Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Being subjective means to seek truth based on personal feelings, opinions, or experiences."
This is where you go off the rails. "Subjective" is how you feel about something. It is not "seeking the truth" based on feelings. The existence of god is not something that can be determined in a subjective way. It is either true or not true regardless of how a person feels about it. Therefore, the ONLY way to determine if the existence of god is true is through objective means.
If you wanted to determine if you love someone, that would be subjective. If you wanted to know if you appreciate a piece of art or not, if you enjoyed a car ride, if you think a sunset is beautiful, that is subjective.
You can not determine if an object exists or not through subjective means. This is the flaw in your logic.
Right, read my more complex revision of the thought experiment. I define exactly what you've said in that. However, we must use our subjective minds to discover what is objective, there is no way around that. You should also consider the fact that we can seek truth subjectively, its just that the truth we seek is always changing, just like objective truth is always changing. Science is a great example of objective truth either changing or being discovered. This is why I believe absolute objective truth can never be defined using our subjective minds.
Chriliman
"How can we discover absolute truth in an objective reality, when using a subjective mind?"
We can't find absolute truth but we can have different degrees of confidence in things.
I THINK THEREFOR I AM. is one of the few things we are sure of.
A Theistic God falls on the lowest of the low in the degree of confidence since the concept is contradictory in nature.
So in most cases it is considered false and ridiculous.
Dienikies
"You can not determine if an object exists or not through subjective means. This is the flaw in your logic."
One can argue that we are subjective people and thus everything we experience is subjective.
However when it comes to reality, there are is a thing called "degree of confidence".
So trying to use the concept of "subjective" to somehow slip the god in, is basically saying that all degrees of confidence are at the same level.
Which is NOT TRUE.
Yes we can confirm the existence of objects through subjective means to a very high degree of confidence.
mathematics exists has a high degree of confidence because we can test/count etc
..
The flying spaghetti monster has a very low degree of confidence since no one has built a case for it's existence with decent evidence just like the christian god.
What it comes down to is that our own minds/consciousness is all that we can be certain of. We can even doubt the subjective reality we live in as actually being objectively real.
We don't need any evidence to know that we are conscious. Even if we had some kind of evidence it wouldn't be evidence that we could present to anyone else, because if we could present evidence to someone else that we have consciousness then we could prove that we actually have consciousness, but as we all know this is impossible to prove.
So if you tell me that Mars existed before I did and this objective reality isn't contingent on my consciousness. I can't be 100% certain of this because I cannot completely comprehend objective reality. I can only observe objective reality using my subjective mind and therefore can only achieve a degree of certainty. This tiny bit of uncertainty allows for the tiny possibility that my mind/consciousness realizes my own subjective reality. In other words the subjective reality I experience is dependent on my consciousness, which is completely separate from objecitve reality, where Mars must exist.
This shows that there is a small possibility that my consciousness defines/realizes my reality. If this is true then what of absolute reality (not objective reality). If an absolute reality exists then there must be an absolute consciousness that defines/realizes it. If we consider this small possibility as being true, there is no limit to the philosophical questions that you can answer when considering this.
This also means that everything science has discovered using our subjective consciousness can be seen as true in that we have reached a certain degree of certainty about the objective reality of our universe. However, this has nothing to do with absolute reality (a reality thats beyond our observable objective reality)
Considering the possibility that our subjective consciousness defines/realizes our reality. Then if there is an absolute reality then there must be an absolute consciousness that defines/realizes it. This is an extremely interesting thought that I'd hope you would consider, so you can see how many philosophical questions it can answer.
Chriliman - "This shows that there is a small possibility that my consciousness defines/realizes my reality. If this is true then what of absolute reality (not objective reality). If an absolute reality exists then there must be an absolute consciousness that defines/realizes it."
This is where you derailed the train.
Premise: If a reality of size A exists, then there is a s̲m̲a̲l̲l̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲b̲a̲b̲i̲l̲i̲t̲y̲ that there is a consciousness of order A defines it.
Conclusion: If a reality of size B exist, then there m̲u̲s̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲ a consciousness of order B that defines it.
Even if we were willing to accept that premise, your conclusion does not seem to follow.
