The Banned said:

---

I've never understood how an unconscious, materialist universe could lead to conscious, immaterial thought. It seems clear to me that if we are capable of conscious thought, the foundations of the universe itself must be capable of consciousness. Add that to the fact that most everyone can agree that something can't come from nothing, and something eternal must exist, I think we're left with either a conscious universe itself or a conscious designer who created it

---

From my perspective, you are still solving the problem by creating other problems. Eternity is a problem. Uncaused cause is a problem.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I've never understood how an unconscious, materialist universe could lead to conscious, immaterial thought. It seems clear to me that if we are capable of conscious thought, the foundations of the universe itself must be capable of consciousness. Add that to the fact that most everyone can agree that something can't come from nothing, and something eternal must exist, I think we're left with either a conscious universe itself or a conscious designer who created it

---

From my perspective, you are still solving the problem by creating other problems. Eternity is a problem. Uncaused cause is a problem.

---

I don't agree, but I think you make a valid point. What about consciousness?

Quote:

---

The Occam's Razor principle only favors your position if you have a priori decided that there is an intentional personal supernatural Creator God . For anyone that does not share that presupposition, the Creator God answer replaces one question with a dozen equally complicated questions.

---

I'd say that it answers more than one question, because every single physical law obeyed by the universe falls into the bucket separately. The speed of light, gravitational constant, rules of momentum and intertia, equal and opposite reactions, conservation of energy and mass, planck distance, absolute zero temperature, and on and on. So I think saying that a rational being created and enforces these laws resolves all of these. You are right of course that the presence of an creator/enforcer not bound by time and space brings up an entire host of other questions, but I'm not sure the explanation creates more problems than originally existed

The Banned said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

I've never understood how an unconscious, materialist universe could lead to conscious, immaterial thought. It seems clear to me that if we are capable of conscious thought, the foundations of the universe itself must be capable of consciousness. Add that to the fact that most everyone can agree that something can't come from nothing, and something eternal must exist, I think we're left with either a conscious universe itself or a conscious designer who created it

---

From my perspective, you are still solving the problem by creating other problems. Eternity is a problem. Uncaused cause is a problem.

---

I don't agree, but I think you make a valid point. What about consciousness?

---

If the options are

1. Consciousness can come from an unconscious material universe.

2. Consciousness requires a conscious universe or creator.

I don't know how you even go about trying to answer or prove either option. I'm not certain that an experiment could be set up to prove 1. And I think that people that go with option 2 do so because it fits in with the a priori acceptance of a creator God rather than some independent evidence.

I see this as the same as the question of existence. The response you get from people is likely nothing more than extrapolation from other already accepted beliefs.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Occam's Razor principle only favors your position if you have a priori decided that there is an intentional personal supernatural Creator God . For anyone that does not share that presupposition, the Creator God answer replaces one question with a dozen equally complicated questions.

---

I'd say that it answers more than one question, because every single physical law obeyed by the universe falls into the bucket separately. The speed of light, gravitational constant, rules of momentum and intertia, equal and opposite reactions, conservation of energy and mass, planck distance, absolute zero temperature, and on and on. So I think saying that a rational being created and enforces these laws resolves all of these. You are right of course that the presence of an creator/enforcer not bound by time and space brings up an entire host of other questions, but I'm not sure the explanation creates more problems than originally existed

---

All of those can be resolved by the physical nature of the universe itself. How does appealing to a non-physical force answer the existence of physical constants?

Quote:

---

All of those can be resolved by the Physical Nature of the Universe Itself

---

This is how this reads in my head. Can you please define "the physical nature of the universe itself"?

Is anyone else comfortable with the idea that we have no idea how this thing got started? Or if it was created by a supreme being, we have no idea what they believe or want from us?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Is anyone else comfortable with the idea that we have no idea how this thing got started? Or if it was created by a supreme being, we have no idea what they believe or want from us?

---

I mean. . . . as comfortable as I can be, I guess. I think that I'd like to know what is true.

I like to tell my children to try to understand what is going on around them, but to focus on what they can control - ie their actions.

I do not get to demand that the supreme being should reveal themselves or instruct us on what they want. And so discomfort at the idea that I might be acting in opposition to what that supreme being wants does not serve any purpose. I only control how I react to the world I observe and experience. I do not experience the voice of God in my head. And I do observe 8 billion people with who proclaim one of hundreds of thousands of versions of God in their head. My conclusion is that the voice of God in their head is either not reliable or else God tells different people different things. If there is a supreme being who wants me to know something, then they understand how to tell me what they want me to know in a manner I will believe and understand.

And its as simple as that. I see no reason to worry about what God wants unless God chooses to tell us what they want.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Is anyone else comfortable with the idea that we have no idea how this thing got started? Or if it was created by a supreme being, we have no idea what they believe or want from us?

---

I mean. . . . as comfortable as I can be, I guess. I think that I'd like to know what is true.

I like to tell my children to try to understand what is going on around them, but to focus on what they can control - ie their actions.

I do not get to demand that the supreme being should reveal themselves or instruct us on what they want. And so discomfort at the idea that I might be acting in opposition to what that supreme being wants does not serve any purpose. I only control how I react to the world I observe and experience. I do not experience the voice of God in my head. And I do observe 8 billion people with who proclaim one of hundreds of thousands of versions of God in their head. My conclusion is that the voice of God in their head is either not reliable or else God tells different people different things. If there is a supreme being who wants me to know something, then they understand how to tell me what they want me to know in a manner I will believe and understand.

And its as simple as that. I see no reason to worry about what God wants unless God chooses to tell us what they want.

---

That is fair enough. I would like to know the truth as well but I believe it's beyond our comprehension or ability to know at this point.

I think thats probably true.

Old woman or young woman?