Why in all religious arguments is god assumed to be morally perfect?

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 09-02-2010 05:01 AM

Funny, I always looked at it as Satan was God's shadow, theologically and psychologically speaking. JHVH is not the most psychologically balanced individual, he has issues, he is in the closet. Anyway, Satan works for him. Satan does his dirty work, but somebody HAS to do it. How can humans have freewill if they are not offered a choice or tempted to disobey? Also, the parable is that the BEST sheep went astray. It is always the best sheep that rebel. The rest of the sheep stay with the flock out of weakness, not goodness. The rebel is the strong one. And the shepherd leaves the 99 other sheep and searches for the best one that went astray. Seems like the rebel is more valuable than all the other 99 combined. Because most good people are good out of weakness and fear, not out of strength. That is why the saying is "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Given an opportunity where there would be no consequences or eternal damnation, most people would be selfish and greedy. THe shepherd values the strong more than the good. The good are just like anybody else, and they are scared and afraid of God and judgement, so they try to please god and do good, but it is out of weakness. But they think that they are better, that they are saved, that it is their mission to save others, when they themselves are not saved. Because the shepherd is gone and doesn't care about them as much. And they try to use the same fear to convert others. They try to scare you with Hell and Damnation and tempt you with Heaven and rewards. That only works for the 99 sheep. But the shepherd left the 99 to look for the 1 who went astray. So if you meet Satan, use all your well-learned politeness, have some sympathy, some courtesy, and some taste.

It has always been a problem in theological debates as to how can God be both Loving and Just. A good judge has to put his heart aside and abide by the letter of the law. A good judge cannot break the rules and forgive someone. Also, a loving person will always forgive. A Mother will always forgive her child. That is why the Father has to be the disciplinarian. The Mother says "wait until your Dad gets home." Then the child is afraid. The child is not afraid of the Mother.

That is why I don't buy the whole Abrahamic tradition, because the only motivation is to obey and fear God, because you don't want to go to Hell, you want to go to Heaven. Is this honest? Is this what motivates people in the core of their being? What about finding the and eliminating the root of suffering for all beings? Why choose to keep being afraid? Why be bought and sold like a sheep by a cruel Demiurge God rather than seek true knowledge within yourself? This only appeals to the weak as far as I am concerned. That is why they try to convert atheists so much, not because they have really found something that others are lacking, not out of the goodness of their hearts. But out of fear of strength. They are afraid because they are too scared and weak to achieve a true individuality so they judge true individuals, paint them evil, and try to "fix" them and save them, only to justify their own weakness.

That is why I support the whole atheist coming out of the closet and finding your voice movement. Because in the perfect world of tomorrow we don't need weak people who cling to their superstitions because they are afraid of Life and Death making life miserable for the rest of us. I respect atheists for finally being strong enough to stand up against all this nonsense. It is about time. Thomas Paine and a few others did it long ago.

The downside, however, is that now atheism is a trendy club now, one that college kids who are first starting to think for themselves and 'find' themselves are joining. It is liberating, like Richard Dawkins says, to free yourself from a belief system, especially a repressive one. But then so many young people join the atheist club and that hampers their individuality just as much as Christianity does. They have one "AHA! This belief system is bullshit!"" moment, but they cannot discard the habit so easily. They latch onto another belief system. ANd it is a subtler trap because atheism masquerades that it is not a belief system. And really, it shouldn't be. But the belief does not come with the ism, it is in the person. A person can be religious, then lose religion but still keep the belief in his heart. Now he believes in another ism: atheism. It is a habit. Then they will say: "Atheism isn't a belief system." as if the belief comes with the ism. No, the belief comes from within you and you attach it to whatever you agree with. You can tell these atheists because they just repeat the same atheist rhetoric and propaganda just like a Christian spouts off selective passages from the Bible. They are no different than Christians, except they are stronger, but not much, because they too have settled.

That is why the agnostic is the second-best.
He is the second strongest. If the atheist is just a little more strong and brave enough to let go and not be for or against any belief system, and to not identify himself as for or against, and to surrender to just letting things be the way they are without even thinking about it, because it isn't even an issue, he would become an agnostic. But even agnostics give up. They have given up, and said "I don't see any proof of a God, there might be one or there might not, I don't know and nobody knows, and nobody can know, it is not an issue anyway, I don't care." The agnostic, also, is not quite strong enough.

Anyway.... There is my rant, now back on topic:

To me, morality is not a set of rules. The rules are made by Man. Morality is written in your heart, it is whispered to your soul. And basically it boils down to:

A) Don't violate anybody's freewill
B) Don't let anybody violate your freewill if you are following the first rule.

How much more moral can you get than that? That seems like the only fundamental moral law. It is basically the golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" except there are no loopholes, like if you are a masochist.

**really** · 09-02-2010 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I saw your view of the "who created God" question, and I also told you why it is completely invalid.

You might have 'seen it', but your response was indirect and did not address the transcendental implications of God being beyond the paradigm of causality. You said you can't solve a paradox with another paradox, but there is only a paradox inside the confines of time/space (there is no paradox when God is beyond causality). This could mean that you're trying to escape/'resolve' (or on the contrary, support) causality by arguing for causality, which is meaningless.

It's impossible to really understand something that doesn't make logical sense. Just because you say something, doesn't mean it is true. There is a logical process for forming arguments which you have completely ignored. If absolute reality is the universe, which it would have to be, it cannot simultaneously transcend the universe. Just as "I" cannot transcend "me." They are one and the same.

It is possible to understand something that is nonlinear and non-dualistic, and they are indeed already true terms. In other words, these are not explicitly logical, but they certainly exist. I have not ignored logical arguments blindly, instead I have admitted that logical arguments for absolute truths are limited in their construct. This is why I've acknowledge and respected logic or reason, but still admit that there are deeper paradigms beyond these frameworks alone.

For instance - the notion of time. I like this example, because it is inescapable. Can eternity be proven or shown logically in time? Time cannot exist instead of eternity, it exists within it. Time is a measurement; it can be subjective, or objective as it is in science. But it is still a projected measurement in either case. We can argue the same for space. Space ultimately exists in a field of emptiness/Omnipresence. Both time[less] and space[less] concepts are paradoxical when viewed in a linear context, which begs for measurements, points and distances. In a non-linear context, the opposing ends of the paradoxes (e.g. everything vs. nothing) are merged into one singular quality. The paradox of objective vs. subjective is also resolved.

I wonder how agreeable your definition of 'universe' is, since you call it an Absolute reality. What of theories like the big bang? Is there not the possibility that this universe transforms or is transitory altogether?

You have not demonstrated anything. I don't know how I could be more clear of that. You have made a series of false statement, nothing more. Paradoxes do not depend on any context, they will be paradoxical no matter what unlikely situation you portray them in.

You can start being more clear by further explaining yourself. Stating your position without countering or justifying yourself with some relationship(s) with my response(s) is a waste of time. If you scroll back more than a few of my posts, you can see I have demonstrated the importance of context. All you have done is basically say it means nothing. You need to demonstrate this.

This is infuriating. Are you not listening to anything I have said? You just keep repeating yourself rather than really responding to my challenges. Omnipotence is a concept, an illogical and paradoxical concept. There is no other possible way to interpret it. I haven't defined God as anything, not supernatural, not demiurge, not universal. I have been arguing against the concept of omnipotence, which is inherently paradoxical. I and others have proved that notion to be true beyond any question of a doubt using the logical process. You are either too blind or too stubborn to acknowledge it. You seem to think that because your God does not "make actions or choices," which is very strange for a conscious being, that omnipotence is not paradoxical in that sense. You said yourself that God created the universe. Does a creation not require an action and a choice? How is that logical?

The only way you have explained Omnipotence as a paradoxical and illogical concept (inherently; in and of itself, etc.) is by attributing it with false, limited terms that, not only are contradictory to the generic (also panentheistic, mystical) depiction of God, but which are not even stated in the definition of Omnipotence itself. This means it is not in the concept that is wrong, it means you have taken it out of context, creating a paradox. This is strange, since you have quoted the dictionary for reference, but it is the context in which you're using Omnipotence that makes it invalid. I.e. You've said things like '"All powerful" means there exists nothing that God can't do,', which is intimately tied to your understanding of God, not merely Omnipotence. In my first post of page 4, I pointed this out.

Absolute reality can only be objective. A concept cannot be both subjective and objective at the same time. It either originated in your head, or it originated in the outside world. An objective truth can be tainted by subjectivity and vice versa, but the concept originated in one or the other, not both. Subjective reality is irrelevant to objective reality which would be the ultimate truth.

This is actually more illogical than my own argument, which is that no object (e.g. of physical universe) exists without it first being observed, hence, a unity between both one's subjective context and all perceived objects. You are saying that the universe exists whether it is observed or not, but you cannot confirm this for anybody, much less yourself.

Remember that reality is ultimately not a concept. Telling me in concept the importance of objective reality cannot ever be thoroughly justified in experience, because there'd be no consciousness or 'observer' in which it could register.

Please, I will ask you again: Are you a materialist? And are you mechanistic/emergentistic about subjectivity?"

What is the universe without an observer? The universe. All objects are independent of subjectivity as long as they are not ruled over by a conscious, human-like God. Absolute reality is objective.

Exactly how are you being logical? This is completely impossible to know, because it is hypothetical. Without an observer, there is nothing that is observing and nothing to observe.

**Caprisun** · 09-02-2010 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by really

You might have 'seen it', but your response was indirect and did not address the transcendental implications of God being beyond the paradigm of causality. You said you can't solve a paradox with another paradox, but there is only a paradox inside the confines of time/space (there is no paradox when God is beyond causality). This could mean that you're trying to escape/'resolve' (or on the contrary, support) causality by arguing for causality, which is meaningless.

The only thing that is meaningless is describing something as "beyond the paradigm of causality." You have literally not done anything to prove your stance other than boldly state it as fact. Why is God beyond causality but the universe isn't? You explicityly stated yourself that "something cannot come from nothing." Is God not "something?" Judging from the few times you have tried to write about physics it is clear you have a very tenuous grasp of the subject, so maybe if you had any idea what you were talking about you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.

Originally Posted by really

It is possible to understand something that is nonlinear and non-dualistic, and they are indeed already true terms. In other words, these are not explicitly logical, but they certainly exist. I have not ignored logical arguments blindly, instead I have admitted that logical arguments for absolute truths are limited in their construct. This is why I've acknowledge and respected logic or reason, but still admit that there are deeper paradigms beyond these frameworks alone.

Are those your buzz words? Non-linear and non-dualistic? Why don't you be a little more vague? Those concepts don't mean anything to this argument. How can consciousness exist without a physical component? How does his "non-linear" nature excuse him from performing actions (necessary for a being who creates things and possess power) and from making choices (necessary for a conscious being.) How does that affect anything? The term "non-linear" was only ever used in this context to make up an excuse for God to not need a creator, but obviously the creator of that argument didn't give any consideration to the logic of the situation. In an infinite universe there can be no "non-linear" beings.

Explain to me, in a scientific and logical manner, how something can be "non-linear." No transcendental bullshit, no paradoxes, no contradictions and no violations of natural laws, just facts and logic. Then tell me what evidence you have to support this irrational belief. I don't know why I should continue to waste my time on this concept if it has no basis in reality.