Science persists and advances because it is rooted in objectivity and empirical method and readily concedes its falsifiability, this in circumstances where it's hypotheses fail the rigours of research/experimentation. Mere 'belief', however, makes no reliance on verifiability and partly for this reason is unfalsifiable, a major advantage for religionists of all persuasions. After all, if I make the ridiculous and subjective claim that an invisible and undectable snowman who runs around the Sahara Desert decides my fate and destiny, anyone would be hard pressed to refute absolutely my belief. Further on this, though, do a Google search on 'Death by a thousand qualifications' - in particular Anthony Flew's 'Parable of the invisible Gardener' ... Then see what we're up against!
All I'm trying to ask of you is why ignore a small possibility. There are plenty of things that science has discovered that were previously thought to have an incredibly small possibility, yet proved to be objectively true. Take quantum physics for example, no one predicted what we'd find, yet what we found seems impossible, yet we observe it right in front of us in objective reality. Particles behaving like waves, impossible! To me quantum physics/mechanics seems like the idea of a God, just backwards. We can observe something that seems impossible, yet when we think of God, we can show that it is in fact possible just improbable by our own minds understanding, but since we can't observe a God in objective reality it must not be possible. See complete opposite of what we observe in quantum physics. Somehow the impossibility of quantum physics is observable to be possible. I would argue (and I can quite convincingly) that the impossibility of quantum physics and the small possibility of God are in fact connected and are the reason we observe either phenomena.
The reason we can observe the impossibility of quantum physics is because there is an absolute consciousness(God) that realizes an absolute reality. This absolute consciousness experiences 0 time and 0 space and when it interacts with our objective reality that point of interaction is what we observe as quantum physics. Basically particles that behave both as particles and waves because we must view them in reference to time and space when in fact the particles/waves experience 0 time and 0 space, thus they can be simultaneously a particle and a wave. Makes perfect sense to me.
Is that you Dr Chopra? Are you still trying to stick god into all the new unknowns we discover as if it makes it useful? When and if all the current unknowns are explained and discovered, will you continue using this tactic as if it were a legitimate scientific inquiry instead of a fuzzy philosophy that could just as easily be used for pixies or magic? Why is it that ones unwillingness to assume or presume an answer without evidence is simply "ignoring a small possibility", yet a willingness to assume or presume answers with absolute conviction without any evidence is somehow a virtue? Would you really have us believe that unsupported assertions and non sequiturs are a proper path to truth, or would you rather us use the method that has reliably provided results beyond our expectation and imagination, because that is precisely the dichotomy you actually present us with.
To quote Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
While I don't agree with you that the outcomes of quantum mechanics are impossible or improbable, there is mountains of evidence for them, so you should be satisfied. However, we certainly don't have that extraordinary evidence for god, so we are not satisfied.
Also, as a sidenote: much of what you said about quantum mechanics is very wrong. For example " particles... experience 0 time". The simplest example would be the 1/2 life of a neutron in free space, which is about 10 minutes. If it didn't experience time, it couldn't have a 1/2 life...
This seems to speak for itself, but let me know what you think. Also let me know if it's not downloading for some reason.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kzu7n33sppyqjlj/Theory%20of%20consciously%20re...
downloads fine.
The atheist side is, well odd. Here is what I have to say about it:
1) What is the difference between "Absolute Truth", "truth", and "CONSCIOUSLY REALIZED TRUTHS"? Which ones are subsets of which? Can you give an example of each?
2) The argument you present as the atheist position(A) is, well odd:
AP1) Absolute Truth does not exist inside consciousness.
AC1) Absolute Truth must exist outside of consciousness.
Premise 1 is certainly not a tenant of atheism, so I have no idea why it is there. Also the argument contains a hidden premise "AP0) Absolute Truth exits." Which is another premise that is not a tenant of atheism.
3) The argument you present as the theist position (T) is also odd:
TP1) Absolute truth does not exist inside consciousness.
TC1) This means it must exist outside of consciousness and that God must have put it there.
This contains the same hidden premise as the atheist version. In addition this conclusion does not follow from those 2 premises. And I suspect that many theist won't even agree with those premises, but I'll leave that up to them.
Anyway that is it for the first 2 diagrams. I can't make heads or tails out of the 2nd set, maybe when I understand the first I'll be able too.
You could also point out that there is but one tenet of atheism. And it's really more of a premise than a tenet. The whole not believing in gods thing, I mean.
