Mickiel's proof of God.

[Thief]

Your objection is noted.
I'll 'pass it on'.

But how does this, and your other discussions play into the topic?

 

[mickiel]

So consciousness is the ability to represent objects and actions with symbols, and be able to correctly interpret them? Is that your definition? A man kept in a basement his entire life without ever learning how to speak, read, or write does not have consciousness?

That's fine if you want to define consciousness as the ability to use symbols and sounds while thinking to oneself, but you can't expect everyone to have the same definition.

I don't expect everyone to have the same definition, that would be foolish, I know understanding varies on this subject. But if its a human since Adam we are discussing, they have Consciousness, because human consciousness began with Adam, although he was not the first human created.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

You are attempting to make a distinction between the Bible and religious belief. The Bible is a system of human thought, a religious work that has at its central premise the existence of a supernatural being who has done and will do certain things. Of course you are free to accept or believe some of the Bible or parts of the Bible, but to say you 'believe in the Bible' is to make a religious statement. That is most certainly not the same as someone who acknowledges the concept of Supreme Being but does not attribute more to the possibility than is necessary to the concept. It is actually a self-contradiction to say 'I believe in God, but I'm not religious'. But there is no contradiction in saying ' I'm not religious but I believe that there might be a God'.

Btw, you are either using the term 'sin' colloquially, or you are using the term in its religious sense. It's one or the other.

There is so much distinction between the bible and religious belief, I can't begin to list them. Religion is man made belief, which could take on all kinds of differing looks and thoughts. Belief is individual and can be complettely devoid of religion, or human created organizied belief. I am an individual, not to be associated with group organizied belief. I believe on my own, I am not religious. I use the term sin as it enters into my own sense of the term. I need no other sense of the term, I trust only my own mind.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

What about our fellow great apes who can understand language, even written symbols to some degree, who can plan, communicate with one another, form relationships, even pass a culture down to their children? Meanwhile computer programs can do all the things you cite as hallmarks of consciousness.

Consciousness and intelligence are not synonymous. A dog, when catching a frisbee, performs calculations you wouldn't even know how to attempt on paper. An insect colony appears to make decisions impossible for any individual member. The cognitive brain facilitates intelligence and therefore survival. The ability to adapt to change and store information about the world is not a uniquely human trait at all. It is, in fact, the premise of all life.

Apes, dogs and ants are not conscious beings. I agree Consciousness and Intelligence are not synonymous, an animal or a caveman can have intelligence, but still not be conscious. Actually consciousness is a much smaller part of our mental life than we are conscious of, because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of. Animals are not conscious of so many things that many of you try to make them conscious of. They just are not. Its like asking a flashlight in a dark room to search around for something that does not have any light shinning on it. The flashlight, since there is light in whatever direction it turns, would have to conclude that there is light everywhere. And so consciousness can seem to pervade all mentality when actually it does not.

Humans are continually conscious, to say this about animals, to me is absurd. People don't understand " The Timing of Consciousness."

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

So, to be clear: if there were no atheists, then God would not exist.

In our reality, I think yes. If there were no Atheist, then God certainly wouldnot exist, because he created the thought of not believing in him. He created the thought of belief in him, thus both prove his existance to me, as I view things. Its the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God created and established, it was God who presented both ways of being, of thought. And thats exactly what we have had all our lives! None of us have escaped this reality, so it proves our reality, and Gods.

quote
Things just are, they're not arranged in an orderly pattern, or a neat spectrum. Entertaining any kind of belief in literal dualism is a vast oversimplification and misunderstanding of reality.

Oh no, they have been aranged, and I see it like that. I do things wrong, think things wrong, because I am supposed to do that, which is why my view of sin is not some great guilt ridden burden. I am what I am, because I was designed to be that. Atheist are Atheist because they are supposed to be that. I am weak, because I was designed to be that way, conversely for the strong, they are strong because they were meant to be strong.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Love and selfishness are in essence the same thing. I shall await your response to this statement before providing examples.

