Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[2 know him]

There must be an eternal first cause, the question is what is it. To explain the opening statement for those who don't understand it, in order for anything to exist it must have come from somewhere, as a void could not produce anything. There must be something that has always been, in order for anything to be, the question is: what is it?

If we are going to try and understand what the eternal looks like, may I suggest we use facts to create any theory: as to use anything that cannot be proven as fact is to theorize about speculative ideas that will lead to faith based ideas and not factual based ideas. It is these faith based concepts that are belittled by science as having no bases in fact and that are rightly scoffed at by reasonable people. Having said that, the only fact we have that cannot be denied, is one's own conscious existence, not what one sees within their consciousness, but rather, the absolute fact that one exists: this is the only thing that one can be sure of.

If our own existence is fact and we are conscious of time as a linear concept, that is evidence of our finite existence. Seeing consciousness is the only fact one has: eternal consciousness is the only theory that is factual and therefore reasonable.

 

[Davian]

There must be an eternal first cause, <snip>

How did you establish that?

 

[Davian]

...
Seeing consciousness is the only fact one has: eternal consciousness is the only theory that is factual and therefore reasonable.

The only "consciousness" that I am aware of is that which is a property of a brain.

How do you define "consciousness" in a way that it can be eternal? What does it use for a brain?

 

[Murby]

There must be an eternal first cause, the question is what is it. To explain the opening statement for those who don't understand it, in order for anything to exist it must have come from somewhere, as a void could not produce anything. There must be something that has always been, in order for anything to be, the question is: what is it?

Remember in grade school math class where they taught the concepts of algebra? Whatever you do to one side of an equation, must be done to the other side as well yes?

If one is to infer the existence of a God by using the argument that the universe could not have come from nothing, one must also apply that same argument to God.

Also, you state that a void could not produce anything.. That's argumentative as we know that galaxies are moving further away from us, not because the galaxies are actually moving, but because new space is popping into existence between the galaxies. That is to say, the "void" is creating more "void". That seems to make your statement incorrect, on that level anyhow.

And just so you know, the answer to the universe really is 42! We can measure the expansion of the universe and it is expanding at about 42 miles per second, per 3.2 million light years.

The fact is, we don't actually know the conditions or events "before".. but that does not infer the existence of a God who then comes to earth and speaks to a bunch of quasi-cavemen who wipe their butts with their hands, enslave others, and have sex with little girls.
(sorry, but I had to paint the proper picture to make my point)

So were does it all come from? We don't know.. and that's OK !

 

[2 know him]

The only "consciousness" that I am aware of is that which is a property of a brain.

How do you define "consciousness" in a way that it can be eternal? What does it use for a brain?

How did you establish that?

And you know your brain exists why?

 

[2 know him]

Remember in grade school math class where they taught the concepts of algebra? Whatever you do to one side of an equation, must be done to the other side as well yes?

If one is to infer the existence of a God by using the argument that the universe could not have come from nothing, one must also apply that same argument to God.

Also, you state that a void could not produce anything.. That's argumentative as we know that galaxies are moving further away from us, not because the galaxies are actually moving, but because new space is popping into existence between the galaxies. That is to say, the "void" is creating more "void". That seems to make your statement incorrect, on that level anyhow.

And just so you know, the answer to the universe really is 42! We can measure the expansion of the universe and it is expanding at about 42 miles per second, per 3.2 million light years.

The fact is, we don't actually know the conditions or events "before".. but that does not infer the existence of a God who then comes to earth and speaks to a bunch of quasi-cavemen who wipe their butts with their hands, enslave others, and have sex with little girls.
(sorry, but I had to paint the proper picture to make my point)

So were does it all come from? We don't know.. and that's OK !

First, I never said the universe could not have come from nothing, I said that in order for anything to exist, there must be an eternal first cause. Again, what we see is not provable, only consciousness is provable and I suggest that what you see is evidence of absolutely nothing: except one's own existence.

 

[Murby]

Again, what we see is not provable, only consciousness is provable and I suggest that what you see is evidence of absolutely nothing: except one's own existence.

Your definition of provable is not the normally acceptable definition. Care to explain?

 

[variant]

And you know your brain exists why?

If you are questioning whether or not your brain exists, you're going to have problem establishing that there are consciousnesses creating universes.

