RE: Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.
January 10, 2012 at 2:46 am
(This post was last modified: January 10, 2012 at 3:08 am by Whateverist.)
(January 9, 2012 at 12:05 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Are we certain this dude comes from USA??
I would like to be shocked, aghast or outraged but, sadly, I know where I live and with whom. I'd be surprised if he lived anywhere else. Oh god, is it spreading?! Bomb us now! Save yourselves!
(January 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I'm going to re-post Ack's argument just so I don't have to keep flipping back pages.
Quote:1)All of reality is experienced through consciousness.
2)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real.
3)Things that are real must exist apart from our observation of or ideas about what they are.
4)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real it must exist apart from sciences observation of or ideas about it.
5)The only things science believes exists apart from it's observation or ideas about are universal constants.
6)THEREFORE: If consciousness is real science believes it is a universal constant.
7)Universal constants are believed to be responsible for the creaton of the universe and everything within it.
8)THEREFORE: if consciousness is real it is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it.
9)If consciousness is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it, it could be called "God"
10)THEREFORE: If you believe in reality you must necessarily believe in "God".
So, setting aside his 'must's and other objective claims - let's start fresh. We've now established parts one and two. We experience reality through the use of our consciousness and our conscience exists therefore it is real.
I don't see how you can accept 1. Just because reality is what our field of consciousness becomes aware of by way of perception, is no reason to think that our senses or consciousness are up to the task of registering everything there is to know about reality. Reality may be the limit of consciousness, but consciousness is not the limit of reality.
As for 2, was the reality of consciousness ever in question? What's with the "therefore"? 1 is patently false or at least unverifiable. How can that establish 2 which, at any rate, needs no arguing? Oh, but this guy thinks that "believing" is like magic. Odd that he thinks he can argue what 'one' must believe when all his arguments begin from his beliefs, not to them.
Sorry Perhaps but this feels pointless. Do you really find anything of value in this?
