We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary

[GEddie]

Our human will is conditioned by our physical somas, as well as by the contents of our mind and by the general geometry of our life.

To that extent, the perfectly free will is a mirage.

That doesn’t really matter, as we are called only to exercise the freedom we **do **have.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[tonyrey]

Only if we are materialists who believe everything is composed of molecules. Then our sole certainty is replaced by an unverifiable hypothesis. How do you explain consciousness, free will, meaning, purpose, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love with the exalted “Scientific Method”?

You have not explained how consciousness, free will, meaning, purpose, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love have originated.

Life becomes extremely bleak for the wolf in winter!

And no nothing is bleak for me. I’ll tell YOU my beliefs thank you.

It is a logical deduction from the materialist’s hypothesis that “consciousness needs a brain to exist”. If only matter exists nothing matters! Life becomes valueless, purposeless and meaningless because there is no reason why we exist. In other words everything is absurd and irrational. There can hardly be a bleaker view than that…

 

[Tomdstone]

You have not explained how consciousness, free will, meaning, purpose, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love have originated.

It is a logical deduction from the materialist’s hypothesis that “consciousness needs a brain to exist”. If only matter exists nothing matters! Life becomes valueless, purposeless and meaningless because there is no reason why we exist. In other words everything is absurd and irrational. There can hardly be a bleaker view than that…

Does anyone know how consciousness develops in humans or even in animals such as dogs or cats or monkeys?
We do want our lives to have value and purpose, but would that desire of itself, prove anything?

 

[tonyrey]

You have not explained how consciousness, free will, meaning, purpose, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love have originated

No one knows because consciousness is not a function of the brain but an attribute of the mind. It is a fundamental aspect of reality - like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love - that cannot be explained in terms of molecular activity.

We do want our lives to have value and purpose, but would that desire of itself, prove anything?

We not only **want **our lives to have value and purpose we also **behave **as if our lives have value and purpose. The best test of any theory is whether it works in practice.
Anyone who denies life is purposeful is guilty of self-contradiction. Reasoning is a purposeful activity. Why would we be capable of reasoning if life were purposeless?

 

[Tomdstone]

We not only **want **our lives to have value and purpose we also **behave **as if our lives have value and purpose. The best test of any theory is whether it works in practice.
Anyone who denies life is purposeful is guilty of self-contradiction. Reasoning is a purposeful activity. Why would we be capable of reasoning if life were purposeless?

Some things in life happen randomly and without purpose. For example, why does a tornado destroy all the houses on the north side of a street and kill its inhabitants, but the people and houses on the south side of the street are left untouched? Was it the will of God, was it because those on the north side were bad but those on the south side were good, or was it purely random or by chance that things turned out that way?

 

[ynotzap]

It was the will of God, because nothing happens outside of His providence What appears as random is because of our lack of knowledge of the forces that effect reality. Even the flip of a coin can be calculated if we knew of all the physical forces that effected it, so we guess. A tornado is a physical creation by God, wind subjected to physical laws which have their existence from God. He willed to take the lives of people, whether they were good or bad may or may not be the reason for their death, the location coincided with their death, but in all cases, God willed it. To us it may appear as random if we do not know the full truth.

 

[tonyrey]

We not only **want **

Random events do not imply that **all **events are random. They occur within the framework of order and design. Misfortunes are inevitable in an extremely complex universe but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Disasters are permitted because the laws of nature cannot possibly cater for every contingency. Calvin was mistaken in his belief that **every **single event is willed by God. It stands to reason that sooner or later some one is bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time…

 

[ynotzap]

Random events do not imply that **all **events are random. They occur within the framework of order and design. Misfortunes are inevitable in an extremely complex universe but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Disasters are permitted because the laws of nature cannot possibly cater for every contingency. Calvin was mistaken in his belief that **every **single event is willed by God. It stands to reason that sooner or later some one is bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time…

