Consciousness cannot be objective hence God cannot know our decision given situation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
First definitions:

Consciousness is a irreducible thing which grant the ability to experience and affect metal state.

Arguments:

A) We cannot know consciousness:
  1. Knowledge can be constructed through experience
  2. We experience what is outside so called objective reality, whether it is an object, person, thought and feeling through consciousness
  3. What is objective is a utility of consciousness
  4. What is the utility cannot be used to construct the knowledge of faculty since faculty cannot be objective and subjective at the same time
  5. Hence, we cannot know consciousness
B) God cannot know our decision given (name removed by moderator)uts
  1. God is a consciousness being
  2. (1) and (A) means that God cannot know what consciousness is well
  3. This means that given the situation, knowing (name removed by moderator)uts for a decision, God cannot know the outcome, decision
Conclusion: Consciousness cannot be objective hence God cannot know our decision. given (name removed by moderator)uts
 
Start with incorrect premises - end up with incorrect conclusions.
 
One note that can help.

God is God - not a creature within time. Indeed he holds all in existence -including all that makes up “human consciousness” - he knows it from the inside - and all of it. All at once.

God is outside time. He does not so much “foresee” as “see”.

God – sees what we call past, present and future – all at once. He sees what is. This gets into some very and often technical philosophical and theological waters – and likely not something easily discussed in a forum.

And he is not limited as “looking from the outside” but as I noted he holds all that is - in being. In existence. He knows all that is - as it is and in all aspects.

And finally – it outstrips our understanding.

As we stand before mystery from within our history.
 
Bahman said:
Could you please elaborate?:sad_yes:
Click to expand...
The definition of consciousness is dubious if not false. It appears to include question begging.

Even if the definition is accepted A) is false at worst and doubtful at best.

I.e., faulty premises.
 
davidv said:
The definition of consciousness is dubious if not false. It appears to include question begging.

Even if the definition is accepted A) is false at worst and doubtful at best.

I.e., faulty premises.
Click to expand...
What is your definition?

Could you please explain why (A) is wrong?
 
Bookcat said:
One note that can help.

God is God - not a creature within time. Indeed he holds all in existence -including all that makes up “human consciousness” - he knows it from the inside - and all of it. All at once.

God is outside time. He does not so much “foresee” as “see”.

God – sees what we call past, present and future – all at once. He sees what is. This gets into some very and often technical philosophical and theological waters – and likely not something easily discussed in a forum.

And he is not limited as “looking from the outside” but as I noted he holds all that is - in being. In existence. He knows all that is - as it is and in all aspects.

And finally – it outstrips our understanding.

As we stand before mystery from within our history.
Click to expand...
If you have an inside that an agent has access to it then you don’t exist.
 
davidv said:
This is a feature of the human person and sentient animals.

With awareness comes knowledge.
Click to expand...
That is a wrong definition. Since the word awareness is subjectives to experience, hence it is objective, hence it is a utility of consciousness. Where does all your subjective reality occurred? Within something, I call that consciousness.
 
God is God - not a creature within time.

Indeed he holds all in existence -including all that makes up “human consciousness” - he knows it from the inside - and all of it.

God is outside time. He knows all that exists -all at once. And holds it in existence. If he did not know it-- it would not exist.

And he is not limited as “looking from the outside” but as I noted he holds all that is - in being. In existence. He knows all that is - as it is and in all aspects.
 
Bahman said:
That is a wrong definition.
Click to expand...
None of what follows shows that I presented a wong definition.
Since the word awareness is subjectives to experience, hence it is objective, hence it is a utility of consciousness. Where does all your subjective reality occurred? Within something, I call that consciousness.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this supposed to mean. How can something subjective, be at the same time objective?
The place where my consciousness occurs is my self, commonly refered to as “I”. I know for a fact that I can know myself, at least to some degree. Which proves your “A)” false.
 
Guys, seriously, save your breath. Bahaman has created, probably close to thirty threads exactly like this.
  • Stupid, nonsensical “philosophical” claim with faulty premises or conclusions
  • Concepts that are either undefined, improperly defined, or subject to shifting definitions as the flaws in his argument are exposed
  • Complete and total refusal to acknowledge valid points
  • Circular arguments as he restates his initial claims as though doing so gave them some new validity.
It does not matter how thoroughly his stances are ripped to shreds, he refuses to acknowledge it or adjust his stance in the slightest. Arguing with him is like arguing with a concrete block, and just about as productive.

Bahaman, it’s been a while, so allow me to re-offer the advice I have given you at least five times before:

Read a real book about philosophy instead of coming up with these poorly defined, poorly conceived “proofs.” There are several books that bring St. Thomas Aquinas down to a level where we laymen can understand him. Seriously, give one a read, I think you’d really enjoy it and it would be far more productive than this.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Guys, seriously, save your breath. Bahaman has created, probably close to thirty threads exactly like this.
  • Stupid, nonsensical “philosophical” claim with faulty premises or conclusions
  • Concepts that are either undefined, improperly defined, or subject to shifting definitions as the flaws in his argument are exposed
  • Complete and total refusal to acknowledge valid points
  • Circular arguments as he restates his initial claims as though doing so gave them some new validity.
It does not matter how thoroughly his stances are ripped to shreds, he refuses to acknowledge it or adjust his stance in the slightest. Arguing with him is like arguing with a concrete block, and just about as productive.

Bahaman, it’s been a while, so allow me to re-offer the advice I have given you at least five times before:

Read a real book about philosophy instead of coming up with these poorly defined, poorly conceived “proofs.” There are several books that bring St. Thomas Aquinas down to a level where we laymen can understand him. Seriously, give one a read, I think you’d really enjoy it and it would be far more productive than this.
Click to expand...
Hence I am doing the same thing that Thomas did!

What is your argument anyway?
 
Bahman said:
Hence I am doing the same thing that Thomas did!
Click to expand...
No you are not doing what Thomas did.
Thomas started with acceptable axioms and built conclusions based on valid logical forms.

Your posts have failed on both counts.
What is your argument anyway?
Click to expand...
It matters not. It is your argument that is the subject of this thread. It has been demonstrated to be faulty.

Hopefully, in the process of this demonstration, we have provided meaningful information about the Catholic faith.
 
Bahman said:
Hence I am doing the same thing that Thomas did!

What is your argument anyway?
Click to expand...
No, no you are really not. St. Thomas Aquinas started with a premise, and validated it before continuing. You come up with an idea and throw it out with little to no apparent thought.

St. Thomas engaged in debate, listened to his opponents, and formulated responses after much thought and consideration. You ignore your opponents, refuse to acknowledge weaknesses in your arguments, and never advance a discussion, but rather continually repeat the same responses even if they’ve already been thoroughly disproved.

St. Thomas always acknowledged when his premise had been disproved. You -never- do. Not once in all of the discourse I’ve had with you have you acknowledged a single point I or anyone else has made. No matter how many times we repeat it, no matter how incontrovertible it is, you ignore it and continue to focus only on what -you- think is right.
 
davidv said:
None of what follows shows that I presented a wong definition.
Click to expand...
Well, lets put aside for a moment.
davidv said:
I have no idea what this supposed to mean. How can something subjective, be at the same time objective?
Click to expand...
It is logically impossible. Anything with ability to experience such as consciousness can be subjective and objective at the same time. In simple word you cannot experience your true self so called “I”.
davidv said:
The place where my consciousness occurs is my self, commonly refered to as “I”. I know for a fact that I can know myself, at least to some degree. Which proves your “A)” false.
Click to expand...
Exactly and that is my definition. The “I” that make the experience.
 
Bahman said:
Well, lets put aside for a moment.

It is logically impossible. Anything with ability to experience such as consciousness can be subjective and objective at the same time. In simple word you cannot experience your true self so called “I”.

Exactly and that is my definition. The “I” that make the experience.
Click to expand...
No, I do not make my experience. Experience happens to me. Experience is the effect of the “I” encountering some object. This object may be another person or some mechanical event, such as tripping over a toy left in the middle of the room.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top