God as the Centre of Everything

[Jergus Baca]

Christian I think you are just mocking us... I mean no body can be that stupid.. I bet you are an atheist and just trolling with us, otherwise you REALLY need to seek for special help If you truly believe that bible is in any case trustworthy

[fr0d0]

It [theism] is committed to the primacy of consciousness given it's reliance on a disembodied consciousness being able to causally interact with reality and / or even cause reality at all, ie Theism claims that existence does not exist without said consciousness. The primacy of consciousness is demonstrably false. Ergo Theism is false, ergo god/s do or can not exist.

Firstly, please demonstrate the falseness of the primacy of consciousness.
Secondly, please demonstrate the impossibility of timelessness.

Theism addresses the non physical realm, which is what you limit your objection to. Therefore your conclusion doesn't address theism.

[Norfolk And Chance]

God needs to be put before everything. Reason should come from God and not the other way around. Once we put God in the centre, everything becomes clear.This is probably what non-believers lack. They start off presumption without God and that's where all reasoning comes crushing down to earth. I hope the above is clear.

Lets discuss.

Let's instead just laugh like fuck at what you said there.

[Brian37]

God needs to be put before everything. Reason should come from God and not the other way around. Once we put God in the centre, everything becomes clear.This is probably what non-believers lack. They start off presumption without God and that's where all reasoning comes crushing down to earth. I hope the above is clear.

Lets discuss.

Yes it is clear. It is just another naked assertion. Been there. Other people have their naked assertions. Get in line and take a number.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"Once we put Allah in the center, everything becomes clear"
"Once we put Yahweh in the center, everything becomes clear"
"Once we put Ra(the Egyptian sun god) in the center, everything becomes clear"
"Once we put Thor as the cause of lightening everything becomes clear"

Yes it is clear, humans make up gods and always have. No one should say humans should act like gods, nor should we act like Superman or Micky Mouse either.

[Captain Scarlet]

It [theism] is committed to the primacy of consciousness given it's reliance on a disembodied consciousness being able to causally interact with reality and / or even cause reality at all, ie Theism claims that existence does not exist without said consciousness. The primacy of consciousness is demonstrably false. Ergo Theism is false, ergo god/s do or can not exist.

Firstly, please demonstrate the falseness of the primacy of consciousness.
Secondly, please demonstrate the impossibility of timelessness.
Theism addresses the non physical realm, which is what you limit your objection to. Therefore your conclusion doesn't address theism.

I have no need to address timelessness, unless you can demonstrate why it is pivotal to the argument. It seems a red herring to me, but if you can clearly demonstrate why it is pivotal I am all ears. Your point about non-physicalism is just wrong. I am addressing theism directly on it's own terms and referencing a disembodied consciousness (which would appear to me to tick all boxes as being non-physical). My own views on what consciousness is, are not relevant as we can both agree consciousness exists without agreeing why it exists.

So to what you are really asking - the primacy of existence is self evident requiring no proof. To deny existence, exists is a contradiction. But to help you understand the logical structure of why it is axiomatic explore the other perspective. Consider the proposition that the primacy of consciousness is true. To make that claim, you are making a claim about not only consciousness but also the nature of reality and you are also asserting the primacy of existence is false. The person making the claim intends to have the claim taken seriously, such that they are revealing objective facts about reality. However asserting that the primacy of existence is false renders facts about reality as subjective to whims of the thoughts of beings. Thus it refutes itself.

Thus if the primacy of existence is true, the primacy of consciousness is false and because theism is committed to the latter, Theism is necessarily false and gods can not and do not exist. To dismantle this argument you should not invoke red herrings such as timelessness (which is the subject of quite a different discussion). Instead address the argument on its own terms by either demonstrating that the primacy of consciousness is true or demonstrating why theism is not committed to it (without reverting to the ad-hoc rationalisation nor to special pleading). Imagining something exists does not make it so, reality does not conform to our thoughts, our musings are not instantiated into existence whether we wish them to be or not. Existence is an absolute and stands freely objective of consciousness.

[fr0d0]

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

[fr0d0]

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.

Just a quick reply captain as my time is limited right now. No pun intended

You're missing something. Your suggestion is assuming a time frame. One thing proceeding another in order to prove it. Take away time, which you are not disputing as an attribute of God/gods, then your idea has fallen apart hasn't it?

Small pointer... I am representing the standard orthodox xtian view here, and nothing of just my own. Every xtian has their own understanding. To try to alienate mine is therefore nonsensical. I'll let you know when I digress from the song sheet OK?

[Captain Scarlet]

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.

Just a quick reply captain as my time is limited right now. No pun intended
You're missing something. Your suggestion is assuming a time frame. One thing proceeding another in order to prove it. Take away time, which you are not disputing as an attribute of God/gods, then your idea has fallen apart hasn't it?
Small pointer... I am representing the standard orthodox xtian view here, and nothing of just my own. Every xtian has their own understanding. To try to alienate mine is therefore nonsensical. I'll let you know when I digress from the song sheet OK?

Your rebuttal requires support, you need to demonstrate 1) where I rely on the concept of time and 2) why it matters. You may not have had time, but neither have been demonstrated, thus the argument is yet to be dismantled. Whether god is inside time and the natural world or outside of time and the natural world, theism is committed to the concept of a disembodied consciousness being only aware of itself and of wishing a reality into existence and changing that reality.

Many/most orthodox xtians would also view their own personal human consciousness as eternal, transcending their own death (you may or may not). Thus when we are talking about consciousness and it's relational stance to an objective and absolute existence, there is no problem with eternality either god or human as we can have the same view of consciousness in mind to prevent equivocating and still conclude the same. This argument talks directly to Theism on Theisms terms, and not on the terms of a purely natural universe (which incidentally it also supports). So again we can agree that consciousness does exist (and if you want to express that as timeless or time bound go ahead). We also seem to agree that it isn't prime over existence itself. Thus theism is still false.

I am more than happy to offer perspectives on why consciousness exists, a timeless god, non-physicalism, non-cognitivism, naturalism so on and so forth. But these are all different topics you have introduced and do not address the argument on it's own merits. As stateed previously you need to demonstrate that the primacy of consciousness is true, or that theism is not committed to it, without resorting to special pleading and/or ad hoc rationalisation. Otherwise this will degrade into withering meaningless rebuttals and weary repetitive responses to your rebuttals.

[fr0d0]

Forgive me Captain. I'm trying to see one valid point to your claim here. Lets take this one step at a time if you don't mind. And try to make a simple and concise point please.

You are saying that a supernatural force is impossible because physical reality would disprove it. Correct? By demoting that force to "disembodied consciousness" you are trying to understand what you conclude a spiritual reality to embrace: and to you you understand it to be human consciousness. A form of Bhuddist et al philosophy.

"you need to demonstrate 1) where I rely on the concept of time and 2) why it matters."
You're "claim" seems to be about 'primacy'. Correct? We rely on time for primacy to exist. From primary we go to secondary. It's a linear sequence. In non linear sequencing, secondary comes at the same time as primary. Outside of time there is no linear order. Only everything at once. Is that clear? Or do you still see no problem with saying that time makes no difference to the primary/ secondary idea?