Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache  Consciousness is not a mechanism. Complexity implies moving parts, how the gears mesh. I don't know what god is but I know what god is not ie a machine or physical object. To objectify the designer with words like "complex" or "simple" is not to grasp the concept of a designer. However, the alternative explanation that the designer provides is a lot simpler than a coincidence which is highly improbable.
I simply meant that you cannot completely explain what I am through the theory of evolution alone. |
I will lay it out easy for ya.
There was nothing, no time and no space. There's no way anything "complex" can be performed in this "nothingness". There is no foundation even for something "simple" to happen, afterall there is no time and no space. But... think about this. One thing and one thing only could happen, it requires no time, and it requires no space, no complexity, nothing to be initiated. It isn't anything "simple" or of the sort, it is not a concept or a thought - it just happens. Randomness (note: not coincidence). It requires
nothing, in this sense it surely is rather illogical and works against what can be measured in our human sense - but seen at this level it is also the most simple, yet fundamental and
obvious solution.
Tragically, the common notion of a "God" is pictured as something human, something with a mass or body. For some, the idea that there was nothing or "yadda yadda something" before God and then after God, "bam! humans come alive and Jesus was sent to Earth" is quite enough. Creating the world in seven days, yes, a designer. But there's a
stop in this logic! Hey, what created "God"? What was before him, did someone design him too? If someone did create him we just get the same question; who created that fella? But people foresee this, something divine is an "explanation in itself" and no more logic is desired - tell me, why is the idea of a randomness less logical than "Bam! There God was"? If anything that's not only random but also silly. I hate to see people dismiss the Big Bang theory because "randomness is illogical and cannot happen", heh, okay....
So obviously a God cannot be something with a human form like Mr. Mustache so friendly informs us. The "concept of God" must be something more towards the sole "consciousness" direction, what else could it be? The only thing without shape or mass that I know of in my petty little human life must be one of those "consciousnessers" [sic]. Now say we wanted to apply this to a "god" or "divine consciousness" (or you can just call it consciousness). A designer created the universe, a consciousness without any constraints of mass or body (compare: space and time, hmm?)
So, let us dig deep into this! But, we must... explain what created this consciousness... uhm... and in your case it
cannot be anything that is RANDOM, because that's just so improbable, isn't it? So, something unrandom created a consciousness, wait a sec, I don't understand... That doesn't only sound illogical but it is otherwise completely unreasonable and impossible unless we throw randomness in there. Or are you trying to say that time is infinite and "it was always there"? Yeah, good luck bringing that argument to the table, it's just as sane as the idea of God being a human being.
So, I will take one more take on this perspective... consciousness doesn't
need to be created, it just is there, once again that cannot be explained but let's move on. So, we have a consciousness, now we need it to be a designer, that was the whole point wasn't it? And you mean to say that a human being (you) cannot be explained through the theory of evolution alone? I am only guessing here but I guess you are referring to your consciousness, your ego, because all other things sure can be explained with the theory of evolution (brain, body, etc., all that have mass, which consciousness seemingly doesn't (?)). Let me ask, what is a consciousness without perception? This "God" didn't see, it didn't have eyes. This "God" didn't imagine, it didn't have a brain. This "God" didn't have touch, it didn't have a mass. Take all of these things away and you have a designer that cannot design! How did you expect something that cannot observe and doesn't have a creative mind to create something? And don't dare to give this consciousness human attributes! And why would you,
consciousness is not relative to a brain and body is it? Quite frankly, as you can see -
it is. It amuses me to think that a consciousness without a brain would be able to think, or have human attributes, be able to see the relation between sun, gravity, and Earth - do you think a consciousness that is unable to store memories or have thoughts could be a designer? In that case this consciousness created everything by random because he simply cannot have a conscious influence on the situation.
Now there's one more question about this all... What about astral projections (AP)? In the astral world you dont have a mass or a body, only a conscious projection (but you can still store memories and have thoughts) - what if that "God" was something like this? Well, maybe, I have no idea (who could, more than philosophe about it like I do now?). The idea is plausible in that context, but that should at most only be able to mean that a consciousness created an astral world to begin with, and how this "Earth" that we humans in mass-constrained-form look at was created in relation to the astral world - well I have no idea. Maybe Erin has more ideas on that than I do, maybe even Steve Pavlina could think of something (but I doubt he'll claim anything other than that he's observing his creation, so whatever
).
To finish, is a randomness so "highly improbable"? Given my deductions it is the only (and therefore simplest and most possible) "action" that can happen in a world without time and space. On the other hand, I seriously see no arguments that a "designer" is somehow "simpler" or that it would make "more sense" - both seem inane at first and second and third glance and truly show no consistency or logic. But in its own context then randomness could be plausible, and I guess if you wanna be stubborn then there's always the excuse of a "God" (just as randomness sound as an excuse for the Big Bang, I totally realize that myself!) - but the real interesting thing in all of this is that we, humans, can observe effects of some sort of "Big Bang", whilst a designer leaves no marks.
Conclusions:
1. A consciousness was randomly created and randomly created the universe. or
2. Randomness created a flix flax flux (interesting note: flax is a synonym for "luck" in Sweden, hehe 
) and Big Bang was initiated.
If someone have an alternative to these conclusions or see a fault in the premises and arguments then please tell me so. Otherwise we should be able to agree that either of these should have happened, no? (without bringing in the Astral World, please)