So God is a chocolate cake now? Well I can see, touch, and yes, taste a chocolate cake. Moreover, if many people described chocolate cake, their descriptions would be similar. The same is not true of God. You can neither sense Him, nor would people describe him the same way, apart from those who had been taught the same dogma. For example, you are the only person I have seen describe Him as "absolutes".

But we needn't worry about having "more to life". There are so many things to be witnessed, sensed, learned, and even imagined, that there is no danger of a shortage of meaning. Those of us who are able to distinguish between imagination and reality do not have a world that is poorer in any way. In fact, it is richer. Well, it certainly is an answer. It is not a good answer

So, the sum of your sensory inputs? That sounds quite reasonable, actually--I could agree with this...unless you want to throw some excess baggage into the definition.oops--like that. The part of you that speaks to me is your body. If you want more specifics, we could go into lungs, larynx, speech areas of the brain, etc., but the process of speaking does not define consciousness.

If you mean speech metaphorically, I still gotta go with frontal lobe activity for this one...When I defined (or explained) consciousness for Human, I tried to take it to the point of things you could incontrovertably point to. Self-awareness does not quite do that, unless you really actually do mean the sum of your sensory inputs. But hey, it's the best you've done so far.

*****
As an aside...your recent posts on this thread do not sound like the words of one who honestly thinks that science is the unfolding of the word of god. Were you less than honest with us when you said that?

The concept of "beginning" requires a concept of time. Time is part of the physical universe and is therefore created by God. Ergo, God is not part of time and has no need for a beginning, and thusly no need for a creator.

(emphasis mine)
Just a tad circular, don't you think Andromeda? Your evidence God being outside of time is the completely unsupported assumption that God created time. You'll have to do better than that.

Atually, there's nothing wrong with saying this, for obviously God does not live in the same physical dimension that we do, unaffected by time that is, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy the curiosity (if that's what you want to call it) of certain other folks around here. And, whether or not the following can be construed as evidence, it does give us a clearer picture of what it might entail if, such a possibility did exist.

Excerpts from Emanuel Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell ...

The preceding chapter, Changes of State of the Angels in Heaven (n. 154), is definitely worth a read too.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well if He doesn't spend some time here, then he could have no effect whatsoever on this "physical dimension". Maybe He only comes here every now and then to catch a show or get a drink at the pub.
Oh, curiosity is definately the word. I am curious to see what evidence you will ever produce to support these wild assumptions. I haven't given up hope in you, Iacchy.
No, it can't be construed as evidence, and indeed goes against evidence. It is an interesting hypothesis at best, but has no support. Thus, it really gives no clearer picture at all, but merely gives us more "pictures" from which to choose. But that's cool. I like surrealists. Dali is my favorite.

Remember, goozleberry, God is omnipotent. :) God is capable of doing the logically impossible; He can create square circles, and He can make 2 + 2 = 5.

So you say (those are just math tricks by the way. Any competent mathmatician can do the same thing). But your omnipotent God cannot make me believe in him. Go ahead. You can threaten me with eternal damnation, but even if He really did exist I would resist a tyrannical God that would punish a person for thinking.

Well then, I have no purpose here, do I?

__________________

Hey, I noticed that your smilies are disabled. I think you can enable them by unclicking the "Disable smilies in text" box in the Additional Options section in your editor. Of course I think it's usually left open as a default, and the only time it will disable the smilies is in when you deliberately click on it (for each post). This is not what you're doing is it? If not, then I don't know what the problem is?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I am deliberately clicking the box, Iacchus32. I desire the smilies to be disabled in my posts. Thank you even so. :)

__________________

Of course you do. You might convince someone, or you might plant the seeds of thought. I feel communication is never wasted, even if you are unsuccessful in convincing anyone. After all, I've been here for months and I haven't convinced a single person of anything, but I have noticed Iacchy using my arguments once or twice in reforming his own position. I regard that as evidence that what I say here is not wasted.

No, it's not just the sum of your sensory inputs, it also takes into account the observer (me) which interacts with these sensations.

That part of me which speaks to you is me, my ego, my identity. Just like that part of you which speaks to me is you, your ego, your identity. This is so damn basic, really.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?