Easy there! No punches below the belt!...lol

There is a very simple solution to this minor conundrum. If God is defined
as being the sum totality of the Universe then we have a self consistent
and scientifically sound solution to the question of the existence of God.
By this definition God exists just as the Universe exists. There is only
one God with this definition and viewpoint and this God is Omnipresent and
Omniscient and is the source of all matter and life in the Universe. There
is no real problem defining God this way.

I like self-consistent solutions to such problems so this works for me. It
is essentially a pantheistic view of God consistent with most religious
beliefs.

The power of prayer must also come from this pantheistic single God. The
studies of the benefits of prayer which I have seen appeared to be sound
and point to a health benefit of optimism and hope and positive
visualization. In this sense prayer is not asking some anthropomorphic God
to grant you a wish like Aladdin's genie. Rather, prayer is better thought
of as positive meditation which calms us and fortifies us psychologically
with optimism and hope. This visualization has a real positive benefit of
assisting us in planning for the future and appears to also affect our body
chemistry in a positive way easing many ailments.

s1owhand

I agree completely.

But this also means that we are God.
Which means that we are creators. (co-creators)
and it also means that we are the universe.

Sure. All part of something immeasurably bigger than just us.

To me this is just defining "God" into meaninglessness. Equivocation, god = existence.

It confuses subject, object, and concept. It whitewashes distinctions, glosses over why "God" is important to people, and throws away any perspective god could possibly have.

To define something requires separating it from everything it is not. To open the set up to include everything throws away any understanding of what it means to be that and not this, its an anti-definition.

I thought the same thing when I hear people say "God is Love."

It is another one of the reasons I hesitate when people ask me if I believe in God. I don't know what they mean by "God" so I can't really answer the question.

That is why, in many ways I consider myself an atheist. Other times I feel that I am God. But I don't mean "I" as me the personality, but I mean "I" as in: I AM.

I exist, therefore I am. I am God.

I believe there is an intelligence existing that is the universe. This intelligence is connected at the quantum level and it communicates in ways we can't possibly be aware of. It is conscious and intelligent and creative, like a mind and an observer.

We are simply part of it, but we are like it in many ways. Like a fractal is part of its origin, like a leaf is part of a tree.

Its alive, conscious and intelligent.

This is it. I am that.

How do you know you are alive, conscious and intelligent? How do you know what you call thinking, actually is thinking as we define it? What evidence do you have to support these notions?

Maybe what we call "consciousness" is nothing more than a complex series of algorithms. In other words, we have a soul, but it's made of lots of tiny robots each doing one tiny job. But, when you add it all up you get what appears to be conscious thought.

This is what is supported by the evidence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html

I like Dan Dennett but he didn't actually say anything in that video that I have not heard before. He didn't convince me of anything or shake my confidence as he said he wanted to do.

1. I trust that I am alive according to what science itself defines as "life." According to that, it appears that I am alive. But I could be a blob connected to a computer living in a simulated reality for all I know.

2.I trust that I am intelligent according to the scientific description of intelligence.

3. I know that I think. I'm not sure what the scientific description of that is.

The premise I would challenge him on is his statement that cells are not conscious. Okay, I would ask him if cells are not conscious, then we could not call ourselves conscious either because we are made up of cells.

But clearly we consider ourselves to be conscious for the most part.

Here is how I look at consciousness. To say that a cell is not conscious is like saying that a cup is not water.

Of course a cup is not water, but it holds water. Consciousness utilizes living forms in the capacity they have to be used.

Deep down, when I say "I AM" I am talking about the whole of consciousness. I am not actually talking about me, Jeanniebean. I am talking about source -- consciousness -- God.

To realize that I am (I exist) is self realization.
To realize that I am consciousness is God realization.

I like Dennett too. I've read a couple of his books and I have to say, he's convinced me.



Your first two points are safe assumptions. However, the third one is where we're having trouble. Thinking is: The process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something.

Now, I agree that we are thinking. How we think is where the water gets cloudy.



You cannot simply assume cells to be conscious. This tidbit needs evidence.

Lastly, your final statement is a huge leap. Knowing one is conscious does not necessarily lead to god. It only leads to knowing one is conscious.

