Eudaimonic

Couldn't evolution come from creation? Which is derived from consciousness? Consciousness has to come before creation because you cannot create without consciousness. Consciousness --> Creation --> Evolution. For consciousness to exist in the beginning without creation, vastness would have to be able to become conscious of itself, which is what I'm proposing. Living organisms must be conscious because action requires thought, however simplistic.

So, sparked by curiosity I've gone on an epic search for God through critical thinking, here is what I think I have "discovered". Propositions: 1. Consciousness exist. It must exist because I am thinking and thoughts are proof of consciousness. I think therefore I am. 2. Consciousness is the route of creation. I must think, consciously or subconsciously, before I can paint a painting, build a house, lay down a road, chop down a tree, breath or create any action, product, thought or effect my environment in anyway. 3. If am able to concede that other people also do exist, they too must have consciousness because they too create. 4. All things that exist must of been created and must have a source of creation or an origin. 5. Therefore consciousness must have been also created and must have a source. 6. Consciousness must exist outside of the human mind because consciousness is the source of creation and the natural earth was not created by us, therefore must of been created by another consciousness. 7. Before consciousness there must of been no creation and therefore nothing at all or vastness. 8. As one becomes progressively more conscious one is able to create more. Ex. A toddler can create a wooden block house but not an atom smasher, a 30 year old physicist can create a wooden block house and an atom smasher. Theory: "God" is the source or original consciousness. This consciousness came about when vastness became aware of itself. As this source consciousness became more aware it was able to create and effect it's environment more. Over a nameless amount of time it had created the universe, the planets, gravity etc and eventually other consciousnesses (Life!) which in turn were able to create, grow in consciousness and effect their environment in a already previously created environment. "God" saw our consciousness as competition to it's previous ultimate power and tried to influence us in order to "deter" our conscious expansion. Represented through "Don't eat the apple guys, you're gonna die!"(Genesis 1:17) or "I'm going to confound your language because you can create anything you imagine like me and I don't want that!"(Genesis 11:6-9) among other various acts that can be argued over. Just some weird thoughts, please tell me if any of this doesn't seem logical to you but so far I cant find holes. Not to be too sure of myself of course I submit this to you. A Secret Identity

It would come from the stolen money of others through taxes which would pay my salary and for the benefits I receive. This is one of the reasons I've rejected joining. But, I still need to go to collage to obtain my own personal goals and help more people in the long run. So, does doing the immoral now for the "greater good" for myself and potentially others trump the immoral act? I would love a third option to my this personal "crisis" but I can seem to find one.

Greetings Freedomain Community! I'm am a 17 year old, and as I reach my last year of public education, I have some decisions to make. I live with my mother and she works a menial $14/Hr job. So we are not exactly financial secure. I have a job but have not saved nearly enough to go to collage, as well I've viewed most of the subjects I'm forced to take as a waste of time (and I have learned MUCH more on my own) so my grades aren't exactly the best, in reality just enough to graduate, except in courses I actually enjoy. So there's not much hope for scholarships. Also I've refused any "financial assistance" from the government on a moral and philosophical stance. So I have no money to go to collage and even if I had the minimal amount needed, I would be in mountains of debt until I'm retiring. I have considered the option of joining the Navy, hoping to take a job within it that would not harm anyone but at the same time would provide me with the money to go to collage as well as benefits to buy a house or start a business. However I've had issues with this because it seems hypocritical to me to join as I am an anarchist and I view taxes (which would pay my salary) and coercion (which the military represents) as completely immoral. At the same time, I NEED collage to get anywhere in this society as well as to pursue my dreams, become credible, expand my knowledge, and to help change the word for the better. In a sense I'm stuck between contradicting my own morals and being able to go to collage for my future success. What should I do? Is joining the Navy moral as long as I take a position that doesn't harm people? Are there other options available to me I'm just not seeing? How much should I let my personal needs trump my ethics? Any response would be greatly appreciated. I wasn't exactly sure whether to post this here or in the Philosophical forum so please excuse any misposting. Thank you again, A Secret Identity.

Dear Freedomain Radio Community, I am a 17 year old from Massachusetts (as an anarchist I tend to stand out like sore thumb, particularly in the free market discussions). Personally, I agree morally with The Non-Aggression Principle, but one specific point in this philosophy on morality in my critical thinking still escapes me. Many of my opposers when I point out the moral stance of Anarchy, weave their way past my moral rebuttals until I reach this one stone wall which I can't seem to look past. I'm hopeful you'll help me to better understand. So, what is this stone wall? Well...let me try to explain best I can with the wonderfully inconsistent education public schooling has brought me and the few books I have been able to read on the off chance I have a few bucks (You have no idea how much information the internet has opened up to me). I have come to the conclusion that morality can be defined by consensuality. If everyone agrees an action to be moral than by consensuality it is. Comparatively if everyone were to consider something immoral then, similarly, by consensuality it is. But if something is considered both immoral by some and moral by others (note I am not using the word "justified" in any of this) than it is neither immoral or moral but simply a personal discretion. I would say then that it is immoral for someone to force someone else to do or not do something they find moral or immoral. So simplistically saying people can do whatever they want. Yet this could constitute definitely immoral acts such as murder. This is the main problem I've been dealing with. If everyone can agree that murder is wrong, those who commit it have violated moral consensus and retaliation against that person is justified. But also if everyone can say that to force someone to do somthing is wrong, then, doing so would constitute retaliation against the person forcing someone else to do or not do something. So by definition this would constitute that by forcing someone NOT to commit murder, you have violated this principle. I may have complexed this a little too far, but then again this subject has been confusing me thoroughly, so I'll try and simplify my question. If some things are definitely immoral and constitute retaliation, including coercing someone to do or not to do a particular action, then couldn't forcing someone not to do something immoral, such as murder, be considered immoral? A response would be extremely helpful to me, morality seems to be a subject that keeps me up most nights. Von Mises liked to quote in his writings that economics was the most complexed art forms, misunderstood tremendously by the masses. Von Mises obviously never dived deep enough into moral theory, economics seems a cake walk to this massive mess. Thank you very much for any response. With considerations, A Secret Identity