Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:10 pm
[
Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #105JoeyKnothead wrote:As one proposes a "meta consciousness" as a creative force for the universe coming into existence, it merely pushes the question back another step - what caused the causer.
As opposed to what? A cause not having a causer?
JoeyKnothead wrote:Of course then the proponent'll declare it always existed, or came into existence spontaneously. Both're arguments we can place on the universe, without any need for the problems induced by proposing some intelligent creator at the helm.
But that brings us back to an earlier point: if you're going to apply causality to a cosmic creative force, you can't get out of applying it to the universe as well.
Assuming for the sake of argument that nothingness can produce something, let's look at it another way using an analogy popular among atheists:
Suppose that my neighbor says there's an invisible dragon living in his basement. I ask him how he knows it's there if it's invisible, and he assures me that it is without producing any evidence. To settle the issue, I go down to his basement with a big sack of flour and spread it all over so the invisible dragon will leave tracks as it walks around. If no tracks appear, I tell him, there will really be no reason to believe in the invisible dragon.
As soon as I finish, dragon tracks start appearing in the flour. With no conventional way to account for this, how do I continue to argue to my neighbor that there's no invisible dragon?
Something produced by nothing, which is to say existence produced by nonexistence, would be like those dragon tracks. The speculation I'm positing here is that the aforementioned "meta consciousness" might exist metaphysically, as the invisible dragon that makes something "from nothing".
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:59 am
[
Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #107JoeyKnothead wrote:Assuming is a poor way to get at the truth.
Since I was talking about the assumption that you and Transponder have been defending, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.
JoeyKnothead wrote:Ergotism is caused by the Claviceps purpurea fungus.
And that relates to this discussion.......how?
JoeyKnothead wrote:Metaphysics or not, your "meta consciousness" proposal suffers from a lack of confirmatory evidence. You might as well propose Mother Goose laid her a golden egg, and the Giant climbed down the beanstalk and smooshed it, and how bout that, out popped the universe.
A cosmic consciousness is an unproven hypothesis. Something proceeding from absolute nothingness is a logical absurdity. I'm favoring a nonrational idea over an
irrational one.
The fingers actually point at the Theist side. Cosmic consciousness is not just an unproven hypothesis but an intelligent entity that has no origin according to you. Whereas a nothing that acts as something coming from a nothing posits less logical entities than a nothing that becomes something and then an intelligence. Finger points at you.
The dragon analogy fails on two counts -
(1) appeal to unknowns. This is actually very common and is based on assuming the claim as a give. You start with the belief there is a dragon there. Thus just because you didn't see the tracks in the flour or whatever, doesn't mean they didn't appear later.
But logic says that you don't credit the dragon until the evidence is seen. To batter the analogy to a paste, one could check every day or set up cctv. No footprints means there is no dragon. How far can you excuse the lack of evidence for a god?
2nd finger points at you.
(2) Third is anecdotal evidence. Neighbour swears there is a dragon. Fails to produce evidence. Claims of personal experience, Faith or hoping the evidence will turn up is not good evidence nor logical. Sorry, we cannot take his word for it. Third finger points at you.
It comes down to the only argument that is valid - actual evidence for a god. Not appeal to unknowns, not trying to fiddle logical probailities (because Godfaith skews the odds to start with) but evidence the believer has to provide to satisfy the people out there (not the unbelievers here) but hose who are willing to believe -with evidence - but not without the evidence.
Over to you; so far you have as near to nothing as would be perfect for a universe to pop out of.