[I"]In other words, these are not explicitly logical, but they certainly exist."[/I]

So now you're better than logic? You have been steadily chipping away at the scientific establishment, and now, for the final crushing blow to your verifiability and credibility, you say your arguments don't even need to make logical sense for them to exist. There is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion if this is really how you feel.

Originally Posted by really

For instance - the notion of time. I like this example, because it is inescapable. Can eternity be proven or shown logically in time? Time cannot exist instead of eternity, it exists within it. Time is a measurement; it can be subjective, or objective as it is in science. But it is still a projected measurement in either case. We can argue the same for space. Space ultimately exists in a field of emptiness/Omnipresence. Both time[less] and space[less] concepts are paradoxical when viewed in a linear context, which begs for measurements, points and distances. In a non-linear context, the opposing ends of the paradoxes (e.g. everything vs. nothing) are merged into one singular quality. The paradox of objective vs. subjective is also resolved.

Who said time existed "instead of enternity?" What does that have to do with anything? Time is not a measurment itself, it is a construct of the universe that exists independent of human perception. The way we choose to measure it and how we perceive it is what is subjective.

"Both time[less] and space[less] concepts are paradoxical when viewed in a linear context, which begs for measurements, points and distances. In a non-linear context, the opposing ends of the paradoxes (e.g. everything vs. nothing) are merged into one singular quality. The paradox of objective vs. subjective is also resolved."

You are going to have to explain this in a clear, comprehensible manner. I'm not going to let you off with this vague non-sense anymore. You are making gigantic leaps of faith without any deliberate reason for doing so. Paradoxes, if they are shown to be truly paradoxical in any context, will remain paradoxical in every context. So if you prove a concept to be paradoxical in any given context, then said paradox cannot ever be "solved."

Originally Posted by really

I wonder how agreeable your definition of 'universe' is, since you call it an Absolute reality. What of theories like the big bang? Is there not the possibility that this universe transforms or is transitory altogether?

The universe has to be absolute reality since it encompasses everything that exists everywhere. How does that pose a threat to the big bang theory?

Originally Posted by really

You can start being more clear by further explaining yourself. Stating your position without countering or justifying yourself with some relationship(s) with my response(s) is a waste of time. If you scroll back more than a few of my posts, you can see I have demonstrated the importance of context. All you have done is basically say it means nothing. You need to demonstrate this.

Why do you keep saying you have demonstrated things? Where are these demonstrations? Have I missed something? A paradox is a paradox no matter what. A square circle is a fatal contradiction even if you throw it into a non-linear context and bestow it with all kinds of mystical powers.

Originally Posted by really

The only way you have explained Omnipotence as a paradoxical and illogical concept (inherently; in and of itself, etc.) is by attributing it with false, limited terms that, not only are contradictory to the generic (also panentheistic, mystical) depiction of God, but which are not even stated in the definition of Omnipotence itself. This means it is not in the concept that is wrong, it means you have taken it out of context, creating a paradox. This is strange, since you have quoted the dictionary for reference, but it is the context in which you're using Omnipotence that makes it invalid. I.e. You've said things like '"All powerful" means there exists nothing that God can't do,', which is intimately tied to your understanding of God, not merely Omnipotence. In my first post of page 4, I pointed this out.

This is just flat wrong, so you're going to need to quote exactly where I did any of this if you don't want to be accused of lying. "All powerful" does indeed mean "there is nothing said being cannot do." That is an obvious implication of possessing "all power." If you accuse me of taking things out of context and forming contradictions, you are going to need to back yourself up, you can't just blindly state it.

Originally Posted by really

This is actually more illogical than my own argument, which is that no object (e.g. of physical universe) exists without it first being observed, hence, a unity between both one's subjective context and all perceived objects. You are saying that the universe exists whether it is observed or not, but you cannot confirm this for anybody, much less yourself.

Your argument is that no object exists without being observed? And that is't illogical? What evidence do you have to support that?

Originally Posted by really

Remember that reality is ultimately not a concept. Telling me in concept the importance of objective reality cannot ever be thoroughly justified in experience, because there'd be no consciousness or 'observer' in which it could register.

That doesn't matter, ultimate reality is much greater than human consciousness. Just because it can't be perceived as it truly is by human beings doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't take away from it's objective nature. If the universe as a whole is somehow conscious of itself, then ultimate reality would be an infinite subjectivity. Then that raises the question of "is it logically possible for a conscious being to be infinite?" I say no. Consciousness needs an interconnected "neuronal" network and in order to function properly it needs acess to all parts of the network. If this interconnected network stretches on to infinity, how can it really communicate with itself and function properly without breaking any physical laws?

Originally Posted by really

Please, I will ask you again: Are you a materialist? And are you mechanistic/emergentistic about subjectivity?"

I am not any of those things. Why does it matter? I am just arguing against your ridiculous view of reality, I am not pushing any definite view of my own.

Originally Posted by really

Exactly how are you being logical? This is completely impossible to know, because it is hypothetical. Without an observer, there is nothing that is observing and nothing to observe.

Clearly you are ok with hypothesizing of things that are impossible to know. The concept of objective reality is not impossible to know, logically it is the only kind of reality that can exist, ultimately that is. Just keep in mind that knowing and comprehending are two different things.

To assume that the universe needs an observer and needs conscious regulation in order to function is a distinctly human bias. It assumes a lot and it isn't based on anything that exists outside of your personal thoughts. Our solar system functions as a product of the totally unconscious sun. We are a product of the sun. In this case conscious beings came from an unconscious creator and an unconscious regulator. Why is the universe any different?

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 09-02-2010 11:27 PM

To Caprisun: Well, as we have shown, your definition of universe is flawed. If by Universe you mean everything that exists, then what do you call this Universe that started with the Big Bang and has finite energy and matter and is expanding? Then what about the other parallel universe? I have shown that what you mean by Universe is traditionally called 'Macroverse, or Metaverse'. This macroverse is non-linear and non-dual.

It seems to be a strawman technique to define God in anthropocentric means in a way to discredit it. As if God is a 'being' made of matter who makes 'choices' and has a 'will' separate from us that must live up to our definitions of a living being. Surely some people think of God this way, but not the majority. It seems to only apply to western abrahamic and Greek/Roman Deities.
But of course, the idea that the Universe itself is conscious and that our own individual consciousnesses are waves in an ocean of consciousness is considered illogical to people who have always thought of GOd as this man far-away on a cloud who gets angry at humans. This consciousness has always existed, and is what collapses the waves into particles. Have you any response to the Panentheistic model I presented? It seems a very valid model as well as pantheist. And what about that perhaps the Universe (or fractal Macroverse) came into being at the same time as God/Consciousness rather than God creating the Universe?

**Caprisun** · 09-03-2010 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

To Caprisun: Well, as we have shown, your definition of universe is flawed. If by Universe you mean everything that exists, then what do you call this Universe that started with the Big Bang and has finite energy and matter and is expanding? Then what about the other parallel universe? I have shown that what you mean by Universe is traditionally called 'Macroverse, or Metaverse'. This macroverse is non-linear and non-dual.

I'm really tired of people referring to official definitions as "my" definitions and as "flawed," as if you have any right to call an official definition flawed. The universe can't be defined as anything other than everything. I already explained to you how the big bang and our "section" of the universe falls into the scheme of things, but apparently you weren't listening. Referring to our "bubble" as "the universe" will become a misnomer if and when we discover something beyond it, then as I have said many times before, our perception of the universe expands to encompass this new discovery. It doesn't mean something exists beyond the universe. Physicists refer to our "bubble" as the universe because that is currently the only thing that is visible and perceivable to us. It is logical to postulate that the universe is more complex than what we perceive since what we perceive appears to have a border, but they will continue to refer to it as the universe until we definitely know what is beyond it. Meaning the space we live in would only be a small part of a much larger, overarching structure. "Macroverse" and "metaverse" are both incorrect terms. Anything that is ever discovered will be a part of the universe and anything that "is not the universe itself" will exist within the confines of the universe.

**really** · 09-03-2010 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The only thing that is meaningless is describing something as "beyond the paradigm of causality." You have literally not done anything to prove your stance other than boldly state it as fact. Why is God beyond causality but the universe isn't? You explicityly stated yourself that "something cannot come from nothing." Is God not "something?" Judging from the few times you have tried to write about physics it is clear you have a very tenuous grasp of the subject, so maybe if you had any idea what you were talking about you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.

God is not 'something', no. 'Something' cannot be both changeless and all-powerful, that is in itself beyond merely 'something'. Everything and nothing.

I think quantum physics illustrates the importance of this, particularly what is 'beyond causality', and the relationship between the observer and the observed. I think that is significant, don't you?

Are those your buzz words? Non-linear and non-dualistic? Why don't you be a little more vague? Those concepts don't mean anything to this argument. How can consciousness exist without a physical component? How does his "non-linear" nature excuse him from performing actions (necessary for a being who creates things and possess power) and from making choices (necessary for a conscious being.) How does that affect anything? The term "non-linear" was only ever used in this context to make up an excuse for God to not need a creator, but obviously the creator of that argument didn't give any consideration to the logic of the situation. In an infinite universe there can be no "non-linear" beings.

You're too quick to say those terms 'don't mean anything', so please slow down a little. This is exactly how consciousness exists without a 'physical component'; where you mistake that consciousness is bound by physicality, it is unbound. Non-linear paradigms don't require 'actions', and so 'Creation' is non-dualistic. I.e. God and His Creations are the one and the same. In an infinite reality - that is exactly the meaning of non-linear. You can't have any linear, dualistic, partial reality that is infinite; no solely objective existence.

Explain to me, in a scientific and logical manner, how something can be "non-linear." No transcendental bullshit, no paradoxes, no contradictions and no violations of natural laws, just facts and logic. Then tell me what evidence you have to support this irrational belief. I don't know why I should continue to waste my time on this concept if it has no basis in reality.

[I"]In other words, these are not explicitly logical, but they certainly exist."[/I]

So now you're better than logic? You have been steadily chipping away at the scientific establishment, and now, for the final crushing blow to your verifiability and credibility, you say your arguments don't even need to make logical sense for them to exist. There is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion if this is really how you feel.

Put it this way, if you can separate subject from object in any real case and say that only objective reality exists, you have merely ignored subjectivity. This is how logic can make exclusions. However, you and I both know there is no such thing as an independent objective reality. That is, in fact, how consciousness is non-linear.

Who said time existed "instead of enternity?" What does that have to do with anything? Time is not a measurment itself, it is a construct of the universe that exists independent of human perception. The way we choose to measure it and how we perceive it is what is subjective.

Measurement = construct. My point is essentially that you can't prove eternity by arguing for 'time', anymore than you can prove the nonlinear with only 'linear' terms. These frameworks are neither provable or disprovable, but if you are mature enough, you can understand how they can be true.

Paradoxes, if they are shown to be truly paradoxical in any context, will remain paradoxical in every context. So if you prove a concept to be paradoxical in any given context, then said paradox cannot ever be "solved."

No kidding. Being tautological is what doesn't demonstrate anything.

