Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yup

So I guess we might as well not talk about anything but the weather.

Boy is it cold.

~

Not for me. It is Hot!

Hot Hot Hot!!!

I'm gonna buy an air conditioner, for this long summer. Thus:

God doesn't need consciousness, being All That Exists.

I think it likely that any gods would not have consciousness, or at least no free will.

I say this because of a dream I had where I was everything. I was the air, the ground, the people, the buildings, absolutely everything. Some might consider that a god like attribute.

As the scope of my awareness grew, sinking down to the molecular level, I began to lose all will to do anything. I was just aware of everything humming away, and I couldn't do anything but just be aware of it. I couldn't have done anything if I wanted to, and I don't even think I could have wanted to.

When your consciousness encompasses everything, you can't make the distinction between one thing and another, and a person is no different than a speck of dust. They are all part of the same thing.

Suppose a "god" was simply an intelligent being that instantiated a computer simulation of a universe that spawned a virtual intelligence, call it O'nus, that questioned whether gods can be conscious. Is this "god" not conscious?

See post #2.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Suppose a "god" was simply an intelligent being that instantiated a computer simulation of a universe that spawned a virtual intelligence, call it O'nus, that questioned whether gods can be conscious. Is this "god" not conscious?

I assimilated the response of mine to this issue as already brought up by Xei:

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 argument.

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 this argument is inadequate 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.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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.

From the perspective of the simulated reality, the 'beginning' is the instantiation of the simulation.

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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.

You claim that no omniscient, omnipotent, creator could be conscious. I just gave a counter-example. Therefore, your claim is false unless you assume that this universe is not a simulation, which is not testable.

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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 argument.

Simulated realities are what appear to be required to invalidate what you are asserting. It may be true that no conscious god can exist as an actor within the simulation, but I don't think any religious person would say that, and to prove such says nothing about a simulation-initiator.

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

The Matrix is a movie. It is, in fact, perfectly conceivable that the creator of a simulation would be omnipotent within the simulation. Afterall, he could pause the simulation at any time, change variables at his leisure, and resume it without the inhabitants being any the wiser.

Originally Posted by O'nus

- 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.

Circular logic. You appear to be defining "God" not by the properties he exhibits in local reality, such as omnipotence and omniscience, but by not being "God". Clearly, the initiator of a simulation does have omni-everything within that reality, so to bring up the fact that he's not a god in the larger reality would imply that an unknowable characteristic of the god is relevant in discussing his properties within the simulation, which makes no sense.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

From the perspective of the simulated reality, the 'beginning' is the instantiation of the simulation.

Right, but there is still a creator for the thing that is creating the simulated reality.

You claim that no omniscient, omnipotent, creator could be conscious. I just gave a counter-example. Therefore, your claim is false unless you assume that this universe is not a simulation, which is not testable.

Been over this one already as well - this is not a counter-example. First of all, the simulated reality is created by something that is created. Thus, it is not an omni-being.

Simulated realities are what appear to be required to invalidate what you are asserting. It may be true that no conscious god can exist as an actor within the simulation, but I don't think any religious person would say that, and to prove such says nothing about a simulation-initiator.

No, simulated realities are irrelevant because we still must speak of the beginning of the creator of the simulated reality.

The Matrix is a movie. It is, in fact, perfectly conceivable that the creator of a simulation would be omnipotent within the simulation. Afterall, he could pause the simulation at any time, change variables at his leisure, and resume it without the inhabitants being any the wiser.

It is still not a counter-example as the creators of, say, the Matrix are, in fact, not omni-Gods in their own right world. I am taking the immediate stance of an omni-God.

Circular logic. You appear to be defining "God" not by the properties he exhibits in local reality, such as omnipotence and omniscience, but by not being "God".

That is what I am saying you are doing actually.. lol.

Clearly, the initiator of a simulation does have omni-everything within that reality, so to bring up the fact that he's not a god in the larger reality would imply that an unknowable characteristic of the god is relevant in discussing his properties within the simulation, which makes no sense.

Okay, this is a good point and I want to point out the necessity of making this assumption:

I am using this argument against monotheists who claim that God has a consciousness. This is, as you say, something we do not know for certain.

Thus, at most, I would say my argument is a redundancy. There are far better arguments to say that God does not exist, but I am making the explicit argument that God could not have a consciousness because mono-theists are functioning on the basis that could does have a consciousness.

Does this help..?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Thus, at most, I would say my argument is a redundancy. There are far better arguments to say that God does not exist, but I am making the explicit argument that God could not have a consciousness because mono-theists are functioning on the basis that could does have a consciousness.

Does this help..?

~

If we're talking about a "true" god, I don't disagree with you. However, there's no way for an inhabitant of the simulation to distinguish between a true god and the simulation creator, so it seems better to define a god in terms of what he can do, does it not?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

If we're talking about a "true" god, I don't disagree with you. However, there's no way for an inhabitant of the simulation to distinguish between a true god and the simulation creator, so it seems better to define a god in terms of what he can do, does it not?

An omni-God is simply everywhere, knows everything, created everything, etc. etc.

That is the God I am tackling. We could re-define this, of course, but I am making this argument towards the typical mono-theistic omni-God.

