Mickiel's proof of God.

[mickiel]

So...are we still trying to make the connection, that our awareness is somehow proof of a Greater Awareness, and the greater is also Creator?

Thats the connection that intrest me. We are aware, that proves that there are lesser awareness than ours and greater than ours. If there is consciousness in humans, then there exist a far lesser form of it, and a far greater form of it. Because I view human consciousness as the medium, or the center of the Universe, the reason for the Universe. We are the focal point of the higher Consciousness that must exist. Everything that we see, is for us. No life in our world exist that has created a universe around it and called it their own. It was already here before we were, all perfect signs of a gift from another consciousness.

Humans didnot design animals, nature, the universe, or water, but instead of accepting those things as sure signs of a higher consciousness, some of us would rather claim those things designed and created themselves. Its more than dumbfounding, its an deliberate attemp to cover up the tracks of another higher Consciousness that is far greater than us. Or deflate those marvelous signs and decrease their birth from a higher Consciousness, to have come from chemicals and matter that within themselves, are far less than what they have produced in humanity. Which I view as absurd.

Peace.

 

[PureX]

So you have focused on my word "usefulness" and tried to change how we construe it. A concept can be useful in different ways. But my post was quite clear about the sense of usefulness I intended--not usefulness in terms of believability, but usefulness in terms of human interaction. And theists are stuck with that dilemma. They need to have gods that they can interact with at the same time that they need believable gods, and the two types of "usefulness" are incompatible. It is no accident that most people believe in anthropomorphic gods, but they deny anthropomorphism when trying to explain the true nature of the gods.

We seem to be saying more or less the same things, but something isn't connected.

For me, 'belief' and 'usefulness' come together. If the idea works, then it's more believable to me than if it doesn't work. And for me, the idea of an anthropomorphic God doesn't work very well. Nor do I believe in it. I feel silly praying to "god" and imagining that "god" can hear me, for example, as if God has ears. If I pray, it's because I need to say the words, not because I think God is 'listening' to them. When the idea of "God" works for me, is when I conceive of God more as the essential spirit of existence. I imagine that being (as in existing) is itself a state of aliveness. It is the energy of life, and that energy has a spirit. It's that spirit I believe in, and need to commune with. It's not anthropomorphic. It's not human-like. I imagine it to be love expressing itself. And to do that it needs a beloved ... it needs us. This is our purpose. To be loved by "God".

 

[challupa]

We seem to be saying more or less the same things, but something isn't connected.

For me, 'belief' and 'usefulness' come together. If the idea works, then it's more believable to me than if it doesn't work. And for me, the idea of an anthropomorphic God doesn't work very well. Nor do I believe in it. I feel silly praying to "god" and imagining that "god" can hear me, for example, as if God has ears. If I pray, it's because I need to say the words, not because I think God is 'listening' to them. When the idea of "God" works for me, is when I conceive of God more as the essential spirit of existence. I imagine that being (as in existing) is itself a state of aliveness. It is the energy of life, and that energy has a spirit. It's that spirit I believe in, and need to commune with. It's not anthropomorphic. It's not human-like. I imagine it to be love expressing itself. And to do that it needs a beloved ... it needs us. This is our purpose. To be loved by "God".

I would certainly have an easier time believing what you believe than most religions. I am still not sure we need to believe there is a god or essence that loves us to be happy and fulfilled though. If there is a god, I would be happier with your concept than most religions. I strongly disagree with the Judeo-Christian or Islamic idea of God and want nothing to do with that kind of a god if it's real. Thankfully, I do not believe it exists in that form anyway. Thank you for sharing your beliefs.

 

[Ozzie]

Consciousness is not a simple matter to discuss, but I view only humans as having it. We have Reminiscent memory ( or Episodic memory) we have habit Retention ( or semantic memory) we thus have Conscious Lives. The awareness of " Self" means we are conscious of our own persona over time, a sense of who we are, our hopes and fears, as we daydream about ourselves in relation to others.

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.

Consciousness is a Proof of God's existance, and I want to go into why I believe that.

Peace.

Consciousness itself is no proof. If you want to use this as an extension of God you have to look at extraordinary proof in behaviour of humans as evident in the work of Michaelangelo (sculpture) and other genius. Here lies incontrovertible proof of God beyond comprehension of those using words alone to explain it away.

 

[PureX]

I would certainly have an easier time believing what you believe than most religions. I am still not sure we need to believe there is a god or essence that loves us to be happy and fulfilled though. If there is a god, I would be happier with your concept than most religions. I strongly disagree with the Judeo-Christian or Islamic idea of God and want nothing to do with that kind of a god if it's real. Thankfully, I do not believe it exists in that form anyway. Thank you for sharing your beliefs.

I think there are a lot of people who need to believe in something divine. I also think that need may come and go, depending on conditions. I no longer find myself in such strong disagreement with traditional Christian religious doctrine as I once did because I have come to understand it better as a difference in language and imagery, more than a difference in actual ideology. I also have come to understand that a lot of people who practice religion are doing it for the benefits they receive, and NOT because they necessarily adhere strictly to the dogma.

Religion is a confusing and complicated subject. Some of what gets called religion is nothing more than social manipulation and exploitation. Some of what gets called religion is emotional and psychological abuse. Some of what gets labeled religion is just a form of socialized status quo. But a lot of religion is still a legitimate spiritual endeavor on the part of individuals who are seeking in earnest to become better human beings. And I applaud and respect that regardless of the intellectual viability of their ideology, to my way of thinking.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I have been lost and broken beyond any ability to repair myself. I needed the concept of a higher power to 'borrow' the strength and clarity from, that I needed to recover and transcend the man I had become. And it worked. And I am eternally grateful. I can't look down on anyone else who is in such need. And I respect any "god" that helps them find their way back to who they really are.

I also understand that not everyone needs this sort of concept in their life right now. And God bless them for that. We should all be so fortunate. *smile*

 

[cottage]

Thats the connection that intrest me. We are aware, that proves that there are lesser awareness than ours and greater than ours. If there is consciousness in humans, then there exist a far lesser form of it, and a far greater form of it. Because I view human consciousness as the medium, or the center of the Universe, the reason for the Universe. We are the focal point of the higher Consciousness that must exist. Everything that we see, is for us. No life in our world exist that has created a universe around it and called it their own. It was already here before we were, all perfect signs of a gift from another consciousness.

Humans didnot design animals, nature, the universe, or water, but instead of accepting those things as sure signs of a higher consciousness, some of us would rather claim those things designed and created themselves. Its more than dumbfounding, its an deliberate attemp to cover up the tracks of another higher Consciousness that is far greater than us. Or deflate those marvelous signs and decrease their birth from a higher Consciousness, to have come from chemicals and matter that within themselves, are far less than what they have produced in humanity. Which I view as absurd.

Peace.

Your argument has similarities with the Argument from Contingency, where it is said that a contingent existence is dependent upon a necessary existence. To apply this simple argument to the necessary existence of a personal being is nothing more than speculation; in other words it is an attempt to make it fit with what one wishes to be the case.

Two hundred and thirty years ago David Hume asked, quite reasonably, why the material world might not be the Necessary Being. And it is deliberately misleading, amounting to a Straw Man argument, to say that this implies that the world designed and created itself. An Absolutely Necessary Being may be considered speculatively in various manifestations, but at its ground the concept amounts to one thing -and one thing only - and that is self-existence. To press the point, an absurdity is demonstrated if we say a thing designed and created itself, whether it be some element of the known world or God!

 

[Tiberius]

Consciousness is not a simple matter to discuss, but I view only humans as having it. We have Reminiscent memory ( or Episodic memory) we have habit Retention ( or semantic memory) we thus have Conscious Lives. The awareness of " Self" means we are conscious of our own persona over time, a sense of who we are, our hopes and fears, as we daydream about ourselves in relation to others. 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.

Awareness of self is not the definition of consciousness.

The term you are looking for is either sapience or sentience.

Consciousness is a Proof of God's existance, and I want to go into why I believe that.

Peace.

At least you are stating right from the start that this is your opinion this time...

 

[cottage]

I am not religious, I am not a Christian, I am not a Fundamentalist. I am a sinner in need of his God and I have not progressed beyond that.

Peace.

Surely, by any definition, you are religious? Because it seems to me that you are not speaking in general or philosophical terms about the bare bones concept of a Supreme Being, but referring to a personal God, a worshipful Being or deity to whom you must answer. And the concept of sin has no meaning outside religous beliefs.

 

[challupa]

I think there are a lot of people who need to believe in something divine. I also think that need may come and go, depending on conditions. I no longer find myself in such strong disagreement with traditional Christian religious doctrine as I once did because I have come to understand it better as a difference in language and imagery, more than a difference in actual ideology. I also have come to understand that a lot of people who practice religion are doing it for the benefits they receive, and NOT because they necessarily adhere strictly to the dogma.

