I'll share some background before getting to the topic..
I recently joined the forum as part of my search for answers on the mind/body problem. I started one or two thread topics to put my own views to the test and after those debates I feel very confident that my position is strong (not perfect). Basically, I don't believe that current reductive-materialistic science will be able to explain conscious experience on purely physical terms. I'm forced into this belief because of the apparent failure of materialists to offer scientifically verifiable evidence to support their view that consciousness is entirely physical. Not only do I have negative evidence or arguments, but I also offered positive evidence to support my position. Having only the negative arguments left me skeptical of scientists some day explaining consciousness to be only physical, but then the positive evidence just closed that window of hope, in my mind.
Back to the intended topic. What I'm really after in this thread is if consciousness is used in an argument to support God's existence.
Debate please... How does consciousness point to God's existence? Do you consider this argument to be weak (but still valid) or strong?
My other threads:
1. Emergent Dualism
2. Mental imagery as non-physical experience
Argument from Consciousness???
Moderator: Moderators
-
AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Argument from Consciousness???
Post #11consciousness may point to God's existence, but some kind of spiritual/real time experience only can affirm God's existence. Only experience can affirm God's existence. In the words of rocker Jimmy Hendricks, " are you experienced? " Only experience can affirm God's existence.AgnosticBoy wrote: I'll share some background before getting to the topic..
I recently joined the forum as part of my search for answers on the mind/body problem. I started one or two thread topics to put my own views to the test and after those debates I feel very confident that my position is strong (not perfect). Basically, I don't believe that current reductive-materialistic science will be able to explain conscious experience on purely physical terms. I'm forced into this belief because of the apparent failure of materialists to offer scientifically verifiable evidence to support their view that consciousness is entirely physical. Not only do I have negative evidence or arguments, but I also offered positive evidence to support my position. Having only the negative arguments left me skeptical of scientists some day explaining consciousness to be only physical, but then the positive evidence just closed that window of hope, in my mind.
Back to the intended topic. What I'm really after in this thread is if consciousness is used in an argument to support God's existence.
Debate please... How does consciousness point to God's existence? Do you consider this argument to be weak (but still valid) or strong?
My other threads:
1. Emergent Dualism
2. Mental imagery as non-physical experience
Re: Argument from Consciousness???
Post #12dio9 wrote:
consciousness may point to God's existence, but some kind of spiritual/real time experience only can affirm God's existence. Only experience can affirm God's existence. In the words of rocker Jimmy Hendricks, " are you experienced? " Only experience can affirm God's existence.
It is good that Jimi Hendrix could show people the path to God. That could explain why I got lost. If God or Allah is going to be cross with folk who don't believe, one would suppose that the signs should be in very large letters. Individual testimony counts for nothing.
People feel in their bones that there will be snow but we can't build a theology from that.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Argument from Consciousness???
Post #13[Replying to post 1 by AgnosticBoy]
Consciousness supports its own existence.
I think consciousness being the very thing which acknowledges and experiences existence is the first step towards understanding that in philosophical terms, everything which is consciousness is an aspect of GOD-consciousness, in the assumption that GOD exists.
I don't consider the argument to be weak or strong of itself. It becomes either depending on what argument presents against it.
Building a theology around the idea, it presents GOD as being an intricate and intimate part of things, and in relation to biological life forms, more easily detectable than in relation to objects such as the moon or sun or galaxies.
What I'm really after in this thread is if consciousness is used in an argument to support God's existence.
Consciousness supports its own existence.
Consciousness points to its own existence.Debate please... How does consciousness point to God's existence? Do you consider this argument to be weak (but still valid) or strong?
I think consciousness being the very thing which acknowledges and experiences existence is the first step towards understanding that in philosophical terms, everything which is consciousness is an aspect of GOD-consciousness, in the assumption that GOD exists.
I don't consider the argument to be weak or strong of itself. It becomes either depending on what argument presents against it.
Building a theology around the idea, it presents GOD as being an intricate and intimate part of things, and in relation to biological life forms, more easily detectable than in relation to objects such as the moon or sun or galaxies.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Argument from Consciousness???
Post #14[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]
This is not to say that in relation to GOD-consciousness, that It would be unable to acknowledge Itself without any organized structure of a physical nature. It assumes that all organized structure must necessarily be physical.
This would have much to do with their position within physical structure. They are informed through the device of the physical universe.
Some information is not known because it is not seen as physical, and until instruments are developed which can detect these, the human eye cannot see any formation.
Other things are not seen directly but only observed by the affect they have on things which can be observed directly.
The whole universe could conceivably be the reaction to GOD-consciousness affecting and effecting its formation.
The whole universe could conceivably be the reaction to GOD-consciousness affecting its formation by interacting within it.
It is conceivable, as in - it can be imagined as possible. In that sense, how would it be for the consciousness experiencing no physical environment? It would still be able to acknowledge 'self' as existing, even that no physical environment existed in relation to its self.
Philosophically my argument is sound and logical. One can imagine consciousness existing without any physical props involved. If one can imagine this, then that speaks volumes in and of itself, because if it wasn't possible, how can anyone even imagine that it could be?
Consciousness doesn't know of itself because of physical props it is involved within. If anything, consciousness would tend to - at least temporarily - loose knowledge of itself by being involved with physical props, and would even quite naturally start self identifying with the physical as a way of filling the gaps, depending on how deeply into the density of the physical it incarnates, and how that might affect its ability to retain knowledge of Its prior existence.
It most certainly is logically necessary for consciousness to have organized structure. Without organized structure consciousness could not even think logically.
This is not to say that in relation to GOD-consciousness, that It would be unable to acknowledge Itself without any organized structure of a physical nature. It assumes that all organized structure must necessarily be physical.
From the point of view within the material, things can indeed appear to be profound.In fact, the materialists argument is PROFOUND.
The materialists recognize that all information is necessarily some form of physical structure that is in formation.
This would have much to do with their position within physical structure. They are informed through the device of the physical universe.
Information = Light.Information = physical structures in formation.
Some information is not known because it is not seen as physical, and until instruments are developed which can detect these, the human eye cannot see any formation.
Other things are not seen directly but only observed by the affect they have on things which can be observed directly.
The whole universe could conceivably be the reaction to GOD-consciousness affecting and effecting its formation.
This only because we are accustomed to our situation as it is. Consciousness with in form motion.Without a physical structure to be in some formation you cannot even logically speak about information.
This is true as it stands but does not in itself eject GOD from the conversation of the information.Therefore if consciousness is said to have anything at all to do with information then it must be associated with some physical substance that is IN FORMATION.
The whole universe could conceivably be the reaction to GOD-consciousness affecting its formation by interacting within it.
There is no way to measure whether this is the case as such an environment would have to be outside of the physical universe.So your claim that consciousness can even exist in a non-physical form is itself an illogical claim.
It is conceivable, as in - it can be imagined as possible. In that sense, how would it be for the consciousness experiencing no physical environment? It would still be able to acknowledge 'self' as existing, even that no physical environment existed in relation to its self.
You speak directly to the consciousness of biological form and in relation to a strictly materialist mind-set, where scientific evidence is the staple, the challenge you give is empty in that you know such a thing cannot be accomplished, except philosophically which doesn't count to the materialist mind-set.Therefore I'm going to turn your ultimatum back onto you.
You say: "I will continue to claim that consciousness is non-physical until someone can offer scientifically verifiable evidence showing otherwise."
Fine.
And to that I say, "I will continue to claim that consciousness must be physical until you can offer a sound logical argument for how consciousness could exist without form."
Philosophically my argument is sound and logical. One can imagine consciousness existing without any physical props involved. If one can imagine this, then that speaks volumes in and of itself, because if it wasn't possible, how can anyone even imagine that it could be?
Consciousness doesn't know of itself because of physical props it is involved within. If anything, consciousness would tend to - at least temporarily - loose knowledge of itself by being involved with physical props, and would even quite naturally start self identifying with the physical as a way of filling the gaps, depending on how deeply into the density of the physical it incarnates, and how that might affect its ability to retain knowledge of Its prior existence.