The universe has to be absolute reality since it encompasses everything that exists everywhere. How does that pose a threat to the big bang theory?

The Big Bang, as far as I know, cannot be used as an argument for everything, since everything cannot be created from nothing, simply put.

Can you tell me how this absolute reality is independent of subjectivity? You've said nothing is beyond it, and that it encompasses everything, so you should have no trouble with this, I hope.

Why do you keep saying you have demonstrated things? Where are these demonstrations? Have I missed something? A paradox is a paradox no matter what. A square circle is a fatal contradiction even if you throw it into a non-linear context and bestow it with all kinds of mystical powers.

Yes, I think you have missed something. Page 4, like I said. I showed how to resolve the paradox. Paradoxes are not necessarily impossibilities and you cannot argue for square circles.

This is just flat wrong, so you're going to need to quote exactly where I did any of this if you don't want to be accused of lying. "All powerful" does indeed mean "there is nothing said being cannot do." That is an obvious implication of possessing "all power." If you accuse me of taking things out of context and forming contradictions, you are going to need to back yourself up, you can't just blindly state it.

The very fact that it is not part of the definition means that you have blindly stated it, no? You associated your own meanings and made up versions of words, as far as I know, and that is linked with your depiction of God. Your posts on page 4.

Your argument is that no object exists without being observed? And that is't illogical? What evidence do you have to support that?

You did not address my point, did you? My argument that no object exists without an observer. I do not need to give you evidence for that, it is obvious that nothing exists without consciousness.

That doesn't matter, ultimate reality is much greater than human consciousness. Just because it can't be perceived as it truly is by human beings doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't take away from it's objective nature. If the universe as a whole is somehow conscious of itself, then ultimate reality would be an infinite subjectivity. Then that raises the question of "is it logically possible for a conscious being to be infinite?" I say no. Consciousness needs an interconnected "neuronal" network and in order to function properly it needs acess to all parts of the network. If this interconnected network stretches on to infinity, how can it really communicate with itself and function properly without breaking any physical laws?

Subjectivity is already infinite and without bounds, hence it is not restricted to human brain cells. You have mixed it around to say that it is dependent on the brain, which essentially means that the non-linear is emergent from the linear, and that is flawed.

I am not any of those things. Why does it matter? I am just arguing against your ridiculous view of reality, I am not pushing any definite view of my own.

It matters, since we are talking of subjecitvity. May I ask, what exactly are your views? By arguing against my views, you are arguing for your own. I think you have alluded that subjectivity is emergent. But you are still left with the same problems.

Clearly you are ok with hypothesizing of things that are impossible to know. The concept of objective reality is not impossible to know, logically it is the only kind of reality that can exist, ultimately that is. Just keep in mind that knowing and comprehending are two different things.

I said it is impossible to know without subjectivity, and not just the concept itself. And how do you explain this?

**Caprisun** · 09-04-2010 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by really

God is not 'something', no. 'Something' cannot be both changeless and all-powerful, that is in itself beyond merely 'something'. Everything and nothing.

I think quantum physics illustrates the importance of this, particularly what is 'beyond causality', and the relationship between the observer and the observed. I think that is significant, don't you?

I give up, really. Clearly you are willing to say just about anything to not be wrong. If you can't see what is wrong with that statement then you lack basic reasoning capacity and there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Originally Posted by really

You're too quick to say those terms 'don't mean anything', so please slow down a little. This is exactly how consciousness exists without a 'physical component'; where you mistake that consciousness is bound by physicality, it is unbound. Non-linear paradigms don't require 'actions', and so 'Creation' is non-dualistic. I.e. God and His Creations are the one and the same. In an infinite reality - that is exactly the meaning of non-linear. You can't have any linear, dualistic, partial reality that is infinite; no solely objective existence.

This whole paragraph amounts to nothing more than "nuh uh!" I tell you that consciousness needs a physical component in order to exist, which it does, and you respond by telling me that I am mistaken because it does not need a physical component. No shit? Really? Lets pretend for a moment that I am a giant fucking moron and I need things spelled out for me. Why don't you explain this, in depth, in terms that are not completely ambiguous and aggravatingly vague. I asked you long ago for such a response but thus far you have been unable to deliver. It would be a very simple task if you had any logical basis for your ideas. (A good start would be speaking in complete sentences and forming paragraphs coherently by subject.)

"You can't have any linear, dualistic, partial reality that is infinite; no solely objective existence."

Why not?

Originally Posted by really

Put it this way, if you can separate subject from object in any real case and say that only objective reality exists, you have merely ignored subjectivity. This is how logic can make exclusions. However, you and I both know there is no such thing as an independent objective reality. That is, in fact, how consciousness is non-linear.

As long as the entire infinite universe itself is not conscious, which it is physically impossible that it would be, then the ultimate reality is objective. Subjective reality, that which exists only inside your head, is insignificant when compared to the universe.

"However, you and I both know there is no such thing as an independent objective reality."

At what point in time did you come under the impression that you and I were on the same page on anything? I have been arguing for objective reality this entire time.

Originally Posted by really

Measurement = construct. My point is essentially that you can't prove eternity by arguing for 'time', anymore than you can prove the nonlinear with only 'linear' terms. These frameworks are neither provable or disprovable, but if you are mature enough, you can understand how they can be true.

Give me one good reason why I should put up with this bullshit? Is this really a matter of maturity? Is that all? I just need to mature a little bit and the truth will reveal itself to me? Are you so arrogant that you think your views are so self-evident that they don't need to be explained and anybody who doesn't agree is immature? What does eternity have to do with this and why would you ever need to prove it? What is a nonlinear term? The way you have described it, the nonlinear world is nothing and means nothing, it is a nullified word. Is this how you win arguments? You attempt to confuse your opponent with vague and unintelligible babble and hope they eventually give up?

Originally Posted by really

No kidding. Being tautological is what doesn't demonstrate anything.

Call it what you want, to this date you still haven't satifactorily proved the truth to be otherwise.

Originally Posted by really

The Big Bang, as far as I know, cannot be used as an argument for everything, since everything cannot be created from nothing, simply put.

Can you tell me how this absolute reality is independent of subjectivity? You've said nothing is beyond it, and that it encompasses everything, so you should have no trouble with this, I hope.

Clearly you haven't been listening to any of my long-winded lectures on the universe and the big bang. The big bang is responsible for creating a small fraction of the universe, not the entire universe.

Absolute reality has to be objective in an infinite universe because subjective reality can only exist within a conscious mind and there is no such thing as an infinite and "unbound" consciousness, it is physically and logically impossible, just like most of the thoughts that call your brain home.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, I think you have missed something. Page 4, like I said. I showed how to resolve the paradox. Paradoxes are not necessarily impossibilities and you cannot argue for square circles.

I addressed your page 4 post on page 5, it is just more of the same mumbo jumbo. "Omnipotence is nonlinear and ontological and thus actions are irrelevant." Yes, you have been saying that ad nauseum for the past three pages. What you don't seem to understand is the inherent responsibillity of an individual who makes such a dubious and scientifically unfounded argument to back themselves up and further explain their point of view. What you have done is inject more paradoxes into the arguement in a futile attempt to justify yourself but have really just succeeded in further complicating things and as a result your argument has lost all coherency. You believe you need to do little more than utter the words "nonlinear" and "nondualistic" for me to lay down arms and ackowledge your beliefs as scientifically and logically valid. Needless to say, that is not how things work, and this charade will continue on until you have a revelation.

Originally Posted by really

The very fact that it is not part of the definition means that you have blindly stated it, no? You associated your own meanings and made up versions of words, as far as I know, and that is linked with your depiction of God. Your posts on page 4.

No, that isn't right at all. If a being is all powerful, meaning it is the most powerful being in existence, that means there is no action it cannot perform. There are no blind fabrications here. The definition of the universe states that it encompasses the totality of objects and phenomena in existence. It does not explicitly state that it includes planets, but from the definition you can deduce that planets are included, can you not? It is basic logic.

Originally Posted by really

You did not address my point, did you? My argument that no object exists without an observer. I do not need to give you evidence for that, it is obvious that nothing exists without consciousness.

Oh, is it that obvious? Please forgive me, I did not realize your argument had such a solid foundation.

This is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. How could you possibly conclude that nothing exists without an observer? As far as we know, from thousands of years of scientific knowledge and from natural logical inductions, everything exists without an observer. And that is sound logic. Your entire argument revolves around the premise that there is nothing greater in the universe than human beings, whether you realize it or not. I also wrote this earlier but you completely ignored it:

To assume that the universe needs an observer and needs conscious regulation in order to function is a distinctly human bias. It assumes a lot of things and it isn't based on anything that exists outside of your personal thoughts. Our solar system functions as a product of the totally unconscious sun. We are a product of the sun. In this case conscious beings came from an unconscious creator and an unconscious regulator. Why is the universe any different?

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by really

Subjectivity is already infinite and without bounds, hence it is not restricted to human brain cells. You have mixed it around to say that it is dependent on the brain, which essentially means that the non-linear is emergent from the linear, and that is flawed.

I wrote "neuronal" in quotation marks to signifiy that I was using it to represent the concept of a network, not actual organic neurons. If you think that consciousness can somehow exist without a physical component of interconected "somethings" which are all in constant communication with eachother, then you don't know what consciousness is.

Originally Posted by really

It matters, since we are talking of subjecitvity. May I ask, what exactly are your views? By arguing against my views, you are arguing for your own. I think you have alluded that subjectivity is emergent. But you are still left with the same problems.

I judge every issue on a individual basis, it doesn't help my objectivity or biases to label myself with any sort of "ism" or "ist," and that's without mentioning that I have never heard any of those terms used in this context before. I believe self-consciousness is an innovation of organic life in the universe, nothing more. It is a biological condition which can exist only in a "linear" world and is constituted by a physical network which is necessarily confined to a finite space. There is absolutely no indication that there exists or even could exist a higher power which posesses consciousness and you have no logical basis to make such a claim.

Originally Posted by really

I said it is impossible to know without subjectivity, and not just the concept itself. And how do you explain this?

Of course it is impossible for a human to know anything without a hint of subjectivity since the knowledge is necessarily processed in the brain. What effect does that have on the ultimate objective reality? You are forming your idea of absolute reality through the filter of human limitations. All it takes to know that ultimate reality is objective is to know that something exists beyond you and above you which is unconscious and that you are the product of forces which are unconscious.

Edit: I just came across a nice quote from the book I am reading about the psychology of dreams. It doesn't prove anything but it is in line with my own personal beliefs so maybe it will give you a better understanding of my view point:

"It was Jung's major cosmological argument that the more conscious we become, the more we carry an awesome responsibility, not only for ourselves, but for our species, our planet, and, ultimately, our universe. Nature is neither conscious nor moral. She does not deal in such values as justice, compassion, concern for the ill-used and vulnerable. Blindly, she obeys her own laws, works out her own purposes, with no ethical concern for the consequences. 'The universe is not hostile,' wrote J.H. Holmes, 'nor yet is it friendly. It is simply indifferent.'"

**really** · 09-04-2010 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I give up, really. Clearly you are willing to say just about anything to not be wrong. If you can't see what is wrong with that statement then you lack basic reasoning capacity and there is no point in continuing this conversation.

There's no issue; if you could restrict God to a specific form, then surely it could be argued to exist within a causal system. What I am saying is that God is not specific (i.e. some-thing), but all-encompassing and beyond all forms, hence transcendental to causality. If you want to call that 'the universe', that is your choice, but many would agree that given an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of universes could emerge. That is the reference point we are using. Rare is it that somebody like yourself defines the universe as absolute, at least to my knowledge, but anyway.

"You can't have any linear, dualistic, partial reality that is infinite; no solely objective existence."

Why not?

To answer your question is to really see that no absolute reality can posses any of those terms (linear, partial, transitory, causal, dualistic, just to name a few). These terms are just examples of how exclusion is made, but an absolute reality cannot have any exclusions. We make exclusions through concepts, language, symbols and our own perception/opinion, but reality and consciousness alone are essentially undifferentiated.

What is non-dualistic, non-linear, all-encompassing - doesn't make exclusions, and hence, such terms are better suited for an absolute reality. Saying that the absolute is objective and is restricted to objects ignores the fact that they arise in the subjectivity of consciousness. No offense, but I find this useless and incomplete.

Subjective reality exists in all the cases where reality itself exists, because all reality is subjective. As hard as it may be to admit, your 'absolutely objective universe' is a subjective conclusion, and whether it is rational or not changes nothing.

As long as the entire infinite universe itself is not conscious, which it is physically impossible that it would be, then the ultimate reality is objective. Subjective reality, that which exists only inside your head, is insignificant when compared to the universe.

Subjectivity emerges in consciousness, not 'inside your head', which is a superimposed perception. Sure, there are many aspects of consciousness and human experience that are part of this and the content of the brain, but the capacity of consciousness as a whole is non-physical. To state otherwise is likely to be a mixture of categories.

If subjectivity and consciousness exist at all, especially as the inevitable premise for all experience and existence, then you cannot pass it off as insignificant. It clearly exists, and therefore it is actually also part of the objective universe you describe, although you cannot point to it.

"However, you and I both know there is no such thing as an independent objective reality."

At what point in time did you come under the impression that you and I were on the same page on anything? I have been arguing for objective reality this entire time.

So are you telling me you know of an independent reality, without observing it? By not observing anything or being aware of anything, you are not alive.

Give me one good reason why I should put up with this bullshit? Is this really a matter of maturity? Is that all? I just need to mature a little bit and the truth will reveal itself to me? Are you so arrogant that you think your views are so self-evident that they don't need to be explained and anybody who doesn't agree is immature? What does eternity have to do with this and why would you ever need to prove it? What is a nonlinear term? The way you have described it, the nonlinear world is nothing and means nothing, it is a nullified word. Is this how you win arguments? You attempt to confuse your opponent with vague and unintelligible babble and hope they eventually give up?

Sorry I'm just being brutally honest here. This isn't something that takes a rocket scientist to figure out, and although it is abstract, it is also quite simple. In this case, it is about maturity, not intellectual sophistication. While in most cases that will come with maturity anyway, it isn't always necessary in order understand the real meaning behind the concordant true religious/spiritual concepts, because there is fundamentally no difference between them, and what this about.

Having said that, do you not think there is anything true and real that can neither be proven nor disproven?

Clearly you haven't been listening to any of my long-winded lectures on the universe and the big bang. The big bang is responsible for creating a small fraction of the universe, not the entire universe.

Ok, in that case I'd agree (existence cannot come from non-existence).

Absolute reality has to be objective in an infinite universe because subjective reality can only exist within a conscious mind and there is no such thing as an infinite and "unbound" consciousness, it is physically and logically impossible, just like most of the thoughts that call your brain home.

Like I said to a similar point: "I think quantum physics illustrates the importance of this, particularly what is 'beyond causality', and the relationship between the observer and the observed. I think that is significant, don't you?" Do you see the implications, or know what I'm referring to?

No, that isn't right at all. If a being is all powerful, meaning it is the most powerful being in existence, that means there is no action it cannot perform. There are no blind fabrications here. The definition of the universe states that it encompasses the totality of objects and phenomena in existence. It does not explicitly state that it includes planets, but from the definition you can deduce that planets are included, can you not? It is basic logic.

Does not seeing how an all-powerful being can already exist without the need to impose any action or force, solve the paradox of it being unable to perform certain actions? It's as simple as that. If you want to stay with your favorite definition of all-powerful just so you can refute God, then stop talking to me, because to me that is old news. It is like finding a flaw in the Bible and then saying that no amount of reasoning for that flaw means anything. With that stance, you can never move past the problem and arrive at a new meaning; you just like to stay with it because it's fun, but that is narrow mindedness. Ask yourself, what's if it didn't mean that?

This is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. How could you possibly conclude that nothing exists without an observer?

If you cease to exist and stop observing, nothing exists at all. Therefore, consciousness is imperative for anything to be observed; for anything to exist. Because by being alive, you are inevitably conscious and aware.

I also wrote this earlier but you completely ignored it:

To assume that the universe needs an observer and needs conscious regulation in order to function is a distinctly human bias. It assumes a lot of things and it isn't based on anything that exists outside of your personal thoughts. Our solar system functions as a product of the totally unconscious sun. We are a product of the sun. In this case conscious beings came from an unconscious creator and an unconscious regulator. Why is the universe any different?

Thoughts?

Oh, sorry I didn't see that. You must've edited it into your post late. My thoughts are that, first of all this is not my argument. I have not said that the universe cannot function without an observer, more to the point: I said it doesn't and cannot exist at all.

I actually think your argument is biased away from human importance, since humans are also part of the universe, and they cannot be rejected. And I am not saying they are greater than the universe or that the observer is the human being, I am saying that consciousness itself is the essential observer. Being conscious doesn't necessitate having opinions or thoughts, it means being aware of existence.

I wrote "neuronal" in quotation marks to signifiy that I was using it to represent the concept of a network, not actual organic neurons. If you think that consciousness can somehow exist without a physical component of interconected "somethings" which are all in constant communication with eachother, then you don't know what consciousness is.

Why? I stated it is non-linear, and it is obviously non-physical too. You cannot build consciousness out of neurons or networks, unless consciousness is physical.

I judge every issue on a individual basis, it doesn't help my objectivity or biases to label myself with any sort of "ism" or "ist," and that's without mentioning that I have never heard any of those terms used in this context before. I believe self-consciousness is an innovation of organic life in the universe, nothing more. It is a biological condition which can exist only in a "linear" world and is constituted by a physical network which is necessarily confined to a finite space. There is absolutely no indication that there exists or even could exist a higher power which posesses consciousness and you have no logical basis to make such a claim.

[...]

Edit: I just came across a nice quote from the book I am reading about the psychology of dreams. It doesn't prove anything but it is in line with my own personal beliefs so maybe it will give you a better understanding of my view point:

"It was Jung's major cosmological argument that the more conscious we become, the more we carry an awesome responsibility, not only for ourselves, but for our species, our planet, and, ultimately, our universe. Nature is neither conscious nor moral. She does not deal in such values as justice, compassion, concern for the ill-used and vulnerable. Blindly, she obeys her own laws, works out her own purposes, with no ethical concern for the consequences. 'The universe is not hostile,' wrote J.H. Holmes, 'nor yet is it friendly. It is simply indifferent.'"

Thanks for explaining some background, I get the picture. Also, I'd generally agree with the that last quote.

**Caprisun** · 09-05-2010 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by really

There's no issue; if you could restrict God to a specific form, then surely it could be argued to exist within a causal system. What I am saying is that God is not specific (i.e. some-thing), but all-encompassing and beyond all forms, hence transcendental to causality. If you want to call that 'the universe', that is your choice, but many would agree that given an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of universes could emerge. That is the reference point we are using. Rare is it that somebody like yourself defines the universe as absolute, at least to my knowledge, but anyway.

If it has no form, has no physical component, cannot perform actions, make choices, or posses any amount of coherency, it does not exist as a single entity. You are so caught up in forming your theory so that it is free of loopholes that you haven't given any consideration to the validity of it. You still, after many requests, have not told me how something can be non-linear or "free from specific form," and I am starting to lose patience with your esoteric and presumtuous attitude.

Originally Posted by really

To answer your question is to really see that no absolute reality can posses any of those terms (linear, partial, transitory, causal, dualistic, just to name a few). These terms are just examples of how exclusion is made, but an absolute reality cannot have any exclusions. We make exclusions through concepts, language, symbols and our own perception/opinion, but reality and consciousness alone are essentially undifferentiated

What is non-dualistic, non-linear, all-encompassing - doesn't make exclusions, and hence, such terms are better suited for an absolute reality. Saying that the absolute is objective and is restricted to objects ignores the fact that they arise in the subjectivity of consciousness. No offense, but I find this useless and incomplete.

Subjective reality exists in all the cases where reality itself exists, because all reality is subjective. As hard as it may be to admit, your 'absolutely objective universe' is a subjective conclusion, and whether it is rational or not changes nothing.

This doesn't even begin to answer my question. I feel like I am pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer out of you. I wonder sometimes if Im even conversing with a fellow human being. I wanted to know how such paradoxical concepts as "nonlinear" and "nondualistic" can exist. I want a semi-technical and logical explanation, there is otherwise no reason to take you seriously. Validity is all I'm really interested in.

The crux of the problem lies with your assumption of an infinite, "nonlinear" consciousness. To say ultimate reality is objective is not "restricting it to objects," it is merely stating that whatever makes up the universe at it's most fundamental level is not conscious of itself. Your notion of this ultimate reality being "non-physical" only serves to further discredit your theory. Everything logically has to exist within the physical universe.

Originally Posted by really

Subjectivity emerges in consciousness, not 'inside your head', which is a superimposed perception. Sure, there are many aspects of consciousness and human experience that are part of this and the content of the brain, but the capacity of consciousness as a whole is non-physical. To state otherwise is likely to be a mixture of categories.

Subjectivity emerges in consciousness, and consciousness emerges within a physical network. It doesn't have to be a brain, it doesn't have to be in a head, and it doesn't even have to be organic, but it does have to be physical.

The capacity of consciousness as a whole isn't non-pysical, it is electrical, which is physical. It is clear that you have grossly misunderstood the nature of consciousness and what really makes up a conscious entity at its most fundamental level.

Originally Posted by really

If subjectivity and consciousness exist at all, especially as the inevitable premise for all experience and existence, then you cannot pass it off as insignificant. It clearly exists, and therefore it is actually also part of the objective universe you describe, although you cannot point to it.

Who said subjectivity was the inevitable premise for all existence? That is a ridiculous and completely unfounded claim. This would be a lot easier if you didn't automatically take the stance that your views are already irrefutably true and assume that your theory is so self-evident that it is a natural "given" which doesn't need validation. If I had a little more experience in psychology I would consider diagnosing such a philosophy as psychotic. So lets pretend for the sake of this discussion that I can't read your mind.

