Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

Originally Posted by O'nus

This has been discussed earlier, but I want to place emphasis on my point in this argument - any sort of God cannot have a consciousness.

Memory allows a functional linear relationship between chronolgical phenomenological experiences. Without memory, these phenomenological experiences become independent and isolated, alienated from the rest of the phenomenological experiences sought from the relative kinetic energy invested being. This is where we must begin.

In theory and in idealised, it is nearly impossible to re-enact the beginning of all things as it is impossible for a kinetic bound being to enforce static energy. How can this be worded simpler? In the beginning, that is to say the beginning of a linear kinetic model, static energy existed. Static energy, not being subject to phenomenological experiences or tangibility, merely existed as energy without mass. This energy can best be visualised as the essence of things that is transferred with one another to cause interactions - but without a mass. All things posesed this energy as it is necessary for an existance.

The question stares us in the face - what caused kinetic energy to begin? During the timeless state of static energy, an event must occur to cause motion; kinetic energy. This is the one fatal flaw of this whole ordeal as I have not delved into the cause and find it very difficult to as the very thought of cause and effect is subject to the very dissimilation I am attempting. Cause and effect are subject to memory and it's relationship on a linear model. Cause followed by effects are merely the interaction of kinetic energy recorded by phenomenological beings. Let's pass this for the moment.

Given that kinetic energy is the world we live in, we are subject to a constantly changing world. This kinetic energy is, however, bound by rules and laws. These laws function on a level of constant growth such as stochastic model growing expotentially. During this process, the phenomenological beings must find ways to exist within a constantly changing and growing world (the kinetic world). The kinetic world is what the phenomenological beings experience.

In order to survive, phenomenological beings must formulate a way to maintain a consciousness throughout the constantly changing world. This consciousness is what connects moments to moments in a constantly changing body and world. The body is constantly changing just as the world. The essential point here is that consciousness is necessary for any liviing being (phenomenological being) to exist or survive. Each moment is novel. Without memory, all beings would die, nearly instantly. Memory allows phenomenological beings to survive in the kinetic world.

Within this survival comes the rules of evolution whereas some are better fit at surviving than others. This is simply attributed to the ability to adapt to the kinetic world better than others.

Chaos theory meets evolution.

In the kinetic world, the stochastic system is a driven model by phenomenological beings in attempt to record evolution which is the survival of beings through the kinetic world.

Contemporary time does not exist. Time is not an externally existing entity.

Time is a concept created by phenomenological beings in order to survive in the kinetic world. With the concept of time, we can record, relate, and recall what we refer to as ourselves. However, the past recollection are of entirely different entities and phenomenological experiences. Every moment is a new being, minutely changed, but related to by memory. Time allows beings, especially humans, to survive so well.

Humans requrie the concept of time and consciousness in order to survive. Without the concept of consciousness, or being able to tell others how they feel, humans would die. It was necessary for the humans to develop the ability to communicate what they are thinking to others. This, simultaneously born with time, creates the self. The self exists as a social self and personal self. The social self being as perceived by others and the personal self being as perceived by the same body of kinetic energy (remember, you are a house of individual kinetic energy born from static energy).

Summary:
(God defined as an omniscient, omnipresent being)
P1) Consciousness is necessary for phenomenological beings to survive
P2) Time is necessary for consciousness to exist
C1) Consciousnes is subject to time
C2) Phenomenological beings are contigents of time and consciousness
C3) Phenomenological beings, time, and consciousness are all contigents of kinetic energy

P4) Time and consciousness are necessary for phenomenological beings to exist
P5) Gods are not subject to time or Gods are timeless
P6) Gods cannot be a contigent of anything
C3) Gods do not have a consciousness nor kinetic energy

What does it mean if a God cannot have a consciousness? This means that a God (an omniscient, omnipresent being) cannot make any sort of ethical judgment. Gods cannot make judgments on good or bad nor anything of that matter that is subject to a phenomenological being. Thus, any ideas of a God making a phenomenological action cannot occur as a God cannot and is not subject to a phenomenological existance.

This, of course, means that nearly all contemporary ideas of God cannot exist. Most importantly, the contemporary Christian God cannot exist as humans have conceived it and that the bible is cleary arbitrary.

This is a dramatic argument for all Theists alike and I welcome you to argue any part of it. I want it to grow and I want to see where it can go. Please, if you see any fatal flaws, please show them to me.
~

Just my thoughts, I don't know, yet.

