to hold on the matter. One of them is indeed right. We just don't know which one yet.

Well, whatever planet you're from, I'm sure that's how they do things. Here on Earth, however, you've got it backwards.

Let's go back to speaking to Caloric. Oh wait, we can't...as this supposed scientific idea was later found not to be so by science. Or actually, by an engineer.

[JDawg]

The matter is under investigation. Since 500 BC. I'll get back to you when the controversy is done for.

Well this raises a question...if the problem still hasn't been solved by reason, then how do you know it can be solved by reason?

[Zephyr]

http://www.machall.com/comics/20030421.jpg (http://machall.com/view.php?date=2003-04-21)

[Prince_James]

Zephyr:

Two things:

1. Funny comic.

2. Dinosaur Comics (www.qwantz.com) is better.

Though you'll actualy find that, contrary to the comic, the Ontological Argument does not "magick things into existence" as had been claimed. Specifically, the ontological argument only works for something which would be perfect. Thus the critique (of which this is a species of) which would have us imagine a greater circumstance (dollars on a bureau, a perfect island) is flawed in as much as those are not perfect in any sense.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

Well this raises a question...if the problem still hasn't been solved by reason, then how do you know it can be solved by reason?

The question: Does God exist? is either true or false. Accordingly, reason will solve it....eventually.

Pick up a philosophy journal dedicated to these topics. You'll find plenty of men and women busy at work with it. Or pick up books from most of the great thinkers of the Western and also the Eastern world.

[JDawg]

The question: Does God exist? is either true or false. Accordingly, reason will solve it....eventually.

OK, but you have to base it on something. That something is scientific evidence, correct?

[shaman_]

Not believing in God means you believe that there is no God.But aren't you 'not believing in a god'? Does that mean that you believe that there is no god?

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

OK, but you have to base it on something. That something is scientific evidence, correct?

No, it is far outside of the purview of science. Science does not deal with necessity - only reason does.

[JDawg]

OK, so now I have it straight. One day, one of your peers is going to have this revolutionary idea that either proves or disproves God. And it's not going to be based on evidence, just reason...that won't be improved upon by new evidence...

OK, man. Whatever helps you hate yourself a little less.

[Norsefire]

But aren't you 'not believing in a god'? Does that mean that you believe that there is no god?

I hold an entirely neutral opinion on the concept of God. My stance is "unknown". I neither believe in God nor do I not believe in God. I accept that I do not know.







And James, you CAN'T use logic. Logic is like mathematics, but you still need to plug in the numbers before you can solve it, and we don't have the numbers. We don't have any understanding on existence enough to deliberate whether or not there is a creator.

[shaman_]

I hold an entirely neutral opinion on the concept of God. My stance is "unknown". I neither believe in God nor do I not believe in God. Surely you have a belief in gods or you don't?

Anyway what you are saying is similar to what many atheists here are also saying. They don't believe in any god/gods but they are not claiming that any definitely don't exist.


I accept that I do not know.As do I. Our position is similar. I call myself an atheist because as I don't believe in any gods, while you call yourself an agnostic. Anyone who lacks a belief in any deities can be called an atheist.

[Prince_James]

JDawg:

OK, so now I have it straight. One day, one of your peers is going to have this revolutionary idea that either proves or disproves God. And it's not going to be based on evidence, just reason...that won't be improved upon by new evidence...

Why would it be proved by empirical evidence if it is not an empirical thing? That's in and of itself, silly.

Go look for empirical correlates to logic. You'll find you won't get anywhere with that, either.

[Enmos]

This assumes that God has free-will. It has not been established that God, or anything else, does.

If free-will does not exist, then one can be omnipotent without being free to do anything but what one will do. Furthermore, the notion of freedom of the will is not itself inherently apart of omnipotence, only the ability to do anything non-contradictory.

A god without free will is useless.
It suggests God is just a name given to the anthropomorphism of nature.

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

A god without free will is useless.
It suggests God is just a name given to the anthropomorphism of nature.

That depends entirely on there being free will in ANYTHING to change things.

[Enmos]

Enmos:



That depends entirely on there being free will in ANYTHING to change things.

How is that ?
If God doesn't have free will, how is he omnipotent ?
How can you describe omnipotence without the notion of free will ?

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

If God doesn't have free will, how is he omnipotent ?
How can you describe omnipotence without the notion of free will ?

Easily: God has (far more than) sufficient power to do anything which is non-contradictory. That he does things deterministically just as everything else might, does not diminish the power to do such - when/if he is determined to do so.

[Enmos]

Enmos:



Easily: God has (far more than) sufficient power to do anything which is non-contradictory. That he does things deterministically just as everything else might, does not diminish the power to do such - when/if he is determined to do so.

God doesn't do anything by choice, apparently.
How come we need to assume there is a God ?
Seems that "it just happened" is sufficient.. as there is no way of distinguishing "it just happened" from your concept of God.

Also, this means that God must obey his own creation. Smart move.. lol He is a prisoner by his own doing. What a moron ;)

Not to mention that God existed before the universe did because he created everything, which is in itself a huge fallacy.

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

How come we need to assume there is a God ?

Do we? Some would say we do: Anselm. I have not made this argument personally.

Seems that "it just happened" is sufficient.. as there is no way of distinguishing "it just happened" from your concept of God.

If ever there is an action that requires God, the notion of "just happened" would not sit well with the facts. In fact, "it just happened!" is not an answer to any question. Things have causes. Investigation of the causes would lead to one finding God if God indeed caused such things.

Not to mention that God existed before the universe did because he created everything, which is in itself a huge fallacy.

Only in some views. I would agree that it is fallacious to view God as a creator.

[Enmos]

Do we? Some would say we do: Anselm. I have not made this argument personally.
Very well.
But what then is the point of your argument, if you don't believe in it yourself ?

