Could consciousness be an illusion?

[Runewolf1973]

What is perfection? Before you make a claim you must root out semantical issues such as etymologies of primary key words which could self-refute your statements.

How is the universe imperfect? What makes some perfect? I can easily tell you that nothing is deemed perfect in the universe and this calls for a perfect god

With all do respect, I have no care to argue semantics with you. You either get what I am saying or you don't. I think most people on here understand what I was saying and what I meant quite well. There is never going to be a perfect word to describe what I meant because that perfect word does not exist. Even semantics itself demonstrates that nothing is ever perfect, there are always issues, even with words and their meanings.

 

[Sha'irullah]

With all do respect, I have no care to argue semantics with you. You either get what I am saying or you don't. I think most people on here understand what I was saying and what I meant quite well.

There is a massive issue in philosophy with the word perfect, that is the issue. Being a massive fan of philosophy I do not understand what you mean by perfect.
Humans die, which has nothing to do with perfection.
Everything degrades, which has nothing to do with perfection.
Bad things happen, which has nothing to do with perfection.

Issues like these are used as arguments for the nonexistence of perfection. The issue is that they have nothing to do with it. If you believe in a demiurge(creator god) than the world is perfect because god created it. It is not about what you want, it is about what the creator wants.
That is the issue when you use that word. The word perfect is a well understand but misused word. Perfection implies desire and response.

There is never going to be a perfect word to describe what I meant because that perfect word does not exist. Even semantics itself demonstrates that nothing is ever perfect, there are always issues, even with words and their meanings.

That is what etymology is for

 

[Runewolf1973]

There is a massive issue in philosophy with the word perfect, that is the issue. Being a massive fan of philosophy I do not understand what you mean by perfect.
Humans die, which has nothing to do with perfection.
Everything degrades, which has nothing to do with perfection.
Bad things happen, which has nothing to do with perfection.

Issues like these are used as arguments for the nonexistence of perfection. The issue is that they have nothing to do with it. If you believe in a demiurge(creator god) than the world is perfect because god created it. It is not about what you want, it is about what the creator wants.
That is the issue when you use that word. The word perfect is a well understand but misused word. Perfection implies desire and response.



That is what etymology is for

What I mean by imperfection more specifically, is that in nature there are always variances or differences in things which result in change. No two things are absolutely identical just the same way as no two snowflakes are ever absolutely identical. Hypothetically, if there was a void before the Big Bang, there had to have been undoubtedly (as in nature), some small variances or differences in that void. Therefore, there was never an absolute void, there was always some thing else. That infinitesimally small flaw, imperfection, difference, or variance triggered a change in that void of seemingly nothingness. Those variances are natural.

---

 

[Sha'irullah]

What I mean by imperfection more specifically, is that in nature there are always variances or differences in things which result in change. No two things are absolutely identical just the same way as no two snowflakes are ever absolutely identical.

That is perfection what you are describing because all things adapt and deny genetic similarities for reproduction. You just called something perfect, imperfect although not wholly perfect.

Perfection is the ability to be flawless in the eyes of the maker. It is to fulfill purpose. Perfection is an artistic expression primarily and also designates completeness or the lack of a need for alterations.

The world is not perfect but it goes with the paradox of perfection. Perfection cannot exist without imperfection because perfection needs an exemplified criteria. Because nothing in this world is perfect it only concludes that God can be perfect.

Hypothetically, if there was a void before the Big Bang, there had to have been undoubtedly (as in nature), some small variances or differences in that void. Therefore, there was never an absolute void, there was always some thing else.

This makes no sense as you are concluding a Big Crunch scenario which has been fairly much refuted. You cannot have a Big Bang occur in an already existence universe. It is as absurd as a fire within a fire.

That infinitesimally small flaw, imperfection, difference, or variance triggered a change in that void of seemingly nothingness. Those variances are natural.
---

Far from natural as you are implying preexistence and denying something as simple as thermodynamics while also creating an infinite paradox. When you make these assertions you end up eating away at them at the same time. You are becoming an ideological Ouroborus.
I seriously recommend you understand logical fallacies before taking a firm stance on your opinions. Your viewpoints are fine since I share a lot of them but your epistemological justifications are not exactly solid . Take my words ad advice from a friend.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Enter in the philosophical phrase "neti neti" literally not this or this

The world is not perfect, nor is it imperfect.
The world is not alive, nor is it dead.
The world is not real, nor is it unreal.

No dualistic answer can be given universally. Each perspective is different.

 

[Runewolf1973]

As you said yourself...

Because nothing in this world is perfect...

...means that there can be no God that is perfect either.

 

[nazz]

To think that matter can give rise to qualia and intention is to basically claim it has magical properties.

Yup...

 

[Sha'irullah]

As you said yourself...



...means that there can be no God that is perfect either.

Nope, you just implied that god is only relative to natural existence . I just told you that "nothing in this world is perfect". See the semantical issue here?

Do you really think that I have concluded that god only exists in this world? I am an idealist so I do not even remotely think he exists in any physical state or alters any physical state after creation.

You must pay attention to details, always the details.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

God is largely be irrelevant because a being such as a demiurge
would still be reducible To the irriducible nature of its being.

Hence if lets say a god did create a universe, then god would have still have arisen out of the nothingness.

Lao tzu said; I do not know its name, but it appears to be the predecessor of god.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Nope, you just implied that god is only relative to natural existence . I just told you that "nothing in this world is perfect". See the semantical issue here?

Do you really think that I have concluded that god only exists in this world? I am an idealist so I do not even remotely think he exists in any physical state or alters any physical state after creation.

You must pay attention to details, always the details.

I have concluded (the way I see it anyway) that God does not exist and semantics does not change that. Perhaps you should pay more attention to nature and less attention to words.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

God is largely be irrelevant because a being such as a demiurge
would still be reducible To the irriducible nature of its being.

Hence if lets say a god did create a universe, then god would have still have arisen out of the nothingness.

Lao tzu said; I do not know its name, but it appears to be the predecessor of god.

You do know this is irrelevant right? The argument is whether or not god exists only in this world which is moronic. God would have to be outside of it and out of the loop of existence for such a being to be a demiurge.

Also as far as Daoim goes, the made no sense. Lao Tzu was not perfect and he just caught himself in the infinity paradox. What created the thing that created the thing which created god?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have concluded that God does not exist and semantics does not change that.

You are the one using semantics, you are misusing words to reach an unjustified conclusion. You conclusion is justified but not through your reasoning.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to nature and less attention to words.

You are paying no attention to the words which support your conclusion and you are actually refuting yourself. You are only making statements which prove yourself wrong. Again, you conclusion is justifiable but your methodology and reasoning behind it is counterproductive.

Instead of complaining you are to be providing the justification for your claim without making paradoxes and destroying your own argument.
I am also not being aggressive toward you, I am actually trying to help you.

I myself find the existence of a god irrelevant and not worth proving such a thing exist. I am interested in making sure you can make a philosophically sound debate.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You are the one using semantics, you are misusing words to reach an unjustified conclusion. You conclusion is justified but not through your reasoning.



You are paying no attention to the words which support your conclusion and you are actually refuting yourself. You are only making statements which prove yourself wrong. Again, you conclusion is justifiable but your methodology and reasoning behind it is counterproductive.

Instead of complaining you are to be providing the justification for your claim without making paradoxes and destroying your own argument.
I am also not being aggressive toward you, I am actually trying to help you.

I myself find the existence of a god irrelevant and not worth proving such a thing exist. I am interested in making sure you can make a philosophically sound debate.

I think you are just completely misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Sorry I don't know how to put it into words better. If you actually understood what I was trying to say, you would see there is no fallacy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Define "illusion".

 

[nazz]

Define "illusion".

Don't sweat it. Consciousness is not real. So you can't experience an illusion anyway.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Define "illusion".

Something that is not what it seems. When a magician makes a coin disappear, but he actually just used sleight of hand to trick you into thinking that. A trick of the mind.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Something that is not what it seems. When a magician makes a coin disappear, but he actually just used sleight of hand to trick you into thinking that. A trick of the mind.

How is consciousness not what it seems, then?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think you are just completely misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Sorry I don't know how to put it into words better. If you actually understood what I was trying to say, you would see there is no fallacy.

Your argument is not a fallacy. It is a fine argument because I hold the same thing . I am trying to help you avoid semantical issues because everyone on this thread keeps pecking at your wording. Your bad wording makes it seem as if you have no argument.

I will shut up for now but trust me, semantics and philosophical correctness is a major issue in theology and philosophical claims. Peace out dude

 

[Runewolf1973]

Your argument is not a fallacy. It is a fine argument because I hold the same thing . I am trying to help you avoid semantical issues because everyone on this thread keeps pecking at your wording. Your bad wording makes it seem as if you have no argument.

I will shut up for now but trust me, semantics and philosophical correctness is a major issue in theology and philosophical claims. Peace out dude

I'm just not very good with that sort of stuff. Thanks for trying to correct me though, I appreciate it. At least it seems you get the gist of what I was saying, hopefully others do too.
I imagine our most primitive, animistic ancestors didn't concern themselves too much with words, but they still held a deep understanding and connection with nature. They may have understood it better than even we do.

 

[Runewolf1973]

How is consciousness not what it seems, then?

It is often made out to be something mysterious, but is is not.