Interesting Ian's God

[Upchurch]

Rather than hijacking another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25578) with a pissing match, let's move it here.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by Tricky

You can blame yourself for that one, Ian. We are still waiting with bated breath for you to reveal this intelligently-defined God to us so we can debate it. Yet all I hear from you is the monotonous whine of how everyone else's definition is so stupid.

Enlighten us. Please.

I've told you that panentheism probably corresponds most closely to my concept of "God". And read the quote by Hick in my sig.
Ian's sig

In progressively "higher" worlds, . . . self-egoity withers away, so that the individual's series of lives culminates in a last life beyond which there is no further embodiment but instead entry into the common Vision of God, or nirvana, or the eternal consciousness of the atman in its relation to Ultimate Reality.
So, basically, you believe God is the Buddist Nirvana?

While it's true that there is no evidence to refute this definition of God, is there any evidence to support it?

Edited to add:
What I mean to say is, if this is true, then most other religious concepts (e.g. those who believe in the "god of the gaps") would be necessarily not true and would therefore be an artificial construct (i.e. not true in Reality) of the human mind. My question is, how can and does one determine that this interpretation is Real and not just another artificial construct? What sets it apart from the others?

also edited for formating.

[Dancing David]

There is this problem with the use of the word nirvana/nibbana which I pointed out in a previuos post. In buddhism there is no self, there is no atman, the self is an illusion placed upon the reality.

So Ian's concept can not by definition be the buddhist nirvan, ther is no self to be free. Thcih Naht Hahn describeds nirvana as a state of freedom and unconditioned responses.

Please return to your regularly scheduled post.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
There is this problem with the use of the word nirvana/nibbana which I pointed out in a previuos post. In buddhism there is no self, there is no atman, the self is an illusion placed upon the reality.

So Ian's concept can not by definition be the buddhist nirvan, ther is no self to be free. Thcih Naht Hahn describeds nirvana as a state of freedom and unconditioned responses.Fair enough.

Since Ian hasn't graced us with his presense yet, I'll just interject that I knew that was an oversimplification. However, I was just questioning Ian's assertion that his definition of God is superior (or more intelligent, in his words) to most, if not all, other definitions. I'm just asking him to back that claim up.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Since no definition of God is acceptable and logic-proof, it is very dangerous for Ian to explicitely state his concept. To do so would be to open him up for criticism. I would not blame him at all for not agreeing to post his idea.

[mummymonkey]

What's with all this one god monotheistic nonsense anyway. In olden days there were loads of gods and godesses. Maybe godlets too;)
Somehow I kind of feel short changed.
By the way, I admit I'm not the brightest candle on the cake but just what the Bidlack does Ian's sig mean?

[Dancing David]

To give the short hand of ritual magic, as explained in Lord of Light
1. Invoke the diety
2. Raise the Aspect
3. Weild the Attribute

Whcih actualy fits very well with Magic in Theory and Practise by A. Crowley

Gods are something we human have within us that we can summon and use to our own benefit or detriment, they may have side effects that we didn't plan on, put they are to be invoked, only demons are evoked. So gods are something withing demons are something without.

(Upchurch: I was making a broad statement about nirvana, it wasn't directed toward you, sorry.)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Rather than hijacking another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25578) with a pissing match, let's move it here.
Thanks, UpFunk. I should have done that myself.

Originally posted by Upchurch
While it's true that there is no evidence to refute this definition of God, is there any evidence to support it?
The problem with having a "universal consciousness" is that does not define "consciousness" in any way that is comprehensible, and certainly not by any definitions in the dictionary. If you try to give it the same tests of consciousness as human (or even animal) consciousness, it will fail. Therefore, "universal consciousness" not really a consciousness as we know it, but something else. What is that "something else"? That is one of the definitions we seek.

Originally posted by Upchurch
My question is, how can and does one determine that this interpretation is Real and not just another artificial construct? What sets it apart from the others?

A very good question, Upchurch. Another one would be, "How does this interpretation unlike other definitions of God, avoid making the initial assumption that something besides the material world exists?"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Upchurch: I was making a broad statement about nirvana, it wasn't directed toward you, sorry. I understood.

It's just thought it wise, especially with Ian who takes his own spin on things, to take every chance to clarify the specifics of my statement. It wasn't meant as a rebuttal of your statement.

<hr>
moneymonkey,

It's a really abstract kind of concept, but my interpretation (and David or, better yet, Ian, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Hick's definition of "God" is not so much an "entity who does things" as it the absolute understanding of Reality (big "R") that we humans can be come aware (or "enlightened") of through the shedding of our egos (or sense of self) and by progressing through higher forms or planes of existance via reincarnation.

Even if, as David says, it does not match up perfectly with Buddism, Hicks has obviously been greatly influenced by it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thanks, UpFunk. I should have done that myself.De nada.
Another one would be, "How does this interpretation unlike other definitions of God, avoid making the initial assumption that something besides the material world exists?" I imagine that Ian would respond (and I must guess at this point, since he is not here) that this question makes the assumption that the material world exists.

However, if you deny that the material world exists, in any form, then how can you know that anything exists? Except maybe hammegk's "*I* think", which I still find questionable. ;)

[Dancing David]

If I may clarify my own insignificant viewpoint, while we wait for the Grand Impressario, god is part of human experience and should never be defined outside that boundary.

[mummymonkey]

"God" is not so much an "entity who does things" as it the absolute understanding of Reality (big "R") that we humans can be come aware (or "enlightened") of through the shedding of our egos (or sense of self) and by progressing through higher forms or planes of existance via reincarnation
Thank you Upchurch, I can understand that. I think he's chosen the wrong word to re-define though.

"Acid" is not so much a "chemical which alters things" as it is the absolute understanding of Reality (big "R") that we humans can be come aware (or "enlightened") of through the shedding of our egos (or sense of self) and by progressing through higher forms or planes of existence via reincarnation
Sounds more likely to me :)

[Cleopatra]

Is this the official Interesting Ian's God thread? I ask because I want to subscribe to this thread ;)

Can the rest of the theists add their opinion on the matter or must they start their own threads and who knows, start converting members of the forum and of course start accepting donations...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Is this the official Interesting Ian's God thread? I ask because I want to subscribe to this thread ;)Official? Not hardly. It was just my attempt, primarily, to save another thread from hijacking and, secondarily, to challenge one of Ian's claims. Although it's interesting in that it has prompted me to read a few articles online about panentheism, it's also been a hollow attempt since Ian has so far failed to participate (perhaps through no fault of his own).
Can the rest of the theists add their opinion on the matter or must they start their own threads and who knows, start converting members of the forum and of course start accepting donations... I have no particular need to keep this thread from derailing, since it really hasn't taken off, if someone wants to interject.

Hm... that lends to an interesting question. Is there a religion that embraces the idea of panentheism?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'd prefer to have it in your own words. What is God?
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why?? You are incapable of understanding the most basic of philosophical concepts, so what on earth is the point of me expending time and effort doing so?? Like Stimpy you're incorrigibly stupid.
Well then, consider all the others here who are not so "incorrigibly stupid". Maybe there's no hope for me and Stimpy, but surely your brilliance can reach out to someone! You could be a great teacher if you remember that it is easy to teach smart people. Try saying it in ways that philosophically inexperienced people (the ones who aren't incorrigibly stupid) can understand. Is that too much to ask?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
[B]
Thanks, UpFunk. I should have done that myself.


The problem with having a "universal consciousness" is that does not define "consciousness" in any way that is comprehensible,

Define consciousness?? :rolleyes:

Two points you should be aware of.

a) It is utterly impossible to define consciousness.

b) It is utterly pointless anyway since we all implicitly understand what it is since we are not p-zombies or robots.

[Upchurch]

Ian! Thanks for stopping by. Care to take a go at the question at the top of the thread?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

a) It is utterly impossible to define consciousness.

Then why do you use words that you admit you don't know the meaning of? I can define consciousness, although probably not in a way you would accept. How can you say that you don't know what's right, but you are sure what is wrong?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
b) It is utterly pointless anyway since we all implicitly understand what it is since we are not p-zombies or robots.
I do not make that assumption. I base my belief that we are not p-zombies or robots on my definitions of p-zombies and robots, versus my definition of conscious. They are incompatible.

[GroundStrength]

At the risk of incurring the 'Wrath of Ian' and being numbered among the stupid...

(Bear with me as I have never engaged Ian)

Ian,

Are you saying that at some point we all get absorbed into this cosmic conciousness (god)? Then we begin to share a common reality?

(sits back and waits to be swatted)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky


A very good question, Upchurch. Another one would be, "How does this interpretation unlike other definitions of God, avoid making the initial assumption that something besides the material world exists?" [/B]

You don't believe even in your own consciousness? :rolleyes: Or if consciousnesses exist are you saying they are to be equated with material things or processes? Apart from the intelligibility of such a notion I am curious as to why a universal consciousness, which is not simply equated with the brain or processes in the brain but the whole of physical reality, could not also exist?

[whitefork]

Let's accept that. It's impossible to define consciousness. We understand it by virtue of being consious....

We understand what an individual consciousness is. We understand the consciousness of others because they look and act like we do, so we accept that they are conscious in the same say we are.

My consciousness as experienced is indivuate and incarnate - I do not have any awareness of my consciousness outside of my body. Others may have such an understanding (astral projection, out of body experience, NDE, etc).

The universal consciouness, whatever it is, seems to be disembodied and possibly, non-temporal, and certainly non-limited in space. Any predicates we assign to it are analogical - the meaning has to differ from the meaning they have when we describe or experience our own consciouness. Unless your experience of your consciousness is non-temporal and non-spatial.

Since we can't define our own consciousness (I've accepted this as above), we can't define the universal consciousness, either. To say "it exists" is to say nothing specific, since the nature of that existence (in case of our selves) is undefined, and in case of the universal, undefined and analogical.

So, this god would appear to be the god of the noncognitivists: You can't say anything about it except by imagery and analogy.

Nice ploy, but I think you may be an agnostic in that case.

[Hexxenhammer]

Here's Ian's sig again:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian's sig

In progressively "higher" worlds, . . . self-egoity withers away, so that the individual's series of lives culminates in a last life beyond which there is no further embodiment but instead entry into the common Vision of God, or nirvana, or the eternal consciousness of the atman in its relation to Ultimate Reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian, you say this comes close to your own beliefs. I've never read anything from this guy the quote is from. What are the "higher worlds"? It talks about a "series of lives". Does this mean you believe in re-incarnation? Or am I just dense?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I am curious as to why a universal consciousness, which is not simply equated with the brain or processes in the brain but the whole of physical reality, could not also exist?
I do not say such a thing could not exist, but that it would simply be incompatible with any other kind of consciousness known to exist. Consciousness is, if nothing else, an individual thing and has been shown to have strong correlations to the activity of a single brain. The thing you propose is not like that at all. Not only that, there is no way to examine it, as you can when you examine the effect of alcohol or an alarm clock on human consciousness. How do you measure the effect of, say, a supernova on the "universal consciousness"? Unless you have some definition of what that UC is, then you cannot do so. Ergo, the UC is not a consciousness as we are given to understand consciousnesses and it is simply incorrect to describe it as one.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You don't believe even in your own consciousness? :rolleyes: Or if consciousnesses exist are you saying they are to be equated with material things or processes? Apart from the intelligibility of such a notion I am curious as to why a universal consciousness, which is not simply equated with the brain or processes in the brain but the whole of physical reality, could not also exist?

Hmm, still waiting for the definition of god, I nominate that we name the definition of god as described by Ian 'Godot', that way when we wait for said definition then we shal be
Waiting for Godot.

I have yet to see Godot, could you point him out to me Ian?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by Tricky

A very good question, Upchurch. Another one would be, "How does this interpretation unlike other definitions of God, avoid making the initial assumption that something besides the material world exists?"

You don't believe even in your own consciousness? :rolleyes: Or if consciousnesses exist are you saying they are to be equated with material things or processes? Apart from the intelligibility of such a notion I am curious as to why a universal consciousness, which is not simply equated with the brain or processes in the brain but the whole of physical reality, could not also exist? Okay, not the question I would have liked you to have started with, especially since it is a deviation from the original, but okay.

First of all, this isn't Jeapordy. No extra points for answering in the form of a question. ;)

Second of all, Kellervo pointed out that human consciousness are correlated with physical phenomena in the physical brain. We can leave which causes which for another time. I am not aware of any physical phenomena that can be correlated with a universal consciousness. If the universe has a consciosness, how do you know and how do you identify it?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Define consciousness?? :rolleyes:
Heres a few definitions that all tie in together:
The state of being conscious; knowledge of one's own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc.

An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation.

Immediate knowledge or perception of the presence of any object, state, or sensation.
There is nothing magical (or for that matter supernatural) about consciousness, its no more magical and remarkable than observing a base mixing with an acid.

Two points you should be aware of.

a) It is utterly impossible to define consciousness.
Not as hard as you think. If you try to apply supernatural phenomena (such as suggesting human consciousness was a gift from god, or suggesting humans can gain knowledge through intuition) and attempt to explain consciousness in scientific and rational terms, then it is impossible.

b) It is utterly pointless anyway since we all implicitly understand what it is since we are not p-zombies or robots.
Dont try to dismiss "trying to define consciousness". Consciousness is biology, science doesnt like to be without its explanations.

[peptoabysmal]

You do realize that a Borg-like "hive mentality" concept of a universal consciousness goes against all major religions in that one is individually held accountable for his "sins" or "level of enlightenment" or whatever in those religions? I don't argue either way, since it's all BS to me, just pointing out the difference.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
You do realize that a Borg-like "hive mentality" concept of a universal consciousness goes against all major religions in that one is individually held accountable for his "sins" or "level of enlightenment" or whatever in those religions? well, Ian is essentially arguing that his definition of God (i.e. his philosophy/religion) is superior to other definitions of God (i.e. their philosophies/religions), so he's saying that all major religions (with the possible exception of Buddism) are wrong and idiotic and his is right.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Hmm, still waiting for the definition of god, I nominate that we name the definition of god as described by Ian 'Godot', that way when we wait for said definition then we shal be
Waiting for Godot.

I have yet to see Godot, could you point him out to me Ian?

Do you think he'll come?

I've been waiting a long time!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jj


Do you think he'll come? I just hope he doesn't look like the neighbor from the Jeffersons

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kullervo
[B]Let's accept that. It's impossible to define consciousness. We understand it by virtue of being consious....

We understand what an individual consciousness is. We understand the consciousness of others because they look and act like we do, so we accept that they are conscious in the same say we are.



Oh yes? We only understand that other people are conscious through our 5 senses? What is your reasoning and/or evidence for this?



My consciousness as experienced is indivuate and incarnate - I do not have any awareness of my consciousness outside of my body.



So your consciousness is inside your body? Convince me you're not presupposing the correctness of materialism.




The universal consciouness, whatever it is, seems to be disembodied



Does it? What makes you say this?




and possibly, non-temporal, and certainly non-limited in space. Any predicates we assign to it are analogical - the meaning has to differ from the meaning they have when we describe or experience our own consciouness.



So this is different from other peoples consciousnesses?



Unless your experience of your consciousness is non-temporal and non-spatial.



What does it mean to say one experiences ones own consciousness? Does it make sense to suppose one does not experience ones own consciousness?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by GroundStrength
At the risk of incurring the 'Wrath of Ian' and being numbered among the stupid...

(Bear with me as I have never engaged Ian)

Ian,

Are you saying that at some point we all get absorbed into this cosmic conciousness (god)? Then we begin to share a common reality?

(sits back and waits to be swatted)

Something like that. But who knows? Indeed do we really know what we're saying?

[mummymonkey]

his definition of God (i.e. his philosophy/religion)
You can't just re-define stuff willy nilly like that! Nobody would know what the hell anybody else was talking about. God is perfectly well defined already in any decent dictionary. A persons philosophy/religion isn't his God. Doesn't matter how interesting he is.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh yes? We only understand that other people are conscious through our 5 senses? {snip} More questions, no replies.

Ian, do you understand what the purpose of this thread is?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
More questions, no replies.

Ian, do you understand what the purpose of this thread is?

I'm sure Ian knows what the purpose of this thread is, but he is to wily too be trapped by making a definitive statement. All he can do is tell us what God isn't. That way, no one can assail him on specifics.

However on The-Thread-That-Demands-To-Be-Hijacked (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25578), Calladus did a little digging on one of Ian's less evasive statements. I now bring it to it's more proper location.
***
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I've told you that panentheism probably corresponds most closely to my concept of "God". And read the quote by Hick in my sig.
Originally posted by Calladus
AHA! NOW I understand - I didn't have a handle on your philosophy before ... let's see:


Pantheism and Panentheism
From THIS site: (http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm)

This universal arrangement is not pantheism (all is God), but panentheism, a term devised by Karl C. F. Krause (1781-1832) to describe his thought. It is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne and recently by Matthew Fox. Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God's body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God's body, but God's awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God--as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God's purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

The most practical value of pantheism is that it recognizes the presence of God everywhere, but it does this at an enormous cost. It provides for the presence of God as the only actor; God's presence is an overriding presence that cancels the possibility of the existence of anything else, of any genuine beloved, of any loving or unloving response to God. In pantheism, human existence or any other finite existence is at best a mystery. Explanation in any satisfying sense is impossible. There can be affirmation that there is nothing but God, but where that leaves the affirmer is unclear; his or her existence is no more than appearance, and enlightenment brings recognition of one's illusory status as a unique, permanent perspective in reality.


