Against Agnosticism - or - God is Provable

[Balerion]

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

 

[Balerion]

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?

 

[Balerion]

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 possible

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!"?

 

[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?

 

[Balerion]

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 god

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".

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.

 

[Balerion]

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

 

[Balerion]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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