Religion is a confusing and complicated subject. Some of what gets called religion is nothing more than social manipulation and exploitation. Some of what gets called religion is emotional and psychological abuse. Some of what gets labeled religion is just a form of socialized status quo. But a lot of religion is still a legitimate spiritual endeavor on the part of individuals who are seeking in earnest to become better human beings. And I applaud and respect that regardless of the intellectual viability of their ideology, to my way of thinking.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I have been lost and broken beyond any ability to repair myself. I needed the concept of a higher power to 'borrow' the strength and clarity from, that I needed to recover and transcend the man I had become. And it worked. And I am eternally grateful. I can't look down on anyone else who is in such need. And I respect any "god" that helps them find their way back to who they really are.

I also understand that not everyone needs this sort of concept in their life right now. And God bless them for that. We should all be so fortunate. *smile*

I would have to agree with you. Many people do need a higher power to bring them comfort and safety and I have no problem with that. We are all different and have different needs. I wrote a book once on religion and after all the research and reading I came to the same conclusion as you. There is more the same in religious thought than differences. That is why I would like to have people look at their common ground instead of their difference and fight and kill each other over something that cannot be satisfactorally proven. There needs to be a balance between the mind and the heart, blind faith and critical thinking. I am glad that your definition of god brought you peace. That is the reason why the concept of god hangs on, it helps people cope with their sense of helplessness in a world they perceive to be cold and heartless.

 

[Atreyu]

Monkeys are not conscious beings, only humans are. Conscious beings can speak languages and plan for today and tommorrow, while recalling the past and remembering it while they write it down. Conscious people can get on computers and communicate with each other, monkeys can't do that because they are not conscious.

Peace.

Apearently you did not understand the part where I quoted that they may not be as intelligent as humans they are however conscious.

definition of conscious- aware of ones existence, sensations, thoughts and surroundings. sensitive to something. realization of a condtion.

Watch Animal planet the episode about elephants.

 

[MSizer]

You don't exist because you think. You exist because you think you exist. So technically, it would be: "I think I am, therefor I am". And: "I think God is, therefor God is".

You have completely misquoted Descartes. "I think therefore I am" was the ONLY thing Descartes believed he could be sure of, because it was the ONLY thing that passed his three filters of doubt. His third filter was that it is possible that a demon is tricking him by skewing all of his perceptions, but that even if so, he still can percieve, therefore due to his own ability to think at all, he could at least conclude he existed, for if he didn't, he couldn't be decieved. He also concluded that nothing else he could think of, including the question of the existence of god, is knowable for sure.

 

[Thief]

I suspect a subtle difference between Man and his animal counterparts.

Animals respond to stimulation, so does Man.
As physical perceptions go, there is at least one example for each of the human senses, by which the animal can far surpass human ability.

Eagles see better than we do. Are they greater beings for cause of their greater sense of sight?
Whales hear better. Are they greater than humans for that cause?
We witness emotion in animals, and we are drawn to sympathy as they are.
But are we greater, just because we respond more so, and to a greater extent?

Comparisons between ourselves and the animal kingdom won't work here.
We are not greater because we are human.

We are greater for cause of our ability to say...'I am.'
And we know the meaning...

This thread should consider if God is able to say...'I am'.
I say He can....and the universe (one word) is proof that He did.

 

[mickiel]

Apearently you did not understand the part where I quoted that they may not be as intelligent as humans they are however conscious.

definition of conscious- aware of ones existence, sensations, thoughts and surroundings. sensitive to something. realization of a condtion.

Watch Animal planet the episode about elephants.

Animals are not aware that airplanes are planes which fly from engines. They are not aware of human style of clothing, or what time it is. Animals are not conscious of what year it is or what city they are in. They don't know what sickness is or why it is. They don't realize when they are in a zoo and what a zoo is, or why humans attack them. They are not conscious. Learning tricks is not a sign of consciousness, nor is mating, nor is eating and feeding their young, all that is instincts, instincts are not consciousness. Even when humans react from instincts, they are not using their consciousness.

To be honest with you, it is you who do not understand what consciousness is.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Surely, by any definition, you are religious? Because it seems to me that you are not speaking in general or philosophical terms about the bare bones concept of a Supreme Being, but referring to a personal God, a worshipful Being or deity to whom you must answer. And the concept of sin has no meaning outside religous beliefs.

God is not personal to me, I don't know God or understand him, how many times must I say this. I do not worship God, I worship nothing. I would like to know God, I believe in him because it makes perfect sense to me to do so. Everything I add up, equals to a God. And I totally disagree that only in religion does sin has a meaning. I am not in religion, not confined by it, but I agree with some things they understand, and I agree that sin exist, but not because they have defined it, but the bible has defined it. I believe in the bible, and religion does not own the bible, you just think they do, thus you must define me by religion, because you think religion holds a monopoly on the bible, so you cannot accept a person like me being outside of religion and totally free from it.

