god = the universe

[Tiassa]

Consciousness?

Does it have to be conscious?

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Canute]

Re: Re: god = the universe?

Originally posted by Raithere
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.

So upon what do you base your assertion that it is not? How do you explain that physical processes that affect the brain also affect consciousness if it originates supernaturally?

What alternative do you propose?

~Raithere

Actually the evidence does not support this dualist view. Neither yet does it contradict it. Professional scientists and philosophers are split on this issue.

It always seems a bit premature to me when it is assumed that matter is pre-existent to consciousness when we don't have any idea how either of them come into being. We may talk about '11-dimensional superstrings' or 'quantum fluctuations in the void'. However when these ideas are analysed they are no more of an explanation of anything than God, for why and how do these things exist?

 

[Asguard]

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?

i agree, i just take the other view that it is

do our cells belive in US as there universe?

are they awear of the patten we make with them?

if you look at a SINGLE cell can you tell we are conciouse?

 

[Asguard]

MarcAC

i really dont know how to answer that, have you read ramond fists books cause thats the closest i have ever seen to what i belive

for starters god is a baby who is learning so he can make mesakes (like the human race)

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Gee, Pantheism and Pixies just feel right to me.

Originally posted by Asguard
i agree, i just take the other view that it is

"Just"? Do you have any evidence for this, or are you simply picking your favorite fairy-tale?

 

[Raithere]

Re: Consciousness?

Originally posted by CyberLogic
Conscious- Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence,sensations, and thoughts

Two things here; 1) The Dictionary is rather circular in definition, awareness often implies consciousness depending upon the definition you use. 2) Is awareness the only attribute or just one. After all, we can build machines that are 'aware' in some sense of both their own condition and external conditions. Single celled organisms can also be considered aware. Good question though.

Originally posted by Canute
Actually the evidence does not support this dualist view. Neither yet does it contradict it. Professional scientists and philosophers are split on this issue.

I don't take a dualist view I think there are some grey areas to explore. Yet the evidence we do have does suggest a materialist view. Research into brain function has yet to demonstrate anything that is not physical in nature which leads to something of a conundrum for an immaterial stance; if the seat of consciousness is immaterial in nature then why and how do physical changes affect consciousness?

It always seems a bit premature to me when it is assumed that matter is pre-existent to consciousness when we don't have any idea how either of them come into being.

Matter is evident, even if we can't quite explain how and what consciousness is, though I agree that a hard-line stance does indeed seem a bit premature. I have more problems with the assertion of the immaterial, for which there is no evidence.

We may talk about '11-dimensional superstrings' or 'quantum fluctuations in the void'. However when these ideas are analysed they are no more of an explanation of anything than God, for why and how do these things exist?

They are better explanations though; they are derived from and are thus compatible with that which we can observe. The God hypothesis simply pops in out of nowhere and tells us nothing. "And then a miracle occurred." doesn't really explain anything.

Originally posted by tiassa
Does it have to be conscious?

and

Originally posted by Asguard
i agree, i just take the other view that it is

At a very basic level, I think you can argue towards the Universe being conscious. After all, we are a part of the Universe so, at the very least, the Universe is conscious through us. The question is whether or not there is some over-riding will.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

Consciousness of What?

Originally posted by Raithere
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.

So upon what do you base your assertion that it is not? How do you explain that physical processes that affect the brain also affect consciousness if it originates supernaturally?

Yes the evidence is there Raithere, but it cannot elliminate the possibility that consciousness arises due to the interaction of a spiritual being with the brain. And we have to simply take an 'agnostic' stance for now, as both scenarios are equally likely, unless, of course, you are a devout religious person - like an atheist.

BTW Raithere, I stated no such assertion. In fact, as a Christian, I believe consciousness [of our 'world' of 4 dimensions], originates in the brain. Where else would it come from? Our brain interprets everything in our percieved physical world right??? Consciousness of those worlds beyond the physical originate from the spirit of God. whihc communicates to the brain. I beleive it is an integral process, which is beyond current scientific explanations.

What alternative do you propose?

Feeling, experience? 'A warm feeling in your tummy?'? Better yet, the Spirit of God.

Research into brain function has yet to demonstrate anything that is not physical in nature which leads to something of a conundrum for an immaterial stance; if the seat of consciousness is immaterial in nature then why and how do physical changes affect consciousness?

Another way of saying this is that research into brain function is limited to phenomenon which are physical in nature. Here we have to consider Plato's Republic and the guys in the cave.

They are better explanations though; they are derived from and are thus compatible with that which we can observe. The God hypothesis simply pops in out of nowhere and tells us nothing. "And then a miracle occurred." doesn't really explain anything.

Raithere, I am disappointed, here is see a bias. Even if you treat God as a hypothesis it/He still arises from that which we can observe. How else would you explain how the concept of God arose? Or are you suggesting God didn't arise from human thinking?

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Asguard
for starters god is a baby who is learning so he can make mesakes (like the human race)

On what grounds do you make the assertion (yuck... hate how that sounds). Why do you believe that?

 

[MarcAC]

Consequences of Atheism

Originally posted be Consequent Atheist
You need only supply a viable alternative for testing.

And here you refer to testing via the method for which it is supposed to be a 'viable alternative', right?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by MarcAC
And here you refer to testing via the method for which it is supposed to be a 'viable alternative', right?

You wrote: "One problem I have with today's society is that it assumes scientific evidence as the only credible evidence." What is an example of your non-scientific evidence, and by what method is its 'credibility' to be verified?

Parenthetically, 'playing' with my username is a rather childish and ineffective form of apologetics.

 

[Canute]

Raithere - I agree that 'God' is a poor explanation but only because God is usually so poorly defined, not because it is actually a less reasonable explanation. It may become a poor explanation as others become better understood, but at the moment all the physicalist explanations are equally odd. By 'God' I would mean intentional consciousness.

ConsequentAtheist said to MarcAC "You wrote: "One problem I have with today's society is that it assumes scientific evidence as the only credible evidence." What is an example of your non-scientific evidence, and by what method is its 'credibility' to be verified?" Also "Parenthetically, 'playing' with my username is a rather childish and ineffective form of apologetics."

Scientific these days means third-person objective. Thus the subjective is ignored or explained away with mumbo-jumbo words like 'epiphenominal' (which means does not exist). Thus mush of the evidence is ignored. Science does not have to be done like this but it usually is. It's probably relevant that 'credibility' is a subjective property of the evidence imposed on it by consciousness, not an intrinsic property of the evidence.

I don't think MarcAC meant to be rude. He is right to say that to be a hard line atheist is no more defensible as a position than to be a hard line anything else, unless you have some proof. (Interestingly recent research turned up that over 40% of US scientists pray to God in their time off).

I think you are a dualist Raithere in that you argue that the opposite of matter is nothing. This creates the logical problem of explaining how the cosmos can be ultimately one thing, as is usually supposed, since if something and nothing do not reduce to some underlying unity then the cosmos is dualistic all the way down. (I may not have said that very clearly but I'll risk it).

When you say "I have more problems with the assertion of the immaterial, for which there is no evidence" I feel that you forget that the evidence increasingly suggests that matter is ultimately immaterial.

 

[Raithere]

Re: Consciousness of What?

Originally posted by MarcAC
Yes the evidence is there Raithere, but it cannot elliminate the possibility that consciousness arises due to the interaction of a spiritual being with the brain. And we have to simply take an 'agnostic' stance for now, as both scenarios are equally likely, unless, of course, you are a devout religious person - like an atheist.

Except that the only reason to even consider the possibility of a 'spiritual' being is the unfounded claim that a spiritual realm exists. The only 'evidence' of this is anecdotal testimony, which is highly questionable, and hearsay.

