Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

On what basis do you form these "God" premises? I mean... you define "God" (on what basis, for what purpose?) and then make statements about that defined entity, yet there is no connection to anything real. Basically you just made up an entity, claimed properties and reasoned from there.

Unless there is some relevance to this in terms of what really exists I fail to see how it is more than an exercise in logical reasoning, arbitrarily defining words and statements to form conclusions.

As in:

(God defined as a banana peel)
P1: God can fly.
P2: God is yellow.
P3: God exists in the real world.
P4: The real world allows no object to fly higher than 30 ft.
C1: God cannot fly higher than 30 ft.

And as for theism, I don't want to sound rude but I think there are already plenty of reasons not to believe in God and I don't see a particular need to come up with more, especially if they involve arguing with a word that denotes an arbitrarily made up concept ("omniscient being").

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see why.

If this reality were a simulated reality created by a very intelligent being, an omnipotent, omniscient, and conscious creator could exist.

I don't believe this, I'm just saying.

This is circular logic though. It is presuming that the God has consciousness in it to make the statement.

My argument is that it cannot be said from the beginning. An omni-God cannot have a form of consciousness because that subjects the God to time and Gods cannot be subject to anything.

Originally Posted by Serkat

On what basis do you form these "God" premises? I mean... you define "God" (on what basis, for what purpose?) and then make statements about that defined entity, yet there is no connection to anything real. Basically you just made up an entity, claimed properties and reasoned from there.

The atypical omni-God. I presumed this was intuitive to readers.

Unless there is some relevance to this in terms of what really exists I fail to see how it is more than an exercise in logical reasoning, arbitrarily defining words and statements to form conclusions.

As in:

(God defined as a banana peel)
P1: God can fly.
P2: God is yellow.
P3: God exists in the real world.
P4: The real world allows no object to fly higher than 30 ft.
C1: God cannot fly higher than 30 ft.

Please do not strawman me. You know what God I referring to - it's intuitive. Don't be dumb.

And as for theism, I don't want to sound rude but I think there are already plenty of reasons not to believe in God and I don't see a particular need to come up with more, especially if they involve arguing with a word that denotes an arbitrarily made up concept ("omniscient being").

Realize that I am arguing against Theism and offering further reason that any God that is omni ought not to have any form of consciousness. A God should not be subject to anything and consciousness denotes subjectivity to linearity and tangibility.

~

This is circular logic though. It is presuming that the God has consciousness in it to make the statement.

Um... not remotely?

It's a counterexample, and unless you can deal with it, your argument has been formally disproved.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Yes. But why would you reason from that basis? What's the point? If some mental patient came up to you and started talking about random concepts he made up that make no sense whatsoever, would you go ahead and write a long-winded essay about why they are logically flawed? I think not.

It is because this is insightful to the thesis I am working on for my degree.

Yes, which is precisely my point... why would you pay a completely made up idea respect by arguing with it? And even so, it isn't exactly breaking news that the concept of God is full of logical flaws and makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of ways in which this is the case, but all of them are just mental masturbation with an idea that has no merit.

You're asking me basically why I am doing this. It is because it will garner me a philosophy degree. It is exercise in analysis and a useful tool to debate with.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think you are confusing consciousness and awareness. Awareness is dependent on change, but consciousness is not.

Please avoid semantics.

They can both be semantically seen as the same thing as they are both housed in the same body (ie. brain). The crux of this point is that consciousness is a function of the brain. Please do not make the leap to say that "awareness" is something intangible and special.

Originally Posted by Xei

Um... not remotely?

It's a counterexample, and unless you can deal with it, your argument has been formally disproved.

If this reality were a simulated reality created by a very intelligent being, an omnipotent, omniscient, and conscious creator could exist.

"If reality was a simulated reality -> omni god creator could exist"

I will be blunt then - this is a stupid argument. There is nothing here. Here are the problems:

- The mention of simulated reality is redundant as we are still discussing a creator even of those that are simulating reality. No matter who is doing the "simulating" there still must be a beginning to things.

- You are saying that even in a simulated reality, or any reality, a being "could" exist. This means nothing, you are not saying anything nor proving anything nor contributing anything. You could also say, "There may be such thing as Santa" but you are not actually saying anything substantial besides the notion of plausibility.

- It is not a counter-example because it has nothing to do with anything that I have said. I am arguing over the foundations of consciousness, time, and the self. Simulated realities are irrelevant. Furthermore, simulated realities are still subject to every issue I mentioned which does not affect my arguments integrity in the slightest.

At best, the point you made is irrelevant. Please review and let me know what you think about the pertinent issue within the thread.

~

It's not hard.

Your argument is that it is impossible for any possible omnipotent, omniscient creator to have consciousness.

If I can give an example of a single possible omnipotent, omniscient, conscious creator, hypothetical or not, as I have, then your argument is wrong.

Either accept that this is the case or redefine your terms.

I agree with your definition of God as an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and I also agree that consciousness cannot exist without time, but you do not explain how timelessness follows from your two God criteria.

I should also ask you to tell us what you mean by 'kinetic energy' or 'static energy', considering the first is apparently being used to mean something completely different from how it is actually defined, and the second doesn't even exist.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's not hard.

Your argument is that it is impossible for any omnipotent, omniscient creator to have consciousness.

If I can give an example of a single possible omnipotent, omniscient, conscious creator, hypothetical or not, as I have, then your argument is wrong.

Either accept that this is the case or redefine your terms.

Your example does not succeed.

