Can you falsify this argument?

Question

Premise A: God is all.
Premise B: Consciousness presupposes a subject and an object.

Conclusion: God has no consciousness.

To a1tommyL: But my conclusion *does* follow from the premises, right? And as for premise B: how is that based on faith? Isn't it based on reason? I mean, if we talk about consciousness, we must say "[subject] is conscious of [object]", right? It *is* based on faith in *reason*, though... (in grammar).

To allan p: The subject cannot be its own object. When I hold my own hand, a *part* of me holds *another* part of me; the same part cannot hold itself.

To Robin J. Sky: You make an *essential* distinction. You divide the All into a Creator and his Creation. I wonder from what the Creator created this Creation: out of nothing, perchance? But then my argument applies to the time *before* he created Creation. And with this we arrive at the *essence* of Christianity:

"[I]n the still solitude of the Divine Being is placed another, a second, different from God as to personality, but identical with him in essence, – God the Son, in distinction from God the Father. God the Father is I, God the Son *Thou*."
[Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, chapter 6.]

With this, the presuppositions of consciousness are fulfilled, for both can say: "I am conscious of Thee." With this, however, you concede that God has multiple personalities.

If you want you can reply to my reply to you personally by editing your answer. If you do, though, please don't change your original answer but type your reply underneath it, with a division line or something.

To taoist_1117: You say: "There is such a thing as a pure consciousness event, in which there is consciousness of no object, this state is achieved through meditation."

Should I just take your word for that? I mean, I don't doubt that you're sincere, but could you not be mistaken?

You also say: "also, do not forget that you can make yourself into an object of your consciousness"

How can I forget that if I don't "know" that? I don't even believe that that is possible: see my reply to allan p. A mirror cannot mirror itself.

To hq3: Hi! Did you receive my replies to your message to me? I find that an interesting subject. As for this subject, you say: "There is a possibility that subject and an object might be the same thing. For example in a sentence "I wash myself" -- "I" and "Myself" refer to the same thing, thus the subject and object are the same."

I disagree with that, as I've already told allan p. But with this we fall squarely within the scope of the subject I wrote to you about. "I wash myself" presupposes that there is an "I" which is the driving force behind the washing. Nietzsche, for one, vehemently disagreed with this view. The "I" is only the tip of the iceberg, the small part of it that is above the ocean of the unconscious. The whole iceberg is not the "I" but the *Self*, which is the body. The Self is the driving force behind the washing. So the Self washes a part, for instance, the outside, of itself, i.e, of the body. Thus the subject and the object are not the same.

Answer 1

The only way to falsify that would be to demonstrate the exact nature of God. If we could do that, it would put a might quick end to all these religious and philosophical debates. :)

My personal argument denies Premise A. God is NOT all. He is IN all, he CREATED all, but to say that the creations and the creator effectively "are" the same thing is untrue. Therefore God is a separate entity unto himself and can and does have conciousness.

Just the way I see it. :)

Answer 2

As to Premise A: God is all. This is true. The premise may fall short when one reasons, rightfully, that God is a different entity to the wide variety of "believers."

Premise B: There is no presupposing. The only thing we know for sure is that nothing is a sure thing.

Conclusion: "God" may have no consciousness (serious and heedful attentiveness) to the details of the Universe, but perhaps God has an over-all providing plan for all, which doesn't depend on attentiveness to each and every suffering.

Perhaps it is up to humanity to take care of being heedful when it is needed, while "God" takes care of the over-all providing plan.

Answer 3

Well, I do take issue with premise A, I find arguing such points is often futile. I do however take issue with premise B as well. There is such a thing as a pure consciousness event, in which there is consciousness of no object, this state is achieved through meditation. Therefore in your logic god could have consciousness. even in there were no "other" or object. also, do not forget that you can make yourself into an object of your consciousness; so what could prevent God from doing so.

Answer 4

OK here we go.
First of all the argument is not logically coherent.
There is a possibility that subject and an object might be the same thing. For example in a sentence "I wash myself" -- "I" and "Myself" refer to the same thing, thus the subject and object are the same. Thus your conclusion does not flow from premises.

Additionally:
The argument contains false, or at least unfounded claims.
Neither or A nor B are obviously true claims, thus both require EXTENSIVE justification.

Answer 5

Your data set is inaccurate.
all is an absolute.
the presupposition(word?) of subject and object are assumptive.

however using your data set you could have many answers.

Conclusions: God has no consciousness.
God has consciousness.
any combination between consciousness and lack of consciousness.
All of the possible Conclusions in superposition.

In order to have an absolute conclusion: God has no consciousness you have to limit your "all" statement.

Answer 6

Premise A and Premise B are both assumptions based on faith which has no basis in fact.

THerefore: your post is pointless.

You have no consciousness.

Answer 7

Premise A remains unsupported, indemonstrable, and therefore meaningless.
Premise B is true.
Conclusion: No conclusion because of the failure of Premise A.

Answer 8

"Man" states God is all, based on history books of religion written by "man".

"man" has defined what "consciousness" is, and because man cannot see or comprehend beyond the limitations of his human condition, - cannot 'test' beyond the measure of his limited tools, he believes his thoughts, arguments, knowledge and imformation therefore must be true.

We humans are so much like babies who think that if we do not know it, then it must not be, or if we think it then it must be.

looking "outside the box" of your 'argument":
God = object
All = subject
Conclusion = God is consciousness

Answer 9

When you hold your own hand for a time, are you conscious of your touch?

Answer 10

A is false until someone proove it.
B is true.

conclusion : still can not be done on this point