Subjectivity and consciousness evolved in small, organic life forms as an aid to a successful existence. They were conceived of entirely unconscious forces. We don't know if consciousness exists anywhere else in the universe and we don't know if consciousness is the inevitable path of biological evolution. But it would be a natural bias for a conscious being to assume that it was ultimately created by consciousness. Such an idea is physically impossible, though, since everything we know of consciousness, based off of the way it evolved in all living organisms on Earth, it requires a physcial connection. The whole concept of consciousness requires a means of self-communicating, which requires a physical connection. If your ultimate consciousness does not possess those characteristics then it is not consciousness but something entirely different.

Originally Posted by really

So are you telling me you know of an independent reality, without observing it? By not observing anything or being aware of anything, you are not alive.

What I can or cannot know does not matter when we are speaking of ultimate reality. The notion that something does not exist until it is observed and processed through a form of consciousness is truly absurd.

Originally Posted by really

Sorry I'm just being brutally honest here. This isn't something that takes a rocket scientist to figure out, and although it is abstract, it is also quite simple. In this case, it is about maturity, not intellectual sophistication. While in most cases that will come with maturity anyway, it isn't always necessary in order understand the real meaning behind the concordant true religious/spiritual concepts, because there is fundamentally no difference between them, and what this about.

I don't know how to react to this, honestly. I should probably be offended, since what you just said was incredibly offensive and egotistical. It doesn't surprise me that you would feel this way though. Since you have entered this discussion you have exhibited an extraordinary capacity for snooty arrogance and an unwarranted sense of self-righteousness, when to me you really seem to be living in a world of self-serving oblivion. I say oblivion because you are completely unaware of how you come across to others and you seem incapable of empathizing with fellow human beings, as evidenced by your inability to directly address any of my questions or concerns. I feel like I am an unwilling participant of a sermon of which you are the preacher.

So please, spare me the lectures on maturity because Im not at all interested in your thoughts on that subject. (And this most definitely is not a matter of maturity.)

Originally Posted by really

Having said that, do you not think there is anything true and real that can neither be proven nor disproven?

I'm not going to pretend like I have the authority to give a definite answer to that question, and neither should you.

Originally Posted by really

Ok, in that case I'd agree (existence cannot come from non-existence).

Ok. In that case, God does not exist.

Originally Posted by really

Like I said to a similar point: "I think quantum physics illustrates the importance of this, particularly what is 'beyond causality', and the relationship between the observer and the observed. I think that is significant, don't you?" Do you see the implications, or know what I'm referring to?

I see that once again you are attempting to misconstrue real science, either intentionally or unintentionally, to serve your own extravagant theory. First of all, there is so little that is understood about quantum mechanics it would be rather foolish of you to rely on any of it for your theory, especially since I get the feeling that you don't really understand it anyways. Second of all, the only thing that is known about the observer effect is that observing an experiment affects it in some way, it doesn't state anything about how or why it affects it and it says nothing of an observer actually bringing any particles into existence, only changing/defining the state of particles which already exist. There are a lot of conflicting theories as to what this actually implies, none of which support your idea of a nonlinear God or ultimate subjectivity.

Originally Posted by really

Does ~~not~~ seeing how an all-powerful being can already exist without the need to impose any action or force, solve the paradox of it being unable to perform certain actions? It's as simple as that.

I wasn't refuting the fact that God has always existed, I was refuting the fact that you said God created the universe but is also incapable of performing actions. Also that to possess any amount of power one first needs the ability to perform actions and make decisions.

Originally Posted by really

If you cease to exist and stop observing, nothing exists at all. Therefore, consciousness is imperative for anything to be observed; for anything to exist. Because by being alive, you are inevitably conscious and aware.

And here it all comes to a head. I would really like to know how you came to this conclusion. Do you really believe that nothing exists beyond you? When you cease to exist, do I also cease to exist since you are no longer around to observe me?

Originally Posted by really

Oh, sorry I didn't see that. You must've edited it into your post late. My thoughts are that, first of all this is not my argument. I have not said that the universe cannot function without an observer, more to the point: I said it doesn't and cannot exist at all.

Well that is great, now how about addressing my point? That point being that all conscious beings on Earth arose completely and totally as a result of unconscious forces.

Originally Posted by really

I actually think your argument is biased away from human importance, since humans are also part of the universe, and they cannot be rejected. And I am not saying they are greater than the universe or that the observer is the human being, I am saying that consciousness itself is the essential observer. Being conscious doesn't necessitate having opinions or thoughts, it means being aware of existence.

What do you mean rejected? Do you place an equal amount of importance on all other living organisms?

Originally Posted by really

Why? I stated it is non-linear, and it is obviously non-physical too. You cannot build consciousness out of neurons or networks, unless consciousness is physical.

Consciousness is physical. How can it not be? Be direct and succinct, please.

**really** · 09-05-2010 07:47 AM

You know, a lot of your posts/responses include large portions of ad hominem and a vulgar use of rhetoric, which I don't appreciate. I can therefore see that you have the wrong attitude to truly understand what I'm saying. By saying things like "This doesn't even begin to answer my question. I feel like I am pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer out of you. I wonder sometimes if Im even conversing with a fellow human being." and "You still, after many requests, have not told me how something can be non-linear...", gives me the impression that you're incredibly ignorant. Take a good read of my posts, and you'll see that I have in fact, done my best to answer your questions. If you want a specific answer, ask me a specific question. You might be surprised at how broad your questions are, so don't complain if I return you with broad answers. I'm asking you for a mature discussion, not a soap box. If you can't spare me that effort, then forget it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If it has no form, has no physical component, cannot perform actions, make choices, or posses any amount of coherency, it does not exist as a single entity.

[...]

The crux of the problem lies with your assumption of an infinite, "nonlinear" consciousness. To say ultimate reality is objective is not "restricting it to objects," it is merely stating that whatever makes up the universe at it's most fundamental level is not conscious of itself. Your notion of this ultimate reality being "non-physical" only serves to further discredit your theory. Everything logically has to exist within the physical universe.

[...]

Subjectivity emerges in consciousness, and consciousness emerges within a physical network. It doesn't have to be a brain, it doesn't have to be in a head, and it doesn't even have to be organic, but it does have to be physical.

The capacity of consciousness as a whole isn't non-pysical, it is electrical, which is physical. It is clear that you have grossly misunderstood the nature of consciousness and what really makes up a conscious entity at its most fundamental level.

[...]

Consciousness is physical. How can it not be? Be direct and succinct, please.

I have gotten the gist that you have materialist views, since you can't understand, or don't agree in how anything can be non-physical and still exist. If this is true, then thanks for your time, but I can't see any point in talking any further.

Who said subjectivity was the inevitable premise for all existence?

[...]

What I can or cannot know does not matter when we are speaking of ultimate reality. The notion that something does not exist until it is observed and processed through a form of consciousness is truly absurd.

[...]

I'm not going to pretend like I have the authority to give a definite answer to that question, and neither should you.

You cannot actually have an absolute reality that excludes your own awareness of it, because awareness is essential for reality to exist. To state otherwise is a bias towards a separate objective universe that persists after death, but with honesty, this is found to be a mere conclusion that is made while alive. An absolute reality already exists therefore, and one's awareness cannot be excluded as unimportant. You cannot use somebodies death as a reason for it, since you have never experienced death or what it means.

When talking about the absolute, there is a main difference here, because you are arguing for 'something' to exist independent of observation, but I am arguing for 'everything' to coexist with observation. That is both the real meaning of non-linear and non-dualistic consciousness, because there is no true division or separation between both subjective and objective realities; the exist simultaneously as a whole.

Subjectivity and consciousness evolved in small, organic life forms as an aid to a successful existence. They were conceived of entirely unconscious forces. We don't know if consciousness exists anywhere else in the universe and we don't know if consciousness is the inevitable path of biological evolution. But it would be a natural bias for a conscious being to assume that it was ultimately created by consciousness. Such an idea is physically impossible, though, since everything we know of consciousness, based off of the way it evolved in all living organisms on Earth, it requires a physcial connection. The whole concept of consciousness requires a means of self-communicating, which requires a physical connection. If your ultimate consciousness does not possess those characteristics then it is not consciousness but something entirely different.

I appreciate the background, but if there's so much you don't know about consciousness ("We don't know if consciousness exists anywhere else in the universe and we don't know if consciousness is the inevitable path of biological evolution."), then what's the point in arguing for unconscious forces?

I see that once again you are attempting to misconstrue real science, either intentionally or unintentionally, to serve your own extravagant theory. First of all, there is so little that is understood about quantum mechanics it would be rather foolish of you to rely on any of it for your theory, especially since I get the feeling that you don't really understand it anyways. Second of all, the only thing that is known about the observer effect is that observing an experiment affects it in some way, it doesn't state anything about how or why it affects it and it says nothing of an observer actually bringing any particles into existence, only changing/defining the state of particles which already exist. There are a lot of conflicting theories as to what this actually implies, none of which support your idea of a nonlinear God or ultimate subjectivity.

Simply put, there is enough understanding about quantum mechanics that one can conclude that consciousness is non-local and has noticeable impact on what is observed, indicating unity and non-linearity between consciousness and the universe. It is obvious to me that non-local phenomena (consciousness) cannot arise from local phenomena (brain), but quite the opposite must be true; that physicality emerges out of consciousness - meaning that consciousness is more than a mere registering of the senses, it is the whole playing field of intelligence that purports survival and evolution.

I wasn't refuting the fact that God has always existed, I was refuting the fact that you said God created the universe but is also incapable of performing actions. Also that to possess any amount of power one first needs the ability to perform actions and make decisions.

Repetition aside though, you are refuting something that solves the issues at hand, in sake of the issues at hand. If you want to see through your paradox of Omnipotence, you have to be willing to resolve it, not dwell in it.

And here it all comes to a head. I would really like to know how you came to this conclusion. Do you really believe that nothing exists beyond you? When you cease to exist, do I also cease to exist since you are no longer around to observe me?

When I am no longer aware, nothing exists. Nothing - not even myself; no existence whatsoever. That is the point. Notice that your conclusion that things exist independent of 'you' existing, is a conclusion that occurs in the context of you still existing. My point is exactly, that you will never be able to observe anything without your subjective awareness of it, because that is how anything must first exist. I am not talking about things that you cannot see, but a total panorama of all things seen and unseen.

Well that is great, now how about addressing my point? That point being that all conscious beings on Earth arose completely and totally as a result of unconscious forces.

Are you hinting towards causal systems? Because I'd argue that causality is a limited understanding of the universe. You have to tell me more about it.

What do you mean rejected? Do you place an equal amount of importance on all other living organisms?

By placing an equal importance on everything that exists, nothing is rejected. No bias.

**Caprisun** · 09-06-2010 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by really

You know, a lot of your posts/responses include large portions of ad hominem and a vulgar use of rhetoric, which I don't appreciate. I can therefore see that you have the wrong attitude to truly understand what I'm saying. By saying things like "This doesn't even begin to answer my question. I feel like I am pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer out of you. I wonder sometimes if Im even conversing with a fellow human being." and "You still, after many requests, have not told me how something can be non-linear...", gives me the impression that you're incredibly ignorant. Take a good read of my posts, and you'll see that I have in fact, done my best to answer your questions. If you want a specific answer, ask me a specific question. You might be surprised at how broad your questions are, so don't complain if I return you with broad answers. I'm asking you for a mature discussion, not a soap box. If you can't spare me that effort, then forget it.