Consciousness of those worlds beyond the physical originate from the spirit of God. whihc communicates to the brain. I beleive it is an integral process, which is beyond current scientific explanations.

The question was directed at MarcAC, but this still does not explain how or why the physical has such an effect on consciousness. If consciousness was seated within a 'spiritual' dimension why would a physical condition, such as damage caused by a blow to the head, disrupt ones consciousness? One might expect to be, perhaps, temporarily 'blinded' to the physical world but why would consciousness itself be altered?

Feeling, experience? 'A warm feeling in your tummy?'? Better yet, the Spirit of God.

You mean the warm feeling in your tummy. I get no warm feelings that suggest to me that God may be real. And it's not for a lack of belief; I was religious for the majority of my life.

Another way of saying this is that research into brain function is limited to phenomenon which are physical in nature. Here we have to consider Plato's Republic and the guys in the cave.

Note, however, the causal relationship in the analogy. Even if the source of the shadows is not directly apparent, examination would reveal its existence... the shadows cannot be otherwise explained.

Raithere, I am disappointed, here is see a bias. Even if you treat God as a hypothesis it/He still arises from that which we can observe. How else would you explain how the concept of God arose? Or are you suggesting God didn't arise from human thinking?

Man is capable of imagining all sorts of fantasies and has a rather strong proclivity towards explaining away the unknown through these imaginings. What then do we use to distinguish one fantasy from the next? One needs also note that there is a very long history of such popular imaginings which, one by one, have fallen in the face of the evidence. Even in science, where these fantasies are based upon facts, more are disproved than are proved.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
Raithere - I agree that 'God' is a poor explanation but only because God is usually so poorly defined, not because it is actually a less reasonable explanation.

The reason I find it a poor explanation is that it doesn't really explain anything. Stating that something is caused by God doesn't tell us anything about what it is or how it works. Yet even if something is caused by God there are two possibilities, either: 1) Despite its source the nature of the phenomena will reveal itself through analysis. Or 2) it will remain forever mysterious and unknown. The way I figure it, it behooves us to keep searching and analyzing, either way the answer will become obvious.

Scientific these days means third-person objective. Thus the subjective is ignored or explained away with mumbo-jumbo words like 'epiphenominal' (which means does not exist).

Well no; epiphenomenon means a secondary result but I'd like to see an example of what you're referring to.

Thus mush of the evidence is ignored. Science does not have to be done like this but it usually is. It's probably relevant that 'credibility' is a subjective property of the evidence imposed on it by consciousness, not an intrinsic property of the evidence.

Science has no problem with the subjective, it has a problem with that which is not reproducible or measurable. The science of Optics is a good example. Results of an experiment can vary enormously depending upon subjective parameters yet those results are reproducible and measurable.

I think you are a dualist Raithere in that you argue that the opposite of matter is nothing. This creates the logical problem of explaining how the cosmos can be ultimately one thing, as is usually supposed, since if something and nothing do not reduce to some underlying unity then the cosmos is dualistic all the way down.

Actually, it seems that matter is largely misconceived; it is an effect of underlying forces rather than a property of objects. Our common sense notion of nothing also appears to be incorrect; nothingness appears to be filled with energy and potential for existence.

When you say "I have more problems with the assertion of the immaterial, for which there is no evidence" I feel that you forget that the evidence increasingly suggests that matter is ultimately immaterial.

I agree; this was a poor choice of words on my part. Sorry if my choice of words mislead you. I suppose 'supernatural' would have been a better choice but then what is the supernatural? Non-existant, unreal, hyper-reality, undetectable force? What word(s) can we use to define it? Do you see the problem here? If something has an effect on existence it is measurable... so how can it be beyond science? God should be apparent.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere ...

Hate to butt in, Raithere, so I'll be quick.

Recalling when we discussed the "core", "accretions", and Sufism ...

The reason I find it a poor explanation is that it doesn't really explain anything.

That's a clean shot right through the soul of the issue. It's not supposed to explain anything. Remember--the rest is the balance of religion.

At which point, I should stop else this post should go in a different topic, like the one about religion being good or bad.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Asguard]

"Just"? Do you have any evidence for this, or are you simply picking your favorite fairy-tale?

wheres the evidance its not true?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Originally posted by Asguard
wheres the evidance its not true?

Where's the evidence against the Daoine Sidhe, against the Purple Unicorn, against any number of fantasies? The question is not whether there is evidence against Pantheism or Panentheism, but whether or not the is any evidence warranting a belief in such things.

Or, as previously suggested, you could dispense with critical thinking all together and simply pick your favorite fairy-tale.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
The reason I find it a poor explanation is that it doesn't really explain anything. Stating that something is caused by God doesn't tell us anything about what it is or how it works. Yet even if something is caused by God there are two possibilities, either: 1) Despite its source the nature of the phenomena will reveal itself through analysis. Or 2) it will remain forever mysterious and unknown. The way I figure it, it behooves us to keep searching and analyzing, either way the answer will become obvious.

Well no; epiphenomenon means a secondary result but I'd like to see an example of what you're referring to."
______________


I agree that by most definitions 'God' explains little. However this does not mean it's impossible to have a hypothesis which some people would accept as 'God' and which others would accept as being a scientific hypothesis. A sort of dual aspect explanation. This seems likely to me, energy fluctuations in the void being a reasonable candidate and superstring theory being another.

Epiphenomenon are defined as having no causal powers and as existing beyond the realm of the physical. To me it's a polite way of avoiding the illogicality of saying that consciousness is non-existent.

___________

Quote - "Science has no problem with the subjective, it has a problem with that which is not reproducible or measurable. The science of Optics is a good example. Results of an experiment can vary enormously depending upon subjective parameters yet those results are reproducible and measurable."
____________

I feel that your first sentence here is self-contradictory.

________________
Quote - "Actually, it seems that matter is largely misconceived; it is an effect of underlying forces rather than a property of objects. Our common sense notion of nothing also appears to be incorrect; nothingness appears to be filled with energy and potential for existence."
_______________

I accept this. It is consistent with the idea of an all encompassing consciousness that is equivalent to nothingness in fact. (And it follows that, as many say, we are created out of nothing).

______________
"I agree; this was a poor choice of words on my part. Sorry if my choice of words mislead you. I suppose 'supernatural' would have been a better choice but then what is the supernatural? Non-existant, unreal, hyper-reality, undetectable force? What word(s) can we use to define it? Do you see the problem here? If something has an effect on existence it is measurable... so how can it be beyond science? God should be apparent."
________________

I agree that the supernatural does not exist, but maybe for different reasons. Things exist, in which case they are natural, or not. Logically it is not necessary for something to be measurable in order to have an effect on existence, it is just necessary for it to be experience-able. I don't feel that anything (except the experience-able) is beyond science. But a lot is beyond science in its current mainstream form, its currently unproven physicalist paradigm.

I can only agree that the mechanism by which consciousness affects matter is difficult to imagine. However it is easier if one accepts that matter is itself (in the final analysis) immaterial.

(Sorry this is all in bold - I can't seem to change it)

 

[MarcAC]

Not to swamp you...

Originally posted by Raithere
Except that the only reason to even consider the possibility of a 'spiritual' being is the unfounded claim that a spiritual realm exists. The only 'evidence' of this is anecdotal testimony, which is highly questionable, and hearsay.

As far as I’m concerned everything is highly questionable and this entire website runs mostly on hearsay. Does that mean most things on the site aren’t true? But how do you determine that these claims are unfounded? Why do you place evidence in quotations?

The question was directed at MarcAC, but this still does not explain how or why the physical has such an effect on consciousness. If consciousness was seated within a 'spiritual' dimension why would a physical condition, such as damage caused by a blow to the head, disrupt ones consciousness? One might expect to be, perhaps, temporarily 'blinded' to the physical world but why would consciousness itself be altered?

