Your above points are merely statements but not supported by arguments at all.
It is not your or mine view that counts.
What you need is to present universal rational arguments.
Note the argument I provided where the ancients claimed Earth is round, it is not my view but rather sound universal arguments.
Note your statements;
Note I countered your P1, knowledge is only from humans.
So you have to prove I am wrong but in your case Knowledge is independent of man’s consciousness and understanding of it.
Then you have to prove God is knowledge.
In addition, you have to define ‘who is God’ in your own terms if different from the conventional meaning, i.e. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
I suggest these syllogism for you;
All of reality is knowledge
God is all of reality
Therefore God is knowledge
or
P1 Knowledge exists
P2 God is knowledge [3 above]
C1 Therefore God exists
The above at least has some logical footing, but ultimately the above is linked to the human conditions.
You will need to justify the above premises with the relevant supporting details.
If not the above, you need to start and come up with syllogisms that has some logical footings instead of you throwing unorganized statements all over the place.
Btw, I have spent many years as a theist and then a non-theist, I am confident you [based on what you have posted] will not be able to cover all the holes in whatever the arguments you will raise.
Nonsense, my posts show the evidence and how it interrelates by it existing. Do you deny an external subconscious to consciousness? Do you deny having to be humble before knowledge to gain an understanding? Do you disagree with guilt and internally integrated aspects of judgement or criticism in the psyche? Animals as well with their instincts.
I have provided universal arguments already. Ok and God being what it is is the ancients claiming that god is knowledge/subconscious aspect to everything which we communicate with and feel, which it /is/ external to consciousness and was before it, they demonstrated this in their own terminology and referred to human psyche/subconsciousness and the duality spawning out of darkness, evolving into light via the Big Bang “the word” in the holy bible. I have provided reasonable, logical arguments already that you have not addressed. Not my view either, it’s the view of the holy bible and the view of ancients, which has been misinterpreted, so dismiss the “conventional” meaning of god which is based off of a lack of understanding of which one can disprove it only because the “understanding” of it is not correct. The misunderstanding you have and try to argue against, doesn’t exist as something you can even argue against.
Knowledge is evidence, evidence always existed from the very first reaction, this is observable now that reactions(knowledge) came before us and also lead up to us. Understanding is what we may do with knowledge, application of what already was and create what can/could be from what was/is.
Human consciousness granted through evolution is the ability of comprehending evidence/knowledge, but one has to be humble to accept knowledge to understand it, knowledge came about by subconscious instinctive reacting.
So if knowledge is subconscious and always existed then knowledge is eternal regardless of humanity existing, if knowledge grants power, then it is all powerful and exists to be taken through being humble, if in order to gain an understanding one has to be humble and accepting, then that is a demand of something external to you.
Which proves the subconscious/knowledge is external to human consciousness/humanity and if god is the subconscious aspect which is external to our conscious psyche and the subconscious has always been due to reactions creating evidence/knowledge, it has no differentiation between future and past, subconsciousness manifested and brought us to this point without any discretion of time, it was in the blink of an eye for the universe but measurable to us due to our evolved conscious state.
If man has a subconscious external to conscious awareness and it feeds imagery than this can be summed up as a source or type of communication method between something external and consciousness.
Address the points and stop trying to take me in your own definition of which you have defined through misconception/misinterpretation or adopted misinterpretation. The “conventional” meaning of god is a misinterpreted meaning so how can one defend against an argument based off of a misunderstanding other than showing how, why and what you misunderstood. Which I /have/ demonstrated multiple times, potently.
Address the points:
My statement is that god is the subconscious interface that is knowledge as well due to instincts creating observable reactions to consciousness but did such subconsciously without our existing, which is demonstrated and shown in evolution and our own being able to make conscious sense of it.
So if god is knowledge and the subconscious interface external to mankind and consciousness, then address the points I have already laid out about subconscious/knowledge and its functions/functioning.
You didn’t counter my points because you never addressed the definition of god as it is here in this thread, defined via logic and reason. I have already demonstrated how a fact or knowledge can be known without an understanding, the understanding is what is reliant on human consciousness/existence. It literally says in the very definition you wrote
In the definition of knowledge you showed. Which demonstrates my point of knowledge existing being external to consciousness or humanity.
Acquired /through/, /by/ perceiving. It doesn’t state knowledge did not exist external to consciousness(perceiving) it only defines it as something that may be understood via consciousness, which I have already demonstrated here. Knowledge is external to man kinds existence. Understanding knowledge, is not.
I have already proven you wrong because you haven’t addressed the points and definitions I provided, you stick with the misinterpreted “conventional” idea of god which cannot be disproven or proven because it is not the correct understanding of what it is from the very beginning.
So address what I have defined.
Knowledge is only linked to subconsciousness, not to conscious understanding. Ones has to make a conscious choice to understand something.
P1. God is every reaction which is evidence/knowledge external to human existence or being conscious of it which has been and is demonstrated by evolution and our putting dates on finds older than the species of man. God is the subconscious interface that evolved consciousness, it is in both human psyche external to consciousness and also in reality as observable subconscious knowledge.
P2. Every now observable subconscious reaction before and after mankind is knowledge/evidence external subconsciously/unconsciously to consciousness.
Evolution proves and demonstrates such by findings older than our species, it also demonstrates such that this knowledge can be misunderstood which shows knowledge is external to understanding, which understanding stems from being conscious and humble. Which shows knowledge/subconscious exists outside of human consciousness/humanity
The points have been argued already here by me, address them as such.
You cannot complain and blame me for not understanding your views.
The onus is for you to present your ideas clearly upon feedbacks.
I cannot infer any logical conclusion from your P1 and P2 above.
I have suggested you establish some reasonable syllogism then justify the premises.
Note your conclusion in the OP is stated as ‘God is a possibility’ and ‘God exists’
In this case you have to show how you arrive at your conclusion, e.g.
P1 God is X
P2 X is a possibility
C3 therefore God is a possibility.
You will have to define the terms God, X and possibility and justify P1 and P2 to form your conclusion.
Note what I have suggested in the most basic and universal approach.
You can restate the syllogism but the form has to be the same, i.e.
P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z
or you can use other acceptable forms.
Your critique of the term ‘knowledge’ from wiki as independent is wrong. I suggest you read the whole article. Therein Plato defined ‘Knowledge’ as Justified True Belief [JTB] which are all human activities in interaction with an external thing or of one self. Even then this definition is insufficient due to Gettier.
But the point is knowledge cannot arise without human experiences and thinking.
Knowledge is an emergence from the human conditions interactions with things which in one limited perspective are supposedly external to the human conditions.
E.g. we have knowledge of an apple which supposed exist independent of human conditions. Theist claimed to have knowledge of God which is supposedly exists independent of human beings.
It is ridiculous to claim God is knowledge.
Therefore there is no knowledge if there are no human beings to interact with the supposedly independent external things.
Note in another perspective, the philosophical anti-realists are arguing even the supposedly independent external things are not absolute independent.
It is the same with consciousness and subconsciousness which are not independent of the human conditions.
I suggest you use the following syllogism to present the argument systematically and most will understand [not necessary agree] to give whatever necessary counter arguments or agree with it. i.e.
P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z
You can start with the conclusion C3 ‘God is a possibility[Z]’ and works backward to formulate your premises 1 or 2.
P1 God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality which interrelate, similar to how dna functions in biology. We function as dna to/of it and expand on our own level at the same time. It’s fractal.
P2. god is a possibility - why?
