Science has much better answers than "God did it" (contradiction, perspective)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, this is roughly what I'm saying, although the "feeling" that does the feeling in any particular instance is the culmination of a historically grounded, holistically interconnected network, so the "particular feeling" that "does the feeling" is nothing other than the World Itself, organized in a certain way.
"Self-organized" . . . right?(meaning magically "emergent", etc.) You are so deeply mired in euphemisms I doubt you can be extricated.
Quote:
The whole of reality is, in a sense, fully present in every moment, but the actuality that is expressed in any individual moment is only a tiny fraction of the whole of reality. Or to put it another way: the "feeler" in each and every moment of reality is always the numerically one-and-same feeler in each an every instance of Being, but the qualitative character of the feeling is what it is because it is a limitation - a simplification - a tiny fraction of the Whole.
Like cellular portions of God's consciousness . . . got it!
Quote:
You might be right about God's consciousness (as I've mentioned repeatedly, I cannot disprove the possibility of primordial consciousness because there is nothing logically self-contradictory in the concept), but my point is that we do not need to hypothesize the existence of a primordially conscious God who consciously created the world with a plan (which I take to be the core concept of theism) in order to have a plausible theory of consciousness.
Let me ask you something . . . are all your thoughts (in your consciousness) . . . part of a formal "plan?" Since our consciousnesses are probably "cellular" in the "image and likeness" of God's . . . why should we assume His are? The actual core concept of theism is that God is the SOURCE of our reality . . . all else are "beliefs about" God. The ID concept has been so thoroughly corrupted and fraudulently misrepresented that it is not productive to continue to use it . . . unless of course the intent IS to taint it with that corruption.
Quote:
All that we need to grant is that the world is fundamentally qualitative.
There is no scientific basis whatsoever for assuming qualia can in any way be separated from the experiencer given their undeniable subjectivity.
Quote:
Patterns emerge from chaos without prior planning or intent. Indeed, the chaotic emergence of patterns is, in principle, unpredictable,
By US!
Quote:
thus the concept of "prior planning" is in trouble from the very start.
I dealt with this "belief about" above.
Quote:
As I've said before: If there is a Cosmic Consciousness (aka "God"), then this God must be an existentialist.
Or merely inscrutable and procreative (continuously becoming) . . . using sentient life throughout the cosmos as His procreators.
Quote:
If God wants to understand her own existence, then her only option is to understand the emergence of order from chaos, and embrace: 1) the profound absurdity of Being, 2) the profound unpredictability of the future, and 3) the inevitability of existential freedom (aka "free will"). Even God cannot consciously choose to create herself, she cannot consciously choose the qualitative nature of her own conscious experience, and she cannot perfectly predict her own future. For God to understand her metaphysical roots, she would have to undertake a form of transcendental analysis - that is to say: use logic to explore the necessary preconditions for the existence of consciousness.
Quote:
Since the existence of consciousness itself could not have been the result of a conscious choice, we only have two options: 1) consciousness is primordial or 2) consciousness emerged from unconsciousness. Both options are existentially absurd, which is to say, both require a brute fact. Neither option can be disproven on purely logical grounds. I prefer option #2 because 100% of our empirical evidence indicates that consciousness always emerges from unconscious systems. I'm not offering this as absolute proof of anything; I'm just offering it as a basis for my preference. And my central point throughout lo these many treads is that option #2 is a viable, rational option - or at least is no less rational than option #1.
As I keep saying, I am not arguing against the existence of "God" if the word 'God' is defined vaguely enough. I am specifically denying the philosophical need to hypothesize the existence of a primordially conscious designer of the world. And I used the concept of "seeking" in a somewhat anthropomorphic/metaphorical way (as in water "seeks" the lowest point). I say "somewhat" metaphorical because I do see a sort of primordial subjectivity that goes hand-in-hand with qualia. Thus water "seeking" the lowest point is an inherently qualitative process, but it is not a conscious process. There is no "water consciousness" that consciously seeks low ground. Rather, the water seeking low ground is an unconscious qualitative aspect of the whole, and as such, it contributes to some extent to "what it is like to be" conscious, whenever a conscious moment is actualized.
You posit so many unsupportable assertions in these paragraphs that it is impossible to separate them out and address them cogently in a single post. You can TRY to substantiate each . . . if you can . . . and I will address them one at a time.
Both of those statements you took exception to . . . assumed that you buy into and accept the whole artificial "Nature" and "natural" paradigm as a replacement for God. If that is true . . . then I accurately represented your views. IF not I apologize.
Not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is where you claimed that I said we should "ignore" the evidence for god. I said no such thing. Had I said it... it would have been a massively dishonest thing for me EVER to say.
What I DID say was that I have never been SHOWN any argument, evidence, data or reasons to lend credence to the idea that there is a god entity.
Now unless your english is mightly bad... i think you know there is a difference between "I have not been shown evidence" and "We should ignore the evidence" do you not?
Not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is where you claimed that I said we should "ignore" the evidence for god. I said no such thing. Had I said it... it would have been a massively dishonest thing for me EVER to say.
What I DID say was that I have never been SHOWN any argument, evidence, data or reasons to lend credence to the idea that there is a god entity.
Now unless your english is mightly bad... i think you know there is a difference between "I have not been shown evidence" and "We should ignore the evidence" do you not?
You cannot accept the artificial distinction of "Nature" and "natural" without implicitly assigning all the accumulated evidence of science to this "Nature" . . . and therefore ignoring it as evidence for God.
You are getting desperate now. Saying something is not evidence for god is not the same thing.
You SPECIFICALLY said that I said we should ignore the evidence for god... meaning that we should ignore something that IS evidence for god.
Now rather than admit you lied and put words in my mouth I not only never said, but never even came close to saying, you are trying to pretend that what you mean by "ignoring" is that I am rejecting something as BEING evidence for god.
And you then have the gall to sit there and tell OTHER users they are misrepresenting and engaging in "disingenuous deceit"????? Wow. Just Wow. As I said before "Pot.... meet kettle".
Besides . . . your continual misrepresentation of me and the source of my certainty about my views is at the very least disingenuous (if not outright deceit).
My certainty is meditation-based . . . but NOT my thesis about God's existence . . . which is completely science-based.
Let us know when you have actual scientific evidence to discuss. Until then, there's no reason for me to change my opinion about where all this nonsense is coming from.
Until then, I'll let all your bluster, arrogance and insults speak for themselves as to how rational a case you really have.
When you can make a cogent argument for why it is NOT . . . we can continue our discussion.
So in other words you will not be acknowledging the lie you said about my words but are pretending you do not want to talk to me instead. Wow. Honest. Not.
Again:
I said I have not been shown evidence.
You then said that my position was we should IGNORE the evidence.
So which is it. Did you lie about my words? OR do you just not know the difference between the two things?????
So in other words you will not be acknowledging the lie you said about my words but are pretending you do not want to talk to me instead. Wow. Honest. Not.
Again:
I said I have not been shown evidence.
You then said that my position was we should IGNORE the evidence.
So which is it. Did you lie about my words? OR do you just not know the difference between the two things?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You are getting desperate now. Saying something is not evidence for god is not the same thing.
When you can make a cogent argument for why it is NOT . . . we can continue our discussion.
When you can make a cogent argument for why it is NOT . . . we can continue our discussion.
So you do not intend to acknowledge the LIE you told about the words I said then? I am actually glad you did not as it serves to show everyone the level of honesty you intend to operate on while using this forum. You are quite happy to lie and claim people said things they NEVER SAID in order to avoid having to deal with their points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
