There is a God!

[Eudaimonic]

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

[MrCapitalism]

The theory of evolution is a terrible enemy of the true religious, because it argues what is claimed to be the impossible. That creation (or 'design') can occur without conscious input. Your second premise "consciousness is the route of creation" would be invalidated because suddenly creation becomes the route of consciousness (many living organisms cannot be considered conscious, and they are evolutionary ancestors). Your premise then transforms from a) Consciousness --> Creation, to b) Creation --> Consciousness --> Creation, which is reduced to a tautology c) Creation. This reduction invalidates the premise.

 

TLDR, what is your knowledge of the theory of evolution?

[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.

[RicardoMata]

"2. Consciousness is the route of creation. I must think, consciously or unconsciously, 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."

 

I'm confused by this one. You say that consciousness is the route of creation and then you go on to say that you must think consciously or not in order to create which is self-contradictory. Could you please clarify this ?

[Eudaimonic]

 

"2. Consciousness is the route of creation. I must think, consciously or unconsciously, 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."

 

I'm confused by this one. You say that consciousness is the route of creation and then you go on to say that you must think consciously or not in order to create which is self-contradictory. Could you please clarify this ?

 

 

Well I mean when you're "unconscious" you're still thinking in a way, directing your body to do something. I think I meant to use the term subconscious there. Apologies.

[Demosthenes_]

 

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.

 

Many things are created without consciousness. The water cycle (hydrologic cycle) contains no consciousness yet creates puddles, streams, rivers, and can take those all away. If your argument is a sentient consciousness created the earth leading to the water cycle on earth, thus the consciousness still creating the water cycle, then I would argue where did that consciousness (god) come from? The second law of thermodynamics states that all energy is neither lost nor created; everything that exists has and will continue to .Since energy is neither lost or created from nothing and that things can be created from other thing like a rain drop turning into a puddle which neither have consciousness, how does god exist? If in my example that is your argument, then it would be impossible for god to exist because something would have needed to create god since god has a conscious and consciousness can only create consciousness, which would then continue forever. If god created itself then it goes against the law that all energy is never lost or created since god made energy out of thin air to bring itself into existence. You would need to disprove thermodynamics to prove that god could exist. If your argument is incorrect and that nonconscious things could create conscious things which could create god, then why wouldn't it be possible that humans could have come about the same way?

[kahvi]

I'm assuming #2 is supposed to be parallel to a consciousness outside of ours that created everything just like we create things. This has always been a sticking point for me. We do not truly "create" anything for we use pre-existing materials.

[Eudaimonic]

Many things are created without consciousness. The water cycle (hydrologic cycle) contains no consciousness yet creates puddles, streams, rivers, and can take those all away. If your argument is a sentient consciousness created the earth and the water cycle sprang from it, the consciousness did still create the water cycle, then I would argue where did that consciousness (god) come from? The second law of thermodynamics states that all energy is neither lost nor created; everything that exists has and will continue to.Since energy is neither lost or created and that things can be created from things which neither have consciousness, how does god exist? If in my example that is your argument, then it would be impossible for god to exist because something would have needed to create god since god has a conscious and consciousness can only create consciousness, which would then continue forever. If god created itself then it goes against the law that all energy is never lost or created since god made energy out of thin air to bring itself into existence. You would need to disprove thermodynamics to prove that god could exist.

 

I would argue that this source consciousness or "god" created the water cycle as well as anything that "naturally" occurs. As far as the Law of thermodynamics is concerned, at some point what exists now must have been created. To say otherwise would be illogical and could confirm the christian belief that god has always existed but was never created. That's where I talk about vastness becoming conscious of itself. If vastness became conscious of itself, however minute the conscious awareness was, consciousness could therefor create consciousness and then expand to eventually create everything else. The fact that in our current conscious state we can't add or subtract matter to the universe doesn't mean this source of consciousness could not because in our current state we would not be able to image how we could do it such as the toddler couldn't imagine how to create the atom smasher without first becoming more conscious. We still, through consciousness, create. The fact that we did not create the "natural world" suggests that there has to be some other source of consciousness that did. This may be the source of all creation, otherwise defined as "god".

