Philosoft

There aren't even any good philosophical guesses as to what 'omniscience' means, much less existential grounds for you to claim that such a thing is not only possible, but is something we are approaching.

<strong> The "evidence" doesn't even suggest such a thing is meaningful.

<strong> Hmm. This is a bit more down-to-earth. I'll have to give it some more thought.

brighid

Mad Bastard -

Thank you! I just couldn't remember the name of that darn book.

Koy - You are so modest

B

WJ

Koy (all)!

Hey I'm back... . I had a bit of a hiatus here of late... whew, too much fun! Anyway, I just did a cursory and I kinda like where the discussion is turning (logic and consciousness)!

(However, I think I need to go back and respond to the earlier challenge from Koy [and me] regarding existence and logic... Koy, you still there...which page do I need to go to?)

Sorry for the absence, but it does seem you guy's are moving right along....

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

How are we "moving along?"

Kamchatka has simply regurgitated solipsistic new age pointlessness that boils down to "gods factually exist because the human mind created the word/concept 'god'" and, accordingly, argues that anyone who defines a god therefore proves that god's existence in a quasi-literal manner that hasn't been adequately pinned down yet.

Then she added contradictory nonsense claiming that we aren't "fully conscious." We have the ability to create factual beings out of words, apparently, yet we aren't "fully conscious."

Fascinating...

Oh, that and confusing the indoctrination technique of Soviet dictators designed to break allegiance from one god to the god of the State with atheism.

As for what page, we had to trudge through the nonsense so you will too .

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Kamchatka

I apologize, fellow dumbasses, I do not work in front of a computer so I only have time at this point in my conscious developement to respond to the following:

Philosoft,

You said, "I haven't a clue what you're talking about."

Now, to use your words once more, "pay attention."
If you must, look up the pronoun "we" and answer the question. I'll make it easy. How do "you" worship? I'll handle my part.

I love your selective cluelessness.

Philosoft

Ok, senor pedant. Please replace "we" with "those members of homo sapiens sapiens that are classified as theists."

<strong> Not as much as I love your deliberate avoidance of the actual content of my posts to focus on my sloppy semantic shortcuts.

brighid

Well, the Bible says Jesus is powerless to heal or cast out demons unless He is facilitated by a person’s belief. What an all-powerful God who can’t perform miracles or make Himself known unless a person BELIEVES!!

People experience “God” all the time. I have experienced the “Goddess” when I believed in the pantheon of Gods and it was a pretty damned cool experience. (okay boys - remove the dirty thoughts from your mind RIGHT now!) Even though I no longer “believe” in God(s) I experience a similar physical affect when participating in circle. Ah – but I bet the Christian will say it’s a demon or Satan I am experiencing? How does one differentiate or KNOW the God or Goddess one is experiencing? How do you know your experience isn’t that of Satan? Muslims experience Allah, Hindus experience Shiva and Kali Ma (amongst many others), the Catholic experiences Mary … so what is the common denominator within all these experiences because they can’t ALL be right if we are to believe there is only ONE God? The common denominator is the human consciousness and it’s ability to create imaginative experiences.

There are no gods outside of the human brain. These gods have no power beyond what our minds give them. They have no properties beyond what man assigns them and the experiences each person feels, regardless of the name attached to the deity, is one and the same – as physical reaction of desire stimulated from an indoctrinated belief. Such God experiences can be duplicated without the injection of God, or the insertion of any god. Man is the “god” he thinks is beyond himself. There are no anthropomorphic deities concerned about your virginity, your sexual orientation, whether or not you honored your mother or father, or care about which God or Goddess you do or do not worship. Gods are fictional characters just like every other fictional being the human mind has constructed, except often times possessing fewer moral and redeeming qualities. Spiderman is more worthy of worship then the JC Gods! Damn it - I am more worthy of worship then the JC God, so why not worship me!! I am a much better Mistress LOL

Brighid


Brighid

WJ

Koy, Free...!

Well, I'm a bit brain dead but I'll try to reduce my thoughts to a sort of synopsis or essence of the consciousness argument. Also, I went back thru, even to a few weeks back, just to see if there were other stones left unturned. I do wish to thank Free for his/her candid-ness on the lack of 'absolute' 'epistemy' if you will relative to this issue of having or holding a particular belief [system] (atheism v. theism).

And to that end, of course, I share Samhain's 'existential absurdity' when it comes to answering the ultimate questions of why [or how-ex nihilo/reductionism] one exists on the planet viz. metaphysics and higher levels of consciousness, from nothing (aka, being and nothingness). Also, aside from the phenomenon of subjectivity or faith, which is all part of consciousness, I would say that Snatch's earlier question surrounds 'faith'. Faith in the unseen. But that goes back to 'what is one expecting to see', anyway? Is consciousness 'objective'? What is metaphysics? Does metaphysics exist? If God were to appear before man how do you think you would know it (in theory) anyway?

All of that, I think, returns us to the logic behind conscious existence. Personally, I make the logical inference or 'leap' when I conclude that sentience, (which of course is part of consciousness and seems to be the driving force behind the notion of Godhead itself-unless you belief Jesus existed) which in turns results in us caring enough to even debate the question, enters the scene in the evolutionary process. And all that leads us to question why should we even care at all? Why aren't we perfectly logical? Why aren't we perfectly sentient?

In another thread Samhain and I looked at 'extremes' wondering how perhaps a perfectly objective logical being might look at existence and realized we are not about that. We are cursed with sentience, as contained or comprising our conscious existence. Why?

I believe, for one, it is completely accurate, to say thru logic that because the origins of consciousness is unknown (thru the tools of logic and phycisl science) that statements such as Free's 'it is not absolute' can even exist logically and/or coherently as a plausible conclusion. I say conclusion because I mean it is relative to the human condition.

So far that's kind of an abreviated synopsis of the conscious existence argument. My question though is relative to volitional existence and ethics. If, thru 'logical existence', a stalemate follows, there remains a faith or a hope in 'science and logic's' discoveries of the origins of conscious out of nothing. Or, there is a choice to 'believe' there was always something, it is just that thru cause and effect we evolved from that something. But what caused the something? See, we all know these 'metaphysical' arguments are circular and lack proof.

So, when we discuss metaphysical existence
(consciousness) viz. the existence of a physical being God (with attributes existing outside the domain of logical existence), then just like in physical science, mystery exists. Cosmological mystery. Consciousness mystery. (In Christianity, logically, thru Jesus' existence, some of the mystery is solved.)

Is that somewhat of a summary behind the notion of the 'existence' argument from the most recent comments about logic?

I think the question remains, if human's cannot completely figure out their own existence, how can we use logic to explain another Being's existence? Or, how can atheism or theism be absolute?

Logically, a suspended belief system seems more 'rational'. Yet, I am an irrational man. How is this minor point logically reconciled?

Walrus

brighid

There is a difference between believing in the possible existence of SOMETHING, rather then believing in a specific deified entity that possesses contradictory qualities and strangely resembles it’s “creations” or creators. SOMETHING may or may not exist. At this juncture of our scientific and intellectual evolution we are unable to prove this something’s existence or non-existence. But we are able to come to highly educated and probable conclusions about the existence of such beings as Jesus, Allah, etc. Their actual likelihood is ZERO! Now that does not preclude SOMETHING, but it evidence thus far indicates the stories found in the Bible are incorrect historically and scientifically and therefore lack the extra ordinary foundation necessary to prove an extra ordinary claim. They lack the evidence to prove a paltry claim and something as significant as the potential existence of a God, a God with omni max qualities REQUIRES stronger evidence.

I feel it is fool hearty to attempt to define things in absolutes. As our knowledge increases we must refine and even sometimes redefine what we know. Some things may remain constant such as the role gravity has open all things, but what we know about it’s affects will change with time and the evolution of our knowledge and technology. Perhaps with that evolution will come a better answer to the actual existence of SOMETHING that may be able to be defined as “God!”

Until we are able to experience and test the attributes or existence of SOMETHING, we can believe in this SOMETHING but we cannot in fact say it IS, or that it is absolutely NOT. We can say it is NOT with what we have and we can determine that specific entities (such as Allah and Jesus) are not what they claim to be. In this respect we define atheism. Can something more exist? Sure it can. Something is not Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Shiva or Shakti because the alleged evidence they have left for their existence is sorely, sorely lacking - therefore a lack of belief in God(s)! Nothing more and nothing less.

And just as it is irrational (and immoral) to convict a man with weak or zero evidence to prove his guilt or innocence, I will not place my convictions with something that has thus far poorly demonstrated It’s existence.

Brighid

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

WJ

bri!

"And just as it is irrational (and immoral) to convict a man with weak or zero evidence to prove his guilt or innocence, I will not place my convictions with something that has thus far poorly demonstrated It’s existence."

Can you give me an example of this 'evidence' as required for logical proof, in determining whether or not to convict or judge a person's innocence? Can you relate it to your conscious existence?

Too, you said you were not able to 'experience' the metaphysical force of a God in your consciousness (using my interpretation of course). How do you *know* this?

Walrus