What if Judas didn't do it?

[The Grand Nudger]

But since God includes everything, there can't be an object of consciousness separate from him. God's consciousness is just existence itself. 

This, right here, is the explicit invocation of the primacy of consciousness fundamental to judeo christian monotheism and the stolen concept all rolled into one.  

Under the primacy of consciousness....there is no existence itself, called reality per se - there is only whatever happens to be floating around in a megamind. For example, reality doesn't dictate whether things fall or float. The megamind dictates this, and it could be whatever said megamind dictates. The term reality is meaningless in this formulation, but so compelling that people who would assert as much feel the need to try a quick smash and grab, despite the fact that the very existence of any reality per se is a rejection of the primacy of consciousness, and powerfully argues -for- objectivism.

This, amusingly, does not apply to all or even most gods. Yet another self inflicted wound from the god of the philosophers™. It's a ridiculously easy objection for theism to overcome, but christianity is wedded to stepping on that rake for no reason other than it's own insistence. I say this because the assertion gets them nowhere, supports nothing, and is completely uneccesary to any other thing in the christian orbit of belief.

[The Architect Of Fate]

But since God includes everything, there can't be an object of consciousness separate from him. God's consciousness is just existence itself. 

This, right here, is the explicit invocation of the primacy of consciousness fundamental to judeo christian monotheism and the stolen concept all rolled into one.  

Under the primacy of consciousness....there is no existence itself, called reality per se - there is only whatever happens to be floating around in a megamind.  For example, reality doesn't dictate whether things fall or float.  The megamind dictates this, and it could be whatever said megamind dictates.  The term reality is meaningless in this formulation, but so compelling that people who would assert as much feel the need to try a quick smash and grab, despite the fact that the very existence of any reality per se is a rejection of the primacy of consciousness, and powerfully argues -for- objectivism.

This, amusingly, does not apply to all gods.  Yet another self inflicted wound from the god of the philosophers™.  It;s a ridiculopusly easy objection for theism to overcome, but christianity is wedded to stepping on that rake for no reason other than it's own insistence.

It's always amazing how their convoluted flim flam seems to blow up in their faces.

[The Grand Nudger]

An accident of history, really. In a crowded marketplace of gods there was an escalation of divine nature. Ultimately, the idea was never meant to convince people that a god existed or that the idea of gods even made sense, it was for in house consumption by god botherers as to which god had the bigger superpeener.

I guess it's successful framing in a religious economy? Same with the whole judas bit. Meanwhile nuts (and non nuts, fwiw) are stuck on an argument over whether it actually happened or happened as written (yet another appeal to objectivism over the primacy of consciousness) as though it's some debate on the existence of gods - but it isn't. It's about the development and mistakes of an explicitly religious assertion and the knots that people have historically tied their scrotums into to maintain it.

[Pat Mustard]

I choose to look at it as a critique of Story, similar to, ‘Why didn’t the eagles just fly the Ring to Mordor?’

Boru

You mean the Watsonian/Doylist paradigm I tend to look at the Bible from?

I prefer to look at the bible from McBeth's perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

When we should be looking at it from the prophets™ perspective. Teh Joos repeatedly destroy the kindgom through lack of fidelity to god and race. Try a little ezra and nehemiah.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But since God includes everything, there can't be an object of consciousness separate from him. God's consciousness is just existence itself. 

This, right here, is the explicit invocation of the primacy of consciousness fundamental to judeo christian monotheism and the stolen concept all rolled into one.  

Under the primacy of consciousness....there is no existence itself, called reality per se - there is only whatever happens to be floating around in a megamind. For example, reality doesn't dictate whether things fall or float. The megamind dictates this, and it could be whatever said megamind dictates. The term reality is meaningless in this formulation, but so compelling that people who would assert as much feel the need to try a quick smash and grab, despite the fact that the very existence of any reality per se is a rejection of the primacy of consciousness, and powerfully argues -for- objectivism.

This, amusingly, does not apply to all or even most gods. Yet another self inflicted wound from the god of the philosophers™. It's a ridiculously easy objection for theism to overcome, but christianity is wedded to stepping on that rake for no reason other than it's own insistence. I say this because the assertion gets them nowhere, supports nothing, and is completely uneccesary to any other thing in the christian orbit of belief.

What are you going on about? Certainly nothing related to what Bel or I actually said. There is no primacy of consciousness or primacy of existence. It is a false dicotomy. There only the primacy of God.

[Silver]

There can be no primacy of a god without evidence of its existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

This, right here, is the explicit invocation of the primacy of consciousness fundamental to judeo christian monotheism and the stolen concept all rolled into one.  

Under the primacy of consciousness....there is no existence itself, called reality per se - there is only whatever happens to be floating around in a megamind.  For example, reality doesn't dictate whether things fall or float.  The megamind dictates this, and it could be whatever said megamind dictates.  The term reality is meaningless in this formulation, but so compelling that people who would assert as much feel the need to try a quick smash and grab, despite the fact that the very existence of any reality per se is a rejection of the primacy of consciousness, and powerfully argues -for- objectivism.

This, amusingly, does not apply to all or even most gods.  Yet another self inflicted wound from the god of the philosophers™.  It's a ridiculously easy objection for theism to overcome, but christianity is wedded to stepping on that rake for no reason other than it's own insistence.  I say this because the assertion gets them nowhere, supports nothing, and is completely uneccesary to any other thing in the christian orbit of belief.

What are you going on about? Certainly nothing related to what Bel or I actually said. There is no primacy of consciousness or primacy of existence. It is a false dicotomy. There only the primacy of God.

The primacy of god, as you put it, is exactly what an objectivist is taking issue with when they take aim at the primacy of consciousness, Neo. Maybe take the assist, since both you and Bel actually invoked the primacy of consciousness..apparently - and as you tell it - ... in ignorance? Your statement, above, reads as "there is no primacy of consciousness or primacy of existence, there is only the primacy of consciousness". As for it being a false dichotomy, perhaps, but if so, then there is no primacy of god over the primacy of existence, either. This is what makes it a pernicious objection to a very specific type of god claim. From the point of view of asserting a christian god, you can neither diminish nor deny primacy, but as a person facing what appears to be an objective reality, you could easily find yourself at an impasse with claims to fundamentally subjective "facts" of a fundamentally subjective existence. Thus the stolen (and also now-failed) concept. If I were you, I'd just call it another miracle, another mystery. 3=1 and the subject is the object and all that literal nonsense. Me being me, I'd say that supposing there were a god, and it was the god that christians are always babbling about, then it's clear that the christians have fucked up their description of said god in a meaningful way. It's tautologically true to say that existence must exist for an existent god to exist. Just as it's tautologically true to say that there must be something to apprehend, for consciousness to apprehend anything. So, maybe god really does have a massive superpeener, but it's not responsible for bringing into being that which is necessary for it's own existence, and to the extent that it's capable of apprehending anything something must exist. Logically speaking, at least.

This wouldn't surprise you, would it? People describing existent gods -or- the objects of subjective apprehension poorly and inaccurately? Objectivism, ultimately, is open to people who believe in gods, it's just not open to people who believe in gods like yours. It simply fails to meet objectivisms criteria. It fails this existentially, morally, and tautologically. It's certainly possible to claim that it is objectivism as an axiom that fails, but you can see how hilarious it's going to get if you attempt to argue that there is no such thing as a fact or that facts are not to be afforded any privilege, in order to salvage a god concept you believe to be a fact.

[Objectivist]

Well I don't understand this at all. Oh well.

Yeah, I do not see how his objection has anything to do with basic Christian doctrine. I suppose a wooden interpretation of "the Word" in John 1:1 could be seen as a form of idealism. Since in Scholastic theology, i.e. Roman Catholic dogma, the existence of God is identical to His essence, the poverty of Randian ideology is exposed by a third option, not considered by binary thinkers. Perhaps, God's existence and His awareness of His existence may be considered distinct yet remain inalienable.

The primacy of existence principle identifies the fact that reality does not conform to conscious activity.  No one is saying that Christianity violates the primacy of existence because it claims that God's existence and his awareness of his existence may be considered distinct yet remain inalienable.  This is certainly not what I am saying.  No, it affirms the primacy of consciousness because it claims that the reality that we all know and experience is a product of a mind or a subject of consciousness, that this mind or will can alter it at will, that it can perform miracles, that reality conforms to its desires and wishes.  In essence, it says that wishing makes things so.  This is inarguable.  It says it explicitly and in more than one place.  How about Mathew 17:20?  It says that if you have faith (a type of conscious activity) the size of a mere mustard seed, you can say to the mountain move and it will move.  This is as clear an affirmation of the POC as you can get.  If you will it, then reality will jump to conform to your will.  There's no wiggle room here.  There's no escaping this.  This is something that Christians need to answer.  

Now over the last 20 years, I've encountered many attempts to dodge this problem.  One of them is what you have tried, namely to change the meaning of the primacy of consciousness.  Another is to say that while human minds don't have primacy over their objects but God's mind does.  This does not rescue the Christian but only moves the issue to which subject has primacy over reality.  It solves nothing.  This is essentially saying that reality is one way for one kind of consciousness but another way for another kind of consciousness.  This is just a different way of saying that reality is dependent on consciousness which is an expression of the POC.  There have been many other attempts over the years.  Several Christians have denied that God created everything in order to try and get around this problem because they did recognize that this is a real problem.  Others have said that this is a trivial, meaningless, made-up issue.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Since all knowledge is knowledge of some object by some subject, then the issue of which has primacy in the relationship between a subject and its objects is front and center.  Object means anything we perceive or consider and subject just means the mind That is perceiving or considering.   So since God is supposed to be conscious, the question arises:  what is the relationship between God as subject and the objects that it is aware of?  The answer that Christianity gives is resoundingly the primacy of the subject.

It is incoherent to say that the objects of consciousness have primacy and do not have primacy, or the objects have primacy and so does the subject.  It's either one or the other.  There's that binary thinking again because logic tells us that the middle case is excluded.  

When a Christian uses the term 'objective', he or she is performatively invoking the primacy of existence while at the same time denying it.   When he says God is the source of 'objective morality' he is performatively affirming that objectivity has its basis in subjectivity.  A blatant contradiction. If 'objective morlaity' is taken to mean a morality that is true regardless of anyone's thoughts or beliefs to the contrary then clearly objectivity is exclusively based on the POE.

[Objectivist]

But since God includes everything, there can't be an object of consciousness separate from him. God's consciousness is just existence itself. 

This, right here, is the explicit invocation of the primacy of consciousness fundamental to judeo christian monotheism and the stolen concept all rolled into one.  

Under the primacy of consciousness....there is no existence itself, called reality per se - there is only whatever happens to be floating around in a megamind.  For example, reality doesn't dictate whether things fall or float.  The megamind dictates this, and it could be whatever said megamind dictates.  The term reality is meaningless in this formulation, but so compelling that people who would assert as much feel the need to try a quick smash and grab, despite the fact that the very existence of any reality per se is a rejection of the primacy of consciousness, and powerfully argues -for- objectivism.

This, amusingly, does not apply to all or even most gods.  Yet another self inflicted wound from the god of the philosophers™.  It's a ridiculously easy objection for theism to overcome, but christianity is wedded to stepping on that rake for no reason other than it's own insistence.  I say this because the assertion gets them nowhere, supports nothing, and is completely uneccesary to any other thing in the christian orbit of belief.

How is it ridiculously easy for the Christian to overcome, Nudger?