God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[Kharakov]

God: imaginary entity that is the personification of the delusions and cognitive errors of beings that don't make the effort to seek external evidence.

So you named your delusional worldview God? That's strange for someone who spends so much of their time trying to deny God exists.

 

[bilby]

God: imaginary entity that is the personification of the delusions and cognitive errors of beings that don't make the effort to seek external evidence.

So you named your delusional worldview God? That's strange for someone who spends so much of their time trying to deny God exists.

Not at all. My imaginary friend, Fred, also has a name and does not exist; But unlike Fred, God wasn't named by me, but by others - like Batman, Harry Potter, and Eddard Stark, God is a well known fictional character.

God is part of our culture; but expecting God to influence our lives in any way more than as a story is delusional - like expecting Batman to defend us from crime; or hoping that Harry Potter will protect us from abusive foster parents; or asking Eddard Stark to bring us a Dire Wolf puppy, expecting God to do anything outside of stories is indicative of insanity.

I am not trying to deny that God exists; I am denying your claim that God exists, by telling you that he is fictional. He has the same level of existence as Superman. If people wanted me to live according to their claims of what Clark Kent wants me to do, I would spend a good deal of my time pointing out his fictionality too. Fortunately even our bat-shit crazy Prime Minister isn't yet using the supposed desires of Superman as an excuse for piss-poor legislation. Sadly, he very much uses the supposed desires of Jesus to that end.

Crazy people are not harmless; particularly not when they are in positions of authority. Their delusions are real, even if the characters they imagine are not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

God isn't too great to communicate clearly with humans. <-- back to the OP.


God: spirit (sort of like an EM field, I know) that is aware and can influence the actions of beings that pay attention. Some beings are less sensitive than others. These are called "the dead". Basically spiritual zombies that pursue their own happiness, and leave God empty by their uncaring self oriented actions.

God: imaginary entity that is the personification of the delusions and cognitive errors of beings that don't make the effort to seek external evidence. Some beings are more prone than others. These are called "the gullible". Basically intellectual zombies that pursue their own delusions, and leave others exasperated by their uncaring self oriented actions.

More derails.
The question was how fans of a certain tradition can allow to apparently contradictory ideas to coexist. Not how to use the thread as an opportunity to insult people.
Although at least Bilby is trying to play down to the other player's level...

 

[Kharakov]

I am not trying to deny that God exists; I am denying your claim that God exists, by telling you that he is fictional.

Ok, I never said God was a he. That is definitely fantasy- the female portion of the sexual combo contains all the machinery of life- the egg contains the mitochondria... So you're definitely wrong there.

Crazy people are not harmless; particularly not when they are in positions of authority. Their delusions are real, even if the characters they imagine are not.

Definitely. Which is why despite the fact that they are dumbasses about various scientific concepts, people who believe in God are often selected over those who hold natural law to be above God, because they (the people who disbelieve) are literally fucking crazy and base their ideas about reality on bullshit even when they are correct about a few facts about nature.

 

[Kharakov]

The question was how fans of a certain tradition can allow to apparently contradictory ideas to coexist.

Ohh really... so whence the following answers:

So the all-powerful, all-knowing god either doesn't have the power to turn down the volume, or he doesn't know how...

Moreover, the Perfect Creator, whose very existence can be deduced from the Perfection of His Creation didn't build receivers that could handle his transmissions.



Whoops.

Whoops. Nice double standard Keith. Derail? No, it's a conversation, and when someone says something completely illogical, sometimes a Sheldon Cooper comes along to point out the truth.

Show

gotcha games? Seriously?

 

[Rhea]

What's odd is that your god speaks so clearly to you, but so opaquely to everyone else. What an extremely ungodly god.

So if it can't speak coherently of a message that is meaningful and unambiguous, what exactly does it do?

Is it one of those gods that just _is_? And the humans get to interpret it any way they want because it is not powerful enough to correct them? making it essentially pointless?

That's on topic.

 

[bigfield]

Evidence: Rocks are not conscious. Or as you phrase it, 'non-conscious'.

No, rocks are many smaller reacting/acting beings (electrons, etc.) behaving in specific ways. Now, when a photon hits a rock, the rock reacts. When another particle hits the rock, the rock reacts. It reacts to the atmosphere, etc. In fact, although I've said otherwise, maybe a rock has its own identity, I do not know that they do not.

