Again, I was simply debating about the typical omni-God. Nothing further, for the sake of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
~
Printable View
Again, I was simply debating about the typical omni-God. Nothing further, for the sake of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
~
I think you sometimes do an extremely poor job of explaining yourself in your O.P. The only other option is that you are intentionally misleading in order to spark debate over something that really doesn't need to be debated. There are very few people who would think that a god and a man have the same sort of consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Is it not the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
~
Omni-God - Did you make up the term?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Obviously not. There is the quintessential referenced God as being omni-powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Because that is how "God's" conscience is referenced.Quote:
How?
~
Omni-potent, Omni-scient, Omni-present are the qualities. Obviously not of linear, localizable or measurable dimension.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I've never heard of any "Omni-God"; that's not really a necessary term. Though, I have of the Perennial Philosophy, Advaita/Non-duality and Monotheism, if they hold any connection.
That's not the answer to how "...the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?" What is the incarnate "theory of theology?" Can you be more elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The term was coined by St. Augustine who is typically heralded as a significant Christian philosopher. Hence, I regard it as a profoundly necessary term as it encompasses the representation of most mono-theistic Gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I am not generalizing to all Gods, simply the omni-God.
I mean incarnational as in the quintessence or general norm of the religious reference to God. Realize my difficulty in encompassing a vague term that is used very loosely and subjectively throughout the thousands of years. Incarnationally, the omni-God has similar or parallel consciousness as humans.Quote:
That's not the answer to how "...the incarnational theory of theology that God has the same consciousness as man..?" What is the incarnate "theory of theology?" Can you be more elaborate?
~
No. Where did you get this idea? Incarnational theology in christianity would be the study of how god came to be Jesus Christ, although the bible makes it clear that god incarnate as Jesus does not have the same consciousness as god the father (as exemplified by his time spent in the wilderness, questioning god).Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Incarnational theory, as far as I can gather, is a new age type of idea that seeks to study how the 'spiritual world' becomes part of the physical one.
A brief description I found on a new agey website;
"Incarnational theory is the study of the processes of intentionality, spirit and energy that create incarnation. Specifically these are the processes by which the soul of an individual manifests and engages with the physical world, but more generally it is about the means by which any idea or consciousness takes on form and expression within a particular environment."
(New agey website)
Maybe interpretted loosely, incarnational theory could be taken to mean that our consciousness is somehow a part of god's consciousness and that god is manifest through us and other things around us, but this still wouldn't put an individual consciousness on the same level as the whole of god.
Ah ok, I see. Thanks for pointing that out! :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I'm not really understanding what you mean. I guess Xaqaria has responded to your point, resolving the confusion between the nature of God and man's consciousnesses. The Self is one with God, but that is far beyond consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Word of warning: If your argument only applies to the "typical-omni God", which by my understanding refers to what most people believe to be the characteristics of God(please correct me if I'm wrong in this), my questions/ideas don't exactly apply.
Only a few questions:
1. Isn't it possible that all that is required is communication of the brain to the body? I mean: if a man could be born and then raised without any human interaction whatsoever, his brain would express to his body hunger, need for sleep, etc. and it is likely that he would either react to these urges or else die (like the instinct we see in other animals). Is it really necessary that his feelings/needs are communicated to another being? Because I don't see how it is necessary to their being met, beyond the fact that to communicate them to a more adept being makes them easier to achieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Or is the expression of needs to oneself the communication you're speaking of?
also,
2. Is it possible that God could have the consciousness of its own self being alive, but yet not be conscious of the fact that he is in fact God to others? To be conscious of the self and being alive is one thing, but couldn't the consciousness of being in control of an entire universe require an entirely new set of perceptions? I mean: if you were to consider human or plant cells as a self-contained universe, they are in fact responsible for the whole of the host organism, and yet they are only concerned with the goings-on that occur within their own cell-walls. I know cells don't have actual brains, and so to some minds no concsiousness, but it is true that their only priority is to survive; just like the other trillions of cells in that organism, and in fact the whole organism itself. (To apply the same logic to the planet, humans, or even God, that we do to cells is a result of my own particular mindset, I realize.)
But I only ask because quite often I get the idea that the only way God could effectively and objectively control the universe is if it only applies it's personal, finite rationale--in all cases--to an infinite set of events (sometimes even without realizing they are doing so). Much in the same way humans apply their personal mindset to everything, without realizing that it may be sometimes yield contradictory in some cases. Or the way plants react on a finite set of "instincts" that dictate which path is the one toward infinite growth, even if that means absorbing acid rain or growing in places that will inevitably lead to their being cut down.
