Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Sy Borg wrote: October 14th, 2021, 9:02 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 14th, 2021, 12:39 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 13th, 2021, 4:03 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 13th, 2021, 8:57 am

SB!

To take one question at a time, the reason it 'stops at God' because the ontological & cosmological argument says it does. Correct?
3017, the ontological argument makes no sense at this stage. The only evidence found so far is for the "turtles" to stop at the universe. You might as well say that a giant rubber duck preceded the BB. Try to prove it's not true.

There is no evidence at all suggesting that God is an objective phenomenon. There's much anecdotal evidence, however, that God is a subjective phenomenon, so I don't see why theists have to keep trying to give God extra functions. Given that our entire existence is ultimately subjective, one would think that having God reside within is enough, without the unfounded extrapolations.
SB!

Thanks for your thoughts there. What do you mean that it makes no sense? You know, it (the ontological/cosmological argument) is based upon mathematical truths (a priori analytical analysis) about a universal accepted concept of God? I don't mean to sound so 'succinct', but that's the jist of the argument, or at least that's what is behind the logic of it. In other words, its conclusion is like mathematic's.

Too, I'm also thinking the rubber duck analogy would not be the appropriate analogy. That's because the concept of a 'rubber duck' does not include consciousness and the like. Maybe you mean to say 'super-human' or an 'absurd-human' or an 'illogical-human' or even 'finite human' but am not sure... .

Anyway, I can certainly appreciate your notion of subjectivity/objectivity because I've enjoyed studying that at great length-awhile back. Thank you. First, are you suggesting objective truths, like mathematical truths that describe the universe, are irrelevant to this analogy? Too, if mathematical truths are metaphysically abstract by their nature, are we faced with yet another paradox relative to figuring out objectivity associated with physical existence with life in it? In other words, isn't causation itself, logical?

Assuming the answers are no and yes/yes respectfully, should we conclude (I know this is a big leap from just one simple analogy) that all is Subjectivity? (But that might suggest 'Subjective Idealism', which would not square with, say, an Atheist's belief system... .)

Being a big fan of SK, of course I embrace the notion of subjective truths, but if there are no objective truths, what are the implications?

Just as I'm sure you're aware, there are all sorts of contradictions within those simple questions, but because perceiving 'reality' is such a perplexing subject (the nature of), I suppose parsing the differences between Subjectivity/Objectivity is as good a place as any, to start.
To me Aselm was just one more person making guesses based on not much information. The idea that God must be real because we cannot conceive of anything greater is not logical. You might as well say God must be real because we cannot envisage anything more slippery or spiky. No eel or slug could ever be as slippery as God! No porcupine's spikes can compare with the almighty spikiness of God's peerless spines :)

It is simply imagination. Pure math demonstrates that coherent and consistent mathematical models can be determined that lack any physical correlates, unlike the models of physics. The issue to me, then, is not that objects of imagination are only real to the individual doing the imagining, rather that imagination is underestimated for its own sake. That is, imagination need not have physical equivalences to be potent. In that, I probably accord somewhat with you and Kierkegaard.

However, I think that objective truths do exist, that the existence of stars, planets and moons and other entities that preceded life are objectively true, whether they are noticed or not. The truth is always out there, with the potential of being understood, but usually it isn't. So far.
SB!

Interesting. That depends on your definition of reality. For instance, if mathematics provides truth to same, and those analytic proposition's are just as effective, or are they?

Here's what one has to work through:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. And finally, analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction) as the nature of Math.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by LuckyR »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm
Belindi wrote: October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.
Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!
The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm
Belindi wrote: October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.
Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!
The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).
Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Belindi »

LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm
Belindi wrote: October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.
Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!
The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).
Yes, but the Absolute is nice to think of and also credible. At least one philosopher claims the Absolute is good, and I am still thinking about that as a good Absolute is devoutly to be wished.
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by PoeticUniverse »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 15th, 2021, 9:19 am moment of enlightenment.
Look into the elementary firmons and bosom Energy.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Sy Borg »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 15th, 2021, 9:27 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 14th, 2021, 9:02 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 14th, 2021, 12:39 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 13th, 2021, 4:03 pm

3017, the ontological argument makes no sense at this stage. The only evidence found so far is for the "turtles" to stop at the universe. You might as well say that a giant rubber duck preceded the BB. Try to prove it's not true.

There is no evidence at all suggesting that God is an objective phenomenon. There's much anecdotal evidence, however, that God is a subjective phenomenon, so I don't see why theists have to keep trying to give God extra functions. Given that our entire existence is ultimately subjective, one would think that having God reside within is enough, without the unfounded extrapolations.
SB!

Thanks for your thoughts there. What do you mean that it makes no sense? You know, it (the ontological/cosmological argument) is based upon mathematical truths (a priori analytical analysis) about a universal accepted concept of God? I don't mean to sound so 'succinct', but that's the jist of the argument, or at least that's what is behind the logic of it. In other words, its conclusion is like mathematic's.

Too, I'm also thinking the rubber duck analogy would not be the appropriate analogy. That's because the concept of a 'rubber duck' does not include consciousness and the like. Maybe you mean to say 'super-human' or an 'absurd-human' or an 'illogical-human' or even 'finite human' but am not sure... .

Anyway, I can certainly appreciate your notion of subjectivity/objectivity because I've enjoyed studying that at great length-awhile back. Thank you. First, are you suggesting objective truths, like mathematical truths that describe the universe, are irrelevant to this analogy? Too, if mathematical truths are metaphysically abstract by their nature, are we faced with yet another paradox relative to figuring out objectivity associated with physical existence with life in it? In other words, isn't causation itself, logical?

Assuming the answers are no and yes/yes respectfully, should we conclude (I know this is a big leap from just one simple analogy) that all is Subjectivity? (But that might suggest 'Subjective Idealism', which would not square with, say, an Atheist's belief system... .)

Being a big fan of SK, of course I embrace the notion of subjective truths, but if there are no objective truths, what are the implications?

Just as I'm sure you're aware, there are all sorts of contradictions within those simple questions, but because perceiving 'reality' is such a perplexing subject (the nature of), I suppose parsing the differences between Subjectivity/Objectivity is as good a place as any, to start.
To me Aselm was just one more person making guesses based on not much information. The idea that God must be real because we cannot conceive of anything greater is not logical. You might as well say God must be real because we cannot envisage anything more slippery or spiky. No eel or slug could ever be as slippery as God! No porcupine's spikes can compare with the almighty spikiness of God's peerless spines :)

It is simply imagination. Pure math demonstrates that coherent and consistent mathematical models can be determined that lack any physical correlates, unlike the models of physics. The issue to me, then, is not that objects of imagination are only real to the individual doing the imagining, rather that imagination is underestimated for its own sake. That is, imagination need not have physical equivalences to be potent. In that, I probably accord somewhat with you and Kierkegaard.

However, I think that objective truths do exist, that the existence of stars, planets and moons and other entities that preceded life are objectively true, whether they are noticed or not. The truth is always out there, with the potential of being understood, but usually it isn't. So far.
SB!

Interesting. That depends on your definition of reality. For instance, if mathematics provides truth to same, and those analytic proposition's are just as effective, or are they?

Here's what one has to work through:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. And finally, analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction) as the nature of Math.
My point, not made very clearly, alas, was that we can imagine things with solid internal logic that are not in fact real - be it gods and other beings or pure mathematical models. That points, not to the power of math, but the power of imagination. That is, the field of imaginable things is greater than the field of possible things.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by LuckyR »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm
Belindi wrote: October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.
Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!
The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).
Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)
I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!
The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).
Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)
I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.
Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by PoeticUniverse »

‘God’ changed His mind, so it would work better,
From err of His deluge wet and wetter,
Ne’er to kill again by water His kin;
Jesus gave Original Sin’s Redemption.

versus

‘God’ is unchanging, as ever Perfect,
Knowing, and Being all with no defect,
As in all at once and everywhere,
His Self mirrored in us as a Reflect.

but either way

Reflections of ‘God’ we would have to be,
As the very thoughts imagined in He—
Naught else could exist independently;
This One Effect runs continuously.

But really how it turned out…

Myth-Takes of Unconditional Love
And the freedom to be from the Above
And Goodness didn’t fill human natura—
Our follies broadcast His soap opera.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Sy Borg »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 18th, 2021, 10:55 am
LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm

The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).
Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)
I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.
Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?
Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: October 18th, 2021, 11:27 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 18th, 2021, 10:55 am
LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm

Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)
I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.
Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?
Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.
But there are over 2000 gods. Greek gods (Thanatos) were outsmarted by humans (Sisyphus). So one can easily imagine a god that isn't so hot, or wet, or spikey, or smart.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: October 19th, 2021, 2:40 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 18th, 2021, 11:27 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 18th, 2021, 10:55 am
LuckyR wrote: October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.
Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?
Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.
But there are over 2000 gods. Greek gods (Thanatos) were outsmarted by humans (Sisyphus). So one can easily imagine a god that isn't so hot, or wet, or spikey, or smart.
Fair point. Pascal figured that God wouldn't be able to see through feigned belief.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sy Borg wrote:The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?
I think the main problem with the ontological argument (aside from the fact that trying to prove or disprove the existence of God flies in the face of what religious faith is for) is that it's simply a misuse of grammar. These sorts of "proofs" invariably seem to do that. The recent poster called philosopher19 did it in his topic "Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect" with the words "Existence" and "exists". (He essentially stated that Existence must be omnipresent, therefore Existence is God, and "Existence exists" is self-evidently true therefore God exists. A fallacy of ambiguity, in asserting that the noun "Existence" denotes a thing and then asserting that "Existence exists" is self-evidently true simply because those two words look similar.)

The part of the ontological argument which states: "a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects. So a comparison is made between two objects with the properties "existing" and "not existing" as if we're comparing two existing objects! Since it doesn't denote that, the comparison makes no sense. It's as nonsensical as saying something like: "An object cannot do things if it doesn't exist. Verbs are 'doing words'. 'To not exist' is a verb. Therefore objects that don't exist are performing the activity 'not existing', therefore they exist."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: October 19th, 2021, 4:35 amThe part of the ontological argument which states: "a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects. So a comparison is made between two objects with the properties "existing" and "not existing" as if we're comparing two existing objects!
It reminds me of the time years ago when I was given a ******** for saying that nothingness does not exist. Oops.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sy Borg wrote:It reminds me of the time years ago when I was given a ******** for saying that nothingness does not exist. Oops.
I can't see what the ****** is but I assume it's something like "stern rebuke". Anyway, don't get me started on nothingnessnessnessness.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021