Evidence For God's Existence
Offline What is the evidence for God's existence?
Answer: "Self-awareness"
Self-awareness is consciousness aware of itself. And what this means is that to be self-aware is to be consciously aware that I am aware that I am aware that I am aware and so forth ad infinitum. There you have it. Self-awareness is consciousness that is simultaneously one mind and many (i.e. infinite). Of course, the conventional term we acribe to infinite mind is "God." This is the proof that infinite mind (God) exists and it is self-evident.
It is written that only "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalms 53:1) And now you know why. Because only a fool would deny something that is so obviously self-evident. Don't be foolish. Wake-up from your deep slumber and acknowledge your true Self. 
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Well, Mongo, when you stop attempting to use flimsy chicanery, I'll start showing you more respect again. You've earned the disrespect you've garnered.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
This isn't so much a demonstration of an infinite consciousness as much as it is simply a demonstration of the human mind's ability to understand multiple orders of agency.
For example, we can do the exact same thought experiment while examining two external agents. Let's say a fox and a rabbit. A rabbit doesn't want to be eaten by a fox. We can see that the rabbit sees the fox, but does the rabbit see that the fox can see the rabbit? Does the rabbit also see that the fox sees that the rabbit sees that the fox can see the rabbit?
All the "self-awareness" model is doing is casting the thinker as multiple agents, which is something we do to ourselves all the time when we talk in the third person. I'm me talking, but I'm also the me I'm talking about. The me I'm talking about is synonymous with the me talking, therefore both mes are doing the same thing. Therefore, I'm aware of the me I'm talking about, and the me I'm talking about is aware of the me that is talking. Therefore, I'm aware of me being aware of me being aware of me being aware, etc etc forever.. of me.
This is no different than a rabbit seeing a fox seeing a rabbit seeing a fox seeing a rabbit seeing a fox, etc. It's just taking the same situation and moving it to the conceptual rather than the physical realm.
If this infinite loop of awareness gimmick proves that we possess a single mind but an infinite number of minds simultaneously, it also proves that one fox looking at one rabbit is simultaneously an infinite number of foxes looking at an infinite number of rabbits.
So like I was saying:
I knew you would know that I knew you knew I would know this argument was a word game.
But word games are fun. =]
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
First off - there were three questions there - none of which you answered.
Second off - the only "concept" I have "basically grasped" arising from your refusal to apply the correct sense to the words you use are that you are either semi-literate or intentionally vague. If the latter then you are engaging in something less than debate and I suggest are the only person impressed by your own rhetoric. Religion, by its nature, encourages people to abhor truth rather than seek it - it's one of the big lies it entails. When this is applied to semantic definition the result is a perceived free rein on the part of its subscribers to talk any old gibberish and assert that it makes sense and, when challenged to talk sense, then believe that the further gibberish they speak constitutes debate. This is of course stupidity of the highest order, contemptuous of intelligence and arrogant in the extreme. But then, how can a theist be anything else? When you set your stall up as a person for whom reality means less than half thought-out platitudinal assertion based on nothing more profound than the inaccurate musings of iron-age dilettants who were scientific ignoramuses even by the standards of their day, then you are hardly giving yourself a fighting chance in the area of reaching conclusion about anything, let alone elucidating it.
Your last two sentences sum up your confusion, and graphically display your arrogant assertion that you are making sense when your own words prove the opposite. Consciousness is not infinite self-reflection. I've checked the dictionary and you're wrong. Also, you might like to ponder on the semantic implications of equating two identical phrases "alpha and omega" and "the beginning and the end" (ie. finite in both directions) with "ever present now". Either apologise for that load of nonsense and admit you're talking through your arse or resign yourself to communicating with an ever decreasing audience until you're left babbling to yourself.
