Against Agnosticism - or - God is Provable

[Balerion]

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

 

[Balerion]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.