[MrCapitalism]

Consciousness has to come before creation because you cannot create without consciousness.

Yes, you can. I gave you the evidence of evolution. You addressed evolution with a rhetorical question, followed by restating your premise. But your premise cannot be accepted since I already provided evidence against it.

[Eudaimonic]

Yes, you can. I gave you the evidence of evolution. You addressed evolution with a rhetorical question, followed by restating your premise. But your premise cannot be accepted since I already provided evidence against it.

 

I'm saying evolution is the indirect creation of consciousness. So if I build a factory and it creates pollution, I indirectly created that pollution so if I had not created the factory through my consciousness, the pollution would of never existed. The seemingly random acts of evolution can only come from living organisms reproducing but would not of existed without the original creation of living organisms.

[MrCapitalism]

I'm saying evolution is the indirect creation of consciousness.

How do you know?

[Eudaimonic]

Because for something to exist is must of been created. Since we cannot create without consciousness you can say consciousness is needed to create. So what exist must of been made through consciousness in some way shape or form whether directly or indirectly. The source of the original consciousness which lead to the creation of all things is "god".

[Belluavir]

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

 

Your first presupposition is that 'God' (capitalized for some reason) is a valid thing to 'search' for. You haven't defined God or even justified why you've used a singular. Not saying that these things are wrong, but it's a better starting point.

 

1. Can't argue with that.

 

2. Okay so what do you mean by creation? Is that *poof*ing things into existence that didn't exist before? Is that taking existing things and altering them to meet a particular end?

Robots can do that and they don't have consciousness.

 

3. Or they could be robots? Biological robots programmed by abusive parents, brain frazzling drugs and oppressive education. Maybe they're not actually conscious, I mean, they walk around and they go to work and function and all that but when you try to talk to them its like talking to a chat bot.

I'm not saying that this is actually the case, but its a possibility, .001% maybe. But you use the word must when this point is built upon the shaky ground of the previous point. Again, my argument here does not necessarily invalidate yours.

 

4. How do you know that? None of your previous points suggest that, there is no evidence that I'm aware of brought forward by the scientific community that suggests that. This point perhaps sheds some light on your definition of creation, if creation can include such things as the formation of the structures of the universe, then that certainly does not require consciousness. We understand quite a bit about how things like stars and planets and solar systems come to be, even if we can't observe them directly. We understand enough about the universe to where we can make predictive models. Some things we can test directly, some things we can observe as they happen and other things that have already happened we can still know about because of extrapolations based on our understanding which also conforms to bits and pieces of data left over from the past. From that a scientific theory is born and we can use that to make predictions about future events, and as those unfold it sheds even more light on our past.

 

5. This supposition is invalid, see above.

 

6. Consciousness does indeed exist outside of the human mind. Other animals exhibit signs of consciousness. The rest of your supposition is invalid however. I think you're fundamentally missunderstanding how the natural world functions, and that it does so without consciousness. Unlike other animals, non-living matter does not exhibit signs of consciousness.

 

7. This supposition is invalid, see above.

 

8. Agreed, but I don't get what the point of this one is. I'm kind of responding as I go here so maybe that will become more clear in the upcoming long bit. This isn't a criticism of your argument but you're example isn't very good, no one person is capable of producing a particle accelerator. I just can't see an astro physicist mining his own iron, driving his own train to his own foundry, etc. etc. etc.

 

The Long Bit: When vastness became aware of itself? So... basically, *poof* magic, is what you're saying. Are you sure you can't see any holes in this? None of this vast paragraph has any basis. Even if your previous eight suppositions were correct, you'd still be a long way off from proposing a specific deity, you might be able to pull off some deist shit or a Joe Rogan acid trip but that's about it. You've got nothing, there's no saving this line of reasoning (if you can call it that), cut your losses and start over.

[MrCapitalism]

Because for something to exist is must of been created. Since we cannot create without consciousness you can say consciousness is needed to create. So what exist must of been made through consciousness in some way shape or form whether directly or indirectly. The source of the original consciousness which lead to the creation of all things is "god".

So God exists, because God exists. Any evidence pointing to the non-existence of God is invalid because it is a product of God's creation, necessitating the existence of God.

 

Okay.

[Eudaimonic]

Your first presupposition is that 'God' (capitalized for some reason) is a valid thing to 'search' for. You haven't defined God or even justified why you've used a singular. Not saying that these things are wrong, but it's a better starting point.

 

1. Can't argue with that.

 

2. Okay so what do you mean by creation? Is that *poof*ing things into existence that didn't exist before? Is that taking existing things and altering them to meet a particular end?

Robots can do that and they don't have consciousness.

 

3. Or they could be robots? Biological robots programmed by abusive parents, brain frazzling drugs and oppressive education. Maybe they're not actually conscious, I mean, they walk around and they go to work and function and all that but when you try to talk to them its like talking to a chat bot.

I'm not saying that this is actually the case, but its a possibility, .001% maybe. But you use the word must when this point is built upon the shaky ground of the previous point. Again, my argument here does not necessarily invalidate yours.

 

4. How do you know that? None of your previous points suggest that, there is no evidence that I'm aware of brought forward by the scientific community that suggests that. This point perhaps sheds some light on your definition of creation, if creation can include such things as the formation of the structures of the universe, then that certainly does not require consciousness. We understand quite a bit about how things like stars and planets and solar systems come to be, even if we can't observe them directly. We understand enough about the universe to where we can make predictive models. Some things we can test directly, some things we can observe as they happen and other things that have already happened we can still know about because of extrapolations based on our understanding which also conforms to bits and pieces of data left over from the past. From that a scientific theory is born and we can use that to make predictions about future events, and as those unfold it sheds even more light on our past.

 

5. This supposition is invalid, see above.

 

6. Consciousness does indeed exist outside of the human mind. Other animals exhibit signs of consciousness. The rest of your supposition is invalid however. I think you're fundamentally missunderstanding how the natural world functions, and that it does so without consciousness. Unlike other animals, non-living matter does not exhibit signs of consciousness.

 

7. This supposition is invalid, see above.

 

8. Agreed, but I don't get what the point of this one is. I'm kind of responding as I go here so maybe that will become more clear in the upcoming long bit. This isn't a criticism of your argument but you're example isn't very good, no one person is capable of producing a particle accelerator. I just can't see an astro physicist mining his own iron, driving his own train to his own foundry, etc. etc. etc.

 

The Long Bit: When vastness became aware of itself? So... basically, *poof* magic, is what you're saying. Are you sure you can't see any holes in this? None of this vast paragraph has any basis. Even if your previous eight suppositions were correct, you'd still be a long way off from proposing a specific deity, you might be able to pull off some deist shit or a Joe Rogan acid trip but that's about it. You've got nothing, there's no saving this line of reasoning (if you can call it that), cut your losses and start over.

 

Your first presupposition is that 'God' (capitalized for some reason) is a valid thing to 'search' for. You haven't defined God or even justified why you've used a singular. Not saying that these things are wrong, but it's a better starting point.

 

1. Can't argue with that.

 

2. Okay so what do you mean by creation? Is that *poof*ing things into existence that didn't exist before? Is that taking existing things and altering them to meet a particular end?

Robots can do that and they don't have consciousness.

 

3. Or they could be robots? Biological robots programmed by abusive parents, brain frazzling drugs and oppressive education. Maybe they're not actually conscious, I mean, they walk around and they go to work and function and all that but when you try to talk to them its like talking to a chat bot.

I'm not saying that this is actually the case, but its a possibility, .001% maybe. But you use the word must when this point is built upon the shaky ground of the previous point. Again, my argument here does not necessarily invalidate yours.

 

4. How do you know that? None of your previous points suggest that, there is no evidence that I'm aware of brought forward by the scientific community that suggests that. This point perhaps sheds some light on your definition of creation, if creation can include such things as the formation of the structures of the universe, then that certainly does not require consciousness. We understand quite a bit about how things like stars and planets and solar systems come to be, even if we can't observe them directly. We understand enough about the universe to where we can make predictive models. Some things we can test directly, some things we can observe as they happen and other things that have already happened we can still know about because of extrapolations based on our understanding which also conforms to bits and pieces of data left over from the past. From that a scientific theory is born and we can use that to make predictions about future events, and as those unfold it sheds even more light on our past.

