Jump to content

Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness AND-----------


chandragupta
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am a theist & tried to conceive god in various ways. The one way which has satisfied me most is that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is his mind & that universe is a day dream of god.

 

 

Wouldn't that mean we don't really exist... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1352648464[/url]' post='712760']

Wouldn't that mean we don't really exist... :unsure:

 

If one conceives, as I have conceived that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is mind of god & universe is day dream of god then it is inevitable that we exist but our existence is of the nature of day dream but day dream of god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes indeed. God certainly could be my sandwich as well. I like God, it's yummy.

 

I am a theist & tried to conceive god in various ways. The one way which has satisfied me most is that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is his mind & that universe is a day dream of god.

 

That's cool. Keep in mind that you're conceiving god. Thanks dude. Stay smart as you are and you will go far in life.

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God can be anything you want it to be since it appears quite likely that it's little more than a figment of peoples imagination. The shape your imagination gives to this ill defined outdated insipid concept is largely irrelevant IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a theist & tried to conceive god in various ways. The one way which has satisfied me most is that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is his mind & that universe is a day dream of god.

I am going to take a different approach here. First of all, we need to take care of the linguistic aspects as best we can--working towards higher accuracy and correctness in a more pragmatic, and accepted standard.

 

 

I am a theist & tried to conceive god in various ways.
This is incorrect terminology. Since the word 'god' is a countable noun (and thus has multiply references) it must receive the standard, correct English handling. One can be a theist, and conceive of a god, or the 'the god of something, something theist-involved belief system, or, one can conceive of 'gods' in different, various ways. Additionally, it may also soon be argued that since 'goddesses' have been left out of the equation (as best as can be understood with all that we have so far, to work with), the attempt has already failed. (If there is a god, there is a goddess.)

 

Now, if one wishes to talk about the deity of the later late Christian theist-involved belief system (the one that is to date), then one will need to capitalized the word 'god,' and thus have the proper noun form 'God.' The same is especially true if one wishes to talk about YHWH. Some will allow the deity of the Quran, but I argue that the confusion which that causes, is simply too great to be a properly considerable choice. If, however, one wishes to talk about YHWH, then the information given in the Tanakh which describes and prescribes that particular deity, will have to be adhered to that information source--one cannot go taking it from there (as so many ill-fated [though doubtlessly with good intent] philosophers of ere [and even today, sadly] have done) and claim to know that that original source is mistaken. (An argument which would be beyond the scope of at least this particular thread, I would argue.) The same is true for the biblical god (the triune god of the later late Christian system) and the Quranic god.

 

The one way which has satisfied me most is that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is his mind ...
This is inaccurate and incorrect. First of all (again) we do not know which particular god you have in mind, other than the one which you have dreamed up--for which reason, as best I can tell, you really don't need the word 'god' at all. This is true because the word has a fixed definition, you see, and that involves a male being. We can in no way at all ascribe to the known universe, the condition of being a male being--as we only know of such state in an organism. Next, we know (and again, a better, and considered definition will take us a lot further down the argumentation road) that the condition of having a state of consciousness, is not something that comes about absent certain brain cell (both neuronal and glia) processes at certain levels of dynamic recurrent activity. We know, for example (and this is by mere definition) that a human being in stage 4/5 Non-Rem Sleep (NRS) will not be an instance of a brain expressing the condition of having a state of consciousness--in other words, a deeply asleep brain (dolphins do it hemisphere at a time, however) will not have consciousness. Therefore, brain is necessary for consciousness, consciousness is not a single point of absolutely non-dimension, and outer space does not constitute the requirements for expressing consciousness. Both panpsychism and panenpsychism have been quite throughly dismantled of all pragmatic truth value.

 

With this, therefore, we can see that the proposition put forth has failed. Is there some way in which you might want to alter some of the points which you wish to work on? If you are actually interested in being as accurate and correct as can be, I am willing to work on some of those points you might wish to debate or discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a theist & tried to conceive god in various ways. The one way which has satisfied me most is that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is his mind & that universe is a day dream of god.

Why do you find this satisfying? Do you mean that you find this to be the most likely scenario? Did you find support from religious texts that this may be the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is whether consciousness has come out of matter or matter has come out of consciousness? I feel more comfortable with the idea that matter has come out of consciousness & not the other way round.

 

Chandra, if you're right, what are the implications for AI - will we never be able to make a computer like HAL in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you are at ease with your feelings makes no difference to your claims. This is just another thread where the OP starts with a bizarre premise, with no evidence other than a feeling.

 

I have a feeling you will disagree with me, but will offer no tangible evidence to refute what I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is a composite of 'head' & 'heart'. In matters of science for example there is preponderant use of 'head' on his part. In matters of love for example there is preponderant use of 'heart' on his part. This is the story of man. Evidences are many.Absolute evidence is uncertain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is a composite of mainly water, some carbon, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus sulphur iron etc.

 

The heart is a pump.

It's the brain that falls in love- we know we can measure the changes in dopamine levels there.

yours is a made up story that doesn't tally with the facts.

 

The evidence is plentiful and it contradicts what you say.

 

And God might still be a pizza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.