This is special pleading.
You claim that rocks are not beings that can be attributed consciousness or non-consciousness because they are made up of many subatomic particles. If that is your position, then it follows that humans are also not beings that can be attributed consciousness or non-consciousness.

In other words, if rocks cannot be non-conscious, then humans cannot be conscious.

And if humans cannot be conscious according to your definition, then your use of the term consciousness is invalid. You either need to stipulate a new definition for the exclusive use within this context, or you need to use a term that actually means what you want consciousness to mean.

I tend to think that larger unitary consciousnesses require some form of communication between the parts, like a human CNS-

The only observable evidence that there is communication between the parts of the CNS is in the form of communication to and from neurons, and that doesn't require consciousness at the level of individual neurons, or below. This neural network is also observably absent from rocks.

So what you 'tend to think' is a groundless conclusion, a presupposition, a belief formed by motivated reasoning.

this is why I think that consciousness is at the smallest level (particles), our level (unitary arrangements), and spacetime (largest continuous being). However, a rock may have various bonds between all the consciousnesses within itself, and the totality of consciousnesses may be aware of themselves as part of a singular entity via some sort of transmission of awareness.

This is a different reason than you have provided previously. Previously you presented an 'everything reacts, therefore everything is conscious' reason for believing that consciousness exists at the subatomic level.

I want to be clear- I've said numerous times: rules followed by a consciousness are not a consciousness themselves, although there could very well be a singular conscious being (or type of being) that follows rules perfectly. The axioms of arithmetic are not consciousness- they are behaviors of consciousnesses. I've already said that the axioms of arithmetic, and behaviors followed by conscious entities are not conscious themselves. My gait (stride) is not conscious.

You have not presented an argument here.

So what? You have failed to explain why reactions are indicative of consciousness, other than baldly assert that reaction entail consciousness (a fallacy that I have already pointed out).

I have pointed out that there is no indication that anything reacts without consciousness (rules don't react- they are reacted to by consciousness that creates and follows them). The claim of non-conscious reactions is the one that needs support. Reactions being different or on different scales, are not an indication of non-consciousness, although the proponents of non-consciousness claim they are without any evidence.

Now you have introduced a new claim, that conscious subatomic particles created the natural laws. Yet another bald assertion.

Surely you aren't making the following argument:
Humans created mathematical rules and agree to follow them, therefore
Subatomic particles created natural laws and agree to follow them,

Because that would be yet another fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Your consciousness is the fundamental substance interacting with itself inside and presumably outside of you. You have no justification to believe that other reactions, which you do not directly witness, are non-conscious. There are presumable actions within groups that members of the groups are not conscious of (you are not consciously aware of the majority of the interactions within your body- you can simply know that they occur).

Just a restatement of claims that have already been refuted.

Your lack of conscious awareness indicates that you are not consciously aware of what is occurring- it is not an indication that others are unaware.

Every human has experienced lack of consciousness first-hand, as well

You're experiencing it right now: lack of consciousness of the consciousness of energy. You are probably not conscious of the majority of interactions in the universe.

You have asserted repeatedly that there is no reason to believe that there is anything non-conscious in existence. We have presented rocks, dead humans, and unconscious living humans as examples. But whenever you are presented with an example that invalidates your claim, you engage in one logical fallacy or another, or simply ignore the evidence in favour of non-responses like the one immediately above.

 

[bigfield]

What's odd is that your god speaks so clearly to you, but so opaquely to everyone else. What an extremely ungodly god.

So if it can't speak coherently of a message that is meaningful and unambiguous, what exactly does it do?

Is it one of those gods that just _is_? And the humans get to interpret it any way they want because it is not powerful enough to correct them? making it essentially pointless?

That's on topic.

Apparently this particular deity communicates to people through through a method that is indistinguishable from the Bader-Meinhof effect, and only to people who have the emotional maturity to react positively to it's existence.

 

[bilby]

What's odd is that your god speaks so clearly to you, but so opaquely to everyone else. What an extremely ungodly god.

So if it can't speak coherently of a message that is meaningful and unambiguous, what exactly does it do?

Is it one of those gods that just _is_? And the humans get to interpret it any way they want because it is not powerful enough to correct them? making it essentially pointless?

That's on topic.

Apparently this particular deity communicates to people through through a method that is indistinguishable from the Bader-Meinhof effect, and only to people who have the emotional maturity to react positively to it's existence.

No, no; It is totally different to the Bader-Meinhof effect, in that the Bader-Meinhof effect occurs to other people, while communications from God happen to Kharakov. See?

 

[Rhea]

Apparently this particular deity communicates to people through through a method that is indistinguishable from the Bader-Meinhof effect, and only to people who have the emotional maturity to react positively to it's existence.

No, no; It is totally different to the Bader-Meinhof effect, in that the Bader-Meinhof effect occurs to other people, while communications from God happen to Kharakov. See?

I knew I could count on you people to bring it back around! What on earth use is a god that can't communicate a single coherent and uniform message to 7 billion people simultaneously?

 

[bilby]

No, no; It is totally different to the Bader-Meinhof effect, in that the Bader-Meinhof effect occurs to other people, while communications from God happen to Kharakov. See?

I knew I could count on you people to bring it back around! What on earth use is a god that can't communicate a single coherent and uniform message to 7 billion people simultaneously?

Well it is pretty useful for those who wish to gain power over others, or even just a smug sense of self-worth, by claiming to be one of the chosen few with whom God does communicate.

I can see how such an entity is possible; but I can't see any reason why those with whom he does not communicate directly should take the slightest interest in it, nor why it should be considered a 'God'.

It comes down to defining what the minimum qualifications for a God actually are. If you want an omnipotent, all-loving, omnipresent and omnicognisant God, then such a being need not apply. That kind of God would have no problem communicating with anyone and everyone; indeed, it is impossible for the world to be different from what such a God wants - there cannot be such a thing as sin under this kind of deity. Nor can there be such a thing as free will.

If you want a God powerful enough to be worthy of the respect or worship of humans, but not sufficiently powerful to trigger the Problem of Evil, then such a God probably need not apply either; If the basis for your respectability is power, then demonstrated impotence in such a simple matter as communications is a big black mark on your resume. If you are not powerful enough to pick up the phone, then you are less of a God than the average human.

A Deist God, who perhaps made a universe and then wandered off and left it to evolve on its own? Well, if your God isn't here any more, he is not fit for the current job; the bare minimum requirement is attendance, surely? The guys who built my house are long gone. I feel no compulsion to thank them, much less worship them. Such a God is at least not ruled out by a failure to communicate - although there are other good reasons to rule out 'creation only' Gods, not least of which is the problem of infinite regress.

 

[Kharakov]

Is it one of those gods that just _is_? And the humans get to interpret it any way they want because it is not powerful enough to correct them? making it essentially pointless?

Anything for you Rhea.

 

[Kharakov]

Apparently this particular deity communicates to people through through a method that is indistinguishable from the Bader-Meinhof effect, and only to people who have the emotional maturity to react positively to it's existence.

No, no; It is totally different to the Bader-Meinhof effect, in that the Bader-Meinhof effect occurs to other people, while communications from God happen to Kharakov. See?

Finally you get it. It's not like I have some type of God complex or delusions of grandeur, which only happen to people without my superior humility.

 

[Kharakov]

You claim that rocks are not beings that can be attributed consciousness or non-consciousness because they are made up of many subatomic particles. If that is your position, then it follows that humans are also not beings that can be attributed consciousness or non-consciousness.

I've already said that when the particles align their behaviors in certain ways they form another consciousness, otherwise they behave as individuals.

This is a different reason than you have provided previously. Previously you presented an 'everything reacts, therefore everything is conscious' reason for believing that consciousness exists at the subatomic level.

No. The original idea, which is still the basis of all this thought, is that someone who reacts and acts consciously has no basis to claim that any other reaction is non-conscious.

You'd have to experience being an electron first hand in order to know they don't react consciously.

Humans created mathematical rules and agree to follow them, therefore
Subatomic particles created natural laws and agree to follow them,

Because that would be yet another fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Nope- it's not an argument, it's an observation. Like I've said all along, there is absolutely no evidence that the smallest particles react to one another without consciousness. I'm just describing the various behaviors that they engage in, since they are obviously conscious, since things cannot react without consciousness <-- yeah, I know I just inferred that, so what?

You need to, as a conscious being who has never ever witnessed a non-conscious reaction first hand, prove that they are not conscious. The BoP is yours. <-- reminded of Cyndi Lauper for some reason.

Just a restatement of claims that have already been refuted.

Wow, you do the whole "I've refuted what you said" without doing it thing, ehh? Nice...

