Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the word "God" come from?

[J. F. Gallant]

I am an avid student of things colloquially called 'paranormal'. The evidence I have seen makes me believe that consciousness occurs without a physical brain beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, what is this non-physical thing called consciousness? I believe after thorough consideration that the eastern (Indian) wisdom traditions have an understanding that exceeds western wisdom traditions (religious and scientific). Eastern traditions and many post-materialist western scientists see that this all starts from consciousness (the fundamental we can not get behind).

What you are subscribing to here is known as the Primacy of Consciousness, which finds itself at a great disadvantage verses the Primacy of Existence.

We already know that all matter and energy within the universe exists regardless of whether consciousness exists, otherwise all matter and energy in the universe would cease to exist if there were no humans to be consciousness of its existence, or even if one human died.

The universe pre-existed the earth, and therefore it pre-existed our human consciousness. This is without question, and because of this, we know that all matter and energy can, and did exist, previous to at least one form of consciousness; human. This is valid proof that ordinary matter, and existence in general, pre-existed the consciousness of every living creature that ever existed upon the earth.

What this means- and hopefully you will carefully consider this- is that we actually can prove that the existence of non-conscious matter and energy came previous to consciousness. And what this indicates is that from this matter and energy, consciousness emerged. It emerged from physical matter and energy. We actually have evidence of that fact by simply looking in the mirror, for example. Your consciousness emerges from your physical being.

There is absolutely no known way for you or anyone else to determine- with evidence and reason- that any form of consciousness existed previous to the existence of matter and energy. Therefore, the Primacy of Existence prevails as the most honest position to hold because the actual evidence demonstrates it to be factual, according to the current state of our knowledge.

Where you may subscribe to the old adage of "I think, therefore I am," the reality may actually be the opposite; "I am, therefore I think."

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? What you say above may be fine for after the Bang but I'm getting to the source of even that in my position.

I believe a Big Bang occurred, but it was not the origin of existence. It was a localized singularity, and it was but one of an endless chain and cycle of Big Bang's that have occurred eternally throughout an eternal and infinite universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am an avid student of things colloquially called 'paranormal'. The evidence I have seen makes me believe that consciousness occurs without a physical brain beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, what is this non-physical thing called consciousness? I believe after thorough consideration that the eastern (Indian) wisdom traditions have an understanding that exceeds western wisdom traditions (religious and scientific). Eastern traditions and many post-materialist western scientists see that this all starts from consciousness (the fundamental we can not get behind).


Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? What you say above may be fine for after the Bang but I'm getting to the source of even that in my position.

Sorry to butt in here, but a question has occurred to me, after reading your post.

If, as you say, consciousness occurs without a physical brain, why is it that consciousness can be altered by physical things like drugs or brain damage? It certainly seems as though it is tied to the brain.

 

[George-ananda]

What you are subscribing to here is known as the Primacy of Consciousness, which finds itself at a great disadvantage verses the Primacy of Existence.

We already know that all matter and energy within the universe exists regardless of whether consciousness exists, otherwise all matter and energy in the universe would cease to exist if there were no humans to be consciousness of its existence, or even if one human died.

The universe pre-existed the earth, and therefore it pre-existed our human consciousness. This is without question, and because of this, we know that all matter and energy can, and did exist, previous to at least one form of consciousness; human. This is valid proof that ordinary matter, and existence in general, pre-existed the consciousness of every living creature that ever existed upon the earth.

I had said Brahman was pure Consciousness and predated and is the cause of the universe. The timing and even the existence of humans is not relevant to what I am saying. Humans are really then rays of Brahman consciousness expressing itself through a finite form giving it finite wisdom and abilities.

What this means- and hopefully you will carefully consider this- is that we actually can prove that the existence of non-conscious matter and energy came previous to consciousness.

You are under the assumption that matter produces consciousness. So to you, the above conclusion is obvious. But your assumption is one I disagree with.

And what this indicates is that from this matter and energy, consciousness emerged. It emerged from physical matter and energy. We actually have evidence of that fact by simply looking in the mirror, for example. Your consciousness emerges from your physical being.

You think consciousness emerges from the physical. I think Consciousness incarnates the physical. As I said earlier that in my study of so-called paranormal things, I have seen more than enough evidence to believe consciousness does not require a physical brain; hence the emergence concept you speak of I see not working.

There is absolutely no known way for you or anyone else to determine- with evidence and reason- that any form of consciousness existed previous to the existence of matter and energy. Therefore, the Primacy of Existence prevails as the most honest position to hold because the actual evidence demonstrates it to be factual, according to the current state of our knowledge.

As I said that after much consideration I have come to believe that mystics and advanced masters of the eastern (Indian) wisdom tradition can experience at conscious levels above the mere physical level and have much to tell about the nature of existence.

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry to butt in here, but a question has occurred to me, after reading your post.

If, as you say, consciousness occurs without a physical brain, why is it that consciousness can be altered by physical things like drugs or brain damage? It certainly seems as though it is tied to the brain.

What we normally consider as consciousness is consciousness as expressed through a physical brain. So the condition, complexity and health of the physical brain determines the consciousness expressed at the physical level. Consciousness itself is infinite and eternal but is limited in its physical expression to the form it is expressing through. Upon death consciousness leaves the physical body to experience through its astral body and the situation with the physical brain no longer effects the consciousness.

 

[J. F. Gallant]

I had said Brahman was pure Consciousness and predated and is the cause of the universe. The timing and even the existence of humans is not relevant to what I am saying. Humans are really then rays of Brahman consciousness expressing itself through a finite form giving it finite wisdom and abilities.

However, is there actually any solid evidence to support this position? Or, are you basing this position solely upon mere beliefs? You see, even if you merely believe what you claim, there should be some semblance of evidence to support the belief. If no actual evidence exists, why then would you hold on to the belief?

You are under the assumption that matter produces consciousness. So to you, the above conclusion is obvious. But your assumption is one I disagree with.

Do you have good reason- and evidence to support that reason- to demonstrate why you disagree?

You think consciousness emerges from the physical.

Actually, it's not what I think or believe, but rather what can be observed. We can observe consciousness emerging from the physical, but we cannot observe the physical emerging from consciousness.

As I said earlier that in my study of so-called paranormal things, I have seen more than enough evidence to believe consciousness does not require a physical brain; hence the emergence concept you speak of I see not working.

Why do you conclude from your studies that anything you have perceived exists as being 'paranormal'? Have you considered the possibility that anything you may have witnessed may, in fact, be explainable via scientific means?

Why would you conclude it to be paranormal, when nothing regarding paranormal has ever been proven to be real?

 

[George-ananda]

However, is there actually any solid evidence to support this position? Or, are you basing this position solely upon mere beliefs? You see, even if you merely believe what you claim, there should be some semblance of evidence to support the belief. If no actual evidence exists, why then would you hold on to the belief?

I keep mentioning my involved study of things colloquially called paranormal has led me to believe beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness can exist with no physical brain. NDEs, ghosts, spirit communications, etc. are some of things driving my conclusion. So it is incorrect where you say I have 'no semblance of evidence'. Do not confuse evidence with proof as neither side can have proof of anything. Proof is the wrong word. The question becomes which theory is most reasonable when all evidence and argumentation is considered.

Actually, it's not what I think or believe, but rather what can be observed. We can observe consciousness emerging from the physical, but we cannot observe the physical emerging from consciousness.

How do you observe consciousness emerging from the physical (as opposed to consciousness incarnating the physical)? Observation can't tell the difference.

Why do you conclude from your studies that anything you have perceived exists as being 'paranormal'? Have you considered the possibility that anything you may have witnessed may, in fact, be explainable via scientific means?

Why would you conclude it to be paranormal, when nothing regarding paranormal has ever been proven to be real?

My personal experiences have not been dramatic but I have studied various phenomena with many strong cases and considered the likelihood that they were consistent with the 'emergent consciousness' hypothesis. The evidence has made me abandon this hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What we normally consider as consciousness is consciousness as expressed through a physical brain. So the condition, complexity and health of the physical brain determines the consciousness expressed at the physical level. Consciousness itself is infinite and eternal but is limited in its physical expression to the form it is expressing through. Upon death consciousness leaves the physical body to experience through its astral body and the situation with the physical brain no longer effects the consciousness.

Okay, thanks.

 

[Mister Silver]

Humans could neither create an atom nor a word both are work of God , in real sense.
Regards

P.S.
atom (n.)
late 15c., as a hypothetical indivisible body, the building block of the universe, from Latin atomus (especially in Lucretius) "indivisible particle," from Greekatomos "uncut, unhewn; indivisible," from a- "not" + tomos "a cutting," from temnein "to cut" (see tome). An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus), revived 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour. Atom bomb is from 1945 as both a noun and a verb; compare atomic.
atom | Origin and meaning of atom by Online Etymology Dictionary

Science has borrowed it lately from language as it has no language of its own.

Unicorns don't exist, yet the word does. The human imagination is amazing, for it can create that which does not exist empirically as a product of reality.