There are no "LOGICAL holes" or, for that matter, "logical holes" in saying that Purple Unicorns have horns. If the absence of logical contradiction were sufficient warrant for belief, you would end up believing all sorts of silliness.Originally posted by Asguard
i was wondering if there is are any LOGICAL holes in saying that god is the consiouness of the universe, ...
The only problem that I've ever had with this is; what makes the assertion of God necessary?Originally posted by Asguard
i was wondering if there is are any LOGICAL holes in saying that god is the consiouness of the universe, the same way we are the consiouness of the colection of cells that make up US
in this i say that the universe was self created
Well said!Originally posted by Raithere
..., what differentiates the Universe without God from the Universe as God?
The only problem that I've ever had with this is; what makes the assertion of God necessary?
So what?Originally posted by Kython13
Because a universe without God cannot have will.
Some do not believe that consciousness is the sum of chemical reactions. There is little evidence to support the notion. To add. I am yet to see a definition of what God is within this context. Meaning - before we can say the universe = God as 1+1=2 [simply]. We have to define God. What is God to you?Originally posted by Asguard
i was wondering if there is are any LOGICAL holes in saying that god is the consiouness of the universe, the same way we are the consiouness of the colection of cells that make up US
in this i say that the universe was self created
It should be noted that there is little evidence to support the other side as wellOriginally posted by MarcAC
Some do not believe that consciousness is the sum of chemical reactions. There is little evidence to support the notion.
The beautiful, complex and yet orderly physical universe that we live in would have come from something "dumb"
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
So what?
There is little scientific evidence. One problem I have with today's society is that it assumes scientific evidence as the only credible evidence. It assumes science is the only credible way of asserting what reality is. And I see no reason or proof or evidence to warrant that conclusion.Originally posted by Persol
It should be noted that there is little evidence to support the other side as well
Thanks, but what set of attributes and/or protocols allows you to distinguish between the "laws of nature" and the "laws of religion", and to which "religion" are you refering? What, for example, are the "laws of religion" with regards to planetary motion?Originally posted by Kython13
There is a difference. Will versus no will. Laws of nature versus laws of religion.
You need only supply a viable alternative for testing.Originally posted by MarcAC
There is little scientific evidence. One problem I have with today's society is that it assumes scientific evidence as the only credible evidence. It assumes science is the only credible way of asserting what reality is. And I see no reason or proof or evidence to warrant that conclusion.
Originally posted by MarcAC
There is little scientific evidence. One problem I have with today's society is that it assumes scientific evidence as the only credible evidence. It assumes science is the only credible way of asserting what reality is. And I see no reason or proof or evidence to warrant that conclusion.
This is dependant upon what consciousness is. If there is no God, then consciousness evolved through natural processes. As there is no evidence to the contrary, I still do not see the necessity. You seem to be building upon the presumption that consciousness is categorically different from 'nature'.Originally posted by Kython13
Because a universe without God cannot have will. It cannot have consciousness and so merely exists as a state of being.
Can you please explain what it is you mean here?A universe as God has will and thus the laws of religion become the laws of nature that have, as of yet, been unproven by physical science.
God evolves?If the universe is God, then as God/the universe created more of the universe, it G/U (God/Universe) logically grew. As G/U grows so to would G/U's "brainpower"(for lack of a better term) grow larger (assumption that larger/more advanced structure would lead to larger "brainpower"). This could expalin why through creationism theory, which would be inherently true in the G/U theory progressed to more and more complex stages. Starting with simple matter (heavens[hydrogen/stars]) to more complex matter (earth[other elements]) then to compounds (water) then to simple living beings (plants) then to simple minds (animals) to more complex minds (man).
If God is the Universe the two are inseparable... the laws would be the manifestation of it's will. So is it simply that the concept of God as the Universe simply an inherently willful Universe? How would we perceive a manifestation of this? How would we be able to differentiate it from an unwilled Universe? What would this say about our perceived free will being as we are simply parts of this greater being?So,raithere asked what the difference is. There is a difference. Will versus no will. Laws of nature versus laws of religion.
Actually, the evidence we have supports the theory that consciousness is the result of natural reactions within the physical brain. Now, indeed, we have not been able to conclude exactly how consciousness occurs, but this does not mean that it does not originate in the brain.Originally posted by MarcAC
Some do not believe that consciousness is the sum of chemical reactions. There is little evidence to support the notion.
What alternative do you propose?There is little scientific evidence. One problem I have with today's society is that it assumes scientific evidence as the only credible evidence. It assumes science is the only credible way of asserting what reality is. And I see no reason or proof or evidence to warrant that conclusion.