I can show that if you say you don't believe in God, you're also saying you believe it's impossible for our consciousness to realize our truths even though I can show that it is possible, it just seems highly unlikely to our consciousness.
Please show how not believing in a specific god (capital "G" indicates you are talking about a specific one) directly equates to believing in the impossibility of consciousness to realize truths. Then, as promised, please show how it is possible for consciousness to realize truths.
Before you do that, please define "truths".
Let me start by saying that I just came out of a long journey of deeply questioning everything. I made a decision to fully research the two things in my life that claim to be true. Those two things are Christianity and Science. I read many Christian books as well as many Science books (including "The Reason God Doesn't Exist", which is what brought me to this site) and I came to a point where I was really uncertain about God, but I didn't want to stop questioning so I continued. I developed this thought experiment to help myself and others really get to the core of life's questions.
Its very difficult though because real questions will weaken your beliefs, on the other hand real beliefs will weaken your questions. But if you really stick to it the real truth will be revealed to you, but not after much turmoil, believe me I just got through the worst turmoil of my life to get to this point in my life. Don't take my word for it though, just try it yourself, question everything!
The definition of "truth" for me is the same as everyone else: That which is true, factual, real. The problem is that if we get to the core of ourselves, we can even doubt that truth is real, we can doubt that whatever we see right in front of us is truly there. Everything is being filtered through our senses and brain. The only way to not be able to doubt everything is if we could take ourselves out of our brains, which we know is impossible. If we could take ourselves out of our brains then everything left would be absolute unchanging truth. This is why I believe in absolute truth, because I believe that when we die our consciousness is taken out of our brains and placed into absolute reality where we can observe absolute truth.
However, if we go back to our consciousness being the only thing we cannot doubt, then truth must come from consciousness and if you believe this then you must also believe that absolute truth must come from absolute consciousness(God). You must also realize that absolute consciousness(God) must come before consciousness and once you realize this, all life's questions become undeniably clear!
I hope you can all see that I am a very deep thinker, but I don't take any credit for any of this, all the credit goes to God.
"The definition of "truth" for me is the same as everyone else: That which is true, factual, real."
Okay, we can work with this definition. Now, how does not believing in the god you are talking about fit in? Even if we take the rest of your new-agey consciousness existing outside the brain business to be true, why is belief in your god necessary to belief in the possiblility of consciousness to realize truth?
Now for the hard part: you originally stated that you could show that it is possible for consiousness to realize truths; now you are stating that it is only possible if consiousness is removed from the brain. You go on to say that removing consciousness from the brain is impossible. From my reasoning, you are trying to say something is possible and impossible at the same time.
I'm not even going to touch your paragraph about doubting consciousness, absolute consciousness, etc. Those are some seriously malformed arguments. You assume no-one doubts their consciousness.
"Okay, we can work with this definition. Now, how does not believing in the god you are talking about fit in? Even if we take the rest of your new-agey consciousness existing outside the brain business to be true, why is belief in your god necessary to belief in the possiblility of consciousness to realize truth?"
If you can believe that our consciousness is required for us to realize our truth(not absolute truth) and reality(not absolute reality) and if you stop there then one could easily conclude that our consciousness is creating everything we see including the observation that the universe has a beginning. This thinking seems absurd to me which is why I don't stop at consciousness. I'm saying if our consciousness is required to realize our truths/reality, then there must be an absolute consciousness(God) that realizes absolute truth/reality, which makes it possible for everything our consciousness realizes to actually be there before we realize it.
"Now for the hard part: you originally stated that you could show that it is possible for consiousness to realize truths;"
It is possible to show, but only because an absolute conscious(God) realized that absolute truth first, before we became conscious.
"now you are stating that it is only possible if consiousness is removed from the brain. You go on to say that removing consciousness from the brain is impossible. From my reasoning, you are trying to say something is possible and impossible at the same time."
As of right now science cannot explain or define what consciousness is let alone be able to remove it from a brain and examine it. We have no idea what happens to consciousness when someone dies. I'm simply suggesting that since an absolute conscious mind has always existed and had created our consciousness, then when we die our consciousness will be removed from our brain and we'll be able to observe absolute truth as realized by absolute consciousness(God).
Again, it all comes down to if you believe in absolute truth or not. I believe in absolute truth so I believe it's absolutely true that absolute truth exists. If you say you believe it doesn't exist then you're also saying you believe its absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist, which seems like a contradiction. This is why I say the only thing we can be certain of is that we can't comprehend absolute truth.
I love how you keep telling us that it is possible to show X, or that if you accept Y you must accept Z; while failing to demonstrate these things.
This just in: It is possible to show that if your username starts with "Na" then you are the king of the Moon. Therefore I'm the king of the Moon!
"If you can believe that our consciousness is required for us to realize our truth(not absolute truth) and reality(not absolute reality) and if you stop there then one could easily conclude that our consciousness is creating everything we see including the observation that the universe has a beginning."
Somewhat correct, which is why a sentient being who is sane operates according to some base assumptions. One of those assumptions is that reality exists outside our consciousness and is not invented by it. Welcome to Basic Human Thinking 101.
"This thinking seems absurd to me..."
Maybe not absurd, but certainly not conducive to functioning within reality (see above).
"...which is why I don't stop at consciousness."
Except that you really have no choice; it's what you've got.
"I'm saying if our consciousness is required to realize our truths/reality..."
I'm kind of with you, here...
"...then there must be an absolute consciousness(God) that realizes absolute truth/reality..."
And... you just made a 90 degree turn and started running off into the forest. Non sequitur.
"...which makes it possible for everything our consciousness realizes to actually be there before we realize it."
This is partially true, but it has nothing to do with the bizarre conclusion you made about an absolute consciousness. Real things really are there without you being conscious of them. Your consciousness also realizes things that are not real, which do not exist outside your consciousness. The human brain is quite easily fooled.
"It is possible to show, but only because an absolute conscious(God) realized that absolute truth first, before we became conscious."
Still waiting, because this is still not showing.
"As of right now science cannot explain or define what consciousness is let alone be able to remove it from a brain and examine it."
Maybe not completely, but way more than you have intimated.
I have to qualify all that follows by stating that I'm making it up as I go along, here.
To me, all evidence leads to consciousness being a product of the brain's ability to build a model of reality and use that model to make predictions. The verisimilitude of the model and the success of the predictions hinge on the ability to process sensory input and to store experiential data; and then to make connections between experiences and the current environment.
This includes, but is not limited to, forming hypotheses about outcomes of situations which one has not actually experienced, which hints at imagination and creativity. Add to that traits which have been successful in natural selection, such as familial affinity, empathy, fear, procreation drive, etc. The brew that informs and makes up consciousness already has a myriad of material explanations without ever needing to search the transcendent (which I believe is also a product of consciousness).
"I'm simply suggesting that since an absolute conscious mind has always existed and had created our consciousness..."
From where are you getting this? How are these real premises?
"Again, it all comes down to if you believe in absolute truth or not."
OMG! You still haven't defined what absolute truth is. What is the difference between truth and absolute truth?
Look, I never even finished high school and even I can pick apart your argument. That should tell you something. Your version of reality does not not have to be the same as mine for us to interact and obviously we are both successful enough in our perceptions of reality that we are still alive; but if you want to offer premises and formulate conclusions from them, there are rules you must adhere to in order to be taken at all seriously.
But don't stop trying, thinking about stuff like this is fun.
""...which is why I don't stop at consciousness.""
"Except that you really have no choice; it's what you've got."
""I'm saying if our consciousness is required to realize our truths/reality...""
"I'm kind of with you, here..."
Why only kind of? You just stated our consciousness is all we've got, did you not?
""...then there must be an absolute consciousness(God) that realizes absolute truth/reality...""
"And... you just made a 90 degree turn and started running off into the forest. Non sequitur."
I prefer to think that I'm critically thinking about my own consciousness and how it could be possible for objective reality to exist even when I'm not conscious. One thing that makes perfect sense is if an absolute consciousness that doesn't experience time and space like I do, that can realize absolute truth/reality, just like I can realize my truth/reality when I'm conscious. It's not that difficult to come to this conclusion, just have to believe in absolute truth. Our objective reality is absolutely true because it does not require us to be conscious in order for it to exist, making it absolutely true, not just true. "True" is derived from our subjective consiousness.