The subconscious/unconscious interface is found through the interrelating concepts of knowing and understanding by the different levels of consciousness there are, of which consciousness is a different level from the subconscious, one who is subconscious still knows, still feels, still has instincts, but what separates them from a higher level of consciousness is understanding those facets, which there is a form of consciousness that is external to knowing because we had to know before we could understand. So god is what exists before and after, the reactions of which we deem verifiable by evolution. Science is the tool to verify this by how subjects of knowledge interrelate, subjects such as, psychology, history, biology, archaeology, etc. Which show proof of evolution and these subjects focusing on the interrelation of different times, we of which focus now on the present or future and understanding of the past. An understanding(consciousness) had been separate from knowing/instinct at some point which is verifiable by/through the study of evolution/change. This shows there are levels of consciousness, knowledge stemming from a being awake but not being able to interact with being awake, bound by instinct. An understanding of knowledge demonstrates the differentiation between what knowledge and an understanding are. We increase in consciousness as we know more but an understanding of knowledge is a choice in direction of knowledge. First there was a subconscious though and that is what I am showing is the god of which exists, because things still are in a state of only knowing and not understanding. It’s an interrelation of subjects and time to be summed up into a one word. Ultimately it’s a matter of semantics and ego though of the acceptance of that word god, the fact that one has to admit that people whom were ancient understood that it is present, they did not understand the why, how, when, what, etc. Because they didn’t have science. Science is a tool of interrelating subjects which demonstrates past, present and future if science uses and heeds psychology. This shows consciousness is growing and that god as existent as the subconscious/unconscious aspects are also growing, since nature is evolving due to knowledge existing, which knowledge exists independent of the next level of consciousness (understanding). So to have knowledge one has to perceive it (experience) to know still, so be conscious, which is the subconscious, the next level of the subconscious is consciousness itself, which is an understanding of what one may know. So since we may observe nature still growing and be growing ourselves from it and in it, this is the interrelation that proves god by it still being past, present and future. Since we can observe the subconscious facets and are still evolving consciousness.
It is like a staircase, knowledge/perception/subconscious is a step below full fledged consciousness, which is being able to understand knowledge/perception/subconscious, while still having a subconscious/knowledge/perception due to our preservation through breeding/evolution.
So the demonstration of different levels of consciousness, consciousness in the form of an understanding of knowing and the subconscious in the form of knowing/knowledge as experience/perception existing separate from each other shows that knowledge is independent of consciousness which is an understanding of knowledge/subconscious.
One can know something, have knowledge of something which is a subconscious instinct(curiosity) without understanding it fully, which understanding is being fully conscious of it. That’s the evidence in a present moment.
God is the knowledge(subconscious) that we may now understand. It’s a view of past and present as well as future which is in the subconscious as well, due to it’s not being able to differentiate between time, knowledge stems from reaction, experiencing. So we humanity may and may have experienced all and nothing at the same time by being involved in this entire series of reactions which we can both have knowledge of which is instinctual and understand it (Conscious choice), do you see the interrelation? between knowledge/understanding or Subconscious/Conscious.
Your P2 above is the conclusion not a premise. From what I gathered from the above, your syllogism is as follows;
P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
P2 - ??? [none, where?]
C3 -Therefore God is a possibility
To fit the above into the proper format;
P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z
Your argument would have looked like this,
P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
P2 - the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality is a Possibility
C3 -Therefore God is a possibility
Then you should justify why P1 and P2 are true, and your conclusion will be true.
If you accept the above, then my counter arguments to your P1 is this;
P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
You have to prove an external reality exists independent of the human conditions. Note I highlighted the Philosophical Realist [yours] versus Philosophical anti-Realist [mine] issue.
You have to understand the above and prove your view is true, but I am sure your’s is not tenable.
But even Assuming there is an external reality.
Your God as interface argument can be modeled as such;
Human psyche < ---------God ---------> Reality
The interface between the human conditions and external reality is not God.
The interface are waves, electromagnetic waves.
If there is an apple externally, its the electromagnetic waves that travel from the apple to the brain. Thus the interface is the electromagnetic waves which can be scientifically verified. There is no God as the interface.
Generally God is omnipresent, thus present within humans and all of reality, thus there is no need for interfacing.
If the electromagnetic waves can be explained by Science why do we need theology or theism to explain it?
It is the same for your claim God = energy, which can be explained by Science [via conjectures albeit polished conjectures].
If you insist, then, your God is scientific and thus at best merely conjectural. But no sane scientist will accept this theory of God as scientific.
The since P1 is false, your P2 is also false and do not follow to the conclusion, i.e. non-sequitor.
My point is your tendency to cling to the idea of a God is purely due to the desperate existential psychological impulses that are inherent in ALL humans and active in most theists.
I suggest you must get the syllogism format first, then justify P1 and P2 as true.
P1 X is Y
P2 Y is Z
C3 therefore X is Z
Note Y in both premises are crossed out to arrive at the conclusion.
The above is very basic, there are other considerations to ensure the conclusion is logical [without fallacies, e.g. equivocation, etc.] and sound [rational].
Rushing into throwing statements all over could be a waste of time.
It’s obvious you don’t know psychology and how evolution functions. I just explained to you how the subconscious is independent of consciousness. It’s what evolution is. That’s the observable evidence. The fact nature and animals exist independent of humanity proves it. There was an external reality to human consciousness, we evolved in it from it and of it. Do you deny evolution? “God” is just the terminology, do you deny knowledge exists or a subconscious exists? Do you deny evolution happening despite human consciousness?
Do you understand how dna functions and biology? Psychology? A cell doesn’t need a consciousness to know it has to carry information and reproduce. Does a cell feel? We evolved from a series of reactions spanning millions and billions of years back, including but not limited to a ton of pain. Unconscious > subconscious > consciousness, even the unconscious instinctively react when given the conditions though.
Are you saying animals don’t know or feel anything? Are you staying knowledge or the subconscious doesn’t exist independent of consciousness?
Assuming your syllogism is as follows;
(if don’t agree let me know)
P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
P2 - the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality is a Possibility
C3 -Therefore God is a possibility
Re your P1, you are claiming within psychology [& evolution] the subconscious is independent of the conscious mind.
So God is the subconscious and the connector with the conscious mind.
I suggest you stick to the above format [logical model] otherwise your thoughts and statement will be all over the place.
Where did you get the above idea from?
I suggest you don’t try to jump to conclusion about my state of knowledge on psychology and evolution when you are in fact the ignorant one.
Note
Suggest you read the whole article.
Note the subconscious and conscious are generally represented as two interdependent sections of the human mind, i.e.
The above is the same with other psychological references, the subconscious is part and parcel within the same system of the whole human mind.
Thus your assertion is false and P1 is false.
It is ridiculous to suggest to claim the monkey’s mind is subconscious and the human subconscious is the same with it?
Note the monkey and other non-humans has their own conscious mind and subconscious mind.
The unconscious mind of all living things do not form one concerted group mind that is called God. Try to present the above idea in a logical syllogistic format? I am sure it will look ridiculous.
We are present due to a long time of reactions, we evolved from and now with that reaction. The subconscious isn’t only the human mind, it is only observable to us now because it evolves, the consciousness evolved out of the subconscious but the differentiation between the subconscious and consciousness is the ability to understand knowledge.
An animals subconscious is not as evolved as the human subconscious due to the fact that the animals don’t have full consciousness yet, which shows the evidence that there was an external reality to our being conscious before we were conscious.
It’s A priori knowledge existent due to an infinity of direct experiences and reactions leading up to our becoming conscious and the subconscious/unconscious experiences being built up and embedded in our unconscious/subconscious psyche and this shows why that aspect of the mind exists.
We are more subconscious than we are conscious apparently.
Animals derive from this same unconscious/subconscious chain of reactions/experiencing which is observable now to consciousness and able to be understood. Knowledge is embedded in us from the very beginning of the Big Bang, we are a collection of primordial reactions. The difference between us and animals and why they are not conscious yet like us is because they do not have hands to craft tools and aren’t exposed to knowledge the way we were which experiencing this external reality before we were conscious is what brought our consciousness about.
You can make claims I don’t know psychology but I have read a lot and take my time to form an unbiased knowledge and understanding of it and am explaining to you the intricacies of how we came to be and the role ‘god’ played in that as a subconscious interface before and after our becoming conscious. I state you don’t know much psychology because of what you state, every time you post something psychological it is literally backing my point up.
We evolved from animals, so you think it’s ridiculous that a subconscious is something that is a collection of past unconscious/subconscious experiences/reactions embedded into life’s existence?
An existential crisis is due to this fact, it is when one realizes they are an infinity of possibilities both past and future confined to a present moment and when one doesn’t understand fully what this means they are overwhelmed and either lose themself or gain themself.
Our subconscious mind is nearly the same as the monkey’s but ours is a bit more experienced due to our using our hands, being older and evolving into a conscious state. Our subconscious/unconscious mind has experience now that a monkey or animal doesn’t due to our being conscious now but when we were not conscious we were in a state of unconscious/subconscious like them, that spans back millions of years. Not being subconscious the entire time, a lot of that time was unconscious but still instinctive/reactive.
It doesn’t prove what I am saying is false but instead what I am saying is correct, you know consciousness evolved from the subconscious mind, not the other way around, which is the evidence of Evolution of which proves what I have stated in regards to the subconscious/unconscious interface and consciousness coming from it.
Animals don’t have their own consciousness, they’re still subconscious and evolving a consciousness… they’re not conscious to the extent of humanity because we have willingly experienced more and may now understand how to bring about more experiencing.
P2. So it began with the Big Bang or the first reaction of 2 or more variables that started a series of reactions. These reactions were instinctive(unconscious) of and through nature/universe of which formed matter, the chain reaction after a very long time of chaotic primordial mixing of matter and the formed elements, the elements and matter mixed with each other, creating more and more complex reactions through and of this one single chain, every reaction is a branch out from this single point though the single point still continues as well, built up from, this is what creates complex life and single cell life, the series of reactions of which lead to a single complex organism, multiple single organisms, these organisms are life which formed the (subconscious) aspects, more complex instincts, this formed animals, which are instinctive creatures that react based on environment, the animals then lead to us an even more complex reaction, which we eventually, after a long time of being subconscious/unconscious, became conscious, through the varying simplistic yet complex chain reaction, conscious is where now instead of being subconscious/unconscious.
Now here’s the link.
The reason why our psyche is so subconscious/unconscious more than conscious is because of how much we understand and know but want to understand and so the being more conscious is a choice.
This is what god is, our conquest of and for knowledge. Which is continual reaction of things and the studying of things changing, change is reaction. So evolution in a sum is what is the link to psyche, does that make sense?
For millions of years, we were unconscious reactions stacking upon reactions through evolution, this is integrated into our dna and existence as a reaction you see, it is an aspect of what builds the unconscious and subconscious psyche due to knowing a lot but never understanding it and then breeding of which kept preserved this information through our genetic being. We are just now waking up to an infinity of unconscious/subconsciousness of which is internally embedded into our psyche and unconscious/subconscious aspects to our psyche, the evolution proves the external independence of consciousness and how it evolved from subconsciousness. Every species is on a different evolutionary path, this is why they appear as different species. We are furthest along on our path of consciousness compared to them, though I do think we may be able to induce consciousness out of them.
The evidence in psyche, when someone knows something or experiences(subconscious) something traumatic or painful it is buried in the unconscious due to their not understanding or attempting to understand the root of its issue or effects. This shows how psyche works and the link between unconscious/conscious mind and how the possibility of what I demonstrate the unconscious/subconscious mind stems from.
I take the below as your argument;
(Let me know if I am wrong)
P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
P2 - the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality is a Possibility
C3 -Therefore God is a possibility
Your above argument seem to argue for P1, i.e.
The conscious is separate from the subconscious mind.
The separated subconscious mind of human is God- P1
I agree the conscious mind evolved or emerged in evolutionary time from the subconscious mind of humans, i.e. from the collective experiences a priori and embedded in the DNA.
Point is the subconscious mind is part and parcel of the human mind and it represent 90% of the human mind.
Therefore for you to claim the subconscious mind is God [a separate entity] is false and an insult to God.
Btw, your definition of God as used conventionally cannot be much different from the core definition within this article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Read the whole article.
Otherwise it would be valid for someone to claim the human penis is God since it is responsible for producing all the generations of human beings.
Of if the subconscious mind of humans is God then the conscious mind is the son of God.
It isn’t pantheism though because it is one thing, not all things themselves but in all things, it appears in forms of archetypes in our mind if seeking it, it did lead to all things but it’s not really the thing, it is the information embedded in the thing, this is why everything objectively has value because it exists. It is a one god, one knowledge, of which has many faces (topics/masks).
So understand from the Bible’s point of view, where they had no science or psychological terminology back then, they only had newly founded words,
“Deuteronomy 31:8 It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with you; he will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed”
In this verse it translates to what is supposed to be interpreted as :
“It is the lord (knowledge/subconscious mind) who goes before you, it is both with you, it will not fail you or forsake you, do not fear or be dismayed”
Do you see what I am getting at? It’s the mere terminology that got misinterpreted, god was never meant to be something externally with image except knowledge. The light is consciousness of knowledge. It’s analogies to paint the message simpler.
This relates to the subconscious mind you see because when we attribute an entity or idea with more power than oneself the subconscious mind appears to the conscious mind as what humbles the individual because it is subconsciously trying to feed knowledge through imagery. I explained this in my psychedelic/dimethyltryptamine thread.
It isn’t a cheapskate argument because it’s true and it has been argued, just misinterpreted, before me.
It’s a one force stemming from a single point of reaction of which runs through, with and for us if we choose such. So as we reveal more knowledge, we reveal god. The tricky part is where people get lost in /their/ own image of it, it has no one face but an infinite and ever changing mask.
You did not read the term ‘pantheism’ properly. Read again.
“that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god.”
meaning an all-encompassing, immanent God is in all-things.
From the verses of the Bible, one can present an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscience God. However the Bible cannot prove God exists as real or possible to be real.
If you want to insist in your argument, suggest you stick to this format;
(Let me know if I am wrong)
P1 - God is the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality
P2 - the subconscious/unconscious interface in both human psyche and reality is a Possibility
C3 -Therefore God is a possibility
I have demonstrated in my earlier argument there is no separation between the human conscious and subconscious mind.
Another point is while the subconscious mind emerged significantly from evolution and is embedded in the DNA, the human conscious mind do influence to subconscious mind. Note Neurolinguist Linear Programming [NLP], hypnotism, mindfulness and others where one can consciously influence the human subconscious mind.
This contradict your view that the subconscious mind is God.
God cannot be influenced and controlled by humans by whatever means.
If humans can consciously influence their subconscious mind, then the subconscious mind cannot be God.
I suggest you open a new thread, i.e. “The Subconscious Mind is God” and present your arguments therein. If you can get sufficient consensus on your thesis, I would consider looking at it further. Otherwise it is a waste of time for me to counter it alone.
You can also open another thread ‘God is Knowledge’ or “God is Energy”
Btw, make sure you formulate a proper syllogism [P1, P2, & there4 C3] to argue your hypothesis.
To me the hypotheses above - based on current knowledge- are ridiculous. It would interesting to find out what others are saying from different perspectives.
The point that you have to shift from ‘energy’ to ‘knowledge’ then a separated subsciousness, indicate your arguments for God do not have a solid grounding.
There have been thousands or more arguments for God since the idea of god emerged but none have been convincing, because the clinging to a god by a person is based on desperate unstable psychology & faith [no reason nor proof].
