What are your reasons for believing in god(s)?

[SUTG]

I am new here. Although I've done quite a bit of reading in the other threads, this is my first post.

My reason for being here is to debate, or preferably discuss, the existence of gods. It would be nice to be challenged and informed. As you can see from my profile, I am an atheist. I have always been an atheist, although I used to go to church every week with my family, and was sent to a Roman Catholic church.

Alot of my friends are Christians (or theists, at least) but I don't think it is always appropriate to try and challenge their beliefs (unless they are interested in the exchange). So, I came here.

If anyone is interested in an exchange, please start with your reasons for believing what you do.


cheers,
SUTG

[Dread Helm]

:wave2: Welcome to TOL!

[Granite]

As the existence of deity can't be proven either way, I'm not going to be dogmatic.

That's just me.

Welcome to TOL! :sinapisN:

[Caledvwlch]

Welcome, SUTG (how is that pronounced?). I wish I could help you, but I don't even really know what I believe, so much as I know what I don't believe.

[SUTG]

Wow, you guys are quick. I even recognise two of your usernames from other threads.

Granite1010, I was not asking for proof either way, only reasons for belief. Most of us believe in lots of things we cannot prove.

[Zakath]

SUTG, welcome to TOL. :)

[Dread Helm]

I believe in God because of the compelling evidence in the Bible and in the Historical Record.

:zoomin:

I'm not going to get technical right now, because I don't have time, but those are my thoughts.

[SUTG]

I'm not going to get technical right now, because I don't have time, but those are my thoughts.


Fair enough. Stop back when you do have the time.

[Catatumba]

I am new here. Although I've done quite a bit of reading in the other threads, this is my first post.

My reason for being here is to debate, or preferably discuss, the existence of gods. It would be nice to be challenged and informed. As you can see from my profile, I am an atheist. I have always been an atheist, although I used to go to church every week with my family, and was sent to a Roman Catholic church.

Alot of my friends are Christians (or theists, at least) but I don't think it is always appropriate to try and challenge their beliefs (unless they are interested in the exchange). So, I came here.

If anyone is interested in an exchange, please start with your reasons for believing what you do.
You are an atheist...
Does it not mean that yo do not believe in the Hebrew God, right?
And that you do not have a reasonable influence of the same within you. I just want to make sure that your arguments for your arguments come from the etherphimeral existance of "other gods" as you call it is objective; and not the product of a secularized need to be cool or semi-conscious or un-conscious, or even a confusion, as to what you are seeking to believe.
The greeks were very good at that. It's called mythology.
Paul's most famous "unknown god."
And inside this very context the myth of xstianity, the Jesus thing is called "The Noble Lie."; Is there any room for doubt?
Cheers, Catatumba. :dog:
cheers,
SUTG

[Sentinel]

Alright, my thoughts on gods are simple, and herein I suppose I shall dip my feet into the water to get started on uncovering my views for the lot of you.

I am pagan, however I happen to have been Christian for a good portion of my life so I know the routine. I do believe in intelligent design- something out there had to have created this because, quite simply, the odds of it having occured on it's own are shamefully slim. Whether or not we were created by a 'God' is left up to question. I worship no god. I respect a great many and have affection for a few, certainly, but do not worship anyone or anything.

Every god of every religion exists. Why is that? Because people believe in them. Belief is something similar to currency amongst the gods, as it were, because if people believe in something, it becomes real. The more belief people have, the more concrete and 'real' that which they believe in becomes. The concept is called 'consensual reality'. This is not to say that if I believe that I can fly, I can jump off a building and fly. Quite the opposite will occur, I assure you. Now, the reason for this? The Consensus states otherwise. The Consensus is formed of the commonly accepted facets of reality, held close to people and nutured. Humanity has made realities of it's beliefs. An example of this would be the dollar bill- it's not worth anything but for the fact that people believe it has value. It is paper with ink on it. Now what kind of worth would that have without the belief that it actually has some? Very little. The United States is not even on the Gold Standard anymore- so it is not representing actual gold in a treasury somewhere (the value of gold could be subject to this, but at the moment, I shall only address the dollar bill). So the dollar bill only is worth a dollar because the government asserts that it is and we believe that it is. This concept is the same one that I apply to gods- they exist because people believe they do and they also believe that their gods are capable of doing things- and thusly, they become capable.

[Hal_Jordan]

Alright, my thoughts on gods are simple, and herein I suppose I shall dip my feet into the water to get started on uncovering my views for the lot of you.

I am pagan, however I happen to have been Christian for a good portion of my life so I know the routine. I do believe in intelligent design- something out there had to have created this because, quite simply, the odds of it having occured on it's own are shamefully slim. Whether or not we were created by a 'God' is left up to question. I worship no god. I respect a great many and have affection for a few, certainly, but do not worship anyone or anything.

Every god of every religion exists. Why is that? Because people believe in them. Belief is something similar to currency amongst the gods, as it were, because if people believe in something, it becomes real. The more belief people have, the more concrete and 'real' that which they believe in becomes. The concept is called 'consensual reality'. This is not to say that if I believe that I can fly, I can jump off a building and fly. Quite the opposite will occur, I assure you. Now, the reason for this? The Consensus states otherwise. The Consensus is formed of the commonly accepted facets of reality, held close to people and nutured. Humanity has made realities of it's beliefs. An example of this would be the dollar bill- it's not worth anything but for the fact that people believe it has value. It is paper with ink on it. Now what kind of worth would that have without the belief that it actually has some? Very little. The United States is not even on the Gold Standard anymore- so it is not representing actual gold in a treasury somewhere (the value of gold could be subject to this, but at the moment, I shall only address the dollar bill). So the dollar bill only is worth a dollar because the government asserts that it is and we believe that it is. This concept is the same one that I apply to gods- they exist because people believe they do and they also believe that their gods are capable of doing things- and thusly, they become capable.

I used to believe the same way, with a few additions. If I may, what caused you (if anytihng) to move from Christianity to Paganism?

[Real Sorceror]

Alright, my thoughts on gods are simple, and herein I suppose I shall dip my feet into the water to get started on uncovering my views for the lot of you.

I am pagan, however I happen to have been Christian for a good portion of my life so I know the routine. I do believe in intelligent design- something out there had to have created this because, quite simply, the odds of it having occured on it's own are shamefully slim. Whether or not we were created by a 'God' is left up to question. I worship no god. I respect a great many and have affection for a few, certainly, but do not worship anyone or anything.

Every god of every religion exists. Why is that? Because people believe in them. Belief is something similar to currency amongst the gods, as it were, because if people believe in something, it becomes real. The more belief people have, the more concrete and 'real' that which they believe in becomes. The concept is called 'consensual reality'. This is not to say that if I believe that I can fly, I can jump off a building and fly. Quite the opposite will occur, I assure you. Now, the reason for this? The Consensus states otherwise. The Consensus is formed of the commonly accepted facets of reality, held close to people and nutured. Humanity has made realities of it's beliefs. An example of this would be the dollar bill- it's not worth anything but for the fact that people believe it has value. It is paper with ink on it. Now what kind of worth would that have without the belief that it actually has some? Very little. The United States is not even on the Gold Standard anymore- so it is not representing actual gold in a treasury somewhere (the value of gold could be subject to this, but at the moment, I shall only address the dollar bill). So the dollar bill only is worth a dollar because the government asserts that it is and we believe that it is. This concept is the same one that I apply to gods- they exist because people believe they do and they also believe that their gods are capable of doing things- and thusly, they become capable.
Deep thoughts man. I'm starting to believe there are other gods as well. What do you think happens if no one believes in a certian diety? Would it stop existing? How do you think the different mythologies relate to one another? Is there one that is "more" true or is it relative to the number of believers?

[soothsayer]

I believe in God because of the compelling evidence in the Bible and in the Historical Record.
Compelling evidence? :think: The Bible is hardly compelling with all of its errors and inconsistencies. And the historical record can only acertain that people have believed in your god (the same could be said of any god) not that he actually exists, or even ever existed.

:zoomin:

I'm not going to get technical right now, because I don't have time, but those are my thoughts.

Perhaps you're ready to get "technical" now?

[Real Sorceror]

My theory so far is that the three Abrahmic faiths are basically true. However, there are "poser" gods, if you will, that want to be worshiped like God. The Greek, Egyption, and Norse pantheons are examples. They are not really gods in the sense that they did not create the universe and likely did not create anything at all (except perhaps the religions that worship them). I dont think they all have an evil agenda, and many appear to have purely good intentions (like the three core Buddhist dieties). I have no idea what they are or where they came from (likely they where created by God, but for some other purpose)

[Daniel50]

I strongly believe Bible is the "Word of God".The power God is on the word of God.



"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

[Sentinel]

Deep thoughts man. I'm starting to believe there are other gods as well. What do you think happens if no one believes in a certian diety? Would it stop existing? How do you think the different mythologies relate to one another? Is there one that is "more" true or is it relative to the number of believers?

I would probably say that yes, if belief in a certain deity was entirely gone and no one (not one indivdual) believed in their existance any longer, they'd fade into nothingness. That is not to say that if people began to believe again that they could not return, however.

Insofar as mythology goes, I think that it's all to be taken with a grain of salt. I believe in no particular ideology, really. And I don't think that truth can really be measured in the number of believers it his, despite my thoughts on Consensual Reality. Truth is... not necessarily what is commonly believed to be real. It's complicated to explain, honestly.

