Against Agnosticism - or - God is Provable

[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

 

[Balerion]

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 perception

Consciousness IS perception. It is perception upon perception upon perception.... rolled around our brain through the vastly complex interconnectedness... which gives rise to consciousness.

With no perception there is no consciousness.

A house is not a container for the bricks that make it, but it IS the bricks, and the house arises through the complexity of the patterns those bricks make. If the pattern those bricks form is not right, no house.
But luckily the human brain is one such correct pattern.

 

[ronan]

consciousness is the logical concept necessary for perceptions.
If it is the house composed of the brick, then the brick are all perceptions, not the brain alone. It is your perception, mine, yours, in past , present and future.
else you ll need the unlogical concept of independent soul

 

[Myles]

What perceives consciousness such that we know it exists ? And what perceives that which perceives consciousness ? And what...?

 

[ronan]

What perceives consciousness such that we know it exists ? And what perceives that which perceives consciousness ? And what...?

nothing Myles, that is the point.
we cannot perceive consciousness.

It is a logical concept necessary for perceptions.

no perception without consciousness.

 

[Myles]

nothing Myles, that is the point.
we cannot perceive consciousness.

It is a logical concept necessary for perceptions.

no perception without consciousness.

So how can we know that something that cannot be perceived exists ?

 

[ronan]

So how can we know that something that cannot be perceived exists ?

are you conscious?

 

[gurglingmonkey]

JDawg, is the practice of weighing evidence gathered by our senses based on the assumption of there being a reality out there and our being able to access it through our senses?

 

[Myles]

are you conscious?

In your terms I cannot know whether I am conscious because you argue that consciousness cannot be perceived.

Talk to you again but not too soon.

 

[Balerion]

JDawg, is the practice of weighing evidence gathered by our senses based on the assumption of there being a reality out there and our being able to access it through our senses?

Yes. But when you go deaf, the world did not stop making noise, you simply lost your ability to hear.

 

[ronan]

But JDawg, do you agree that it is an assumption ?

an assumption that you cannot prove to be correct because all evidence would be taken from your perceptions which are at issue here.

Do you agree?

 

[sly1]

JDawg:



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.

if you look at the history GOD is more likely to be another race of beings ie: aliens that created us as a 3rd grade science project slave race experiment or whatever.......that makes more sense to me than a paradoxial omniwhatever being.

An advanced alien race would have seemed very much like GOD or GODS to the ancients im sure.

 

[Balerion]

But JDawg, do you agree that it is an assumption ?

No, not at all. If you're deaf, someone else can tell you when music is playing. Perhaps you can hear the vibration that occurs when someone drops something heavy. There was a noise that came along with that drop, of course, but you're not able to hear it anymore because you're deaf. Other people can, however.

You're getting into this high-minded crap because it's intellectually stimulating. So is the notion of a supreme race of aliens visiting this planet and experimenting on our cattle. Doesn't make it true.

You're the one assuming, not me. I have people who can verify these things exist, that sounds occur, that the things I'm seeing are real, that they feel the same way to me as they do to them. That things are the same color. You're assuming that it's all some illusion, but there is no evidence that it is. You assume it is because it's all we have to go by. But I say if you don't trust what you hear, see, taste, and feel, then you're going to go insane.

 

[audible]

then you're going to go insane.

If he isn't already.

 

[ronan]

No, not at all. If you're deaf, someone else can tell you when music is playing. Perhaps you can hear the vibration that occurs when someone drops something heavy. There was a noise that came along with that drop, of course, but you're not able to hear it anymore because you're deaf. Other people can, however.

You're getting into this high-minded crap because it's intellectually stimulating. So is the notion of a supreme race of aliens visiting this planet and experimenting on our cattle. Doesn't make it true.

You're the one assuming, not me. I have people who can verify these things exist, that sounds occur, that the things I'm seeing are real, that they feel the same way to me as they do to them. That things are the same color. You're assuming that it's all some illusion, but there is no evidence that it is. You assume it is because it's all we have to go by. But I say if you don't trust what you hear, see, taste, and feel, then you're going to go insane.

But still, even in dream you have this things, it does not make it real.

the point is that you have to assume that you are not dreaming and that there is a reality behind your perception different than consciousness.

If you disagree that you make an assumption, then I invite you to read: Descartes failed to justify the existence of a reality behind our perception and nobody after him could.
Do you have a justification ?

No because it is not possible: all your evidence will be based on perception which are at issue.

When you say you verify you verify by induction: It is not enough logical.

 

[gurglingmonkey]

You're the one assuming, not me. I have people who can verify these things exist, that sounds occur, that the things I'm seeing are real, that they feel the same way to me as they do to them. That things are the same color. You're assuming that it's all some illusion, but there is no evidence that it is. You assume it is because it's all we have to go by. But I say if you don't trust what you hear, see, taste, and feel, then you're going to go insane.

The people doing the verifying may be part of the illusion. And it's not that one is assuming that all this is illusory, just pointing out that we have no evidence one way or the other. Sure we have practical reasons for believing that all this is real (we might "go insane" otherwise) but we have practical reasons to believe in God as well (helps get you through the day, helps one to feel less purposelessness and existential despair).

 

[Balerion]

The people doing the verifying may be part of the illusion. And it's not that one is assuming that all this is illusory, just pointing out that we have no evidence one way or the other. Sure we have practical reasons for believing that all this is real (we might "go insane" otherwise) but we have practical reasons to believe in God as well (helps get you through the day, helps one to feel less purposelessness and existential despair).

I guess that's what I'm saying--it's not practical to believe otherwise. This is all you have to go by, so why would you believe otherwise? Can you show me some evidence that would point to this all being an illusion? I mean, what would make you believe that what you see, feel, hear, and taste is anything other than what it is? It's a wonderful thought experiment, but ultimately, like all philosophy, there isn't an answer. So it's basically mental masturbation.

And comparing it to the belief in a god doesn't work. The idea of a god works against all of what we know to be true.

 

[ronan]

I guess that's what I'm saying--it's not practical to believe otherwise. This is all you have to go by, so why would you believe otherwise? Can you show me some evidence that would point to this all being an illusion? I mean, what would make you believe that what you see, feel, hear, and taste is anything other than what it is? It's a wonderful thought experiment, but ultimately, like all philosophy, there isn't an answer. So it's basically mental masturbation.

And comparing it to the belief in a god doesn't work. The idea of a god works against all of what we know to be true.

you miss the point, we are talking of the proof of god.

I am not trying to make you going mad. It is not because the reality is relative to yourself that it becomes not any more solid and inflexible. Your phenomenal reality will still be there.

It just makes you aware that indeed, there are something beyond that: consciousness/god.