Mickiel's proof of God.

[Copernicus]

There are somnambulistic states known in the clinical literature where an individual is clearly not conscious and yet is responsive to things in a way which a knocked out person is not. Consciousness and reactivity are two different things...

Where did I say that they were the same? This has nothing to do with my point. We can see that consciousness is related to the physical condition of a brain. There are also cases of people who cannot respond (i.e. paralyzed) but who are fully conscious. It is also possible to be conscious and not retain a memory of that state of consciousness. (After all, none of us retains full memory of every living moment of our lives.) It is furthermore possible to have false memories of past conscious states. None of this would lead us to conclude that consciousness can somehow exist independently of a physically functioning brain.

I don't like the phrase " Loose Consciousness", I don't think we ever loose consciousness complettely. In writting this to you, I am reacting to my hands banging on the keys. My feet are on the floor but I am not conscious of my feet while I am trying to say what I am to you. We can do things without being conscious of doing them. Because Consciousness has continuity.

Yes, consciousness is a very complex phenomenon. There are clearly different levels of consciousness, and there may even be different centers of consciousness in the brain. That does not mean that it exists independently of your brain, however. When people go into a deep (non-REM) sleep or a coma, I do not think you can make a case that they are conscious. You can certainly make a case that their physical brain activity is markedly different than when they are fully conscious.

Again, I am not a religious man, I don't like religion, any of them.

I urge you to reconsider your claim not to be religious but to be someone who has sinned against God. The two claims are incompatible with each other. I can understand you if you merely claim that you see yourself as owing no allegiance to any established religious doctrine.

 

[PureX]

No, you're wrong. The personal experience a person has with a dragon is exactly the same as one with god. Both are delusional.

You don't have any way of knowing that for certain. "You" and "I" are illusions of a sort, too.

 

[mickiel]

I urge you to reconsider your claim not to be religious but to be someone who has sinned against God. The two claims are incompatible with each other. I can understand you if you merely claim that you see yourself as owing no allegiance to any established religious doctrine.

I repeat, I am not a religious man, I walk alone in my views. I am a sinner, sin has nothing to do with religion in my view.

Peace.

 

[PureX]

I agree totally that we all have a different idea of what God is or isn't. I like your explanation by the way. However, I have a hard time understanding why there even needs to be a god.

Why does there need to be a "me"? Most of the animals on the Earth function just fine without this consciously imagined "self". Yet this aberration seems to be exceedingly important to us. I don't know why. But it also seems to be true of "God".

 

[Copernicus]

I repeat, I am not a religious man, I walk alone in my views. I am a sinner, sin has nothing to do with religion in my view.

And yet you described yourself earlier as a "sinner in search of his God". That belies your claim that sin has nothing to do with religion. Indeed, it cannot be understood independently of religion.

 

[Copernicus]

You don't have any way of knowing that for certain. "You" and "I" are illusions of a sort, too.

And so are dragons, which I suspect exist in the imaginations of so many cultures precisely because dinosaur bones exist in their realities.

 

[Amill]

Animals have dreams, is that not some proof that they have some form of conscious experience?

I believe all organisms have some sort of experience, some more complex than others. It's all about the senses as well, what would consciousness be like if you could not see, hear, taste, smell, touch? You'd be pretty much nothing.

 

[mickiel]

And yet you described yourself earlier as a "sinner in search of his God". That belies your claim that sin has nothing to do with religion. Indeed, it cannot be understood independently of religion.

I am understanding it independantly of religion. Just because you need to relate the two, does not mean I do. Everything I learn about God is independant of religion.

Peace.

 

[Copernicus]

Why does there need to be a "me"? Most of the animals on the Earth function just fine without this consciously imagined "self". Yet this aberration seems to be exceedingly important to us. I don't know why. But it also seems to be true of "God".

There has to be a "me" by definition, since I directly experience the thing called "me". As for other animals and God, their ability to imagine themselves is contingent on their ability to imagine. If God does not exist except in our imaginations, then he does not really exist in the same sense that we and other animals do. I must say that I wonder what other animals think they are doing when they avoid humans. It looks suspiciously like self-preservation to me.

 

[MSizer]

You don't have any way of knowing that for certain. "You" and "I" are illusions of a sort, too.

The only way you can support an argument that states that you and I are illusions is if you throw epistimology out the window and concede that our senses are not interpreting anything relevant to reality. If such is the case, god automatically become an illusion just like everything else.

 

[Copernicus]

....Everything I learn about God is independant of religion.

Then I suggest that you try to learn something about the nature of irony as well.

 

[YmirGF]

... I walk alone in my views...

You know, there are just some things that people don't really need to tell others.

 

[mickiel]

You know, there are just some things that people don't really need to tell others.

I walk alone in my views. I learn alone in my views. I stand alone in my views.

Peace.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You know, there are just some things that people don't really need to tell others.

ha ha!

too funny

 

[PureX]

The only way you can support an argument that states that you and I are illusions is if you throw epistimology out the window and concede that our senses are not interpreting anything relevant to reality. If such is the case, god automatically become an illusion just like everything else.

Which is the "real" you? - the "you" your mom carries around in her head? The one you carry around in your head? Are you a composite of a whole collection of "you's" that a whole bunch of people carry around in their heads? My point is that they are all you, and none of them are you. "You" are not a static idea. You are a dynamic idea. Always changing. You are knowable, but never fully known. Truth is not an object. Neither is reality. Neither are we, and neither is "God". I think we need to stop treating this question as if we were determining the existence of a chair.

 

[MSizer]

Which is the "real" you? - the "you" your mom carries around in her head? The one you carry around in your head? Are you a composite of a whole collection of "you's" that a whole bunch of people carry around in their heads? My point is that they are all you, and none of them are you. "You" are not a static idea. You are a dynamic idea. Always changing. You are knowable, but never fully known. Truth is not an object. Neither is reality. Neither are we, and neither is "God". I think we need to stop treating this question as if we were determining the existence of a chair.

I disagree. I am a physical being, just like a chair. My mom's perception and related thoughts are just those, they're not me. Just like a person's thoughts about god are just those, thoughts. If god did exist, s/he would be fully independent of peoples' thoughts. Yes of course my perception of something is slightly different than yours, but neither is the thing itself. Only the object in question is the "thing", regardless as to how I percieve it.

 

[PureX]

There has to be a "me" by definition, since I directly experience the thing called "me".

But that's circular logic. You think there is a "you" because you experience yourself thinking there is a "you". So ... your experience is your proof. Just as with someone who experiences "God".

 

[logician]

Animals do not imagine themselves as being anywherelse, or thinking of their lives over time, or introspecting in any sense, thus they are not Conscious.

.

You have no proof whatsoever that this statement is true, and regardless, consciousness proves nothing about the existence of some supernatural entity. I believe a conscious robot could be created.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. I am a physical being, just like a chair. My mom's perception and related thoughts are just those, they're not me. Just like a person's thoughts about god are just those, thoughts. If god did exist, s/he would be fully independent of peoples' thoughts. Yes of course my perception of something is slightly different than yours, but neither is the thing itself. Only the object in question is the "thing", regardless as to how I percieve it.

No offense, but what you are is a monkey with a big imagination. So big in fact, that you think you are a "you". But without that imagination, you're just another monkey. And there is no "you".

Monkeys don't ask themselves if "God" exists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This reminds me of a dream I had one time where I accidentally wandered into a mental hospital and got locked in for the night.