Insofar as Creation goes, I am not so sure that we were created by some being because, if you consider it, if there was nothing at all other than God- where did God come from? I'd be inclined to say that we were not created by any 'God' but perhaps by some higher being that wanted to try his hand at something. Now, whether that higher being be some form of 'alien' race that we don't know about yet, or if it truly is some sort of god is left up in the air at the moment. I'd hesitate to say 'aliens' because that sounds too sci-fi and is in no way credible, in my estimation. However, I don't think that we are the *only* intelligent life in the entire universe, that'd just be arrogant and foolish of us, for the universe is, essentially, infinate. Just because we haven't encountered anything intelligent in our forays within our own solar system doesn't mean that there aren't other creatures out there that are as (if not more) advanced than we. But still, saying that "We were created by alien influence!" is just... it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Knight]

Insofar as Creation goes, I am not so sure that we were created by some being because, if you consider it, if there was nothing at all other than God- where did God come from? I'd be inclined to say that we were not created by any 'God' but perhaps by some higher being that wanted to try his hand at something. Now, whether that higher being be some form of 'alien' race that we don't know about yet, or if it truly is some sort of god is left up in the air at the moment. I'd hesitate to say 'aliens' because that sounds too sci-fi and is in no way credible, in my estimation. However, I don't think that we are the *only* intelligent life in the entire universe, that'd just be arrogant and foolish of us, for the universe is, essentially, infinate. Just because we haven't encountered anything intelligent in our forays within our own solar system doesn't mean that there aren't other creatures out there that are as (if not more) advanced than we. But still, saying that "We were created by alien influence!" is just... it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.Are these "aliens" supernatural?

Because.... if they are not, you have only set the question of creation back a level and solved nothing.

Said another way.... who created the aliens?

[Sentinel]

Are these "aliens" supernatural?

Because.... if they are not, you have only set the question of creation back a level and solved nothing.

Said another way.... who created the aliens?

I didn't claim that they were supernatural- I don't believe that aliens created us. I think that it's possible, but I can't say that that's what I believe. Quite frankly, I don't know who created what, but I can assure you that something had to start all of this and I don't think it was the Christian God. Sure, s/he might've started humanity going, but I don't think that s/he created *everything*. For all we know, the 'god' that created this universe is a pimply-faced youth in another reality that is presenting this universe as a science experement. The rabbit hole never stops and I don't think humanity will ever really know where it came from or how everything came to be. There are innumerable explanations and each as questionable as the next for none have any real proof that can be quantified.

[Nineveh]

...I'm starting to believe there are other gods...

Of course there are. This is no big secret.

The question is, which one is The God?

I know of a God who puts other gods on their face before Him :) 1 Samuel 5:3

[Knight]

I didn't claim that they were supernatural
I realize that, hence my question. Nevermind.

You continue....I don't believe that aliens created us. I think that it's possible, but I can't say that that's what I believe. Quite frankly, I don't know who created what, but I can assure you that something had to start all of this and I don't think it was the Christian God. So... you are saying you have no clue who created except you have ruled out one possible option? :confused:

[Real Sorceror]

I would probably say that yes, if belief in a certain deity was entirely gone and no one (not one indivdual) believed in their existance any longer, they'd fade into nothingness. That is not to say that if people began to believe again that they could not return, however.
Hmmm, could the loss of all belief cuase the being to doubt its own existence? *see below*
Insofar as mythology goes, I think that it's all to be taken with a grain of salt. I believe in no particular ideology, really. And I don't think that truth can really be measured in the number of believers it his, despite my thoughts on Consensual Reality. Truth is... not necessarily what is commonly believed to be real. It's complicated to explain, honestly.
No, I understand.
Insofar as Creation goes, I am not so sure that we were created by some being because, if you consider it, if there was nothing at all other than God- where did God come from? I'd be inclined to say that we were not created by any 'God' but perhaps by some higher being that wanted to try his hand at something.
I believe that I exist, therefore I exist. Would God require us to believe in Him, or is it enoff that He believes He exists? Could God have created Himself by believing in Himself?(thats my trippy comment for the day)
Now, whether that higher being be some form of 'alien' race that we don't know about yet, or if it truly is some sort of god is left up in the air at the moment. I'd hesitate to say 'aliens' because that sounds too sci-fi and is in no way credible, in my estimation. However, I don't think that we are the *only* intelligent life in the entire universe, that'd just be arrogant and foolish of us, for the universe is, essentially, infinate. Just because we haven't encountered anything intelligent in our forays within our own solar system doesn't mean that there aren't other creatures out there that are as (if not more) advanced than we. But still, saying that "We were created by alien influence!" is just... it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Yes, I agree. The word "alien" just sounds off. Really though, the word could also describe beings not from this demension a.k.a angels, devils, etc. Intelligent life on other planets is likely. God is immortal and all-powerful, and need not limit himself to one special planet. (insert alien Jesus joke here)

[Sentinel]

I realize that, hence my question. Nevermind.

You continue....So... you are saying you have no clue who created except you have ruled out one possible option? :confused:

I am ruling out that option because it would leave question as to whom created that god and in order for that god to have created us s/he'd have to exist and in order to exist one must be created. So perhaps that god created *us* but there was someone higher on the food chain that created him/her. So truly, there's no way to know.