Originally posted by Calladus

Does this explain what you mean?
-----
Calladus

So, Ian, is this a correct assesment of how you define God? If not, please make the changes needed to bring it in line with your own conception (or give us your own definition), then we can get down to brass tacks. Like others, I am curious to see where my definition (which you have made assumptions about, but not asked about) falls down.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Upchurch
well, Ian is essentially arguing that his definition of God (i.e. his philosophy/religion) is superior to other definitions of God (i.e. their philosophies/religions), so he's saying that all major religions (with the possible exception of Buddism) are wrong and idiotic and his is right.

Ah, OK I get it. Arguing belief systems is somewhat like hitting one's self on the head with a hammer -- it feels so good when you stop. :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Ah, OK I get it. Arguing belief systems is somewhat like hitting one's self on the head with a hammer -- it feels so good when you stop. :D
Is that why you wear that helmet?:cool:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm sure Ian knows what the purpose of this thread is, but he is to wily too be trapped by making a definitive statement. All he can do is tell us what God isn't. That way, no one can assail him on specifics.
The part that bothers me is that he has the nerve call people intellectually degrading names based on the ideas about the world, but doesn't have the curage to discuss his own. One can only assume that he is afraid he will be shot down, as you say, like he was in his sophmoric "Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong" attempt.

I notice he has steadfastly ignored my questions and posts, except as responded to by others. hmm....

Ian, if you choose to get off your high horse and actually defend your positions, feel free to start by answer (note I said "answer", not "question") the challenges posed at the top of this thread.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If I remember my Hinduism correctly, god is not the ultimate reality. The ultimate reality is Beingness or some such thing, which is pure, unindividuated, all-pervasive Isness. This Beingness is called Brahma or Atman. Gods arise when Beingness becomes aware of itself and begins to play in its own infinite field of Isness. There are three major gods: Brahma (creation), Siva (destruction), and Vishnu (preservation). These gods bring forth creation. This is why the levels of consciousness are called Cosmic Consciousness, God Consciousness, Unity Consciousness, and Brahman Consciousness.

So the gods are just intermediaries, not the ultimate thing.

~~ Paul

[Duncan]

Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God's body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God's body, but God's awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe.

Since our universe is expanding, I must assume God is getting fatter.

I don't know, but to me this sounds too much like the tripped out, acid induced ramblings of some hippie at Woodstock. "Like, hey man, what if we're all like this little cell in a giants fingernail. Or what if the cells in our fingernail are saying the same thing right now. Groovy."

If God is the universe, isn't this just a case of semantics. You say tomato, I say God"s kidney stone.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The part that bothers me is that he has the nerve call people intellectually degrading names based on the ideas about the world, but doesn't have the curage to discuss his own. One can only assume that he is afraid he will be shot down, as you say, like he was in his sophmoric "Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong" attempt.



LOL If I could adequately define it I scarcely think so. And I'm afraid I can't. And even if I could people wouldn't understand it. I suspect that even the best of us are blindly groping in trying to understand an adequate conceptualisation of "God". So what chance have I got? But since people keep nagging me a brief attempt is made below.

The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with conscious awareness. An awareness which is not within the world; that is to say it is not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the (physical) world is an aspect or attribute of such awareness. In an appropriate sense the world is "within" this Universal conscious awreness. "God" is the all-inclusive reality of all things. Such an awareness is transcendental but paradoxically also immanent, and it is all-embracing and self subsistent. Indeed it is the totality of consciousness which is the sole true existent. We are not truly separate from this Universal awareness or from one another. Our teleological destiny is to lose our individuality and to become one and part of this universal awareness.

I feel completely dissatisfied with the above :mad:. But people do keep asking me what I mean by "God".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Duncan


Since our universe is expanding, I must assume God is getting fatter.

I don't know, but to me this sounds too much like the tripped out, acid induced ramblings of some hippie at Woodstock. "Like, hey man, what if we're all like this little cell in a giants fingernail. Or what if the cells in our fingernail are saying the same thing right now. Groovy."



Ramblings indeed, and pretty meaningless as they stand. I've heard similar things from people such as when they speculate the whole Universe might be an atom in a much huger Universe. But reality is just not like that! They have this incredibly naive idea of an ontological self-subsistent material world which is literally comprised of smaller and smaller elements. :rolleyes:



If God is the universe, isn't this just a case of semantics. You say tomato, I say God"s kidney stone.

No not a case of semantics. I knew people on here would be utterly clueless. How can one describe what God is when most people on here have a conceptualisation of God similar to an averge 10 year old's? :rolleyes:

[GroundStrength]

Ian,

I think I understand what you are saying, but also understand why you feel that you explanation is insufficient. If things end up to be as you say I would hope that there was a bit of individuality left. I don't like the idea of losing my identity any more than I like the idea of groveling at the feet some old guy with a beard.

I have one question for you and I am not taking the piss with you...

What is it that seperates us, seperates this overall consciousness into us humans?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with conscious awareness. An awareness which is not within the world; that is to say it is not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the (physical) world is an aspect or attribute of such awareness. In an appropriate sense the world is "within" this Universal conscious awreness. "God" is the all-inclusive reality of all things. Such an awareness is transcendental but paradoxically also immanent, and it is all-embracing and self subsistent. Indeed it is the totality of consciousness which is the sole true existent. We are not truly separate from this Universal awareness or from one another. Our teleological destiny is to lose our individuality and to become one and part of this universal awareness.


Okay, here it is, and please people remember that this is the philospohy forum, so attacks beased on the need for evidence will not lead to further sighting of Godot.

This does seem to contain all the usual paradoxical requirement of a philosophy of god, I have similar belief , such as all things are linked and interconected but also unique and unlike all other things.

So cool, be nice!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here's my view:

The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with physical
existence. An existence which is not within the world; that is to say it is
not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the
conscious mind is an aspect or attribute of such existence. In an
appropriate sense the world is "within" this Universal physical existence.
"God" is the all-inclusive reality of all things. Such an existence is
immanent but paradoxically also transcendent, and it is all-embracing and
self subsistent. Indeed it is the totality of physical existence which is the
sole true existent. We are not truly separate from this Universal existence
or from one another. Our teleological destiny is to lose our individuality
and to become one and part of this physical existence.

~~ Paul

[mummymonkey]

Mr Anagnostopoulos
The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with physical existence. An existence which is not within the world; that is to say it is not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the conscious mind is an aspect or attribute of such existence. In an appropriate sense the world is "within" this Universal physical existence.
"God" is the all-inclusive reality of all things. Such an existence is
immanent but paradoxically also transcendent, and it is all-embracing and self subsistent. Indeed it is the totality of physical existence which is the sole true existent. We are not truly separate from this Universal existence or from one another. Our teleological destiny is to lose our individuality and to become one and part of this physical existence.
Okay I understand most of this, don't agree with it but I think I get it. Two questions if somebody will indulge me:

1. Why call it "God"
2. A "teleological destiny" suggests that some one or some thing wrote out a plan. Would that be God?

btw If I'm annoying you good folks with my ten year old childlike questions let me know and I'll move along.

[Upchurch]

Wow. I'm stunned. I'm only sorry I had to resort to insults to snap you out of your tirade long enough to be civil and responsive.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

LOL If I could adequately define it I scarcely think so. And I'm afraid I can't. And even if I could people wouldn't understand it. I suspect that even the best of us are blindly groping in trying to understand an adequate conceptualisation of "God". So what chance have I got? But since people keep nagging me a brief attempt is made below.And this is my problem with your position. You cannot conceive a conceptualization of God that is truly satisfactory to you, right? So, who are you then to insult other people's intelligence and position if they are no better of than you are? A great deal of the people who post on this board are by no means either idiots nor morons. Essentially: Get over yourself.

Enough of that. Let's continue with the actuall topic.

Realizing that you aren't totally satisfied with this description, let's start with some of the basic assumptions you make here.
The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with conscious awareness.This is your first assumption. It also has several corrolary assumptions that go along with it, but lets take that those other assumptions are represented by this statement.

So, what is your justification for this statement then? And, back to my original question at the beginning of the thread, why should one take this statement on faith over other assumptions (say, for example, materialism or another such philosophy)?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mummy,

First of all, you should note that I wrote that modified version of Ian's view to suggest that the ideal and physical views are equivalent, but just use different words.

Anyhoo, you have to call the ultimate existent something, so why not god? However, as I noted above, Hinduism does not consider god the ultimate existent, but rather a product of it. One of these grandiose existents would be the thing pushing the teleological agenda, I guess.

All that said, I think that ontological ramblings are meaningless.

~~ Paul

[GroundStrength]

Well, my wife said she was going to kill me when I get home. If there is anyting after I'll come back and ghostpost.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


LOL If I could adequately define it I scarcely think so. And I'm afraid I can't. And even if I could people wouldn't understand it. I suspect that even the best of us are blindly groping in trying to understand an adequate conceptualisation of "God". So what chance have I got? But since people keep nagging me a brief attempt is made below.

