Damian
New member
I cannot account for consciousness without invoking some form of God-concept or dualistic belief. Can you?
What are your reasons for believing in god(s)?
- Thread starter SUTG
- Start date
- Status
I cannot account for consciousness without invoking some form of God-concept or dualistic belief. Can you?
Mr. 5020
New member
It's always cool to see old posts like this.
Damian
New member
This explains nothing and is no different than saying that consciousness is produced by the brain. The question is whether consciousness is material or not.
Damian
New member
The book entitled "Consciousness Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential" (by Barbara Marx Hubbard) appears to be a "New Age" book promoting "cosmic consciousness." The author quotes the Gospel of St. Thomas in support of her thesis. Are you are attempting to argue for God's reality?
Collective delusion.
Collective.
You cannot account fot God!
So you didn't really solve anything.
Damian
New member
Atheists are fond of saying that believers share in the collective delusion of God's existence. However, this collective delusion is predicated on the delusion of each and every believer. If consciousness is the collective delusion of brain cells, then it presupposes that the brain cells have consciousness in order to be deluded to begin with. Consequently, you have explained nothing. You have to explain first how brain cells have consciousness.
Last edited:
Damian
New member
Why do I have to account for God?
Why do I have to account for conscieneness?
SUTG
New member
Well, to fully understand what you mean by "accounting for consciousness" I think I'll need an example. So, if you could, go on ahead and account for consciousness somehow (with or without appealing to some form of God-concept or dualistic belief).
Then I'll be able to better answer your question of whether or not I can account for consciousness.
Damian
New member
Because you want to refute my assertion that consciousness entails some form of God-concept or dualism.
Your argument is a shell game.
You account for consciousness with God then you can't account for God.
Whereas my model account for consciouness with no loose ends.
Damian
New member
Here are the possibilities:
1) Consciousness is a non-material state and emerges from a certain configuration of unconscious (mindless in this context) energy. (This is inherently a dualistic position. Some theists may argue that God created it (soul). Materialists apparently invoke "magic.")
2) Consciousness is a physical-state. This equates consciousness with energy. (This is a pantheistic position (i.e. a position based upon a God-concept)).
Damian
New member
You have not informed me as to whether you believe if consciousness is material or immaterial in nature. Do you subscribe to dualism or not?
Last edited:
My thoughts on God:
Basically I dont think he exists but if he did:
-He would be really evil cos the whole tempting adam and eve with the apple was really cruel. He knew they would take it cos he created them. He just wanted to taunt them.
-It was really selfish of him to create life. All the emotions and responsibilities is just not fair.
-Giving people the ability to feal pain is really sadistic but it makes me laugh though (joke)
-And finnaly whats the point of worshipping someone? Just a big waste of time. U could save the rain forest or summit instead of bowing inside a large rock!
You probably didn't like this post cos your an evil, twisted religous person. Oh well I am sure u can find God to confort u.........
Basically I dont think he exists but if he did:
-He would be really evil cos the whole tempting adam and eve with the apple was really cruel. He knew they would take it cos he created them. He just wanted to taunt them.
-It was really selfish of him to create life. All the emotions and responsibilities is just not fair.
-Giving people the ability to feal pain is really sadistic but it makes me laugh though (joke)
-And finnaly whats the point of worshipping someone? Just a big waste of time. U could save the rain forest or summit instead of bowing inside a large rock!
You probably didn't like this post cos your an evil, twisted religous person. Oh well I am sure u can find God to confort u.........
asilentskeptic
New member
*shrug* I disagree with both of your possibilities (or at least with how you end up defining them). How can equating consciousness with energy be a pantheistic position? I am not sure how the term applies in this context. I will need more information before we go on.
And I apologize for my first links, as I am reading more and more about this, I am learning that a lot of New Age folks have been deeply involved in spewing their crap in seemingly sophisticated ways. As for the scholar.google.com link, keep scrolling down (that first article is not the best)
This is a new subject for me, so I am learning as much as I can as fast as I can. I was wondering how the belief that consciousness is just the interaction between the various parts and particles of the brain ties in to your two different ideas.
Patience as I learn and grow, but be prepared (as I ask lots of questions)!
Damian
New member
If consciousness is physical, then mass/energy must be conscious (after all, in the materialistic worldview, there's nothing else). If energy and consciousness are interchangeable terms, then we have just established the basis for pantheism.
On the other hand, if you argue that consciousness only emerges when mass/energy is organized in a particular confinguration, then this begs the question how. How does mass/energy go from an unconscious state to a conscious one. Magic? This is what it sounds like. Just say magic words such as "supervenience" and/or "emergence" and presto...we have consciousness.
It is not uncommon for atheists to invoke New Age viewpoints. (I'm not arguing against New Age viewpoints per se. I'm simply calling them what they are.) Sam Harris does this trick in his book "The End of Faith."
Everything is an electro-chemical reaction. Am I to infer from this that everything has conscious awareness?
I ask a lot of questions too.
You offer a position but state no evidence for why it is true. Just because something can be true does not mean it is. Aliens could have built an invisible theme park on Mars, but there are no reasons for me to believe that this is the case.
Concerning the dollar bill example, first of all, ink and paper have no discernible inherent value; the statement that they have 'very little' is an assumption. Secondly, the value humans place on dollars is a social understanding of a representation of work and effects the way we interact with it and each other—it does not effect the inherent value of the paper and ink.
Here is where you confuse objective and subjective truths. Of course the reality of people's opinions or thoughts change when we think differently. Anything having to do with how a person responds, interacts, interprets, etc is subject to that person. Also, multiple people do not need to believe that I like ice cream for it to be true. Therefore subjective truths are subject to the individual that they belong to. Objective truths, like there is ice cream on the table, or God(s) exist(s), are not the type of thing that a person can believe into or out of existence without having the power to actually change them. For instance, it is true that before this point in time something existed. (That is because I know that something exists now, and because nothing cannot bring about something, there must have been something before now.) It is necessarily true. No amount of me or others believing that nothing existed will or can change that fact; it would be impossible for it not to be true. Therefore there are at least some objective truths that cannot be altered by a 'democratic reality.' The idea that a group could believe away the ice cream on the table would require a lot to prove it to be true.
Moreover, why do only humans have this ability? What about the omnipotent gods they created? If these gods really do exist like lots of people believe they do, why can't the gods also just stop believing in us? Or perhaps not believe that we can disbelieve them into oblivion? Or perhaps use their omnipotence to make us so we can't? If they really exist like humanity believes they do, then according to your view, they must be able to do that.
This view has unavoidably contradictory conclusions. The Christians (about 1/3 of the planets population) believe that there is only one God, that no others exist. Other religions, like paganism, believe in multiple gods. Are the Christians right because there are more of us? If so, you are wrong that there are many gods. There cannot be both many gods and only one God at the same time because these views are in direct contradiction with each other, including many other beliefs that people hold.
Popular opinion has been found to be wrong by the few. People used to think the Earth was in the center of the universe until Copernicus found that this could not be the case. If the majority's belief's manipulated reality, Copernicus should have been wrong. Or perhaps this never happened. Perhaps it is only a widely held modern belief that has caused it to be true. Then if it is true, the majority has still been incorrect about reality, and therefore their beliefs do not change it.
This argument is self-refuting. This type of argument is very unique. Most people have never heard of it let alone believe in it. Therefore if you are right, that reality does bend to the majority of people, then because the majority of people don't believe in it, it is not true.
Conclusion: you are wrong.
Last edited:
nelo_angelo
New member
Any time I have believed in God, it was because of my cowardice to face up to my mortality.
- Status