Why do atheists seem to obsess over something they don't believe in?

[bhsmte]

Your logic is, say, adorable.

Yea, I got a good chuckle myself.

 

[Chriliman]

Your logic is, say, adorable.

Is this what we've resorted to now, in order to avoid answering questions?

 

[Chriliman]

After a quick read of the primacy of existence principle, it's rather obvious that you don't understand it.

It doesn't say that your consciousness will exist forever.

Obviously it doesn't say that because it was presented as proof that a consciousn God could not possibly exist, but whoever thought of this concept doesn't fully understand God as being infinitely timeless and therefor exists and is consciouse simultaneously, therefor primacy of existence does not apply to this entity.

Also they failed to fully realize the implications of saying existence must exist before human consciousness because if you believe human consciousness is not dependent on your own consciousness then consciousness as a whole is an unalterable truth. So if it's unalterably true that all humans are consciouse then how could this unalterable truth be altered to it being true that eventually all human consciousness will cease to exist. If you believe this will happen then you believe unalterable truth can contradict.

It'd be like saying its unalterabley true that existence exists, but eventually this unalterable truth will contradict and existence will cease to exist.

Can you see how the above does not make sense?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Obviously it doesn't say that because it was presented as proof that a consciousn God could not possibly exist, but whoever thought of this concept doesn't fully understand God as being infinitely timeless and therefor exists and is consciouse simultaneously, therefor primacy of existence does not apply to this entity.

Also they failed to fully realize the implications of saying existence must exist before human consciousness because if you believe human consciousness is not dependent on your own consciousness then consciousness as a whole is an unalterable truth. So if it's unalterably true that all humans are consciouse then how could this unalterable truth be altered to it being true that eventually all human consciousness will cease to exist. If you believe this will happen then you believe unalterable truth can contradict.

It'd be like saying its unalterabley true that existence exists, but eventually this unalterable truth will contradict and existence will cease to exist.

Can you see how the above does not make sense?

Yea...I can. I'd say about 85% of what you wrote makes no sense.

Can you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So you don't believe consciousness would still exist even if you became unconscious?

How did you get that out of what I was saying?

I believe that my consciousness would cease to exist if I became unconscious. If this is temporary, such as being in a deep sleep, the faculty that is responsible for generating consciousness could restore consciousness at a later time. Consciousness would not exist in the meantime.

If this is permanent, such as in death, the faculty that generates consciousness in my body would be destroyed, and so the consciousness associated with my body would be unrecoverable absent some science fiction technological solution.

If all conscious beings in the universe were to go extinct, consciousness as such would cease to exist and be lost to the universe, until such a time (if any) that a new conscious entity were to evolve or otherwise come into being.

Let's assume for a moment that it is only living bodies that have the opportunity to be conscious. We'll put aside science fiction scenarios of conscious computers just to make the wording of the following statement simpler. We can always introduce the science fiction concepts into the category "living bodies" if we wish.

1) Some living bodies have the capacity (mainly its brain) to generate conscious awareness.
2) A living body can die, eliminating its ability to generate conscious awareness.
3) If all living bodies were to die, no conscious awareness would be generated anywhere in the universe.
4) If no conscious awareness is being generated anywhere in the universe, then no consciousness would exist in the universe. (Just as no life would exist in the universe.)

I realize that I'm not speaking about a Christian concept of the universe. I am presenting my own view.

If you don't believe this then you must believe your consciousness is the reason everything exists.

That makes no sense to me.

What I can tell you is that I accept the primacy of existence principle. Consciousness does not create existence, but merely reports on existence. The universe will exist just fine on its own without my, or anyone else's, conscious awareness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Is this what we've resorted to now, in order to avoid answering questions?

Which question did you ask?
As far as I can tell you made a proposition in your last two posts, and it seemed to be meant as a logical deduction. Since, as it read there, nothing actually followed from anything (and upon my request to explain the logic, you merely repeated your previous proposition), I don´t know how to continue the discussion of your argument in a productive way.
Maybe you have a sound argument, but the way you have presented it, some logical steps must be missing.

ETA: NOw I have found the question in your post (initially I took it for a rhethorical question, sorry)...
No, I don´t think that I am conscious when I have lost my consciousness.

 

[Freodin]

Also they failed to fully realize the implications of saying existence must exist before human consciousness because if you believe human consciousness is not dependent on your own consciousness then consciousness as a whole is an unalterable truth. So if it's unalterably true that all humans are consciouse then how could this unalterable truth be altered to it being true that eventually all human consciousness will cease to exist. If you believe this will happen then you believe unalterable truth can contradict.

It'd be like saying its unalterabley true that existence exists, but eventually this unalterable truth will contradict and existence will cease to exist.

Can you see how the above does not make sense?

"Ceasing to exist" is a term that only applies within a temporal structure... which, if I understood your argument even remotely, does not apply.

So we shouldn't talk about "ceasing to exist" - rather that would just mean "not existing after(temp) existing". The core point is the "not existing".

You claim that this is a contradiction. But if we view that from a non-temporal setting, that would mean that this "not existing" is the contradicting part.

Yet from that we would have to conclude that "human conscience not existing" is a contradiction to "human conscience existing".


That would contradict the concept of creation of conscience, of God as creator of everything... everything, including human consciousness, just exists, eternally, infinitly, uncreated.

Doesn't sound very compatible to Christian theology to me.

 

[Chany]

Sound reason either leads to belief in God or leads to non-belief in God, so what's the difference? Christians believe faith, hope and love come from God, but athiests believe faith, hope and love come from something before the Big Bang. Ultimately there both right, but one is missing the complete picture. But if the complete picture is anything other than God, then what's the point of faith hope and love? Maybe instead of asking why, we should be asking who.

This post alone made me want to respond. Have you ever actually looked into a secular philosopher and what they say? Because, with the exception of a few Neo-Platonists, no philosopher I've heard of attributes faith, hope, and love to anything outside of the universe, if they care to talk about the topics at all.

For example, I firmly believe love is something that comes from conscious agents; and because I have no good reason to believe there were conscious agents before the beginnings of the cosmos, I do not believe our concept of love comes from anywhere but ourselves.