God as the Centre of Everything

[Shell B]

Dude, how are conversations like this at all enlightening? This is flat out fucking preaching.

[Captain Scarlet]

We should back track if that is your understanding of the argument presented.

First question posed above. Not correct. I am not claiming that supernaturalism is impossible (although separately I would argue it is), I make no assumption that supernaturalism is / isn't possible. As mentioned a number of times I am addressing Theism on it's own terms so let me concede the possibility of supernaturalism only in the context of this argument and to move us forward.

Second question posed above. You fundamentally misunderstand the distinction of primacy if you think it is temporal. It is merely suggesting a metaphysical proposition of which concept is more fundamental than another. The primacy of consciousness implies a kind of mind over matter proposition. A cartoon universe where we can think things into existence, wish things to be so, magic being from incantations of the mind. The primacy of existence implies no such things are possible that if the tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it really still fell no matter what we wish happened. Take time out of the equation and still the same is possible. As a disembodied conciseness (remember Theisms own claim and not atheisms), a god can choose to wish things into being, can instantiate reality outside of the restrictions of time. But then this is rendered impossible because reality stops being absolute and all our reasoning is flawed, including reasoning to a god and including the self refuting position of the primacy of consciousness anyway. We are only justified in believing that existence is prime, that reality itself is absolute and it cannot be bent into shape by any conciousness, including that of a god. Given that Theism claims that a god necessarily bends reality into whatever shape it likes / or is forced to because of it's own nature, then it is necessarily false.

[fr0d0]

let me concede the possibility of supernaturalism

I refute that God is consciousness. You reducing God to that is unsatisfying.

-

Interesting quote from another current thread I thought may be of interest to you:

"For some reason the fact that we are able to make our bodies move by sheer force of our will strikes us as unremarkable" - apophenia

So here in this example it is said that the prime mover is will. Without the command of consciousness, voluntary movement is not possible.

-

Consciousness is thought right? Thought is produced by electrical activity, which is in turn invoked by physical stimuli.

Consciousness might be the idea in religious belief of the human soul. Transcendence an attempt to describe the perceived superiority of the human brain.

Or is thought primary? In the physical realm I'm still in agreement with you, that extant forces are primary. But we can't apply that logic to God, because God would be necessarily more than this reality to have created it.

[Captain Scarlet]

I never said god = consciousness, just that theism is committed to god as a disembodied consciousness. God may or may not have other attributes which in turn aggregate up to form the whole godhead. But even in this scenario god is incorporeal and consciousness. Thus your objection fails.

I am not arguing that our minds can control our bodies. This isn't a point about theory of mind, dualism, monism etc. What you are describing are physical processes that are driven by voluntary or involuntary means. None of which is remarkable unless you subscribe to substance dualism. It is in our nature. My point is more fundamental than that. A more appropriate example of primacy of consciousness is not moving a limb, but regrowing one after amputation by wiling it so, or changing an arm to a pectoral fin by thought.

If you think that a=\=a, or that 'a consciousness is not a consciousness', then you are either positing a self refuting proposition, or arguing that god has a special get out of jail free card...just because. ....? You are engaging in special pleading for the god concept.

But to compound the problem for your position you are exempting god because the proposed entity is only realized in a proposed supernatural realm. 2
problems here: firstly where does the consciousness of xtians go when they die, one can suppose on the terms presented by xtian theism only to the supernatural realm. It would therefore seem rather mundane and also necessary that consciousness slips out of nature and is re-instantiated in supernature in the same manner and with consummate ease. To give a trivial illustration, you had better hope that St Peter is talking to 'you' at the gates and not your avatar. So you have to do better than that to illustrate why we are not justified in thinking that god has a consciousness just like the creations made in said entities image. Secondly if you try to argue that 'god is just different....so there', xtian theism has to revisit it's concept of god. A disembodied consciousness that really isn't a consciousness as we know it, is a stolen concept ie supernature borrowing from nature and then building an edifice upon that borrowed conceptual foundation and asking us to accept it. Theism cant have their immaterial dung cake and not eat it

[fr0d0]

What is a desembodied consciousness? What is incorporeal and consciousness?
I'm not suggesting that our minds controlling our bodies is your argument. I was just adding something I thought you may find interesting. You're defending somthing I haven't grasped yet. I'm trying to eek it out of you.