Where the inhabitant of a simulation may not be able to distinguish, this does not really affect the characteristics of an atypical omni-God.

It opens the door to something different. I am trying to contrive this really.

~

Why does God have to be Conscious? How do you not know that there is somthing other than conscious?

God or Higher Intelligence watever you want to call it, could not have consciousness, but have something higher which in return is why they are called Higher Intelligence.

You seem to have defined consciousness from a physical standpoint, but you forget the typical mono-theistic omni-God is supposedly not of the physical realm. Subjecting this sort of scrutiny to a being whose consciousness is believed to have been in existence for all eternity is a bit silly and ignores the spiritual concept inherent in the argument.

If you believe in the existence of the spirit - a form of consciousness beyond synaptic patterns, environmental adaptation, and kinetic, temporal interactions - then a conscious, spiritual God is entirely possible. You though, seem to be to be of the mindset that God, if he does exist, must so exist physically and immediately provide himself to the scientific community of the world so they can take his shoe size and put a volt-meter across his fingertips.

There seems to be a fundamental incompatibility between theism and atheism: that theists believe reality exists beyond the tangible, while atheists believe it does not. To judge one by the standards of the other is often unfair and frustrating.

[Edit:] Awwww man. Seems everyone's already settled out. Should'a lurked the thread more.

Originally Posted by Jorge

Why does God have to be Conscious? How do you not know that there is somthing other than conscious?

God or Higher Intelligence watever you want to call it, could not have consciousness, but have something higher which in return is why they are called Higher Intelligence.

Right. They could have something more. My point was simply that they could not have the same consciousness as us.

~

Who makes these "God has consciousness" claims? I never hear them. Actually, how can God "have" anything?

Originally Posted by really

Who makes these "God has consciousness" claims? I never hear them. Actually, how can God "have" anything?

Any Christian will say that God has a conscious process that has decided several ethical claims.

I am not speaking of any other God.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Any Christian will say that God has a conscious process that has decided several ethical claims.

I am not speaking of any other God.

~

Though I get your point, don't you say "any".

Not really. I wouldn't say that (I was a Christian).

Literally, Christian is a name. Not all people called Christians, know God the same.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right. They could have something more. My point was simply that they could not have the same consciousness as us.

~

I get you my friend.

Originally Posted by really

Though I get your point, don't you say "any".

Not really. I wouldn't say that (I was a Christian).

Literally, Christian is a name. Not all people called Christians, know God the same.

lol ok.. we can become pedantic about the wording, but you get the overall argument.

~

Originally Posted by really

Not all people called Christians, know God the same.

lol, indeed. The different sects of Christianity, depending on which you talk about, can have remarkably different views on God. Arianism, which is it's own kind of Christianity, denies the idea of the trinity, isn't that right? Not to get off topic or anything. I'm overdue for my own special thread, aren't I.... Trying to keep up with my university papers is my excuse, alright? Alright.

Originally Posted by O'nus

lol ok.. we can become pedantic about the wording, but you get the overall argument.

~

I am pedantic; wording is important. "Any Christian" is nothing like "Some Christians I know."

Originally Posted by invader_tech

lol, indeed. The different sects of Christianity, depending on which you talk about, can have remarkably different views on God. Arianism, which is it's own kind of Christianity, denies the idea of the trinity, isn't that right?

Yeah, but I don't really pay attention to those "sub-groups." That wasn't my point, but you can still count that, I guess. I think "God-views" are quite broad, people can be Christians and believe, say for example, that God punishes them. Ask another Christian, and they understand that God is Love and punishment is not the case.

Arianism has something to do with the Father and Son, though I don't quite understand it.

Originally Posted by really

Arianism has something to do with the Father and Son, though I don't quite understand it.

If I'm not mistaken, it denies the whole concept of the holy spirit and son as being a part of God. They believe in a single God that is one in essence, as opposed to other Christians who believe that God either divides his spirit or his appearance between the aspects of the Trinity (the trinity was a concept they stole from paganism anyways), or what have you. Does that make sense? In this case, Arianism is a Christian branch that behaves more like Judaism and Islam in terms of how they perceive God as a being.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

If I'm not mistaken, it denies the whole concept of the holy spirit and son as being a part of God. They believe in a single God that is one in essence, as opposed to other Christians who believe that God either divides his spirit or his appearance between the aspects of the Trinity (the trinity was a concept they stole from paganism anyways), or what have you. Does that make sense? In this case, Arianism is a Christian branch that behaves more like Judaism and Islam in terms of how they perceive God as a being.

Ah yeah, cool. Makes sense.

From my good old "New Oxford American Dictionary":

Arianism |ˈe(ə)rēəˌnizəm|
noun Christian Theology
an influential heresy denying the divinity of Christ, originating with the Alexandrian priest Arius ( c. 250– c. 336). Arianism maintained that the Son of God was created by the Father and was therefore neither coeternal with the Father, nor consubstantial.

God can do anything he/she/it pleases...

Originally Posted by shotbirds

God can do anything he/she/it pleases...

Yes but we're talking about the actual characteristics of God. Simply saying this is not enough to justify it's attributes.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes but we're talking about the actual characteristics of God. Simply saying this is not enough to justify it's attributes.

So what are they? I'm curious how you understand them.