Any thoughts/reactions?
This isn't exactly an argument, merely questions and ideas...ideas of my own that I don't wholly accept as being absolute; just questions that help me evolve my ideas. I'm not as advanced in this line of thought as the others in this thread are, so you can ignore my questions as being silly. But I'm just curious as to how your ideas relate to my own.
Maybe I'm just to influenced by my own middle-school reaction to "The Lifes Of A Cell", or the end of Men In Black where the galaxy is contained within a marble around the cat's neck.
But heck, in philosophy there is room for dreamers, and people who question...isn't there?]
P.S. - I, for one, would be very interested in a thread dealing with "Can something be created out of nothing?"
:dreaming:
After reading your post, I must say that I am impressed with your approach to discussion. You seem like a rather well versed and open individual. I hope to see all the more from you on the boards. Now for your questions..Quote:
Originally Posted by acatalephobic
You make the good point about feral children. Although humans can survive on their own just fine without needing to communicate to others, I speak of a much grander scale. As Thomas Hobbes said in the Leviathan, in the state of nature, even the week can survive and beat out the strong by teaming up and forming groups. Humans do this but on a much grander scale. Just like the prairie dogs chirp to one another to warn of danger, humans developed a grand language system to from communities and systems of survival. We learned over time the efficiency of telling one another about our feelings and thoughts and this reinforced our survival tenfold to the point of how we are now.Quote:
1. Isn't it possible that all that is required is communication of the brain to the body?
I mean: if a man could be born and then raised without any human interaction whatsoever, his brain would express to his body hunger, need for sleep, etc. and it is likely that he would either react to these urges or else die (like the instinct we see in other animals). Is it really necessary that his feelings/needs are communicated to another being? Because I don't see how it is necessary to their being met, beyond the fact that to communicate them to a more adept being makes them easier to achieve.
Nope.Quote:
Or is the expression of needs to oneself the communication you're speaking of?
That is precisely my point actually! I think you had an intuition of this from the beginning. While this argument is intended to disprove the omni-God, it only does it for that. The concept of an all encompassing consciousness is that which can still survive this argument. However, I argue that that this form of consciousness would not be subject to moral reasoning as ours is because moral reasoning is the crux of our consciousness and subject to many other things, etc. etc. This leads to another discussion, obviously.Quote:
2. Is it possible that God could have the consciousness of its own self being alive, but yet not be conscious of the fact that he is in fact God to others? To be conscious of the self and being alive is one thing, but couldn't the consciousness of being in control of an entire universe require an entirely new set of perceptions?
Yes, we can essentially call this the rule of self-preservation. The typical animal and a lot of humans will inevitably be more focused on themselves. However, the humans are inclined to help their fellow communities in order to reinforce their ability to survive as a whole and to maintain the integrity of their youth. Plants do this in their own way, as you say, but they certainly do not need to survive as communities for the most part. The ones that you can find that do (eg. the ones that replenish and pollinate, etc.) do not need to inform others of their own experiences in order to reinforce their sense of community. Plants surviving as a community would be much different than a phenomenological being. An interesting thought, for sure.Quote:
I mean: if you were to consider human or plant cells as a self-contained universe, they are in fact responsible for the whole of the host organism, and yet they are only concerned with the goings-on that occur within their own cell-walls. I know cells don't have actual brains, and so to some minds no concsiousness, but it is true that their only priority is to survive; just like the other trillions of cells in that organism, and in fact the whole organism itself. (To apply the same logic to the planet, humans, or even God, that we do to cells is a result of my own particular mindset, I realize.)
This part really depends on defining God. When you say God applies rationale, we have to explore God's capability and limits (or lack thereof) of rationale. I think I see what you mean though - a sort of top-down processing without realization of the sort.Quote:
But I only ask because quite often I get the idea that the only way God could effectively and objectively control the universe is if it only applies it's personal, finite rationale--in all cases--to an infinite set of events (sometimes even without realizing they are doing so). Much in the same way humans apply their personal mindset to everything, without realizing that it may be sometimes yield contradictory in some cases. Or the way plants react on a finite set of "instincts" that dictate which path is the one toward infinite growth, even if that means absorbing acid rain or growing in places that will inevitably lead to their being cut down.
Any thoughts/reactions?
Addition:
In this respect, you are actually utilizing your consciousness to conceive of how God's consciousness would operate which is a significant flaw for a God of consciousness. A top-down-processing modality insinuates that, at one-time, God was a bottom-up processing and had to "learn" how to use these senses and consciousness. If God is eternal or exists only consciously, then there had to be a beginning of God which is wrong as he ought to have been eternal.
While this is also intriguing, the question of a creator or God still applies to even these situations.Quote:
Maybe I'm just to influenced by my own middle-school reaction to "The Lifes Of A Cell", or the end of Men In Black where the galaxy is contained within a marble around the cat's neck.
A look at this board will significantly reinforce that the answer is most definitely yes! :DQuote:
But heck, in philosophy there is room for dreamers, and people who question...isn't there?]
~
Interesting post, so your point is that a human could as well be God, but just doesn't realize it because of his limited perception? Just like a cell is part of our body and is essentially us because we exist out of nothing but cells, but the cell doesn't realize it is us because of its limited perception? Of course this raises the question, if we were God, where are our magical powers? Then you could counter with the cell-anology again, cells only can reach their full potential if they work together as an organism. Which I think is the deeper meaning behind religion and the purpose of the God concept, to enlighten humanity to realize its infinite potential when combining forces.. Now that I start to think about it.. if all of humanity would work together for the greater good.. God, we would have no limits at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by acatalephobic
I don't think the cell realises anything, or even has the capacity to realise..Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
Yeah of course, it doesn't realize stuff like we realize things. It's not like cells have brains lol. But our brains are made out of nothing but cells. Cells do perceive things and react to them like it wants to or they wouldn't be able to function at all.
I don't think percieve is the right word.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
It doesn't percieve things anymore than one pool ball percieves another when it hits it.
I would of thought "percieve" limited to consciousness.
You can pick whatever word you want, it really doesn't matter, its only an anology.... using images to get thoughts accross instead of words exactly for this purpose of avoiding discussion about "this is not the right word". I don't really care about words, it's the idea that counts.
I don't agree with a pool ball being as intelligent as a human cell... you can't put a billion pool balls together to create a human. You might wanna check wikipedia because I think you underestimate the complexity of a cell. Also, I'd love to see a poolball perform mitosis :D
mitosis etcetera and all the ways in which a cell is more complex than a pool ball have nothing to do with consciousness, and in turn, perceiving..Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
If cells didn't perceive anything, all interaction would be impossible. But then again, it is only an anology, you can pick whatever words you want, I don't understand why you are still arguing about the incorrect use of words and insignificant details.. I think you're missing the point here...
I can't pick whatever words I want.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
I can't pick "squirrel" to mean cell.
Because then you wouldn't understand me.
I could be wrong, but I think maybe by "perceive", Chayba meant the ability to be aware of more complex things than a poolball can...? Like the fact that the cell is in danger of dying, and the ability to react in ways that could prevent it from dying.
Whether or not that is consciousness, I guess depends on how you define it.
I don't know, the whole idea may be looney, but I just think perhaps its possible that entire worlds can be contained within the smallest of things. Whether or not the living components contained within those small spaces have the capacity for consciousness on the level humans do, that's near impossible to know.
I just keep thinking...if our universe, as we try to comprehend it, is infinite...the only way I can picture it is it just goes on forever, unchanged (hard to understand), or it goes on forever because it is divisible in some way. The only way I can explain it is if you were to be some microscopic element of a cell, the universe (our universe) it exists in is infinite, because beyond its own cell is trillions of others making an organism, and organism that lives on a planet, that resides in a galaxy, and so on...
It's just that if you were part of a cell, it would be near impossible to be aware of the universe beyond your cell wall...if you were, the immensely broadened scope of awareness might inferfere with the cell's main purpose, of keeping its own world alive...which brings my back to the idea that a God's awareness of his divinity might interfere with his purpose.
But then again, my perception is quite limited. Like I said, the whole thing is just an idea I've got. More or less a feeling...
I hope I'm not hijacking or redirecting the purpose of this thread...I was just interested.
:oops:
If you would stop placing yourself outside of nature, you would understand what he is trying to say. Your ability to collect data and exert will is no more special than what a cell does, just more complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
This is rather materialistic isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
That's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
I am not sure why this is often associated with a pejorative tone, but I see no reason for it. Materialism is the only empirical and certain thing that can be systematically observed and demonstrated. Along that, one can take the interactionist stance and say that materialism operates with subjectivity in a chaotic fashion.
However, I suspect that everything can be reduced to simple activity.
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
But Mary and her black and white room! >:[
That's a whole other debate including epistemology. Remember, I am including the sense of interactionism with subjectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
Want to make a thread on this one? I'll see if I can dig up a good ol Dan Dennett video on the ordeal.
Basically, the argument will rest on the function of memories of colors rather than subjective learning.
~