|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 13, 2021 20:42:15 GMT
"All creation" contains within it a subset of "personal experience" thus contradicting being as driven by an impersonal force.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 14, 2021 12:16:22 GMT
Only sentient beings have personal experience
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 14, 2021 20:59:26 GMT
Only sentient beings have personal experience Strawman. To say an impersonal force created all things is to say an impersonal force created the act of personal experience thus necessitating the impersonal force as no longer impersonal. This act of creating personal experience is in itself personal between the created and the creator therefore necessitating a personal creator. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 15, 2021 5:57:23 GMT
Only sentient beings have personal experience Strawman. To say an impersonal force created all things is to say an impersonal force created the act of personal experience thus necessitating the impersonal force as no longer impersonal. This act of creating personal experience is in itself personal between the created and the creator therefore necessitating a personal creator. No not in any way does none of that hold water to a thirsty man that's just your nonsensical gibberish. Clearly you were sheltered from a lot of things growing up more so than me and that's saying a lot I came from a cult That's pretty sheltered |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 15, 2021 21:21:41 GMT
Only sentient beings have personal experience Strawman. To say an impersonal force created all things is to say an impersonal force created the act of personal experience thus necessitating the impersonal force as no longer impersonal. This act of creating personal experience is in itself personal between the created and the creator therefore necessitating a personal creator. I agree with x's conclusion, but not his reasoning.
Maya-el's point is not a straw-man argument. Its perfectly valid. Its not even an argument against you post.
The correct reply would be to say that its kinda besides the point, and can only be included in that God must be a sentient being. What Maya says in no way negates anything you say.
To say that its impossible for an impersonal force to create a personal experience is true, but your reasoning is tautology, it simply begs the question.
For instance, we can see that a conscious being can create a non-conscious entity. We do this every time we take a poop.
But we cannot take inanimate matter and spontaneously observe abiogenesis.
These are simply observations; not arguments.
My own first direct proof of God is simply that something as profound as consciousness could not arise from: nothing, or from chaos, or from non-consciousness. Its not a logical argument either, but an intuition that is as obvious as 1+1=2. You can argue that 1=0 as much as you like, but all that proves is that you have free will to say what you like.
But there are impersonal forces in existence.
And as a Theist, you have to admit they can only come from a personal God. So,
"God as an impersonal Force" is clearly part of Theistic cosmology, and is no contradiction; better it be described as a paradox of Creation. Perhaps even as an illusion.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP 
Elder
Posts: 2,698 
Likes: 1,758
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Sept 16, 2021 4:24:27 GMT
"All creation" contains within it a subset of "personal experience" thus contradicting being as driven by an impersonal force. I agree with this logic. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 16, 2021 15:36:30 GMT
"All creation" contains within it a subset of "personal experience" thus contradicting being as driven by an impersonal force. I agree with this logic. I have read the whole thread and have noticed the shared assumption that a personal experience [be that of a colour, an emotion such as joy or anger] is something created. Others assume that events such as storms or the growth of grass on a soil are created/caused, while the events themselves bear no marks or scars, so to speak, that they are effects/creatures. // If I get angry at someone, I BECOME angry, I experience my new state of being. So, even if I believe that God caused my new state of being, the experiencing is autonomous: a personal experience = a self-experience. The human organism (which includes the brain....) is self-sensitive. There is a true issue as to how certain deeds that I perceive, or words that are thrown at me, induce me to get angry, but I never wander whether the inducer itself is personal or not, since the inducer is not a creator of my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 20, 2021 21:01:50 GMT
Strawman. To say an impersonal force created all things is to say an impersonal force created the act of personal experience thus necessitating the impersonal force as no longer impersonal. This act of creating personal experience is in itself personal between the created and the creator therefore necessitating a personal creator. I agree with x's conclusion, but not his reasoning.
Maya-el's point is not a straw-man argument. Its perfectly valid. Its not even an argument against you post.
The correct reply would be to say that its kinda besides the point, and can only be included in that God must be a sentient being. What Maya says in no way negates anything you say.
To say that its impossible for an impersonal force to create a personal experience is true, but your reasoning is tautology, it simply begs the question.
For instance, we can see that a conscious being can create a non-conscious entity. We do this every time we take a poop.
But we cannot take inanimate matter and spontaneously observe abiogenesis.
These are simply observations; not arguments.
My own first direct proof of God is simply that something as profound as consciousness could not arise from: nothing, or from chaos, or from non-consciousness. Its not a logical argument either, but an intuition that is as obvious as 1+1=2. You can argue that 1=0 as much as you like, but all that proves is that you have free will to say what you like.
But there are impersonal forces in existence.
And as a Theist, you have to admit they can only come from a personal God. So,
"God as an impersonal Force" is clearly part of Theistic cosmology, and is no contradiction; better it be described as a paradox of Creation. Perhaps even as an illusion.
The argument is a diversion as it is not about "what" has personal experience but rather the fact that personal experience exists and its existence necessitates a personal God. Given this God is personal, in the respect that it creates personal experience as a subset of said God, the very act of creation of even non-sentient beings is personal as well. God, as the totality of being, would have to be both personal and impersonal but this does not negate the premise God is personal. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 20, 2021 21:08:07 GMT
Strawman. To say an impersonal force created all things is to say an impersonal force created the act of personal experience thus necessitating the impersonal force as no longer impersonal. This act of creating personal experience is in itself personal between the created and the creator therefore necessitating a personal creator. No not in any way does none of that hold water to a thirsty man that's just your nonsensical gibberish. Clearly you were sheltered from a lot of things growing up more so than me and that's saying a lot I came from a cult That's pretty sheltered How does one saying: "This act of creating personal experience is in itself personal between the created and the creator therefore necessitating a personal creator.", result in one being "sheltered"? You barely can argue a point Maya without resulting to personal attacks....quite frankly I don't think you know what you are talking about half the time. You have still yet to explain to me how there can be multiple beings without some void occuring, with this void being the absence of one quality of one being in that of another. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 21, 2021 3:13:19 GMT
It doesn't necessitate a Creator that's the thing now you might see it as implying that there's a creator and it might make sense to you that there could be a sky Daddy but it only makes sense to you because of your conditioning due to your position in society nothing more nothing less
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 21, 2021 20:33:45 GMT
It doesn't necessitate a Creator that's the thing now you might see it as implying that there's a creator and it might make sense to you that there could be a sky Daddy but it only makes sense to you because of your conditioning due to your position in society nothing more nothing less 1. If belief in God is due to a position in society, and this position in society is a result of a series of causes, then the belief in God is caused by forces which transcends society as it determines society. 2. The OP derives its substance from the premise of there being an impersonal cause to all of being. This impersonal cause results in "personal experience" thus is no longer impersonal. As personal, and because it is personal, this cause is God. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Sept 22, 2021 1:23:17 GMT
It doesn't necessitate a Creator that's the thing now you might see it as implying that there's a creator and it might make sense to you that there could be a sky Daddy but it only makes sense to you because of your conditioning due to your position in society nothing more nothing less 1. If belief in God is due to a position in society, and this position in society is a result of a series of causes, then the belief in God is caused by forces which transcends society as it determines society. 2. The OP derives its substance from the premise of there being an impersonal cause to all of being. This impersonal cause results in "personal experience" thus is no longer impersonal. As personal, and because it is personal, this cause is God. I agree with #1 #2 is as logical as me saying potato therefore God |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 27, 2021 21:49:51 GMT
1. If belief in God is due to a position in society, and this position in society is a result of a series of causes, then the belief in God is caused by forces which transcends society as it determines society. 2. The OP derives its substance from the premise of there being an impersonal cause to all of being. This impersonal cause results in "personal experience" thus is no longer impersonal. As personal, and because it is personal, this cause is God. I agree with #1 #2 is as logical as me saying potato therefore God 1. Considering potato results from a series of causes, possibly unlimited, this "cause" which underlies all of being, due to its universality, is God. Because all things result from a cause, and this nature of cause is everpresent, there is a force which moves reality and as moving reality fits the definition of God. Cause as a universal phenomenon falls under the definition of God as "the supreme cause". 2. This force which underlies personal experience is in itself personal due to its nature being intertwined with the phenomenon of personal experience. Considering a universal force which underlies all being is in itself personal this personal force fits the definition of God as omnipresent given the ability to be both personal and not personal necessitates an intertwining of said being with all of being. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 27, 2021 21:53:02 GMT
I have read the whole thread and have noticed the shared assumption that a personal experience [be that of a colour, an emotion such as joy or anger] is something created. Others assume that events such as storms or the growth of grass on a soil are created/caused, while the events themselves bear no marks or scars, so to speak, that they are effects/creatures. // If I get angry at someone, I BECOME angry, I experience my new state of being. So, even if I believe that God caused my new state of being, the experiencing is autonomous: a personal experience = a self-experience. The human organism (which includes the brain....) is self-sensitive. There is a true issue as to how certain deeds that I perceive, or words that are thrown at me, induce me to get angry, but I never wander whether the inducer itself is personal or not, since the inducer is not a creator of my experience. Considering a personal experience is the tying together of a subject and object this experience is created through synthesis. Personal experience is created given creation is the change of one phenomenon into another where new qualities are observed as emerging from a previous absence of said qualities. |
|