""...which makes it possible for everything our consciousness realizes to actually be there before we realize it.""
"This is partially true, but it has nothing to do with the bizarre conclusion you made about an absolute consciousness. Real things really are there without you being conscious of them. Your consciousness also realizes things that are not real, which do not exist outside your consciousness. The human brain is quite easily fooled."
Actually it has everything to do with the "bizarre conclusion" because if you read my paragraph above you'll see its not bizarre at all, but actually makes perfect sense. If you say "Real things really are there without you being conscious of them" then your saying those real things do not depend on my consciousness to exist. If they don't depend on my consciousness to exist then their existence must be absolute. However, when I am conscious and I observe these real things, their existence can now be objective because I can see touch and feel them and observe their existence as being "true" not "absolutely true".
You're right the human brain is quite easily fooled!
"To me, all evidence leads to consciousness being a product of the brain's ability to build a model of reality and use that model to make predictions. The verisimilitude of the model and the success of the predictions hinge on the ability to process sensory input and to store experiential data; and then to make connections between experiences and the current environment."
"This includes, but is not limited to, forming hypotheses about outcomes of situations which one has not actually experienced, which hints at imagination and creativity. Add to that traits which have been successful in natural selection, such as familial affinity, empathy, fear, procreation drive, etc. The brew that informs and makes up consciousness already has a myriad of material explanations without ever needing to search the transcendent (which I believe is also a product of consciousness)."
I can take these two paragraphs that you've written and say they are a result of your consciousness. These two paragraphs can be completely "true" and that has no affect on the idea that an absolute consciousness defined it to be absolutely true that you have consciousness and were able to think up these two paragraphs as "true" to you. The same can be said for anything I write. I'm trying to illustrate that we actually do have free will to realize our own "truths". However, those "truths" can be opposite of the absolute truth.
""I'm simply suggesting that since an absolute conscious mind has always existed and had created our consciousness...""
"From where are you getting this? How are these real premises?"
Its all based on the fact that our subjective minds can't comprehend absolute truth. We can think about the implications of it tho. When you believe in absolute truth, a lot of things will makes sense in this world, but there is something out there that will do anything to keep you blinded, which is why believing in absolute truth is an extremely tough battle that requires a strong will thats ready for the battle!
""Again, it all comes down to if you believe in absolute truth or not.""
"OMG! You still haven't defined what absolute truth is. What is the difference between truth and absolute truth?"
No one can define absolute truth, all we can comprehend is that it must not be able to contradict itself. We can say that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares. However, to say this is absolutely true would require a full comprehension of absolute truth, which no subjective human has this full comprehension. However, an absolute consciousness would have a full comprehension of absolute truth and would be able to say with certainty that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
After all we thought it was impossible for a particle to act like and wave and well guess what that is what we observe in quantum physics, so it's apparently not absolutely impossible for a particle to act like a wave. Or maybe we're asking the wrong question. Read my post on quantum physics.
"but if you want to offer premises and formulate conclusions from them, there are rules you must adhere to in order to be taken at all seriously."
If quantum physics doesn't have to adhere to the rules of reality, why should I adhere to your rules of thinking. Just open your mind, but be aware of that something that is determined to keep you blinded.
"But don't stop trying, thinking about stuff like this is fun."
If only you could understand the real reason why I'm trying so hard! If you could understand and believe the real reason, I wouldn't even have to try at all. I would have to move on to someone else who shares your thinking and continue trying with them, until they can understand. It may be a losing battle in terms of understanding, but if I can get one to understand and believe then it's completely worth it. I love and I care because I am empowered by He who has sacrificed Himself for all of us.
Answer for 1)
For me the difference between "Absolute Truth" and "Truth" is very simple. Our subjective minds cannot comprehend
"Absolute Truth", but we can comprehend "Truth", but we can't completely comprehend objective truth, because in order to do that we'd have to be able to take ourselves out of our brains, which is impossible. This means we can doubt everything including "subjective truth" and "objective truth". The only thing we can't doubt is our own consciousness.
Answer for 2)
AP1) Right, Absolute Truth cannot exist inside consciousness because we are not able to comprehend absolutes so it must reside outside of our consciousness in an absolute reality.
AC1) Again, Absolute Truth must exist outside of consciousness.
Both the statements above are saying the same thing, just in a different way.
I've talked to many Atheists who say they believe an Absolute Truth does exist and all I'm doing is showing them that they can't possibly hold this belief if they believe in non existence, which we can get to that later.
Answer for 3)
A Theist believes in an Absolute Truth and since we can't comprehend Absolute Truth and we can't test or verify that its even there, we then say that God put it there. However, this can only make sense if you observe the small possibility that our own consciousness can realize our truths(theory of consciously realized truth). If you can observe this small possibility then it becomes easy to think that an absolute consciousness(God) realizes Absolute Truth.
I'm really impressed by your willingness to have an open mind when thinking about this. Most Atheists won't even really consider the possibility that our consciousness realizes our truths even though I can show its possible just highly unlikely based on our own mind's comprehension of Absolute Truth and Objective Truth. I'm not saying you're an Atheist either because I would have no way of knowing this for sure as you haven't stated either way.
All this nonsense is just "mumbo-jumbo" to beat around the bush ( something theists are VERY good at) to avoid the bottom line...THERE IS NO PROOF... scientific, physical, biological, that there is, or ever was any God, and there is overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, like it or not.
Do you believe absolutes exist or not?
Chriliman - "Our subjective minds cannot comprehend "Absolute Truth"
If that is true, then you can't make arguments about "Absolute Truth".
---------
Chriliman = "AC1) Again, Absolute Truth must exist outside of consciousness."
Like I pointed out above, if we can't comprehend Absolute Truth, then this sentence is meaningless. Also if you are just repeating the premise, you are begging the question.
---------
Chriliman - "I'm not saying you're an Atheist either because I would have no way of knowing this for sure as you haven't stated either way."
Oh I'm an atheist, there is a place in the profile where it says what each user is.
Chriliman - "Answer for 3)"
You didn't really address my (implied) question:
How do you get TC1 from TP0 and TP1; it does not seem to follow.
Sorry your shortening these things to TC1 and TP0 and TP1 and I'm not sure what you're referring to.
TP0) Absolute Truth exits
TP1) Absolute truth does not exist inside consciousness.
TC1) This means it must exist outside of consciousness and that God must have put it there.
T= Theist argument
P = Premise
C = Conclusion
I recognize that I am a conscious being and that my perspective is subjective and it's this recognition of these facts that allows me to conclude that absolute truth must either exist or not exist, it can't possibly do both.
If absolute truth exists, my understanding of myself as a subjective being, leads me to the conclusion that I can't possibly comprehend absolute truth in my current state of being.
If absolute truth does not exist, then we humans will continue into eternity trying to understand why we are subjective beings. As well as trying to understand why we can't truly know objective reality because of the barrier of our subjective minds.
If absolute truth does not exist, then you could easily conclude that our consciousness has created everything we see. This seems absurd, which is why we shouldn't think this.
I'm suggesting absolute truth does exist and that our consciousness does realize what we perceive, but only because an absolute consciousness realized absolute truth first and the absolute truth is that we are conscious and able to realize our own truths, thus our free will.
to Chriliman: You still haven't explained how you got TC1 from TP0 and TP1, specifically the part about god.
I don't think you understand how this works. You formulate a set of premises that you hope you can get people to agree with, then using those you draw a non-controversial conclusions from them. If successful, people will have little choice but to accept your conclusions. However, if you don't it it this way, your conclusions have no teeth, they are sheer speculation at best.
It comes down to whether or not you believe absolute truth exists or does not exist, there is no other option. The reason you have to believe one or the other is because either way we can't test or verify the existence of absolute truth. If you have another option please explain.
If absolute truth does not exist, then we humans will continue into eternity trying to understand why we are subjective beings. As well as trying to understand why we can't truly know objective reality because of the barrier of our subjective minds.
Also, If absolute truth does not exist, then you could easily conclude that our consciousness has created everything we see. This seems absurd, which is why we shouldn't think this.
I'm suggesting absolute truth does exist and that our consciousness does realize what we perceive, but only because an absolute consciousness realized absolute truth first and the absolute truth is that we are conscious and able to realize our own truths, thus our free will.
I had to reiterate because this explains my point of view perfectly.
So Nyarlathotep, which is it for you? Do you believe absolute truth exists or doesn't exist?
Pages