It's a long explanation, probably even longer than one of your long poems.
I suggest you look into it, and try to learn something instead of spouting pop-science, which was born yesterday.
jan.
"Atheist proves god does exist"
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
It's a long explanation, probably even longer than one of your long poems.
I suggest you look into it, and try to learn something instead of spouting pop-science, which was born yesterday.
jan.
Already did, long ago. I see that you are still employing your methods of avoidance. That's fine, but these posts go way beyond just the readership of you.
Method or anti-method. Surely avoidance moves any debate backwards?
Though I suppose a method need not be successful lol.
It shows to all that the poster doesn't have any specifics, that they try to cover up with some broad generality of brush-stroking. It may fool people in life, but not here.
As non specific as saying I believe in God.
This must be relevant to your cause?
Everything that has ever been proved to exist has been found to be physical. So to prove god exists (subject of OP) requires his physicality being ascertained (proclivity of OP). Your god is physical so if he is proved to exist it will require physical evidence unless you are willing to admit he might not exist. I do not think you are willing to admit that because it destroys your stance despite the fact it may be quite close to the truth?
You have to remember this is a scientific context.
I think you will agree with me when I say that consciousness is physical. Does your 'physical' god possess consciousness? If yes then his consciousness is physical too?
Are we not agreeing then that consciousness is physical?
Any element of consciousness that has been proved to exist leaves findable evidence of its action in the brain. Brainscans reveal all. We may still be learning how to interpret them, but we are doing so at an exponential rate due to new methods of testing and evidence (from fMRI) assessment using computers.
If your god is reality, the universe, and he is conscious, it follows that his conscious interaction with the universe would leave tell tale signs? If we ever discover these signs it will be through a physical scientific approach?
Why were you trying to move this argument in a direction that is at odds with your core belief? Were you confused? or making up as you went along for the arguments sake. Is that a way of honouring your belief? Why say physical, then say 'beyond' physical?
You have already made your beliefs apparent so what does my take of consciousness have to do with anything?
Concisely, consciousness (for me) is:
1, a simulation of the outside world created by the mind's interpretation of input supplied to it by the senses coupled with;
2, the (physical) raw processing power of the mind combined with its ability to memorise information through arrangements of more complex than computer-type switches: an ability to selectively hard-write all the input it receives in such a way that benefits the fitness of an individual in the world.
All aspects of consciousness being embedded within the physical function of the brain. As I said, all aspects of consciousness that have been proved to exist are able to be monitored in the brain.
I think people think there is something more there because they are not consciously in control of all of the brain's functions. But that doesn't mean that the brain doesn't control itself automatically. All evidence reveals the fact that areas of the brain affect other areas of the brain and their function. I read New Scientist quite regularly and the progress in this field, at the cutting edge of our understanding of the brain, all points to the fact all proven elements of consciousness are a resource of the brain. Even religiosity is a scanable phenomenon of the brain's (physical) matter.
Does that help?
universaldistress,
It's relevant to my argument.
Because we percieve everything to be physical, does not follow that physical reality is all there is.
My conception of God is that He is not physical.
And science can illuminate the physical reality which is regarded as
as aspect of God's energies. But science can no more realise the entirety
of the Supreme Being, anymore than it can say; here are the physical properties of the consciousness, independant of the physical medium it pervades.
Methinks so.
I'm sure you'll agree that that does not explain what consciousness is
in terms of waves, particles, or chemicals.
I would say that the universe, and our ability to observe it, is a good indication of a supreme consciousness.
I at no time said consciousness was physical.
Because you keep asserting that consciousness is physical.
That is a symptom of consciousness.
What is actual consciousness?
Again you are describing symptoms, not the actual physical thing itself.
I think I understand how you're looking at this.
Our contentions are fundamental.
I see consciousness as the all pervading entity that animates this body, including the brain, and mind.
You see the body as the energetic principle that produces consciousness.
The same applies for both of us, with the universal body.
As such there is not much we can do to change each others minds.
jan.
It's relevant to my argument.
Because we percieve everything to be physical, does not follow that physical reality is all there is.
My conception of God is that He is not physical.
And science can illuminate the physical reality which is regarded as
as aspect of God's energies. But science can no more realise the entirety
of the Supreme Being, anymore than it can say; here are the physical properties of the consciousness, independant of the physical medium it pervades.
Methinks so.
I'm sure you'll agree that that does not explain what consciousness is
in terms of waves, particles, or chemicals.
I would say that the universe, and our ability to observe it, is a good indication of a supreme consciousness.
I at no time said consciousness was physical.
Because you keep asserting that consciousness is physical.
That is a symptom of consciousness.
What is actual consciousness?
Again you are describing symptoms, not the actual physical thing itself.
I think I understand how you're looking at this.
Our contentions are fundamental.
I see consciousness as the all pervading entity that animates this body, including the brain, and mind.
You see the body as the energetic principle that produces consciousness.
The same applies for both of us, with the universal body.
As such there is not much we can do to change each others minds.
jan.
And, yet, it is not what one 'says' ('sees'), but what is known, such as consciousness comes last, not first, and can be prevented by anesthesia, not to mention that the senses do indeed take in something.
We are created by conscious agencies, we (body and mind) develop because we are conscious. The only time consciousness is not present is when the body is pronounced dead.
jan.
This kind of mere pronouncement goes nowhere since it not only doesn't show how, but also goes against what is known that I posted about consciousness.
And, and after you explain, what or who are these conscious agencies forming our matter?
How come you want this Consciousness idea to be so?
Ok Jan, an agree to disagree consensus seems affable. I could make a couple more points but I think your belief seems quite rigid, and I respect that.
Not to belittle it, or argue over its relevance, and purely out of curiosity, it would be great to hear more about your belief, in fact any of the beliefs of the theists who frequent these pages.
Maybe we should have a belief free-for-all thread where believers can air there personal truths, a stipulation in the OP stating it to be a purely exploratory exercise without beliefs having to be justified as such, but just questions on their structure? Would that be doable without it being derailed? I think the forum rules would protect such a thread if it was set out properly, all participants by participating being bound to follow the stipulations laid out in the OP? Just a thought anyway.
Not to belittle it, or argue over its relevance, and purely out of curiosity, it would be great to hear more about your belief, in fact any of the beliefs of the theists who frequent these pages.
Maybe we should have a belief free-for-all thread where believers can air there personal truths, a stipulation in the OP stating it to be a purely exploratory exercise without beliefs having to be justified as such, but just questions on their structure? Would that be doable without it being derailed? I think the forum rules would protect such a thread if it was set out properly, all participants by participating being bound to follow the stipulations laid out in the OP? Just a thought anyway.
We have to start from somewhere.
The conscious agencies are our parents, their parents, and so on.
jan.
So (in your belief) consciousness is created and then it is destroyed? Or does it perpetuate within a universal pool?
Isn't consciousness where the actual experiences of life are witnessed?
As opposed to consciousness creating intricate brains just for show?
Do these created brains, whether real of just for show, then go on to have their own consciousness?
Or are we dreams of Brahman that still somehow have our own selves?
Or?
I think someone has just latched onto a word, not realizing what it means and is, which is a brain process.
…Is the witnessing of what has come to mind from the brain's analysis.
What is the basis for claiming otherwise?
All of the questions posted.
And this question, too.