Can a Being Be Both Necessary and Conscious?

[heusdens]

Disproof of the existence of a Being that is BOTH a Necessary AND a Consciouss Being

Introduction

We happen to know there is a world in which we live. We have sensuoury perceptions and awarenesses about there being a world. We can be conscious about the things that exist in the world, and to some extent we are able of understanding them and also manipulate, change, transform and use them.

Whatever we may doubt to know, we can not really doubt the fact that there is a world in which we live, and that we are consciouss about the world.

A. Necessary Being

A.1 Temporal existence forms

The more we know about the world though, the better we understand the fact that every thing that exist IN the world, denote finite and temporal forms of existence. We ourselves live only a temporal life, and everything we know of did not exist eternally and will some day be gone. Even Earth itself, the sun, the solar system, are temporal forms. According to our knowledge even the complete observable universe, and even where it extends beyond the observable boundary, denotes some temporal form of existence, that once was not existent in it's present form.

Everything changes and moves and transforms and denotes a temporal way of existing. It starts at some point in time and ends at some point in time. However, science has proven that every begin and every end only denote a relative begin or end. Matter/energy, that makes up these material existence forms, is in all these transformations a conserved quantity.

This means that every specific material existence form - which is a finite and temporal existence form - was always preceded by material existence forms that caused it, and after it is gone, other material existence forms will remain existent. The matter/energy of which the material existence forms were made is not created neither destroyed, but keeps existing and keeps changing and transforming indefinately, without begin or end.

A.2 The whole of existence

Since we know there is existence, because there are things that have existence of which we can be consciouss, we can also define the broadest and most complete form of existence, which is the whole of existence. We can define it, despite the fact that we will never know completely what it exactly contains or not contains.

We can never arrive at the knowledge about ALL of existence, throughout ALL time and ALL space. Absolute and complete knowledge of everything is a mere impossibility. Only a small finite part of it, we can in fact really know and explore.

Even so, we can ask ourselves the question where did the whole of existence - everything that exists, or has existed or will exist - come from. Where and how did it start, if it at all had a start?

Since we already declared that everything that does, or has or will exist is included in the whole of existence, there can not be something that exists outside of it.

If we were to assume then that the whole of existence would be temporal, and has had a start or begin in time and will have an end in time, it would need to have started from nothing and to end in nothing.

But:

Nothing can not be a begin or an end of any something. Nothing is only nothing.

Our assumption that the whole of existence has had a start or will have an end, is therefore a mere impossibility.

It follows then:

All of existence, the whole of existence, has necessarily existed always, and can not have a begin or end.

A.3 Necessary Being

The whole of existence consists of finite and temporal forms of existence that interact with each other and transform into one other, etc. Every finite part of the whole of existence denotes something that has started at some point in time and will end at some point in time. All the finite and temporal parts of the whole, of which it consists, did not start or end in nothing, but always started in or ended in a different something, in a different finite and temporal part of the whole.

The whole of existence must necessarily contain something - an unlimited/unbounded collection of finite, temporal existence forms - because a 'nothing' does not and can not exist by definition. The whole of existence has therefore necessarily been there all the time, and will be there all the time.

Every finite part of the whole of existence - as a temportal form of existence - is not a Necessary Being, since it has and will not exist always, and it's existence is not essential for the rest of the world to exist. For something to be a Necessary Being, it means that it must necessarily exist, in order for there to be something instead of nothing. But no finite and temporal part of the whole of existence qualifies for that. Every finite and temporal part of the whole could have been left out, could in fact never have become existent without that it imply that the world itself would not exist. Only if we leave out the whole of existence, this would mean then that there would not exist something. Which as we stated, is an impossibility.

A necessary being therefore can not be anything less (nor anything more) then the whole of existence.

We call therefore the whole of existence: Necessary Being.

B. Consciouss Being

A consciouss being can exist based on the fact that it is a being that exists objectively. This being can state the existence of something that exists outside of, apart from and independend of itself. Also there exists something outside, apart and independend of this consciouss being, that can relate to this consciouss being in an objective way. This consciouss being can be consciouss because it can have sensuous awareness about things that exists outside, apart and independend of itself, and be conscious of them.

To be consciouss means therefore that one exists objectively, that there are objective relations between oneself and something outside of self, which means that there must be something that exists outside, apart and independend of oneself of which one can be conscious through sensuous awareness and to which one can relate in an objective way and of which one can be consciouss. To be self-consciouss means that one can distinguish between one-self and something that exists outside of one-self.

When an objective form of existence can not be stated, if it is not the case that something exists that is outside, apart and independend of oneself, which means that there is no objective relationship between oneself and something that exists outside, apart and independend of oneself, then it can not be stated that such a being exists objectively. If a being does not exist objectively it can not have consciouss/sensuous awareness of something outside of self, nor of it self.

C. God as a Necessary and a Consciouss Being.

God is defined as being both:

 A Necessary Being: A being without which the world would not exist, which is eternal, infinite and omnipotent

and

 A Consciouss Being: A personal being, that is omniscient, has will, intend and purpose and is all good

A Necessary Being, since it is defined as the whole of everything that exists, can not have anything that exists outside of itself. A Necessary Being can therefore not exist in the objective sense, since there can not be an objective relation between the Necessary Being and something outside of it, since everything that exists is contained within the Necessary Being. Since the Necessary Being can not be stated to have objective existence, neither it can be a Consciouss Being. A Necessary Being can therefore neither be consciouss of something outside of itself, nor of itself.

God therefore can not be BOTH a Necessary Being AND a Consciouss Being.

If God is said to exist, then either:

 It is a consciouss being that is not a necessary being, which means it has a finite and temporal form of existence.

 It is the necessary being, which does not exist in the objective sense, and can therefore not be a consciouss being.

Since God however is defined based on having BOTH the properties of a Necessary Being AND a Consciouss Being, it is clear that such a being can not and does not exist.

God - in the way it has been defined - therefore DOES NOT EXIST.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by heusdens
All of existence, the whole of existence, has necessarily existed always, and can not have a begin or end.

Do you include yourself in that "whole of existence"? Or do you think, because you did have a beginning, that you don't actually exist?

Either way, your "proof" doesn't seem to hold water...

 

[megashawn]

Do you include yourself in that "whole of existence"? Or do you think, because you did have a beginning, that you don't actually exist?

Of course he was including himself, but not directly. Its not like its a biography. He clearly stated:

We ourselves live only a temporal life, and everything we know of did not exist eternally and will some day be gone. Even Earth itself, the sun, the solar system, are temporal forms.

So if that is the only leak you can point out, well, he provided the patch kit in the 3rd paragraph.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by megashawn
So if that is the only leak you can point out, well, he provided the patch kit in the 3rd paragraph.

I don't think so. I haven't read the whole thing the first time, as I saw no point once he contradicted himself. But I went back to it after your post and this is what he seems to be saying:

[my interpretation:] Only that which is eternal exists. What exists cannot be conscious, for in order to be conscious, a being needs to perceive something outside itself. Therefore, nothing eternal can be conscious. [end of interpretation]

I maintain the above is flawed, because in order to be conscious a being must, above all, perceive itself. If the whole universe is removed and your consciousness is the only thing left in existence, you can still be aware that you exist and that nothing else does. Then you can become aware of abstract notions such as numbers, feelings, emotions, desires. Then you can become aware of possible ways by which those abstract notions may appear to you as if they came from outside yourself. Then... well, the rest is history.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by heusdens
Since we already declared that everything that does, or has or will exist is included in the whole of existence, there can not be something that exists outside of it.

This only true for temporal and objective or material things. This is your stated limitation of the argument. There is that which exists in reality that is neither temporal nor material. One example is a photon. Within your self-imposed limit of argument your logic is correct so far as I understand it. However the limits are artificial and do not reflect all of reality or the universe as I have shown.

All of existence, the whole of existence, has necessarily existed always, and can not have a begin or end.

I agree with this, but only if we include that which is neither temporal nor objective. This of course does away with the Big Band model in the objective world. It also does not account for black holes nor vertual particles. You argument while it may be perfectly logical does not account for nor include all of physical reality much less that which is not temporal nor not objective.

The whole of existence consists of finite and temporal forms of existence that interact with each other and transform into one other, etc.
The whole of existence must necessarily contain something - an unlimited/unbounded collection of finite, temporal existence forms -

Again that the "Whole of existence" consists of finite and temporal forms is not supported nor proven and in fact is shown by modern Physics not to be true.

A necessary being therefore can not be anything less (nor anything more) then the whole of existence.

We call therefore the whole of existence: Necessary Being.

This then is God, a nontemporal nonfinite nonobjective being.