If ever there is an action that requires God, the notion of "just happened" would not sit well with the facts. In fact, "it just happened!" is not an answer to any question. Things have causes. Investigation of the causes would lead to one finding God if God indeed caused such things.
It's as good as "God did it". In fact, I like it better than "God did it".

Only in some views. I would agree that it is fallacious to view God as a creator.
Then what is his role ?

[S.A.M.]

OK. Omniscience means he knows the future, and thus cannot be omnipotent. These qualities are mutually exclusive.

How does that compute? If I know all about a gene and I can mutate it, and know the results of that mutation ad nauseum, how is that mutually exclusive?

[Prince_James]

Enmos:

Very well.
But what then is the point of your argument, if you don't believe in it yourself ?

This is about showing agnosticism to be absurd, not that God is real or not real.

I actually do believe in "God", but in a non-personal pantheist sense, and also in the validity of Anselm's ontological argument. But that is not at all interesting or pertinent to this debate.

It's as good as "God did it". In fact, I like it better than "God did it".

Save the phrase "God did it" can be correct. "It just happened" is never.

Then what is his role ?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. But if you must ask my personal position on the matter: God is a conveinent name for discussing existence on the infinite and necessary scale.

[Enmos]

Save the phrase "God did it" can be correct. "It just happened" is never.
"It just happened" indicates that it did happened but for unknown reasons.
"God did it" leaves no room for uncertainty. God did it and that is that, no further question needed.

[JDawg]

Prince James,

Why would it be proved by empirical evidence if it is not an empirical thing? That's in and of itself, silly.

How is it truth without evidence? Without evidence, you must assume. That's the point I'm driving at. I'm not saying that there's no place for philosophy in the world, I'm just saying that you don't get the answers from it.

[Carcano]

There are plenty reasons to suggest he exists (and just as many that he does not). Philosophers have been arguing both ways for as long as I just referenced. Furthermore, as noted, God is a being which can be proven or disproven by reason alone, thus we can talk about whether there is or is not a God based on reasoning.
The best attempt Ive ever read is a book by Dr. Francis Collins (director of the human genome project) called 'The Languauge of God'.

Heres a video summary:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

[Michael]

Prince_James

Can I do something this God can not do?
Can this God learn?

Michael


I suppose it just seems that this God is an eternal hard drive in the sky - the Universe itself. It is not rational because it can not think, it can not think because it is all knowing. There is nothing to think about. It's an irrational nonfeeling nothing. is this a God? If a God has all information then I'd say it is all information. As it doesn't think, then it's the Universe. If it's the universe then why the need for the word God?

[spidergoat]

How does that compute? If I know all about a gene and I can mutate it, and know the results of that mutation ad nauseum, how is that mutually exclusive?

That's knowing a principle, not the future. You aren't omniscient.

[codanblad]

So, thought experiment. God writes down the price that oil will sell for next week, on a specific date, per barrel. Then, can he make it actually be 5 dollars higher? If he can, he was wrong about knowing the future. If he cannot, he can't do everything.

even if he does make it 5 dollars higher, he knew he was going to change it sometime in the future. all omniscience proves is that he is incapable of making mistakes, 'mistakes' is just the easy way to describe choices which sucked for us, or seem stupid.

[codanblad]

I suppose it just seems that this God is an eternal hard drive in the sky - the Universe itself. It is not rational because it can not think, it can not think because it is all knowing. There is nothing to think about. It's an irrational nonfeeling nothing. is this a God? If a God has all information then I'd say it is all information. As it doesn't think, then it's the Universe. If it's the universe then why the need for the word God?

i agree, the only god which fits the description by christianity would be a god who is imperfect, he's just a powerful entity. As such, we're just as entitled to worship satan, or ourselves, as the value of opinions or influence is debatable.

[Sarkus]

Prince_James, you state in the OP that God is either necessarily existent or necessarily non-existent, but you don't say why.
Why do you dismiss the "not-necessarily existent or not-necessarily non-existent" options?

Further, you say that IF God's necessity (one way or the other) is provable by reason alone then agnosticism is a flawed position - yet noone has ever managed to prove God's necessity by reason - and you have not given any argument that suggests otherwise.

The Ontological argument is all well and good, if that is what you are basing this discussion on - until you realise that all they are describing is existence itself, not God. And that existence is necessarily existent. (NB: I think one could go further and equate existence to the Universe.)
Nothing that can be said about God through the Ontological argument can not be attributed to existence.
But since we already have a word for existence... which is... er... "existence", we have no use for the word "God".

If you think differently, please explain what the Ontological Argument says about God, and we'll compare it to "Existence".

Or if you are not basing this on the OA, what exactly are you arguing? That IF God is provable by reason THEN the agnostic position would be flawed? Well, duh, yeah. IF.
But if you're saying that God IS provable by reason alone - please demonstrate, and prove.

[JDawg]

But if you're saying that God IS provable by reason alone - please demonstrate, and prove.

He can't. Nobody can. Despite the claims that philosophy can prove or disprove God, not one philosopher has been able to do so. So I guess in that case, they are philosophizing on the ability or non-ability of...philosophy! :D

[Yorda]

I suppose it just seems that this God is an eternal hard drive in the sky - the Universe itself. It is not rational because it can not think, it can not think because it is all knowing.

remember that god is all powerful, so he can also forget all his knowing, so that he can think again.

If it's the universe then why the need for the word God?

because there are different definitions for god. for example, some say that god is not omnipresent. if god is life (like jesus/god says), he can be both omnipresent and not. he can be both impersonal and personal etc.

As such, we're just as entitled to worship satan,

worship this god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanat_Kumara

he's pretty cool. he's the ancientofdays from the bible. an advanced spiritual being who came to earth from venus 18 million years ago.

[ronan]

Prince James,



How is it truth without evidence? Without evidence, you must assume. That's the point I'm driving at. I'm not saying that there's no place for philosophy in the world, I'm just saying that you don't get the answers from it.

the evidence is your perceptions

[Michael]

remember that god is all powerful, so he can also forget all his knowing, so that he can think again.How can anything know everything and not know everything. It can not. It either is all knowing or it is not. The OP said it is - so it is.