More or less your normal status, I would imagine, based on your contributions here. But at least here, amongst atheists, you have got a pointer to where your delusion has led you with regard to your thinking skills - or lack of them. Amongst the religious fraternity (where speaking gibberish is defended as a right) few or none would have the decency to help you out on that one. I suggest you check out the true meaning of self-reflection and then apply it. Who knows - maybe it's not too late to find the actual meanings behind the vocabulary you have acquired and return to the real world.
I won't hold my breath though ...
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Great Quotes:
"When did I realize I was God? Well, when one day I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself." ~ Archeopteryx
( I added the missing word, > one < )
Atheism Books.
You're correct that in the Vugate it is "caritas," but the Vulgate is a Latin translation, not Greek. In the Greek the actual term is agape (meaning worhipful love).
Also, the term "mirror" is a better translation that "glass" in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
So, let's substitute "mirror" for "glass" ("mirror" is the metaphor I actually employed to convey my point).
"For now we see in a mirror darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12
Now, let's put it all together.
Consciousness is infinite self-reflection. And it is all-prevasive. (This is the reason for the "many worlds and many minds." It's the emanation of the divine light - "infinite self-reflection." ). So the consciousness with which an individual perceives himself is the same consciouness that he and another share when they perceive each other. When the individual truly recognizes his "self" in the other then he will obtain true knowledge - "gnosis". Gnosis or spiritual-knowledge is interchangeable with love because to truly love is to know the self which we all share. This is the esoteric intepretation of 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Incidentally, in India, they have a common greeting "namaste" which literally means "may the divine in me recognize or worship the divine in you."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
According to Strong's Concordance, you are making this up. Ancient mirrors were made of steel, not glass.
It means glass.
Are there other words you want to insert into the Bible to make it say what you want t to say?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
One finite rabbit.
One finite fox.
One finite self.
This "proof" basically amounts to a pointless platitude.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Why worship consciousness ? It sucks ! It hurts. The Pleasure is a lie ! Make the best of it, said a Buddha !
((((( ( ( ( "the Cake is a lie" !
Atheism Books.
Only you aren't aware of many minds you are aware of one, and the mind you are aware of isn't infinite. You might be recursively aware that you are aware that you are aware..., but in practice that recursion does not extend indefinitely, and just being recursively aware of one awareness doesn't translate into a plurality of awarenesses.
So, I'm God now? After all it is my (who ever does the thinking) self awareness that I'm aware of.
Points for the originality of this argument definitely.
And the lesson is , something IS god and something IS NOT god ? So what is the point of this? Oh, the definition of G O D ..... Seems we need to go back to the beginning to the definition. Otherwise, this is a meaningless exchange of babel .....
Would someone please fucking define god once and for all ....
SHIT CHRIST, One more time , what the fuck ain't GAWED ?
Sorry , wasn't funny
Do flying birds take flying for granted ? Yes and No.
Do you ?
Atheism Books.
Dammit.
I really thought DG was going to pull the bazooka out. I only have the shoulder strength for one bazooka shot a day, and it's kind of a pain in the ass to go all the way to China to borrow it from him...
I already hiked over there and fired off one round on somebody earlier. Someone else is going to have to pick up my slack.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
"Molotov" Rum Bombs , better than nothing, Hey, throw what ya got !
Let's not. Points conveyed through metaphors based on intentional semantic contortion aren't worth shit.
See what I mean? Semantic contortion. And stupid - it makes a simple, if presumptuous, assertion into meaningless drivel.
Let's not. Anything constructed of bullshit is bound to be bullshit, just bigger.
No it's not. I've now checked several dictionaries and you're still talking crap every time you say this.
If you mean "pervasive" then you are simply stating that your faulty definition of consciousness insinuates inself into everything. It doesn't. It insinuates itself into this thread with depressing frequency, but that's about as pervasive as it gets.
Why "so"? This platitude cannot be a conclusion based on anything you have said previously.