There is a specific reason for that really. This has been going on for three pages now and you still refuse to give me a straight answer. My questions are as specific as they could be concerning the broadness of your argument. How do you expect me to react when you take such a superior stance yet refuse to thoroughly explain your point of view? You flat out told me that I don't understand because I'm not mature enough, yet you know nothing of my personality or level of maturity. Why should I accept an answer like that? Do you think I'm a fool? The fact that you attribute your knowledge of a purely scientific and philisophical concept (matters of intellect) to your maturity just tells me that you don't know what it means to be mature.

What it comes down to is this, if you really understood what you were talking about, it wouldn't be so hard for you to put it into plain English. This leads me to believe you are arguing for something you don't really understand. But then, according to you, "it isn't rocket science." I'm not an idiot, really. I can understand basic concepts. It isn't enough to merely state that God is nonlinear and trascendental, any moron can say that without truly knowing what it means and I think I've made it clear just how poorly that statement explains the situation. So just give it to me straight, if you don't know then say you don't know. That way we can avoid the extracurricular bullshit.

I have gotten the gist that you have materialist views, since you can't understand, or don't agree in how anything can be non-physical and still exist. If this is true, then thanks for your time, but I can't see any point in talking any further.

I knew it would come down to this. It isn't your inability to present your argument in comprehensible terms, but my lack of intellectual and spiritual capacity. Is that right?

(FYI, Im not a materialist.)

You cannot actually have an absolute reality that excludes your own awareness of it, because awareness is essential for reality to exist. To state otherwise is a bias towards a separate objective universe that persists after death, but with honesty, this is found to be a mere conclusion that is made while alive. An absolute reality already exists therefore, and one's awareness cannot be excluded as unimportant. You cannot use somebodies death as a reason for it, since you have never experienced death or what it means.

We aren't talking about a personal reality, we are talking about an absolute reality which is much greater than any single human. The perceptions of one person plays an infinitesimal role in absolute reality. If all conscious life in the universe was extinguished tomorrow, surely all the planets and stars would still exist, would they not?

When talking about the absolute, there is a main difference here, because you are arguing for 'something' to exist independent of observation, but I am arguing for 'everything' to coexist with observation. That is both the real meaning of non-linear and non-dualistic consciousness, because there is no true division or separation between both subjective and objective realities; the exist simultaneously as a whole.

You aren't arguing for "everything to coexist with observation," you are arguing that nothing can exist without first being observed, which you stated explicitly. And there is a very definite division between subjective and objective, the two words otherwise wouldn't exist. I see absolutely no reason why the universe couldn't exist without a conscious observer, on the contrary, I don't see how a conscious observer could exist period. I am curious but so far you have failed to enlighten me.

I appreciate the background, but if there's so much you don't know about consciousness ("We don't know if consciousness exists anywhere else in the universe and we don't know if consciousness is the inevitable path of biological evolution."), then what's the point in arguing for unconscious forces?

There isn't "so much we don't know." We know plenty about the instances of consciousness on our planet, which is enough. What we define as "consciousness" is derived entirely of the biological condition which has evolved on Earth. Which means you are applying an Earth born concept, which may very well be unique to Earth, to an ultimate creator of which you have no knowledge. The definition does not fit since consciousness as we know it cannot be infinite and necessarily exists within a physical context.

The point was to show you that consciousness can't be non-physical. And if there is no point in arguing for unconscious forces, there is certainly no point in arguing for conscious forces.

Simply put, there is enough understanding about quantum mechanics that one can conclude that consciousness is non-local and has noticeable impact on what is observed, indicating unity and non-linearity between consciousness and the universe. It is obvious to me that non-local phenomena (consciousness) cannot arise from local phenomena (brain), but quite the opposite must be true; that physicality emerges out of consciousness - meaning that consciousness is more than a mere registering of the senses, it is the whole playing field of intelligence that purports survival and evolution.

No, you absolutely cannot make that conclusion. This is good because I think we are finally getting to the root of the problem which can be explained in scientific terms. These theories do not claim that consciousness somehow leaves the head and physically changes anything. It is basically a mind game, stating that there are certain things which we cannot know given certain circumstances. Nobody is implying that consciousness exists in an invisible, undetectable field which interacts with matter. The only way your brain may interact with the environment is through electrical impulse, which is incredibly weak and fully detectable. There are also different theories which question how higher dimensions and parallel universes play into it, but it is still up for debate. To put it simply, you can't make any conclusions about it, certainly not the one you have drawn. As far as I know, there aren't any physicists even trying to take it in the same general direction as you have.

"It is obvious to me that non-local phenomena (consciousness) cannot arise from local phenomena (brain), but quite the opposite must be true; that physicality emerges out of consciousness "

This statement contradicts basically everything we know about the universe. It is so blatantly false.

Repetition aside though, you are refuting something that solves the issues at hand, in sake of the issues at hand. If you want to see through your paradox of Omnipotence, you have to be willing to resolve it, not dwell in it.

You can't resolve a paradox, unless it wasn't really a paradox to begin with. Omnipotence has been shown to be paradoxical in several different lights, you have failed to prove otherwise.

When I am no longer aware, nothing exists. Nothing - not even myself; no existence whatsoever. That is the point. Notice that your conclusion that things exist independent of 'you' existing, is a conclusion that occurs in the context of you still existing. My point is exactly, that you will never be able to observe anything without your subjective awareness of it, because that is how anything must first exist. I am not talking about things that you cannot see, but a total panorama of all things seen and unseen.

This is again a personal reality, not an absolute reality. We have proven unequivically that objective realities exist independent of us, we can do this with instruments which are not conscious of themselves and therefore have no subjective bias. Your theory literally states that you are the center and the purpose of the universe. When you end, it ends for everybody and everything. Is that what you are saying? That is obviously not the case. It is so obvious in fact, I don't see how you could possibly refute it.

Are you hinting towards causal systems? Because I'd argue that causality is a limited understanding of the universe. You have to tell me more about it.

The point that I was making is that consciousness on Earth evolved through entirely unconscious forces with no help from consciousness. If it is your argument that consciousness is the ultimate reality and ultimate creator, I just cited an example of unconsciousness giving birth to consciousness, which is the only logical way consciousness can come into existence. To me, or any rational individual, this says that consciousness is a special and unique development which is reserved for small, planet dwelling life-forms. Consciousness is inherently more complex than unconsciouness and evolution always takes the path of simple to complex, which means that consciousness can only come from an unconscious force. Unconsciousness precedes consciousness, always. This refutes your notion that consciousness is "the inevitable premise to all existence" and that "nothing can exist without being observed," since it is apparent that the act of observing is secondary to the state of existing.

By placing an equal importance on everything that exists, nothing is rejected. No bias.

I still don't know what you mean by "rejected." (This is exactly what I mean by not giving me a direct answer. Using ambiguous or vague terms is the same as avoiding the question.)

And you forgot to address this question:

Consciousness is physical. How can it not be?

**really** · 09-06-2010 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I knew it would come down to this. It isn't your inability to present your argument in comprehensible terms, but my lack of intellectual and spiritual capacity. Is that right?

(FYI, Im not a materialist.)

This really doesn't help me much, I'd appreciate if you can explain your position. I have stated this so you can tell me if I am right/wrong, because if your paradigm automatically excludes the possibility of non-physical existence, then what's the point in me explaining that it exists? Or conversely, what's the point in you asking about the non-physical if it most likely goes against your wishes to believe in it? It is then nothing more than an argument for argument's sake.

I am not explaining how consciousness is non-physical until I can see how to best explain and word it, having known the answer to my above problem.

We aren't talking about a personal reality, we are talking about an absolute reality which is much greater than any single human. The perceptions of one person plays an infinitesimal role in absolute reality. If all conscious life in the universe was extinguished tomorrow, surely all the planets and stars would still exist, would they not?

Your conclusions are biased towards the external universe. I have stated that no reality can exist without awareness - what does this matter if we are human or not? Conscious beings have the inner capacity to become conscious of their existence; I'd argue this awareness is not 'personal' at all. It has nothing to do with personal perception, since awareness is not objective or limited and, in it's depths, it certainly isn't a projection of mental processes. I am talking about awareness of existence by the way, not awareness about the universe or awareness of personal opinion, awareness of existence itself. That in itself is pure, unbound and impersonal.

So to answer your question: "If all life in the universe was extinguished tomorrow, surely all the planets and stars would still exist, would they not?" I honestly have to say I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't exist. To give an objective answer however, we could argue hypothetically that it changes nothing about the planets and stars, but my post should have illustrated how this is meaningless besides.

You aren't arguing for "everything to coexist with observation," you are arguing that nothing can exist without first being observed, which you stated explicitly. And there is a very definite division between subjective and objective, the two words otherwise wouldn't exist. I see absolutely no reason why the universe couldn't exist without a conscious observer, on the contrary, I don't see how a conscious observer could exist period. I am curious but so far you have failed to enlighten me.

Like I said on making exclusions: in an absolute reality, which already exists, you can't say it is only objective. It is both objective and subjective simultaneously. They are two different words for the means of abstraction and definition, but they're for relative purposes only. How can the absolute reality reject the intrinsic knowledge of it? That's a little naive I think. If we went along with your definition of absolute, we would still have to make relative distinctions, and that is unfortunately self-refuting.

If you know well of the scientific method, you'll see that it has no capacity to understand non-objective reality. The limitation of science is that the claims must be falsifiable, yet the very basis for all objective reality, is, in context, unfalsifiable. Herein is the critical point where you can begin to see that science can never prove God, or any higher spiritual concepts, which are, by nature, tied to the inner unfalsifiable reality of subjective awareness. The western depiction tends to slot spiritual terms into objective symbols, which are probably imagined in the physical universe, but these depictions arise because of unfamiliarity of the concepts (for one reason), not because of the concepts themselves.

There isn't "so much we don't know." We know plenty about the instances of consciousness on our planet, which is enough. What we define as "consciousness" is derived entirely of the biological condition which has evolved on Earth. Which means you are applying an Earth born concept, which may very well be unique to Earth, to an ultimate creator of which you have no knowledge. The definition does not fit since consciousness as we know it cannot be infinite and necessarily exists within a physical context.

The point was to show you that consciousness can't be non-physical. And if there is no point in arguing for unconscious forces, there is certainly no point in arguing for conscious forces.

Perhaps consciousness is a hard word to use here, and it's easy to say it has been overused. So let's stick with 'subjective awareness'. I trust that there is less room for misinterpretation or miscategorization there. Subjective awareness is a purely non-physical reference. By not having physical constraints, it is boundless. Now, there may be some relationship between this and evolution, and I don't doubt that there is, but to jump the gun and say this is something inherited/developed and therefore unlike God is unrelated and is more of a bias than anything else.

