Without us being conscious, God doesn't exist. Ergo, consciousness > God ?

Let's say God (or anything) exists. Now, without an entity that is conscious of said being/thing, that entity doesn't exist.

You may argue that the same tree stands before/during/after a person dies, but that is only possible since there are still people who are conscious of it.

Now, if we are willing to go that next level, can't we say that God only exists as long as there is someone conscious ? From an all-powerful standpoint, the fact God stops existing once a being is unconscious, doesn't that mean that consciousness is superior to God in that aspect ?

I'm curious.....

 

Whether entity A is conscious of the existence of entity B does not cause the existence or lack of existence of entity B. It is simply a fact statement of whether entity A is conscious of the existence of entity B. It goes no further than that. It's a simple tautology:

P1: Sam is conscious of Sarah's existence.
C1: Sam is conscious of Sarah's existence.

-or-

P1: Sam is not conscious of Sarah's existence.
C1: Sam is not conscious of Sarah's existence.

 

No, not true. If Sam becomes unconscious, Sarah stops existing in one form as she is no longer able to be comprehended.
If every sentient being in the Universe stopped existing, God doesn't exist in that realm.

My tree analogy in the OP speaks to this. No doubt a tree exists long after a person dies, but it can only exist to that person while they are conscious.

 

So? I was speaking to causation, not bland awareness. Your OP specifically states "without an entity that is conscious of said being/thing, that entity doesn't exist." (your words), strongly implying a causal link that actual existence is dependent on consciousness.

Now, you have backpedaled. Of course, if Sarah stops existing she is no longer able to comprehend. How is that relevant to whether something else remains to exists? It doesn't.

Your original tree analogy has the same flaw. And now you have backpedaled on that one too. Trees existed well before sentient life, capable of consciousness, arose on this planet. There are objects on the other side of our galaxy that no conscious entity on Earth is aware of, yet they exist.

Try again.

 

My consciousness is completely unimaginable to me. I can understand if a universe produced a bunch of intelligent automotons, but in ours I actually have subjective experience. I see no reason or mechanism for this to be the case.

That doesn't mean there's necessarily a God. Does make things interesting though. I used to be a strong Atheist, now I find myself more open minded. I'm in a position of cautious openness.

 

No, that being no longer exists in Sarah's mind if she is not conscious. If God was superior to consciousness, Sarah should be aware of God even without consciousness.

 

I fail to see the logic there. Why would anything require something to be concious of it to exist?

 

I all sentient life was gone would a star still exist, yes, so if this god being existed it would impartial to anything comprehending or not.

 

When you look at a tree, the image you see is produced by your mind. What you are seeing doesn't really exists. Oh, there's something there, but not what you're seeing. The same can be said of your hearing. Without your ear, and brain, is there a sound present? So the OP has a very good point.

From my viewpoint, there is no question but that god exists purely in the mind of humans, and nowhere else.

 

Well perhaps the OP had a good point in 1710 when Berkeley published his theory of immaterialism. But surely after Kant such idealism is a bit antiquated. How do you know the tree as a thing unperceived doesn't exist in itself? It seems like a claim that this position has made impossible to know. To say that the tree doesn't exist because it's outside of some conscious perception is precisely to make a claim about the nature of reality that is outside of some conscious perception.

.

 

But according to your position, nothing is outside consciousness (you hold: to be is to be perceived) - an old philosophical idea. A clarifying question: how is it logically possible for something to be aware of anything without consciousness?

 

If God is a conscious being, then God can conceive Gods existance without us.

 

You really don't have to go any further than this to recognize the problem: you grant that God exists, presumably God would be conscious, hence God would exist. Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore, I am). Of course, it would also be true that if God exists, then God would be self-conscious and that would also solve your problem.

* modernpaladin beat me to it. Same idea.

 

Maybe you should reread what I said.

Fact: You don't "see" a tree. Signals go to your brain, through your "eyes", this code, if you like, indicates color, hight, width, etc, and a picture appears in your brain. Something, call it a tree if you like, is there, but it isn't what your mind has created. Our brain doesn't have at it's disposal all the possible factors to recreate exactly what's in front of it, just as our hearing range isn't broad enough to hear what a dog hears.

Understand? This isn't philosophy, it's fact. So does a tree, as we know it, exist beyond our mind? No it doesn't. But, yes, something like a tree, that our mind creates, is there. But god? No one sees god, no one hears god. God is completely created by our brain. God is a thought.

 

Presumably. That's the problem. Anything concerning god is a presumption. You can only assume god. You can't know god.

 

But Sarah being conscious herself should be able to contemplate and comprehend her own existence.

Assuming that God exists and that God created the universe and all contained therein...He remains as a conscious entity within that universe and so still exists within that universe regardless of what is or is not in there with him.

The funny thing about consciousness is that the only person we are certain that has it...is ourselves. I know that I am conscious, everyone else I do not have any proof of. And conversely you are aware that you are conscious and have no real way of knowing if I am.

But we go on about our lives giving each other the benefit of the doubt and assume that we are all are conscious.

