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.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Belindi »

Are there any sweary words that mean 'praise'?
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 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.
Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
“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 »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 19th, 2021, 11:06 am 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Yes, and just as any other temporary universe would have a cause from the permanent natural eternal existent that needs no magic for it to be since the eternal existent has no alternative or option not to be because 'non-existence' cannot even be meant, much less said to be productive as a source.

It's no surprise that the eternal existent is mandatory! It's not much to speak of, but the 'vacuum' is not a vacuum.


The Fundamental Unity

The quantum fields’ unity is the Whole,
Being ever, exhausting Reality,
Unbreakable and Unmakeable,
As partless and continuous monads.

Indivisible

All that emerges is still the fields at heart,
Though secondary and temporary,
Arising and at some time returning;
There’s no separation among the fields.

The Permanent Spawns the Temporaries

The Eterne Existent Fields have to be,
For non-existence can’t, and thus must move,
For stillness can’t, e’er rearranging itself
As stable quanta elementaries.

Skeletons and Ghosts

We’re the flesh to the backbones of the stars,
Those ghosts of the suns that no longer are—
They having transformed their energy’s ways
To base atoms, more from supernovae.

The Missive

The Message of Eternity is to be,
That carries on in lives led to survive,
The brain’s output aiming for future,
Conscious experience granting the focus.
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, 5:25 am
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.
I did not realise that b0ll0cking was such a horrifying and dangerous word that readers would needed protection from it.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by LuckyR »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 19th, 2021, 11:06 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.
Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.
"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 20th, 2021, 3:35 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 19th, 2021, 11:06 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 18th, 2021, 11:27 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 18th, 2021, 10:55 am

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.
Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.
I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?
“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: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by LuckyR »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 20th, 2021, 12:11 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 20th, 2021, 3:35 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 19th, 2021, 11:06 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 18th, 2021, 11:27 pm
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.
Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.
I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?
I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.
"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 21st, 2021, 2:14 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 20th, 2021, 12:11 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 20th, 2021, 3:35 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 19th, 2021, 11:06 am

Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.
I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?
I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.
Lucky!

If I could zero-in on the last comment. You said "...since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven." Can you elucidate your thoughts on that a bit? The reason I ask is that it opens a big can of obvious discourse that we both may find intriguing (once we dig a little deeper).

It may go back to an awesome/infamous philosophical question: what does it mean for something to exist.
“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
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by EricPH »

since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven."
The creation of the universe is history. Either at least 'One God'created the universe and life, or there is no creator god. No matter what you or I may choose to believe we can't change history. You could be a 100% right or wrong on the toss of a coin.

There cannot be a maybe or probable creator god, it's yes or no.
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by PoeticUniverse »

EricPH wrote: October 22nd, 2021, 1:16 pm There cannot be a maybe or probable creator god, it's yes or no.
Welcome, new member!

Believers tremble in fear of the Big Bad Boss,
His immorality untrusted not to cause loss—
Insanity hidden in ‘mysterious ways’;
They accept, so He them into Hell doesn’t toss.

God thought of, planned, designed, and implemented
Human Nature—angelic to demented,
And in His recipe’s span those expressed
Unsurprisingly had to be reinvented.

The Great Flood killed all but Noah’s near clan,
God acting against His own sixth Command,
Those dead being of God’s intended nature—
Yet another myth-take in rainbow land.

Yet, there was no Genesis of Man, as is,
In modern form, immutable, by a Wiz,
Nor a separate animal life line,
For He flunked out of evolution’s quiz.

We search for ‘God’, high and low, here and there,
Far and wide—He’s said to be ev’ry where;
But no omens are found: quasars abound;
So, He hides out or He’s truly nowhere.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Tegularius »

Neither have to exist and consciousness does not require god to exist. If god had wanted it to exist, he could have arranged for it much, much sooner.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by LuckyR »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 21st, 2021, 10:51 am
LuckyR wrote: October 21st, 2021, 2:14 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 20th, 2021, 12:11 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 20th, 2021, 3:35 am

Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.
I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?
I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.
Lucky!

If I could zero-in on the last comment. You said "...since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven." Can you elucidate your thoughts on that a bit? The reason I ask is that it opens a big can of obvious discourse that we both may find intriguing (once we dig a little deeper).

It may go back to an awesome/infamous philosophical question: what does it mean for something to exist.
Topics in the physical can be proven or unproven or not, depending on various factors. The proofs lie with the reproducibility of the behavior of physical systems. The metaphysical, OTOH does not deal with the physical and while many claim to "know" a lot about these subjects, since they do not exist in the physical plane (and our perception apparatus does) we have no tool with which to make observations that would qualify as knowledge, thus why we have belief or faith instead (of knowledge).
"As usual... it depends."
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by Tegularius »

Eternity annuls all the gods that were
being as mortal as those who infer
the universe needed a mind to be made
as if predestined and all was prepaid.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
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 23rd, 2021, 3:06 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 21st, 2021, 10:51 am
LuckyR wrote: October 21st, 2021, 2:14 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 20th, 2021, 12:11 pm

I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?
I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.
Lucky!

If I could zero-in on the last comment. You said "...since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven." Can you elucidate your thoughts on that a bit? The reason I ask is that it opens a big can of obvious discourse that we both may find intriguing (once we dig a little deeper).

It may go back to an awesome/infamous philosophical question: what does it mean for something to exist.
Topics in the physical can be proven or unproven or not, depending on various factors. The proofs lie with the reproducibility of the behavior of physical systems. The metaphysical, OTOH does not deal with the physical and while many claim to "know" a lot about these subjects, since they do not exist in the physical plane (and our perception apparatus does) we have no tool with which to make observations that would qualify as knowledge, thus why we have belief or faith instead (of knowledge).
Lucky!

Faith has nothing to do with consciousness. Nor human sentience, which all three in-themselves are primarily metaphysical in nature. So the question for Lucky could be: are these things-in-themselves; 'faith' 'sentience', and 'consciousness' "unproven", yet exist?
“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: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does God and consciousness have to exist?

Post by LuckyR »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 25th, 2021, 9:12 am
LuckyR wrote: October 23rd, 2021, 3:06 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 21st, 2021, 10:51 am
LuckyR wrote: October 21st, 2021, 2:14 am

I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.
Lucky!

If I could zero-in on the last comment. You said "...since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven." Can you elucidate your thoughts on that a bit? The reason I ask is that it opens a big can of obvious discourse that we both may find intriguing (once we dig a little deeper).

It may go back to an awesome/infamous philosophical question: what does it mean for something to exist.
Topics in the physical can be proven or unproven or not, depending on various factors. The proofs lie with the reproducibility of the behavior of physical systems. The metaphysical, OTOH does not deal with the physical and while many claim to "know" a lot about these subjects, since they do not exist in the physical plane (and our perception apparatus does) we have no tool with which to make observations that would qualify as knowledge, thus why we have belief or faith instead (of knowledge).
Lucky!

Faith has nothing to do with consciousness. Nor human sentience, which all three in-themselves are primarily metaphysical in nature. So the question for Lucky could be: are these things-in-themselves; 'faith' 'sentience', and 'consciousness' "unproven", yet exist?
Why are you going backwards (towards consciousness and sentience) when you are asking a forwards question (about faith, belief and proofs/knowledge)?

We all stipulate consciousness and sentience since we're here. There is no additional value in pondering the nuances of what we all agree is happening.
"As usual... it depends."
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