Having hopped into platitude we now deftly hop back into bullshit again. An individual can recognise common attributes with other people. He might even feel empathy with them on that basis. What he has most patently not done however is to have recognised himself in others. We use that expression in English as a euphemism for empathy, nothing more. Pretending anything more is dishonest, or thick. In your case I actually suspect both are true.
I've checked with my Indian colleague here at work and he finds your grasp of Sanskrit hilarious. The term "namaste" means "I get/reach out to you" and is accompanied by a hand gesture that symbolises this action. It has no religious meaning beyond that which one might care to ascribe to it.
You could do us all a huge favour by shutting up now, paisley. You've obviously reached the limit of your ability to think and have begun to resort to fabrication and dishonesty in order to promote a notion that was just stupid to begin with. Fools seldom heed such advice however, so I'll pre-empt your further contributions by calling you a liar and bullshitter now.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Evidence For God's Existence
> etc -----------------------> ETC
*
*
*
* * *
*
Reptilian Complex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_brain The prayer goes how again, GOD is love ? *
...... whatever , Love is the Law , all is god , ONE.
Atheism Books.
"Cogito ergo dei"
I really can't even summon the will power to try and think down to this level and show why this is such bullshit.
Well evil religion , think of the kids , they need your wisdom ....
I really can't summon the will power to explain why that is one of the worst bits of pseudo-Latin I've seen in ages. "I think therefore when/where god" ???????
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I'd like to provide evidence for the existence of water. How can I perform such a feat? I will take you to 'water' be it in a water line, river, ocean, or gas station fridge.... and show it to you. WAMMO! 'Proof for the existence of water'!
You don't need to provide 'evidence' for the mere existence of something that actually fucking exists! And if it be a new discovery… just fuckin’ look at it.
How much time and how many wasted words have been spent on chasing after the wind of ‘God’? And all based on psychological safety!
I wasted too many years with that shit. PRAISE THE LORD that’s over with! HAIL SATAN!
Have fun, Mr. Theist… you’ve got quite a chore ahead of you if you wanna save this Rational World. I know what you should do… you should prey on the weak minded and guilt ridden. Oh, wait… you’ve already figured that one out. Nevermind… keep up the good work! The world is such a ‘better place’ because of your glorious ‘Gospel’ that tells everyone that doesn’t believe your horse shit that they’re deceived, blind, stupid, and on this site… IRRATIONAL? Wow!
(Jesus Christ, that felt good. Thanks for tolerating my emotional rant. I don’t really intend to be bitter but Fundy’s have a knack of annoying me more than any other form of human being on the planet. Buuuuut, I like to be annoyed and pissy so I continue to visit them!!!!)
ZENO
www.obscenitease.com
Like I said I couldn't be arsed.......... this whole thread is a waste of effort. The OP is so absurd its laughable.
Ok for the kids then...
Indeed.
errr no it does not. Self awareness is as you just stated youself: i.e. being aware of ones own consciousness. THATS ALL.
You will have to run that one past me again. How the hell did you get to this conclusion?
So now you have jumped from one erronious conclusion about multiple minds to another equally absurd conclusion about INFINTE minds. Your confusing the infinite possabilities of a mind with the mind being INFINTE. The human mind can think of an infinte number of things. For example the concept "number" has infinite variations all of which we are capable in principle of comprehending BUT this does not make our minds infinite and more than you aledged infinite regress does.
It is also written:
"You are a fucking moron" (evil religion, rrs forum)
Only a fool would dream up such hogwash.
What is self evident is that you are an idiot.
No, it means mirror (and, as you said, the mirrors of the ancient world were constructed out of metal whereas the mirrors in the 1600's where constructed out or glass). You obviously did not read my post. The term mirror is the better translation.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley, as you're claiming to have evidence that will prove the existence of God, I feel compelled to introduce you to a concept you'll need to be familiar with in order to test the veracity of your God theory:
The Scientific Method
Unfortunately, as you'll see, you've already run into some common problems with the way you've presented your argument, so you'll need to re-adjust it after you've finished reading this in order to establish a proper hypothesis and make it testable. I'm going to cheat a bit here and copy/paste what I've already written about this subject in a different thread below, both because I want to save time and because I feel I articulated myself very well:
The scientific method is the time and experience-hardened process of experimentation that scientists have used throughout history to explore our world, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe and all of their underlying mechanics to the best of their ability. The scientific method is responsible for spawning every piece of technology our civilization takes advantage of, establishing the physical laws and principles of the universe and uncovering everything from the origins of life to the origins of the universe itself.
