Endercreeper01

It's not rooted in belief, it is rooted in reasoning.

I don't conceive of it as a physical being or separate being. So when I mean god in this way, I am really trying to argue for the existence of a higher power. I don't put qualities onto the higher power besides it being a force at work in the universe. I do this because there isn't any basis for putting external qualities on the higher power. All that I know is that it is a force at work in the universe. The reasoning starts with the self or the "I am". Only when a consciousness is able to reason and understand to itself that it has its own existence is when the other reasoning takes place. Supernatural? I am only arguing for the existence of a higher power... It may not be based in completely solid reasoning. However, there is still reason involved, although all of the reasoning derives from a specific understanding by a consciousness reasoning about itself. As such, this can only be understood and reasoned on a personal level to a consciousness.

It is not rooted in belief, but philosophical understanding. it is more of a unique perspective on reality than a claim of an absolute truth.

The self is what is at the center of a consciousness. If you or I, as in the self, reason that "I" or the self exists independently from everything around it, it makes more sense. It is about knowing that "I" the self exist regardless of everything around me. However, this perspective only makes sense from the point of view of a consciousness reasoning about itself, and won't make sense if you look externally.

It is still a plausible statement with reasoning behind it.

I was making a philosophical statement based on reason, not a scientific statement.

These are all attributed to the concept of god, but the true concept of god involves a higher power at work in creation. When speaking of god as responsible for creation, the idea is that a higher power is at work, not that any specific god or gods are at work. When I say god, I am simply referring higher power at work in the universe, not any specific deities.

It's more of a perspective about reality than an absolute statement about reality... It has reasoning rather than evidence to support it.

Well yes, it is rather philosophical than scientific, but still very interesting however. Not if you are truly the higher power at work all along...

The existence of consciousness, meaning the self or I am, cannot be explained as deriving from its surroundings. Rather the self is what truly exists and is that which invokes a higher power to be responsible for the existence of what is around the self for the self to exists within.

The perspective is not about the human, rather about the consciousness within the human that understands how everything around it exists as the result of a higher power, in order to allow it to exist within an external reality.

Consciousness is about the self more than what the self experience. That is, the consciousness is supposed to be the self that is experiencing the brain or the body in the present moment. The fact that a consciousness is affected when the brain is affected shows how the consciousness is really experiencing the brain and becoming the brain, with an existence that requires a brain.

God is supposed to be ultimately responsible for everything that exists around a consciousness, for the purpose of allowing the existence of a consciousness within what god has created for the consciousness.

The existence of the human as creatures is not what requires a higher power. It is the existence of a consciousness existing within a body that attributes a higher power to the existence of everything around it. When it is understood that the conscious self has an existence independent from everything around it, it becomes apparent how a higher power is responsible for creating everything around the consciousness for the self to exist within. Around us? How about the us? We, the consciousness, don't simply exist because of everything around us, but rather everything around us exists as a result of a higher power to allow us to exist within what the higher power has created.

A force means a higher power at work over the course of the universe, with the effects of the force or influence being human existence as a whole.

God refers to a higher power at work. Different versions of god only exist because of the different religions, but they all are really describing the same fundamental concept of a higher power at work in the universe.

With a different perspective, then existence itself is seen as the result of a higher power. This derives from a human understanding and a human perspective, which is different than a stricter perspective of reality.

It is not simply a thing that can be imagined, but a force at work in the universe. It is reasoned from a human understanding of existence that higher forces are responsible for existence.

God is simply a higher power at work in the universe. God is the higher power that is attributed responsibility for the existence of the universe and for mankind. A human understanding of a higher purpose for existence is the basis of an understanding for the concept of a higher power at work in the universe. It doesn't make sense to demand proof for a god in the way that you are when this is considered. If you understood how god was a higher power at work in the universe, it becomes clear that god has a way of communicating indirectly through such a way. Evidence for a god does not come externally, but internally, deriving from a personal understanding of a higher power at work in the universe, so it doesn't make sense for you to demand proof in the way that you are for a god.

God is a higher power at work in the universe, which is the hand that has guided creation every step of the way. From a philosophical point of view, it is not difficult to see how a higher power could have guided the evolution of the universe and life on earth, with humans as the result. The concept of a god has the potential to answer many philosophical questions, although not in a scientifically verifiable way.

Science becomes a religion when absolute faith is put into scientific thinking, to the point that other ways of thinking, when they lead to reasoning not complying with the standard scientific paradigim, are simply dismissed because of a reluctance and unwillingness to accept any other ways of thinking, out of a faith in science only.

It's not about god being something which exists, it's about god being something which affects change in the universe. It doesn't explain the nature of god, but it can explain that there is a reason why humans exist, as in the sense of "purpose" and "meaning". God doesn't have to be anything more than something which is necessary to exist in order to lead to consciousness arising. Although god's physical, mechanical nature is still unknown (just as the mechanisms behind the universe itself), it would explain what god "is". No, mathematics is describing algorithms which dictate the operation of the universe. If the universe functions in a logical, consistent manner, it is reasonable to state that algorithms are a part of the operation of the universe. What we would describe as algorithms are rules which describe how what we would describe as quantities relate to one another. These rules are what are fundamental to the universe.

I am aware of those hypotheses. However, those are not the hypotheses I am talking about. None of those hypotheses explain how consciousness arises in the same way that Newton's theory does not describe how gravity arises. My reasoning for accepting other humans as conscious is because I am a human, and I am also conscious, so I have reason to assume that other humans should be conscious as well. Artificial intelligence, however, I would not assume to be conscious without good reason to.

Mathematics is describing algorithms. My argument is not that mathematics is an intrinsic part of the universe, but that the universe functions based on algorithms. If we are not to make assumptions about the nature of god and be rational about the concept, "god" can be considered an agent of change in the universe, the nature of which is not fully understood. In this way, we are not confusing "god" with the symbolism that is used to describe god. If "god did it" then what that explains is there is a reason why humans are supposed to exist in the universe.

What is mathematics describing? It is describing how the universe operates. It doesn't have to be a perfect description to be an accurate one. If the universe operates a certain way that can be described by mathematics, then what the mathematics is really describing is algorithms which dictate how the universe functions. My argument is that the universe functions on algorithms, while mathematics describes those algorithms. It's not math that "is" part of the universe, but algorithms which are a part of the universe's functioning. That is why mathematics can make predictions, because it is describing algorithms. Words do not describe algorithms, they describe things and their relation to one another. How can something be proven to be conscious? Consciousness is not just about a machine such as the brain being able to process information in a way that it appears to have it's own subjective experience, but actually having such subjective experience. This would mean that the consciousness would be the thing that is experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and subjective experience and sentience that the brain, as a machine, appears to have. as a result of it's functioning. If something cannot be proven to be conscious, then the scientific hypothesis for how consciousness arises would not be able to be tested. I am not aware of any scientific hypotheses describing how the brain (which can be described as a machine), can produce consciousness, as in sentience and subjective experience (qualia). I do not suppose computers would be conscious as a result of being sufficiently complex and/or convincing enough. The only way I would accept a computer to be truly conscious is when a workable mechanism for human consciousness is worked out, and not just being a matter of complexity and appearance, and for a computer to adhere to those mechanism which produce consciousness.