Debates on Existence

[godismystrength1]

I had a debate about God and consciousness. Kind of nuts to have a debate about I guess? Well, my side says no. I believe that God is an artist or architect who takes into account both math/logic and perception/image to create a final product. Life. Then we get into thoughts and consciousness, is consciousness about the "end result?" the thing you see and perceive, or is it the equation also as important as the sum of its parts? Meaning, brain chemistry, physics, evolution, etc. We can believe in God but also that man is finite and not beyond God's knowledge. Perhaps the world we see was in fact created by God, but that does not mean we see it as perfect because we ourselves are limited in perspective.

What are other people's thoughts on this? I think it makes sense, of course that was my whole debate.

 

[Upisoft]

I think that you have put a list of your beliefs, mixed it with words like "fact" for credibility and then asked a question without any sense.

 

[UnReAL13]

I think it would be helpful to define "consciousness" and how it would relate to a deity. I gather that you think "god" is a conscious entity of some sort, one that used intelligent design for this universe. It might also help to get a clear definition of "god" from your perspective.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I had a debate about God and consciousness. Kind of nuts to have a debate about I guess? Well, my side says no. I believe that God is an artist or architect who takes into account both math/logic and perception/image to create a final product. Life.

What about God as a movie maker?

Then we get into thoughts and consciousness, is consciousness about the "end result?" the thing you see and perceive, or is it the equation also as important as the sum of its parts? Meaning, brain chemistry, physics, evolution, etc.

That would be the difference between phenomenology and existentialism on the one hand, and hard science on the other. I like this quote from Husserl (a founding phenomenologist):

"We would be in a nasty position indeed if empirical science were the only kind of science possible"

source​

We can believe in God but also that man is finite and not beyond God's knowledge. Perhaps the world we see was in fact created by God, but that does not mean we see it as perfect because we ourselves are limited in perspective.

Some people (prcess theologians) say that because man is radically free, he is only known to God on a step by step basis, not 'all at once' through precognition but only through step-by-step temporal observation. Maybe that puts limits on God too?

What are other people's thoughts on this? I think it makes sense, of course that was my whole debate.

See above.

 

[Tatian]

I think it would be helpful to define "consciousness" and how it would relate to a deity. I gather that you think "god" is a conscious entity of some sort, one that used intelligent design for this universe. It might also help to get a clear definition of "god" from your perspective.

You are asking a complicated question even for modern science, don't you think? So then, for the sake of haranging over all the particulars of the word and what it may or may not mean, I am sure we all agree that we have "conciousness." So whatever it is that we have that we refer to as conciousness we also attribute to God. For the purpose of this argument, we need not go any further than say God is a powerful, creative conciousness

 

[GrowingSmaller]

God-consciousness is experienced in different ways by different people. Look at Unreal, he thinks its a form of ignorant grunt. Others live it as one of the highest things in life. There is no standardised experience or conception, and people's responses to these themes vary from pleasure to dispair.

But God beliefs can have a huge impact on peoples sense of self and general existential identity. They are like prisms through which we relate to the world in different ways. We may feel shame or love where they had not before, and they may think for instance that life is explained, and the present one is just a taster.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You are asking a complicated question even for modern science, don't you think? So then, for the sake of haranging over all the particulars of the word and what it may or may not mean, I am sure we all agree that we have "conciousness." So whatever it is that we have that we refer to as conciousness we also attribute to God.

Sounds nice. Ultimately an own goal IMO.

For the purpose of this argument, we need not go any further than say God is a powerful, creative conciousness

This is meaningless. Consciousness is not creative. At least not the kind of consciousness that you wanted to be attibuted to God in the previous sentence, i.e. "whatever it is that we have that we refer to as conciousness."

 

[bricklayer]

Consciousness is not merely an awareness of perceptions,
it is a perception of awareness.

 

[Tatian]

Sounds nice. Ultimately an own goal IMO.




This is meaningless. Consciousness is not creative. At least not the kind of consciousness that you wanted to be attibuted to God in the previous sentence, i.e. "whatever it is that we have that we refer to as conciousness."

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']It would be meaningless accept for the last sentence which is the summation of my argument; that he is creative and powerful. Of course I would say God is many things, but for the purpose of theism proper, this will do. [/FONT]

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It would be meaningless accept for the last sentence

This one:

For the purpose of this argument, we need not go any further than say God is a powerful, creative conciousness​

?

 

[Tatian]

You assessed my meaning that God is a consciousness and creative. You stated that my view of God, your assessment that is, was meaningless. I retorted by saying that it is not because I also described him as powerful, giving his creativity potency. Thus it is not meaningless to the conversation at hand.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You assessed my meaning that God is a consciousness and creative. You stated that my view of God, your assessment that is, was meaningless.

Strictly speaking you said "creative consciousness", attributing creativity to consciousness, consciousness similar to what we possess.

Moreover, would I conceive of statements such as "a consciousness" as odd and, well, false. It is quite uncommon to for instance refer to Joe as a consciousness, or to state that 'Francine is pregnant with a consciousness'.

You might have better luck with for instance saying that 'God is conscious, powerful and creative.' Still leaves of course a lot to be done (IMO).

I retorted by saying that it is not because I also described him as powerful, giving his creativity potency. Thus it is not meaningless to the conversation at hand.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wonder if God ever had an existential crisis?

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Dear me, why am I here?"

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that God might be an "infinite thought-omaton". I believe in God and am ignostic about man. That settles the "existential crisis" once and for all.