The scientific method employs a number of well-established golden rules to ensure fair testing, accurate results and, most importantly, the production of practical applications:
All conclusions must be based on evidence. Conclusions that are presupposed, and then have evidence made to fit them, are neither scientific or valid.
Objective measurements are expected to be made; guesswork establishes nothing
All testing must be blind
Sample numbers must be sufficiently large
Controls and variables must be established and made obvious
Sources of information must be cited, and said information must be verifiable, reliable and backed-up by it's own evidence.
Fact and opinion are not the same thing, and one should be made clearly separate from the other.
Keeping these rules in mind, the scientific follows a rigorous and linear procedure in order to establish a claim as a valid scientific theory:
A problem is identified (often one that a researcher has an interest in: for example, 'Where did humans come from?')
A hypothesis is proposed that the researcher thinks may resolve the problem (for example, 'I think humans were created by a magical deity,')
A prediction is made to explain how the researcher's hypothesis works (for example, 'I predict that the magical deity creates life on a whim, out of nothing, so we will see that animals have no relation to each other both at a DNA level and in the fossil record')
Testing of the prediction is then rigorously done, often taking-up many years worth of work. If the data and experimentation proves the prediction wrong, the researcher will need to start all over again with another hypothesis (for example, 'the fossil record and DNA evidence show that animal species all descend from common lineages, so my hypothesis needs to be changed because the evidence does not show it is correct'), but this is not a negative thing; it simply means he is opening-up new channels of insight (for example, 'my hypothesis is now that humans descended from an animal, like all other species') that can now be explored for their own veracity.
A prediction that passes the researcher's tests is then submitted to publication and subjected to peer review. Experts throughly examine it for any mistakes.
If peer review is successful, the results of the tests are published in a scientific journal.
Other experts, reading the publication, will then try to replicate the researcher's results / observations. If they cannot be replicated, the claim will be discarded as erroneous.
The claim must also be shown to be falsifiable (that is, the claim can possibly be proven false if certain conditions are proven factual in another test with stronger results)
After all of the prior criterion are met, the researcher's work is considered a scientific theory (the highest level of establishment possible for a scientific claim).
So, looking back at your opening statement ('What is the evidence for God's existence?'), we see that you've already failed to meet the guidelines of legitimate scientific inquiry by slipping-in a presupposition (the existence of God) as your Problem. This is completely improper; you need to be addressing a specific phenomena that still requires explanation (for example, 'How does consciousness work?'), and then propose a hypothesis. The problem cannot be, 'How can I prove God exists?', anymore than Newton's theory could've begun with, 'How can I prove gravity exists?'. The mechanism is something that is revealed, not assumed.
After you've chosen a proper problem you want to tackle, you move on to formulate a hypothesis about it. Now you're free to bring your God idea to the table ('I hypothesize that consciousness is the byproduct of an omnipotent super-deity,'). Note, however, that you'll quickly gain an appreciation for avoiding more absurd hypotheses as possible solutions to a problem after you've had to go back to the drawing board a few times because the testing of said hypotheses proves confounding.
The next step, prediction, presents more hurdles that you've yet to overcome. In what way do you predict God would solve whatever problem you propose to tackle? How can we observe/test this prediction? Outlining this is key, because the next step afterward - actually making the tests and experiments to check the validity of the hypothesis - hinges on there being a prediction that is falsifiable.