Even in a simulated example, the creator of the simulation is not "everywhere".

For example:
- The Matrix. The creators are still not omni-beings in their actuality. The Matrix is irrelevant as we are directly speaking of the creators themselves who are, in fact, not omni-beings.

- Take an example of a simulation in which there is just 1 creator with a machine controlling other variables like androids or something (it does not really matter). The fact remains that, in that creators reality, they are still not omni-beings.

So, your argument still fails because the examples you cite or simulated realities are not counter-examples to omni-beings that would be at the beginning of everything. This being omni-beings.

~

Perhaps if you had properly defined God as the creator of reality rather than the universe.

In the latter case my argument applies.

I edited my previous post with some more questions.

Originally Posted by Xei

I agree with your definition of God as an omnipotent and omnipresent being, and I also agree that consciousness cannot exist without time, but you do not explain how timelessness follows from your two God criteria.

What? I don't understand the question.

I should also ask you to tell us what you mean by 'kinetic energy' or 'static energy', considering the first is apparently being used to mean something completely different from how it is actually defined, and the second doesn't even exist.

Although this is not pertinent to my argument (static energy, that is) I will divulge.

Kinetic energy is what we all know it to be. However, I am saying that kinetic energy is the reason for our existence. Kinetic energy is the world that we know. Without kinesis, our existence is null. So, everything we are, everything we know of, is made up of kinetic energy.

This part can be proven as we know that kinetic energy is utilized in nearly everything in our environment. I do not think I need to divulge further in this.

Static energy is, respectively, the problematic part. However, I am trying to reference it in a very vague way that works for everyone. The reason being is because it is not really important. Let me explain:

Whoever you are, whatever the belief system is, there is a "beginnig" to everything, a moment before existence. In this moment, it had to be timeless, it had to be vacant of kinetic energy. If it was not vacant of kinesis, then it is not the beginning of everything. Thus, whatever it is, it is static.

I simply call it static energy because I'm not sure what to call it. I am avoiding "God" because I want to make sure this is seen as neutral and open to interpretation.

I hope you can see how it is not exactly pertinent and that I explained it well..

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please avoid semantics.

They can both be semantically seen as the same thing as they are both housed in the same body (ie. brain). The crux of this point is that consciousness is a function of the brain. Please do not make the leap to say that "awareness" is something intangible and special.
~

Actually, I'm saying awareness is a function of the senses, and consciousness is an unknown variable. You may say that it is a product of the brain but as of yet, there is no evidence for that.

P5) Gods are not subject to time or Gods are timeless
P6) Gods cannot be a contigent of anything

For all I've ever heard about God, these statements don't apply. God is pretty much just a regular supernatural being, except he created the universe and then went with it. So really he is pretty much here all the time and pretty much not timeless, just more awesome than everybody else.

And as for semantics, I don't see why you're making a distinction between 'phenomenological' and 'consciousness'. That's like saying 'Consciousness is necessary for conscious beings to exist' which isn't really saying anything at all.

What? I don't understand the question.

Your argument is this:

1. Consciousness requires time.
2. Omipotent, omniscient beings are timeless.
3. Hence any omnipotent, omniscient being is not conscious.

So far you have only asserted 2, as Serkat says.

Although this is not pertinent to my argument (static energy, that is) I will divulge.

Kinetic energy is what we all know it to be. However, I am saying that kinetic energy is the reason for our existence. Kinetic energy is the world that we know. Without kinesis, our existence is null. So, everything we are, everything we know of, is made up of kinetic energy.

This part can be proven as we know that kinetic energy is utilized in nearly everything in our environment. I do not think I need to divulge further in this.

Static energy is, respectively, the problematic part. However, I am trying to reference it in a very vague way that works for everyone. The reason being is because it is not really important. Let me explain:

Whoever you are, whatever the belief system is, there is a "beginnig" to everything, a moment before existence. In this moment, it had to be timeless, it had to be vacant of kinetic energy. If it was not vacant of kinesis, then it is not the beginning of everything. Thus, whatever it is, it is static.

I simply call it static energy because I'm not sure what to call it. I am avoiding "God" because I want to make sure this is seen as neutral and open to interpretation.

I hope you can see how it is not exactly pertinent and that I explained it well..

~

Everything is made of energy, sure, but not kinetic energy. Light has no kinetic energy, for example, but it still exists, and causes change. Kinetic energy is just a function of mass and velocity. I do not see why mass or velocity are required for consciousness.

And I disagree about there being a point of stasis. Time started at the Big Bang, and at the Big Bang, matter was flying apart at huge speeds. It has not stopped. So there was never a time during which there was stasis. It is wrong to think of a singularity existing for some period of time before expanding to form the universe, because time simply didn't exist before it expanded.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The atypical omni-God. I presumed this was intuitive to readers.

Yes. But why would you reason from that basis? What's the point? If some mental patient came up to you and started talking about random concepts he made up that make no sense whatsoever, would you go ahead and write a long-winded essay about why they are logically flawed? I think not.

Please do not strawman me. You know what God I referring to - it's intuitive.

See above.

Realize that I am arguing against Theism and offering further reason that any God that is omni ought not to have any form of consciousness.

Yes, which is precisely my point... why would you pay a completely made up idea respect by arguing with it? And even so, it isn't exactly breaking news that the concept of God is full of logical flaws and makes no sense whatsoever. There are plenty of ways in which this is the case, but all of them are just mental masturbation with an idea that has no merit.

I think you are confusing consciousness and awareness. Awareness is dependent on change, but consciousness is not.