To clarify so as not to be misleading, I didn’t mean to imply that God’s will exists in every event, He certainly does not will sin, but He does permit it because of the gift of free will. Without God we can do nothing, and the same applies to the forces of nature. Nothing can escape His providence There is in the world an order and a tendency to the end(purpose) but in this order, like all cosmic reality, must pre-exist intentionally in the Mind of the First Cause God is not only the Efficient Cause, but also the Final Cause of all things, and as such must have conceived the means of directing back to Himself, as to their supreme End, all created things No creature escapes this providential order, since providence is bound up with divine causality and like it, is universal. Therefore, free will also is subordinate to divine providence (Matt.6:30) which does not disturb the order of nature, but conserves and directs it, using necessary causes to produce necessary effects and contingent causes, as human wills are, to obtain contingent and free effects Physical and Moral evil which we see in the world is not opposed to divine providence, if we consider : (1) That it is permitted,not caused directy by God (2) that it depends on the deficiency of finite beings; (3) that it is to be examined not in an isolated and particular way, but in the framework of the universal order, which may demand the sacrifice of this or that particular being (taken from the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, Savlvatore Garofalo) God is the indirect cause of evil, which is defined as the absence of good regarding created good, as darkness is the absence of light.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What does God say about those who persist in unbelief?

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work … in those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thess 2:10-12).

But they became vain in their thinking and their foolish minds were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools… Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Rom 1:21,26-27).

What may be known about God is plain to all, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that such people are without excuse (Rom 1:19-20).

It really is pointless to engage in arguments with such people because they are not looking for truth. It is hard to say exactly what their motivations is, perhaps they are just lonely? Perhaps they think they are scoring points? Whatever it is, it is not a search for truth.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

It was the will of God, because nothing happens outside of His providence What appears as random is because of our lack of knowledge of the forces that effect reality. Even the flip of a coin can be calculated if we knew of all the physical forces that effected it, so we guess. A tornado is a physical creation by God, wind subjected to physical laws which have their existence from God. He willed to take the lives of people, whether they were good or bad may or may not be the reason for their death, the location coincided with their death, but in all cases, God willed it. To us it may appear as random if we do not know the full truth.

I agree with you that there is nothing like randomness in universe and that is our lack or knowledge about the consciousness.

I however disagree that God if someone can clearly define it does necessary take action in any change. To me consciousness is not caused by anything and can cause changes hence Gods intervention is not necessary. It is quite ironic to me that you claim the power you have in changing things is an illusion. That is you who move your body when you decide to unless you can come with a solid argument to show otherwise.

 

[Bahman]

What does God say about those who persist in unbelief?

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work … in those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thess 2:10-12).

But they became vain in their thinking and their foolish minds were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools… Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Rom 1:21,26-27).

What may be known about God is plain to all, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that such people are without excuse (Rom 1:19-20).

It really is pointless to engage in arguments with such people because they are not looking for truth. It is hard to say exactly what their motivations is, perhaps they are just lonely? Perhaps they think they are scoring points? Whatever it is, it is not a search for truth.

Linus2nd

I am afraid that I have to ignore your post as you are not making any argument. So in your view we are in dark side and are fool. So lets be that way. I try my best to find the best logical framework to have a better understanding of truth by making argument and you try to call us fool without providing a counter-argument that why our arguments is wrong. Why you don’t shine upon us and show us truth by providing a valid argument?

 

[tonyrey]

To clarify so as not to be misleading, I didn’t mean to imply that God’s will exists in every event, He certainly does not will sin, but He does permit it because of the gift of free will. Without God we can do nothing, and the same applies to the forces of nature. Nothing can escape His providence There is in the world an order and a tendency to the end(purpose) but in this order, like all cosmic reality, must pre-exist intentionally in the Mind of the First Cause God is not only the Efficient Cause, but also the Final Cause of all things, and as such must have conceived the means of directing back to Himself, as to their supreme End, all created things No creature escapes this providential order, since providence is bound up with divine causality and like it, is universal. Therefore, free will also is subordinate to divine providence (Matt.6:30) which does not disturb the order of nature, but conserves and directs it, using necessary causes to produce necessary effects and contingent causes, as human wills are, to obtain contingent and free effects Physical and Moral evil which we see in the world is not opposed to divine providence, if we consider : (1) That it is permitted,not caused directly by God (2) that it depends on the deficiency of finite beings; (3) that it is to be examined not in an isolated and particular way, but in the framework of the universal order, which may demand the sacrifice of this or that particular being (taken from the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, Savlvatore Garofalo) God is the indirect cause of evil, which is defined as the absence of good regarding created good, as darkness is the absence of light.

I didn’t have your post in mind but was explaining to Tom how random events are, as you point out, permitted rather than **directly **willed by God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am afraid that I have to ignore your post as you are not making any argument. So in your view we are in dark side and are fool. So lets be that way. I try my best to find the best logical framework to have a better understanding of truth by making argument and you try to call us fool without providing a counter-argument that why our arguments is wrong. Why you don’t shine upon us and show us truth by providing a valid argument?

You are wrong there, those are God’s own words spoken through St. Paul. You have been beating the same drum for about a year now and instead of reading the material that I and others have suggested you keep plowing dogedly down the same dead end road. It is the Eastern ideology you can’t seem to shake. It makes no sense whatever. Consciousness is not a thing. It is the effect of having an intellectual soul, which is automatically aware of itself or self conscious. And since the soul did not create itself and does not keep itself in existence it has been created by God.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bahman

There is a very excellent paper given at a Philosophical conference which I wish you would read, at least part of it. Since it is copyrighted I cannot quote from it as I would like. So I will just quote several passages which do not violate copyright laws.

Blaise Pascal insisted that God gives enough evidence of his existence to those seeking him, but not enough to those who are indifferent or defiant.

" It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and
completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come
in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek
Him. He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to
appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those
who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He
has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him
not. There is enough light for those who … desire to see, and enough obscurity for those
who have a contrary disposition…[snip] "

Cardinal Newman makes the in a similar manner speaks of two contrasting attitudes, one active and one passive or indifferent.passive” respectively:

" 'The one goes to meet the truth; the other thinks that the Truth ought to come to him. The
one examines into the proof that God has spoken; the other waits till this is proved to
him.
He feels no personal interest in it; he thinks it not his own concern, but (if I may so say)
God Almighty’s concern. He does not care to make the most of his knowledge; he does
not put things together; he does not add up his facts and cumulate his arguments; he
leaves all this to be done for him by Him who speaks to him; and if he is to have any
trouble in the matter, then he is willing to dismiss it altogether.
And next, supposing proof is actually offered him, he feels no sort of gratitude or delicacy
towards Him who offers it: he says without compunction, “I do not see this”; and “that
does not follow”; for he is a critic and a judge, not an inquirer, and he negotiates and
bargains, when he ought to be praying for light. "

dspt.edu/files/RamelowResponsetoFeser.pdf

You can read the whole response but the part I would like you to read begins here:
3) What Can or Should Be Proved by Miracles ! ( It begins about half way down the page ).

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

I am afraid that I have to ignore your post as you are not making any argument. So in your view we are in dark side and are fool. So lets be that way. I try my best to find the best logical framework to have a better understanding of truth by making argument and you try to call us fool without providing a counter-argument that why our arguments is wrong. Why you don’t shine upon us and show us truth by providing a valid argument?

Please ignore. It is not righteousness or genius to use biblical statements to attack somebodies character in a philosophical debate.

 

[Bahman]

You are wrong there, those are God’s own words spoken through St. Paul. You have been beating the same drum for about a year now and instead of reading the material that I and others have suggested you keep plowing dogedly down the same dead end road. It is the Eastern ideology you can’t seem to shake. It makes no sense whatever. Consciousness is not a thing. It is the effect of having an intellectual soul, which is automatically aware of itself or self conscious. And since the soul did not create itself and does not keep itself in existence it has been created by God.

Linus2nd

You are mistaken in saying that I don’t listen to your words carefully. In fact I familiarize myself to Catholic concepts the best I could. The problem is there are several issues to your definition of God, state of human existence most importantly definition of soul, etc. Hereby, I provide you a list and I am ready to discuss them through with you and others:

God:

1. God in state of timeless cannot know the current time
2. God in state of timeless cannot create
3. There are serious issues in definition of omniscience and omnipresent

Human:

1. The corruption of soul in Hylemorphic dualism through the decay of body
2. Lost of identity upon death
3. The problem of identity upon resurrection

I discussed all of these problems and those I don’t recall now in several threads. I cannot open all of these in a single thread hence I take the liberty to pick up of one and discuss it here. I am open to discuss others heres as well with you and anyone else.

God in state of timeless cannot create:

1. There is no before and after in state of timeless
2. Creation by definition is a state of being that comes to existence by an external agent
3. This means that universe did not exist before creation and exist after
4. This means that there exist two state of existence, God only, and God plus universe
5. This means that the second state of existence (God and creation) comes after the first one (God only)
6. (1) and (5) contradict each other since God is in state of timeless and cannot exist in two different mode of existence, one follows another
7. Hence (1) is wrong if we accept (2)

 

[ChainBreaker]

God:

1. God in state of timeless cannot know the current time

God is present to all time and thus so is his knowledge.

