Part I of my response to Howard’s post titled Tindrbox’s ‘Consciousness and Existence’ dated June 5, 1998.

You asked for it.

Howard says that, as a Christian, he is "not allowed to have presuppositions without giving proof or empirical evidence for them". This is a most curious statement. Is this one of the Ten Commandments? I’ve never read "Thou shalt not have presuppositions for which you have no proof or empirical support" anywhere in the pages of the Bible. Is this a universal Christian law? Can you cite any scriptural reference that even remotely infers this position? If so, what is your empirical data and proof for presupposing that there is a ‘god’?? This is what we’ve all been waiting for you to show us, Howard et al. Where’s your proof positive that your puttin’ is on the putter, Potus?

Now, don’t give us this argument ad ignorantium "because of the impossibility of the contrary" garbage. That’s not a proof, that’s an evasion. I will accept nothing short of an unequivocal, unambiguous, indisputable visual demonstration of your ‘god’. To accept a claim as grandly preposterous as a god-belief, nothing less would cut the cake. To accept such claims without appropriate evidential support is, in my opinion, completely immoral. So, as I stated before, you god-believers better hop to it and pray like mad to your ‘god’ that he come out from hiding and show himself. What’s the hold up? He does exist, doesn’t he????

As I indicated before, concepts are mental integrations. As such, they are a part of the function of consciousness, which is a function of the brain. There is nothing unnatural or ‘supernatural’ about this phenomenon.

Man has not consciousness independent of his brain. Without [the use of] his brain, he is at best a vegetable, and even then, he would have to be on life support. Bear this in mind: consciousness is not a ‘thing’, as an apple or a shoe; it is not an ‘object’. Consciousness is a function, dependent on the organs of an organism. Hence, consciousness presupposes existence, not the other way around as the religionist claims.

Just as digestion is the function of the stomach and the intestines (organs within the organism), so is consciousness a function of the brain (an organ) with the aid of the senses (consciousness is conscious of the things it perceives). Is digestion ‘physical in nature’? Is consciousness ‘physical in nature’? You decide, smart guy.

Consciousness is just as dependent on physical relationships and processes as is digestion. As such, they are functions of some living beings, a class of entities (i.e., existents). What I reject is the notion that consciousness is ‘supernaturally’ dispensed. There is no such thing as ‘supernatural’, so that alone is sufficient to dismiss the claim that ‘the soul is a gift from God’ as an arbitrary statement. There is no support for it whatsoever.

How would I distinguish a dirt clod from your brain?

When I use the word "I" I refer to myself: my mind. My mind is the functioning of my consciousness. It is action. All thought is action. Action is dependent on the nature of the entities acting. This is the Law of Identity and its corollary, the Law of Causality, which is the Law of Identity applied to action. I suspect you will still be unclear on the concept, if only to delay your demonstration of your proof of your ‘god’.

Talk about ‘fallacy of distraction’!

Howard, will you ever get around to arguing for your god-belief, rather than nit-picking everything the atheists in this forum post?

Time out: Before I continue, I want to make an important point:

Whether or not someone can answer all of your questions (even within your ideal schedule - three hours is a little hasty, I would think), does not mean diddly squat in the context of a support for your god-beliefs. You may debate all your wish about ‘consciousness’, ‘I’, ‘concepts’, etc. You may ask all the questions you can dream up! But the fact is, these questions are irrelevant to any evidence your are withholding for your god-belief claims.

Let’s say for instance, that I have no answers whatsoever for the questions you pose (ok, let’s pretend that’s the case). If I had no answers for your questions regarding this or that or whatever, do you believe that inability would constitute an argument for your god-belief claim? How did you put it? Oh yeah, that’s right, "God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary". What a fine argument!! Are you serious when you argue this line of hokum? Are you high man?

Now I shall resume. Proceed, Howard:

I think I answered this question briefly above. Consciousness is a function of concretes. As such, it is an action of perceiving, identifying, integrating, thinking, daydreaming, or, in your case, blanking out and evading. Man is a conscious being. He has the choice to use his consciousness (to think) or to turn it off and blank out. The Bible gives man no guidance for using his mind (remember the 12 unanswered questions regarding epistemology? [See my post titled "Just what is Christian epistemology" dated May 16, 1998]).

The Bible does not even contain the term ‘concept’, let alone define it. As a conscious being, man must learn how to use the function of his brain (consciousness, thinking). The philosophical discipline that addresses the means of knowledge and how to think is called: epistemology.

The Christians in this forum have been conspicuously silent about what the Bible actually says in regard to epistemology (the Bible calls it faith). In fact, the Christians of this debate forum have attempted to steal reason and logic (a discovery belonging to pagan Greeks, such as Aristotle) and have claimed that reason and logic are Christian in nature.

What evidence does the Christian give in support of his claim that ‘logic is biblical in nature’? Why, Isaiah 1:18 is sufficient evidence of this, we are told, for it contains the word ‘reason’ in its statement:

Citing similar verses, which make no significant statement whatsoever about the epistemological system of reason and logic, is the tactic that some Christians use in order to support this fantastic claim. Never mind all the verses that tell men not to "lean upon [his] own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5) but to "trust in the Lord" (faith), which is antagonistic with sense-perception and reason [not to mention independent thought]. Paul himself tells us in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians (5:7) that Christians "walk by faith, not by sight". Paul even is bold enough to state that Christians are "fools for Christ" (I Corinthians 4:10), which also demonstrates that their ‘otherworldly’ means of knowledge (faith) is not suited for this life. In fact, nowhere in the Bible is man exhorted to rely on his mind, on his consciousness, as a means of coping with reality. All biblical doctrine, on the contrary, commands man to surrender his mind to his ‘god’. Why? Blank out. Reason does not tell man to sacrifice his mind.

As I stated earlier: When a man sacrifices his mind to his God, the first thing to go is his mind. This is exactly what the Bible demands of men. This is exactly why neither Howard, nor BKNewton nor Haggai 16 nor any other ‘Christian’ will ever be able to argue that ‘reason is Christian in nature’ - neither on the basis of his Bible, nor on the basis of all the sophistry he decides to consult (such as the bursting library of 2500 men-authored books that Howard claims to have).

The Bible’s epistemology is FAITH. Let’s hear a solid defense for this epistemological monstrosity and nightmare.

Consciousness? "Is it a physical part of the brain?" As I’ve mentioned several times now, consciousness is the function of the brain. Remember AirwaveBoy’s (Nick’s) analogy of consciousness with photosynthesis? Nick correctly alluded to the fact that consciousness is action. Consciousness is the act of perceiving and thinking. It is the faculty of awareness. It is inextirpably dependent on the brain. Do you not accept this?

Howard, this of course depends on how you define your terms. When I refer to Reason, it is best defined generally as: "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses" (Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics", The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 20). Rand also states this about Reason:

Reason is the means of identifying reality. Just as in this debate, many are trying to use reason to establish as fact (i.e., to identify as reality) the claim that there is a ‘god’. However, their arguments fail with each attempt, because they are trying to use a means of identifying reality to establish something that is unreal. This is precisely why the primitive priests who wrote and compiled the books of the Bible could not subscribe to the epistemology of reason throughout their doctrine, but instead preach faith.

Howard states that "reason... imparts meaning and relationship to particulars based on presuppositions."

Explain how ‘reason imparts meaning to particulars’ without identifying and integrating? How is your definition of reason different from the one I provide above? Did you take your definition of reason from the Bible? Or did you take it from a dictionary? Or did you take it from one of your 2500 secondary sources (if the Bible is to be considered their primary source)? Or, did you just whip this definition of yours up at your own whim? Are you willing to stick with your definitions on a consistent basis? That I would like to see.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well, that will have to do it for the time being. I will try to address the remaining portions of Howard’s post at a later time in the near future. For now, he can chew on this.

May you get what you deserve,

Tindrbox

$

_________________________________