 

5. This supposition is invalid, see above.

 

6. Consciousness does indeed exist outside of the human mind. Other animals exhibit signs of consciousness. The rest of your supposition is invalid however. I think you're fundamentally missunderstanding how the natural world functions, and that it does so without consciousness. Unlike other animals, non-living matter does not exhibit signs of consciousness.

 

7. This supposition is invalid, see above.

 

8. Agreed, but I don't get what the point of this one is. I'm kind of responding as I go here so maybe that will become more clear in the upcoming long bit. This isn't a criticism of your argument but you're example isn't very good, no one person is capable of producing a particle accelerator. I just can't see an astro physicist mining his own iron, driving his own train to his own foundry, etc. etc. etc.

 

The Long Bit: When vastness became aware of itself? So... basically, *poof* magic, is what you're saying. Are you sure you can't see any holes in this? None of this vast paragraph has any basis. Even if your previous eight suppositions were correct, you'd still be a long way off from proposing a specific deity, you might be able to pull off some deist shit or a Joe Rogan acid trip but that's about it. You've got nothing, there's no saving this line of reasoning (if you can call it that), cut your losses and start over.

 

1. Yay!

 

2. Defined creation means the act of making or producing something that did not exist before. Well if you think about it, things must of at one point *poof*ed into existence. How could things have always existed? Yes it is true that the lumber for my house and the rocks for my roads existed previously, but the house did not exist previously and neither did the roads.

 

3. You conceded at the beginning that consciousness exists and that it is an invariable truth that you must think consciously subconsciously before preforming an action. Even breathing we are subconsciously controlling.

 

4. Because to say otherwise is illogical. You did not exist a certain amount of years ago, neither did the earth or the universe. Everything that has been created must of been created by something else. Consciousness itself must too have been created, I would say by itself by becoming aware of nothing. We only understand that certain things come from other things but we do not understand where originally everything comes from, if we did religion would not exists or be debated. What I am saying is that the source of all creation must be consciousness because we are not able to create without consciousness. The idea of the "self creating robots" you talked about earlier came from the conscious mind of an individual who created them by first think about them. 

 

5. This is then valid

 

6. I'm not saying the effects of the natural world as they are now are directed by a consciousness but that they were the indirect cause of creation.

 

7. This is then valid

 

8. The point does get explained below

 

Again at some point it would have to have been *poof* magic, though it was probably a little more complex than that. I do think that last bit was just a weeee bit offensive, I'm simply throwing out ideas and trying to answer the rejections.

So God exists, because God exists. Any evidence pointing to the non-existence of God is invalid because it is a product of God's creation, necessitating the existence of God.

 

Okay.

 

Again, what I am proposing, is that In the beginning there was nothing. Nothing became aware that it was nothing. The awareness that it was nothing created consciousness in a very very simplistic way. This original consciousness expanded its knowledge (or consciousness) as well as it's ability to create, however simplistically the knowledge started out, which lead to all other creation, whether directly or indirectly, including our own consciousness which we use now also use to create and effect out environment.

Sorry for all that multiquoting there...

[Belluavir]

1. Yay!

 

2. Defined creation means the act of making or producing something that did not exist before. Well if you think about it, things must of at one point *poof*ed into existence. How could things have always existed? Yes it is true that the lumber for my house and the rocks for my roads existed previously, but the house did not exist previously and neither did the roads.

 

3. You conceded at the beginning that consciousness exists and that it is an invariable truth that you must think consciously subconsciously before preforming an action. Even breathing we are subconsciously controlling.

 

4. Because to say otherwise is illogical. You did not exist a certain amount of years ago, neither did the earth or the universe. Everything that has been created must of been created by something else. Consciousness itself must too have been created, I would say by itself by becoming aware of nothing. We only understand that certain things come from other things but we do not understand where originally everything comes from, if we did religion would not exists or be debated. What I am saying is that the source of all creation must be consciousness because we are not able to create without consciousness. The idea of the "self creating robots" you talked about earlier came from the conscious mind of an individual who created them by first think about them. 

 

5. This is then valid

 

6. I'm not saying the effects of the natural world as they are now are directed by a consciousness but that they were the indirect cause of creation.

 

7. This is then valid

 

8. The point does get explained below

 

Again at some point it would have to have been *poof* magic, though it was probably a little more complex than that. I do think that last bit was just a weeee bit offensive, I'm simply throwing out ideas and trying to answer the rejections.

 

Again, what I am proposing, is that In the beginning there was nothing. Nothing became aware that it was nothing. The awareness that it was nothing created consciousness in a very very simplistic way. This original consciousness expanded its knowledge (or consciousness) as well as it's ability to create, however simplistically the knowledge started out, which lead to all other creation, whether directly or indirectly, including our own consciousness which we use now also use to create and effect out environment.

Sorry for all that multiquoting there...

 

But all you've got is a hypothesis! You haven't done any of other other work! You certainly haven't sought to disprove it either . You're going around and around in these circles of just insisting that X is true therefore Y is also true, without having actually proven X, not even a tinge of evidence, nor a hint or a shadow. Complete, thorough, utter unsubstantiation.  And there's no curiousity in this as you first claimed, no seeking answers to challenging questions, you're trying to come up with post-hoc rationalizations for what you already believe.

 

I'm going to try to go over this again to make it more clear.

 

2. It's more helpful to be concise with definitions rather than using leading questions to further a point. I presented two possible definitions of creation and you make it seem like you agree with both of them. The act of making or producing something that did not exist before could fall in line with the magic based definition. 1 or more atoms which did not exist before in any way, now exist, thus they have been created. That is different than creation meaning reforming existing matter into a different shape, which again does not require consciousness. A definition that adds intent, that the matter was formed to serve a function, is a definition that necessarily requires consciousness, the other two presented above do not.

 

3. Jellyfish are not conscious, they have no brain, yet they eat, breath, swim around, hunt, form into collectives, reproduce. Consciousness is not a prerequisite for a living creature to perform work.

 

4. You've largely ignored my argument here which is frustrating.

 

No, we don't know where the universe came from. What that means is that we don't know where the universe came from. It does not logically follow that an extreme complexity arises from nothing and is responsible for it. This proposition raises not only the same questions that its supposed to answer, but it raises quite a few new ones, what's the point? And more importantly, there's no reason to consider it as a possibility because it's based on nothing but the whimsy of a layman. 

 

5. Nope, sorry, you've made no progress towards proving your assertions.

 

6. Ah so I was wrong. You know what the thing I was wrong about and what you actually meant have in common? They're completely baseless, senseless and useless.

 

7. Not even close.

 

8. You keep saying 'has to' and 'must have' but you offer no reason for this assertion. The origin of the universe is an unknown and these idle musings put us no closer to solving it.

 

All you've done so far is restate your position. Reword some things, incorporate some language from other people's arguments, including mine, into your response without understanding what they're talking about and then just restate what you already said. This isn't curiousity, this is a tactic.

[TheRobin]

If all that exists must have been created, then god must've been created too (and so must the god that created him and so on and so on...).

[Jot]

 

 

Again, what I am proposing, is that In the beginning there was nothing. Nothing became aware that it was nothing.

This is what your whole theory rests on, you cannot go any further without supporting this claim with logical and empirical arguments.

I am not aware of any theory that points back to creation 'ex-nihilo' 

[Wesley]

Consciousness or life is certainly not necessary for creation.

 

Life is simply created by the proximity of the right chemicals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

You also need to recognize that nothingness is not really the same in physics as it is in philosophy.

 

This article explains it pretty well: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/08/16/the-physics-of-nothing-the-phi/

 

In the end, it is certainly not necessary for a consciousness to create things.

 

It is certainly impossible for something inherently contradictory in nature or scientifically impossible to have done so.

[Demosthenes_]

Because for something to exist is must of been created. Since we cannot create without consciousness you can say consciousness is needed to create. So what exist must of been made through consciousness in some way shape or form whether directly or indirectly. The source of the original consciousness which lead to the creation of all things is "god".

 

I would argue that this source consciousness or "god" created the water cycle as well as anything that "naturally" occurs. As far as the Law of thermodynamics is concerned, at some point what exists now must have been created. To say otherwise would be illogical and could confirm the christian belief that god has always existed but was never created. That's where I talk about vastness becoming conscious of itself. If vastness became conscious of itself, however minute the conscious awareness was, consciousness could therefor create consciousness and then expand to eventually create everything else. The fact that in our current conscious state we can't add or subtract matter to the universe doesn't mean this source of consciousness could not because in our current state we would not be able to image how we could do it such as the toddler couldn't imagine how to create the atom smasher without first becoming more conscious. We still, through consciousness, create. The fact that we did not create the "natural world" suggests that there has to be some other source of consciousness that did. This may be the source of all creation, otherwise defined as "god".

 

If by created you mean manipulated, sure. Why wouldn't it mean nonconsciousness is naturally manipulated to create consciousness? We cannot make the argument that something can be created from nothing since that does not exist anywhere which we have studied, thus the claim could not be backed up by evidence. If a vastness is becoming conscious of itself or of anything, then at a time it would not have been conscious at all. Before I was sperm I was carbohydrates, proteins and lipids, then synthesized into sperm. I was created from nonconscious by nonconscious into a conscious. The bodies mechanics are not conscious, or at least we have no evidence of consciousness outside of the human mind, though the human body is reactionary to the outside such as repairing a cut or fighting viruses. Our bodies are a mechanism, like a factory, in that the parts of the body do something which manipulate other parts such as arteries pumping blood, but veins are not conscious nor is blood. A factory can create cars on its own if it is given the parts, just as how I was created into sperm, yet the factory is not conscious.

 

If something exists now and must have been created and god exists now, he would have been created. If God always existed, does today, and was not created, then why is it that thermodynamics was created and did not also always exist? Thermodynamics can be observed as far as our satellites and telescopes can reach through the light years as well as exists today in our daily lives. Anything we discuss we must have evidence to prove beyond a hypothesis that it exists, and our observations is the minimum we can do for evidence. But for a reason, which I cannot determine, thermodynamics was created, but the one that created thermodynamics was not created. We need evidence for these claims.

 

If only consciousness can create consciousness, by that law god could not have always existed as a conscious being. The law that something can only exist if it was created, yet god exists without being created and is conscious is contradictory. A being which was everything but was not conscious and then became conscious does not prove that consciousness only come from consciousness, it suggests that consciousness evolved from nonconsciousness. If you are saying god is outside of the laws of nature, on what grounds do you have evidence of this? My parents created me, yet live by the same laws as I do. By that matter, everything we experience and ever have experienced lives by the same laws as I do. Since that is true, and if god is outside of the same laws which I experience, I do not experience god and thus did not create me.

[JohnH.]

Something from nothing as explained by Lawrence Krauss.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X5OetLdQPw

[higginsp]

2. Defined creation means the act of making or producing something that did not exist before. Well if you think about it, things must of at one point *poof*ed into existence. How could things have always existed? Yes it is true that the lumber for my house and the rocks for my roads existed previously, but the house did not exist previously and neither did the roads.

 

I think this analysis indicates some logical-conceptual confusion.

 

To ask "How could things have always existed?" is to misapply the concepts of 'time' and 'existence.' The way you phrase this sentence implies that 'time' is outside of existence, and existence occurs within time. This is backwards. Time is a measurement of motion. It is not a 'thing' apart from that which exists. Your question thus rests on faulty premises: existence did not suddenly 'poof' into time. Existence is literally eternal insofar as 'time' is a concept without meaning outside of existence.

[Bel Rick]

You don't need a conscious to create.So your views fail at point 2.Lots of items are created without conscious, from fire to life, a brain is not required for life.

[Pepin]

Consciousnesses arising out of natural selection over a long period of time is an expected result, as awareness of the external and internal environment is quite advantageous. To put it this way, the first organism to gain a very limited sense of sight has a great advantage over all the other organisms without sight. All that is required are the formation of crude sense devices, which is likely to occur due to generic mutation, and will be passed down and greatly refined due to selection.

 

The mechanics of consciousness are not understood, which does not matter for this discussion. I point this out because people like to quote neurologists about how they do not understand consciousness, but they refer to the mechanics and not its existence. It is