Before the Big Bang

SeaPriestess · Post by **SeaPriestess** » Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:01 am

I found this article fascinating as it helped me to understand the basics around Multiverse theory. I was initially curious about arguments against the "Prime Mover" idea. Now that we have a pretty good theory about the energy that existed/exists prior to the big bang, the question is no longer who/what set the big bang in motion but could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?

William · Post by **William** » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 pm

[Replying to post 40 by Divine Insight]

However, this still doesn't change the fact that "the individual" was never anything other than God to begin with.

Yep I covered that. Did you not noticed the link? Let me know if you haven't grasped the idea and I will get back to you on that.

Sorry, but now you are still proclaiming that some entities exist that are "not God" but actual individual sovereign entities that were "created" by God.

Not at all. I clearly stated things so that they couldn't be twisted to suit some skewered straw-man argument.
Check again and get back to me when you see where it is you have muddled what you think I wrote from what I actually wrote.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:39 pm

[Replying to post 41 by William]

So then you agree that there are no "them, they, or others" to refer to here and all that exists in pantheism is God?

William · Post by **William** » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:55 pm

[Replying to post 42 by Divine Insight]

Panenthiesm.

Consciousness is GOD and there is no requirement to identify consciousness in form as 'other than' GOD.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:35 pm

William wrote: [Replying to post 42 by Divine Insight]

Panenthiesm.

Consciousness is GOD and there is no requirement to identify consciousness in form as 'other than' GOD.

That was the point I've been making all along about Pantheism, or Panentheism. I just don't understand why you had a problem recognizing this earlier.

Of course, all this means is that this is the position of Pantheism. This doesn't mean that Pantheism is true.

Why call consciousness "God"?

That is the greater philosophical question.

Why not accept the naturalistic worldview that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain?

At the very least these two ideas are equally valid philosophically. But from a practical perspective the latter actually makes more sense. So between naturalism and pantheism, naturalism is the more rational conclusion to make.

In fact, in Pantheism we need to assume that consciousness can somehow exist without a brain. And we really have no compelling reason to invent that hypothesis. There is no sign in nature that there exists any conscious thought or intent anywhere other than in the activity of brains. And the brains don't even need to be human brains. We can allow that animals also have various levels of consciousness.

In fact, if you stop and think about it naturalism actually makes far more sense.

If humans and animals were "God Consciousness" then why should there be such a wide variation in levels of consciousness, intelligence, and abilities?

Obviously the naturalistic view that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain beautifully answers this question and explains precisely why this should be the case.

The idea that all conscious beings are "God Consciousness" fails miserably to explain why different animals and humans have different levels of consciousness, comprehension, intelligence, and abilities.

So the naturalistic worldview actually wins hands-down over the pantheistic worldview.

Let's face it.

We may wish that pantheism could be true, but the evidence is overwhelming in favor of naturalism where consciousness arises directly from brains and is therefore quite dependent on upon how highly evolved a brain is.

In fact, we know this to be the case. It doesn't matter how hard you try to teach a monkey to think like a human, it can't be done. Why should that be if the monkey's consciousness is "God consciousness" just like a human's consciousness.

It seems to me that the naturalistic worldview is far superior in explanatory power of what we actually observe, while pantheism fails miserably.

And I'm not saying this because I want naturalism to be true. I'm simply pointing out the facts. Naturalism explains the world as we actually see it. Pantheism does not.

William · Post by **William** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:51 am

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

You already know the answer to that question DI.

In fact, naturalism only works IF consciousness is emergent of a brain, and cannot exist outside of a brain and there are no alternate realities consciousness can experience and the universe is the only thing which exists, none of which are verifiable as absolutes, and all of which are still under a question mark.

I could definitely agree with you if not for that.

But even so, as you and I have discussed many times, if the universe is eternal and this particular one we are presently experiencing is just one of an infinite number of versions the universe has and will continue to have forever, consciousness need not be regarded as 'only going to happen in this one version', and there is no reason to think that it cannot have existed eternally along with, and an integral part of the universe. This is the rationality of Panentheism.

Your argument regarding the rationality of the naturalistic worldview is therefore not rational. It is opinion, I'll grant you that, but not rational.

brunumb · Post by **brunumb** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:42 am

[Replying to post 43 by William]

Consciousness is GOD and there is no requirement to identify consciousness in form as 'other than' GOD.

(What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Christopher Hitchens)

Dismissed!

marco · Post by **marco** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:07 am

Clownboat wrote:

Your premise is faulty and unfounded. I find no reason to continue reading further.

I did however, and wish I could have my time back.

Moderator Comment

Well it's beyond the capabilities of moderation to grant that wish, Clownboat, but it were better left unstated since it introduces some incivility. Your comment on the premise, fortified with justification, would have amply sufficed.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:10 am

William wrote: Your argument regarding the rationality of the naturalistic worldview is therefore not rational. It is opinion, I'll grant you that, but not rational.

Sorry, but I gave the reasons why it's perfectly rational. In fact, it so perfectly describes the real world that we could actually say that it has made predictions that actually turn out to be true.

Naturalism says that consciousness is the product of brain activity, therefore it predicts that conscious awareness and abilities should be directly related to how well a brain functions, and on how highly evolved it is.

Well, BINGO! That's exactly what we see in the real world.

For you to say that this is merely my "opinion" is absolute nonsense. You know that what I say is the truth. Yet you avoid facing these facts.

Why?

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:49 am

[Replying to post 1 by SeaPriestess]

Anything is projected before the Big Bang is a believe not a theory. There is no experiment that can be done to observe anything outside of our universe.

So one can believe that the universe is everything and everything is the universe (Pantheism). You can believe that everything is hear by chance movement of energy (naturalism). Or you can believe that God created everything (theism). But all are beliefs.

William · Post by **William** » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 pm

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]

Sorry, but I gave the reasons why it's perfectly rational.

That in itself is not disputed.

Your reasons for believing what you do are no more or less rational than are mine.

Naturalism says that consciousness is the product of brain activity, therefore it predicts that conscious awareness and abilities should be directly related to how well a brain functions, and on how highly evolved it is.

These are of course simply interpretations. The brain is a vehicle, and depending on how the individual brain is, depends on how efficiently it can be used by the individuate consciousness using it.

For you to say that this is merely my "opinion" is absolute nonsense.

No. It is actually the truth of the matter. You are conflating your beliefs as based in facts which have yet to be shown to be absolute, so until that ever becomes the case, your beliefs that the brain is the creator of consciousness is opinion.

Why this is happening with you may have everything to do with your brain being unable to be used effectively for the consciousness that you are to understand itself as anything but being a creation of the brain.

You may know that what I say is possible, yet you are unable to go to that place and see it a such, and 'why' may simply be because of your preferred beliefs and conflating theory with fact.

Is this something individual consciousness has a say in and can willfully override the belief that one is simply a product of the brain, or is such a brain simply an organ which has the dominate position on the matter and the consciousness is unable to say otherwise, even if it wants to?

Debating Christianity and Religion

Before the Big Bang

Before the Big Bang

Re: Before the Big Bang