Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

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.
~

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.

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.

~

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.

What about a creature that doesn't utilize consciousness, such as a bacteria? They do not have memory, either. Yet aren't they phenomenological (meant as "observable," I assume)? They still exist in a kinetic world... And although I know that this does not relate to a God having consciousness, I'm still asking, for clarification. (In this case, I would call their DNA "memory," but it does explain memory and consciousness in the individual.)

What if a God programmed us from somewhere (another dimension, or whatever) that had its own time and space. Technically, the story would still go "First there was nothing (in our universe), and then there was God." ... But you can see the weakness of that argument. The Christian who tries using this point only bring up more questions, which will end up weakening whatever point they are trying to prove about creation and God as a whole. :/

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.
~

Exactly!!! Ive been trying to tell people this, it completely goes against the laws of nature that 99% of the world has come to accept and what is taught in schools. It completely goes against the logical grains.

It likely that the Creator and time came into existence together. If it is not possible to be free of the constraints of time, then the creator's existence would depend on time. Time's existence, in turn, would have to be sustained by the creator (Much the same way the physical laws of my own created universe would have to be sustained by my consciousness alone), being that the Creator would be the only conscious being currently perceiving the movement of time. It's in this way that your omni-God can still claim responsibility for the creation of time, since time's existence was forced as a result of the Creator's existence. Time (or timelessness) would end up being more or less a property of God this way.

We also have to consider the nature of rules (or laws). Rules have to be maintained in order to exist. If there is no intelligence and/or consciousness there to see to the enforcement of those rules, the rules can be broken. I, somehow, cannot manage to break any of the rules of the universe (laws of physics, rather). Why? What conscious will is there to reinforce the rules of even one universe? "Stuff" requires conscious/intelligent maintenance in order to exist. This second paragraph is my theory.

[[Edit: Did you just become a moderator in the midst of my typing that? o_O

Congrats, hahaha.]]

Originally Posted by invader_tech

It likely that the Creator and time came into existence together. If it is not possible to be free of the constraints of time, then the creator's existence would depend on time.

If the creator did not create time, then it is not the creator of everything which is typical of most Gods. Also, considering Gods that ideally existed before everything was created. It's almost non sequitor.

We also have to consider the nature of rules (or laws). Rules have to be maintained in order to exist. If there is no intelligence and/or consciousness there to see to the enforcement of those rules, the rules can be broken.

It is not necessary for an omni-being in order to laws of nature to work. We can easily describe many things in nature with logic without implementing any sort of supernatural arbitration.

I, somehow, cannot manage to break any of the rules of the universe (laws of physics, rather). Why? What conscious will is there to reinforce the rules of even one universe? "Stuff" requires conscious/intelligent maintenance in order to exist. This second paragraph is my theory.

I'm not sure I follow - are you saying that there ought to be something there to synonymously punish you if you break the laws of physics..? I realize this may be a silly question, it's just so I can understand what you are saying.

[[Edit: Did you just become a moderator in the midst of my typing that? o_O

Congrats, hahaha.]]

Yes I did thank you!

~

Originally Posted by invader_tech

It likely that the Creator and time came into existence together. If it is not possible to be free of the constraints of time, then the creator's existence would depend on time. Time's existence, in turn, would have to be sustained by the creator (Much the same way the physical laws of my own created universe would have to be sustained by my consciousness alone), being that the Creator would be the only conscious being currently perceiving the movement of time. It's in this way that your omni-God can still claim responsibility for the creation of time, since time's existence was forced as a result of the Creator's existence. Time (or timelessness) would end up being more or less a property of God this way.

We also have to consider the nature of rules (or laws). Rules have to be maintained in order to exist. If there is no intelligence and/or consciousness there to see to the enforcement of those rules, the rules can be broken. I, somehow, cannot manage to break any of the rules of the universe (laws of physics, rather). Why? What conscious will is there to reinforce the rules of even one universe? "Stuff" requires conscious/intelligent maintenance in order to exist. This second paragraph is my theory.

[[Edit: Did you just become a moderator in the midst of my typing that? o_O

Congrats, hahaha.]]

