Problems with this section; for Frank (Agnosticism)

by Frank Paris , Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 02:12 (5476 days ago) @ Frank Paris

Whoops, I just noticed something else in your post that assumes something that isn't true. I actually quoted it before and commented on it. You say, "[God] may also be able to spin off non-physical particles that he can't control either ... i.e. particles of his consciousness."-Since consciousness is a process (not a "thing") that entities of sufficient complexity can experience, it doesn't make sense to talk about "particles of [God's] consciousness." What God can spin off are "particles" that can be conscious, but not that are consciousness.-So when I said, "I've already claimed that God could theoretically do this," I wasn't saying that God can spin off "particles of consciousness," but that God can spin off particles that are sophisticated enough to be conscious and only on occasion, unlike the fundamentals in our universe that I always talk about, which are too primitive ever to be conscious.-(The other thing that occurs to me in once again bringing up the concept of the fundamentals, there's no guarantee that at this state of the evolution of our universe that any fundamentals even exist anymore. They might have been transformed into other particles through "broken symmetries." They may have only existed in the opening moments of the Big Bang. But I don't want to get too sidetracked here.)-The point I was making in my response that overlooked the nonsensical expression, "particles of [God's] consciousness," was that it is indeed possible for God to spin off beings (I'd rather not call them "particles") that are so sophisticated that they can be conscious (on occasion), but that modern science has laid to rest that possibility, i.e. there is no evidence for "angels" operating independent of the fundamental laws of nature. I might also add that there are problems of coherency that make the concept of the human soul suspect at the very least.