Try going back and re-constituting what you're trying to hammer a theory out of, Paisley. Pick a specific problem that is unexplained, insert your god hypothesis, and state your predictions about how God answers the problem. Only after you do that can we go to the trouble of testing it, scrutinizing it, attempting to replicate it and, if it successfully runs the gauntlet that we demand of all our theories, publishing it as a legitimate fact (...though not a 'proof', either way. Proof is a term that is strictly mathematical).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
What's the point Kevin? His post preceding yours proves he's a thick. And too thick to know it, obviously.
Can we have an intelligence quota rule on this website maybe? You know, anyone who proves themselves (remarkably quickly in paisley's case) to be just plain stupid be sent to a thicks' forum where they can talk bullshit to each other and not waste anyone else's time? Theist or atheist - it doesn't matter - if they're thick they go to the thickies' sin bin forum. It would make navigating this site a whole lot easier!
I mean, it's not like giving them their inch is depriving them much of the yards they take up.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
But then we'd run out of chew toys, Nord!
wtf....?
I am not aware that I am not aware that I am not aware that I am not aware.... ad nauseum....
Look at me! I'm philosophizing!!!!!
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
What is the evidence for the Snarfwidget's existence?
Answer: "Purpleness"
Purpleness is the combination of blue and red ad infinitum (latin buzzword). A multiplicity of shades and hues in infinite (buzz word) variety. There we have it, purple is as purple does. Of course (appeal to popularity) the conventional attribute we arbitrarily ascribe to the Snarfwidget is purpleness. This is proof that the infinite purple (the Snarfwidget) exists and is self evident.
It is written that "I am the Walrus, I am the Walrus, I am the Egg Man, koo koo kachoo" Wake up and smell the coffee, and perhaps a nice cheese danish.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Paisley hasn't come back since I replied.
I think I Panzershreck'd him.
Sigh. Paisley, I'm a student of classics. I was relating the Greek word to the Latin word, not confusing them.
αγαπη isn't as simple as "worshipful love", but nice try. "Charity" is still a decent translation, as would be "manly love" if you catch my Greek drift. "Delight" would be my personal favourite, but it misses the implied condescention. One "husbands" a wife (that is you take care of her like you take care of an animal). Caritas has a very similar meaning. I doubt it's being used to refer to Isis ("Isis is patient, Isis is kind" seems a bit weird for the new testament).
There's nothing confusing about someone looking into an obscured mirror, Paisley. It's the rest of it. It's vague. From my reading, it means that when "the perfection comes" we'll be more knowledgeable, or have perfect knowledge. Taking it beyond that to mean an interpretation of the consciousness of God is stretching.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
self-awareness is consciousness aware of itself...
wow where do i start
What is consciousness?
Are you trying to say you were aware of your self when you wrote this? I'm pretty sure you weren't.
This is nonsense.
bodhi
That's correct, sadly all rest you said isn't even logical.
Ecrasez l'infame!
Exactly, this explains the state of your present ignorance. If you were aware that consciousness implies infinite self-reflection, then you would never have questioned the reality of infinite mind.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Maybe I missed something here.. but what exactly is an "infinite mind"? Is it merely "a mind that has the ability conjure up ad infinitum thoughts" or "that relies on them"--or something else?
Christian Science's version of the argument from ignorance - "I don't understand how the mind works so it must be God!"
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Sorry Paisley, this just doesn't make sense... where does the conclusion come from?
You've basically said 1) We are infinitely aware of ourselves, therefore 2) god exists. WHAT?
I think this is really more of a proof for existence existing, consciousness existing, or something like that, but I can't stretch the statements enough to make them link to the conclusion that god exists. Of course, god is assumed to be an omniscient being in this case.
How does one being's consciousness or infinite consciousness prove another beings existence? And if it does, then who is responsible for God's consciousness?
Obviously this doesn't make sense. It reminds me of the arguments used for God popping into existence himself, but the universe not being able to. In this case the questions are:
-If God has consciousness, what does his consciousness prove? According to your logic it must point to some greater being?
-If God's consciousness does not prove the existence of another being/creator outside itself, why must ours?
-If we need to invoke a complex creator for our own consciousness, why doesn't god?
Basically the main question repeated here is: Why must humans have some extra/outside creator, but God must not? Why can't this process of evolution be the thing that popped into existence, instead of "God" popping into existence? To me they hold the same likeliness of occuring, and yet we are here with no evidence to point much to either one, but obviously none to point to God.
Since Paisley rarely actually answers questions and if he does it is with more unproved assertions I'm surprised this thread suddenly gained new life. I still haven't seen the evidence for:
1-"There you have it. Self-awareness is consciousness that is simultaneously one mind and many (i.e. infinite)."
2-"This is the proof that infinite mind (God) exists and it is self-evident."
3-"Self-awareness also entails infinite self-reflection which is interchangeable with infinite mind."
4-"It's called self-evidence."
5-"Self-awareness is infinite self-reflection right NOW. It's not temporal, but eternal."
6-" Consciousness is infinite self-reflection. It's the "alpha and the omega," the "beginning and the end," the "ever-present now." "
7-"Consciousness is infinite self-reflection. And it is all-prevasive. (This is the reason for the "many worlds and many minds." It's the emanation of the divine light - "infinite self-reflection." ). So the consciousness with which an individual perceives himself is the same consciouness that he and another share when they perceive each other. When the individual truly recognizes his "self" in the other then he will obtain true knowledge - "gnosis". Gnosis or spiritual-knowledge is interchangeable with love because to truly love is to know the self which we all share. This is the esoteric intepretation of 1 Corinthians 13:12."
8-"If you were aware that consciousness implies infinite self-reflection, then you would never have questioned the reality of infinite mind."
So many assertions and nothing but unsupported claims as evidence. Round and round in an infinite circle of rhetoric based on self-evidence. Eventually even a spinning top gives in to gravity.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Theists, when faced with the stipulation that they must do better than assertion, rarely last beyond three statements. The first two are normally opportunity enough for the rationalist to respond with proof that there is no better alternative than logic, and the third is normally the theist's parting shot (invariably as stupid as what preceded it, but said with more venom - this apparently, after all, is how christians got where they are).
Paisley was just a bit thicker than most.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
What the heck does "this apparently, after all, is . . ." mean? It hurts my head. Then again, I am a theist and therefore am easily confused.
I always thought it was either "it is, after all" or "apparently, it is." Tying the two phrases together just makes the phrase wordy and confusing.
I apparently, after all, am confused.
I, after all, apparently am confused.
Apparently, after all, I am confused.
After all, apparently I am confused.
Why not "apparently I am confused" or "after all, I am confused"? Are Christians "where they are" because "they apparently used this same method," or because "after all, they did use this same method."
Heh.. just ignore this post, it adds nothing to the thread.
It must be late where you are.
Ok, so I get it that there is an infinite regression of being aware that you are aware that you are aware that you are aware...... But we are still only talking about one finite mind here, not some 'infinite mind" that is a god. Could Paisley perhaps explain the jump from one finite mind aware it is aware it is aware, to an infinite mind Paisley considers to be God? Without the connection between those two concepts I feel that Paisley is saying:
1) Mind is aware it is aware it is aware.....
2) ???
3) Profit.....I mean God
And then end the opening post with random bible quote calling us fools and then tell us to wake up to our "true Self" thanks to the fact that it is self-evident that Paisley is right. Apparently it is so self-evident and obvious that only Paisley gets it.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Evidence For God's Existence
HATE !
Atheism Books.
We are self aware? Thanks for pointing that out, I'd put in a word to CNN too, they might not be aware that they are self aware. But, you are wrong, our self awareness is evidence of Thor. There will be those here trying to convince you of his noodly appendage FSM, but they are victims of drugged up meatballs.
Before you go proclaiming your specific magical super hero in the sky, I would reccomend you look up the following.
1. Bentrand Russard's "Teapot"
2. Ocham's Razor
3. Law of probability
For starters. It may give you insight as to the flawed and futile logic of naked assertions.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Too funny Brian37 ... and wise advise.
Hey Mr P , Self aware is PAIN , who did this to me? , god dammit .....
The cake is a lie ....
Atheism Books.
I'm surprised that this is still a topic.
Anyway, I think I should point out that because something is reflexive, doesn't make it infinitely so.
Consciousness is consciousness of itself. Then there is a period. There is no further supra-awareness that allows for a third order of cognition. It stops with being aware of awareness. Any further introspection leads to the realization that we are aware of awareness; at best you are cognizant of meta-awareness - but knowing and being aware are not the same thing. There is no necessary loop.
When Sartre asserted the second order of awareness, he did so as though it were a well known fact without much need for explanation (the same guy that wrote a 50 page dissertation on the word 'no'). He also did that as a part of his construction of human freedom; which was a key reason he thought God impossible.
If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre
It would appear that you have grasped the thrust of the argument - namely, that consciounsess entails infinite self-reflection. The infinite does not exist as a physical actuality, but only as a mental abstraction. However, the infinite does actually exist in the form of consciousness itself and we have first-person evidence of this.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
How much wronger do you have to be before you realise you are embarrassing yourself?
Consciousness "entails" nothing that is infinite. Consciousness is a product of the brain. The brain dies.
Self-reflection cannot be infinite. Self-reflection is the ability to think about oneself. Both the ability and the self die with the brain.
The infinite exists as a physical actuality. Learn physics.
There is no "form" of consciousness in which infinity "exists". The notion tortures logic and linguistic meaning to the point that it marks the person out who claims it as a person with a huge disdain for reality and basic intelligence, even their own.
There is no "first-person" evidence that refutes any of the above. If there is, then set it out here so that others can see what you mean, since you are the "first person" to make such ludicrous claims.
Remember - unsupported assertions are probably enough to keep delusional people content but fail completely in rational debate. If you can present your assertions with evidence you can begin to debate, otherwise you are engaging only in a form of verbal self-gratification that is embarrassing to witness.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Running with Nordmann,
Paisley, let's assume you are correct as you wrote: "consciousness entails infinite self-reflection. The infinite does not exist as a physical actuality, but only as a mental abstraction. However, the infinite does actually exist in the form of consciousness itself and we have first-person evidence of this." /////
Now what ? How would this improve the "world view", of who ever ?
Why the assumption that consciousness always existed anyway ? What difference does it make ? Some kind of glory ???????
What is there to this some "higher power" thingy ? What ya do with that ?
Atheism Books.
In what way do these sentences make up a reply to anything I said? In what way do these words re-assert your argument? You have just typed a few sentences about part of the topic, but keep dodging the points being made against your conclusion... Please explain!
Yeah, please Mr. P, I want to know your god .... I just hate to think I got GOD wrong !
People get nailed to the cross for such mistakes .... and glory ....
Geezz this is confusing
I must know things
I must get saved !
Atheism Books.
Don't you love the argument from personal incredulity masquerading as a definition?
"I don't know jack about how consciousness and the mind works so it must be God", says Paisley.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Very few theologians dare address this phenomenon - that the most vociferous and enthusiastic defenders of theism are by an incredibly huge margin unbelievably thick people. This alone should be an alert in itself that maybe the whole shabang is suspect, even to the most blinkeredly delusional person with half a brain.
Küng has raised it, but only to support his rather silly notion that science has "borrowed" the intelligent people temporarily and then, when it proves god exists, they and the thickies can be re-united (those who strayed into atheism thus following god's plan in some weird way, so that's all right then. They'll be forgiven as god was only having them on in any case). When it comes to discussion of the infinite and the religious mindset, wishful thinking lays chief claim to the description!
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy