By senseless I mean absence of final purpose of anything — philosopher004

I'm not following that. Having a sense of final purpose confers no biological survival advantages. What's your point in wondering about purpose?

am not denying the existence of God but we may be ruled by a benevolent deity to an evil alien civilization who is also in other words God. — philosopher004

Okay, well, there could be a "Multiverse" too... .

Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. You have a consciousness. And neither of which, it seems, can be explained using logic, right? — 3017amen

This is nonsense. You might as well try to bring Zeus into the picture, Jesus has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and you are here attempting to pass off a fallacy ("explain consciousness") as though it were some kind of competent, honest reasoning, it is no such thing.

Listen, little man, I will hold you to it. You want to play this game of explanation? Then subject your own positive claims to the same criteria... you can't do it, they wouldn't even last two seconds. Be honest, quit trying to posture, thought and philosophy are not on your side, but you are, in fact, crushed by them. You are not a deist, and neither are you a pantheist, and neither are you a polytheist, which means you are basically fucked, for lack of a better term. You have a very definitive and fantastical idea of God, one you cannot defend, and one that none of the arguments you are trying to make even supports. This is a game and you are trying to mess with people because you know a little bit of philosophy. Bring your nonsense to me and see what happens. I'm not here to play games.

I'm not following that. Having a sense of final purpose confers no biological survival advantages. What's your point in wondering about purpose? — 3017amen

I am not talking about a meaning or anything of that sort .When we see this from a big scale we cannot see the final purpose that is achieved by atoms splitting or why entropy is always increasing.

Okay, well, there could be a "Multiverse" too... . — 3017amen

Yes it can be anything but any entity higher and more refined than us can be considered as God.

This is nonsense. You might as well try to bring Zeus into the picture, Jesus has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and you are here attempting to pass off a fallacy ("explain consciousness") as though it were some kind of competent, honest reasoning, it is no such thing — JerseyFlight

Forgive me I'm really not following what you're saying there, can you make your argument clear?

which means you are basically fucked — JerseyFlight

Oh my, are you one of those angry atheists? From time to time on this site we see angry atheists pop in and out, sort of trolling about, dropping f-bombs. What's yet another irony is that you would think an atheist wouldn't be so upset about a particular God's existence, especially when in fact he or she doesn't hold such beliefs.

I mean, why be so angry when you know God doesn't exist? Kind of a contradiction, no?

Anyway, be well.

In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. — 3017amen

As usual you really have no idea what you're writing or writing about.

**Caveat** to all who have not yet figured it out. amen3017 is a peculiar kind of troll. He makes nonsensical claims with language he does not understand, and then refuses to engage on his own topics, while repeating his absurdities across multiple threads. There is nothing to be gained by responding to him. He is at best a waste of time.

I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too.
— tim wood

It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid!
— tim wood

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

Hey 3017, go crouch down next to a fire hydrant and report back to us on which the dogs choose.

"The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

Any time you're ready to be substantive.

Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. — 3017amen

What does this even mean? Known to whom? What do you mean by known?

I'll pass on sharing information, thanks anyway.

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

ey 3017, go crouch down next to a fire hydrant and report back to us on which the dogs choose. — tim wood

I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too.
— tim wood

It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid!
— tim wood

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood — 3017amen

It is somewhat childish to do this on a philosophy forum.

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path." — 3017amen

:clap:

Perhaps you can tell me what 3017 means by various things he writes; he himself refuses to oblige.

Perhaps you can tell me what 3017 means by various things he writes; he himself refuses to oblige. — tim wood

I have nothing against you or him. I have liked yours and amen's in some other threads.I think it isn't wrong to put your thoughts here even if they seem absurd.

can you make your argument clear? — 3017amen

That is, what does Jesus have to do with the explanation of consciousness?

The relationship of ‘consciousness’ and what we think of as religion comes from the Indian missionaries to America in the early 20th c. One such was Swami Vivekananda who spoke at the World Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1888. He then undertook a long tour of America by railway carriage, to enthusiastic reception. (He was by all accounts an extremely charismatic figure.)

One of the expressions of Vivekananda’s Advaita Vedanta is the Sanskrit expression ‘sat-chit-ananda’ (सच्चिदानंद), which is usually translated as ‘being-knowing-bliss’. ‘Sat’ is the Sanskrit equivalent of the Latin ‘veritas’, meaning something like ‘living truth’. ‘Cit’ is from the root ‘mind’ but is equally translatable as ‘heart’ - so, ‘heart-mind’. ‘Ananda’ means ‘bliss’ and is a common suffix of Hindu names - ‘Satyananda’ for example means ‘Bliss of Truth’.

It was from this source that many contemporary concepts of ‘the role of consciousness’ in religion and philosophy originated, greatly amplified by the 60’s ‘consciousness movement’.

The relationship of ‘consciousness’ and what we think of as religion — Wayfarer

Keep in mind, Wayfarer, the Hellenistic & Neoplatonic period in ancient Greek history where Gnosticism had flourished, consciousness became synonymous with the "Know thyself" maxim (that Plato used) which comes from Gnosis itself (self awareness/self knowledge); ineffable, direct experience and wisdom, so on and so forth. Similar Christian philosophy was included in the lost Gospel of Thomas wherein specifically, personal 'secret' knowledge was thought of as a virtue to salvation.

But as history goes, some Gnostics thought Jesus was not God but rather just a human who had special revelation/wisdom/enlightenment through secret knowledge. Fast forwarding, my interpretation from that is more or less the metaphysical philosophy of Subjective Idealism. Once again though, it's not about throwing the baby out with all of the bathwater. In this case, discern or keep what works.

Anyway, the common theme there is trying to understand the nature consciousness itself, for which we have no logical explanation. Yet another mystery.

That is, what does Jesus have to do with the explanation of consciousness? — JerseyFlight

Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?

How much do you rely on Objectivity?

What do you mean by objectivity?

What do you mean by objectivity? — JerseyFlight

Opposite of Subjectivity.

I am well aware of this theistic game, it is one of radical skepticism, and that is why I will hold you to it. The burden of proof here belongs to you, so what do you mean by subjectivity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

RE:

Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?

How much do you rely on Objectivity?

BTW...it's called Christian Existentialism.

Until you offer a positive formation of your position (objectivity,subjectivity) there is no conversation here.

Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?

The terms in most need of clarification in this sentence are "objective reasoning" and "God." If you want to avoid asking a loaded question then you must define these terms.

The terms in most need of clarification in this sentence are "objective reasoning" and "God." If you want to avoid asking a loaded question then you must define these terms. — JerseyFlight

I don't understand. As an atheist, are you acquiescing to a God then?

As an atheist, are you acquiescing to a God then? — 3017amen

What do you mean by the term God?

Okay since you won't answer that you're an atheist, I'm assuming you are agnostic or something else correct?

God=Jesus

Just an observation, and don't take it the wrong way. In reflecting on the brief history from your participation in EOG type threads here, as well as the current mathematic thread, you came/come across as carrying a big-stick full of ad hominem remarks, now when asked pointed questions, (in several threads) about your belief in no God in this particular case, you seem to be folding under pressure.

I certainly hope I'm wrong, and I hope you have more bark to your bite, but I got to tell you, you're not impressing me right now. It's okay though, I'll be able to flush these things out pretty quickly...

If you want to talk about the existence of Snarks you must explain what you mean by the term, the same is true of God. Your controversial term is not my intellectual burden to define.