Originally posted by LightSon
Rob,
Your recent post is brilliant, right up until you make the following dogmatic statements.
Were consciousness the primary thing for us, then I agree that we cannot project from our consciousness a material existence.
Our whole misunderstand of course from the fact that
to us consciousness is the 'primary thing'. But we have to consider if and wether that what is primary and essential to our existence as humans, must and does coincide with the primacy of the world's objective existence. And it comes out that it can not.
So we must accept the truth, that althoug consciousness is primary to us, it is not primary to the world as such.
But you then err by extrapolating your materialism to a non material God. God is beyond the boundaries and disciplines you are invoking. God as a real, non-material being of power is not subject to the laws from which you operate and on which you base your logic. Your conclusions are flawed because materialism is your premise. If materialism is wrong, then your logic is ill-equipped to aid you in coming to conclusions that conform to reality.
I did not extrapolate from my material assumption to a non-material God, but just stated the theist interpretation of what God in fact is.
We have to place the argument in the domain of what us lets decide and base our selves on materialism. It is in fact a reasoned conclusion, in which we arrive at materialism.
The question involved in this is then, from what knowledge do we know that something outside, apart and independend of our consciousness is the primary substance of the world.
If we compare materialism and idealism, we can state that there in fact only two options. Some people base themselves on idealism, others on materialism.
How do we decide or know for ourselves, which of the two is the right conclusion, if this is at all knowable?
Did I just state that the materialist assumption is correct, without considering why it would be correct?
Although my previous post did not include the reasoning behind the conclusion that materialism is the right assumption, it is of course the case that I have made within my own reasoning a conclusion of why matter is the primary substance, and not consciousness.
Based on what and how at all, would I assume that?
Matter is not even the primary thing I know about, since the primary thing I know about, is my own consciousness.
It would be thinkable and logical if instead of matter, I would have assumed that consciousness would be the primary substance. It is the first and primary thing I know about.
So, I must have reasoned this, before arriving at the conclusion that not consciousness, but matter must be the primary substance of the world.
How on earth do I know that?
In my reasoning, I have to deal with not just the fact and acknowledgement of my own (consciouss) existence, but that of anything that forms and shapes the world.
Most of these things, which I came to know about, are things of which I know they exist apart, outside and independend of my own consciousness.
I could in pure theory and purely in my imagination assume that at some point, all these things that objectively exist, would not at all exist. All what I could project then about the world would be a completely empty and void world. It would in fact constitute nothing, besided my own thinking awareness. So, at the very minimum, I would have to state that my own consciousness would have to exist.
The other thing is this. When we reason about the concept of a non-existing world, a world in which nothing (not even my own consciousness) would be there, I would have to admit and acknowledge that such could not possible form any grounds for there being a world. A mere nothing does not constitute any reason or ground for there factually be a world.
From this one must conclude that the world itself, can not possible have formed on the grounds of a non-existing world.
Which means that since the world does exist now, this must have been always the case, in whatever form. A mere nothing can not exist, therefore something must have existed always.
Based on this knowledge, I could posit two hypothesis on how the world could exist.
The first hypothesis is that the world in fundament exists in the form of consciousness. And since I do not know of any consciousness outside of my own, this would mean: my consciousness. Restating this, this first hypothesis then states: that what is primary to the world, is formed and constituted by my consciousness.
The second and alternative hypothesis I have to state is, that if such is not the case, then quite logically, that what the world in first instance is, must be formed and based by a substance, which is outside, apart and independend of my consciousness.
Either one of these, must be correct.
The reason why we have to reject the first one is, that this would mean that everything that exists, would have to be dependend on my consciousness. That would mean, that my consciouss existence would be in fact everything what the world in fact is.
But the fact which contradicts this hypothesis is that within my consciousness, I can not find the grounds and reason for the existence of my own consciousness, neither is there a consciousness which reflects back on the indefinite past.
All my consciousness is able to tell me is that it has not existed always, and thus it's reasons and causes for it's existence must lie outside of my consciousness itself. And besides of that, I happen to be aware of the fact that my consciousness does not include everything that exists.
For these reasons, I have to adapt the alternative hypothesis, which states that that which is primary to the world itself, must be a substance which is outside, apart from and independend of my consciousness.
We call this substance: matter. And we know that matter has existed always, and is independend of anything else.
My consciouss outlook on and about the world were in fact 'created' and must have been caused by things existing outside of my own consciousness. No other cause is available here but the existence of matter. But my consciousness, although primary to my outlook on the world, is not primary to the world itself.