To be consciouss means therefore that one exists objectively,

Why can't a form be conscious and not exist objectively? Consciousness is subjective itself. This is not supported and is only true with the limits of this argument which is purely objective.
That only the objective exists is absurd and contradicted within this argument when consciousness is brought in. Consciousness may require that an objective brain exist but counsciousness is itself subjective as is awarness and perception. Here your argument falls apart as you introduce a contradiction and that which is outside the limits you previously set for your argument. This is inconsistent and self contradictory.

To be self-consciouss means that one can distinguish between one-self and something that exists outside of one-self.

Is this a definition or a statement? Either way it is not any definition or statement of self-conscious that I have heard or would agree with. Self-consciousness is nothing more tha being able to say; "I am.", to be aware of self. It is not necessary to be aware anything outside of self to be self-conscious, nor is it necessary to differentiate between self and not-self. I do not require not-self to exist nor know that I exist. I do not and can not exist in physical reality without that which is outside of myself, the world or universe; however, I am also a part of the universe. I am aware of myself individualy and aware of the universe outside of myself that I am a part of. Therefore the universe is, at least in part, aware of itself without reference to anything outside of itself within your objective limit.

God is defined as being both:

 A Necessary Being: A being without which the world would not exist, which is eternal, infinite and omnipotent

and

 A Consciouss Being: A personal being, that is omniscient, has will, intend and purpose and is all good

A Necessary Being, since it is defined as the whole of everything that exists, can not have anything that exists outside of itself. A Necessary Being can therefore not exist in the objective sense, since there can not be an objective relation between the Necessary Being and something outside of it, since everything that exists is contained within the Necessary Being.

I have no trouble with any of this and accept it as your definition.

Since the Necessary Being can not be stated to have objective existence, neither it can be a Consciouss Being.

A Necessary Being can therefore neither be consciouss of something outside of itself, nor of itself.

I agree the the Necessary Being, God, does not have objective existence. As I can be aself aware and conscious without being aware of that which is outside of myself, I assume that our all powerful God can be self-aware and conscious and conscious of all that is a part of itself. You have not supported nor proved your statement that an object must be aware of an object outside itself to exist be conscious. You have only made an unsupported and unsupportable statement which I do not accept nor do I have to as you offer no proof. This is another major hole in you argument. Your conclusion is therefore unproven and unsupported.

God - in the way it has been defined - therefore DOES NOT EXIST. [/B]

I agree absolutely however I don't agree with your definition nor the limits of your argument. Even if I did your statement proves nothing other than what it says. I, therefore simply say that God exist outside of your definition and limits and this has always been seen to be true. So my finaly question to you is:

So What? What's your point?

It has always been known that God does not exist in the temporal objective world. In fact it has alway been said that God exists outside of time and space and that the temporal objective spacetime exists within God. By your own argument then, as nothing can be known ouside of the temporal objective world, the tempral objective world cannot know God.
Has this not also been said, by theist themselves? To know God we must transend the temporal objective realm and look instead in the subjective and spiritual realm.

 

[megashawn]

I, therefore simply say that God exist outside of your definition and limits and this has always been seen to be true.

Seen, what an interesting choice for a word. Where, perhaps might one happen to see this to be true for himself.

Indeed, you must make some assumptions in order to come to that conclusion. Or are you holding out on us?

 

[FZ+]

Nothing can not be a begin or an end of any something. Nothing is only nothing.

Can you justify this? Since you have already said nothing cannot exist, do you have a point of reference with which to speak of nothing's nature?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Royce
This only true for temporal and objective or material things. This is your stated limitation of the argument. There is that which exists in reality that is neither temporal nor material. One example is a photon. Within your self-imposed limit of argument your logic is correct so far as I understand it. However the limits are artificial and do not reflect all of reality or the universe as I have shown.

I think I do not understand you clearly.

Is your point of view that a photon exists eternally?

I agree with this, but only if we include that which is neither temporal nor objective. This of course does away with the Big Band model in the objective world. It also does not account for black holes nor vertual particles. You argument while it may be perfectly logical does not account for nor include all of physical reality much less that which is not temporal nor not objective.

No. The Big Bang theory is not wrong. But the Universe did not start at the Big Bang. It simply means there must be more of universe before the Big Bang and also outside the observational spatial extend of the universe.

Again that the "Whole of existence" consists of finite and temporal forms is not supported nor proven and in fact is shown by modern Physics not to be true.

What is there then eternally? Even a black hole does not exist eternally.

Why can't a form be conscious and not exist objectively? Consciousness is subjective itself. This is not supported and is only true with the limits of this argument which is purely objective.
That only the objective exists is absurd and contradicted within this argument when consciousness is brought in. Consciousness may require that an objective brain exist but counsciousness is itself subjective as is awarness and perception. Here your argument falls apart as you introduce a contradiction and that which is outside the limits you previously set for your argument. This is inconsistent and self contradictory.

Consciousness itself can be stated objectively. I can see you react to objective circumstances and I can conclude that your are consciouss.
It could be objectively stated that someone spills coffee on my clothing. But I could state that this person did that on purpose. That is a subjective statement.

Is this a definition or a statement? Either way it is not any definition or statement of self-conscious that I have heard or would agree with. Self-consciousness is nothing more tha being able to say; "I am.", to be aware of self. It is not necessary to be aware anything outside of self to be self-conscious, nor is it necessary to differentiate between self and not-self. I do not require not-self to exist nor know that I exist. I do not and can not exist in physical reality without that which is outside of myself, the world or universe; however, I am also a part of the universe. I am aware of myself individualy and aware of the universe outside of myself that I am a part of. Therefore the universe is, at least in part, aware of itself without reference to anything outside of itself within your objective limit.

The point is of course that self-consciousness arises from consciousness itself. We are in first instance consciouss about the world, about something that is different, apart and outside of us.
Self-consciousness arises because we can distinguish between ourselves and something outside of ourselves.

In the case of the Necessary Being, such is not the case.
It has only existence. We can adress objective existence to the whole of the universe, since we know parts of it that exist objectively, and we can logically conclude there must also be a whole, which at least consists of the part we are aware of.

The point is of course that this Necessary Being CAN NOT have awareness about it's existence, since it can not exist in an objective sense. It has no object outside of it. Since it has no objects, no nature outside of itself, there is no way in which it can be aware of anything. Not even of it's own existence.

I agree the the Necessary Being, God, does not have objective existence. As I can be aself aware and conscious without being aware of that which is outside of myself, I assume that our all powerful God can be self-aware and conscious and conscious of all that is a part of itself. You have not supported nor proved your statement that an object must be aware of an object outside itself to exist be conscious. You have only made an unsupported and unsupportable statement which I do not accept nor do I have to as you offer no proof. This is another major hole in you argument. Your conclusion is therefore unproven and unsupported.

Necessary Being has no objective existence to itself and or to something outside of itself.

We, like the Necessary being, also exist in the form of small subparts, our organs, which are composed of cells which are composed of molecules.
Since we breath air, digest food and drink liquids and produce waste, our bodily components change their composition continually.

So, we are also an entity that exists in the form of subentities, and at a low level, these components have a smaller "life time" as we ourselves. Our body cells gets continually renewed. We have objective existence due to the fact that we can exchange and relate with outside nature in the objective sense.

This form of existence however has to be denied to the Necessary being, since it does not have a nature outside of itself.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Can you justify this? Since you have already said nothing cannot exist, do you have a point of reference with which to speak of nothing's nature?

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8803"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by amadeus
Do you include yourself in that "whole of existence"? Or do you think, because you did have a beginning, that you don't actually exist?

Either way, your "proof" doesn't seem to hold water...

Every existence form exists in a finite and temporal form, and together all those existence forms (of which I am one, and also I am composed of many subparts which have subparts, etc) form an eternal infinite whole of existence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by amadeus
I don't think so. I haven't read the whole thing the first time, as I saw no point once he contradicted himself. But I went back to it after your post and this is what he seems to be saying:

[my interpretation:] Only that which is eternal exists. What exists cannot be conscious, for in order to be conscious, a being needs to perceive something outside itself. Therefore, nothing eternal can be conscious. [end of interpretation]

I maintain the above is flawed, because in order to be conscious a being must, above all, perceive itself. If the whole universe is removed and your consciousness is the only thing left in existence, you can still be aware that you exist and that nothing else does. Then you can become aware of abstract notions such as numbers, feelings, emotions, desires. Then you can become aware of possible ways by which those abstract notions may appear to you as if they came from outside yourself. Then... well, the rest is history.

Yeah! That is a particular nice concept. Only the YOU would exist, and nothing else.

Are you by the way a SOLIPSIST.

They seem to state the same thing.