But thats your problem, not mine. I am free from religion, and nobodys attempt to define me can enslave me to religion.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

I didn't read all the posts so sorry if I repeat.

The opposite of unbelief is belief. The unbelief in God is the opposite of the belief in God. Unbelief in God does not prove anything about the existence of God, it only proves the existence of the belief in a God.

I view unbelief as a sign of confusion, a mental seperation of a person from their true orgin, that being God. That condition, that being lost of orgin, proves there is an orgin, or a right way of thinking. If there is a wrong way of thinking, that demands there must be a right way of thinking, thus, wrong ways of thinking, is proof there is a right way of thinking.

Unbelief, proves there must be belief. Atheist prove there must be Theist. Thus Atheist proves there must be a God. If one side claims no, and another side claims yes, then there must be two sides of something, and someone must decide which side is right. What if both sides are wrong? Well instead of looking at another human view of this thing, I bypass them both and have decided that the thing they debate on, Gods existence, it is God who is right, and both sides point to that. Both good and evil, both sides, point to God, it is he who is Orgin.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Romance is a proof of Gods ability to program his creations with incredible powers of feeling and understanding those feelings. The urge to communicate with your affections, and communicate them to the one of your affection. The orginal purpose God put that in humans is because one day he will use that to open communications with us, but we can't do that until he opens us up to his all consuming Love for us. Once we understand Gods Love for us, we are forever his. We just don't now understand him and his passion for us, BECAUSE he has not created an environment condusive to that on earth.

Oh some people think he has, but I disagree with them, he has not. Earths environment defintely shows that selfishness is one way to get ahead. Greed and power are ways to get ahead. Love is not a way to get ahead. There may be some small examples of that, but they are exceptions.

Peace.

 

[dogsgod]

I view unbelief as a sign of confusion, a mental seperation of a person from their true orgin, that being God. That condition, that being lost of orgin, proves there is an orgin, or a right way of thinking. If there is a wrong way of thinking, that demands there must be a right way of thinking, thus, wrong ways of thinking, is proof there is a right way of thinking.

Your view is based on the assumption that the view of the theist is the correct view, that gods exist.

Unbelief, proves there must be belief. Atheist prove there must be Theist. Thus Atheist proves there must be a God. If one side claims no, and another side claims yes, then there must be two sides of something, and someone must decide which side is right. What if both sides are wrong? Well instead of looking at another human view of this thing, I bypass them both and have decided that the thing they debate on, Gods existence, it is God who is right, and both sides point to that. Both good and evil, both sides, point to God, it is he who is Orgin.

Peace.

Atheists prove that there are theists, it does not follow that atheists prove there must be a God. The existence of atheists is predicated on there being theists. If there were no theists running around claiming what gods are and that they exist, there would be no such things as atheists to say 'I don't believe you.'

 

[mickiel]

Atheists prove that there are theists, it does not follow that atheists prove there must be a God. The existence of atheists is predicated on there being theists. If there were no theists running around claiming what gods are and that they exist, there would be no such things as atheists to say 'I don't believe you.'

But we have both theist and atheist running around, so there is such a thing as God, that is the correct balance in my view. Both prove to me that God exist, not one without the other, both sides equal the proof. Its the whole of them both. I think if either one of them didnot exist, then neither would God.

Thus both are just as important in my view. Both positive and negative charge, prove that there is a charge.

Peace.

Peace.

 

[dogsgod]

But we have both theist and atheist running around, so there is such a thing as God, that is the correct balance in my view. Both prove to me that God exist, not one without the other, both sides equal the proof. Its the whole of them both. I think if either one of them didnot exist, then neither would God.

Thus both are just as important in my view. Both positive and negative charge, prove that there is a charge.

Peace.

Peace.

You render words meaningless in order to support a meaningless view.

 

[logician]

There is up and there is down. Positive and negative, two sides to the coin, but each side proves the other side exist. There is good and evil, both oppisite ends of a spectrum, but each proves that the other exist. There is belief in God and unbelief, yet each proves that the other exist. Unbelief in God exist, and this unbelief proves that God exist, because there must be unbelief, in order for there to be belief. One is simply the other end of the other.

Atheist themselves are proof of God. Only God could have removed the sight of him, the belief in him, from a human consciousness, nothingelse is powerful enough to do that. Being asleep is one end, being awake is another, but each proves the others existance, although both are two entirely differing things. We cannot see God, hear him, understand him and just outright be for sure where he is, but we are conscious of him. Our conscious awareness of him, coupled with the Atheist denial of him, is proof that he exist. They are two different ends that show each others reality.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

You can't prove what you haven't clearly defined.