Against Agnosticism - or - God is Provable

[Sarkus]

Ronan - your entire argument is one of "God = consciousness. Consciousness exists therefore God exists."

if you want to consider consciousness as "God" then feel free - and by definition you would appear to have proven this "God" of yours to exist on the assumption that "consciousness" can be said to exist.

Personally I don't think you have actually done anything "useful" with this equating of God and consciousness... there is no insight added to what you might already understand of consciousness through using the term "God".

And other than spout your ideas of consciousness, you actually haven't given any details of what consciousness actually is, other than a "logical concept".
You also have not indicated in what way consciousness "exists" - other than to claim that it does - and claim through self-evidence as if we all share the same understanding of what it is, which clearly we don't.


So, we return to the basics:
You claim God = consciousness.

So What is consciousness?
How / In what way does consciousness exist?
What does labelling it "God" add to our understanding of it?

Thanks.

 

[Balerion]

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.

But there's no proof.

You're mistaking an idea for a fact. Yes, someone sat down and said "I can't really be sure that all of this isn't just a figment of my imagination..." and while it is quite an interesting thought, there is no way to prove that it is true, and no way to prove that consciousness is anything other than the result of a brain that works. You have no reason to believe that your senses aren't just allowing you access to the real world. You're making the jump from "Neat idea" to "It must be true".

 

[Old man]

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.

What I said was "That is the same as saying, If a traffic signal controls traffic, why does it have to?"

I could argue that control is absolute, and failure to comply will sooner or later bring consequences.

What I was asking is: why does a traffic signal have to (as in must) control traffic? Answer: because it is its nature to do so. A signal can no more decide to cease directing traffic than it can sprout wings.

You said, and I agree, that enforcement is necessary because "people ignore the signals". God operates the same way. The proof of Him (the signal) is plainly seen all around us but men just will not have it. But their failure to believe the evidence of their eyes does not immunize them from the consequences. He signals to all men, but their natures are so corrupted that without His opening their eyes they will never see clearly.

Faith is objective, not subjective, though it appears subjective and therefore optional to many people.