And by everything I mean the state of every single electron, every single quark, etc... in every single atom through out the Universe for all of time. The only way such a thing could have such information (in my mind) is if it is either the Universe itself and therefor the information is contained in its being or it would have to be a large computer like machine which is running Universe Simulation 1.0 and therefor must have all of this information to run the simulation.

Either way, the notion of a God as being a thinking rational being goes out the window and we are left with a thing that can not think and is not rational. In essence - a machine. Why would anyone worship such a thing? Why would such a thing require worship? I can't see that it would. It would be an emotional caring unthinking irrational thing and I don't think this is what most people think of when they think about the word God.

[spidergoat]

even if he does make it 5 dollars higher, he knew he was going to change it sometime in the future. all omniscience proves is that he is incapable of making mistakes, 'mistakes' is just the easy way to describe choices which sucked for us, or seem stupid.

If he knew so, he would have to predict it, then I would change my request to change the future, then he would have predicted my change, and so on in an endless loop until there wasn't enough time before the event to make a prediction... so that doesn't work.

[JDawg]

the evidence is your perceptions

Then it isn't evidence, homie.

[Yorda]

How can anything know everything and not know everything. It can not. It either is all knowing or it is not.
god is omnipresent, so god is in you and me too. god has separated itself into many entities, that's how he can know anything between everything and nothing.

The only way such a thing could have such information (in my mind) is if it is either the Universe itself and therefor the information is contained in its being
god is not a being. he is THE being. existence itself. or consciousness. so... "the being" knows everything about every atom and every electron because it is in every electron and atom, like he is in every human.

In essence - a machine. Why would anyone worship such a thing?
everything in the universe is alive to some degree. machines also get their energy from the lifeforce (god). things can't move or do anything without a will.

Why would such a thing require worship?
god does not require worship, but some people do, because they don't realize that they are the god that they are worshippping. if god needed worship to feel good or something, then he wouldn't be a very powerful god.

[JDawg]

god is not a being. he is THE being. existence itself. or consciousness. so... "the being" knows everything about every atom and every electron because it is in every electron and atom, like he is in every human.

You're attributing stuff to God that doesn't necessarily have to be true. Why would he be required to feel every atom and particle of his being? Actually, taking this point of view, you strip God of his deity status; if his entire being is the universe and everything within it, then he's not exactly capable of creating himself, is he?

[Vkothii]

Who's this "he"? You mean "God is a personality"? Like a person is?

But I'm a person, and I'm not "everything", that's ridiculous.
I am God though, like "everything" else is. God doesn't "know" anything, because knowing is what we do. God is knowing, not some "thing" or person.

[JDawg]

Who's this "he"? You mean "God is a personality"? Like a person is?

But I'm a person, and I'm not "everything", that's ridiculous.
I am God though, like "everything" else is. God doesn't "know" anything, because knowing is what we do. God is knowing, not some "thing" or person.

OK, I just wanted to find our base here. So this God, according to your belief, is not a being, but simply existence itself?

So then there is no deity, in your view?

[Yorda]

Why would he be required to feel every atom and particle of his being?

how else could he know everything bout them?

then he's not exactly capable of creating himself, is he?

nothing can create itself. only nothing can.

Who's this "he"? You mean "God is a personality"? Like a person is?

put god in a person, and he becomes the person (jesus). put him in a teapot, and he becomes the teapot.

"Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless - like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend" -- Bruce Lee

god is impersonal (formless) because god has infinite personalities.

[JDawg]

Yorda, you obviously believe in the God of Abraham, which means I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Vkothii, who seems to believe that God is the universe, not some spiritual being.

nothing can create itself. only nothing can.

But "nothing" did not create itself. Nothing created the universe. I mean, that's what you're trying to get at, isn't it? But if God is the universe, then God isn't exactly the "nothing" we're talking about. God, in this case, would be the result, not the cause.

[Medicine*Woman]

remember that god is all powerful, so he can also forget all his knowing, so that he can think again.
*************
M*W: I tried to think of something to answer your statement, but I couldn't. It blows my mind.

worship this god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanat_Kumara he's pretty cool. he's the ancientofdays from the bible. an advanced spiritual being who came to earth from venus 18 million years ago.

*************
M*W: I can honestly say that I am dumbfounded.

[Vkothii]

So then there is no deity, in your view?Because, instead of an external God with a personality (and a big beard, maybe a big book too), there's just "existence"?

How do you connect "just existence" with: "so there is no deity"? There is the external existence, outside of the internal one right?

So, it's all just "stuff"; there's the stuff that's "where you're at", and the stuff that isn't. But what is it? What is a deity, exactly?
Isn't that something along the lines of a personality - which is something that we have?

Could there be a connection there somewhere... let's think real hard now

[JDawg]

How do you connect "just existence" with: "so there is no deity"? There is the external existence, outside of the internal one right?

I admit, you're losing me here. If you are actually asking me if there is anything beyond the universe, the answer is that I don't know. There are multiverse theories, theories that say our universe is part of a bigger picture...but ultimately nobody knows if there is anything beyond our universe.

So, it's all just "stuff"; there's the stuff that's "where you're at", and the stuff that isn't. But what is it? What is a deity, exactly?
Isn't that something along the lines of a personality - which is something that we have? Could there be a connection there somewhere...

I was saying that if this "god" is the entirety of existence, then this "god" isn't the creator, but the created. If I follow you correctly, you are saying that there is no supreme being that created all of this, correct?

[Vkothii]

I admit, you're losing me here. If you are actually asking me if there is anything beyond the universe, the answer is that I don't know.Well, of course, how can you know about something that's beyond experience.
What I mean with the internal/external thing is fairly straightforward: you have your existence which you perceive from inside yourself, and you perceive an external world. That's all that you can ever know there is.