Actually, Raithere, I stated my opinion that consciousness of our physical four dimensions can be basically explained away by physical brain function, and my opinion that it is an integral process. Here, we meet the unavoidable consequence of the discourse; what is the nature of consciousness? Does consciousness only constitute the consciousness of our physical world? I don’t believe so. Damage, caused by a blow to the head can put you in a coma, the question is why do some people in a coma hear people speaking to them, though they cannot return the communication? I would think they are still self aware. Somewhat like an autistic person - he just can’t communicate conventionally with other people.

You mean the warm feeling in your tummy. I get no warm feelings that suggest to me that God may be real. And it's not for a lack of belief; I was religious for the majority of my life.

Belief comes with faith. You removed your faith from religion and placed it in science?... or yourself?... or nothing? The problem I have with this is that you might as well be a star floating around in the near vacuum of space. What would be the point of it all??? I can never take that stance. I have a much stronger faith in God the Trinity, YHWH [I am], is, was, will be than anything else, I am assured that nothing changes with Him. As you obviously know, scientific truth is tentative, I delve into science, but history has proven that science is somewhat an approximation to the truth, right now it could be off by a factor of 1.5, 10, or 10,000,000,000,000. Somewhat like the function y=1/x, it will never get to the truth. My knowledge, through faith in God is all the y and x I need - it has no limits.

Note, however, the causal relationship in the analogy. Even if the source of the shadows is not directly apparent, examination would reveal its existence... the shadows cannot be otherwise explained.

My advice? Re-examine your spiritual side. Like a neutrino, you might not see it, but it just might be there.

The reason I find it a poor explanation is that it doesn't really explain anything. Stating that something is caused by God doesn't tell us anything about what it is or how it works.

Science explains how, God explains why.

If something has an effect on existence it is measurable... so how can it be beyond science?

The question is do we have the tools to measure it with? And if we do, are we utilizing them? Galaxies weren’t apparent until the invention of the telescope.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Consequent Atheist
What is an example of your non-scientific evidence,...

Direct personal experience.

... and by what method is its 'credibility' to be verified?

Why is credibility in quotes? Verified by the Spirit of God. Here, again, I see the social influences. It starts when you are young, with peer pressure; if the crowd doesn't accept you, well - you must be doing something wrong. History has suggested the opposite; re: Jesus, Copernicus, Galileo, even Plato whom we've all grown to know and love... oh... can't exclude Bush: but it is all arguable. My question still stands, albeit a nuance; What method would you use to test any evidence excluding the scientific method? Do you know that 'if' angels existed and you tapped into your spiritual being and saw one [assuming such a thing exists], scientific analysis would almost certainly discredit it with some neural explanation and you - and everyone else around you - would think that you are one craaaazy futhermocker?

Parenthetically, 'playing' with my username is a rather childish and ineffective form of apologetics.

It's good to be young at heart, trust me. Please don't mind my 'childish' creativity in punning you like that. I was trying to convey my opinion without typing too much. But, let me expound; atheists are inclined to thinking that if something doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny it's crap [crap in my opinion], that's why I asked you that question, nothing personal. As a side note - the scientific and the Christian are mutually exclusive - science will never disprove Christianity. I enjoy the benefits of traversing both paths though.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by MarcAC
atheists are inclined to thinking that if something doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny it's crap [crap in my opinion], ...

I don't. I love Renoir's On the Terrace, Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, and playing with my grandkids - actually, two of them are still in daipers, so the is a certain amout of "crap" involved there.

Originally posted by MarcAC
As a side note - the scientific and the Christian are mutually exclusive - science will never disprove Christianity.

I totally agree! Nor will it make significant inroads into Hinduism, Jainism, or playful references to the Daoine Sidhe.

Of course, that doesn't make your particular fairy-tail any more substantive than its theistic neighbors.