Well I think they can interact and in some fuse together, so in that individual, yes I agree , its the same thing. Conversely, there are many who keep them seperate, because they are seperate things, but all the rainbows of emotions can combine at one time or another and be considered the same. So I agree in part.

Peace.

 

[cottage]

Your objection is noted.
I'll 'pass it on'.

But how does this, and your other discussions play into the topic?

Because it appears to be the OP's position that the subject of this thread and the arguments given to support it are not a religious statements or propositions.

 

[cottage]

There is so much distinction between the bible and religious belief, I can't begin to list them. Religion is man made belief, which could take on all kinds of differing looks and thoughts. Belief is individual and can be complettely devoid of religion, or human created organizied belief. I am an individual, not to be associated with group organizied belief. I believe on my own, I am not religious. I use the term sin as it enters into my own sense of the term. I need no other sense of the term, I trust only my own mind.

Peace.

All beliefs are man made and that is why they are called 'beliefs' rather than truths. However, it is important to note that holding to a religious belief (which you do by definition) doesn't require the believer to acknowledge or accept any particular deity, doctrine or system of belief. But let's be quite clear about something, you are not arguing to God solely as an ontological concept, but to a deity you hold to exist as a matter of faith. And that is a religious position.

You are of course entitled to apply the term 'sin' as you see fit, but unless you are using it colloquially its meaning and import are always religious.

 

[mickiel]

There is so much humans can do and not be conscious of it. Cavemen hunted, cooked, had babies, dressed themselves, made weapons, but they still were not conscious beings, because they didnot create civilization, and there had to be a reason for that. They didnot do what we do, and many just cannot fathom that it was because they were not conscious beings. In driving a car, I am not sitting like a backseat driver directing myself, but rather find myself committed and engaged with little consciousness. In fact my consciousness will usually be involved in somethingelse, in a conversation with you if you happen to be my passenger, or just thinking about somethingelse. But my hands, my foot, my eyes, are all involved in driving, but I am not conscious of this. I am involved in obeying driving on the road instead of the sidewalk, but I am not thinking about not driving on the sidewalk, I am not counscious of me obeying that, but I am doing that. I am caught up in doing what stimulates me, responding to the changes in traffic, the trust or distrust of that, while my consciousness is still off on other topics. And has absolutely nothing to do with me driving.

In this manner we can deremine that a human , or animal, can do so much, but yet not be conscious of doing it . Just do it on instinct, but yet assume its consciousness, when it is not.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

 

[Amill]

You're still not being very clear about what your idea of consciousness is. You think all animals just react based on instinct and learned behaviors...but.. how do you LEARN those behaviors without being conscious of what you're doing? How did these cavemen learn how to make fire, learn to cook food, learn that clothes keep them warm, if they weren't conscious beings?

 

[logician]

The only way one can prove that consciouness proves there is a god is to prove consciouness IS god.

 

[challupa]

The only way one can prove that consciouness proves there is a god is to prove consciouness IS god.

Now that's an intriguing statement!

 

[Tiberius]

Mickiel, can you respond to my last post please?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't expect everyone to have the same definition, that would be foolish, I know understanding varies on this subject. But if its a human since Adam we are discussing, they have Consciousness, because human consciousness began with Adam, although he was not the first human created.

Peace.

Do you have evidence to support this, or is this just a hypothesis? Because basing your proof on an unsupported assumption isn't going to lead to a convincing proof.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Consciousness is a Proof of God's existance.

Why would that be ?

 

[Thief]

Because it appears to be the OP's position that the subject of this thread and the arguments given to support it are not a religious statements or propositions.

However, with your previous objection noted, discussion of 'religious' belief must be allowed.
You are participating in a religious forum.

Regardless of what the participants believe God to be....
We are attempting at this moment to argument the self-awareness of Man to be proof of God's existence.

I see only one possible support for the op.

God said...."I am!"
Man is able the same statement, and with understanding.
We have that likeness unto God.
It is common 'religious' belief that a creation is a reflection of it's creator.

To take this away...
Prove there is no God. (other threads already in progress)
Otherwise it is altogether reasonable for believers to believe.....
God created Man in His own image.

 

[jam.bar]

Oh no, they have been aranged, and I see it like that. I do things wrong, think things wrong, because I am supposed to do that, which is why my view of sin is not some great guilt ridden burden. I am what I am, because I was designed to be that. Atheist are Atheist because they are supposed to be that. I am weak, because I was designed to be that way, conversely for the strong, they are strong because they were meant to be strong.

Peace.

Why would a God design someone to be weak, or designs athiests? If you think you're weak then do something about it.

 

[mickiel]

Mickiel, can you respond to my last post please?

You must first aspoligise for your disrespect, only then will I respond.

Peace.

 

[richardlowellt]

Mickiel, can you respond to my last post please?

I see he's still at it, remember you can't challenge his beliefs or he takes his ball and goes home. I think he might be a little too thin skinned to post here.

 

[cottage]

However, with your previous objection noted, discussion of 'religious' belief must be allowed.
You are participating in a religious forum.

Regardless of what the participants believe God to be....
We are attempting at this moment to argument the self-awareness of Man to be proof of God's existence.

I see only one possible support for the op.

God said...."I am!"
Man is able the same statement, and with understanding.
We have that likeness unto God.
It is common 'religious' belief that a creation is a reflection of it's creator.

To take this away...
Prove there is no God. (other threads already in progress)
Otherwise it is altogether reasonable for believers to believe.....
God created Man in His own image.

Okay, first of all I am quite aware that I'm participating in a religious forum. The OP insisted that his argument from consciousness had no religious aspect to it. I responded that where a view was held from a belief as faith (quite apart from the addition of any empirical or philosophical input), then clearly it is an argument from religion.

Now then, your argument is one of analogy, that created things are representative [to some extent] of the creator. So if man exists then God exists, for and what exists in the creator may be found in the created, ie in the image of God.

I disagree. In fact I propose that no characteristic found in man applies to God.

(For the purposes of the argument we will ignore the presumption implicit in the analogy that God exists.)

The first and probably the most obvious supposed likeness is intelligence. For it appears to make perfect sense when we say a personal God (or any god) has intelligence. And in terms of an anthropomorphic God it would seem illogical to say he didn't have intelligence. Mustn't one who designed and created the world be intelligent?

However, all references to intelligence are founded in mind, that is to say a cognitive ability to reason, plan and form ideas. Our understanding of intelligence is, as Alan Turing said, ‘to respond like a human being’. So, to say God shares this similarity with man is to say God has human traits. But clearly in the case of God, intelligence doesn’t include learning from experience, problem solving, gaining of knowledge and coping with adverse situations. And nor does he plan and form ideas, as there is no cognition involved, for God doesn’t reason: he is reason. So the broad, umbrella term ‘intelligence’ is wholly different in the case of God. The only similarity is in the word itself.

Another example is ‘love’ (an extremely ambiguous term). Human love isn’t universal but is necessarily selfishly motivated, while God’s love (despite being contradicted in experience and by Biblical utterances) is supposedly pure and inclusive. So to say man and God share the ability to love is misleading, as we are speaking of two entirely different things. Again the only similarity is in the word itself.

One more example is being. Man is a being, and God is a being. But what is ‘being’? ‘Being’ is existence. Man exists, cattle exist, tables exist, and God exists (allegedly). But the only similarity is the word ‘being’, for while God is an absolutely necessary being, all other things are contingent, which is to say they do not have to exist. To sum up, then, if we say God is ‘intelligent’, ‘love’, or a ‘being’, we are not saying he is like humans in respect of those things. An anthropomorphic God cannot be other than intelligent, since that is implied by the term in the same way that Pegasus cannot be a horse without wings, but if we want to accept that concept we must also accept that this God has human frailties and predilections, which contradicts the notion of an omnipotent, all sufficient, necessary being.