If I follow you correctly, you are saying that there is no supreme being that created all of this, correct?Not exactly, now I'm not sure what you mean by: "supreme being". As in: "the ultimate personality", or something, you mean?

[codanblad]

If he knew so, he would have to predict it, then I would change my request to change the future, then he would have predicted my change, and so on in an endless loop until there wasn't enough time before the event to make a prediction... so that doesn't work.

are you claiming to know what he knows, or what? you're saying that no matter what the oil price is, you'll always desire it 5 dollars higher? who says that god thinks? he's all knowing, there's nothing for him to think about.

alternatively, what's to say he's not simply an incredibly powerful entity? he doesn't have to know everything to create everything. he's just playing sims on a grander scale.

i feel i should add religion requires blind faith. that and/or hallucinations and delusion. if you don't have that, you just gotta deal with things like a man.

[JDawg]

Not exactly, now I'm not sure what you mean by: "supreme being". As in: "the ultimate personality", or something, you mean?

C'mon, man, you know perfectly well what I mean. Stop bickering semantics, and look at the question in its context. If "god" is the entirety of existence, then you're saying there was no "creator", correct? The question doesn't get any easier than that.

[spidergoat]

are you claiming to know what he knows, or what? you're saying that no matter what the oil price is, you'll always desire it 5 dollars higher? who says that god thinks? he's all knowing, there's nothing for him to think about.

alternatively, what's to say he's not simply an incredibly powerful entity? he doesn't have to know everything to create everything. he's just playing sims on a grander scale.

i feel i should add religion requires blind faith. that and/or hallucinations and delusion. if you don't have that, you just gotta deal with things like a man.

The premise of the thought experiment is that you ask God what will happen, he is supposed to know, if he is omniscient. He tells you. Since humans are limited to linear time, you then ask him to make the future something different than what he told you. If he can do that, his prediction was false. If he cannot, then he isn't omnipotent. That's what I mean when I say these qualities are contradictory.

[Yorda]

*************
M*W: I tried to think of something to answer your statement, but I couldn't. It blows my mind.



*************
M*W: I can honestly say that I am dumbfounded.

Thanks M*W

[ronan]

Then it isn't evidence, homie.

it is the most basic evidence. without this one you cannot even start anything

[JDawg]

it is the most basic evidence. without this one you cannot even start anything

No, perception is just that: Perception. That's why people say "Perception vs Reality". If you look out the window and see a tree flailing in the wind, your eyes tell you that the tree is moving on its own. But the reality is that the tree is moving because the wind is pushing it.

Let's take it further; you see the tree moving, so you go outside to inspect. You feel the wind on your body, you hear it whistling through the branches, but what exactly is this force of nature? Is the Earth suddenly spinning faster? Is heaven opening up in some sort of cataclysmic event? Without knowledge of what causes the wind gusts, it is impossible to know what is happening, you can only assume. And that is the problem with saying philosophy can find truth without evidence. In philosophy, you must assume things.

[ronan]

No, perception is just that: Perception. That's why people say "Perception vs Reality". If you look out the window and see a tree flailing in the wind, your eyes tell you that the tree is moving on its own. But the reality is that the tree is moving because the wind is pushing it.

Let's take it further; you see the tree moving, so you go outside to inspect. You feel the wind on your body, you hear it whistling through the branches, but what exactly is this force of nature? Is the Earth suddenly spinning faster? Is heaven opening up in some sort of cataclysmic event? Without knowledge of what causes the wind gusts, it is impossible to know what is happening, you can only assume. And that is the problem with saying philosophy can find truth without evidence. In philosophy, you must assume things.

yes and no,
perceptions can not prove the existence of the reality of something causing the perception themselves but it prove the existence of consciousness.
It is in that sense that it can be used to prove god

in fact perception is our only evidence

[JDawg]

perceptions can not prove the existence of the reality of something causing the perception themselves but it prove the existence of consciousness.
It is in that sense that it can be used to prove god

Well, I was with you until the second sentence. How does consciousness prove God?

in fact perception is our only evidence

I agree with the sentiment that there is no evidence for the existence of a god, but perception is not evidence.

[ronan]

Well, I was with you until the second sentence. How does consciousness prove God?

this thread is not about the proof of god, sorry ;)


I agree with the sentiment that there is no evidence for the existence of a god, but perception is not evidence.
perception is an evidence of the existence of consciousnes.

then what is consciousness?

[JDawg]

this thread is not about the proof of god, sorry

It is exactly about that. Read the topic title.

then what is consciousness?

I don't know. What is it?

[ronan]

It is exactly about that. Read the topic title.

not exactly it is about wether a proof of the existence or non existence of god is possible

I don't know. What is it?
it is what permits perceptions.
can we say something more?

[Sarkus]

not exactly it is about wether a proof of the existence or non existence of god is possibleAnd what better way to support a claim that it is possible than by providing that proof?

Or is all you have along the lines of: "It is possible... so there!"?

[ronan]

And what better way to support a claim that it is possible than by providing that proof?

Or is all you have along the lines of: "It is possible... so there!"?

Ok, but for me the proof is already given since god is consciousness.

perceptions are the evidence (without consciousness, no perception)

[Sarkus]

Ok, but for me the proof is already given since god is consciousness.

perceptions are the evidence (without consciousness, no perception)But we have a word for consciousness already... and using the term "god" you are adding implications that you might not intend.

So - you have defined consciousness as "god" - and thus prove existence of "god" through the self-evidence of consciousness.

Great.

Adds zip to our understanding.
Does any of this help to answer any questions about consciousness?

No.


Further.
If I define the chair I'm sitting on as "god" - does it add anything to the chair? Or our understanding of the chair?
I can prove the chair exists... so does that mean I prove god exists?



So what is it about consciousness that impels you to use the word "god" in its place?
What more do you learn about it by doing so?

[JDawg]

not exactly it is about wether a proof of the existence or non existence of god is possible

But you need to show me how it is possible. If you can't, then this thread was pointless. You can't just say "It's possible" and then run away from the discussion.

it is what permits perceptions.
can we say something more?

How do you know it isn't the other way around?

[ronan]

But you need to show me how it is possible. If you can't, then this thread was pointless. You can't just say "It's possible" and then run away from the discussion.

no but maybe it is possible to disprove god.
that the point of the thread: try to affirm that we can prove or disprove the existence of god.

How do you know it isn't the other way around?
it does not matter consciousness has to exist for perceptions.
so consciousness exist.

[ronan]

But we have a word for consciousness already... and using the term "god" you are adding implications that you might not intend.

So - you have defined consciousness as "god" - and thus prove existence of "god" through the self-evidence of consciousness.

Great.

Adds zip to our understanding.
Does any of this help to answer any questions about consciousness?

No.


Further.
If I define the chair I'm sitting on as "god" - does it add anything to the chair? Or our understanding of the chair?
I can prove the chair exists... so does that mean I prove god exists?



So what is it about consciousness that impels you to use the word "god" in its place?
What more do you learn about it by doing so?

the word Brahman is often translated by the word god while it is sometimes translated as consciousness.
so I feel like I can use these two words interchangeably since translator do it.

consciousness is first of all only one and unchanging.
it also contains all perceptions:
it is thus all perceiving, unchanging, non temporal...

it looks like some description of god

why I say so ?
because everytime you feel like you perceive your consciousness in fatc you only perceive a content of consciousness, another perceptions.
In other word, consciousness is beyond perception and for thei reason cannot be assigned to be whatever, it can just be said to be one. It is thus unchanging.

I think you will point out many jump but I think you can also feel what I am saying.

[Sarkus]

the word Brahman is often translated by the word god while it is sometimes translated as consciousness.
so I feel like I can use these two words interchangeably since translator do it.But if you use the word "consciousness" then at least others will know of what you speak and not read into it unnecessary (and possibly unintentional) implications.

consciousness is first of all only one and unchanging.You have evidence for this? Can you even define what "consciousness" is??

it also contains all perceptions:Define "perception", please, before I ask for your evidence of this claim.

it is thus all perceiving, unchanging, non temporal...Non-temporal?? Evidence please.

it looks like some description of godIt might look like - but a statue "looks like" some description of a man. But if you call it a man then it implies far more than the word "statue".

why I say so ?
because everytime you feel like you perceive your consciousness in fatc you only perceive a content of consciousness, another perceptions.
In other word, consciousness is beyond perception and for thei reason cannot be assigned to be whatever, it can just be said to be one. It is thus unchanging.This is philosophical rubbish... i.e. you have no evidence for anything you say. It is your confidence statement against anyone elses.
Please start by providing a definition of consciousness.
And then evidence to support your definition.

I think you will point out many jump but I think you can also feel what I am saying.I think I can see (not feel) what you are trying to say, but it is not something I hold to, as, once again, there is no evidence for what you claim.

[JDawg]

no but maybe it is possible to disprove god.
that the point of the thread: try to affirm that we can prove or disprove the existence of god.

But you can't affirm it unless you do it.

[ronan]

But you can't affirm it unless you do it.
I agree

[ronan]

But if you use the word "consciousness" then at least others will know of what you speak and not read into it unnecessary (and possibly unintentional) implications.

You have evidence for this? Can you even define what "consciousness" is??

Define "perception", please, before I ask for your evidence of this claim.

Non-temporal?? Evidence please.

It might look like - but a statue "looks like" some description of a man. But if you call it a man then it implies far more than the word "statue".

This is philosophical rubbish... i.e. you have no evidence for anything you say. It is your confidence statement against anyone elses.
Please start by providing a definition of consciousness.
And then evidence to support your definition.

I think I can see (not feel) what you are trying to say, but it is not something I hold to, as, once again, there is no evidence for what you claim.

ok let me start afresh,
I tried in some others threads but I think it was not successful as I was not able to convince anyone. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel also that nobody yet in thsi forum could really provide argument against what I am saying (which is not new anyway).

Definition:
consciousness is what permits perceptions and the container of them

perceptions is the content of consciousness: they are present in consciousness. perception is all what we feel and see and smell... etc... thought are also perceptions. (we perceive our thought).
If you know Hume, perceptions are what he called impressions.

Method of doubt
Perceptions and consciousness are the only thing we know exist.
Their justification are themselves.
We do not have any evidence for the existence of a reality behind perception, no evidence for the existence of matter, nor evidence for the existence of unconsciousness

Ineffability and aperception of consciousness
Since consciousness is the container of perception, it cannot be a perception itself. It is thus unperceivable . It is thus ineffable.

One consciousness only but neither reaaly one: it is all
since it is not a perception, it cannot be asigned to any one, it has to be one. if there are two, you are then perceiving something, a division. It is thus ONE, but not one in oposition of two, it is one as whole. not one in relation to you, one in the absolute. Maybe like buddhism: zero

Atemporality of consciousness

since time is a perception, a content of consciousness it is not outside consciousness, thus consciousness is not inside time.
so it is atemporal.

consciousness is not changing
Change is a perception so consciousness is not changing
if consciousness is one, it is not possible to change.
if it is atemporal it is also not possible to change

consciousness contain all perceptions
since it is one, it has to contains all perceptions, mine now, mine in the future, yours now, yours in the past....


I agree this arguemnt could be refined, when i will have time, I will try to polish them

[JDawg]

Maybe I am wrong, but I feel also that nobody yet in thsi forum could really provide argument against what I am saying (which is not new anyway).


That's because people are having a hard time understanding what exactly you're saying. I'm assuming English is not your native language?

since time is a perception, a content of consciousness it is not outside consciousness, thus consciousness is not inside time.
so it is atemporal.

Time is absolutely outside of consciousness. It is a dimension. It is there whether you are here or not.

