Endercreeper01 Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, beecee said: Again I find it totally invalid, unnecessary and mythical to invoke an unscientific concept, when it is generally not needed and explained simpler by science. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 16 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: The existence of consciousness, meaning the self or I am, cannot be explained as deriving from its surroundings. Do you have any evidence for that? Or are just supporting one belief with another? 17 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: 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. A classic example of the fallacy of begging the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Strange said: Do you have any evidence for that? Or are just supporting one belief with another? A classic example of the fallacy of begging the question It's more of a perspective about reality than an absolute statement about reality... It has reasoning rather than evidence to support it. Edited June 1, 2018 by Endercreeper01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: ...but they all are really describing the same fundamental concept of a higher power at work in the universe. They really are not. Zeus and Saturn exist at the mercy of the Fates, much like the mortal man, and can even be killed. What you describe seems more akin to the Hindu concept of God, Brahman: God not as a separate thing which created another thing called the universe, but God as the universe itself. Not an actor creating, but creation itself. Very different to the Abrahamic god who casts judgement onto his 'creations'. Humans have very different ideas of what god is; they are not all 'ultimately the same thing' - unless you stop taking them literally and realise they are all allegories. So which god? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Share Posted June 1, 2018 Just now, Prometheus said: They really are not. Zeus and Saturn exist at the mercy of the Fates, much like the mortal man, and can even be killed. What you describe seems more akin to the Hindu concept of God, Brahman: God not as a separate thing which created another thing called the universe, but God as the universe itself. Not an actor creating, but creation itself. Very different to the Abrahamic god who casts judgement onto his 'creations'. Humans have very different ideas of what god is; they are not all 'ultimately the same thing' - unless you stop taking them literally and realise they are all allegories. So which god? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 28 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: It's more of a perspective about reality than an absolute statement about reality... It has reasoning rather than evidence to support it. Reasoning? You have it arse up...science and the scientific methodology is about reasoning, and evidence: You are simply invoking unscientific supernatural and/or paranormal myth. 57 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: 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. Again no...simply a process of evolution that as yet we cannot fully understand and/or explain. Your "god of the gaps" fallacy is only a comforting unscientific myth for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, beecee said: Reasoning? You have it arse up...science and the scientific methodology is about reasoning, and evidence: You are simply invoking unscientific supernatural and/or paranormal myth. Again no...simply a process of evolution that as yet we cannot fully understand and/or explain. Your "god of the gaps" fallacy is only a comforting unscientific myth for some. I was making a philosophical statement based on reason, not a scientific statement. Edited June 1, 2018 by Endercreeper01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 17 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I was making a philosophical statement based on reason, not a scientific statement. Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know. Bertrand Russell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Share Posted June 1, 2018 16 minutes ago, beecee said: Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know. Bertrand Russell It is still a plausible statement with reasoning behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: It is still a plausible statement with reasoning behind it. Invoking any supernatural or paranormal quantity is an unscientific excuse/myth/belief/illusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: It's more of a perspective about reality than an absolute statement about reality... It has reasoning rather than evidence to support it. 49 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I was making a philosophical statement based on reason, not a scientific statement. 12 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: It is still a plausible statement with reasoning behind it. What reasoning? So far all your "reasoning" is circular and/or based on your existing belief. Edited June 1, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: When I say god, I am simply referring higher power at work in the universe, not any specific deities. That's fine: that's what you mean when you say god. Of course this could refer to aliens who seeded life from another dimension or the AI intelligence that created the simulation we exist in. But it's not what everyone means when they say god: everyone thinks their concept of god is the one true concept of god. I'd be interested to know, this 'higher power' you believe in - do you conceive of it as a separate being that created something, much like a carpenter creates a chair say, or as the whole show; the acorn which grows into an oak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Prometheus said: I'd be interested to know, this 'higher power' you believe in - do you conceive of it as a separate being that created something It would seem not; if humanity goes extinct, so does god. Edited June 1, 2018 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 4 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: It is still a plausible statement with reasoning behind it. You're making the mistake of conflating ideas you've developed that make sense only to you with those obtained through a reasoned approach. If you had actually used critical thinking and a trustworthy methodology, your "reasoning" would be obvious to everyone. It's a common mistake these days. "Reason" doesn't mean "think about this a lot until it makes sense to you". "Logic" and "theory" suffer similarly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Share Posted June 1, 2018 4 hours ago, Prometheus said: That's fine: that's what you mean when you say god. Of course this could refer to aliens who seeded life from another dimension or the AI intelligence that created the simulation we exist in. But it's not what everyone means when they say god: everyone thinks their concept of god is the one true concept of god. I'd be interested to know, this 'higher power' you believe in - do you conceive of it as a separate being that created something, much like a carpenter creates a chair say, or as the whole show; the acorn which grows into an oak? 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. 5 hours ago, Strange said: What reasoning? So far all your "reasoning" is circular and/or based on your existing belief. 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. 5 hours ago, beecee said: Invoking any supernatural or paranormal quantity is an unscientific excuse/myth/belief/illusion Supernatural? I am only arguing for the existence of a higher power... 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: You're making the mistake of conflating ideas you've developed that make sense only to you with those obtained through a reasoned approach. If you had actually used critical thinking and a trustworthy methodology, your "reasoning" would be obvious to everyone. It's a common mistake these days. "Reason" doesn't mean "think about this a lot until it makes sense to you". "Logic" and "theory" suffer similarly. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 43 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: 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. If it's not something separate from the universe in what sense is it a 'higher power'? Is it something in the universe? Is it just the whole show? Does this thing consciously direct things in the universe? 43 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I don't put qualities onto the higher power besides it being a force at work in the universe A force - like gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: 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. Apart from the fact that the old "cogito ergo sum" argument is seriously flawed, this says nothing about the consciousness being independent of the body nor does it provide any support for a creator or supreme being or higher power. I know that was Descartes intention but, despite the fact he was smarter than you or me, his argument basically boils down to "God exists because I believe he does". Which, surprisingly, is the same argument you are making. And, basically, all "logical" arguments for the existence of god(s) are the same; they only "work" if you already believe in the conclusion and are therefore willing to overlook the flaws in the logic. Anyone who doesn't already believe which just stand by open-mouthed thinking, "What? Really? You think that's rational?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted June 1, 2018 Author Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: Apart from the fact that the old "cogito ergo sum" argument is seriously flawed, this says nothing about the consciousness being independent of the body nor does it provide any support for a creator or supreme being or higher power. I know that was Descartes intention but, despite the fact he was smarter than you or me, his argument basically boils down to "God exists because I believe he does". Which, surprisingly, is the same argument you are making. And, basically, all "logical" arguments for the existence of god(s) are the same; they only "work" if you already believe in the conclusion and are therefore willing to overlook the flaws in the logic. Anyone who doesn't already believe which just stand by open-mouthed thinking, "What? Really? You think that's rational?" The reasoning only works if you accept a certain idea. The idea of my argument is not that consciousness exists independently from the body. Instead, it is about a higher power creating everything around the consciousness, through physical processes, in order for the consciousness to exist in. That essentially means that the consciousness creates it's own existence. 2 hours ago, Prometheus said: If it's not something separate from the universe in what sense is it a 'higher power'? Is it something in the universe? Is it just the whole show? Does this thing consciously direct things in the universe? A force - like gravity? The higher power can be said to be the consciousness in the universe, that creates around it in order to exist within something else. Edited June 1, 2018 by Endercreeper01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 31 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: The reasoning only works if you accept a certain idea. In other words, you only believe it if you already believe it. Reason and, in particular, logic is supposed to be independent of your beliefs. 32 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: The idea of my argument is not that consciousness exists independently from the body. Instead, it is about a higher power creating everything around the consciousness, through physical processes, in order for the consciousness to exist in. That essentially means that the consciousness creates it's own existence. Clearly you believe that. But you haven't given any reason for anyone else to believe it. I don't care what you believe but you shouldn't just keep repeating your beliefs without providing some sort of justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said: Supernatural? I am only arguing for the existence of a higher power... Yes, a higher power, with supernatural abilities with regards to us and the universe, which again is unscientific. Quote 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 based on a "personal comfort reasoning" that rejects science. Let me say at this time that your personal beliefs are not being challenged. Your attitude in claiming them as facts is being challenged. Edited June 1, 2018 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said: The higher power can be said to be the consciousness in the universe, that creates around it in order to exist within something else. Still not quite sure what you mean, but if it is a force that acts on things then it must be measurable in some way. That would make this type of god amenable to the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 32 minutes ago, beecee said: Let me say at this time that your personal beliefs are not being challenged. Your attitude in claiming them as facts is being challenged. Absolutely. If Endercreeper01 preceded all their claims with "I believe ..." then I would have nothing to say. I would just shrug my shoulders and be amazed at human diversity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) I’m reminded of the charlatans who would travel through drought suffering towns during the dust bowl claiming they could finally make it rain and quench the local fields, but ONLY IF the residents believed hard enough. If it happened to rain, then they looked like heroes, practically miracle workers with a magic touch. If it didn’t rain, well then it was the fault of the residents for not believing strongly enough. Snake oil salesmen, the whole lot of ‘em. Ender and those like him are no different. I’m not buyin’ what your sellin’. Edited June 1, 2018 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endercreeper01 Posted June 2, 2018 Author Share Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, beecee said: Yes, a higher power, with supernatural abilities with regards to us and the universe, which again is unscientific. It is based on a "personal comfort reasoning" that rejects science. Let me say at this time that your personal beliefs are not being challenged. Your attitude in claiming them as facts is being challenged. I clearly stated that my beliefs were philosophical and not meant to be scientific. 5 hours ago, Strange said: In other words, you only believe it if you already believe it. Reason and, in particular, logic is supposed to be independent of your beliefs. Clearly you believe that. But you haven't given any reason for anyone else to believe it. I don't care what you believe but you shouldn't just keep repeating your beliefs without providing some sort of justification. The belief is not a belief but an understanding of one's own consciousness that leads to one's reasoning of reality based on a higher power. 4 hours ago, Prometheus said: Still not quite sure what you mean, but if it is a force that acts on things then it must be measurable in some way. That would make this type of god amenable to the scientific method. It is definitely measurable in that it affects change in reality, by starting a process that leads to the formation of the universe, solar system, earth, and life on earth. Number synchronicity in the universe is a way of theoretically knowing of the influence of a higher power, as an actor on reality as a whole and not in the same way as forces of physics act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said: I clearly stated that my beliefs were philosophical and not meant to be scientific. Great work! and also once again, Let me say at this time that your personal beliefs [philosophical or scientific] are not being challenged. That's your concern. Your attitude in claiming them as facts is being challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts