Featured The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

For popular or very good threads
William

William

Novice Mystic
Agnostic
Jun 9, 2021
678
116
61
Te Waipounamu
jig.nz
Worldview

We Exist Within A Creation [WEWAC]

www.reasonablefaith.org

The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

As a boy I wondered at the existence of the universe. I wondered where it came from. Did it have a beginning? I remember lying in bed at night trying to think of a beginningless...
www.reasonablefaith.org www.reasonablefaith.org
Click to expand...

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.
Click to expand...

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)
 
Scientists that accept the Big Bang theory will tell you that matter did not always exist, nor did space and time. It seems that scientists would rather suggest that the Universe came from "nothing" than to posit God's existence. Is that "nothing" simply another word for non-physical or non-material? "Nothing" in physics used to be described as this:
In classical physics, nothing is a space devoid of stuff. But according to quantum theory, nothing is chock-full of stuff. Scientists have had weak evidence of this nothing-stuff—or quantum vacuum fluctuations, if you want to get technical—since the 1940s
...
To get even more specific, classical physics defines nothing, or a vacuum, as a space devoid of matter in the lowest possible energy state.
Click to expand...
Source: Discovery

William said:
Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?
Click to expand...
Based on the information I brought up earlier, I would say yes to the non-physical or non-material cause. However, I don't believe that has to involve the supernatural or unnatural. It's consistent with it, but I think you can have non-physicality without it being supernatural, take human consciousness or hallucinations, for instance.
 
I created a similar thread in another forum.

This is what I had to say on the subject there, in answer to the quoted.


So whatever it was, was an entity that was not contingent, but rather, necessary. It had to be a Causal Agent that did not itself need to be caused.
Click to expand...


Thus it has to be eternal. Never having had a beginning and never to have an end.

Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see. So the creation of things like personhood, identity, soul, self, intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge, thought, awareness and moral conscience would all have to be derived from this Cause, ultimately.
Click to expand...

Yes, and included in that is physical stuff. If matter can only derive from said source, then said source must be natural (material) made up of physical stuff. Therefore "natural" not "supernatural". Inside the nature of itself rather than outside of the nature of itself.

So I was just asking what sort of Entity would fit the logical entailments there. What could we reasonably posit as the First Cause in the chain of contingency within which you and I exist? And I'm leaving the field open to reasonable candidates, rather than dictating the answer.
Click to expand...

If one were to consider that consciousness itself is a physical thing, and say while it appears to be "non-physical" it is simply invisible to human senses but nonetheless exists as a physical thing.

Being invisible to human senses does not equate to being "non-physical."

So a "picture" of said First Cause might be that IT is - in IT's natural or quintessential state, All That Exists in that IT has nothing else which IT has created, occupying IT's own existence.

That would not put anything "outside of Itself, nor would IT be "outside" of Itself.

IT "vibrates" at Its "frequency" in this timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.

When it choses to create (or per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.

This also goes some way to answering the observation "Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see. So the creation of things like personhood, identity, soul, self, intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge, thought, awareness and moral conscience would all have to be derived from this Cause, ultimately."

IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.
 
William said:
I created a similar thread in another forum.

This is what I had to say on the subject there, in answer to the quoted.
So whatever it was, was an entity that was not contingent, but rather, necessary. It had to be a Causal Agent that did not itself need to be caused.
Click to expand...
Thus it has to be eternal. Never having had a beginning and never to have an end.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

William said:
Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see. So the creation of things like personhood, identity, soul, self, intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge, thought, awareness and moral conscience would all have to be derived from this Cause, ultimately.
Click to expand...

Yes, and included in that is physical stuff. If matter can only derive from said source, then said source must be natural (material) made up of physical stuff. Therefore "natural" not "supernatural". Inside the nature of itself rather than outside of the nature of itself.
Click to expand...
That view is also in line with some of the mainstream scientific views:
According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.
Click to expand...
Source: https://www.exploratorium.edu/explo... you know that the,about 13 billion years ago.

And I agree with your perspective to a degree. I would add that it's possible for the first cause to have had both physical and non-physical traits. Some alternatives I can come up with is that things simply appear physical, but that might not be the reality - The Matrix! There's also the concept of emergence which involves new properties and substances coming into existence.
William said:
So I was just asking what sort of Entity would fit the logical entailments there. What could we reasonably posit as the First Cause in the chain of contingency within which you and I exist? And I'm leaving the field open to reasonable candidates, rather than dictating the answer.
Click to expand...

If one were to consider that consciousness itself is a physical thing, and say while it appears to be "non-physical" it is simply invisible to human senses but nonetheless exists as a physical thing.

Being invisible to human senses does not equate to being "non-physical."

So a "picture" of said First Cause might be that IT is - in IT's natural or quintessential state, All That Exists in that IT has nothing else which IT has created, occupying IT's own existence.

That would not put anything "outside of Itself, nor would IT be "outside" of Itself.

IT "vibrates" at Its "frequency" in this timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.

When it choses to create (or per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.

This also goes some way to answering the observation "Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see. So the creation of things like personhood, identity, soul, self, intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge, thought, awareness and moral conscience would all have to be derived from this Cause, ultimately."

IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.
Click to expand...
Earlier you asked for evidence that consciousness is not physical. I view my claim more in terms of being the likely explanation as opposed to being a settled or proven. I think the strongest evidence for that comes from the nature of subjective experience. Not only is it invisible, but thus far, it has proven to be immeasurable to the point that even scientists eliminated it as a topic of inquiry in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, it has been bought back as a research topic.

I also brought up hallucinations earlier. The reason I think that serves as a example of the non-physical is because they are not real. You can't observe or measure something that is not real so in that sense hallucinations are non-physical, by definition.
 
And I agree with your perspective to a degree. I would add that it's possible for the first cause to have had both physical and non-physical traits.
Click to expand...
You wrote that in the past tense. Did you mean to do that?
Some alternatives I can come up with is that things simply appear physical, but that might not be the reality -
Click to expand...
If "something which appears to be physical but isn't", then what is it and why even to say it exists (is real)?
Remember what the thread topic is arguing.
If you can explain how a mind which is not physical in nature can interact with and create functional forms which appear to exist and naturally so, I would be more inclined to follow such reasoning.
The Matrix!
Click to expand...
Primarily (and perhaps the authors were unaware they were doing so) the story of The Matrix is telling the viewer-consciousness that one cannot believe their eyes - yet significantly - in the realms we have two main happenings, all participants within those realms not only believing what they consciously experience is "Real" but interacting and even killing each other...
...So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?

This thought-question then circles back to the idea (re the thread subject) of the Source of the Matrix in "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) and said "state of being" should be argued as being the "only REAL "thing" which exists" and the stuff which makes those "creations" appear and be experienced as "real" by the minds which are all related to the Source Mind (re "IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.") is "made real" through the process I mentioned ("When it choses to create (per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.")

There's also the concept of emergence which involves new properties and substances coming into existence.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is explained re "When it choses to create (or per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience."

Earlier you asked for evidence that consciousness is not physical. I view my claim more in terms of being the likely explanation as opposed to being a settled or proven
Click to expand...

I was specifically arguing so that you might think deeper about the question. Something about your thought-patterns have you leaning that way.
The path we are claiming to be on, is agnosticism and therein "most likely" is the bias preference, but is it an agnostic perspective?

I think the strongest evidence for that comes from the nature of subjective experience.
Click to expand...

What is "subjective experience" IF the experience itself is not able to be experienced as REAL?

Should we suppose that in ITs natural quintessential state IT wonders if IT is "real?

Do any of us "children" of this Source-Consciousness think that we are "not real"?

Not only is it invisible, but thus far, it has proven to be immeasurable to the point that even scientists eliminated it as a topic of inquiry in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, it has been bought back as a research topic.
Click to expand...

Would you also argue that we human consciousnesses are "invisible to our own conscious awareness?" Is the argument also that in ITs natural quintessential state the Source Consciousness creator (re the thread subject) is "invisible" to Its own awareness?
As to what is invisible to our human-form sensors, when we take into account the restrictive nature of that form we should not be surprised in understanding why human-scientists "turn a blind eye" re factoring in the thread subject...
(1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.)

...when they are "doing their science".

I also brought up hallucinations earlier. The reason I think that serves as a example of the non-physical is because they are not real.
Click to expand...

If one were to argue that the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix) please agree with me that the only explanation for that would have to be "what makes something "appear to be real" has to itself be REAL.

You can't observe or measure something that is not real so in that sense hallucinations are non-physical, by definition.
Click to expand...

This argument is debunked through the understanding that The Source Creator n "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) cannot "observe or measure" what IT is, and thus is an "hallucination" and "non-physical".

Specifically, my argument is that anything which can be created and experienced as REAL must therefore be made of the same stuff (physical). That incredible variation of physical stuff is the way it is due to what we call "vibration" of the original state of the particle before it is quantized into 'many things which can be experience by said mind as "real".

eta: This link might be helpful.
 
Last edited:
More from the other message board.

You are at the surface rather than acknowledging the undercurrent.

We cannot (with human senses) see air, yet we know it is made matter.
We can see a limited range of light, and also know that light is made of matter.
Click to expand...

Is 'this' ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY True, and thus IRREFUTABLE AS WELL?
Click to expand...


Maybe.
What do you think the answer to your question is...

WHY are 'you' UNDER some sort of ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that 'we' CAN IMAGINE, which has NO 'physical properties'?
Click to expand...



Is that the impression you get re my argument?



I am not assuming or believing such at all. I am simply saying that my understanding of "non-physical" is that anything labelled as such, is telling me that such does not exist.


This is to do with my OP question re "Supernatural" as to "why" we have to include the concept (what we can imagine) of supernatural as "necessary".

My question is asking for a reasonable answer to be tabled re discussion. It is based in wanting logical answers about something which appears to be unnecessary re a Natural Universe and is asked from that perspective rather than from a perspective of belief or assumption.

The 'supernatural', by definition, does NOT and can NOT exist.
Click to expand...


Is that your belief and assumption, or based in logic you have worked out and can show is the case?


Unless, OF COURSE, you could name ONE 'thing' which is NOT 'Natural', and SHOW or PROOF HOW.
Click to expand...


Well I can name a "unicorn" as "not being natural to Earth"...even that it is imagined to "look like" a horse with a horn coming out from its forehead. It is easy enough to imagine such a being.

I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this natural universe.

I can name a "god" who "looks like" a human being but has wings which it can fly around "as not being natural to Earth"... It is easy enough to imagine such a being.

I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this Natural Universe.

Indeed, even using the word "Natural" with the word "Universe" seems illogical if indeed, everything which does exist, is only this Universe.

(Even if said Universe was Mindful...The God which has always existed.)

I can imagine both a "Supernatural God" and a "Natural God" and therein "see" no difference.

The OP question is essentially asking for any reason as to why I should "see" a "Supernatural God" ("First Cause Mind et all" re the cosmology being examined) rather than simply "see" a Natural God in the evidence of The (Almighty) Universe Itself?

As to your question on my use of the word "vibrations", it is apparent that not only is every individual object in the Universe Unique, but every object also has its own "signature" frequency.

Thus, IF the universe is Mindful, it may be the case that the evidence for this is the Existence of the Universe itself and how it behaves and why "forms" form (it has something to do with the frequency of the vibrations).

We see evidence of this happening in observing the form Galaxies can be seen have take on.

The questions are - is this because of a mindful thing happening and if so, is it necessary to refer to that mindful thing as "supernatural"?
 
More from the other message board.
Personality 1. We don't need to agree to a particular name in order for us to both agree we are speaking of the same thing.

Personality 2. I think we do. The characteristics of this "Mind" are exactly what is in question at the moment.

Personality 1. Indeed, the characteristics are in question. The label is not.

Personality 2. I can't even make sense of that rejoinder.


Personality 1. I can see you appear to be having difficulty comprehending what I am talking about. I do not think it is because I am not being clear.

I have clearly debunked your argument that a creator of this universe is necessarily "supernatural" but understand also that you do not comprehend that this has occurred, whether you are being honest about that or not.


Personality 3. Yes, the debunking was clear enough.
Personality 2 tends to have in common a feature of many of the Faithful. Like the Christian priest in "Eric the Viking" he cannot see things beyond his belief system.
If he believes swans to be white, then he will simply walk past a flock of black ones.


Personality 1. I have noted how most Christians appear to have to believe in a supernatural creator - apparently because their whole philosophy is based upon that premise.
I also acknowledge that most Materialists appear to have to believe that the universe is mindless - apparently because their whole philosophy is based upon that premise.

With philosophy, premises can be examined in an effort to critique these and find any type of contradiction therein.

The premise is "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" and this universe has plenty of evidence to support that indeed "things begin to exist and yes - things which begin to exist do have causes."

I understand that we can take from this observation that since this is how the goings on are happening everywhere we observe, that the whole universe can thus be thought of as "something which had a beginning".

The belief is that this therefore means that the universe is a mindfully created thing means that it has to have been created by a mind "outside" of itself. I have argued against the belief and shown that such is not necessary at all. by offering an alternate explanation.

Personality 2 - in order to prop up his belief in supernaturalism - has since had to argue that this "supernatural" creator-mind created an "unnecessary universe" which, not only further mistifies (sic) said alleged "supernatural" mind by shielding him (sic) behind a thick curtain of fog, but the idea makes said mind appear to be frivolous with its unnecessary undertakings.

When thinking along the lines that the universe is a mindful thing, in examining biological forms and their extremely complex and evolving designs, to claim such as "unnecessary" is a sign of desperation because clearly the claimant hasn't thought things through before blurting out the (handwaved) proclamation.

Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past (ways humans thought about things) which its accompanying superstitions (presented as philosophy) jealously cling to.
 
William said:
And I agree with your perspective to a degree. I would add that it's possible for the first cause to have had both physical and non-physical traits.
Click to expand...
You wrote that in the past tense. Did you mean to do that?
Click to expand...
It would only be an error under your perspective which involves qualities of the effect already being present in the cause.

William said:
Some alternatives I can come up with is that things simply appear physical, but that might not be the reality -
Click to expand...
If "something which appears to be physical but isn't", then what is it and why even to say it exists (is real)?
Click to expand...
I would simply call it unreal. The real and unreal can exist but they differ in the way it exist.

William said:
Remember what the thread topic is arguing.
If you can explain how a mind which is not physical in nature can interact with and create functional forms which appear to exist and naturally so, I would be more inclined to follow such reasoning.
Click to expand...
For now, I only argue that nonphysical things exist along side physical things. That does not mean that the first cause was entirely nonphysical. Perhaps the nonphysical would have to change form in order to interact or perhaps there are laws that would explain their interactions (between physical and nonphysical) but we are unaware of them. It is one of the biggest mysteries after all.

William said:
The Matrix!
Click to expand...
Primarily (and perhaps the authors were unaware they were doing so) the story of The Matrix is telling the viewer-consciousness that one cannot believe their eyes - yet significantly - in the realms we have two main happenings, all participants within those realms not only believing what they consciously experience is "Real" but interacting and even killing each other...
...So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?
Click to expand...
I can't answer that fully, but the experiences of hallucinations or dreams gives us an analogy to work from. If someone is experiencing something in the physical environment that no one else can see, then that's one thing that should consider that what the person is seeing is not real.

William said:
This thought-question then circles back to the idea (re the thread subject) of the Source of the Matrix in "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) and said "state of being" should be argued as being the "only REAL "thing" which exists" and the stuff which makes those "creations" appear and be experienced as "real" by the minds which are all related to the Source Mind (re "IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.") is "made real" through the process I mentioned ("When it choses to create (per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.")
Click to expand...
(y)(y) sounds good and reasonable.
William said:
Earlier you asked for evidence that consciousness is not physical. I view my claim more in terms of being the likely explanation as opposed to being a settled or proven
Click to expand...
I was specifically arguing so that you might think deeper about the question. Something about your thought-patterns have you leaning that way.
The path we are claiming to be on, is agnosticism and therein "most likely" is the bias preference, but is it an agnostic perspective?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're alluding to. My agnosticism amounts to principles that I apply to claims. There is no agnostic view or creed that I hold

William said:
I think the strongest evidence for that comes from the nature of subjective experience.
Click to expand...
What is "subjective experience" IF the experience itself is not able to be experienced as REAL?

Should we suppose that in ITs natural quintessential state IT wonders if IT is "real?

Do any of us "children" of this Source-Consciousness think that we are "not real"?
Click to expand...
I would say that consciousness is nonphysical and real. My points about the unreal are a separate example.

William said:
Not only is it invisible, but thus far, it has proven to be immeasurable to the point that even scientists eliminated it as a topic of inquiry in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, it has been bought back as a research topic.
Click to expand...
Would you also argue that we human consciousnesses are "invisible to our own conscious awareness?" Is the argument also that in ITs natural quintessential state the Source Consciousness creator (re the thread subject) is "invisible" to Its own awareness?
Click to expand...
Consciousness is invisible to our senses, and I don't even believe that we can perceive our own consciousness using our senses. But we can perceive our own consciousness in other ways via experience or through introspection and meditation. Not only can we not observe someone else's consciousness but we can't even experience it.

