Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Joshua10]

I would suggest not and are you missing the point.Secular science in its ignorance says we are nothing more than consciousness.We are not consciousness.My theory does not lead to infinite regress at all.It all stops with the “I am” with awareness controlling the consciousness states.The psychological workings are identical to the cosmos workings because all sciences are interconnected.This confirms that secular science is not natures science.

The "I am" would therefore be supernatural. The "I am" which is the causeless cause, the ground of being, is either God or , for atheists, the Absolute. It seems Joshua believes each man has inside him a thin sliver of the supernatural.

I would suggest that the “I am” is therefore NATURAL and not SUPERNATURAL.I would suggest that only a secularist in ignorance and unawareness would claim what is natural to be supernatural.

Your 'I am' is supernatural by definition if it originates your actions, which is your basic claim.

The supernatural is uncaused: the natural is caused.

As I have already suggested in previous posts the “I am” is 2 parts which need to be untangled.The. 2 part “I am” having been untangled from consciousness.Consciousness doesn’t initiate actions,so that just leaves the 2 part “ I am” which I suggest is natural and not supernatural in so much that it does initiate actions.

[Sy Borg]

One thing God did wrong was create believers who steadfastly refuse to stick to a topic's subject matter.

[Joshua10]

One thing God did wrong was create believers who steadfastly refuse to stick to a topic's subject matter.

I would suggest that a God who creates everything would not fall into error (Perfection).I would suggest that only the created thing would fall into error (Imperfection).

I would suggest that Imperfection wouldn’t create perfection,how could it?

I would suggest that many a philosopher tries desperately to confirm the perfection of the actions committed by ultimately claiming that everything balances out to meaningless.Nothing matters.So everything goes.

However,unbelieving philosophers make rules.

I would suggest that the fact that even unbelieving philosophers recognise the need for rules for survival completely undoes those philosophers belief systems.

Why has unbelieving philosophers introduced punishment if good and bad are the same? It would appear that these philosophers have decided for themselves what is good and bad.What is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

I would suggest that there are rules and there have always been rules associated with the cosmos.

I would suggest however that there are perfect and imperfect rules.

I would suggest that imperfection cannot introduce perfect rules.Imperfection can only introduce imperfect rules.

I would suggest that only a perfect God is able to introduce perfect rules and prove that they can be maintained.

[Joshua10]

I would further suggest that BELIEF in a God would be no different to UNBELIEF if an anti god is introduced into the equation.So it can’t be all about belief or unbelief because I would suggest that even an anti god believes in God.

So I would suggest to anyone who says they believe in God.

So what?!?!

I would suggest that RULES are apart of the overall equation as well.

[Belindi]

The "I am" would therefore be supernatural. The "I am" which is the causeless cause, the ground of being, is either God or , for atheists, the Absolute. It seems Joshua believes each man has inside him a thin sliver of the supernatural.

I would suggest that the “I am” is therefore NATURAL and not SUPERNATURAL.I would suggest that only a secularist in ignorance and unawareness would claim what is natural to be supernatural.

Your 'I am' is supernatural by definition if it originates your actions, which is your basic claim.

The supernatural is uncaused: the natural is caused.

As I have already suggested in previous posts the “I am” is 2 parts which need to be untangled.The. 2 part “I am” having been untangled from consciousness.Consciousness doesn’t initiate actions,so that just leaves the 2 part “ I am” which I suggest is natural and not supernatural in so much that it does initiate actions.

The normal definition of 'supernatural' includes uncaused. Causal agency is sometimes attributed to supernatural order of being and sometimes not. You can believe in a supernatural order of being without also believing in God.

God, as personal supernatural being, does of course have causal agency including for some believers occasional intervention where He has caused to change what He Himself initiated.

'Natural' in metaphysics means within the network of causation.

That which initiates actions, but which is not initiated by action, is by definition supernatural.

Waking awareness is a state of consciousness where individuals' actions are intentional(volitional). The deep dreamless sleep state of consciousness is not one where individuals' actions are intentional(volitional), The dreaming sleep state of consciousness is not normally one where individuals' actions are intentional(volitional).
These three states of consciousness are governed by biological neurochemicals. Theses neurochemical effects may be partly overridden by individuals who are motivated and skilled in doing so. Such motivations and skills are not supernatural but are caused by natural circumstances.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that a part of the 2 part “I am” does have connections with the mechanical and therefore does initiate causation.

I would suggest that consciousness doesn’t initiate causation and I have clearly suggested why.

[Belindi]

I would suggest that a part of the 2 part “I am” does have connections with the mechanical and therefore does initiate causation.

I would suggest that consciousness doesn’t initiate causation and I have clearly suggested why.

Nothing originates causation. Like existence itself, causation is just there.

People and other animals are not "mechanical" so there is no point in your harping on the word 'mechanical'. You probably mean something sensible however your eccentric choice of words makes you hard to understand.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that a part of the 2 part “I am” does have connections with the mechanical and therefore does initiate causation.

I would suggest that consciousness doesn’t initiate causation and I have clearly suggested why.

Nothing originates causation. Like existence itself, causation is just there.

People and other animals are not "mechanical" so there is no point in your harping on the word 'mechanical'. You probably mean something sensible however your eccentric choice of words makes you hard to understand.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest otherwise.

The “I am” initiates causation.This is proved by “Player” science and the “I am’s” ability to CONTROL the consciousness states.

I would suggest that you are in error with your conclusions.

[Sy Borg]

There is no such thing as "player science". That is a misleading terms to describe individual subjective observation.

Put enough subjective observations together and you have science though I appreciate that Joshua's dogmatic religious beliefs cannot countenance the idea that science is valid.

I would suggest that Joshua's views are not so much in error, that his ideas are so far off beam that they aspire to one day grow up to become errors.

[Joshua10]

There is no such thing as "player science". That is a misleading terms to describe individual subjective observation.

Put enough subjective observations together and you have science though I appreciate that Joshua's dogmatic religious beliefs cannot countenance the idea that science is valid.

I would suggest that Joshua's views are not so much in error, that his ideas are so far off beam that they aspire to one day grow up to become errors.

I would suggest otherwise Sy Borg.My ideas are not in error because my ideas allow for consciousness which we all experience in awareness or unawareness.Awareness, as I have said, sits above consciousness.

I repeat,some secular scientist are slowly beginning to realise that in order to understand consciousness and ultimately natures science then they will need to become apart of their own experiments and stop being just “spectator” scientists.Becoming apart of the experiment I refer to as “Player” science and it produces theories that make complete sense across the sciences particularly at the psychological level.I would suggest that ”Player” science explains it all with known forces and not a mythical mathematical force.Suggest another term other than “Player” science if you wish.

I would suggest that there is a reason why secular scientist don’t understand consciousness and why their science is lop sided and it’s because they don’t adopt “Player” science or natures science.They are not remotely interested in being apart of natures science and have therefore developed their own version of science.How ridiculous is that? In which part of nature are they making their incorrect assumptions do you think?

I would suggest that natures science does not agree with secular sciences lop sided theories and this why the single Big Bang theory has been proved to be incorrect.

Big Bangs and Big Crunches can be perfectly explained with electromechanical processes.

I would suggest that secular science needs to consider all possibilities/assumptions in order to tune into natures science.I would suggest that it is still possible to reject things and still be apart of natures science.Natures science allows that.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that the main point that secular science needs to take away from the above is that it needs to tune into AWARENESS because AWARENESS sits above consciousness.

I would suggest that it is impossible to understand consciousness without awareness.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that secular science is completely underestimating how a correct understanding of consciousness will completely change their science.

It’s not possible to observe consciousness (spectator science) when it is an inherent part of all our natures.

A correct understanding of consciousness brings us all into the game.

[Sy Borg]

Yes yes, a big spirit man did it.

[Belindi]

I would suggest that the main point that secular science needs to take away from the above is that it needs to tune into AWARENESS because AWARENESS sits above consciousness.

I would suggest that it is impossible to understand consciousness without awareness.

Waking awareness is the state of consciousness during which we discuss and maybe even understand, describe, or explain consciousness.