1. God in state of timeless cannot create

God is not static, but rather God is pure actuality. If one understands that God is love,and that Gods will is identical with his nature which is love and that therefore God’s existence is the pure will of love, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that God timelessly wills the universe in to existence simply because it is in the nature of love to share existence from all eternity, and thus there is no requirement of change in-order for the universe to be an effect of God’s will.

1. There are serious issues in definition of omniscience and omnipresent

That depends on how you define time in relation to omniscience and omnipresence.

 

[Bahman]

God:

1. God in state of timeless cannot know the current time

God is present to all time and thus so is his knowledge.

That is not the problem. The problem arises from the fact that the knowledge of current time requires a change in state of knowledge to distinguish the current time from others. In simple word, you need a simple stamp to separate the current time from others and the location of this stamp is subject to time, which this subject changes over time to God which is changeless.

1. God in state of timeless cannot create

God is not static, but rather God is pure actuality. If one understands that God is love,and that Gods will is identical with his nature which is love and that therefore God’s existence is the pure will of love, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that God timelessly wills the universe in to existence simply because it is in the nature of love to share existence from all eternity, and thus there is no requirement of change in-order for the universe to be an effect of God’s will.

There are problems with your argument as following:

1. Assume that God is perfect and love and create an imperfect universe with the aim that it becomes perfect
2. This means that creation should become perfect at a point
3. Creation is eternal
4. This means that creation should be perfect now
5. We are not perfect
6. This means that either (1) or (3) is wrong
7. (1) being wrong means that God is not love since it create something which is not perfect
8. (3) being wrong contradict your assumption of eternality of creation
9. Hence if God is love and eternal then it could only create perfect being which is God by definition
10. This doesn’t change the state of existence hence the state of perfection and love is state of static
11. Hence, a perfect and loving God cannot create anything

1. There are serious issues in definition of omniscience and omnipresent

That depends on how you define time in relation to omniscience and omnipresence.

Lets discuss omniscience first. Lets define omniscience as the knowledge that grant information about state of universe in any given time knowing the state of creation in a moment.

1. Omniscience means that state of creation is knowable to God in any given moment knowing state of creation at a point before
2. This implies determinism
3. Free will is an illusion if determinism is true since we cannot decide freely and there is hidden and hard constraint on us which makes us to only act in one way in a given situation
4. We know that free will is true
5. Hence (1) is wrong

In simple word, the state of creation is undefinable, it is not knowable, when it comes to a decision since a decision is not a decision if it is definable, if it is knowable.

 

[ynotzap]

Bahman: If you are aware of an all encompassing awareness, and I use the word awareness to represent consciousness who you identify as God, then Consciousness is primary, for God is before all In prayer we strive to be aware of God, who we know is aware of us When we experience mutual awareness (consciousness) of each other, we are spiritually united, this is the work of the Holy Spirit and it does happen in contemplation It is God making His presence known to us. In Heaven we will know, as we are known.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are mistaken in saying that I don’t listen to your words carefully. In fact I familiarize myself to Catholic concepts the best I could. The problem is there are several issues to your definition of God, state of human existence most importantly definition of soul, etc. Hereby, I provide you a list and I am ready to discuss them through with you and others:

God:

1. God in state of timeless cannot know the current time
2. God in state of timeless cannot create
3. There are serious issues in definition of omniscience and omnipresent

Human:

1. The corruption of soul in Hylemorphic dualism through the decay of body
2. Lost of identity upon death
3. The problem of identity upon resurrection

I discussed all of these problems and those I don’t recall now in several threads. I cannot open all of these in a single thread hence I take the liberty to pick up of one and discuss it here. I am open to discuss others heres as well with you and anyone else.

God in state of timeless cannot create:

1. There is no before and after in state of timeless
2. Creation by definition is a state of being that comes to existence by an external agent
3. This means that universe did not exist before creation and exist after
4. This means that there exist two state of existence, God only, and God plus universe
5. This means that the second state of existence (God and creation) comes after the first one (God only)
6. (1) and (5) contradict each other since God is in state of timeless and cannot exist in two different mode of existence, one follows another
7. Hence (1) is wrong if we accept (2)

My first assessment was correct. You are not open to discussion, you will not accept the truth. You continue to ignore the sources I gave you, even the Cathechism which is linked below.

You have dug in your heels and have no intention of changing. It is pointless to challenge us on points on which your mind is already fixed. By doing that you are not proving us wrong, you only prove that you are not open to the truth. Therefore discussion is pointless, I for one wash my hands of this case.

Linus2nd