Gee wrote:Greylorn and Immanuel;
I have been gone from this forum for a while and don't usually post in the Religion section, but your thread has drawn my interest.
After reviewing your posts, I must say that I honestly respect your positions and even see some truth in your statements, but I just can not buy the "God" or "Gods" idea and doubt that there was an Intelligent Designer. For most of my life, I accepted the idea of an Intelligent Designer because there was no other possibility that I could imagine. But philosophy is not based upon what I can imagine; it is based upon valid premises and a reasoned logical argument.
False last sentence. Philosophy is based upon premises worked over and talked to death by lots of blathering pseudo-intellectuals. "Valid" premises? How can a premise be determined to be valid at the onset of its introduction? That is determined, in theory, by the subsequent blathering. And ultimately what really determines the "validity" of an argument is that on which the majority of the blatherers agree.
Unless you know of a philosophy upon which all philosophers agree...
Gee wrote:I can find no evidence of any beings that could be a "God" or "Gods" that existed prior to the Big Bang, and no logical argument to support the reasoning that great intelligence would exist, then go dormant for billions of years, in order to reassert itself in the form of humans. We do have evidence that humans evolved from less intelligent species, so I can accept that intelligence evolves, I just can not see where it would be, then not be, then appear again. This looks like a game of Peek-a-Boo.
Of course you cannot find evidence for the nonsense proposed in the above paragraph, and I'd be dismayed if you could. What you've done here is set up a silly, absurd God-concept that seems to be derived from some goofy new-age church you've been attending, or Madame Blavatsky's mindless books, then claim that you don't accept it.
Big Deal. I can propose that the universe is the droppings of a passing Great Green Cat, left floating in space for lack of sand in which to bury it. Then I can easily disavow that idea without expecting much by way of argument--- but on this forum, who knows?
So, I agree that the God concept you've proposed here, by way of a little hijack attempt, is equally stupid and irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the God-concepts being presented here. So, why are you here?
It is my position that Laws of Physics/Laws of Nature are the reasons why the Big Bang, or whatever, occurred. But unlike science, I also suspect that there is another player in this scenario, and that player is motion. Motion is a part of everything, from the motion of photons to the motion of galaxies to the motion in life, and I suspect that this motion is what is interpreted as "God" or the Intelligent Designer. But this motion is not magic -- it is also constricted by the Laws of Physics/Nature -- and I see no reason to think it is intelligent.
If you knew any of the laws or principles of physics, you would not have proposed this silly idea. There's no point in arguing with you, or with anyone who makes up physics to suit their argument-- including modern cosmologists or, as they are fond of calling themselves, astrophysicists
. There's this: The alleged Big Bang was preceded by something that blew up. Originally this was conceived to be a tiny aggregation of mass and energy smaller than a proton. When that absurd notion was mathematically disproved, cosmologists resorted to the same trick used by religions and invented something that could not be physically or mathematically defined, and therefore cannot be disproved-- The silly physical "singularity," the stupidest concept accepted by physicists since phlogiston.
Motion is relative. Neither the micro-proton nor the singularity can move because there was nothing they could move with respect to.
I respectfully suggest that you learn some physics before offering your opinions on anything related to the subject.
I suspect that life actually feels this motion, and as long as we feel it, we are aware. When we feel it strongly, we call it e-motion. There are a lot of reasons why I think this -- too many to produce in this post -- but I will give an outline of some of my thoughts.
I have been studying consciousness for most of my life, and like most people I accepted science's conclusions, and philosophy's, that consciousness is thought. I no longer believe that. Thought is like a leaf laying on the ground, or a word in a book; it has no ability to do anything. Consciousness is like that same leaf swirling through the air. We see the leaf moving and think that it (thought) has the ability to move, but it only moves because the wind (emotion) is moving it. We can not see the wind, only the leaf, so it appears that the leaf is active; it is not. Neither is thought active, it only moves because of awareness, emotion. Consciousness is emotion.
I've discussed this same old shtick with you before and found it to have been a waste of time. I don't think that you have studied consciousness at all. That's not the problem-- claiming to have done so is. Have you seriously studied Descartes? I invite you to peruse Consciousness and the Universe
, a little compendium of papers edited and compiled by Roger Penrose, then get back to me in a year. Anticipate a quiz.
Gee wrote:If one actually studies emotion, what it can do, how it works, then things become much clearer.
Emotion can not be known, only felt, like the wind. Our conscious rational aspect of mind, the Ego, works with our five senses -- this is how we know things; but our sub/unconscious is where we feel emotion. In order to know the emotion embedded in the SuperEgo, we must give it form and substance, so we must interpret it in order to know it.
A good example of this concept is art. Artists use music and dance, paintings and drawings, sculpture and architect, etc., to interpret emotion and give it form so that we can look at or hear something and know the feeling of that emotion. If "God" is actually emotion, then we would also have to interpret "God" in order to understand and know "God". This is why people of different cultures and religions know "God" in different ways, but there are also similarities.
Religions state that "God" has no beginning and no end. It is interesting to note that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind, that processes emotion, does not know time. It has absolutely no regard for time and space. So it is possible that emotion also has no regard for time and space.
Religions often state that "God" is unknowable. I think that I explained that above.
Religions are deeply involved in morality. Morality is rooted in emotion.
Religions use faith and belief as teaching tools. Emotion requires the stability of faith and belief as it does not accept change easily.
Religions almost always have rites and sacraments centered around life changes, ie. birth, coming of age, marriage, and death. These are also times of hormonal change and relate to emotion.
Religions bond societies. Emotion bonds people in small and large groups.
Religions connect people in spirituality. Emotion is spirituality and works between people or things, not within them.
Religions concern themselves with charity and compassion. These are motivated by emotion.
I suspect that emotion is simply a stronger form of awareness -- that they are essentially the same thing. So I think that the only discipline that has actually been studying consciousness is religion, because religion studies emotion -- they just call it "God".
So I choose the "none of the above", if you will let me in the discussion.
Repeating, because you obviously do not recall and have never addressed my comments from other threads: Emotion is an effect generated by the brain. Emotion and consciousness are not equivalent concepts. I'm sorry that you cannot get beyond this opinion of yours. Emotion is obviously important to you. That does not place it at the center of thought.
Re: my last post to I.C., it seems to me that having tried to introduce opinions of your own that have nothing to do with the ideas being explained here, and having already rendered a verdict without examining the evidence, and expressing explanations for consciousness derived from your own opinions rather than any of those presented here, you are ill-qualified to enter the jury box.
Peruse the Penrose book and get back to me then.
You seem well-intentioned.