You have asserted repeatedly that there is no reason to believe that there is anything non-conscious in existence. We have presented rocks, dead humans,

WTF are you doing with dead humans? I knew you guys were fucked up when you thought that the basis of existence wasn't consciousness. It's like you have broken minds that have big gaping blind spots.

But whenever you are presented with an example that invalidates your claim, you engage in one logical fallacy or another, or simply ignore the evidence in favour of non-responses like the one immediately above.

Ahh, I've said stuff based on the absolute fact that you have no first hand evidence that other things which react do so without consciousness.

You have never been an electron. You do not know that they are not conscious. You have no evidence they are not. In fact, both they, and you, are made of energy following patterns. I think the group of you are prejudiced. It's like walking into a KKK rally, and you guys are like "all 'dem 'lectrons be da same. We's a gonna teach 'em a lesson. Break out da' lube and the garter belts!"

 

[bigfield]

I've already said that*when*the particles align their behaviors in certain ways they form another consciousness, otherwise they behave as individuals.*

This is a different reason than you have provided previously. Previously you presented an 'everything reacts, therefore everything is conscious' reason for believing that consciousness exists at the subatomic level.

No. The original idea, which is still the basis of all this thought, is that someone who reacts and acts consciously has no basis to claim that any other reaction is non-conscious.*

Abundant evidence of non-conscious reactions is reason enough. Evidence that you remain unable to respond to without engaging in logical fallacies.

You'd have to experience being an electron first hand in order to know they don't react consciously.

We don't need to be a rock, or a chair, to know that they are not conscious - we can tell simply by examining those things and observing that they do not meet the criteria for consciousness. Nor do we need to be another human being in order to know that they are conscious

You have appealed to 'cogito ergo sum' to argue that a human can know that their own consciousness exists, but that they cannot know that any other consciousness exists or does not exist. By this standard, not only only can we not conclude the existence of any other human consciousness, but we cannot conclude the existence of any other thing at all besides our own consciousness.

You don't deny the evidence of your senses, which means that you are willing to accept empirical evidence of the existence of things other than your own consciousness. And yet your arbitrarily reject the empirical evidence for the existence of otherconsciousnesses, and the evidence of the lack of other consciousnesses. For example, the human mind and the rock's lack of a mind, respectively.

Your arbitrary rejection of evidence is why your attempts to shift the burden of proof are invalid, and therefore unacceptable.

Humans created mathematical rules and agree to follow them, therefore
Subatomic particles created natural laws and agree to follow them,

Because that would be yet another fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Nope- it's not an argument, it's an observation. Like I've said all along, there is absolutely no evidence that the smallest particles react to one another without consciousness. I'm just describing the various behaviors that they engage in, since they are obviously conscious, since things cannot react without consciousness <-- yeah, I know I just inferred that, so what?

Your premise, that things cannot react without consciousness, is a bald assertion, a presupposition on your part.

You need to, as a conscious being who has never ever witnessed a non-conscious reaction first hand, prove that they are not conscious. The BoP is yours. <-- reminded of Cyndi Lauper for some reason.

See above for my response to your only-first-hand-evidence-is-valid argument.

Just a restatement of claims that have already been refuted.

Wow, you do the whole "I've refuted what you said" without doing it thing, ehh? Nice...

The part of your post I was referring to was simply a restatement of an argument you have already presented, that one cannot know of the existence of a consciousness that one has not experienced as one's own consciousness. You just repeating the same groundless argument over and over again and so far have failed to present any defence.

But whenever you are presented with an example that invalidates your claim, you engage in one logical fallacy or another, or simply ignore the evidence in favour of non-responses like the one immediately above.

Ahh, I've said stuff based on the absolute fact that you have no first hand evidence that other things which react do so without consciousness.

You have never been an electron. You do not know that they are not conscious. You have no evidence they are not. In fact, both they, and you, are made of energy following patterns.<snip>

See above for my response to your only-first-hand-evidence-is-valid argument.

 

[Kharakov]

Abundant evidence of non-conscious reactions is reason enough.

You have absolutely no evidence of a single non-conscious reaction.
You have evidence of non-human reactions.

There is a difference.

And yet your arbitrarily reject the empirical evidence for the existence of other consciousnesses, and the evidence of the lack of other consciousnesses. For example, the human mind and the rock's lack of a mind, respectively.

I accept the evidence, as do you. You appear to interpret evidence with a heavily anthropic bias.

The assumption of the non-consciousness of the one substance (consciousness) that reacts to and creates all things is derived from ignorance of the one substance, an ignorance derived from malformed structures of the one substance which cancels out perception of the absolute truth.

Consciousness can form ignorance- not absolute ignorance, but at least it can form incorrect ideas. The one thing consciousness cannot eliminate is self: always, cogito ergo sum.

A human mind can have solid concepts, like the axioms of arithmetic. The fundamental consciousness can have solid concepts, like the behaviors of particles as a rock, or in a human mind. A human mind can be aware of the fundamental consciousness existing, and communicating through specific rules that the fundamental consciousness is aware of following in order to create cohesive concepts in the 'uman mind.

 

[bigfield]

You have absolutely no evidence of a single non-conscious reaction.
You have evidence of non-human reactions.

There is a difference.

I also have evidence of 'human' reactions that are conscious and non-conscious.

I have evidence of of human reactions that are both conscious and non-conscious: Conscious 'human' reactions include decisions made by the conscious part of the human brain. Non-conscious 'human' reactions include the fact that a human obeys the laws of nature, despite not requiring their 'human' consciousness to do so. We know this because a human continues to obey the laws of nature regardless of whether they are conscious, unconscious, comatose, braindead or deceased.

Therefore your claim that I 'have absolutely no evidence of a single non-conscious reaction,' is false.

And yet your arbitrarily reject the empirical evidence for the existence of other consciousnesses, and the evidence of the lack of other consciousnesses. For example, the human mind and the rock's lack of a mind, respectively.

I accept the evidence, as do you. You appear to interpret evidence with a heavily anthropic bias.

Your claim of an 'anthropic bias' is incoherent. Stipulate what you mean by the term.

The assumption of the non-consciousness of the one substance (consciousness) that reacts to and creates all things is derived from ignorance of the one substance, an ignorance derived from malformed structures of the one substance which cancels out perception of the absolute truth.

Incoherent nonsense.

Consciousness can form ignorance- not absolute ignorance, but at least it can form incorrect ideas. The one thing consciousness cannot eliminate is self: always, cogito ergo sum.

This is an irrelevant statement unless you are denying the existence of everything other than your own consciousness.

A human mind can have solid concepts, like the axioms of arithmetic. The fundamental consciousness can have solid concepts, like the behaviors of particles as a rock, or in a human mind. A human mind can be aware of the fundamental consciousness existing, and communicating through specific rules that the fundamental consciousness is aware of following in order to create cohesive concepts in the 'uman mind.

Still a groundless conclusion.

 

[Kharakov]

I also have evidence of 'human' reactions that are conscious and non-conscious.

No. Every reaction in a human that they are not aware of is the reaction of something in the human other than their own consciousness.

A neuron reacting to something is not you reacting. The neuron may carry information to your autonomic nervous system. A cell may act without your awareness: this is not your reaction, it is the reaction of a cell.

Of course the cell itself may simply be the reactions of smaller entities- or the actions of the cell, and smaller entities, may be the actions of a large entity with great skill. There are no indications of non-consciousness anywhere, with the exception of your lack of awareness of the consciousness of other entities that are interacting with you.

And yet your arbitrarily reject the empirical evidence for the existence of other consciousnesses, and the evidence of the lack of other consciousnesses. For example, the human mind and the rock's lack of a mind, respectively.

I accept the evidence, as do you. You appear to interpret evidence with a heavily anthropic bias.

Your claim of an 'anthropic bias' is incoherent. Stipulate what you mean by the term.

You have a bias towards believing that consciousness (awareness) has to be something like a humans- for something to be aware, you believe it has to have a complex nervous system or some feedback loop like a nervous system. You don't think things can have awareness at the level of an electron, even though an electron reacts to electromagnetism and it has certain self properties (spin, charge, mass).

 

[Rhea]

You don't think things can have awareness at the level of an electron, even though an electron reacts to electromagnetism and it has certain self properties (spin, charge, mass).

Yes. And that is probably correct for all of mankind except you. And your god.

 

[Kharakov]

You don't think things can have awareness at the level of an electron, even though an electron reacts to electromagnetism and it has certain self properties (spin, charge, mass).

Yes. And that is probably correct for all of mankind except you. And your god.

That would be Thor. Thor is in charge of electromagnetism. Haha... the speakers near me just crackled and hummed.