The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with conscious awareness. An awareness which is not within the world; that is to say it is not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the (physical) world is an aspect or attribute of such awareness. In an appropriate sense the world is "within" this Universal conscious awareness. "God" is the all-inclusive reality of all things. Such an awareness is transcendental but paradoxically also immanent, and it is all-embracing and self subsistent. Indeed it is the totality of consciousness which is the sole true existent. We are not truly separate from this Universal awareness or from one another. Our teleological destiny is to lose our individuality and to become one and part of this universal awareness.

I feel completely dissatisfied with the above :mad:. But people do keep asking me what I mean by "God".
Thank you, Ian. That was quite understandible and free from philosobabble. I apprecieate it.

It might be interesting (or not;)) that it is quite similar to the last concept of a "higher power" that I had before I became an atheist. Like many here, I have had lots of different ideas (including the "bearded man" when I was a child and a "beings from the future" scenario when I was deeply into sci-fi in my teens).

In the end, though, I found them all unsatisfying because they could not be tested, even in theory.

However, I will let the more philosophical types chew on your words for a bit and I'll pipe in later. Thanks again.

[Dancing David]

The theory of god can be tested as part of the human experience, prayer to various dieties has various effect. It will not however allow you to levitate or other such nonsense. But the effects of prayer and invokation and identification with dieties are identifiable and testable.
But this does not mean that people will be able to walk on unfrozen water.

[hammegk]

Ian & Paul have outlined views of the only choices: mind, or matter.

But "god"???? Er, um, ok I guess. ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Fair enough.

Since Ian hasn't graced us with his presense yet, I'll just interject that I knew that was an oversimplification. However, I was just questioning Ian's assertion that his definition of God is superior (or more intelligent, in his words) to most, if not all, other definitions. I'm just asking him to back that claim up.

No, I have only said it is more intelligent than what atheists tend to define as "God".

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with conscious awareness. An awareness which is not within the world; that is to say it is not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the (physical) world is an aspect or attribute of such awareness. In an appropriate sense the world is "within" this Universal conscious awreness. "God" is the all-inclusive reality of all things. Such an awareness is transcendental but paradoxically also immanent, and it is all-embracing and self subsistent. Indeed it is the totality of consciousness which is the sole true existent. We are not truly separate from this Universal awareness or from one another. Our teleological destiny is to lose our individuality and to become one and part of this universal awareness.

I feel completely dissatisfied with the above :mad:. But people do keep asking me what I mean by "God".

How did consciousness become punctuated into the individual consciousnesses of individual people, and when does it merge back into the universal awareness?

[Loki]

Ian,

No, I have only said it is more intelligent than what atheists tend to define as "God".
Well, let me ask you directly then - is it more intelligent that the Catholic Trinity? Is it more intelligent that the Morman 'married gods'? Is it more intelligent that Allah?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Loki
Well, let me ask you directly then - is it more intelligent that the Catholic Trinity? Is it more intelligent that the Morman 'married gods'? Is it more intelligent that Allah? True enough.

When I say that the concept of God is unnecessary or illogical, I'm often refering to the types of Gods defined by some, if not most, of the major religions out there. In otherwords, it is in reference to someone else's (a believer's) definition of God rather than my own pre-conceived notion of what I think God should be (which I really don't have).

By saying that your definition of God is more intelligent that how atheists define God, you are saying that your definition of God is more intelligent than the most commonly held definitions of God by the general populous.

So, to follow up on Loki's questions: Is it more intelligent than fundamentalist Christian's God (a la billiefan2000)? Is it more intelligent that Jahova's Witnesses's God? Is it more intelligent than Babtist's or Methodist's or Disciples of Christ's God? Is it more intelligent than Unitarianist's God?

These are all definitions of God hat I'm more or less familiar with and refer to when discussing the concept of God. Is your definition superior or more intelligent than all of these definitions? If not, why not? If so, why? How do you know when you, yourself, cannot come up with a satisfactory definition of God even for yourself.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
True enough.

When I say that the concept of God is unnecessary or illogical, I'm often refering to the types of Gods defined by some, if not most, of the major religions out there. In otherwords, it is in reference to someone else's (a believer's) definition of God rather than my own pre-conceived notion of what I think God should be (which I really don't have).

By saying that your definition of God is more intelligent that how atheists define God, you are saying that your definition of God is more intelligent than the most commonly held definitions of God by the general populous.

So, to follow up on Loki's questions: Is it more intelligent than fundamentalist Christian's God (a la billiefan2000)? Is it more intelligent that Jahova's Witnesses's God? Is it more intelligent than Babtist's or Methodist's or Disciples of Christ's God? Is it more intelligent than Unitarianist's God?

These are all definitions of God hat I'm more or less familiar with and refer to when discussing the concept of God. Is your definition superior or more intelligent than all of these definitions? If not, why not? If so, why? How do you know when you, yourself, cannot come up with a satisfactory definition of God even for yourself.

I don't know. I don't know how all these people define God. I only know how atheists define God from speaking to them on here, and their definition of God is an impressively stupid one. So stupid in fact that it is little wonder they are atheists! Or perhaps they just like to attack the most crass conceptualisations of God possible in order to make their position more reasonable? I really don't know.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't know. I don't know how all these people define God. I only know how atheists define God from speaking to them on here, and their definition of God is an impressively stupid one. So stupid in fact that it is little wonder they are atheists! Or perhaps they just like to attack the most crass conceptualisations of God possible in order to make their position more reasonable? I really don't know. Why do you assume that atheists in general have a specific definition for God when there is such a wide range of possibilities?

For example, take my definition of God: a man-made construct used to help explain and define the universe.

Do you find this stupid? Why?

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, I have only said it is more intelligent than what atheists tend to define as "God".

Atheists define God in that way because the majority of theists define God in that way. It's their claim, all we're doing is rejecting it.

Edited to add: Of course, even if atheists who say "there is no God" turn out to be wrong with regard to your God, Ian, we're still right with regard to the God of the majority of theists.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't know. I don't know how all these people define God. I only know how atheists define God from speaking to them on here, and their definition of God is an impressively stupid one. So stupid in fact that it is little wonder they are atheists! Or perhaps they just like to attack the most crass conceptualisations of God possible in order to make their position more reasonable? I really don't know.
But Ian, atheists don't define a God for themselves. They discuss and dissect the different concepts that others have of God. If I were to talk to Billifan about "An existence which is not within the world; that is to say it is not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the conscious mind is an aspect or attribute of such existence", it would make no sense to him whatsoever. When I talk to Billiefan, I talk to him about the God he has described. When talking to Franko, I discussed his concept of The Goddess. I do the same thing with you.

Your version of God, while much more complex and adaptable than Billiefan's, still has a lot of things which are unexplainable. For example, how is a consciousness stored in non-neural matter? You can easily claim this to be so, but you cannot demonstrate it, whereas it is easy to demonstrate consciousness stored in neural matter. Or alternatively, if you propose a consciousness that exists outside of the material world, then it is simply a lot of arm-waving, since, by your own admission, we can never test it.

Yes, you are well schooled in philosophy and your concept of God is multi-layered, but in the end, it simply comes down to faith, as all concepts of God do.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, I have only said it is more intelligent than what atheists tend to define as "God".

This is crap. What it boils down to is that your definition is still make believe just like the old man in the sky. Using big words doesn't make it "more intelligent". The belief is still irrational. Atheists are just used to people believing in the old man in the sky god. So that's what they refute. An atheists definition of god would be much like Upchurch's:
God: a man-made construct used to help explain and define the universe.
As an atheist I don't care if you believe in the x-ian god, hinduism, or a universal concioussness. It's all made up. I refute it all.

[The Mad Linguist]

I disagree with Upchurch and Hexxenhammer. There's a difference between the definition of a word and the existence status of entities that that word denotes.

So for God:
Definition == {supernatural being, creator, blah blah}
Existence status == {fairy tale}

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
I disagree with Upchurch and Hexxenhammer. There's a difference between the definition of a word and the existence status of entities that that word denotes.

So for God:
Definition == {supernatural being, creator, blah blah}
Existence status == {fairy tale}
Leave it to a linguist;)
But don't religious definitions of god presuppose that god's existance? Is there a difference between the text-book dictionary definition, and a personal definition? I would call Upchurch's definition a personal definition.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
I disagree with Upchurch and Hexxenhammer. There's a difference between the definition of a word and the existence status of entities that that word denotes.

So for God:
Definition == {supernatural being, creator, blah blah}
Existence status == {fairy tale} To an extent that is true, but one word can, and often does have several meanings. Strictly speaking from an atheist point of view, God is a man-made construct depicting a supernatural being, creator, blah blah used to help explain and define the universe.

It's like a painting. you could identify the painting by what it is of or you could identify the painting as the medium used to convey the meaning of what it is of. For example, if the painting is of Mona Lisa we can either say,

"That is Mona Lisa"

or we can say,

"That is a painting showing Mona Lisa"

Mona Lisa may or may not exist as an idependent person in reality. The first statement confuses the reality of the person with the image. The second statement acknowledges the image for what it is.

In my above definition, I am acknowledging the construct rather than confusing the construct as the subject of the construct.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How can one describe what God is when most people on here have a conceptualisation of God similar to an averge 10 year old's? :rolleyes:

Yeah, but in both our conceptualisations, he still has a beard, right?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by triadboy


Yeah, but in both our conceptualisations, he still has a beard, right? Sometimes I've seen him as an old beardless man, a black man, and a woman. Depends on the movie.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Sometimes I've seen him as an old beardless man, a black man, and a woman. Depends on the movie.

Why is God never depicted as a horse, or an Octopus, or a dolphin or a cockroach?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why is God never depicted as a horse, or an Octopus, or a dolphin or a cockroach?

Cthulhu is Octopus-like.
David Brin's "Startide Rising" has Dolphin gods.
Can't help you with horses and roaches though.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Leave it to a linguist;)
But don't religious definitions of god presuppose that god's existance? Is there a difference between the text-book dictionary definition, and a personal definition? I would call Upchurch's definition a personal definition.

No. A definition cannot presuppose existence. A definition is just a tool for deciding whether or not a given word should be applied to some entity you encounter. So the definition God {bearded Creator being} simply means that, if you ever encounter a bearded creator being, you will be justified in referring to it as a God. Conversely, Ian's definition God {transcendant consciousness thing} means that, if Ian ever encounters a transcendant consciousness thingy, he will be justified in referring to it as "God". "Encounter" can be in the sense of "in real life", or just "in a conversation".

Of course, this means that Ian's claim that his definition of God is somehow more intelligent than other definitions is fundamentally silly. Definitions can't really be intelligent or unintelligent. What he's trying to say, I suspect, is that to contemplate the possibility of the existence of Non-Ian-Defined God is unintelligent, not the actual definition itself.

Anyway, I doubt that you and Upchurch really define God as you have said. If God == "a man-made construct used to help explain and define the universe" then....

There is no evidence for a God ==
There is no evidence for a man-made construct used to help explain and define the universe

I think there's plenty of evidence for the existence of such a man-made construct, including Bibles, churches, fundies.... but if I hear you or Upchurch say "there is no evidence for a God", would I be correct in concluding that you disagree with me?

As I said, the definition of a word is very distinct from its existence status. Don't mix up "means" in the semantic sense (which is what definitions are about) with means in the sense of "the significance of a concept to you", which is what you may be getting at with the idea of "personal definition".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian asked:Why is God never depicted as a horse, or an Octopus, or a dolphin or a cockroach?
He is, by horses, octopi, dophins, and roaches.

Hell, why isn't god depicted as an amorphous, spikey, shocking pick, oozing blob of gunk? Or a gas cloud? Or a pencil line on a piece of paper?

Could it be that we're just making him up in our own image?

~~ Paul

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

-Snip-

As I said, the definition of a word is very distinct from its existence status. Don't mix up "means" in the semantic sense (which is what definitions are about) with means in the sense of "the significance of a concept to you", which is what you may be getting at with the idea of "personal definition".

Gotcha.

[Tricky]

This all reminds me of an old joke:

Mother: Honey, what are you drawing?
Daughter: A picture of God.
Mother: But Honey, nobody knows what God looks like.
Daughter: They will when I'm finished.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

There is no evidence for a God ==
There is no evidence for a man-made construct used to help explain and define the universe Ah, touche.

That definition was in reference to Ian's claim that atheists have a defnition of God. In other words, if I were to define what God means to an atheist, it would be the above definition.

So do I believe there is evidence for the atheist definition of God (i.e. the above definition)? Sure.

Do I believe there is evidence for billiefan2000's definition of God? No, and in fact there is even circumstatial evidence against it.

Do I believe there is evidence for Ian's definition of God? No, but neither can there be evidence for it as per the definition.

So when asking "Is there evidence for God?", one has to be more specific or one has to determine from the context which God is being refered to. Ian falls into this trap quite often by assuming that people are refering to his conceptualization of God, the afterlife, etc. rather than trying to understand the proper context of the question or statement as it was posed.

[The Mad Linguist]

But then, Upchurch, you are creating a situation where everyone's opinion about the existence status of God would be built in to their definition of God.

This logically leads to a situation where EVERYONE believes in God - for their own personal definition of God.

It also leads to a situation where, for effective communication to take place, everyone has to constantly be "translating" the meaning of a very common word back and forth to one another's definitions.

It also implies that the definition of this one word, "God", operates completely differently to the way words normally work (meanings and definitions being negotiated across a speech community).

Now this way of thinking about it works - I'm not saying it doesn't - but I think it's a lot less parsimonious than assuming existence status to be separate to definitions, which allows the atheist and Billiefan to have the same definition of "God" in the same way that they have the same definition of, say, "tree", and doesn't require the assumption of translation and special status for the word "God".

But what about Ian's definition of God? Well, it's not the traditional definition, but the entity it defines probably has more in common with the traditional definition of "God" than it does with any other possible label for it. So Ian is justified in using the word "God" for it, but needs to be very careful to define it, because it's not a common definition for that word across the speech community.

Edited to add:
I sometimes consider avoiding the word God altogether, and using Theus, Deus, Pantheus for the theistic, deistic, pantheistic God respectively. (And I'll add Panentheus to that list). That'd be nice and specific... trouble is, no one would understand me...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why is God never depicted as a horse, or an Octopus, or a dolphin or a cockroach?

Because you don't get out enough,
Epona is a whilte horse and even makes an apprearance inDragonslayer , God the octopus I can't say but it is an image in the Motherpeace tarot.
God as a cockaroach, more likely a termite, given the relative biomass.

And dolpihins and seals, along with otters are greatly admired by pagans.

[jj]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Why do you assume that atheists in general have a specific definition for God when there is such a wide range of possibilities?


More to the point, why is any definition needed?

A DISBELIEF does not, and can not require the same "definition" as a belief.

Otherwise, we'd have to define everything we don't believe in. The obvious impossibility of that shows the fallacy in assuming that atheists must have ANY definition of a god.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
But then, Upchurch, you are creating a situation where everyone's opinion about the existence status of God would be built in to their definition of God.I'm flattered that you think I created the situation ;), but yes. That is, in part, what I'm saying.
This logically leads to a situation where EVERYONE believes in God - for their own personal definition of God.Yes. Or rather, no. Even being an atheist, I recognize that the concept of God exists. So, insomuch as I recognize the concept of God exists, yes I believe in God. But I do not "believe in God" in the traditional sense that I think God as a physical and/or spiritual reality beyond the human conceptualization.

What I'm trying to get at is that your above statement is correct to an extent, but is also misleading in it's traditional implications, which lies in the definition of "believe".
It also leads to a situation where, for effective communication to take place, everyone has to constantly be "translating" the meaning of a very common word back and forth to one another's definitions.Yes. I'm afraid it does. It is what often leads to difficulties in communication on this board and, I'm sure, in real life.
It also implies that the definition of this one word, "God", operates completely differently to the way words normally work (meanings and definitions being negotiated across a speech community).Yes and no. "God" is one of those messy words that means different things to different people, but it isn't the only word (at least in the English language) that does this. Consider the word "believe" as used above. In one case, believe is used as a synonym of "have faith". In the other, it is used to mean "understands to be true based on knowledge and experience". Perhaps not the best example.

Reaching back to the 80's, remember when "bad" could mean either "good" or "bad"? You had to use contextual clues to sort out which was meant at any one time, a skill many older people had difficulty mastering. Consider also "cool".
Now this way of thinking about it works - I'm not saying it doesn't - but I think it's a lot less parsimonious than assuming existence status to be separate to definitions, which allows the atheist and Billiefan to have the same definition of "God" in the same way that they have the same definition of, say, "tree", and doesn't require the assumption of translation and special status for the word "God".I agree it would be easier to talk about such things. A while back there was some threads about parsing out the different God definitions into God1, God2, God3, etc. The idea was that when we referred to "God1", we knew which God definition was being used. It didn't work as was evetually dropped. I guess no true believer would want their definition of God to be "God34"

So, while it would be better, it is very difficult to change the way a subject is talked about. Especially on a forum board where new people are poping on all the time using the old convention.
But what about Ian's definition of God? Well, it's not the traditional definition, but the entity it defines probably has more in common with the traditional definition of "God" than it does with any other possible label for it. So Ian is justified in using the word "God" for it, but needs to be very careful to define it, because it's not a common definition for that word across the speech community.I agree again, but it is his responsibility to make the distinction clear and not to just assume all references to "God" or "afterlife" are referring to his definitions.

I honestly don't think we're in any real disagreement on any of this. There is a communication barrier here that is easily avoidable with just a little caution in word choice, but these topics (as well as any topic that someone is passionate about) also make people reactionary.

[Cain]

http://users.adelphia.net/~ybechor/sig_occam.gif

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why is God never depicted as a horse, or an Octopus, or a dolphin or a cockroach?
To answer this question, let me direct you to a poem by Rupert Brooke (http://www.bartleby.com/232/504.html) called Heaven, which looks at life from the point of view of fish.

...
But somewhere, beyond Space and Time.
Is wetter water, slimier slime!
And there (they trust) there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,
Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind;
And under that Almighty Fin,
The littlest fish may enter in.
...

Or simply, we tend to envision our gods as more powerful versions of ourselves. This should not surprise you.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by jj


More to the point, why is any definition needed?

A DISBELIEF does not, and can not require the same "definition" as a belief.

Oh come on. Are you suggesting that if I came to you and proclaimed my belief in the ferruckle, you'd adopt a position of disbelief in the ferruckle without asking what the word meant?

A definition is just a formalised way of expressing our knowledge of the meaning of a word. Unless we have knowledge of the meaning of the word, we can't possibly decide whether it has any existing referents.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Even being an atheist, I recognize that the concept of God exists.

In this sentence, you are using the usual definition of God {bearded Creator}. That's not the definition you proposed before. The definition you proposed before implied that God was a concept/construct. If you were sticking to that definition then you'd just have said "I recognise that the concept of a construct of a bearded creator exists".

Look, this is silly to argue over, since we agree on the important issues. It's professional knee-jerk on my part, I suppose, towards a blurring of the line between the semantic content of a word (which is an element of the coding system of language) and one's attitude towards that word. The coding system of a language is not a personal thing, which is why talk of personal definitions raises my hackles. Your attitude towards the existence of potential entities denoted by a word is personal, but it's distinct from the coding system we use to talk about it.

If you like, what I'm arguing for is a very strict definition of the word "definition".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
In this sentence, you are using the usual definition of God {bearded Creator}. That's not the definition you proposed before. The definition you proposed before implied that God was a concept/construct. If you were sticking to that definition then you'd just have said "I recognise that the concept of a construct of a bearded creator exists".No, see.... but I said that.... that's not what I..... erm...

:id:
Damn. Blew my own irony meter. In preaching about being more careful with word choice, I screwed it up myself.
Look, this is silly to argue over, since we agree on the important issues.Probably. and it's off topic anyway (which was validating Ian's claim at having a superior view of God).
The coding system of a language is not a personal thing, which is why talk of personal definitions raises my hackles. Your attitude towards the existence of potential entities denoted by a word is personal, but it's distinct from the coding system we use to talk about it.Okay, granted that I just agreed that there is no point in arguing about this, I would agree that this is how it should be, but not how it is. :con2:

Anyway, screw it. If there's more to say, we should start a new thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by GroundStrength
Ian,

I think I understand what you are saying, but also understand why you feel that you explanation is insufficient. If things end up to be as you say I would hope that there was a bit of individuality left. I don't like the idea of losing my identity any more than I like the idea of groveling at the feet some old guy with a beard.

I have one question for you and I am not taking the piss with you...

What is it that seperates us, seperates this overall consciousness into us humans?

Your individuality is not what you intrinsically are. You don't lose anything, you only gain.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wow. I'm stunned. I'm only sorry I had to resort to insults to snap you out of your tirade long enough to be civil and responsive.
And this is my problem with your position. You cannot conceive a conceptualization of God that is truly satisfactory to you, right? So, who are you then to insult other people's intelligence and position if they are no better of than you are? A great deal of the people who post on this board are by no means either idiots nor morons. Essentially: Get over yourself.

Enough of that. Let's continue with the actuall topic.

Realizing that you aren't totally satisfied with this description, let's start with some of the basic assumptions you make here.
This is your first assumption. It also has several corrolary assumptions that go along with it, but lets take that those other assumptions are represented by this statement.

So, what is your justification for this statement then? And, back to my original question at the beginning of the thread, why should one take this statement on faith over other assumptions (say, for example, materialism or another such philosophy)?

Not an assumption. A particular hypothesis about the world.

I only insult arrogant people who think that materialism is obviously correct without giving any justification for this thesis.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Thank you, Ian. That was quite understandible and free from philosobabble. I apprecieate it.

It might be interesting (or not;)) that it is quite similar to the last concept of a "higher power" that I had before I became an atheist. Like many here, I have had lots of different ideas (including the "bearded man" when I was a child and a "beings from the future" scenario when I was deeply into sci-fi in my teens).

In the end, though, I found them all unsatisfying because they could not be tested, even in theory.

However, I will let the more philosophical types chew on your words for a bit and I'll pipe in later. Thanks again.

It appears though that you don't give a flying f*ck about whether your own ideas about reality are "testable".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Why do you assume that atheists in general have a specific definition for God when there is such a wide range of possibilities?



Because they persistently give one.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
[B]

Atheists define God in that way because the majority of theists define God in that way. It's their claim, all we're doing is rejecting it.


You seem to forget that in order to be an atheist you must not simply deny the most crass conceptualisation of God that you have ever happened to have accounted. You are denying any sort of existent which could reasonably be labelled as "god".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
[B]
But Ian, atheists don't define a God for themselves. They discuss and dissect the different concepts that others have of God. If I were to talk to Billifan about "An existence which is not within the world; that is to say it is not a part of the world, nor is it constitutive of the world, but rather the conscious mind is an aspect or attribute of such existence", it would make no sense to him whatsoever. When I talk to Billiefan, I talk to him about the God he has described. When talking to Franko, I discussed his concept of The Goddess. I do the same thing with you.

Your version of God, while much more complex and adaptable than Billiefan's, still has a lot of things which are unexplainable. For example, how is a consciousness stored in non-neural matter?



Perhaps if you explained how it can be stored in neural matter I might be in a better position to answer your question.




You can easily claim this to be so, but you cannot demonstrate it, whereas it is easy to demonstrate consciousness stored in neural matter.



Then demonstrate it. Let me know when you've succeeded.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


This is crap. What it boils down to is that your definition is still make believe just like the old man in the sky. Using big words doesn't make it "more intelligent". The belief is still irrational. Atheists are just used to people believing in the old man in the sky god. So that's what they refute. An atheists definition of god would be much like Upchurch's:

As an atheist I don't care if you believe in the x-ian god, hinduism, or a universal concioussness. It's all made up. I refute it all.

You deny it all. If you believe it to be irrational then let's hear your reasoning suggesting this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


Of course, this means that Ian's claim that his definition of God is somehow more intelligent than other definitions is fundamentally silly. Definitions can't really be intelligent or unintelligent.



I'm afraid it can be in the context of the question of the reality of the proposed existent.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian clarified:He thinks the smell of a fart is literally a physical process in the brain
I assume you think not. Therefore I also assume that you think all animals that react to odors have consciousness like humans, since apparently a mere brain isn't enough.

Sorry, back to the original subject . . .

~~ Paul

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You deny it all. If you believe it to be irrational then let's hear your reasoning suggesting this.

I agree with Hexxenhammer's beliefs.

It seems you are making the fantastic claim of invisible creatures - isn't it you who should state reasons for such an outlandish belief?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You deny it all. If you believe it to be irrational then let's hear your reasoning suggesting this.
My reasoning is in the paragraph of mine you quoted. It's irrational because you made it up. Period. It's irrational because it assumes that there something non-detectable beyond the physical world. Belief in anything that is non-detectable is irrational. Unless you think that your universal conciousness is detectable. Then I'd say prove it. But we both know it isn't. I know you're just going to say something about how I'm presupposing the correctness of Materialism or something. I'm not up on my philosophy. Maybe I am. I don't care.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
[B]
My reasoning is in the paragraph of mine you quoted. It's irrational because you made it up. Period. It's irrational because it assumes that there something non-detectable beyond the physical world.



Idiot! If it were detectable it would both be physical and not beyond the physical world by definition!

To assume the existence of consciousness which is not identical to a physical thing or process seems to be eminently reasonable to me. Please explain why it is not.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian Idiot! If it were detectable it would both be physical and not beyond the physical world by definition!
Duh. If it were detectable it would be rational. Since it's not it's irrational. Admit it. The concept of god you believe in is still as irrational as the old man in the sky. How can it be otherwise?

To assume the existence of consciousness which is not identical to a physical thing or process seems to be eminently reasonable to me. Please explain why it is not. [/B] Please explain why it is. Conciousness arises from brain function and biology. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. You've been round and round with Dr. Stupid on this same subject. He argued it better than I can.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You seem to forget that in order to be an atheist you must not simply deny the most crass conceptualisation of God that you have ever happened to have accounted. You are denying any sort of existent which could reasonably be labelled as "god".

