So, how do we in fact get something from nothing, when in fact nothing is all there is? ... Nay, nor even the slightest potential for something. Wouldn't there at least have to be some sort of basic structure or matrix already there? If so, then how did that get there? Sounds to me like we're speaking about some basic structure which has always been, indeed, a highly intelligent structure. Which is to say, how else could it not be intelligent if, in fact it was the basis for all there is?

Hey, did you know that consciousness is merely the end-result of that which is highly structured? Think about it. How could we possibly do anything, let alone think, without a tremendous amount of structure in our lives? Whereas if these immutable laws that govern this structure have always been, what might it possibly suggest? That the Universe has always been self-aware, and was designed specifically as an outcropping of this?

Well, that certainly dispells any need to ask who created God now doesn't it?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You really have no clue, do you? Take a look around. No, further. Nope, further than that. The only life you see is here on earth, and elsewhere there is the vacuum of space and a veritable speck of matter here and there. There is precious little life to explain, and it really does not look like it was the inevitable outcome of anything. Entropy is the way of the universe, Iacchus; the place moves toward disorder. Just as the movement of water downstream can create eddies that move a small bit of water a short bit upstream, the energy of entropy can produce short-term organization...we are lucky enough to be in a bit of an eddy, so to speak.

As for the organization of the structures of life, it is not merely random, but randomness and natural selection. If you are flipping a hundred coins, keeping the heads and re-flipping the tails, you will soon have all hundred coins, even though each flip is a random process. Natural selection tends (only tends, because there are no absolutes in nature) to keep what is successful, and to discard what does not work. The accumulation of successful mutations (hey, that would be a great user title...), each of which was a chance event, will result in useful structures, and even intelligence.Hey, did you know that you have yet to define consciousness?

Again you speak of immutable laws, even after having been corrected multiple times...Iacchus, you are being extremely closed-minded. With your premise in question, your conclusion of a self-aware universe is faulty as well...although I would love to see what sort of evidence you would have that the universe is self-aware...LOL! I am certain that it does, for you!

Not much point in going any farther than this.

You don't know that we got something from nothing. You have no knowledge of what existed in the nascent universe.

Neither do I, although I'm guessing my knowledge of cosmology is greater than yours. Probably cosmetology too.

I do not hide my lack of knowledge by making claims about "something coming from nothing". Your willingness to make such inventions, then proclaim the correctness of them does not indicate higher intelligence, just greater ego.

Really? Then why is something here, as opposed to nothing? Are you suggesting these aren't the only two choices we have?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

No, I personally don't think chance has anything to do with following the path of least resistence. The path of least resistence -- or, if you prefer, natural selection -- is determined by the structure which is already in effect. Unless of course you're unwilling to admit that structure can only be built upon the structure which preceded it. Hence the notion that something cannot come from nothing.

Look it up in the dictionary. I don't believe I would have any trouble abiding by its definition. Would you? And no, I didn't even bother to look.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, there are any number of possibilities. It is not a "God or nothing" dichotomy. Why put shackles on your mind by limiting your thinking to only two possibilities?

Well, then, you are personally thoroughly ignorant of the copious evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection (which is not at all the same thing as "the path of least resistence") is absolutely not determined by any "structure which is already in effect." If you are going to argue against something, kindly have the courtesy of understanding it and representing it properly first. I would guess that you have been directed to talkorigins.org before...I would guess that you looked there briefly, found a phrase or two--perhaps out of context--that agreed with your preconceived notions, and left without learning a thing. I suggest going back and reading some more...spend a couple of days there, and your arguments here will benefit greatly from your new knowledge.

"Unwilling to admit..."? Iacchus, I will admit it the moment the evidence supports it. The problem is, no such evidence exists. The further problem is that you have opened yourself up to another infinite regress. If structure can only be built upon structure, where did the earlier structure come from? Is it turtles all the way down, or gods all the way up? You didn't bother to look? Why does that not surprise me? It would also not surprise me to find that, if the dictionary did not support your notions, you would have no trouble ceasing to abide by its definition. Just a guess...

My guess is that he would take the dictionary definition and then set to work explaining to us what it actually meant.

Perhaps it is best that he keeps the book shut, then...