I believe that I exist, therefore I exist. Would God require us to believe in Him, or is it enoff that He believes He exists? Could God have created Himself by believing in Himself?(thats my trippy comment for the day)

No. He'd have had to exist before he would be capable of believing in something, I'd say.

Hmmm, could the loss of all belief cuase the being to doubt its own existence? *see below*

It could, it would depend on the individual, wouldn't it?

[Morpheus_X]

I am ruling out that option because it would leave question as to whom created that god and in order for that god to have created us s/he'd have to exist and in order to exist one must be created.

Who taught you this truth? Do you think that's air your breathing now? :think:

[Sentinel]

No one taught me this truth. I came to realize it on my own after roughly 7 years of contemplation and self-evaluation. And at the moment? Air is what I am breathing, you could label it as water and then I'd be breathing water. But I am breathing something that is intangible and allows me to continue living.

[Lostinspace]

I am new here. Although I've done quite a bit of reading in the other threads, this is my first post.

My reason for being here is to debate, or preferably discuss, the existence of gods. It would be nice to be challenged and informed. As you can see from my profile, I am an atheist. I have always been an atheist, although I used to go to church every week with my family, and was sent to a Roman Catholic church.

Alot of my friends are Christians (or theists, at least) but I don't think it is always appropriate to try and challenge their beliefs (unless they are interested in the exchange). So, I came here.

If anyone is interested in an exchange, please start with your reasons for believing what you do.


cheers,
SUTG

First off I must admit I know jack about the bible (That is changing) but will say this. I have looked to the stars and thought "How, How did this all happen?" and for years kept a light in the back of my mind on for openess to something more than God" but I also had a light on to accept that there must be a maker, and this was more than likely God. Coming here just cemented the correct beliefs and I am happy to say the energy bill has gone down now with only one light burning, the light of God.

[Morpheus_X]

And at the moment? Air is what I am breathing, you could label it as water and then I'd be breathing water. But I am breathing something that is intangible and allows me to continue living.


The air thing was a quote from the matrix, a joke, a pun, a jest, a funny....well, you understand. and to jokes like that...there is no real point :zoomin:

I believe when you believe something that it has to come with some proof, or authority. Assumptions are often built on foundations that are imaginary...or made up. And any truths found on such a foundation can only crumble in the light of facts..

[paulpeterson83]

I have no need of gods. Let the gods go about their business and I'll go about mine. If they are there, I highly doubt that they care, or even know we're here.

[Sentinel]

The air thing was a quote from the matrix, a joke, a pun, a jest, a funny....well, you understand. and to jokes like that...there is no real point :zoomin:

I believe when you believe something that it has to come with some proof, or authority. Assumptions are often built on foundations that are imaginary...or made up. And any truths found on such a foundation can only crumble in the light of facts..

Ah, I thought you were using it to illustrate a point- I did recognize the origin of the quote ^.^

Well, everyone can find proof to support any view if they try hard enough. Whether that proof is relevant to anyone but them, however, is subject to question. My beliefs have proof only in that I can do things that I have been told are impossible. I don't mean vulgar things like levitation or that nonsense, but subtle things that reaffirm my belief in what I consider to be the truth. It might not be your truth. Or their truth. But it is mine, and I cherish it.

[SUTG]

bump. :chuckle:

[kmoney]

I believe in God because of the compelling evidence in the Bible and in the Historical Record.

:zoomin:

I'm not going to get technical right now, because I don't have time, but those are my thoughts.
Well how about you get technical now. Are you telling me you haven't had time in the past year and a half???

:chuckle:

;)

[OlDove]

i believe because i do.
if you believe because of me.
then you are doomed to follow me.
dont be doomed.
find what reason you hold true. :thumb:

[Lon]

1) Something, regardless of denial, is eternal

2) I am a personal being and I am not a creator. First, I am personal, I exist. I am not a rock. Evolution suggests I am a chemical reaction. Fine, in even a misconception there is a truth, I am a self-cognizant chemical reaction at the very least. While I believe this is absolutely elementary school for an explanation of me, I am the product of something eternal. This eternal substance is 'god' in the sense that it made or created me. If for nothing else, you have to recognize, we all believe in some kind of 'god' because we are not 'it' or 'him.'

3) Since we all believe in 'some' god in one form or another, it is only definition that needs further analysis. There is a 'god' plain and simple. I am the product or creation of something or someone that created me.

4) 3 kinds of doubters: Agnostics that recognizes that there is a 'god' but are not sure or don't care. Agnostics who are are not certain whether a god exists. These second ones are like the atheist. An atheist believes there is no creator. Perhaps, they would concede that they are a created being, but they just do not desire to prostrate themselves to a rock, or an impersonal process of evolution from that rock.

5) Why a personal god? I believe the complexity of our minds speaks to and from a higher order. We tend to value experience, one another, and sometimes things in a way that points to a existential perception. The world turning, or the processes of nature do not tend to bring meaning to this perception. There is a uniqueness to our existence that we cannot explain.