-sigh- no, Ian. I'm denying the theistic God, as defined by theists.

If in your book, that makes me not an atheist... well... I'll live with that. But it makes me an atheist in most people's books.

I can't see how on earth you got to the conclusion that to be an atheist one must deny any sort of existent which could reasonably be labelled as "god".

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I'm afraid it can be in the context of the question of the reality of the proposed existent.

But your God and the theistic God are DIFFERENT proposed existents. Arguments about their existence are separate arguments. You might argue (and indeed, I gather you do believe) that it's unintelligent to argue about the existence of the theistic God because its existence is a laughable notion. But that doesn't imply that anyone whose primary use of the word "God" is to indicate the theistic God is therefore unintelligent.

[Yahweh]

I want to take a stab at this...

Ian, I may be wrong (which I sometimes am when I make blind guesses) but you seem to have a somewhat Paganistic style of thinking.

Am I remotely correct in assuming that you believe that the universe itself is God or at least to an extent (yes, it is a real belief, kids)?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Originally posted by Interesting Ian Idiot! If it were detectable it would both be physical and not beyond the physical world by definition!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Duh. If it were detectable it would be rational. Since it's not it's irrational. Admit it.



We're clearly not communicating in the same language here as you are utilizing a completely different definition of "rational" from what I understand the word to mean.



The concept of god you believe in is still as irrational as the old man in the sky. How can it be otherwise?



How can it be otherwise?? :confused: Your question is literally nonsensical! Look, if my concept of God is irrational then you need to spell out why. Are you able to comprehend this elementary simple point??



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assume the existence of consciousness which is not identical to a physical thing or process seems to be eminently reasonable to me. Please explain why it is not. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain why it is.



Because, to take an example, the smell of a fart at least does not appear to be the very same thing as a physical process in the brain! Jesus wept! I maintain the physical process merely allows the self access to the smell.


Conciousness arises from brain function and biology.


So you claim. How about providing some reasoning and/or evidence to back this bald assertion up?? :rolleyes:



There is nothing to suggest otherwise. You've been round and round with Dr. Stupid on this same subject. He argued it better than I can.



Which doesn't say much for you since he couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


-sigh- no, Ian. I'm denying the theistic God, as defined by theists.

If in your book, that makes me not an atheist... well... I'll live with that. But it makes me an atheist in most people's books.

I can't see how on earth you got to the conclusion that to be an atheist one must deny any sort of existent which could reasonably be labelled as "god".

Because that's what atheism means. The denial of the existence of any gods. Not just any one particular definition of god.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


But your God and the theistic God are DIFFERENT proposed existents. Arguments about their existence are separate arguments. You might argue (and indeed, I gather you do believe) that it's unintelligent to argue about the existence of the theistic God because its existence is a laughable notion. But that doesn't imply that anyone whose primary use of the word "God" is to indicate the theistic God is therefore unintelligent.

Could you explain what a non-theistic God is?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I want to take a stab at this...

Ian, I may be wrong (which I sometimes am when I make blind guesses) but you seem to have a somewhat Paganistic style of thinking.

Am I remotely correct in assuming that you believe that the universe itself is God or at least to an extent (yes, it is a real belief, kids)?

No you are not remotely correct. This is what a materialist theist would believe. But I think materialism is utterly absurd and indeed unintelligible. The Universe is no more God than we are our brains.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is what a materialist theist would believe.

All right, this one really IS sig quote material. Ian, how can a theist be a materialist?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Could you explain what a non-theistic God is?


"God" defined as the fabric/energy of the universe

[The Mad Linguist]

A non-theistic God:

any god who is not the God of Theism, where the god of Theism is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent supernatural personal being, creator of the universe but distinct from it.

To put it another way, any god who is not the God of Judaism, the God of Christianity, or the God of Islam.

Examples:

The pantheistic God is a non-theistic God
The deistic God is a non-theistic God
The panentheistic God is a non-theistic God
the Gods of Greek / Celtic / Norse mythology are non-theistic Gods.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Because that's what atheism means. The denial of the existence of any gods. Not just any one particular definition of god.

As I said before.... maybe in your dictionary.... not in mine, and not in most people's...

(Edited to add: when challenged on a statement, it is traditional to justify it. Not restate it in slightly different words.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


All right, this one really IS sig quote material. Ian, how can a theist be a materialist?

Why shouldn't they be? They believe that finite consciousnesses exist (ie ourselves), so why not an infinite consciousness?

[Hexxenhammer]

We're clearly not communicating in the same language here as you are utilizing a completely different definition of "rational" from what I understand the word to mean.
No kidding. I only speak English, not philosobabble. How can it be otherwise?? Your question is literally nonsensical! Look, if my concept of God is irrational then you need to spell out why. Are you able to comprehend this elementary simple point??
How many times do I need to say it? Maybe it'll help if I use bold letters:You made it up! It's an article of faith just like the x-ian god. It's a belief. It is not based in the physical world, there's no proof for it, therefore: irrational. Plain as day to everyone but you.
Because, to take an example, the smell of a fart at least does not appear to be the very same thing as a physical process in the brain! Jesus wept! I maintain the physical process merely allows the self access to the smell.
The fart thing again. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There's no "smell" until someone smells it. Until then it's just chemicals floating in the air. There's no sound until you hear it. Until then it's just pressure waves in the air. There's no color until you see it. Until then it's just waves of light of a certain frequency.
So you claim. How about providing some reasoning and/or evidence to back this bald assertion up??
Ugh. I'm not a doctor or a biologist. Suffice to say the brain is not a radio for some invisible thing called concioussness that exists outside it. "Bald assertion", like I claimed god exists as an undetectable universal concioussness or something. Now THAT's a bald assertion.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All right, this one really IS sig quote material. Ian, how can a theist be a materialist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why shouldn't they be? They believe that finite consciousnesses exist (ie ourselves), so why not an infinite consciousness?

Erm, a theist can't be a materialist because they believe in immaterial things ... God, for example...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


Erm, a theist can't be a materialist because they believe in immaterial things ... God, for example...

Why does God need to be immaterial?

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why does God need to be immaterial?

You keep missing the word "theist" in my comments. I agree with you completely on the point that it is possible to have a definition of "God" under which God is material. But that's not the definition of "God" in theistic religions!

The Theistic God is customarily described as being some kind of infinite spirit without material form. Remember - omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent personal supernatural being, creator of the Universe but existing distinct from it?

[Tricky]

Tricky said:
You can easily claim this to be so, but you cannot demonstrate it, whereas it is easy to demonstrate consciousness stored in neural matter.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Then demonstrate it. Let me know when you've succeeded.
Of course this has been shown to you dozens of time, but your resposnse is to ... oh... what is the philosophical term for sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la! I can't hear you!"?

You may deny that the science of neurology exists, and you even may deny that the scientific method has any value. You can even call others "idiots" among other things. It does nothing to dispell your image as a sad, shrill little man who is in severe denial. I truly hope you find a girlfriend soon. Maybe she will calm you down.

[Loki]

Ian,

Because they persistently give one.
I persistenyl give several - the ones generally accepted by a few billion people on earth. I agree wntirely with you - they seem to have a "10 year old's" quality to them. Yet they seem to be embraced by so many people. You and I are in agreement here Ian - we are both atheists when discussing the religious affiliations of the majority of humanity.

You seem to forget that in order to be an atheist you must not simply deny the most crass conceptualisation of God that you have ever happened to have accounted. You are denying any sort of existent which could reasonably be labelled as "god"
Ironic for a man who spends so much time arguing over definitions. You'd be aware that there are several variations fo the meaning for "atheist", and you've given only one here? "Disbelief" doesn't equate with "must deny existence".

If it's of any interst to you, I see it as theism versus atheism. Deism is sort of off to the side somewhat, because it has so little relevance, really.

Can you be an atheist and a deist? Probably I'd thing that description fits you pretty well, Ian!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky



Of course this has been shown to you dozens of time, but your resposnse is to ... oh... what is the philosophical term for sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la! I can't hear you!"?

You may deny that the science of neurology exists, and you even may deny that the scientific method has any value. You can even call others "idiots" among other things. It does nothing to dispell your image as a sad, shrill little man who is in severe denial. I truly hope you find a girlfriend soon. Maybe she will calm you down.

Tricky, only god knows if you seriously make these comments and really do not see the fallacy in assuming "materialism true" to prove "materialism true".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk


Tricky, only god knows if you seriously make these comments and really do not see the fallacy in assuming "materialism true" to prove "materialism true".
I don't "assume" materialism to be true, but rather, I see how it is tested. Not only is the neurological basis of consciousness well established, it is constantly tested and revised. Areas of the brain that control certain factors, such as memory, are mapped (and a good thing too, or brain surgeons wouldn't know what to do). EEGs can measure show more brain activity during more conscious (awake) and less conscious (asleep) stages, not to mention the total lack of activity during "dead" stages.

Of course, you can have all the alternate explanations you want, but until you can show some data on how they work, then they remain in the realm of magic. Maybe you feel like magic is a perfectly acceptible alternative to materialism. I'm skeptical.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


In this sentence, you are using the usual definition of God {bearded Creator}. That's not the definition you proposed before. The definition you proposed before implied that God was a concept/construct. If you were sticking to that definition then you'd just have said "I recognise that the concept of a construct of a bearded creator exists".

Look, this is silly to argue over, since we agree on the important issues. It's professional knee-jerk on my part, I suppose, towards a blurring of the line between the semantic content of a word (which is an element of the coding system of language) and one's attitude towards that word. The coding system of a language is not a personal thing, which is why talk of personal definitions raises my hackles. Your attitude towards the existence of potential entities denoted by a word is personal, but it's distinct from the coding system we use to talk about it.

If you like, what I'm arguing for is a very strict definition of the word "definition".

Uh, ML. I think that Upchurch , says that he aknowledges that the 'concept' 'God', exists, so why would you put on him the onus that others place upon the phrase 'God'. He did not define it as the 'bearded creator', you did.

Just for clarity , you seem to be putting the words in Upchurch's mouth. There is a place for the ambiguity of language as well, as it is a consesual communal obeject.

Back to the thread....

[Upchurch]

Ian: The totality of reality is endowed with and is permeated with conscious awareness.

Upchurch: This is your first assumption. Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not an assumption. A particular hypothesis about the world.A hypothesis is an assumption that you test for truth value, Ian. You've already stated that your definition of God is untestable, therefore it cannot be a hypothesis, at least not in the purist sense of the word.

Regardless, if it isn't an assumption, then you must be basing it on something, correct? What do you base the existance of a "reality consciousness"? You've obviously had no contact with such a consciousness otherwise it would be detectable. You also couldn't have had any contact with it on a spiritual or metaphycial level because by your reporting it, it then has a net physical effect, which is detectable.

The only other possibilities is that you have reasoned its existance, but how? As I said, hypothesis or assumption, there are other underlying assumptions you've made (valid or not, I do not know) that you've built that reasoning on. Could you explain what your assumptions were and how you reasoned out the existance of a "reality consciousness"?
I only insult arrogant people who think that materialism is obviously correct without giving any justification for this thesis. Do you not see the hypocracy in this? You, yourself, have made assumptions (at least I think you have, you haven't explained) that you haven't justified either, to my knowledge. And let's be honest, "interesting" though you may be, you also show no shortage of arrogance yourself.

[metacristi]

Tricky

I don't "assume" materialism to be true, but rather, I see how it is tested. Not only is the neurological basis of consciousness well established, it is constantly tested and revised. Areas of the brain that control certain factors, such as memory, are mapped (and a good thing too, or brain surgeons wouldn't know what to do). EEGs can measure show more brain activity during more conscious (awake) and less conscious (asleep) stages, not to mention the total lack of activity during "dead" stages.


A definition of 'materialism' is needed first otherwise we talk in vain.There was a discussion recently on this site about Mr. Randi's identical claim in one of his articles (where he had not presented a definition of what he meant by 'materialism')...

Do you mean ontological materialism?If so I'm afraid we cannot consider the facts you presented as valid 'confirmations' of ontological materialism even in the happiest case (for atheists) that we will find arguments beyond all reasonable doubt that consciousness is material (which is much beyond the actual conjecture that consciousness is computable and can be fully explained residing entirely at the macroscopical level).

Indeed if ontological dualism is true (dualism understood as the existence of another 'substance' that cannot interact with matter) we will never be aware of that.So that it is pointless to claim that ontological materialism is 'testable' since all we can test is matter (understood in the broadest sense as representing everything that can interact with 'usual' matter).

Stimpson J. Cat's proposal ('modern materialism'=the logical positivist 'physicalism') does not represent a step ahead in this problem since it is not testable by definition...

Even accepting the actual emergentist computationalist view regarding the nature of consciousness as being a 'fallible scientific truth' [anyway the problem is by no means clear I'd argue that the best label that fits here is 'mere conjecture'] we can see the actual state of things in the neurology field (and every new discovery on the same line) at most as representing a 'confirmation' (albeit fallible) that consciousness does not have a dual nature,belonging entirely to 'our level of reality' (that can interact with usual matter)...

This is not a 'confirmation' (albeit fallible) of materialism in itself (whatever the definition).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

To assume the existence of consciousness which is not identical to a physical thing or process seems to be eminently reasonable to me. Please explain why it is not. I understand that you don't identify consciousness with a phyiscal process, but surely you admit that there is at least some sort of connection between consciousness and physical processess/things? In other words, a change in consciounsess causes a physical change in the brain and a physical change in the brain causes a change in the consciousness, right? As Tricky has said, this is pretty much the basis of neurosurgery and psychiatry. This connection has been shown again and again, with both positive and negative effects.

Therefore if we are to take your assumption that finite consciousnesses implies infinite consciousnesses, we must also consider that there may or may no be physical processess/things for the infinite consciousness that are analogous to the phyiscal processess/things for the finite consciousness.

If there are physical processess/things for the infinite consciousness, where are they? How do they behave? How do you identify them in the first place?

If there are no physical processess/things for the infinite consciousness, why not? Is it necessarily valid to base the existance of an infinite consciousness on the existance of finite consciousness if infinite consciousness is proposed to be significantly different from the finite consciousness in terms of it's relationship with physical world.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Idiot! If it were detectable it would both be physical and not beyond the physical world by definition!

To assume the existence of consciousness which is not identical to a physical thing or process seems to be eminently reasonable to me. Please explain why it is not.

Simply put, it is within the realm of possibilty that consiousness can exist without a material correlate, but as of yet there has not been a demostrated case of consiousness that is not connected to the physical.
Show my consiousness with out a brain and I can accede imeddeatly.
(I assume we will now debate the definition of consiousness.)

Consiousness can be defined and tested for although, I know from the past, that you will assume that consiousness can not be tested for.

By the way is 'Idiot!' a logical response to anything?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by metacristi
Tricky
A definition of 'materialism' is needed first otherwise we talk in vain.There was a discussion recently on this site about Mr. Randi's identical claim in one of his articles (where he had not presented a definition of what he meant by 'materialism')...

Did I mention I am not a philosopher? Okay, given that restraint, let me make a primative attempt at my definition of "materialism" (I don't know whether it is "ontalogical" or not).

"At the level of reality perceivable to humans, only physical phenomena exist."

This allows that there may be other levels of reality which we can't perceive, but I cannot see the point in pursuing this, since by definition, they can never be known.
Originally posted by metacristi
Indeed if ontological dualism is true (dualism understood as the existence of another 'substance' that cannot interact with matter) we will never be aware of that. So that it is pointless to claim that ontological materialism is 'testable' since all we can test is matter (understood in the broadest sense as representing everything that can interact with 'usual' matter).
All that should really matter is things we can at least potentially be aware of. Yes, I agree it is possible to insert a "non-material" level that would also agree with the observed results. Heck, insert a dozen "non-material" levels. Not one of them provides any additional insight to cause and effect, so I see no reason to insert them.

Originally posted by metacristi
Even accepting the actual emergentist computationalist view regarding the nature of consciousness as being a 'fallible scientific truth' [anyway the problem is by no means clear I'd argue that the best label that fits here is 'mere conjecture'] we can see the actual state of things in the neurology field (and every new discovery on the same line) at most as representing a 'confirmation' (albeit fallible) that consciousness does not have a dual nature, belonging entirely to 'our level of reality' (that can interact with usual matter)...

This is not a 'confirmation' (albeit fallible) of materialism in itself (whatever the definition).
(whew!) I agree (I think). Other than stimulating stimulating deep conversations, I can see no use in speculating on the nature of other levels of reality. The most you can ever hope to do is reach agreement. You can never be "right". That is why I prefer to confine my investigations to 'our level of reality'.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You've already stated that your definition of God is untestable,


Where did I state this?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch


Therefore if we are to take your assumption that finite consciousnesses implies infinite consciousnesses,

Where did I state this?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Where did I state this? Ah. My bad. Looking back, I see it was a strawman of someone else's argument. Okay, so how do you arive at the conclusion of infinite consciousness?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by Upchurch
You've already stated that your definition of God is untestable,
Where did I state this?
Ah. So your definition of God is testable then. Okay. How do you propose to test it?


<hr>
Incidently, Ian, do you actually plan to argue your position or are you going to contiue to this game where you insult others for their positions while revieling as little about your own as possible? Frankly, your posts are intellectually insulting enough as it is without your ham-fisted "Idiot!" and "Moron!" comments. I feel no particular need to continue to allow you to feed your own ego with your superiority game.

Are you here to discuss issues or to feel better about yourself?