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

[ProdglArchitect]

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”.

This doesn’t address the point. David is saying that something is not subjective and objective at the same time. You retorted with the manner in which the mind experiences thing. The mind is an objective reality capable of understanding subjective realities; not the same thing.

To be blunt, Bahaman, you don’t know enough to make arguments like this. Your skills aren’t developed enough. You are too young in your studies. Seriously, please, study philosophy. It’ll do wonders for you.

 

[seagal]

As soon as you say “God cannot” this should be a clue that you do not have a correct understanding of God. In fact, if I remember correctly you don’t believe in God at all, am I right? None of your threads seem to indicate a search for God, rather they are an attempt to convince us that God doesn’t exist. Why not switch it up a bit and try to understand our God rather than try to tell us who he isn’t?

 

[Bookcat]

What does that mean?

Exactly. The sentence there did not work - via typo or what have you. It did not make sense.

 

[Bahman]

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.

So we learn something. What is wrong with that. I feel that I am different from one year ago. Both, my logic and English have been improved.

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.

Do you like to discuss one of his proof in another thread?

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.

 

[Bahman]

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.

Make in the sense that you say not in the sense that we build something. Anyway that is what I meant.

Anyhow, could your “I” can be subjective and objective at the same time?

 

[Bookcat]

God holds all in existence -including all that makes up “human consciousness”.

And he is not limited as “looking from the outside”. He knows all that is - as it is and in all aspects.

He who created and holds every atom of your head in existence - knows all that goes on in between your ears…

 

[Bahman]

Exactly. The sentence there did not work - via typo or what have you. It did not make sense.

If your inner self is open to an agent then you don’t exist. Do you want me to open it for you?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So we learn something. What is wrong with that. I feel that I am different from one year ago. Both, my logic and English have been improved.

I agree, your English has improved substantially, and it has made reading your threads much easier. I disagree, however, that your logic has improved. Every one of your threads continues to have the same hallmarks I listed in my initial post.

Do you like to discuss one of his proof in another thread?

Not really, that’s not the point of my post. The point is that you are -not- acting like St. Thomas Aquinas. You are, in fact, acting quite opposite to him.

I am not trying to be mean here, but when you repeat the same pattern of behavior over and over again, it tend to make a person think that you are a troll. While I believe that you are trying to learn, you seem to lack to humility to acknowledge when you’ve been beaten. This is intellectually dishonest, and will prevent you from growing as a debater, philosopher, or person in general. You -need- to study real philosophy before you continue making threads like this, as it would help you to avoid the mistakes you most commonly fall into (again, refer to my inital post).

 

[Bookcat]

If your inner self is open to an agent then you don’t exist. Do you want me to open it for you?

Sorry does not follow.

 

[Bahman]

God holds all in existence -including all that makes up “human consciousness”.

And he is not limited as “looking from the outside”. He knows all that is - as it is and in all aspects.

He who created and holds every atom of your head in existence - knows all that goes on in between your ears…

Again, if your inner self is open to an agent then you don’t exist. Do you want me to open it for you?

 

[Bookcat]

God quite well knows my “inner self” - he holds it in existence (holds it in being). Every bit of it.

He knows what he holds in being. Or it would not exist.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Again, if your inner self is open to an agent then you don’t exist. Do you want me to open it for you?

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Repeating something doesn’t make it true. Your conclusion does not flow from your premise, STOP REPEATING IT, because all you’re doing is making it so that no one will want to debate with you.

 

[Bahman]

God quite well knows my “inner self” - he holds it in existence (holds it in being). Every bit of it.

He knows what he holds in being. Or it would not exist.

Hence there exist not a boundary which separates you from God. Hence, you are God which means that we will be livening in permanent delusion because we couldn’t even recognize our single self.

 

[Bahman]

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Repeating something doesn’t make it true. Your conclusion does not flow from your premise, STOP REPEATING IT, because all you’re doing is making it so that no one will want to debate with you.

So you disagree with my statement. Is there a boundary which separate us from God? What is it?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So you disagree with my statement. Is there a boundary which separate us from God. What is it?

Um… the fact that we’re created and he’s the creator comes to mind; that’s a good distinction to make.

He’s omniscient, our knowledge is finite.

He’s all good, we’re prone to evil.

Do I need to continue?

 

[Bookcat]

Hence there exist not a boundary which separates you from God. Hence, you are God which means that we will be livening in permanent delusion because we couldn’t even recognize our single self.

Your idea of God there is not that of Revelation or Christian Philosophy but of something else.

That is the essence of your difficulty.

 

[Bahman]

Um… the fact that we’re created and he’s the creator comes to mind; that’s a good distinction to make.

He’s omniscient, our knowledge is finite.

He’s all good, we’re prone to evil.

Do I need to continue?

You didn’t get what I meant with boundary. Is there anything which separate your existence from God so you can claim that you exist. What is this boundary?

 

[Bahman]

Your idea of God there is not that of Revelation or Christian Philosophy but of something else.

That is the essence of your difficulty.

But I think that is your God since there exist not a boundary which separate you from God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You didn’t get what I meant with boundary. Is there anything which separate your existence from God so you can claim that you exist. What is this boundary?

Bahaman, this doesn’t make any sense. I am not God, that is enough proof that a boundary exists. I am not God, therefore I am in some way separate from God, even if I am dependent upon Him.

 

[Bahman]

Bahaman, this doesn’t make any sense. I am not God, that is enough proof that a boundary exists. I am not God, therefore I am in some way separate from God, even if I am dependent upon Him.

Maybe that is a delusion? I need to know the boundary. Something solid which you know as boundary.