6) The other way around. So far I've discussed why we perceive a god. What I have not discussed however, is the perspective of a god. If a personal god exists, he/she either desires to be left alone, or desires relationship. If the god desires to be left alone, we could expect that we would have no certainty of who this god is, just a certainty that some kind or form of a creator exists, personal or otherwise. If however this god is personal, desires relationship, and wants to have some kind of relation with his creatures, we could expect that he/she would initiate this relationship somehow. The question is, has such a god done so?

[Jpw05]

I believe in God.
I believe in the Teachings of the Bible.
I believe in the Bible as Historical fact.
I believe that the Bible was written for the simple person to understand.

Not to be Analyzed, Pasteurized, Sanitized, Deodorized, Criticized, like it has been.

Now you could ask me "Show me the proof of all of this you say"
I would say, "I can't"
I can't say "Here is a rock that Moses stepped on, or here is a piece of Noah's Ark"

To me, It's just a matter of Faith.

Just my opinion here, that's all

[CoinOpChristian]

I'm not sure how to answer the request for the reasons I beieve in God.
I was baptized as an infant. I have no recallection of NOT having believed in God.
To my knowlege, I alway have been a believe since the day I reived the gift of the Holy Spirit at my baptism. So I guess my reason for believeing is in my baptism.

[SUTG]

So, did anyone come up with anything yet? :chuckle:

[mighty_duck]

So, did anyone come up with anything yet? :chuckle:
You're too impatient, it's only been two years. They'll come up with an excellent reason any year now.

[Damian]

What are your reasons for believing in God?

Consciousness.

This is fairly self-evident to those who have given this even a modicum of thought.

[SUTG]

Consciousness.

This is fairly self-evident to those who have given this even a modicum of thought.

Uh, no.

Anyone else?

[Damian]

Uh, no.

Anyone else?

What do you mean: "Uh, no...anyone else?"

I provided you with an answer. I expect some kind of rebuttal or response.

[SUTG]

I expect some kind of rebuttal or response.

Well, ther isn't really anything there to rebut. You just said that you believe in God because of consciousness and that it was obvious. How does the existence of consciousness entail the existence of god(s)?

[Damian]

Well, ther isn't really anything there to rebut. You just said that you believe in God because of consciousness and that it was obvious. How does the existence of consciousness entail the existence of god(s)?

Account for consciousness based on a materialistic worldview.

[SUTG]

Account for consciousness based on a materialistic worldview.

Why are you changing the subject?

[Damian]

Why are you changing the subject?

I'm not changing the subject. You asked why I believe in God and I stated why. There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept.[/QUOTE]

[asilentskeptic]

I'm not changing the subject. You asked why I believe in God and I stated why. There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept.

There is most definitely an accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept.

Here is a good page, for starters The Evolution of Consciousness (http://www.peterussell.com/SCG/EoC.php)

After that... just for kicks, go to scholar.google.com and type in "consciousness evolution (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&q=consciousness+evolution&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws)" There is enough information there to keep you busy for a very long time.

[Damian]

I'm not changing the subject. You asked why I believe in God and I stated why. There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept.

Let me rephrase:

"There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept or form of dualism."

[SUTG]

Let me rephrase:

"There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept or form of dualism."

Ok, then I assume you are going to follow this up by presenting your account of consciousness? :idunno:

[asilentskeptic]

Let me rephrase:

"There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept or form of dualism."

The study of consciousness is one that is getting a lot of time. How the mind works, how consciousness developed: these are all things that are being looked at. And not just philisophically. There are concrete studies being done to find out where consciousness comes from, especially in the last 15 years.

You will have to explain what you mean by dualism though, so that I can respond correctly :) I typed up a beastly reply, and decided I should wait so that I knew exactly what you were stating.

[fool]

Account for consciousness based on a materialistic worldview.
The collective dilusion of several million brain cells.
That was easy.

[asilentskeptic]

The collective dilusion of several million brain cells.
That was easy.

Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them"

[Damian]

There is most definitely an accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept.

Here is a good page, for starters The Evolution of Consciousness (http://www.peterussell.com/SCG/EoC.php)

"The Evolution of Consciousness" is basically an argument for God. This would have been apparent if you read the header - "For more on this theme see book From Science to God."

In From Science to God, Russell evokes Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shift to argue that science is on the threshold of a new superparadigm1. Russell disputes scientific materialism and likens current efforts to explain consciousness in terms of neuropsychology to the convoluted epicycles before the Copernican revolution in astronomy. Russell's views are in sharp contrast to materialists like Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained. Depending on one's point of view, Russell's perspective might be argued as being either protoscientific or pseudoscientific, but in any case is similar to views held by nonmaterialist thinkers like Plotinus, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Ken Wilber. (source: Wikipedia "Peter Russell")

[Damian]

The collective dilusion of several million brain cells.
That was easy.

What is having the delusion?

[fool]

What is having the delusion?

Can you read?

[Damian]

Ok, then I assume you are going to follow this up by presenting your account of consciousness? :idunno:

Why do I? Consciousness is self-evident.

[Damian]

Can you read?

Yes. I can read. I can spell also.

[Damian]

The study of consciousness is one that is getting a lot of time. How the mind works, how consciousness developed: these are all things that are being looked at. And not just philisophically. There are concrete studies being done to find out where consciousness comes from, especially in the last 15 years.

In the context of this discussion, dualism refers to mind/matter or mind/body as being ontologically distinct.

In philosophy of mind, dualism is any of a narrow variety of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which claims that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories. In particular, mind-body dualism claims that neither the mind nor matter can be reduced to each other in any way, and thus is opposed to materialism in general, and reductive materialism in particular. Mind-body dualism can exist as substance dualism which claims that the mind and the body are composed of a distinct substance, and as property dualism which claims that there may not be a distinction in substance, but that mental and physical properties are still categorically distinct, and not reducible to each other. This type of dualism is sometimes referred to as "mind and body" and stands in contrast to philosophical monism, which views mind and matter as being ultimately the same kind of thing. (source: Wikipedia "Dualism")

[fool]

Yes. I can read. I can spell also.
Good.
Go back and read.

[Damian]

Good.
Go back and read.

The collective dilusion of several million brain cells.
That was easy.

Do the several million brain cells have the delusion? If so, you have not explained anything. How do cells have consciousness?

What exactly is having the delusion? To have a delusion presupposes some form of consciousness to begin with.

[SUTG]

Hmmm...I must be missing something here. When I asked why you believed in god, you said "consciousness" and then said it was "self-evident" how the existence of consciousness was your reason for believing in the existence of god. Then you asked me to account for consciousness based on a materialistic worldview, and stated "There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept or form of dualism." Then I asked you how you account for consciousness and you said it "was self-evident".

Is that about it?

[fool]

Do the several million brain cells have the delusion? If so, you have not explained anything. How do cells have consciousness?
How do you have consciousness without cells?

What exactly is having the delusion? To have a delusion presupposes some form of consciousness to begin with.
Can you read?

[Damian]

How do you have consciousness without cells?

Can you read?

I will presume that you believe that cells have consciousness. How far down does this extend? Molecules...electrons?

[Damian]

Hmmm...I must be missing something here. When I asked why you believed in god, you said "consciousness" and then said it was "self-evident" how the existence of consciousness was your reason for believing in the existence of god. Then you asked me to account for consciousness based on a materialistic worldview, and stated "There's no accounting for consciousness that does not entail some kind of God-concept or form of dualism." Then I asked you how you account for consciousness and you said it "was self-evident".

Is that about it?

I cannot account for consciousness without invoking some form of God-concept or dualistic belief. Can you?

[Mr. 5020]

I am new here. Although I've done quite a bit of reading in the other threads, this is my first post.

My reason for being here is to debate, or preferably discuss, the existence of gods. It would be nice to be challenged and informed. As you can see from my profile, I am an atheist. I have always been an atheist, although I used to go to church every week with my family, and was sent to a Roman Catholic church.

Alot of my friends are Christians (or theists, at least) but I don't think it is always appropriate to try and challenge their beliefs (unless they are interested in the exchange). So, I came here.

If anyone is interested in an exchange, please start with your reasons for believing what you do.


cheers,
SUTGIt's always cool to see old posts like this. :)

[Damian]

Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them"

This explains nothing and is no different than saying that consciousness is produced by the brain. The question is whether consciousness is material or not.

[Damian]

After that... just for kicks, go to scholar.google.com and type in "consciousness evolution (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&q=consciousness+evolution&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws)" There is enough information there to keep you busy for a very long time.

The book entitled "Consciousness Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential" (by Barbara Marx Hubbard) appears to be a "New Age" book promoting "cosmic consciousness." The author quotes the Gospel of St. Thomas in support of her thesis. Are you are attempting to argue for God's reality?

[fool]

I will presume that you believe that cells have consciousness. How far down does this extend? Molecules...electrons?
Collective delusion.
Collective.

[fool]

I cannot account for consciousness without invoking some form of God-concept or dualistic belief. Can you?
You cannot account fot God!
So you didn't really solve anything.

[Damian]

Collective delusion.
Collective.

Atheists are fond of saying that believers share in the collective delusion of God's existence. However, this collective delusion is predicated on the delusion of each and every believer. If consciousness is the collective delusion of brain cells, then it presupposes that the brain cells have consciousness in order to be deluded to begin with. Consequently, you have explained nothing. You have to explain first how brain cells have consciousness.

[Damian]

You cannot account fot God!
So you didn't really solve anything.

Why do I have to account for God?

[fool]

Why do I have to account for God?

Why do I have to account for conscieneness?

[SUTG]

I cannot account for consciousness without invoking some form of God-concept or dualistic belief. Can you?

Well, to fully understand what you mean by "accounting for consciousness" I think I'll need an example. So, if you could, go on ahead and account for consciousness somehow (with or without appealing to some form of God-concept or dualistic belief).

Then I'll be able to better answer your question of whether or not I can account for consciousness.

[Damian]

Why do I have to account for conscieneness?

Because you want to refute my assertion that consciousness entails some form of God-concept or dualism.

[fool]

Because you want to refute my assertion that consciousness entails some form of God-concept or dualism.

Your argument is a shell game.
You account for consciousness with God then you can't account for God.

Whereas my model account for consciouness with no loose ends.

[Damian]

Well, to fully understand what you mean by "accounting for consciousness" I think I'll need an example. So, if you could, go on ahead and account for consciousness somehow (with or without appealing to some form of God-concept or dualistic belief).

Then I'll be able to better answer your question of whether or not I can account for consciousness.

Here are the possibilities:

1) Consciousness is a non-material state and emerges from a certain configuration of unconscious (mindless in this context) energy. (This is inherently a dualistic position. Some theists may argue that God created it (soul). Materialists apparently invoke "magic.")

2) Consciousness is a physical-state. This equates consciousness with energy. (This is a pantheistic position (i.e. a position based upon a God-concept)).

[Damian]

Your argument is a shell game.
You account for consciousness with God then you can't account for God.

Whereas my model account for consciouness with no loose ends.

You have not informed me as to whether you believe if consciousness is material or immaterial in nature. Do you subscribe to dualism or not?

[Damian]

Free will (regardless of your position on it) also entails some form of God-belief.

[Gothika777]

My thoughts on God:

Basically I dont think he exists but if he did:

-He would be really evil cos the whole tempting adam and eve with the apple was really cruel. He knew they would take it cos he created them. He just wanted to taunt them.
-It was really selfish of him to create life. All the emotions and responsibilities is just not fair.
-Giving people the ability to feal pain is really sadistic but it makes me laugh though (joke)
-And finnaly whats the point of worshipping someone? Just a big waste of time. U could save the rain forest or summit instead of bowing inside a large rock!

You probably didn't like this post cos your an evil, twisted religous person. Oh well I am sure u can find God to confort u.........

[asilentskeptic]

Here are the possibilities:

1) Consciousness is a non-material state and emerges from a certain configuration of unconscious (mindless in this context) energy. (This is inherently a dualistic position. Some theists may argue that God created it (soul). Materialists apparently invoke "magic.")

2) Consciousness is a physical-state. This equates consciousness with energy. (This is a pantheistic position (i.e. a position based upon a God-concept)).

*shrug* I disagree with both of your possibilities (or at least with how you end up defining them). How can equating consciousness with energy be a pantheistic position? I am not sure how the term applies in this context. I will need more information before we go on.

And I apologize for my first links, as I am reading more and more about this, I am learning that a lot of New Age folks have been deeply involved in spewing their crap in seemingly sophisticated ways. As for the scholar.google.com link, keep scrolling down (that first article is not the best)

This is a new subject for me, so I am learning as much as I can as fast as I can. I was wondering how the belief that consciousness is just the interaction between the various parts and particles of the brain ties in to your two different ideas.

Patience as I learn and grow, but be prepared (as I ask lots of questions)!

[Damian]

*shrug* I disagree with both of your possibilities (or at least with how you end up defining them). How can equating consciousness with energy be a pantheistic position? I am not sure how the term applies in this context. I will need more information before we go on.

If consciousness is physical, then mass/energy must be conscious (after all, in the materialistic worldview, there's nothing else). If energy and consciousness are interchangeable terms, then we have just established the basis for pantheism.

On the other hand, if you argue that consciousness only emerges when mass/energy is organized in a particular confinguration, then this begs the question how. How does mass/energy go from an unconscious state to a conscious one. Magic? This is what it sounds like. Just say magic words such as "supervenience" and/or "emergence" and presto...we have consciousness.

And I apologize for my first links, as I am reading more and more about this, I am learning that a lot of New Age folks have been deeply involved in spewing their crap in seemingly sophisticated ways. As for the scholar.google.com link, keep scrolling down (that first article is not the best)

It is not uncommon for atheists to invoke New Age viewpoints. (I'm not arguing against New Age viewpoints per se. I'm simply calling them what they are.) Sam Harris does this trick in his book "The End of Faith."

This is a new subject for me, so I am learning as much as I can as fast as I can. I was wondering how the belief that consciousness is just the interaction between the various parts and particles of the brain ties in to your two different ideas.

Everything is an electro-chemical reaction. Am I to infer from this that everything has conscious awareness?

Patience as I learn and grow, but be prepared (as I ask lots of questions)!

I ask a lot of questions too.

[kesarie]

Every god of every religion exists. Why is that? Because people believe in them. Belief is something similar to currency amongst the gods, as it were, because if people believe in something, it becomes real. The more belief people have, the more concrete and 'real' that which they believe in becomes. The concept is called 'consensual reality'. This is not to say that if I believe that I can fly, I can jump off a building and fly. Quite the opposite will occur, I assure you. Now, the reason for this? The Consensus states otherwise. The Consensus is formed of the commonly accepted facets of reality, held close to people and nutured. Humanity has made realities of it's beliefs. An example of this would be the dollar bill- it's not worth anything but for the fact that people believe it has value. It is paper with ink on it. Now what kind of worth would that have without the belief that it actually has some? Very little. The United States is not even on the Gold Standard anymore- so it is not representing actual gold in a treasury somewhere (the value of gold could be subject to this, but at the moment, I shall only address the dollar bill). So the dollar bill only is worth a dollar because the government asserts that it is and we believe that it is. This concept is the same one that I apply to gods- they exist because people believe they do and they also believe that their gods are capable of doing things- and thusly, they become capable.

You offer a position but state no evidence for why it is true. Just because something can be true does not mean it is. Aliens could have built an invisible theme park on Mars, but there are no reasons for me to believe that this is the case.

Concerning the dollar bill example, first of all, ink and paper have no discernible inherent value; the statement that they have 'very little' is an assumption. Secondly, the value humans place on dollars is a social understanding of a representation of work and effects the way we interact with it and each other—it does not effect the inherent value of the paper and ink.

Here is where you confuse objective and subjective truths. Of course the reality of people's opinions or thoughts change when we think differently. Anything having to do with how a person responds, interacts, interprets, etc is subject to that person. Also, multiple people do not need to believe that I like ice cream for it to be true. Therefore subjective truths are subject to the individual that they belong to. Objective truths, like there is ice cream on the table, or God(s) exist(s), are not the type of thing that a person can believe into or out of existence without having the power to actually change them. For instance, it is true that before this point in time something existed. (That is because I know that something exists now, and because nothing cannot bring about something, there must have been something before now.) It is necessarily true. No amount of me or others believing that nothing existed will or can change that fact; it would be impossible for it not to be true. Therefore there are at least some objective truths that cannot be altered by a 'democratic reality.' The idea that a group could believe away the ice cream on the table would require a lot to prove it to be true.

Moreover, why do only humans have this ability? What about the omnipotent gods they created? If these gods really do exist like lots of people believe they do, why can't the gods also just stop believing in us? Or perhaps not believe that we can disbelieve them into oblivion? Or perhaps use their omnipotence to make us so we can't? If they really exist like humanity believes they do, then according to your view, they must be able to do that.

This view has unavoidably contradictory conclusions. The Christians (about 1/3 of the planets population) believe that there is only one God, that no others exist. Other religions, like paganism, believe in multiple gods. Are the Christians right because there are more of us? If so, you are wrong that there are many gods. There cannot be both many gods and only one God at the same time because these views are in direct contradiction with each other, including many other beliefs that people hold.

Popular opinion has been found to be wrong by the few. People used to think the Earth was in the center of the universe until Copernicus found that this could not be the case. If the majority's belief's manipulated reality, Copernicus should have been wrong. Or perhaps this never happened. Perhaps it is only a widely held modern belief that has caused it to be true. Then if it is true, the majority has still been incorrect about reality, and therefore their beliefs do not change it.

This argument is self-refuting. This type of argument is very unique. Most people have never heard of it let alone believe in it. Therefore if you are right, that reality does bend to the majority of people, then because the majority of people don't believe in it, it is not true.

Conclusion: you are wrong.

[nelo_angelo]

Any time I have believed in God, it was because of my cowardice to face up to my mortality.

[asilentskeptic]

Any time I have believed in God, it was because of my cowardice to face up to my mortality.

Heh, how many times have you believed in God? :p

I believed in God because I was brought up being told he existed. Many people have no cowardice when it comes to their mortality. Look at all the people that have willingly died and fought for a religious belief.

The reasons for belief in God are many and varied, I hope you have more than that for us :)

[Lord Vader]

Why not just say, I believe in Jehovah because I just decided to? All of this trying to work out a logical reason, or find some fine sturdy evidence, seems to miss the point of Faith. Perhaps you're not supposed to be ashamed of not having a scrap of evidence. Perhaps the whole idea is to say, because I decided to. It's not something you 'know'. It's something you know through faith, through using our ability to leap beyond logic, as Captain Kirk once put it. You can decide a lot of things, but you can decide on what would be the best good, and you can see that it has the ring of truth, where anything else you conjure up, Gods, pan dimensional beings, ad infinitum, does not. And that's how you know.

[4string]

I used to believe in God because it was a comforting thought... eventually though that wasn't enough and I became somewhat of a non-committed Atheist. Then as I learned more about how the universe worked I started leaning towards deism at the mind boggling order of the universe, how everything reacted with each other in ways that could be calculated down to (sometimes) simple equations and I felt this had to be a sign of a creator...

However as I started thinking more critically of the concept of 'God' altogether I found there was nothing to suggest anything specific about him, what's the point in believing in a God that doesn't actually do anything? So rather than pretend to know God I decided it was a question I was never going to be able to answer, except maybe when I died, so instead I'd rather focus on things I *can* find answers for.

[Stripe]

Welcome to TOL, SUTG. :chuckle: