It's official: God didn't create universe

[s_lone]

I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of something having always existed. I understand that things changed over time, and here we are, but I'm kind of stuck on there having to be an originating moment, a time when it all began ... a cause where nothing became something.

I don't think I can conceptualize infinity any better than anybody else. But there are a few thought experiments that can help us.

Imagine yourself walking along an extremely long corridor. What you don't know is that this corridor is curved and is actually a circle. But this circle is so much mind-boggingly bigger than yourself that you can't even perceive the curve. From your point of view, the corridor just goes on and on for infinity. It's actually a loop. If you keep on walking long enough, you'll come back to where you started...

But then, what is outside the circle? Or what is inside?

The notion of infinity is (sort of) implied in things like circles and spheres.


Here's another one... But more subtle.

Think of the number 1 and all that it means. Think of unity and all that it means. Now imagine everything that is and consider it as ONE.

All is One.

The crazy thing about infinity is that it is hidden in very simple concepts like circles and the number 1.

But that sure doesn't take the mystery out of it...

 

[Bcool]

another example of what the average joe takes on faith to be true.

Would you care to expand on that?

 

[mentalfloss]

I was listening to a podcast recently that seemed to have a much better argument against the existence of God.. Here's the claim..

All theological arguments for a Creator necessarily claim, assume, or presuppose that the Creator is immaterial and was conscious when creating existence. There is no argument for a Creator that does not explicitly or inherently assume the Creator has no material form, was conscious, and aware of what it was doing. The Creator is pure consciousness.
.
The lack of material form is essential to the role of faith, or believing without evidence. Supposedly, this lack of material form makes it impossible to falsify the existence of a Creator, yet it simultaneously opens the door for a fatal flaw … though that will hardly matter to the faithful followers.
.
Now here are the contradictions and flaws.
.
1. If the Creator was conscious and there was no existence or no universe, then what was the Creator conscious of — itself? Impossible. Recall, it is immaterial, it is pure consciousness (or spirituality).
.
2. A consciousness aware only of itself is an impossibility; a consciousness (of any kind) can only identify itself in relation to some existing thing, external to itself, of which it is conscious or aware.
.
3. A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible for such to even exist. Before consciousness could even identify itself as being conscious, there must have been some existing thing to be conscious of, a thing external to consciousness and awareness.
.
In other words, existence necessarily precedes any form of consciousness. That’s it. There is no exit from that reality. That is why there is no Creator. So far as I know, this is the argument overlooked by Dawkins, Hawking, Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Bill Maher, and many other atheists, agnostics, or skeptics.

http://existentialespresso.blogspot.com/

 

[Cliffy]

That makes perfect sense so it is doubtful that believers will buy it.

What happened in the beginning can only be speculated since none of us were there, or at least if we were, we can't remember, so it is kind of a useless speculation.
But since we are conscious beings, we are capable of creating reality in relation to others who share this reality - the reality of the collective consciousness. We also create our own experience within the confines of that collective reality. But the confines can be expanded by those who have knowledge of how reality works and is created. They can and do bend the rules (ie: the programming) that collective reality accepts as being fixed.

 

[Goober]

Stephen Hawking: "God Did Not Create the Universe"

This ends the debate. Or does it?

So he went form God had a part to god did not - So who created the nothingness he speaks of?

 

[Cliffy]

So he went form God had a part to god did not - So who created the nothingness he speaks of?

How can you create nothing? How can something be created from nothing? There had to be something to begin with. There is no way to know what that something was or is. The debate is just a bunch of mental masturbation.

 

[mentalfloss]

How can you create nothing?

Not sure, though nothing does exist as nothing.

How can something be created from nothing?

Consciousness is actually nothing. It's simply an awareness of something, but that awareness itself is physically nothing. But from that awareness, an action eventually emerges - which is something. So, yes, nothing can create something, and it does it every day. It seems supernatural to think of it in those terms, but you do have to bite that bullet if you somehow believe the universe 'began'.

There had to be something to begin with.

Maybe, maybe not. We looked at this a couple of pages back and there is still disagreement on whether the universe is actually finite or not. If it is finite though, there must have been a point at which it did not exist - and at that point there existed only nothingness.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...there is still disagreement on whether the universe is actually finite or not. If it is finite though, there must have been a point at which it did not exist ...

Not necessarily, it may always have existed in some form or another. It's pretty clear that it's changing, so presumably it hasn't always looked like it does now, and won't always look like it does now, but that doesn't necessarily require a beginning or an end, it may be what the mathematicians call finite but unbounded, which just means it has a limited size but no edges or boundaries. The surface of a sphere, for instance, is finite but unbounded. The universe may be the hypersurface of some higher dimensional structure. There's some disagreement on what time actually is too, such as whether it's really a feature of the universe or just an artifact of our perceptions of it. And there's the way relativity entwines space and time too; it's not clear whether something can be finite in space but infinite in time, or vice versa, or infinite in both, or neither. It's also not clear whether space-time exists independently of the mass and energy in it, or if the things in it are what creates it. As J.B.S. Haldane remarked, in the days when queer meant something other than it does now, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it's queerer than we CAN suppose.

 

[Bcool]

Not sure, though nothing does exist as nothing.

Consciousness is actually nothing. It's simply an awareness of something, but that awareness itself is physically nothing. But from that awareness, an action eventually emerges - which is something. So, yes, nothing can create something, and it does it every day. It seems supernatural to think of it in those terms, but you do have to bite that bullet if you somehow believe the universe 'began'.

Maybe, maybe not. We looked at this a couple of pages back and there is still disagreement on whether the universe is actually finite or not. If it is finite though, there must have been a point at which it did not exist - and at that point there existed only nothingness.

Just playing devil's advocate for minute 'cos the thought occured: to have consciousness there must be some form in which this consciousness exists and performs the actions of being conscious, which implies a mechanism of some form of substance be it extratemporal or evanescent. I.e. to be consciously aware there has to be a consciousness as stated, but consciousness implies some form of substance contained in something? That it performs a process implies the existence of some form of mechanism? And something must also exist for it to become aware of it?

Whooo boy!

That infinite universe! Ack, ack!! (Sorry! Big fan of "Bloom County" Now there's consciousness for you! LOL) Nope! I'm all for the multi-dimension universes theories.

 

[mentalfloss]

Just playing devil's advocate for minute 'cos the thought occured: to have consciousness there must be some form in which this consciousness exists and performs the actions of being conscious, which implies a mechanism of some form of substance be it extratemporal or evanescent. I.e. to be consciously aware there has to be a consciousness as stated, but consciousness implies some form of substance contained in something? That it performs a process implies the existence of some form of mechanism? And something must also exist for it to become aware of it?

Well this is just Sartre talking here, but according to him, consciousness is transcendent. It is actually outside the physical mass of so-called 'conscious beings'. We're simply emitters for that consciousness, almost like how a radio is useless without radio waves. We wouldn't necessarily say the radio waves are a physical substance of the radio (even though they do qualify as something - which is where the metaphor fails). This transparent blanket of consciousness - which is actually nothing at all - is what he says begins the process that inevitably leads to some form of action or choice. So, yes, a being that is equipped to be a conduit for consciousness is the easiest way to exemplify the existence of consciousness.

 

[karrie]

Not sure, though nothing does exist as nothing.

Consciousness is actually nothing. It's simply an awareness of something, but that awareness itself is physically nothing.

Somehow I suspect modern science would disagree. I know the medical community would disagree strenuously, since consciousness is something they measure every day. How do you measure something that is nothing?

 

[mentalfloss]

Somehow I suspect modern science would disagree. I know the medical community would disagree strenuously, since consciousness is something they measure every day. How do you measure something that is nothing?

What are these measurements, exactly? Are these cognitive-based studies in psychology? I'd like to see this quantification of consciousness, because I'm curious to see how they really qualify the term.

If there was a fallacy of science - the only real one I can think of - it is the kind that is dependent on materialism. It has been hard-written into the minds of certain scientists that the existence of a phenomenon must end by identifying some material substance, energy, or physics-based law that would contribute to that phenomenon.

Further, this ideology has instilled itself in some as a notion that all properties are actually self-evident, despite the fact that they really have no meaning without being human discoveries. The discovery that the earth was round for instance, required the subjective assertion first before making a conclusion. The 'hypothesis', while being an important tenet of the scientific method, I think has been losing a bit of its gusto, lately. It's become less of, 'we found it' and more of 'it brought itself to us' or 'it was always there, so who cares if we found it'.

I'm not sure how one would measure consciousness as nothing, myself, but I think it's important to question whether it could validly constitute as something.

For instance, if consciousness could be controlled, would that define it as something? Maybe?

You could kill someone, and would that control consciousness? Perhaps, perhaps not. It could be argued you simply ended the ability for that being to detect consciousness. That would not appear to affirm that consciousness is a substance.

You could chop off my leg, and would that control consciousness? Well, even though consciousness should be primarily directed toward my own pain and suffering, it is still possible to be aware of other things. As absurd as it sounds, it might not even phase some people. Either way, it would not affirm that consciousness as something.

You could give someone a drug, and ones thoughts could be influenced in some manner. But even that would not necessitate consciousness as something because we could be well aware of an idea that might conflict with what others view of our actions. For instance, one could take the 'truth serum' let's say, and even though they can only spout out the truth, they could be aware of the lie. In other words, consciousness in this respect is random possibility and can take our thoughts into a myriad of different directions.

I think it's possible that science might be misusing the term to mean something else. When you have faculties like psychology, philosophy, physics, biology, chemistry and math all acting independently - there becomes a necessary confusion about the significance of certain phenomena. I know that to some degree, these faculties mesh, but they should be working interdependently even moreso.

But, yea, I wouldn't mind seeing the studies. This version of consciousness isn't too common and is not mandated to be the truth.

 

[karrie]

Brain waves have been measured, and the experience they're linked with is predictable. Sleep, sensation, etc. Sensory experience can be created via stimulation, moods created via chemistry. the things that make us conscious beings are observable, measurable. Can science manipulate it exactly? No. Tell exactly what your experience will be based on the waves they measure? No. At least, not yet. But consciousness is not created from nothing.

 

[mentalfloss]

Brain waves have been measured, and the experience they're linked with is predictable. Sleep, sensation, etc. Sensory experience can be created via stimulation, moods created via chemistry. the things that make us conscious beings are observable, measurable. Can science manipulate it exactly? No. Tell exactly what your experience will be based on the waves they measure? No. At least, not yet. But consciousness is not created from nothing.

Yes, but brain waves and sensory experience are not consciousness itself. They may be representations of consciousness, but consciousness is just an awareness of something. And yes, you are correct, consciousness is not created from nothing. Consciousness is nothing.

It might as well be called nothing except for the relationship that from nothing, something happens. Maybe one could call it a temporal fallacy which assumes causation. It could simply be that nothing exists before something does. The future, for instance, is nothing right now, and in the present it becomes something. So I can see how a causal relationship can come into question. But that still doesn't prove consciousness is a substance.

It could be that the scientists watched a bit too much Star Trek and love using it as a buzz word. Hey, maybe it is a substance. But then science needs to quantify it in consciousness units or something similar. Otherwise, it's just as elusive as scientists believing in souls.

 

[Colpy]

It's official: God didn't create universe


God may be surprised to hear that.

 

[karrie]

Yes, but brain waves and sensory experience are not consciousness itself. They may be representations of consciousness, but consciousness is just an awareness of something. And yes, you are correct, consciousness is not created from nothing. Consciousness is nothing.

It might as well be called nothing except for the relationship that from nothing, something happens. Maybe one could call it a temporal fallacy which assumes causation. It could simply be that nothing exists before something does. The future, for instance, is nothing right now, and in the present it becomes something. So I can see how a causal relationship can come into question. But that still doesn't prove consciousness is a substance.

It could be that the scientists watched a bit too much Star Trek and love using it as a buzz word. Hey, maybe it is a substance. But then science needs to quantify it in consciousness units or something similar. Otherwise, it's just as elusive as scientists believing in souls.

If you take away the chemistry and electrical impulses, consciousness disappears, so, it is not 'from nothing'. It is dependent on the substances and processes occuring in the brain.

 

[The Old Medic]

That's HIS OPINION. He can't prove it, and neither can those who believe God did create the universe.

 

[mentalfloss]

If you take away the chemistry and electrical impulses, consciousness disappears, so, it is not 'from nothing'.

Well, firstly, that's not necessarily true. Sartre would say that because consciousness is transcendental and is nothing, it would still exist as it always did. More importantly though, just because it would appear to you, to not exist after taking away 'chemistry and electrical impulses' does not prove it existed as a substance in the first place.

That's what science needs to show really. Give me the consciousness bits and label them consciousness bits. And if I take these consciousness bits and put it into your head, your awareness will mimic exactly as I've programmed those consciousness bits to dictate. If consciousness is indeed something, then it should be easily manipulated in exactly that manner. And scientists should legitimately believe that as well if it logically follows that consciousness is a substance.

The onus is on scientists to at least empirically prove it. They would have to show that consciousness is a legitimate substance that is a separate entity from 'chemistry and electrical impulses'. You seem to be implying that they are one in the same.

Though, if 'chemistry and electrical impulses' are all that it takes to define consciousness to you or any scientists, then we should just stick to 'chemistry and electrical impulses'. It doesn't need to go any deeper than that if you want to stick with what is material here. There is just 'chemistry and electrical impulses' and that's it folks. If that's the case, then pardon the expression, but who gives a frig? You've already reached the ends to your means.

 

[karrie]

I firmly believe that as human understanding evolves, we will find more and more out about the energy that creates the human experience, about what survives death, and what underpins our experience. But no, I don't believe it comes from nothing. It manifests in too many physically demonstrable ways to be nothing.

 

[s_lone]

Though, if 'chemistry and electrical impulses' are all that it takes to define consciousness to you or any scientists, then we should just stick to 'chemistry and electrical impulses'. It doesn't need to go any deeper than that if you want to stick with what is material here. There is just 'chemistry and electrical impulses' and that's it folks. If that's the case, then pardon the expression, but who gives a frig? You've already reached the ends to your means.

It seems to me you're being a reductionist. You insist on separating consciousness from its physical counterpart while they should really be understood as being two sides of the same coin (at least the way I understand it). A functioning brain is the material and physical manifestation of consciousness. And human consciousness is what it actually feels like to be that brain (and the body).

The way I see it, they are both inseparable in the same way you can't separate concave from convex, or black from white. They are 2 sides of the same coin.

The only reason you can't find consciousness as an object is that it is not outside of you to objectify. Consciousness is a subjective state by definition. You can never look at your face directly because you are that face. You can use a mirror or film yourself, but you still can never see yourself directly. Similarly, you will never be able to see your consciousness as being outside of yourself. You can at best manage to dissociate yourself from what is going on in your mind, but you are always left with an ultimate ''observer''... or ultimate subject. This is what can't be objectified.

That doesn't mean you can't recognize consciousness in others. All it means is that because consciousness is a subjective reality, you make a mistake in demanding that it be proved real by an objective method. As Karrie said, you can guess some of what is going on in someone's mind by brain scans and biochemical analysis. But the best way to actually know what is going on in someone's mind is to actually ask the person. One consciousness to another. The sharing of thoughts is part of how human consciousness flows in the world and that is exactly what we are doing here right now. It would be ridiculous to reduce all the text in this forum to its physical manifestation. It's much more than that and you know it.

The ''outside'' world isn't more real than our subjective and conscious ''inside'' world. They are both manifestations of one single reality.

Cogito ergo sum is the only proof you will ever need that you are conscious and if that doesn't convince you, I don't know what can.

You can't take a Van Gogh painting and say that all it is is simply arbitrarily distributed pigments on a canvas. It IS that, but it is not only that. The work comes from consciousness and speaks to conscious beings.