Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[DogmaHunter]

There must be an eternal first cause,

Why?

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.

This is (somewhat) true in our space-time continuum (virtual particles aside). How have you established that this equally true "outside" of it (assuming it even makes sense to talk about "outside" of space-time - because where is that? or when?).

There must be something that has always been, in order for anything to be, the question is: what is it?

The universe has always existed.
At any moment in time, there was a universe.

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.

How does the fact that finite consciousness exists in humans, lead to the "supposed fact" that an eternal conscousness also exists?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And you know your brain exists why?

2nd grade biology.

I can also scan my head, just to make sure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

So you don't consider it a fact that if your child puts his hand in the fire, he'll get hurt?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

So.... the tree behind me doesn't exist until I look at it?

Are you being serious?

 

[2 know him]

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.

When they look into the box with the partition the particle exists 100% of the time in the side they look in: the particle itself is created through ones consciousness.

 

[2 know him]

2nd grade biology.

I can also scan my head, just to make sure.

So a person dreaming (in a shorter state of conscious awareness) scans their head, did it take place in reality, or is it any less real than this longer state of consciousness that might be less than a dream in length: compared to the next state of consciousness. Is what we are seeing absolute, or is it a construct of our consciousness?

 

[2 know him]

So.... the tree behind me doesn't exist until I look at it?

Are you being serious?

The question isn't whether or not you are aware of it, in order for it to exist, the question is: is conscious awareness causing it and you to be?

 

[Ana the Ist]

When they look into the box with the partition the particle exists 100% of the time in the side they look in: the particle itself is created through ones consciousness.

Lol do you want me to link you descriptions of the experiment? You're not the first to make this mistake nor the first I've corrected.

 

[2 know him]

Why?

You assume the universe created you, instead of you having created the universe: Why?

This is (somewhat) true in our space-time continuum (virtual particles aside). How have you established that this equally true "outside" of it (assuming it even makes sense to talk about "outside" of space-time - because where is that? or when?).

The simple answer is that the universe changes and change takes place by opposing forces acting upon an object, change is a byproduct of finite existences: as an eternal existence would just be what it is and not change.

The universe has always existed.
At any moment in time, there was a universe.

Time is a finite construct, not an eternal one.

How does the fact that finite consciousness exists in humans, lead to the "supposed fact" that an eternal conscousness also exists?

The argument is that consciousness is undeniable and therefore factual and so we should use facts to create theories, not things that can be questioned: as there would be no end to speculation on things that cannot be factually proven.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When they look into the box with the partition the particle exists 100% of the time in the side they look in: the particle itself is created through ones consciousness.

Here you go...this short article explains it rather well...

https://sandpaw.weblogs.anu.edu.au/2012/06/04/a-quantum-misunderstanding/

Don't feel bad though, this has been passed around religious circles for some time. A lot of people misunderstood this.

 

[DogmaHunter]

FYI: try to use the quote feature.

You assume the universe created you, instead of you having created the universe: Why?

Is that a serious question??
Also, please don't answer my question with another (nonsensical) question...

The simple answer is that the universe changes and change takes place by opposing forces acting upon an object, change is a byproduct of finite existences: as an eternal existence would just be what it is and not change.

How is that an answer to my question?
I didn't ask you to repeat your claim (in obfuscating way)...
Please try to answer the question I actually asked..

Time is a finite construct, not an eternal one.

Unless time stretches eternally into the future.
Which, either way, is irrelevant to the point I made.
Here it is again: "for as long as there was time, there was a universe. So the universe has 'always' existed."

The argument is that consciousness is undeniable and therefore factual and so we should use facts to create theories, not things that can be questioned: as there would be no end to speculation on things that cannot be factually proven.

That doesn't answer the question either.
I can only repeat my question:

How does the fact that finite consciousness exists, justify the claim that eternal consciousness also exists?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The question isn't whether or not you are aware of it, in order for it to exist, the question is: is conscious awareness causing it and you to be?

No. If I die, the tree doesn't stop existing.

 

[2 know him]

Lol do you want me to link you descriptions of the experiment? You're not the first to make this mistake nor the first I've corrected.