How does time 'come in' to existence, when coming into something is a process that occurs within time. It implies there was a period of absence of the object, and so a temporal nature.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

How does time 'come in' to existence, when coming into something is a process that occurs within time. It implies there was a period of absence of the object, and so a temporal nature.

I'm saying that time could not have existed without something to maintain it's existence. If you have a better way of phrasing "when time started", please let me know, because I'm at a loss for words to describe it properly.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If the creator did not create time, then it is not the creator of everything which is typical of most Gods. Also, considering Gods that ideally existed before everything was created. It's almost non sequitor.

Maybe we need to rework our understanding of time then (or maybe it's just me!). I've never given this much attention to the nature of time before. But, outside this universe, in the 'realm of God', I can agree that I don't believe time is something that can even be created, for that would imply that it could be destroyed. If it were destroyed, the stream of consciousness would end. But I also believe that time goes beyond just being a dimension, in that I'm beginning to consider it a state of being. States of being can be altered, and that would hold true for the changes that occur because of the 'flow of time'. I'll work on this thought a bit more tonight, and probably for the years to come.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I'm not sure I follow - are you saying that there ought to be something there to synonymously punish you if you break the laws of physics..? I realize this may be a silly question, it's just so I can understand what you are saying.

Oh, no, I meant that the laws of physics appear to be unbreakable at present. I relate it to a computer program (more specifically: a video game). You have a generated world that has code on which it depends to function. You cannot actually effect the code by interacting with the game world, it requires that you go 'outside' the game to mess with the code directly. The code, in turn, is maintained by the computer's processor, or what I call the "intelligence that maintains the rules". I believe the same holds true for our world in that we cannot interact with the actual laws of physics by doing anything to the physical world, but that it requires going 'beyond' the limits of the universe. I was also inferring that there must be some kind of processing behind the scenes in order to maintain these basic laws of physics, just as a computer processor would make the code for a computer game possible to run. That makes better sense now, right?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes I did thank you!
~

And you're welcome

Originally Posted by Xei

Now, how does creator follow from omnipotence and omniscience?

Omnipotence, as I see it, allows for an absolute Universe, with absolute existence. Existence and Reality are invincible, and it can only transform into different forms under the application of force. All Reality as a totality is infinitely powerful. Likewise, The Law of Conservation of Energy does never change.

Omniscience - you can see that in all nature and its profound intelligence and evolutionary growth. The Laws of Physics and a perfectly operational Universe are not different than its Source of Perfection. Omniscience implies a synchronous Cosmos, as ours.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

How does time 'come in' to existence, when coming into something is a process that occurs within time. It implies there was a period of absence of the object, and so a temporal nature.

Very well said! In order for there to be time, there must be a timeless substrate, such as Reality itself. Reality is the timeless context in which only specific objects therein are subject to time.

From the original post...

Originally Posted by O'nus

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.

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.

~

Are you saying god is just an unconscious force?

A question for the OP (or rather his points, since I haven't seen him post in years), why assume the universe isn't mental? Assuming this is true for the basis of argumentation, "God" by any loose definition we can place on it is therefore capable of consciousness. Now, arguing whether it is or is not is another argument altogether, but if we are all concepts and thought forms existing because existence is by its nature is self-propagating. Existence seeks to manifest itself in the most efficient manner possible. By the same token, death and destruction is a very necessary part of existence because existence without inexistence is not possible. Why? Everything exists as opposites and poles. This polarity demands that at some point in time, in some other dimension or by some way possibly incomprehensible to us, things will not exist just as they have existed. In fact, one could argue this takes place now, either in the separate dimension or even in "ours" because everything collapses from its preconfigured state into a single outcome, thus causing the "inexistence" of what could have been, never to be.

In conclusion, however, "God", The All, Allah, Yahweh, a vibrational superbeing behind our comprehension, what have you, there is no reason I can see that it would lack the potential for ability of containing consciousness. After all, assuming it is real, it created all of existence, just by willing it. Then again, nothing says that it has to be conscious either in the sense that we know it, either.

Oooh - been just reading all thread, and it's great! Nice that it's re-animated!
I'm too tired to write now, though - guess I'll be back later.