So while you are correct that the tree ceases to exist for us once we are dead and gone...the tree still exists.

Here's a bit to make you pause...



Sleep tight!

 

RE: Without us being conscious, God doesn't exist. Ergo, consciousness > God ?
※→ et al,

To the question: Answer = NO

IF and only IF the TRUE identity of "God" includes the attributes (see Attributes of God – The Characteristics) of being all-knowing and all-powerful → THEN:

• It is (in my pinion) what might be called a "necessary condition" for the recognition of the deity; but not an "equality."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

That's why I believe that consciousness could be deemed equal to or even beyond God.

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

My reference was to the OP's original claim that in order for something to exist it must be perceived. There was a tension in your post and the OP's claim. You've now doubled down on that tension. 1) Of course this is philosophy, you're talking about epistemology (theory of knowledge/how we know), mind, metaphysics, the nature and structure of reality ,etc; even to make a claim about what is and isn't philosophy (or to make a claim about the nature of facts), is to make a philosophical claim about essences. 2) Facts are not unmediated things, they're always embedded in concepts and judgments and hence they are not outside the realm of philosophy (this is a logical necessity - it is true by definition). 3) In discussing the phenomenal creation (mental presentation of reality), you make the claim that something is there (something like a tree for example) beyond the representation of it in your mind - you just claim that it is different from what our mind creates. I'm merely asking how you know this, if what we know is always a mental construction. Of course, what we say we know of the tree is constructed via conceptualizations within the our mind (and we can never get outside of these mental constructions), but you go beyond this and claim that "something like it is there." Given your claims so far, the best that can be claimed is that there might be something there. 4) You then say that God is completely created by our brain, but this would only apply to our concept of God given your position; again how would you know that something like what we call God (in and of itself) has no independent existence, again how do you know that anything independently exists (or doesn't exist), if everything one knows is merely mental representations? Your argument distinguishes between things like "something like a tree" (which you seem to suggest initiate our mental representations) and God, which lacks this empirical element (but people claim to see and hear God all the time - how do you know which thoughts are legitimate and which are not - that "something like God" exists)? Furthermore, how do you distinguish between imagination and reality? How can you evaluate such claims - oh this thought corresponds to something like what I am thinking is "out there" and this does not (since you can't step outside of your mind to check)? How do you even account for causality which is presupposed by your claim that the independent object causes us to have a representation (since causality itself would only be a mental creation of the mind)?

A pity you haven't spent more time with Philosophy. This is an 18th Century debate.

 

I fail to follow your claim. Consciousness = awareness. What does "equal" mean here? Theists claim that God is conscious. Would that make God equal to God or beyond God for theists?

 

RE: Without us being conscious, God doesn't exist. Ergo, consciousness > God ?
※→ Channe, Adorno, et al,

Unless you are dependently connecting "consciousness" (in this case - the state of awareness of external objects or one self) to "reality" (the state of external objects as they actually exist), THEN this is probably not true.

“Do you really believe that the moon isn’t there when nobody looks?”
→ Albert Einstein
​

(COMMENT)

Assumption (Theist and Agnostic): A Supreme Being (SB) and Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC) exists prior to the question under examination. In this assumption, “evidence for theism provided by physics and philosophy during the last few decades” is not part of the evaluation. It is a two state possibility: 1) Existence of God ⇔ 2) No Existence of God.

Excerpt From: Robert J. Spitzer. “New Proofs for the Existence of God:
Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.” iBooks.​

• IF the Deity is a true Deity (God if you prefer) THEN the Deity exists without regard to any to conscious recognition of any other being.

If I knock you out and you are unconscious (unable to respond to outside stimuli) the Deity still exists.

If I kill you and your life force is terminated (unable to respond to outside stimuli) the Deity still exists.
​

If there are no conscious or sentient beings in the planetary system --- does that mean that the UCC of the universe does not exist? (Rhetorical) Of course not.

The mind of the conscious or sentient beings has established a reasonable "belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power that stands at the origins of our universe or any hypothetically postulated multiverse. ”

Excerpt From: Robert J. Spitzer. “New Proofs for the Existence of God:
Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.” iBooks.​

But the existence of a "super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power that stands at the" center of all things, is not subordinate to any of its creations ⇒ UNLESS it is true that the SB and UCC are a mental aberration or illusion.

Just one man's opinion!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

My post was merely a definitional claim based on traditional views of God. But my post actually committed a pretty serious error. After rereading it Channe already granted for the sake of argument that God exists, hence there was no need to attempt a further proof or comment. Nor does it make sense to then undermine that existence. The view would be contradictory: God exists, but isn't perceived, therefore God doesn't exist. This is nonsensical.

 

"you make the claim that something is there (something like a tree for example) beyond the representation of it in your mind - you just claim that it is different from what our mind creates. I'm merely asking how you know this, if what we know is always a mental construction."

How do we know this? Ever look at a drop of water trough a microscope and see all those tiny things swimming around that the mind can't reproduce without the aide of the microscope?

Get an education son, then get back to me.

 

delete