Are you saying you don't believe in cause-and-effect then? Well, I'm afraid that's not going to work. There is nothing about this Universe which occurs at random. Granted, things may appear this way, but the true science is in discovering this is not the case. Otherwise, just what the heck is it that Science is supposed to be looking for? ... if, not the foundation which supports its claims?

Exactly! Something cannot come from nothing! So, the backdrop of reality which, is perfection itself (God), is the structure which has always been.

If one of you would like to look up the definition and post it, fine, we can deal with it then. However, I'm surprised that neither one of you have already grabbed at the opportunity? Or, could it be that maybe you just changed your mind? Hmm ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I get it! Your view of science is still based on Newtonian Physics, along with your poor grasp of Occam and burden of proof. I grant that it must be appealing to you, with your fixation on absolutes and ideals, but we have moved on beyond it. Heisenberg? Chaos? QM? Is your understanding of science based on your readings of Swedenborg?LOL you agreed with my reductio ad absurdum!Maybe we are too polite.

Seriously, though, Iacchus, many words are used differently in scientific discourse than in common usage--either slightly differently or markedly differently (e.g., "charmed" quarks). You are the one speaking of consciousness in a manner which confused us...or at least me. Asking you to define it in the context in which you used it is not unheard of. I really wish you would do so. I cannot read your mind, and the dictionary does not know your context, so the only way I can try to understand you is by asking you to provide definitions for the terms you use.

Science is merely a tool for validating things, which is fine, up to the point of those things which it is capable of validating.

Except that if I have to rely exclusively on scientific terms in order to get my point across, then I am essentially admitting that there's no alternative methodology to that which Science upholds. So, if it doesn't need to be explained in scientific terms, why should I?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

True. Science only works on real things.
The reason you need to use scientific definitions is because you are making scientific claims. You are making statements about the composition of the soul, how time works, the origin of the universe etc.

Now if you are telling us that this is just one great big metaphor and that none of it is an actual description of reality, then your "alternate methods" are fine, but of course, they are also, well, metaphors, not reality.

But since you seem to keep trying to jump back and forth between science and poetry, we can never be sure which world you are currently describing.

When the poet says, "Time stands still when I kiss you", he doesn't mean it literally. (Sometimes he doesn't even really mean it figuratively. I've kissed a few poets, and they have been known to lie. )

I have been asking you simply to define "consciousness" as you use the term in our discussions here! I have not asked for a scientific definition, I merely wish a coherent definition! If you wish to define it in some other manner, please do so, and we can proceed from there--either I will understand your definition, or I will not and I will ask for some further clarifications. But your refusal to attempt any definition at all, and to hide behind a smokescreen and claim that I will only accept a scientific definition, is dishonest! Seriously, as it stands there is no way for me (or any other reader, frankly) to know whether you even know what you are talking about yourself! If you cannot explain what the terms you use mean, as you yourself use them, do you know what you are saying?

Do you even want to be understood?

Consciousness is none other than self-awareness, and is that part of me which speaks to you. Now, is that not clear enough?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

On whose terms by the way? Mine or yours? For to be understood on someone else's terms is not to be understood. For example, a cop could understand that I robbed a bank and lock me up and throw me in prison when, in fact I did no such thing. It's just another example of casting your pearls before swine I suppose. Ha ha ha! Sorry, no offense to our law-enforcement folks ... It's not so much that I have anything against cops, just that I try to avoid them. But hey, you do have to be careful when you give somebody the wrong idea.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Oh, how biased of you to say.

And there you have it folks, everyone quickly step aside please, to make room for this monolithic of methodologies, called Science!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Hmm ... What could Science possibly have to do with the number 666? ... Because this is my 666th post, that's what!

While certainly nobody has the right to speak up against the empiricism of Science nowadays do they? Oh well, so much for the notion of trying to sell your ideas to other folks.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

As soon as you have another methodology of validating real things, I'd love to see it operate.

Just so you know, claiming you know things and asking metaphorical questions as to why something should not be true are not methods of validation.

How do you validate what a piece of chocolate cake tastes like unless you taste it for yourself? So, do you think Science truly has the capability of "chewing our meals" for us in that sense? And by all means, please tell me how much more there is to life that isn't like that?

There's your answer right there, in case you're interested.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?