No, you absolutely cannot make that conclusion. This is good because I think we are finally getting to the root of the problem which can be explained in scientific terms. These theories do not claim that consciousness somehow leaves the head and physically changes anything. It is basically a mind game, stating that there are certain things which we cannot know given certain circumstances. Nobody is implying that consciousness exists in an invisible, undetectable field which interacts with matter. The only way your brain may interact with the environment is through electrical impulse, which is incredibly weak and fully detectable. There are also different theories which question how higher dimensions and parallel universes play into it, but it is still up for debate. To put it simply, you can't make any conclusions about it, certainly not the one you have drawn. As far as I know, there aren't any physicists even trying to take it in the same general direction as you have.

I believe Thomas Campbell is an important physicist on this matter, you should look him up. Although, I am sure you have been asked that once before on this forum (Marilynne Robinson: Those who do the arguing are the worst representatives?), but you didn't seem too impressed. That's not my problem, especially if you can't set aside some time to watch an intriguing lecture, which is free. He has very groundbreaking work in the way it has been contextualized, although it isn't exactly anything new in spiritual/religious history (it may be new to a lot of scientists). You should also try Henry Stapp, I believe you can download free articles/papers on the web somewhere.

You can't resolve a paradox, unless it wasn't really a paradox to begin with. Omnipotence has been shown to be paradoxical in several different lights, you have failed to prove otherwise.

You are just repeating yourself, like as if I haven't already read that. So what are your thoughts about the meaning of 'existential'? That's how I said it could be resolved, by seeing that Omnipotence is an existential concept that concerns the power of the being's existence, not a concept concerning the power of its assumed 'actions'. Spiritual concepts are, ultimately concerning whole existences and realms after all, and not kinds of super-heros. In a sense, this should be obvious if you're aware of how objectified these term can become.

This is again a personal reality, not an absolute reality. We have proven unequivically that objective realities exist independent of us, we can do this with instruments which are not conscious of themselves and therefore have no subjective bias. Your theory literally states that you are the center and the purpose of the universe. When you end, it ends for everybody and everything. Is that what you are saying? That is obviously not the case. It is so obvious in fact, I don't see how you could possibly refute it.

While the objective reality is undeniably independent of opinion, an absolute reality does not reject certain things rather than others, it contains everything. You don't need any instruments, because they too are part of that reality. The absolute is neither provable nor disprovable. You can only prove objective reality. The way to finding the absolute is simply through finding what is not absolute, and as the means of reason and science approaches its threshold, there may be dozens of paradoxes. But they can all be resolved with a new paradigm.

I am not saying when you 'end', it 'ends' for everybody (much less that it could end at all), but if you did 'end' then you would cease to know anything, and hence reality would cease to exist. Because what is an absolute reality that cannot be known? It is a partial reality. It is a conceptualized reality. I am arguing for that absolute to be part of awareness, and you cannot point to awareness.

The point that I was making is that consciousness on Earth evolved through entirely unconscious forces with no help from consciousness. If it is your argument that consciousness is the ultimate reality and ultimate creator, I just cited an example of unconsciousness giving birth to consciousness, which is the only logical way consciousness can come into existence. To me, or any rational individual, this says that consciousness is a special and unique development which is reserved for small, planet dwelling life-forms. Consciousness is inherently more complex than unconsciouness and evolution always takes the path of simple to complex, which means that consciousness can only come from an unconscious force. Unconsciousness precedes consciousness, always. This refutes your notion that consciousness is "the inevitable premise to all existence" and that "nothing can exist without being observed," since it is apparent that the act of observing is secondary to the state of existing.

Ok, that makes more sense. Well observation and observing has arisen in consciousness and in life forms (whether consciously/unconsciously or not), so it must be contingent in sustaining that life and its intelligence. In saying it is secondary you are only applying a causal relationship, although there might not be one directly. If you can say that consciousness arises from unconscious forces, that may be true in some methods of interpretation. But in that sense, the unconscious can be argued to be part of that basic term 'consciousness'.

I think we may be arguing for something different from each other, because I am not arguing for mere 'conscious' awareness in terms of personal volition or will, but beyond that. It is an intelligent awareness that facilitate meanings and purpose to perceived existence, and whether it be personal or objective is irrelevant. That inner awareness may be an 'unconscious force' in the sense that it is there without our choice, but it is certainly 'conscious' in the sense that it can potentially bring alertness to the whole universe. In this case, it is important to discern the difference between the capacity to be aware (subjective awareness) and the mentalization that occurs within that awareness (thinking/concepts/beliefs etc), the latter I think is more of an unconscious factor of inheritance, yet we might also say that the former is as well. So I should ask, where do you draw the line between saying that some factor is conscious and unconscious? It would help if you define consciousness as well, or simply use another term like I have.

I still don't know what you mean by "rejected." (This is exactly what I mean by not giving me a direct answer. Using ambiguous or vague terms is the same as avoiding the question.)

By rejecting things, you are excluding them from something. So in conceptualizing an absolute reality, you cannot say it is one thing rather than another, because the absolute must include everything that exists in absolute terms, while it does not necessarily have to posses the properties of everything that exists (e.g. the absolute is not relative, yet it includes all relativity). Without the absolute, you would have no relative terms, and without everything, you cannot begin to make relative exclusions. So they must be united, and nothing rejected except what is impossible/false to begin with.

**Caprisun** · 09-07-2010 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by really

This really doesn't help me much, I'd appreciate if you can explain your position. I have stated this so you can tell me if I am right/wrong, because if your paradigm automatically excludes the possibility of non-physical existence, then what's the point in me explaining that it exists? Or conversely, what's the point in you asking about the non-physical if it most likely goes against your wishes to believe in it? It is then nothing more than an argument for argument's sake.

I am not explaining how consciousness is non-physical until I can see how to best explain and word it, having known the answer to my above problem.

"Non-physical" is synonymous with "does not exist." Saying something exists in a non-physical state is oxymoronic. This isn't a matter of me being closed minded, it is a matter of fact. If you aren't willing to explain to me how consciousness can function in a non-physical state, then why am I here? It shouldn't be this difficult.

Originally Posted by really

Your conclusions are biased towards the external universe. I have stated that no reality can exist without awareness - what does this matter if we are human or not? Conscious beings have the inner capacity to become conscious of their existence; I'd argue this awareness is not 'personal' at all. It has nothing to do with personal perception, since awareness is not objective or limited and, in it's depths, it certainly isn't a projection of mental processes. I am talking about awareness of existence by the way, not awareness about the universe or awareness of personal opinion, awareness of existence itself. That in itself is pure, unbound and impersonal.

So to answer your question: "If all life in the universe was extinguished tomorrow, surely all the planets and stars would still exist, would they not?" I honestly have to say I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't exist. To give an objective answer however, we could argue hypothetically that it changes nothing about the planets and stars, but my post should have illustrated how this is meaningless besides.

Objectivity is completely unbiased while subjectivity is hopelessly biased, so how can I be biased towards the outside world? I am not neglecting the existence of subjective realities, I am saying objective reality encompasses all subjective realities.

"It has nothing to do with personal perception, since awareness is not objective or limited and, in it's depths, it certainly isn't a projection of mental processes."

It is 100% projection of mental processes. Subjective reality is completely personal, unless you are saying you have no original thoughts of your own. In that case your subjective reality would be a copy of someone elses subjective reality. Our "awareness of existence" is not pure, it is savagely tainted by emotions, the environment, culture, and biology. That's without mentioning how everyone has differing opinions about existence. There is no pure or uniform subjective reality.

Where exactly are you getting your information from?

Originally Posted by really

Like I said on making exclusions: in an absolute reality, which already exists, you can't say it is only objective. It is both objective and subjective simultaneously. They are two different words for the means of abstraction and definition, but they're for relative purposes only. How can the absolute reality reject the intrinsic knowledge of it? That's a little naive I think. If we went along with your definition of absolute, we would still have to make relative distinctions, and that is unfortunately self-refuting.

If you know well of the scientific method, you'll see that it has no capacity to understand non-objective reality. The limitation of science is that the claims must be falsifiable, yet the very basis for all objective reality, is, in context, unfalsifiable. Herein is the critical point where you can begin to see that science can never prove God, or any higher spiritual concepts, which are, by nature, tied to the inner unfalsifiable reality of subjective awareness. The western depiction tends to slot spiritual terms into objective symbols, which are probably imagined in the physical universe, but these depictions arise because of unfamiliarity of the concepts (for one reason), not because of the concepts themselves.

Absolute reality can't be both objective and subjective, both types of realities can coexist, but one single reality cannot be both. So I am not exluding anything. You keep telling me that I can't say ultimate reality is only objective, but you haven't told me why. I can't see how ultimate reality can be anything other than objective, so obviously I am going to keep saying it until you can satifactorily show me otherwise. You're still being extremely vague though so Im not even sure what you are trying to say.

And I am well aware of sciences inability to "know" God. That is not a scientific weakness but a human weakness. Spirituality could be completely irrelevant to other intelligent species, and it wouldn't hinder their ability to learn about absolute reality.

Originally Posted by really

Perhaps consciousness is a hard word to use here, and it's easy to say it has been overused. So let's stick with 'subjective awareness'. I trust that there is less room for misinterpretation or miscategorization there. Subjective awareness is a purely non-physical reference. By not having physical constraints, it is boundless. Now, there may be some relationship between this and evolution, and I don't doubt that there is, but to jump the gun and say this is something inherited/developed and therefore unlike God is unrelated and is more of a bias than anything else.

Subjective awareness is the same as consciousness, so that doesn't change anything. You won't fool me with word games. You can't be aware of yourself without a means of comunicating with yourself, which requires physicality. And awareness can't be "boundless" or infinite, as I already described.

Originally Posted by really

I believe Thomas Campbell is an important physicist on this matter, you should look him up. Although, I am sure you have been asked that once before on this forum (Marilynne Robinson: Those who do the arguing are the worst representatives?), but you didn't seem too impressed. That's not my problem, especially if you can't set aside some time to watch an intriguing lecture, which is free. He has very groundbreaking work in the way it has been contextualized, although it isn't exactly anything new in spiritual/religious history (it may be new to a lot of scientists). You should also try Henry Stapp, I believe you can download free articles/papers on the web somewhere.

If you saw what I said about him earlier, then you can assume that my opinion hasn't changed. This guy hasn't done anything but disgrace himself, and I can't tell you why he would do such a thing after all the work he put into his education. You can't form an accurate theory of everything by experimenting with altered states of consciousness. How can you expect to learn anything about objective reality if you never leave your own head? Of course his theory will be biased.

This reminds me of a good book about lucid dreaming that I read called Lucid Dreaming: The Path to the Inner Self. It was by far the most interesting lucid dreaming book I've ever read, mostly due to it's implications to human psychology. I do believe that the author discovered many interesting things about human psychology which are very relevant to science. What I don't agree with is how he then transfers his findings to the outside world, where they become completely irrelevant. He attempts to answer questions about absolute reality by exploring his psyche, which just can't be done. You can never really know what you are experiencing, you can only form a personal interpretation. What he finds seems to be in line with a lot of Eastern philosophies which causes him to endorse many of their world views. I believe there is a lot of truth in Eastern philosophies, they are just subjective truths, not objective truths. Ultimate subjective truth is limited by the anatomy of the brain.

