God as the Centre of Everything

[Captain Scarlet]

I didn't mean to introduce a red herring Cap'n. Timelessness is a primary attribute... 1st words of the bible establish the "I am". Supposing primacy has to encompass this. I think you are having to restrict the complete picture of God to get to your conclusion, which would make it invalid.

You can have an unrestricted picture of a god if it helps. I am not restricting anything wrt the attributes of said deity as long as they are relevant. You have not introduced any support for your notion that a timeless god gives support to you having an issue with this argument. Whether a god has eternality, timelessness, omni qualities it still leaves Theism committed to a consciousness having control over existence, which as I gave demonstrated is impossible.

I also don't accept the whole consciousness thing you're proposing. I know you addressed theism and not any particular theism, but this smacks of something I wouldn't ascribe to in my theism. Again the target has been missed.

I have 2 problems with this. One you have failed to say why you don't get "the whole consciousness thing" and have just dismissed it without backing that up (which is ironic given you accused me of being unable to back my arguments in your first rejoinder). Two I have addressed xtian Theism on it's own terms, which you have just conceded then denied this is your theism. I am concerned with xtian theism not your version of it. If you want me to address your version of it you should explain what it is. If you don't I can simply dismiss this objection.

Yes I agree that the primacy of existance needs no proof. Additionally, the existence of deity can have no proof. The assumption which follows belief necesitates God, and you shouldn't fall into the logical trap of thinking that deity can be proven. Your argument does just that, may I suggest. Forgive me if I'm wrong, I look forward to your counter to that.

Good I am glad you accept that. I am neither arguing that a god requires proof nor does not require proof. It is simply not relevant to the argument, no counter needed. If you want to construct an argument that god necessarily requires no proof, then please go ahead - it is not however a self evident proposition and thus self refuting. But this is a different argument entirely and a different thread completely.

So if this consciousness spans all of time, and is also outside of time, as is my theistic heritage, doesn't that exclude it from your sweeping statement? I think it does. Therefore your claim doesn't stand/ address all of theism.
Yes, I would agree. Without timelessness the primacy of consciousness over existence is impossible. I have another objection to that too. Another school of thought sets primacy in one source. That is, God was both instantaneously. As first cause everything eminated from him. The consciousness that was the blueprint for this reality was realised in this source. It's action is where everything eminated. Everything that 'is', contains something from that single point. (sorry to reitterate). You see where I'm going I hope.
Regards

Calling it a sweeping statement is merely a pejorative aimed at trying to undermine the argument without addressing it. I can happily agree with you that conciousness exists, whether it is eternal or is not eternal does not change the argument (infact i think that most xtians would regard their own conciousness as eternal in order they survive death, let alone the godhead of xtian faith). You are engaging in special pleading on behalf of Theism (or in your case you own special pleading on behalf of your version of xtian theism). My claim does address all of theism and you have failed to address the central claims, that existence, exists; that existence is prime, absolute, objective and independent of consciousness. Theisms propose a disembodied consciousness on which existence either depends and/ or stands in a cause effect relationship with. Thus necessarily theism is false.