Since consciousness is the container of perception, it cannot be a perception itself. It is thus unperceivable . It is thus ineffable.

If that were true, then you would not know you are conscious.

And again, I'm having difficulty seeing how you can use any of this to prove or disprove God.

[ronan]

That's because people are having a hard time understanding what exactly you're saying. I'm assuming English is not your native language?

French is my native language

Time is absolutely outside of consciousness. It is a dimension. It is there whether you are here or not.

You are talking about time in physics but it is a time set by clock that ultimately is perception, perception of change.



If that were true, then you would not know you are conscious.

Why?
we know we are consciousness because we have perceptions

And again, I'm having difficulty seeing how you can use any of this to prove or disprove God.
because a consciousness which is atemporal, non changeable and all perceiving seems like a definition of god.

[JDawg]

You are talking about time in physics but it is a time set by clock that ultimately is perception, perception of change.

Not true. There's a physics forum on this site, I suggest you check it out.

we know we are consciousness because we have perceptions

But you said we could not perceive consciousness...

because a consciousness which is atemporal, non changeable and all perceiving seems like a definition of god.

It isn't all-perceiving. We only perceive the 4 dimensions that are relevant to us. There is much more going on in the universe than that. And again, I am failing to see how that in any way connects to God. That is the same as saying "God exists because there is a tree over there."

[ronan]

Not true. There's a physics forum on this site, I suggest you check it out.

No you do not understand my suggestion, because physics relies anyway on empiricism it thus rely on perceptions

But you said we could not perceive consciousness...

You do not need to perceive consciousness to know that consciousness exist.
consciousness is a requisite for perceptions. logically it exists.

It isn't all-perceiving. We only perceive the 4 dimensions that are relevant to us. There is much more going on in the universe than that. And again, I am failing to see how that in any way connects to God. That is the same as saying "God exists because there is a tree over there."
You as a human do not perceive everything, but consciousness do.

I do not perceive what you perceive but your perceptions as well as mine mine are in consciousness

[JDawg]

No you do not understand my suggestion, because physics relies anyway on empiricism it thus rely on perceptions

Dude, time is real, it isn't something based on how you experience it. There are ways of measuring it. You're giving time this very personal quality, as if it only exists because we experience it, and that is just not true. You can think an hour went by, but in reality, about an hour and a half went by. You can think that a week has passed, but in reality it's been 10 days.

You do not need to perceive consciousness to know that consciousness exist.
consciousness is a requisite for perceptions. logically it exists.

That doesn't make sense. If you can't perceive consciousness, then you can't know you're conscious. You said yourself that everything relies on perception, so how is consciousness any different? You have to be able to perceive that you are conscious.

You as a human do not perceive everything, but consciousness do.

Now you're making a distinction between the life and the consciousness? How would you even begin to explain that?

I do not perceive what you perceive but your perceptions as well as mine mine are in consciousness

Again, I point to time. You and I could sit in the same room and at some point ask each other how long we have been in the room. You might say 6 hours, I might say 10, but in reality, it has been 8. How do we know? The clock. We may have perceived the passage of time differently, but in reality, the time that passed was eight hours.

[ronan]

Dude, time is real, it isn't something based on how you experience it. There are ways of measuring it. You're giving time this very personal quality, as if it only exists because we experience it, and that is just not true. You can think an hour went by, but in reality, about an hour and a half went by. You can think that a week has passed, but in reality it's been 10 days.

Time is as real as you an me are real.
It is a perception, no matter what you can say.
In reality? you mean absolute time?
Time is relative
It is relative to your speed,
I would even say time is relative to change, not the reverse: no change no time
Time without change has no meaning

That doesn't make sense. If you can't perceive consciousness, then you can't know you're conscious. You said yourself that everything relies on perception, so how is consciousness any different? You have to be able to perceive that you are conscious.

It is a logical concept: we are conscious because else we would not have perception.
But what you call your inididual consciousness, what it is?
The "I" that you believe exist independent of consciousness is the one composed of habits, body, thoughts.... For Hume, it is a bundle of perception

Now you're making a distinction between the life and the consciousness? How would you even begin to explain that?

human is a definition of the type you belong in biology.
You perceive to be a human and as such you are limited to some bunddle of perception.

Again, I point to time. You and I could sit in the same room and at some point ask each other how long we have been in the room. You might say 6 hours, I might say 10, but in reality, it has been 8. How do we know? The clock. We may have perceived the passage of time differently, but in reality, the time that passed was eight hours.

In reality? What the meaning of time in reality, what is reality for you? please explain that to me, you are making a big assumption here

[JDawg]

Time is as real as you an me are real.
It is a perception, no matter what you can say.
In reality? you mean absolute time?
Time is relative
It is relative to your speed,
I would even say time is relative to change, not the reverse: no change no time
Time without change has no meaning

I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say change. But time is part of the fabric of space, which means it is there whether you want to believe it or not. And yes, the passage of time is relative, but only when you meet certain criteria, such as traveling at high speeds. It is not something that relies on life, however, or consciousness. It is here regardless.

It is a logical concept: we are conscious because else we would not have perception.
But what you call your inididual consciousness, what it is?
The "I" that you believe exist independent of consciousness is the one composed of habits, body, thoughts.... For Hume, it is a bundle of perception

OK, well that's Hume, and he bases this belief on nothing other than some idea that ran through his head. There is no worth to his words, they are simply his beliefs. The fact is that according to your logic, you must perceive anything for it to be real to you, so consciousness must meet that requirement as well, otherwise you can't know you're conscious.

human is a definition of the type you belong in biology.
You perceive to be a human and as such you are limited to some bunddle of perception.

Wait, so you're saying that I am only limited in what I can do because I believe I am human?

In reality? What the meaning of time in reality, what is reality for you? please explain that to me, you are making a big assumption here

Dude, I don't know what to tell you. You're all in this high-minded mumbo-jumbo, but I honestly think you're in over your head, because you don't really make much sense. Maybe it's just the language thing, but you're really just talking yourself into corners.

[Sarkus]

because a consciousness which is atemporal, non changeable and all perceiving seems like a definition of god.Unchangeable?
Remove brain - no consciousness.
I would say that going from a state of one to zero constitutes a fundamental change, wouldn't you?

Atemporal? Evidence please.

All-perceiving?
So consciousness has perceived planets, and asteroids, and small atoms of hydrogen billions of light-years away? No? So they don't exist - or just not perceived?


Secondly, your argument is no more than...
"I define God as my chair. My chair exists. QED God exists."

[ronan]

no I say that god is consciousness, consciousness is all perceving, does not change, is atemporal and one
it is not: God is my chair because chair is a perception

god/consciousness is neither zero nor one it is ineffable!
But the point is that there is no two god, two consciousness.
as such it is one but is not one as something you can differentiate from you like one chair. in that it is zero

[ronan]

OK, well that's Hume, and he bases this belief on nothing other than some idea that ran through his head. There is no worth to his words, they are simply his beliefs. The fact is that according to your logic, you must perceive anything for it to be real to you, so consciousness must meet that requirement as well, otherwise you can't know you're conscious.

In fact only consciousness exist as a reality, all other things is perception,
in other word: consciousness is the absolute reality while perception is relative reality, one that depend of you.



Wait, so you're saying that I am only limited in what I can do because I believe I am human?

Yes
but to be you, you have to believe/perceive to be you, else you ll be someone else:
You know the anthropic principle ?
just try to apply to the ego to see that it is logical that you cannot believe that you are someone else without being that someone.
schizophrenic people are an example of switching: they believe to be someone and act as they are the someone.

[JDawg]

no I say that god is consciousness, consciousness is all perceving, does not change, is atemporal and one

But you can't base that on anything. How do you know consciousness is the same for every animal? Consciousness certainly must be quite a bit different for plants, no? And they are alive, so they must be conscious, correct?

god/consciousness is neither zero nor one it is ineffable!

It's also ineffable to say that God is an inconceivably large man with a white beard that stands at the end of the universe, behind a door marked "God". Ineffability does not mark the strength of your argument, it marks the weakness of it.

[JDawg]

In fact only consciousness exist as a reality, all other things is perception,
in other word: consciousness is the absolute reality while perception is relative reality, one that depend of you.

But we can both agree that this forum is real, can we not? I mean, there are several independent witnesses available who would corroborate this.

schizophrenic people are an example of switching: they believe to be someone and act as they are the someone.

But they aren't really that person. Unless you think the guy claiming to be Napoleon down at the Ward actually is Napoleon.

[Old man]

So, thought experiment. God writes down the price that oil will sell for next week, on a specific date, per barrel. Then, can he make it actually be 5 dollars higher? If he can, he was wrong about knowing the future. If he cannot, he can't do everything.

This is simply a re-statement of the irresistible force/immovable object argument which is specious on its face.

There are things that God con not do, but that do not in the slightest diminish His omnipotence. Example: God can not lie because He can not act against Himself. He is truth. His expression of truth is not optional; it is who He is. Now, with regard to your question, you overlook that God is also omnipresent (everywhere at every time), and that events unfold in complete accordance with His will. That is why the question is specious. He isn't here in linear time this week making predictions as a man might do. The events of next week will unfold (to us) as His perfect knowledge (omniscience) knows they will. This is not to say that God is a puppet master. He isn't. But he does orchestrate the affairs of men to achieve His goals.

[spidergoat]

That is contradictory. If God is in control, why does God need to control? Mutually exclusive. Therefore God either does not have those qualities (how would you know?), or he doesn't exist.

[Vkothii]

"God is provable" is a bit of an oxymoron.
The only person on the planet you can "prove" the existence of God to is yourself.

[spidergoat]

Beyond a reasonable doubt then, that's the standard of most scientific knowledge.

[JDawg]

This is simply a re-statement of the irresistible force/immovable object argument which is specious on its face.

There are things that God con not do, but that do not in the slightest diminish His omnipotence. Example: God can not lie because He can not act against Himself. He is truth. His expression of truth is not optional; it is who He is. Now, with regard to your question, you overlook that God is also omnipresent (everywhere at every time), and that events unfold in complete accordance with His will. That is why the question is specious. He isn't here in linear time this week making predictions as a man might do. The events of next week will unfold (to us) as His perfect knowledge (omniscience) knows they will. This is not to say that God is a puppet master. He isn't. But he does orchestrate the affairs of men to achieve His goals.


You were raised to believe this. Use your brain and stop giving your life to the invisible force that isn't really there. Saying things like "He is truth" make you sound so much less intelligent than you really are. Wake up.

[ronan]

But you can't base that on anything. How do you know consciousness is the same for every animal? Consciousness certainly must be quite a bit different for plants, no? And they are alive, so they must be conscious, correct?

the contents of consciousness (perceptions) are different

It's also ineffable to say that God is an inconceivably large man with a white beard that stands at the end of the universe, behind a door marked "God". Ineffability does not mark the strength of your argument, it marks the weakness of it.
it is normal that we cannot express what is beyond us. We have a perspective, as such we cannot see the whole.
reality as seen through science is also ineffable, we only models it.

But we can both agree that this forum is real, can we not? I mean, there are several independent witnesses available who would corroborate this.

Yes it is real relative to us.
for a another being, it is not.

But they aren't really that person. Unless you think the guy claiming to be Napoleon down at the Ward actually is Napoleon.
He is a nevertheless a guy who believe he is napoleon. In this way he is a little bit like napoleon but at the wrong time.

the idea is that your identity, your 'I' is what you feel you are. Poeple outside will also have some idea about you, and it will also define in some way your 'I'. All these are perceptions.

[ronan]

"God is provable" is a bit of an oxymoron.
The only person on the planet you can "prove" the existence of God to is yourself.

God/consciousness is only thing that is provable.
All other things could be a dream.

"proof of god" is a pleonasm.
God/consciousness is the proof of itself :)

[Old man]

That is contradictory. If God is in control, why does God need to control? Mutually exclusive. Therefore God either does not have those qualities (how would you know?), or he doesn't exist.

That is the same as saying, "If a traffic signal controls traffic, why does it have to?".

Man has free will, but only up to the point where it opposes God's will. Illustration: God did not control which cup you poured coffee into this morning. He knew which one you would use, but the choice was yours. However, if you need a little push in the right direction to facilitate His plan, then that is what you get.

[Old man]

You were raised to believe this. Use your brain and stop giving your life to the invisible force that isn't really there. Saying things like "He is truth" make you sound so much less intelligent than you really are. Wake up.

No, JDawg, I was not raised to believe this. I used to be just like you: "...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: because they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned." But if I tell you that there are things that you can not understand you will scoff and tell me to "wake up", not realizing that I have in fact long since been awakened.

[Sarkus]

God/consciousness is only thing that is provable.
All other things could be a dream.

"proof of god" is a pleonasm.
God/consciousness is the proof of itself :)Again, you are doing little other than defining God as consciousness, and thus proving by definition.

What else does the word "God" bring to the table other than what is already covered by the term "consciousness"?
If nothing - then why use the term "God" - as it only brings with it implications you might not want.

There is nothing so far in your explanations / arguments that, in my view, warrants the use of the label "God" in place of "consciousness".


Furthermore - I don't think you have, at any point, defined consciousness.

[ronan]

Again, you are doing little other than defining God as consciousness, and thus proving by definition.

What else does the word "God" bring to the table other than what is already covered by the term "consciousness"?
If nothing - then why use the term "God" - as it only brings with it implications you might not want.

There is nothing so far in your explanations / arguments that, in my view, warrants the use of the label "God" in place of "consciousness".


Furthermore - I don't think you have, at any point, defined consciousness.

consciousness is where perceptions are. but no tin term of spatial location.
in other word: consciousness is the container of perception.

is it not a definition?

But can we really define what is god/consciousness ?
Should we define?
Why so?
We all know what is consciousness, why define it?
Don't you think that consciousness is beyond all definition?

[spidergoat]

That is the same as saying, "If a traffic signal controls traffic, why does it have to?".

Man has free will, but only up to the point where it opposes God's will. Illustration: God did not control which cup you poured coffee into this morning. He knew which one you would use, but the choice was yours. However, if you need a little push in the right direction to facilitate His plan, then that is what you get.

Bad analogy, traffic enforcement is necessary because people ignore the signals. In other words, control is not absolute. If traffic controls controlled your car, there would be no need for a signal.

[Sarkus]

consciousness is where perceptions are. but no tin term of spatial location.
in other word: consciousness is the container of perception.

is it not a definition?And there was me thinking the brain was the container of perception. Ah well.

Any way, no, this is not an adequate definition, as it doesn't clarify the picture in any way.

But can we really define what is god/consciousness ?You have to be able to if something is to be proven - otherwise how do we know whether the result of the test supports the claim?
How would we even know what tests to perform, unless we knew what were testing for?

Should we define?
Why so?
We all know what is consciousness, why define it?
Don't you think that consciousness is beyond all definition?For something to be able to be proven it HAS to be able to be defined in such a way that it CAN be proven.
Hence the thread.

If you define something as being beyond proof, it can BY DEFINITION not be proven.

And no, we do not all know what consciousness is - and in fact NO ONE yet has a working understanding of it.
YOU would have it being atemporal, non-changing something.
Science would currently see it as an emergent property of the vastly complex neural and chemical interconnectedness of our brain / body etc.

So no - we do not all know what consciousness is - or at least we clearly do not all share the same understanding of what it is.

[ronan]

Sarkus, I ask you to look at your self then, you ll see what I mean.

"consciousness exists" is self evident.
Don't you agree?
Are you not conscious?

then if you look at yourself, you ll realizes that you are perception and that consciousness cannot be a perceptions because each time you think you perceive it there is still consciousness that perceive. thus it can only be one and unchanging, only perceptions change. remember time is a perception

[JDawg]

No, JDawg, I was not raised to believe this. I used to be just like you: "...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: because they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned." But if I tell you that there are things that you can not understand you will scoff and tell me to "wake up", not realizing that I have in fact long since been awakened.

You said it plainly right there: There are things you can not understand.

Because there are things you can not understand, the human being refuses to let it lay. It must have an answer. So it invents a God. It is so incredibly simple!

If you only knew that there were people thousands of years ago saying the same thing you, but talking about different gods, you would slap yourself in the mug for thinking that your god is anything more than simply the most recent.

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, I ask you to look at your self then, you ll see what I mean.

"consciousness exists" is self evident.
Don't you agree?
Are you not conscious?Exists as what, though??
As an entity? As a state of operation?
You still haven't said what you think it is - other than the woolly "container for our perceptions". That says nothing at all.

To me consciousness is a "state of being".
The same way a computer can be described as "on" or "off" - so matter can be described as "conscious" or not.

That state of being (in humans) is brought about through the vastly complex self-referential neuro- / chemical- interactions within our brain. Or so science currently holds (no evidence to contrary).

Damage those interactions sufficiently and the subject loses consciousness - the state of being has changed.

So does a "state" actually "exist"?
Does "on" exist?

Or do you believe that consciousness is some non-material entity that resides within us all?

then if you look at yourself, you ll realizes that you are perception and that consciousness cannot be a perceptions because each time you think you perceive it there is still consciousness that perceive. thus it can only be one and unchanging, only perceptions change. remember time is a perceptionConsciousness IS perception. It is perception upon perception upon perception.... rolled around our brain through the vastly complex interconnectedness... which gives rise to con