William said:
I also brought up hallucinations earlier. The reason I think that serves as a example of the non-physical is because they are not real.
Click to expand...

If one were to argue that the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix) please agree with me that the only explanation for that would have to be "what makes something "appear to be real" has to itself be REAL.
Click to expand...
Agreed!

William said:
You can't observe or measure something that is not real so in that sense hallucinations are non-physical, by definition.
Click to expand...
This argument is debunked through the understanding that The Source Creator n "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) cannot "observe or measure" what IT is, and thus is an "hallucination" and "non-physical".
Click to expand...
I view the unreal as just one example of nonphysical. I've also explained earlier how it could "observe" itself even without the senses

William said:
Specifically, my argument is that anything which can be created and experienced as REAL must therefore be made of the same stuff (physical). That incredible variation of physical stuff is the way it is due to what we call "vibration" of the original state of the particle before it is quantized into 'many things which can be experience by said mind as "real".

eta: This link might be helpful.
Click to expand...
I think we both agree about the "real", but we differ on the issue about the nonphysical.
 
Last edited:
I would simply call it unreal. The real and unreal can exist but they differ in the way it exist.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you refer to physical as "real" and non-physical as "unreal"?

For now, I only argue that nonphysical things exist along side physical things. That does not mean that the first cause was entirely nonphysical. Perhaps the nonphysical would have to change form in order to interact or perhaps there are laws that would explain their interactions (between physical and nonphysical) but we are unaware of them. It is one of the biggest mysteries after all.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that "supernatural" (unreal) is a place-holder of some type - until more information is found?

I can't answer that fully, but the experiences of hallucinations or dreams gives us an analogy to work from. If someone is experiencing something in the physical environment that no one else can see, then that's one thing that should lead you to question that The observers experience is real.
Click to expand...

Or, I could think that the experience being had by the one experiencing it, (and reporting it) is really happening because the one experiencing it (as real) is not completely under the influence of his/her human form, which we know - limits what the person is able to experience.

I was specifically arguing so that you might think deeper about the question. Something about your thought-patterns have you leaning that way.
The path we are claiming to be on, is agnosticism and therein "most likely" is the bias preference, but is it an agnostic perspective?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're alluding to. My agnosticism amounts to principles that I apply to claims. There is no agnostic view or creed that I hold
Click to expand...

I am speaking of position (on such matters) not any specific "creed".
I would say that consciousness is nonphysical and real. My points about the unreal are a separate example.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? Please explain how a (supposed) nonphysical thing can influence a physical thing. Why not suppose that consciousness is physical?

Consciousness is invisible to our senses, and I don't even believe that we can perceive our own consciousness using our senses. But we can perceive our own consciousness in other ways via experience or through introspection and meditation. Not only can we not observe someone else's consciousness but we can't even experience it.
Click to expand...

Why suppose that? Do we not observe each others consciousness through what we do with it?
Isn't it the case that it is NOT our human sensory system which is doing any "observing" whatsoever, but the conscious self (consciousness) which is doing the observing through the device of the human experience (sensory system) and reacting et al? That which is actually having the human experience?

If one were to argue that the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix) please agree with me that the only explanation for that would have to be "what makes something "appear to be real" has to itself be REAL.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
Click to expand...

And since it is consciousness which makes something "appear to be real" (re Simulation theory) then would we not be mistaken in believing that our human senses are what makes consciousness real?

I view the unreal as just one example of nonphysical. I've also explained earlier how it could "observe" itself even without the senses
Click to expand...

This is where you appear to be contradictory within your argument as you agree that consciousness is REAL yet argue that consciousness is also "unreal" (nonphysical) and since you have also argued that consciousness could observe (be aware of) itself "without human senses", why would you argue we cannot "observe" consciousness with human senses and thus should refer to consciousness as "nonphysical" on account of that?

I think we both agree about the "real", but we differ on the issue about the nonphysical.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I see no reason to refer to consciousness as "nonphysical" since even if our our human senses can't know or not know that it exists and that there are other physical things which exist which cannot be directly "seen" directly through our physical sensory systems, but have been proven to exist physically through devices enabling us to do so - we need not jump the gun in assuming of all the physical things we cannot see with the naked eye - consciousness has to be the exception and thought of as "super-to-natural" rather than actually natural and thus physical for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back