"Using ones mind" implies that we are something other than the mind. What do you imagine that to be?







If you are going to claim that a human is "conscious" but then deny that the cells that make up that human are not conscious, then you should probably not assume that humans are conscious.

But maybe Dennett is trying to claim that humans are not conscious. I did not get that impression.

If humans are conscious creatures, you will have to solve the puzzle of how a bunch of unconscious cells came together and suddenly became conscious.

At what point did these unconscious cells realize consciousness?




That would depend on what you define as god, or how you describe god. I describe it as consciousness.

You need to realize that I don't define God as traditional religions do.

I define it a the source of all things.

I propose that cells have a small capacity for consciousness.

I propose that consciousness comes in degrees and exists in all things.

This conclusion comes via logic. If humans are considered having consciousness they had to have gotten it from somewhere.

If it did not come from all of the quantum parts that make up their physical bodies, then at what magical point did they suddenly become conscious?

I have posed this question before and I have not gotten an answer.

You can't take a bunch of dead body parts and put them together to make a living being. Cells are alive. They are conscious. They have programing, they receive signals, interpret them, and they respond to them.

Think about we didn't evolve here. If there is still monkeys and fish why are there still monkeys and fish. Why aren't we evolving as speak right now? So the only conclusion is God put us here. What you believe about your orgin is how you will live. If we are living by Darwin's theory of evolution which is just a theory no evidence to back it up than we will live trying to be something we can not possibly be (whatever that is; superhuman person thing?). Then you have the cradle of civilization and archaelogists have found evidence of flood covering the whole earth. You have that part of you that part of you that tells you what is right and wrong. You have a universe surrounding you that you don't even know the depths to it. Theres mystery like the blackhole, bermuda triangle, and other scientific things people can't even to begin to wrap thier minds around. But it is all planned by God and leaves us wondering sometimes so maybe one day we will go on a search for the truth. His ideas are unpopular but he doesn't care to be popular. What matters more than knowledge is love. He even wrote a book on it, the Bible. Theres some crazy stuff that happened to the people back then but you know theres crazy things happening to us too. Theres also alot of stuff in there that doesn't make sense but in time it will make sense if you truly want to know the truth. But I don't think you will have the full picture til you die. No one alive has the full picture of God we all have pieces in what we see in nature, the way things works in our lives, his Word. Some people choose to rip up the piece of what they know of God and live only for themselves. God is love.

Why not? Why can you not put together a bunch of simple algorithms, millions of them, and and get conscious? Millions of tiny cells, each unconscious, doing one little task each and with enough of them you get consciousness.

Suppose I started replacing every part of my body with an electronic device that did the same job. I think we can agree these devices aren't alive or conscious on their own, yes? Eventually I'd become a robot. But, I'd still have all the same thoughts, dreams, knowledge, desires, ambitions and opinions. Would I stop being conscious because I've become electronic? Would I stop being alive?

Of course not. I'd simply be what I am now, only made of different stuff.

I want to make the point that I do not feel this is in any way dualism. The consciousness comes from the millions of cells or robots or whatever, all working together. There is no water, only cup.

If you started taking away bits of me, in the way a brain disease does, for example, eventually the person I am will fade away. Consciousness will slowly fade until there is noting left of my mind.

I don't think it is possible to take a bunch of unconscious dead body parts and create a conscious being.

BUT lets assume you can for just a minute.

The question I asked you is this:

At what magical point would a bunch of non living, unconscious parts become conscious and alive?

(FYI the body is electrical already.)

WOW...Where to start...

I do not think you have a grasp on how evolution actually works, it is not an over night thing. But if you want an example that you can see then look at your parents. If there was no evolving there then you would look like an exact blend of both of your parents. But you do not, you are different from them...good or bad.


And what RESPECTABLE archaeologist is claiming anything close to this? There are plenty of religious people who will claim this but every time others review their findings the theory has been proved wrong as far as I had heard. If you know something different then please share your proof...

Right and wrong is a social acceptance thing. You might think it is wrong to kill and eat people but in cannibal tribes it is considered part of life.

At one time it was thought that the world was flat, we learn as we go. Just because we have not found an answer yet does not mean there is not one. You can use that logic for god also but for right now there is no evidence for god, it is only a theory basically that no one can prove either way...yet


The ideas that were wrote by some people a long time ago you mean? God did not write anything, that is why there are the different conflicting chapters is each person that wrote their story had different things they wanted to say...

I will agree that no one alive has the full picture of god, it is common for people to give answers to where there are none. The Greeks and the Native Americans had multiple gods to satisfy their answers. Since then we have used science to understand things like why the leaves change colors and why the animal migrate.

The idea of god was a nice bedtime story like Santa Claus to keep children in line and behaving.

If god is love then love is god? Love is just the name we give for the chemicals being released in our brains and making us feel good. If god makes you feel good also then it could be considered the same and more power to you to live a happy life. But we all do not love the same things...

There is no "magical point." It wold be more like a smear or a smudge.

The body being electrical is beside the point. The body is not wires and circuits boards.

Why is it not possible for a bunch of unconscious robots (cells) to band together and as a group become conscious?

Suppose I was in a box. With me I have a book with answers to questions, but it's written in French. Someone comes along and slides a note into my box. The note is also in French and I look it up in my book. I write down the reply supplied by my book and slip it out.

I don't speak French. However, the whole system (me, the book and the box) does. None of us are conscious of the questions or answers, but we give the correct answer all the same.

The body does not need wires or circuit boards. It has nerves and liquids which carry signals better than any wires or circuit boards.

I did not state for certain that it was "impossible." And you can't state for certain that it is possible. As you have said, evidence is required for either of those conclusions.

I gave logical evidence of why it is not possible. You have not even provided any logical evidence.

Then, I asked that if we assume your premise that it is possible, then logically there has to be a point where the glob of dead unconscious cells or parts suddenly come alive and conscious, even if only barely alive and conscious.

After all -- you can only be dead or alive. You are either conscious or unconscious. Even if it were an extremely gradual process... there has to be that point where the glob of cells goes from dead to alive, from unconscious to conscious.

That is the point of the miracle. IF what you are saying is true.

But I say it is not true. There is no point of miracle because life and consciousness is everywhere and in everything.



That does not make any sense. First you say you don't speak French then you say that you do and the box and book do. Boxes and books don't speak French, they can't read the question or find the answer.
This example makes absolutely no sense at all.

Firstly, I've re-read your posts and I haven't seen any evidence you've presented other than "I think..." My evidence was in the video I posted. Dr. Dennett has done a great deal of research into consciousness and you haven't addressed any of his points.

Consciousness is an effect of intelligence. Can we agree that some beings are more intelligent than others? If so, it follows that some beings can be more conscious than others.

You are still wide of the point about wires. Our nerves are living tissues, wires are not.



The combination of myself and the book and the box makes communication in a language no one part understands possible. I still don't speak French. The book still can't look up the answers and without the two of us, the box is useless. But, all of us together give the right answers even though none of us understand the question.

There is no one cell that understands the question (no one cell is conscious). It takes a number of different cells, working together to understand and another group to come up with an answer. On their own, none of these cells are conscious, but, with millions of them, working together, consciousness grows.

You say you believe cells are conscious. You need to come up with some facts to support this because a negative doesn't need proving.

I did provide evidence. Cells exist. Consciousness exists. There is no negative there. You are admitting that a bunch of cells can be conscious but a single cell cannot. That is illogical.

Okay, here is my proof: You gave it to me.




In the above paragraph you describe a bunch of what you describe as unconscious cells "working together" to understand and solve a problem or come up with an answer.

How can they do this if they are unconscious?<----------?????

You also state that with millions of them, working together, consciousness grows. <-------it grows? When was it born?

In order for consciousness to "grow" it has to be present. A thing cannot grow unless it is present.

Your claim is that on their own, none of these cells are conscious, but apparently they are conscious of something or else they would not be able to work with other cells to understand and solve problems.

Humans do the same thing. They combine their knowledge and consciousness and solve problems.

This is logical proof and you are the one who provided it.

You just proved that I am correct.

Cells have consciousness.