 

[2 know him]

Your definition of provable is not the normally acceptable definition. Care to explain?

The only fact that is beyond question is our existence and thus it is the only provable fact that one has.

 

[variant]

The only fact that is beyond question is our existence and thus it is the only provable fact that one has.

Beyond any question isn't generally the standard of evidence.

 

[2 know him]

If you are questioning whether or not your brain exists, you're going to have problem establishing that there are consciousnesses creating universes.

Have you ever taken a look at any of the quantum physics studies? They took a photon of light and wanted to understand if it traveled as a particle or as a wave and what they clearly observed is that the photon moves as a wave until one becomes aware of it and then in that instance it becomes a particle. The experiment clearly shows that what you see only takes on physical characteristics because of consciousness. In other words, what you see only exists when one observes it and otherwise it doesn't physically exist.

A book written by Robert Lanza explains it more fully and shows how the only way to explain many of the quantum physics experiments is when one understands that what we see is being created by consciousness, not the other way around. The book is called Biocentrism, if you google videos by the same name you will be able to have Robert explain more of the quantum physics studies in more details.

 

[2 know him]

Beyond any question isn't generally the standard of evidence.

If we are not going to use facts to understand anything, we mine as well be taking about our farts.

 

[Davian]

And you know your brain exists why?

Let's try this: You make an effort to answer my questions first, then we take a look at yours.

There must be an eternal first cause, <snip>

How did you establish that?

...
Seeing consciousness is the only fact one has: eternal consciousness is the only theory that is factual and therefore reasonable.

The only "consciousness" that I am aware of is that which is a property of a brain.

How do you define "consciousness" in a way that it can be eternal? What does it use for a brain?

 

[Billybob]

I might be out of date but Steven Hawking's wave function of the universe theory goes into the uncaused universe deal. Buddhists might argue with the Descartes "I think therefore I am" part also. Just kind of playing devil's advocate a little.

 

[2 know him]

I might be out of date but Steven Hawking's wave function of the universe theory goes into the uncaused universe deal. Buddhists might argue with the Descartes "I think therefore I am" part also. Just kind of playing devil's advocate a little.

I think that Hawking's tries to explain the universe as somehow being created by a quirk which exists through a multiple universe theory, but I am not sure, I have heard so many theories from Hawking's that its hard to know what the flavor of the month is with him. I don't know how Buddhists would argue it: I would love to hear how that argument would take place.

 

[Davian]

First, I never said the universe could not have come from nothing, I said that in order for anything to exist, there must be an eternal first cause.
...

Are you an astrophysicist?

 

[Davian]

If we are not going to use facts to understand anything, we mine as well be taking about our farts.

Or our "gods".

 

[Billybob]

I am not an expert at all, but I think the "self" concept is one of the hardest illusions to break through before Buddhist enlightment. How to explain that is way over my head. Nietzsche also had an argument about the I think therefore I am deal. Basically I think Descartes assumed there was someone to think or that thinking was done at all in order to reduce things down to Descartes premise that he existed. Descartes use that to prove God. I am not explaining very well because I don't quite get it. Sorry about that. I think that theory of Hawking's kindof described how the universe and this universe in particular was highly probable to come about uncaused and there is a hyper sphere that is timeless and therefore no cause needed. Again way over my head, but hopefully on topic.

 

[durangodawood]

....I said that in order for anything to exist, there must be an eternal first cause....

You say this with such confidence!
But I dont believe you can actually establish it with anything other than faith.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Have you ever taken a look at any of the quantum physics studies? They took a photon of light and wanted to understand if it traveled as a particle or as a wave and what they clearly observed is that the photon moves as a wave until one becomes aware of it and then in that instance it becomes a particle. The experiment clearly shows that what you see only takes on physical characteristics because of consciousness. In other words, what you see only exists when one observes it and otherwise it doesn't physically exist.

A book written by Robert Lanza explains it more fully and shows how the only way to explain many of the quantum physics experiments is when one understands that what we see is being created by consciousness, not the other way around. The book is called Biocentrism, if you google videos by the same name you will be able to have Robert explain more of the quantum physics studies in more details.

You're misunderstanding that study. Consciousness doesn't affect reality. When they say they "observed" light particles...they mean they used an instrument to measure it's position. You can't actually "see" photons.