Re growing of limbs is physical manifestation of unknown science. More science fiction than anything at all to do with primacy. More reason why I am seriously doubtful of your validity.

No, I am not suggesting that consciousness is not consciousness.

God is not only realised in a supernatural realm. God is also fully realised in this realm. Given primacy, this world is all God. But God is more than this world.
The soul, in Xtian dogma, enters Heaven or Hell. To be with or without God. Not as God, but with or without him. Not separated from nature.

You don't separate consciousness from human consciousness. "Counsciousness" is already something of supernature. Perhaps that's why you didn't get my prompting earlier. Your soul isn't an avatar, but the essence of you, minus the body.

I feel I'm having to explain everything to you here, where it's you that is supposed to have some declaration for me to consider.

[Angrboda]

God is not only realised in a supernatural realm. God is also fully realised in this realm. Given primacy, this world is all God.

If God is in my pants, then I fully expect to be compensated, even if he doesn't front the rent.

I never said god = consciousness, just that theism is committed to god as a disembodied consciousness. God may or may not have other attributes which in turn aggregate up to form the whole godhead. But even in this scenario god is incorporeal and consciousness.

I do so dislike all this Thomistic nonsense. Really I do. That being said, it's not clear to me that, even if God can be said to possess a consciousness, that his consciousness is the foundation of his primacy over existence, at least not in the sense you seem to be arguing. (I'm not altogether clear, but you seem to be pursuing a pseudo-modal argument here, using God's consciousness as a major premise; I doubt many points in your construction, but then, this is not my forte.)

[Captain Scarlet]

I feel I'm having to explain everything to you here, where it's you that is supposed to have some declaration for me to consider

Yeah I have that feeling too. If you check I am the only one who has presented an argument to which your responses have been -

GOD is exempt has a special type of conciousness
GOD is exempt because 'he' resides in a supernatural realm
GOD is exempt because 'he' is eternal

All the above are meaningless objections. You have failed to counter with an argument of your own. I have had to correct your thinking on every step, of course I accept I could have presented every step badly. But to impute eternal and immateriality into the argument is crass and probably a common defense you usually adopt which fails on this occasion.

---

I do so dislike all this Thomistic nonsense. Really I do. That being said, it's not clear to me that, even if God can be said to possess a consciousness, that his consciousness is the foundation of his primacy over existence, at least not in the sense you seem to be arguing. (I'm not altogether clear, but you seem to be pursuing a pseudo-modal argument here, using God's consciousness as a major premise; I doubt many points in your construction, but then, this is not my forte.)

Thomistic in what sense, arguing from a posteriori facts of reality? As an atheist I do not believe a god exists, and therefore arguing whether a god is consciousness is not or meaningless, at least from my personal perspective. Instead I am arguing against theism on its own terms, that one can know that a god does not exist because theism is committed to god being a disembodied consciousness (footnote here that the god concept includes other qualities which are not salient to the argument). This would place consciousness as prime over existence, which is impossible. Ergo theism is false. If someone wants to point out an objection as to why consciousness is prime over existence or why theism is not committed to god as a consciousness, then we can debate it. We haven't heard any such refutation yet, just hand waiving dismissals around eternality and immaterialism and other irrelevancies.

[fr0d0]

If you check I am the only one who has presented an argument

You have presented an argument that makes sense to no one. You tear apart my retorts without satisfactory reason. You even grossly misrepresent them. It's like you have zero understanding of the subject. It's all meaningless mumbo jumbo in your own head so far.

to impute eternal and immateriality into the argument

You mean bring up accepted attributes that contradict your idea? Yes I see how that's a problem.

This would place consciousness as prime over existence, which is impossible.

How is it impossible?