God is a conscious individual in the same way that a single ant colony, or bee hive is a conscious individual. An ant colony is an architect that creates massive subterranean structures of immense complexity and great volume. This architect, however, is not an individual--self aware, but the sum of the ant colony. The ants, individually, do not have the master plan, they merely carry out their individual responsibilities in the whole project. The architect consciousness arises from a force that is unaware of itself. Pure universal energy, can "meta-function" as the conscious, personal, god in this way, in a very real sense--the personal god is a very real thing, just as the architect consciousness of the ant colony is.

Consciousness, is completely different from the self. The self is the invented concept, consciousness is inherent to this universe. Complete awareness, can be completely uncorrupted by any sense of ego of separate.

We invented the concept of consciousness, the concept of relativity (time) is very real.

Does 'God" have a consciousness? Of course he does, as consciousness is defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation". "I am who am" is an affirmation of being, i.e relative consciousness to humans. I don't believe in God but i think its hillarious you guys need 6+ pages to trifle over such an easy question.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

We invented the concept of consciousness, the concept of relativity (time) is very real.

Does 'God" have a consciousness? Of course he does, as consciousness is defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation". "I am who am" is an affirmation of being, i.e relative consciousness to humans. I don't believe in God but i think its hillarious you guys need 6+ pages to trifle over such an easy question.

It seems surprising to you that people have long conversations about consciousness? Are you that narrow-minded or divinely inspired to think that such a profound topic is not worth "trifling"? Consciousness is a rather important matter.

Also, please pay attention to the definitions as given as you have invented your own arbitrary ones and ignored the original content at hand.

God does not have a consciousness.

God is a rather loose term and deserves defining when discussing it. I suggest you pay attention to the vernacular of a discussion before jumping in the middle of it and patronizing them.

~

O'nus, are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your definition of God or Consciousness that they should not take part in your threads?

Originally Posted by Tarsier

O'nus, are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your definition of God or Consciousness that they should not take part in your threads?

As I remember, that was the general direction the thread was going in when it was fresh.

Originally Posted by Tarsier

O'nus, are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your definition of God or Consciousness that they should not take part in your threads?

I set forth certain arguments for a certain definition of God.

We could define God as energy or buddha and I would not be willing to apply these arguments to them at all as the context is different.

Why should I allow anyones arbitrary definition of God to fall under my select argument against God?

Are you suggesting I ought to make one argument and it ought to be universally applicable to ALL definitions of God?

I think it is ridiculous that I must fall under such scrutiny when I am making am amicable effort to make my criticisms and arguments select to certain contexts that I feel is fair. Obviously my argument for Gods consciousness is not applicable to everyones definition of God.

Also, I love having discussions with people about God. This thread, however, begun with a specific definition of God. Why ought we derail it and digress? To make people feel better? We could also discuss teddy bears if you'd like.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I set forth certain arguments for a certain definition of God.

We could define God as energy or buddha and I would not be willing to apply these arguments to them at all as the context is different.

Why should I allow anyones arbitrary definition of God to fall under my select argument against God?

Are you suggesting I ought to make one argument and it ought to be universally applicable to ALL definitions of God?

I think it is ridiculous that I must fall under such scrutiny when I am making am amicable effort to make my criticisms and arguments select to certain contexts that I feel is fair. Obviously my argument for Gods consciousness is not applicable to everyones definition of God.

Also, I love having discussions with people about God. This thread, however, begun with a specific definition of God. Why ought we derail it and digress? To make people feel better? We could also discuss teddy bears if you'd like.

~

It might be okay, if what you say here is true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Your initial statement in the OP was,

...I want to place emphasis on my point in this argument - any sort of God cannot have a consciousness.

(emphasis added)


Now, you may have had a certain definition for god in mind, but you began your argument by applying it to "any sort of god". It is by your own statement that you are held rigorously to making a universal argument that might apply to anyone's definition of what a god could be.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It might be okay, if what you say here is true. Unfortunately, it isn't. Your initial statement in the OP was,

Now, you may have had a certain definition for god in mind, but you began your argument by applying it to "any sort of god". It is by your own statement that you are held rigorously to making a universal argument that might apply to anyone's definition of what a god could be.

Perhaps I should have stated it at the beginning for those that do not pay attention. But, if you had read the whole thing, you would have seen:

Summary:
(God defined as an omniscient, omnipresent being)
...

Also, this being the type of God that is ascribed as creating everything. Or, before time existed.

Otherwise, if it is about a God that does not have consciousness, then I am obviously not speaking of that kind.

Really, this is a significant tangent for semantics. I thought this would be intuitive.

~