Proof Of God - Conscienciousness

[exminister]

I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more.

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

 

[musterion]

I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more.

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

Argument from consciousness

 

[Jonahdog]

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

An argument from incredulity?

I think therefore I am.
I don't understand how that is possible.
Therefore GOD.

Sorry, but without further evidence, it's all chemistry and physics.

 

[chrysostom]

there is no proof
there are only reasonable explanations
and
they are based on what you want
so
the ultimate question
is
what do you want?

do you want an explanation?

many don't

 

[exminister]

An argument from incredulity?

I think therefore I am.
I don't understand how that is possible.
Therefore GOD.

Sorry, but without further evidence, it's all chemistry and physics.

Reads like a pass.

 

[Truster]

The scriptures are emphatic that the man who denies the existence of Elohim is a fool. This is affirmed by the fact that He has placed the knowledge of Himself in each and every person and that His Almighty power is witnesses by the creation.

A person receives sufficient revelation to condemn himself.

 

[quip]

I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

No, its entirely subjective. I could be a bizarre figment of your imagination or vice versa. :idunno:

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate.

Who's doing the asking? Prove to me that you exist ...then we both may put this issue to rest.

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

Clear sense of being?

Are you a mind, body, some odd commixture of both?

If you can't even prove yourself as existing, wherefore the idea of an external existing God?

 

[Jonahdog]

Reads like a pass.

Not a pass. Your argument is that you simply do not/cannot understand how your sense of yourself, your consciousness, could arise. Your answer suggests a god, no doubt the god of the Bible.
My understanding is that our consciousness, while not understood in detail, arises through chemistry and physics. No need for a deity of any sort.

My recent reading suggests that there are other animals that exhibit that sense of self that leads you to your belief. Some dolphins, elephants, great apes appear to have self awareness. A knowledge that they are individuals and different from others of their kind, what does their god look like?

 

[musterion]

The scriptures are emphatic that the man who denies the existence of Elohim is a fool. This is affirmed by the fact that He has placed the knowledge of Himself in each and every person and that His Almighty power is witnesses by the creation.

A person receives sufficient revelation to condemn himself.

That's pretty much it, according to Romans ch. 1.

 

[PureX]

I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more.

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

The crux of the argument as I see it would be that nature has manifested transcendent expressions of existence: from matter; life, and then through life; consciousness. Thus proving that such existential transcendence is both real and natural.

Most common definitions of "God" fall into exactly this kind of transcendent existential state, or 'being'. And thereby the existence of life, and of consciousness offer real evidence for the further transcendent state called "God".

Also, that matter is 'conscious' in itself illustrates the existence of universal conscious 'being'.

 

[Truster]

That's pretty much it, according to Romans ch. 1.

The fact you recognised the scriptures in what I posted lifts my spirit.

 

[Puppet]

Ha ha ha, there's now proof at HTTP://www.Theomatics.com or Google Ivan panin. Ha ha ha enjoy the proofs.

 

[exminister]

No, its entirely subjective. I could be a bizarre figment of your imagination or vice versa. :idunno:



Who's doing the asking? Prove to me that you exist ...then we both may put this issue to rest.



Clear sense of being?

Are you a mind, body, some odd commixture of both?

If you can't even prove yourself as existing, wherefore the idea of an external existing God?

When I was young I could fancifully entertain such ideas.
However I have live long enough to see this is not so. I have seen death, dying, suffering for which if this is just some dream of mine I would not set it up like this.
I have had a number of close friends and family members. I see baring mental illness or drugs we view our sense of self in much the same way. Society works just because of this.

If you are cut do you not bleed? I do.
We are far more similar than your questions would indicate. Science certainly shows how similar we really are.

 

[exminister]

Not a pass. Your argument is that you simply do not/cannot understand how your sense of yourself, your consciousness, could arise. Your answer suggests a god, no doubt the god of the Bible.
My understanding is that our consciousness, while not understood in detail, arises through chemistry and physics. No need for a deity of any sort.

My recent reading suggests that there are other animals that exhibit that sense of self that leads you to your belief. Some dolphins, elephants, great apes appear to have self awareness. A knowledge that they are individuals and different from others of their kind, what does their god look like?

The same God.

You are jumping to such a conclusion as well. There is nothing in chemistry or physics that even hints at the creation/development of conscientiousness. I have never even heard of a possible path to it. Science fiction has entertained robots gaining conscientiousness. But it's essentially presented as a magical moment.

It is beyond the physical.

 

[aikido7]

I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more.

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

Your "standing in wonder" is a good example of how both atheists and theists marvel at Creation. Whether or not a person is a believer or an unbeliever, they can still both say "WOW !!!" before the cosmos.

Although the "think, therefore I am" is the basis of all human thought, there are some trenchant criticisms of the idea:

There have been a number of criticisms of the argument. One concerns the nature of the step from "I am thinking" to "I exist." The contention is that this is a syllogistic inference, for it appears to require the extra premise: "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists", a premise Descartes did not justify. In fact, he conceded that there would indeed be an extra premise needed, but denied that the cogito is a syllogism (see below).

To argue that the cogito is not a syllogism, one may call it self-evident that "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists". In plain English, it seems incoherent to actually doubt that one exists and is doubting. Strict skeptics maintain that only the property of 'thinking' is indubitably a property of the meditator (presumably, they imagine it possible that a thing thinks but does not exist). This countercriticism is similar to the ideas of Jaakko Hintikka, who offers a nonsyllogistic interpretation of cogito ergo sum. He claimed that one simply cannot doubt the proposition "I exist". To be mistaken about the proposition would mean something impossible: I do not exist, but I am still wrong.

Perhaps a more relevant contention is whether the "I" to which Descartes refers is justified. In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue. Apparently, the first scholar who raised the problem was Pierre Gassendi. He "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought". In other words, "the only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present".[15] The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks." In other words, the "I" in "I think" could be similar to the "It" in "It is raining." David Hume claims that the philosophers who argue for a self that can be found using reason are confusing "similarity" with "identity". This means that the similarity of our thoughts and the continuity of them in this similarity do not mean that we can identify ourselves as a self but that our thoughts are similar.[citation needed]

I cut and pasted this from Wikipedia.

Unfortunately all of the rational and logical "proofs" of God's existence have shown them to be lacking in any "smoking gun" evidence.

The human mind, being limited or finite, cannot apprehend the infinite God. We can only offer our interpretations of God just as did the ancient authors as well.

In my opinion this is because the experience of the divine is not rational or logical. It can only be indicated by metaphoric language.

 

[chrysostom]

the best proof is entropy

the second best is a necessary uncaused cause

the third is man

 

[PureX]

The same God.

You are jumping to such a conclusion as well. There is nothing in chemistry or physics that even hints at the creation/development of conscientiousness. I have never even heard of a possible path to it. Science fiction has entertained robots gaining conscientiousness. But it's essentially presented as a magical moment.

It is beyond the physical.

We could inter-relate two discs, a stick, and a flat rectangle in an almost endless number of ways. And yet, when we inter-relate them in one certain way, they become a simply cart that could move a mountain. It's an example of "gestalt": when the whole so greatly exceeds the possibilities of the sum of the parts.

There would be no reason to ever presume that a specific arrangement of such shaped objects could somehow us the ability to move mountains. And yet one specific arrangement can. By what mechanism has this transcendency occurred? No one knows.

Just as there is nothing inherent to matter that could have given anyone reason to presume the emergence of life. And yet life did emerge. And there is nothing inherent to the emergence of life that could have led anyone to assume the idea of flying a kite. And yet from life, emerged the conscious idea of flying kites.

The point being that these examples of gestalt are unreasonably and unpredictably transcendent. We could not have foreseen them by studying the mere collection of their parts.

Just as we do not foresee "God" by studying the characteristics and mechanisms of physics. And yet there are these examples of transcendence all around us. Even IN us. So what fools we must be, indeed, to then look at nature and use it to declare that there is no transcendent being such as "God".

 

[quip]

When I was young I could fancifully entertain such ideas.
However I have live long enough to see this is not so. I have seen death, dying, suffering for which if this is just some dream of mine I would not set it up like this.
I have had a number of close friends and family members. I see baring mental illness or drugs we view our sense of self in much the same way. Society works just because of this.

If you are cut do you not bleed? I do.
We are far more similar than your questions would indicate. Science certainly shows how similar we really are.

That's all fine and well...though how is this different than a dreamstate?
The point is you can't prove your existence let alone that of a transcendent being...namely god.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's all fine and well...though how is this different than a dreamstate?
The point is you can't prove your existence let alone that of a transcendent being...namely god.

Do you exist?

 

[quip]

Do you exist?

No. (just the ego perception)