What came first?

[redmartian89]

Consciousness, or existence?

What is most fundamental?

I see it is, or it is?

If you claim God created the universe, it would be consciousness, as God is a conscious Being thus it has the capacity for volition (free will) and the ability to create.

If you go on this premise, it creates big problems.

In order for something for be conscious, it must exist.

Claiming "God exists" for a basic premise is illogical because you would need to differentiate between God as consciousness and God as existence.

Consciousness is based on relating to an already existing world, a mind cannot exist in a vacuum.

However, if you take the premise that existence is first, your work is largely done for you.

You simply build up from the fact that something (the universe) exists. You can see it and see its power over you. No faith required of you.

Existence must come first. Consciousness only follows existence.

Based on that, how can God exist?

 

[Solidlyhere]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

If by existence, you mean Mankind, this is pretty easy.
If God created people, then man must have existed a few seconds before he had consciousness.

If you mean God's existence, then it's a little tricky.

It seems to me that there would have been a form of consciousness, which led into God becoming whatever existence He is.

Then that consciousness caused Heaven to form, and angels.
Much later, God created mass (the physical Universe).

Frankly, I don't worry about God.
If God exists, that is enough ... if not, then it doesn't matter.

 

[Forest]

Then you would have to believe that consciousness can arrive out of existence, why should I believe that?

 

[R3quiem]

Consciousness, or existence?

What is most fundamental?

I see it is, or it is?

If you claim God created the universe, it would be consciousness, as God is a conscious Being thus it has the capacity for volition (free will) and the ability to create.

If you go on this premise, it creates big problems.

In order for something for be conscious, it must exist.

Claiming "God exists" for a basic premise is illogical because you would need to differentiate between God as consciousness and God as existence.

Consciousness is based on relating to an already existing world, a mind cannot exist in a vacuum.

However, if you take the premise that existence is first, your work is largely done for you.

You simply build up from the fact that something (the universe) exists. You can see it and see its power over you. No faith required of you.

Existence must come first. Consciousness only follows existence.

Based on that, how can God exist?

You're making the assumption that God exists within time. Time is a physical property of the universe, it's linked with space. If a god created the universe, then he created time and is therefore not bound by it himself. If anyone says he exists within time, they are making the assumption that he is part of his own creation, but that doesn't make much sense.

Looking at God existing outside of time, he would be not a linear being. There would be no "which came first" because all is already there. There's no beginning, no end, because these are all concepts that we linear beings think of but would have no bearing with a timeless being.

I don't believe he exists, but it's fun to think about it.

 

[MorkandMindy]

... Based on that, how can God exist?

Just my opinion at the moment, but my guess is a theist reply could go something like:

God is outside time, we are inside time therefore god is before us and can cause us without needing a cause himself since he is outside time. This also means the creator is before time, after time and all around time.

As a general rule a Christian in 2007 can cook up an answer that works in 2007 thinking to a question, but only if the Bible hasn't given details.

 

[MorkandMindy]

When the accepted scriptures have given details the room for manoeuvre is reduced.

For example - the creation story gives just a few details but those few means creationists have to do complex contortions as well as blankly rejecting much of what is known in 2007 about geology and biology to make the religious version fit.

Creationists have a valid point that a person who claims to accept the scriptures as their authority in religious matters and as the true revelation of God has no alternative. That is entirely correct.

Reject young Earth and Man created at the start and the use of scripture as authority goes and if you want to remain a Christian then you have to opt for one of the other types of Christianity based on the authority of the Church (Catholic for example), or reason (liberals), or experience (charismatics), or tradition.

Look at the figures and you will see that most Christians World-wide have done just that. Most are not sola scriptura but rely ultimately on the Church to validate which items are scripture and to interpret scripture.

 

[Merlin]

Consciousness, or existence?

What is most fundamental?

I see it is, or it is?

If you claim God created the universe, it would be consciousness, as God is a conscious Being thus it has the capacity for volition (free will) and the ability to create.

If you go on this premise, it creates big problems.

In order for something for be conscious, it must exist.

Claiming "God exists" for a basic premise is illogical because you would need to differentiate between God as consciousness and God as existence.

Consciousness is based on relating to an already existing world, a mind cannot exist in a vacuum.

However, if you take the premise that existence is first, your work is largely done for you.

You simply build up from the fact that something (the universe) exists. You can see it and see its power over you. No faith required of you.

Existence must come first. Consciousness only follows existence.

Based on that, how can God exist?

Or maybe we need to realise the limits of our definitions.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Consciousness can only exist with the preceding of existence in-itself. But consciousness itself exists as a being of non-being, a no-thing, the only reason why physical existence(as it is usually defined)must compose itself before consciousness is because consciousness can only propel itself through existing with the use of the objects that exist prior.

This makes existence an ontology, which is then observed through the consciousness of phenomenology(using Sartrean terms, of course).

RedMartian: Your Rand based rationalism is incredibly annoying.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Then you would have to believe that consciousness can arrive out of existence, why should I believe that?

Possibly because the only concrete instances of consciousness we can indicate are inextricably linked to things that exist?

 

[Solidlyhere]

ExistencePrecedesEssence shows his namesake: "Consciousness can only exist with the preceding of existence in-itself."

Well, for Human Beings, I would agree.

This is about God.
Since I presume you don't understand the essence of God, you can't perceive the "Laws" that affect God.

 

[TeddyKGB]

ExistencePrecedesEssence shows his namesake: "Consciousness can only exist with the preceding of existence in-itself."

Well, for Human Beings, I would agree.

This is about God.
Since I presume you don't understand the essence of God, you can't perceive the "Laws" that affect God.

If so much of the information about God is inscrutable, then what is the difference in practice between understanding God and making up stuff about God?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

ExistencePrecedesEssence shows his namesake: "Consciousness can only exist with the preceding of existence in-itself."

Well, for Human Beings, I would agree.

This is about God.
Since I presume you don't understand the essence of God, you can't perceive the "Laws" that affect God.

Since i was talking about RedMartians assumption about consciousness, I decided to give my two cents into the argument. As you can see i decided not to assume and answer for his last question, and thus my generalization in my response to the first few sentences of his post.

And FYI. My namesake has nothing to do with the ontology of existence preceding consciousness-don't think otherwise.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Consciousness, or existence?

What is most fundamental?

I see it is, or it is?

If you claim God created the universe, it would be consciousness, as God is a conscious Being thus it has the capacity for volition (free will) and the ability to create.

If you go on this premise, it creates big problems.

In order for something for be conscious, it must exist.

Claiming "God exists" for a basic premise is illogical because you would need to differentiate between God as consciousness and God as existence.

Consciousness is based on relating to an already existing world, a mind cannot exist in a vacuum.

However, if you take the premise that existence is first, your work is largely done for you.

You simply build up from the fact that something (the universe) exists. You can see it and see its power over you. No faith required of you.

Existence must come first. Consciousness only follows existence.

Based on that, how can God exist?

What reason is there to assume that one must precede the other?

 

[TeddyKGB]

What reason is there to assume that one must precede the other?

It is, at least, simple and uncontroversial to posit something existing without consciousness.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It is, at least, simple and uncontroversial to posit something existing without consciousness.

Granted, but must that be the only possibility?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Granted, but must that be the only possibility?

I suppose not, but the fact that every bit of evidence suggests that consciousness is dependent on not only material but a particular arrangement of material does not give me tremendous confidence in the alternative.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I suppose not, but the fact that every bit of evidence suggests that consciousness is dependent on not only material but a particular arrangement of material does not give me tremendous confidence in the alternative.

Sure, but how can it be said that a person exists apart from having consciousness? If I die and I lose my consciousness, "I" won't exist; all that should remain is a dead body. For a conscious being, to exist is to be conscious; one cannot precede the other.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Sure, but how can it be said that a person exists apart from having consciousness? If I die and I lose my consciousness, "I" won't exist; all that should remain is a dead body. For a conscious being, to exist is to be conscious; one cannot precede the other.

Do "I" not lose consciousness when "I" am unconscious? I have had more than a few major-ish surgeries, and my memories of general anesthesia amount to absolutely nothing. Five hours could have been five minutes for all I was aware of.

If that isn't an absence of consciousness, what is it?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Do "I" not lose consciousness when "I" am unconscious? I have had more than a few major-ish surgeries, and my memories of general anesthesia amount to absolutely nothing. Five hours could have been five minutes for all I was aware of.

If that isn't an absence of consciousness, what is it?

Good argument.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Do "I" not lose consciousness when "I" am unconscious? I have had more than a few major-ish surgeries, and my memories of general anesthesia amount to absolutely nothing. Five hours could have been five minutes for all I was aware of.

If that isn't an absence of consciousness, what is it?

I suppose it could be a different form of it, but we can't even define what the conscious observer is to begin with, and there's really no way to know what happened to your consciousness while you were out.

I've also had an experience where I blacked out and lost consciousness. I lost all perception of being but I do remember what it felt like, which tells me that I possessed some form of awareness. Though my memory is spotty, I can't claim that I've ever lost all awareness since I realized that I had it, and I doubt that you can either.

If you think that awareness is not existence for a conscious being, then at what point do you think a sentient being ceases to exist?