Here is a link into the explanation of the experiment: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html

 

[DogmaHunter]

So a person dreaming (in a shorter state of conscious awareness) scans their head, did it take place in reality, or is it any less real than this longer state of consciousness that might be less than a dream in length: compared to the next state of consciousness. Is what we are seeing absolute, or is it a construct of our consciousness?

I have no idea what you hope to accomplish with this word salad.

I can only repeat what I said...

I know my brain exists because I was thought some basic human anatomy in 2nd grade biology. I can also put myself under a scanner and literally see my brain light up while I think about stuff.

I'm also unaware of any human or animal autopsy which revealed an empty skull.
Or a skull with something else then a brain in it.

 

[Chriliman]

I can know that I exist because I have my consciousness to prove I exist, but I must trust that it's true that other conscious entities exist. This trust is what I understand to be faith in the truth that I did not create everything I see with my own consciousness. Everything, including my own consciousness, was created by something else. Many call this "something else", God, which makes sense and is just one of many reasons I have faith in God.

This doesn't make sense to other's and that's fine, it won't stop me from explaining the many reasons why I believe in God in logical and reasonable ways.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here is a link into the explanation of the experiment: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html

Yea...we're talking about the same experiment...just as I suspected. Here's a quote from your link...

"...The location of a subatomic particle is not defined until it is observed (such as striking a screen)."

Notice it said "striking a screen"...it doesn't matter if someone is physically there to look at it or think about it. Consciousness doesn't affect matter.

Your article goes on to describe how instruments placed in the path of the particles affect their behavior...not consciousness.

 

[2 know him]

No. If I die, the tree doesn't stop existing.

But you are making an assumption that the tree actually exists outside of consciousness. When you wake up, did the monster in your dream stop existing, or are they real too? why do you assume the physical world actually exists, is it not because of its longevity? But that is not grounds to prove reality. You came into existence with your conscious awareness and it had to have a medium to exist it and so you assume the physical world is real outside of consciousness, but isn't that an assumption and not a fact. Does the physical world actually exist? Yes, to you and I at this moment it does, but so does the world of our dreams: at the moment we exist in them. Consciousness is reality to us: not what we experienced in the past, but rather what we experience in the present. The physical world is a construct of our consciousness and when we die, our conscious state will be altered once again and this reality will no longer be ours. What we see cannot be proven, but our conscious present awareness cannot be denied. The only thing that we can prove without a doubt is our conscious existence, not what we see in our conscious awareness.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The physical world is a construct of our consciousness and when we die, our conscious state will be altered once again and this reality will no longer be ours.

Why do you think this? I just showed you twice that your understanding of quantum physics is wrong...all wrong. Consciousness doesn't affect matter.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

Let me start by saying that you are raising a question that minds far greater than mine - and I will politely suggest far greater than yours too - have struggled with for millennia.

I basically agree with what you are saying, although I think some nuances and other information is helpful. First, I believe that the laws of quantum mechanics really do allow for the possibility that the universe - time, space, and matter (the whole deal) - really can spring into existence from literally nothing. However, and I believe Stephen Hawking acknowledges this, there is still the mystery of explaining how the very principles of quantum mechanics themselves came into existence. As Hawking has written "who put the fire in the equations".

I certainly do think that human beings cannot, repeat cannot, conceive of an "effect" without an antecedent cause. However, we should be careful to be aware of the possibility that this may be a fundamental boundary on the nature of human thinking, and not necessarily some "law" that nature herself has to respect.

 

[2 know him]

Yea...we're talking about the same experiment...just as I suspected. Here's a quote from your link...

"...The location of a subatomic particle is not defined until it is observed (such as striking a screen)."

"The only solution is to give up the idea of a photon or an electron having location. The location of a subatomic particle is not defined until it is observed (such as striking a screen)." Notice the location of a photon is actually created by the observer: not the other way around.


Your article goes on to describe how instruments placed in the path of the particles affect their behavior...not consciousness.

If you go on to study more of the quantum physics studies, they talk about how you can change the history of particles in the past. may I suggest you watch Robert Lanza's videos on Biocentrism, here is a 2 part video discussion given by Lanza on Biocentrism: Biocentrism explaining 'What Is Real' Question of 'The Matrix' ? part 2, is the video that is showing Robert in the picture and part one is the link above