Originally Posted by really

You are just repeating yourself, like as if I haven't already read that. So what are your thoughts about the meaning of 'existential'? That's how I said it could be resolved, by seeing that Omnipotence is an existential concept that concerns the power of the being's existence, not a concept concerning the power of its assumed 'actions'. Spiritual concepts are, ultimately concerning whole existences and realms after all, and not kinds of super-heros. In a sense, this should be obvious if you're aware of how objectified these term can become.

You can't keep asking me the same questions and expect a different answer. I am not talking about super-heroes, I am talking about objective facts. Facts such as the inherent paradoxical nature of the concept of omnipotence. It is not an existential concept, it is not an ontological concept, it is not a nonlinear concept, it is just a concept which is a paradox in and of itself. I've been through this all before. A being does not possess power if it does not have the ability to perfore actions. It does not possess consciousness if it does not possess the ability to make decisions. A being which is non-physical has no means of interacting with a physical envronment and therefore has no power to influence said environment. The list goes on. The difference between me and you is that I am not willing to lend credence to realities which contradict themselves. It is not a science problem, it is a linguistic problem. I already told you I would not abandon reason for the sake of spirituality.

Originally Posted by really

While the objective reality is undeniably independent of opinion, an absolute reality does not reject certain things rather than others, it contains everything. You don't need any instruments, because they too are part of that reality. The absolute is neither provable nor disprovable. You can only prove objective reality. The way to finding the absolute is simply through finding what is not absolute, and as the means of reason and science approaches its threshold, there may be dozens of paradoxes. But they can all be resolved with a new paradigm.

I am not saying when you 'end', it 'ends' for everybody (much less that it could end at all), but if you did 'end' then you would cease to know anything, and hence reality would cease to exist. Because what is an absolute reality that cannot be known? It is a partial reality. It is a conceptualized reality. I am arguing for that absolute to be part of awareness, and you cannot point to awareness.

I can't say this made any sense to me. I'm sorry, but you have a very eccentric way of writing which is just to ambiguous and vague for me to really know what you are saying.

All I know from the second paragraph is that you are basing your view of reality off of your personal perception of reality. What is real for you isn't real for everyone and everything in the universe. It is obvious that things exist beyond you, so just because your awareness dies, doesn't mean it has any effect on absolute reality. It just means your body's energy dissolves into the environment and your body decomposes back into an array of molecular matter. That is the only effect your death has on aboslute reality. Your perception is an illusion which evolved to serve you.

Originally Posted by really

Ok, that makes more sense. Well observation and observing has arisen in consciousness and in life forms (whether consciously/unconsciously or not), so it must be contingent in sustaining that life and its intelligence. In saying it is secondary you are only applying a causal relationship, although there might not be one directly. If you can say that consciousness arises from unconscious forces, that may be true in some methods of interpretation. But in that sense, the unconscious can be argued to be part of that basic term 'consciousness'.

You have no reason to draw that conclusion other than because you want to. Everything we know about the universe is unconscious. Everything that is greater than Earth is unconscious. All theories explaining the most fundamental level of the universe describe it as unconscious. You literally have no basis for your conclusion.

I think the fact that consciousness evolved from uncoscious forces is pretty damning to your viewpoint. Especially since only one species out of billions and billions which have existed on our planet has developed consciousness to the point of having existential anxieties, which is the driving force behind this very conversation. That tells me that it is not normal for consciousness to evolve past the point of merely being aware enough to interact with your environment. It is very interesting to me to think about how an intelligent alien species would react to our spiritual concerns. I think it is certainly possible for high levels of self-consciousness to evolve without any spiritual capacity, and such a species would find the notions of nonlinear and non-physical to be completely absurd.

I also pointed out the problem of such a complex system existing without first evolving from a more simple system or being created by a more complex system. It would make more sense, actually it can only make sense for the most basic, fundamental reality of the universe to be the most simple, straightforward system in existence. It would only be out of such a system that all other complexities could evolve. Such a system couldn't possibly be conscious of itself since consciousness is more complex than unconsciousness.

Originally Posted by really

I think we may be arguing for something different from each other, because I am not arguing for mere 'conscious' awareness in terms of personal volition or will, but beyond that. It is an intelligent awareness that facilitate meanings and purpose to perceived existence, and whether it be personal or objective is irrelevant. That inner awareness may be an 'unconscious force' in the sense that it is there without our choice, but it is certainly 'conscious' in the sense that it can potentially bring alertness to the whole universe. In this case, it is important to discern the difference between the capacity to be aware (subjective awareness) and the mentalization that occurs within that awareness (thinking/concepts/beliefs etc), the latter I think is more of an unconscious factor of inheritance, yet we might also say that the former is as well. So I should ask, where do you draw the line between saying that some factor is conscious and unconscious? It would help if you define consciousness as well, or simply use another term like I have.

Consciousness essentially means being alive. You are aware of yourself, you make decisions, you have perceptions, you interpret things, you are biased.

"That inner awareness may be an 'unconscious force' in the sense that it is there without our choice, but it is certainly 'conscious' in the sense that it can potentially bring alertness to the whole universe."

It can't be aware and unconscious at the same time, that is another oxymoronic statement to add to the list. And what do you mean "bring alertness to the whole universe?" I already described how things can become alert through uncoscious forces.

Originally Posted by really

By rejecting things, you are excluding them from something. So in conceptualizing an absolute reality, you cannot say it is one thing rather than another, because the absolute must include everything that exists in absolute terms, while it does not necessarily have to posses the properties of everything that exists (e.g. the absolute is not relative, yet it includes all relativity). Without the absolute, you would have no relative terms, and without everything, you cannot begin to make relative exclusions. So they must be united, and nothing rejected except what is impossible/false to begin with.

Then I'm going to have to reject your view of rejection. It does not make sense for absolute reality to include everything as it is today. You are saying that absolute reality is a melting pot of all it's parts where the parts have failed to melt back into their original form. There are qualities of the universe which evolved, which differentiated themselves through building on whatever makes up the universe at it's most fundamental level. But all the parts can be broken down back into that "primoridal soup" from which they originated. Then there would cease to exist concepts such as subjectivity. Subjectivity can only be made of objective units of "something," since subjectivity is more complex than objectivity. These most basic units can only be objective because they are singular and thus cannot be conscious of themselves. That is why absolute reality can't be both subjective and objective, subjectivity does not exist at the universes most fundamental level, only building blocks from which subjectivity may evolve.

**really** · 09-07-2010 06:21 AM

Man, this is such a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"Non-physical" is synonymous with "does not exist." Saying something exists in a non-physical state is oxymoronic. This isn't a matter of me being closed minded, it is a matter of fact. If you aren't willing to explain to me how consciousness can function in a non-physical state, then why am I here? It shouldn't be this difficult.

Haha right. Ok so you say it's a 'matter of fact'. Now what do you want me to do? Say it is not a fact? Non-physical is certainly not synonymous with non-existence, how childish!

Do you think subjectivity is intrinsically physical?

I really thought you had something more intelligent to say, but it's all the same. Thanks for your effort and everything, but crap, unfortunately it is all backwards from here, isn't it? You cannot even sincerely look into a suggested scientist without completely oversimplifying his position and passing it off. I have no idea why you'd then want to listen to a fellow forum member.

Edit: Please consider a paradigm difference, in every sense of the word. Thanks.

**Caprisun** · 09-07-2010 07:59 AM

So the enigmatic cloud of fairy dust finally snapped? I provided a perfectly reasonable response there, so this really boils down to your refusal to actually read into my writings (rather than skim for parts which are convenient to your argument.) For you, it isn't about an interactive discussion, it is about making me hear you, and if I don't agree then Im just childish and immature! What a convaluted viewpoint. Refuting the nonphysical is childish? Rejecting the possibility of a nonlinear God is immature? Do you know anything about maturity?

"I really thought you had something more intelligent to say, but it's all the same."

I can't even begin to tell you have frustrating it is for me to hear you say that, mostly due to the fact that it is I who has had to carry this discussion from the beginning and it is you who have not introduced a single original thought since page 4. I thought I provided some pretty concrete stuff in my last post, but it is obvious now that you didn't read past the first few lines.

P.S. A paradigm change would be asking me to denounce all scientific knowledge accumulated thus far and to disregard my God given capacity for reason and logic. Thanks but no thanks. (And yes, subjectivity is intrinsically physical. You would know my stance by now if you had read anything I wrote.)

**juroara** · 09-10-2010 06:49 AM

"Let us imagine that you and I are walking down the street, and we meet a friend who seems very excited. He says: "I just came from the fruit market and they have discovered a new fruit in the Amazon rainforest, and it looks like a mixture between a banana, a pineapple and an orange. It tastes really great too!" At this point we have several possible reactions. We can be completely indifferent, or we can begin to argue with our friend and question his statements, even the idea that these tree fruits could possibly be combined. Yet if we do argue, what will our arguments be based on? Well, since we have not actually experienced the fruit, our arguments can be based only on a mental image, a concept. Now, we can build a very sophisticated and elaborate argument against the existence of this fruit, but no matter how sophisticated it becomes – and no matter how many people agree with it – there is one fact which remains: we have not experienced the fruit itself, so our entire argumentation is based on a concept created in our own minds!"

"So based on my experience of God, I realized the futility of arguing about God and the futility of all religious conflicts and wars. The basic fact is really quite simple. We live in the world of form, meaning that everything in this world has some kind of shape that sets it apart from other forms. Thus, our minds are so used to dealing with forms that we are unaware of how often we create mental images of something we have not actually experienced—and how we project those images onto other "things" we have not experienced. In fact, unless we go through a process of deliberately deconstructing our mental images, we will tend to think that our mental images are as good as a direct experience of reality—or even that they are reality. We think that projecting an image we have created inside our minds is sufficient for us to know something."

I read this recently and thought it was relevant to this thread

**Caprisun** · 09-11-2010 01:20 AM

I hope you aren't infering that I have not experienced God, while you yourself have, thus rendering my argument invalid and yours valid. (The second paragraph actually hints at a compelling argument against the validity of all organized religion, which is the concept of projection.)

**really** · 09-12-2010 04:24 AM

Nice post Juroara. I think in these kind of discussions we can get too carried away with concepts and images, but in reality it is far more simpler and true than those facets alone.

Where are those quotes from?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I hope you aren't infering that I have not experienced God, while you yourself have, thus rendering my argument invalid and yours valid.

The experience of God in itself is valid and self-fulfilling, whereas another's conception against it is built on limited information. Likewise, arguing for physical reality is a limitation when trying to see beyond it into the non-physical reality. The arguments are based on concepts, while concepts are limited. You will find more paradoxes depending on how limited the concepts are, and remember that not all paradoxes mean that they are not true. This is what best illustrates the boundaries of reason and logic.

**Caprisun** · 09-12-2010 08:31 PM

I'm not saying a God exerience couldn't be fulfilling, Im saying there is no way of knowing whether it is authentic or not. That's why I made the thread about the God Helmet, to make the argument that all religious experiences arise naturally in a certain part of the brain, not from an outside place.

Thread: Why in all religious arguments is god assumed to be morally perfect?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

Should we be more lenient towards religious practice or religious people more accepting of rules?

Arguments?

assumed identity . . . .

Recurring Arguments

Bring your arguments on psi HERE!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions