Amkerman's Argument For God

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Amkerman's Argument For God

#1  Postby amkerman » May 10, 2012 5:22 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Thread split off from here.


For this I define God as subject independent consciousness, or, objective consciousness.

1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)consciousness
2. A cannot prove the objectivity (subject independence) of B without first proving th objectivity of A

3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first prvoing the objectivity of consciousness
4. A cannot prove the objectivity of A

5. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of consciousness
6. That which is not susceptible to rigourous proof can only be believed.

7. The objectivity of consciousness can only be believed.
1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of reality, is dependent on consciousness
3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first proving the objectivity of consciousness

8. The objectivity of reality can only be proven through a belief in the objectivity of consciousness.

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.
Last edited by amkerman on May 10, 2012 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#2  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 11, 2012 2:33 am

amkerman wrote:

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.


So even if consciousness came about by completely natural processes, we must assume God did it regardless?
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#3  Postby amkerman » May 11, 2012 5:09 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
amkerman wrote:

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.


So even if consciousness came about by completely natural processes, we must assume God did it regardless?


You need to take the entire argument as a whole. I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. I have not said God "did [consciousness]". I have defined God as subject independent consciousness and argued that any belief or knowledge about ANYTHING pertaining to reality must be (as in it is regardless of whether or not we choose to accept/believe it) grounded in a belief in subject independent consciousness, or, God. The label "God" is superfluous to what it is, which is subject independent consciousness. We can theorize or claim that natural processes derived consciousness; however, the fact remains that the only "knowledge" or belief we have about natural processes is rooted solely in our (individually and as a collective species) observations, experiences, measurements, etc, of them, and these observations, experiences, measurements, etc depend wholly on consciousness. If you think/know that these observations et al are referencing an objective reality, then you must believe that consciousness is objective (subject independent). You might claim you don't, obviously, and you might be convinced that you don't, but you rely on the belief in subject independent consciousness, which I have termed God, whether you like/realize/accept it or not.

If, on the other hand, you are of the opinion that reality itself is subjective, (which is ultimately the metaphysical claim that a relativist would make could a relativist make any metaphysical claims, which they can't) one could arguably (in their opinion, not mine; my opinion is that ontological relativism isn't tenable) get around this fundamental belief about reality/God (that it's sentient), although such a position (that reality itself is subjective) is completely irrational. As it stands, IMO, any claim that one does not believe in subject independent consciousness is only logically incoherent (although admittedly many here refuse or fail to grasp or accept this point) which is an easier pill to swallow, since many fall into the trap of thinking or believing things which are logically incoherent all the time.

So, more to the point I think: EVEN IF you believe that consciousness came about by completely natural processses, if you believe that proposition speaks to the actual nature of events in reality that belief (that consciousness came about by natural processses) MUST ultimately be grounded in a BELIEF in subject independent consciousness, whether one realizes it or not.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#4  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » May 11, 2012 5:36 am

All I can make of any of your writing is that: 'if reality does in fact exist, I'm going to call it God'.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 24
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#5  Postby lobawad » May 11, 2012 7:33 am

amkerman wrote:For this I define God as subject independent consciousness, or, objective consciousness.

1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)consciousness
2. A cannot prove the objectivity (subject independence) of B without first proving th objectivity of A

3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first prvoing the objectivity of consciousness
4. A cannot prove the objectivity of A

5. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of consciousness
6. That which is not susceptible to rigourous proof can only be believed.

7. The objectivity of consciousness can only be believed.
1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of reality, is dependent on consciousness
3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first proving the objectivity of consciousness

8. The objectivity of reality can only be proven through a belief in the objectivity of consciousness.

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.


Let us start with "1" here.

Would you tell us what you mean by "consciousness"? There are so many different definitions of and stances toward "consciousness" that we simply cannot assume that others know what we mean when using the word.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#6  Postby xrayzed » May 11, 2012 8:11 am

amkerman wrote:We can theorize or claim that natural processes derived consciousness; however, the fact remains that the only "knowledge" or belief we have about natural processes is rooted solely in our (individually and as a collective species) observations, experiences, measurements, etc, of them, and these observations, experiences, measurements, etc depend wholly on consciousness.

This just seems to be saying "conscious thoughts depend on consciousness", which is a tautology masquerading as a conclusion.

amkerman wrote: If you think/know that these observations et al are referencing an objective reality, then you must believe that consciousness is objective (subject independent).

It isn't at all clear why you believe this is so. It isn't as if there is a perfect correspondance between our conscious thoughts and the things we think about. We make fail to observe things, believe we observe things that aren't there, misunderstand things that are there, and so on.

If consciousness is objective, why is it so error-prone?
A thinking creationist is an oxymoron. A non-thinking creationist is just a moron.
(Source: johannessiig, here)
User avatar
xrayzed
 
Posts: 1053
Age: 59
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#7  Postby amkerman » May 11, 2012 11:48 am

lobawad wrote:
amkerman wrote:For this I define God as subject independent consciousness, or, objective consciousness.

1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)consciousness
2. A cannot prove the objectivity (subject independence) of B without first proving th objectivity of A

3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first prvoing the objectivity of consciousness
4. A cannot prove the objectivity of A

5. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of consciousness
6. That which is not susceptible to rigourous proof can only be believed.

7. The objectivity of consciousness can only be believed.
1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of reality, is dependent on consciousness
3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first proving the objectivity of consciousness

8. The objectivity of reality can only be proven through a belief in the objectivity of consciousness.

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.


Let us start with "1" here.

Would you tell us what you mean by "consciousness"? There are so many different definitions of and stances toward "consciousness" that we simply cannot assume that others know what we mean when using the word.


by consciousness i simply mean awareness; the lens through which humans are able to internalize and make sense of the world. I cannot give a more precise definition than that.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#8  Postby amkerman » May 11, 2012 11:59 am

xrayzed wrote:
amkerman wrote:We can theorize or claim that natural processes derived consciousness; however, the fact remains that the only "knowledge" or belief we have about natural processes is rooted solely in our (individually and as a collective species) observations, experiences, measurements, etc, of them, and these observations, experiences, measurements, etc depend wholly on consciousness.

This just seems to be saying "conscious thoughts depend on consciousness", which is a tautology masquerading as a conclusion.

amkerman wrote: If you think/know that these observations et al are referencing an objective reality, then you must believe that consciousness is objective (subject independent).

It isn't at all clear why you believe this is so. It isn't as if there is a perfect correspondance between our conscious thoughts and the things we think about. We make fail to observe things, believe we observe things that aren't there, misunderstand things that are there, and so on.

If consciousness is objective, why is it so error-prone?


I think here you are failing to distinguish between consciousness (awareness; the lens through which we are able to internalize and make sense of the world) and perception (how we subjectively interpret our experiences, observations, senses, etc). I completely agree with you that perception is subjective and prone to error, however, consciousness is not. While you may incorrectly perceive something that you hold in consciousness, that you are conscious is irrefutable (unless of course you are a material eliminativisst and don't believe consciousness exists). It is self-evident that you are conscious.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#9  Postby lobawad » May 11, 2012 9:12 pm

amkerman wrote:
by consciousness i simply mean awareness; the lens through which humans are able to internalize and make sense of the world. I cannot give a more precise definition than that.


Why not call this lens "the senses"?
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#10  Postby SpeedOfSound » May 12, 2012 4:12 am

amkerman wrote:... however, the fact remains that the only "knowledge" or belief we have about natural processes is rooted solely in our (individually and as a collective species) observations, experiences, measurements, etc, of them, and these observations, experiences, measurements, etc depend wholly on consciousness.


I don't see how this is a fact. Consciousness is an idea or belief about our occurrent stream of experience and nothing depends upon it. I stand here with a knowledge base about the world and there is no fact that it depends upon the badly drawn idea of the reality of consciousness as a thing.

The rest of you argument is incomprehensible to me.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 31833
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#11  Postby SpeedOfSound » May 12, 2012 4:19 am

amkerman wrote:
by consciousness i simply mean awareness; the lens through which humans are able to internalize and make sense of the world. I cannot give a more precise definition than that.


a. The knowledge base you now have is how you derive this idea that we internalize and make sense of the world through consciousness. You have an idea, based on common sense and science, that you have a mind, a brain, that filters things through senses and awareness. That's a naive conclusion to begin with.

b. If all knowledge is dependent upon consciousness then this bit of knowledge, that it is dependent, has the same dependence.

c. If there were not something else involved in knowledge, your knowledge base would never have left the ground.

d. You can't give a more precise definition because it's just a badly formed idea in your head. A belief without backing.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 31833
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#12  Postby lobawad » May 12, 2012 8:38 am

amkerman wrote:
lobawad wrote:
amkerman wrote:For this I define God as subject independent consciousness, or, objective consciousness.

1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)consciousness
2. A cannot prove the objectivity (subject independence) of B without first proving th objectivity of A

3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first prvoing the objectivity of consciousness
4. A cannot prove the objectivity of A

5. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of consciousness
6. That which is not susceptible to rigourous proof can only be believed.

7. The objectivity of consciousness can only be believed.
1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of reality, is dependent on consciousness
3. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of reality without first proving the objectivity of consciousness

8. The objectivity of reality can only be proven through a belief in the objectivity of consciousness.

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.


Let us start with "1" here.

Would you tell us what you mean by "consciousness"? There are so many different definitions of and stances toward "consciousness" that we simply cannot assume that others know what we mean when using the word.


by consciousness i simply mean awareness; the lens through which humans are able to internalize and make sense of the world. I cannot give a more precise definition than that.


Okay, let's try to go with "awareness" as being what you mean by "consciousness". Please, be aware that the word "consciousness", whether or not it ever had any clarity or integrity to begin with, has long been grossly used, is heavily loaded, and is a poor choice.

Do you really want us to read, say, "Krishna Consciousness" out of your argument?

amkerman wrote:
1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)consciousness.


Well, this needs a great deal of clarification. When the Moon experiences a meteor strike, is this experience dependent upon the Moon being conscious?

Oh- your definition of "conscious" refers to "the lens through which humans are able to internalize and make sense of the world". (italics mine)

So, let's try to rewrite "1" such that it sounds a bit less like something out of a book on aromatherapy.


1. All human experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)awareness, the lens through which humans are able to internalize and make sense of the world.


By "reality" you surely mean "the physical world", right? After all, human reality as a whole could be said to include such things as "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father".


1. All human experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)the physical world is dependent upon (A)awareness, the lens through which humans are able to internalize and make sense of the world.


Is this a fair rewrite of what you mean?
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#13  Postby MrFungus420 » May 13, 2012 11:02 am

amkerman wrote:For this I define God as subject independent consciousness, or, objective consciousness.


So?

Can you give a meaningful definition?

How about one that is similar to what is commonly meant by people when they say "God"?

amkerman wrote:1. All experience and observation, including the experience and observation of (B)reality is dependent upon (A)consciousness


Experience and observation are dependent upon a being of some sort. Something with some sort of sense apparatus.

And that has only been shown to exist within the framework of a physical brain of some sort.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#14  Postby xrayzed » May 14, 2012 1:36 am

amkerman wrote:
xrayzed wrote:If consciousness is objective, why is it so error-prone?


I think here you are failing to distinguish between consciousness (awareness; the lens through which we are able to internalize and make sense of the world) and perception (how we subjectively interpret our experiences, observations, senses, etc). I completely agree with you that perception is subjective and prone to error, however, consciousness is not. While you may incorrectly perceive something that you hold in consciousness, that you are conscious is irrefutable (unless of course you are a material eliminativisst and don't believe consciousness exists). It is self-evident that you are conscious.

It's difficult to understand your model when you add new elements on the fly. Having spent the first page discussing the essential objectivity of "consciousness" and "reality" you've now plugged in the subjective element of "perception".

So it seems to me your model now goes something like this:

Objective reality <> subjective perceptions <> objective consciousness; consciousness can experience an objective reality, but it can only do so (or usually does so?) through perceptions, which are subjective.

So where does the subjectivity "come from"? And if we can have subjective perceptions, why is it necessarily the case that consciousness must be objective?

For that matter, what do you mean by "objective"?
A thinking creationist is an oxymoron. A non-thinking creationist is just a moron.
(Source: johannessiig, here)
User avatar
xrayzed
 
Posts: 1053
Age: 59
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#15  Postby lobawad » May 14, 2012 2:30 pm

bookmark
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#16  Postby Spearthrower » May 14, 2012 2:33 pm

Amkerman's Argument For God

Another one? I would've thought the magical creator of everything would have been manifestly apparent, not solely the product of an argument.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 41
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#17  Postby Scar » May 14, 2012 2:39 pm

This is not arguing for god, this is redefining god beyond recognition.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 31
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: What do contemporary episemologists think of...

#18  Postby Spearthrower » May 14, 2012 2:41 pm

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
amkerman wrote:

9. Any belief or supposed knowledge about reality is dependent on a belief in objective consciousness, or, God.


So even if consciousness came about by completely natural processes, we must assume God did it regardless?


It's not like this one hasn't been addressed repeatedly in the past.

Amkerman is perfectly permitted to believe in such vacuous notions if he wants, but surely he must be aware that people here have explicitly rejected this and given a slew of reasons why. As such, it's not really an argument so much as a repetition minus addressing rebuttals.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 41
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#19  Postby Shrunk » May 14, 2012 2:42 pm

Here's another one:

I define God as something that exists.

By definition, God exists.

Therefore, God exists.

QED.

I mean, really, amkerman. You're obviously inordinately proud of this argument, since you've been pimping it incessantly since joining the board, even before you started its very own thread. But to anyone else this argument is patently incoherent nonsense.

Just one problem among many others: How can consciousness exist independently of subjectivity? That seems oxymoronic to me.

EDIT: Sorry, I now see amkerman did not start this independent thread, but it was split off from another. My apologies.
Last edited by Shrunk on May 14, 2012 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26005
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#20  Postby Spearthrower » May 14, 2012 2:43 pm

5. Consciousness cannot prove the objectivity of consciousness

It's like the last 500 years of philosophical thought has been, let us say, temporarily disregarded.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 41
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Next

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest