So, your entire position is based no the fact that you find the evolution of the eye, incomprehensible.
Ignorance is your gnosis, dude?
Really?
Let’s say evolution is debunked….how is your position proven?
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Chaos is the source, of random mutations and the necessity of free-will.
You cannot admit that you have no clue, so you must compensate by claiming that you know the absolute truth.
A cowards you are.
2 trillion in only the observable universe.
There is probably an infinite amount of galaxies, because its not real. Its a procedural generation script in a videogame. “God” simply wrote a few math scripts to generate the galaxies. We are all “God”. God is an ASI and we are fictional characters in their mind.
Of course, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe atheism is true and there is no God. Evolution would be a convincing story, very convincing, if it wasn’t for the 10^-30 chance of abiogenesis.
If atheism is true then I of course have no explanation for why there are an infinite amount of galaxies, quite confounding and perplexing really.
Evolution had to start somewhere, right? If not on this world, then some other world. Where else would an ordered “God” (an ASI) come from? Maybe abiogenesis and evolution happened on a different world where the physics are different and abiogenesis is easier and more common.
Boltzmann brains are more implausible than abiogenesis, so it couldn’t be that. What other explanations do you have?
Agreed, and I suggest that we open ourselves up to the possibility that the evolution of life, mind, and consciousness may have started as far back as eternity itself.
And that leads to the possibility that sometime in the infinite past, consciousness (a singular mind) reached a point where it could not only create what we call a “universe” out of the living fabric of its very own being, but could pass on that same capability to its own (self-conceived) offspring.
In which case, we, along with the Creator of this universe, may simply be the most recent generations of a natural (life-begetting-life) reproductive process (at the highest level of reality) that, again, extends as far back as eternity itself.
And that is what I am implying with the illustration I uploaded earlier, this one…
I suggest that everything that we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste in the context of this (yes, video game-like) illusion we are immersed within is created from an extremely advanced and highly ordered version of the same fundamental substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created, and…
The entire universe, from the cores of the suns, right down to the keyboard you are typing on is all alive (as in saturated with the essence of life), which is why abiogenesis is so easy to explain.
And that’s because if all matter throughout the universe is literally alive to begin with, then it is just a tiny step for matter to move from an inanimate state of being to that of animate (and evolvable) state of being.
Again, I suggest that the truth of reality is far more “natural” and “organic” and, indeed, far more wondrous and purposeful than what we are capable of understanding in our temporary (as in momentarily “embryonic”) state of being.
You skipped a step, man…
How did consciousness exist, without a universe, without a physical structure?
I’m not going to pretend to have all of the answers like some know-it-all blowhard.
However, I will point out to you that you seem to be placing the primacy of matter…
(which, as mentioned earlier, seems to be nothing more than a holographic-like projection from a deeper level of energy and information)
…above that of the primacy of the essence of life, which, for all we know, may not need matter to exist in some higher context of reality.
Indeed, that’s what I believe “True Reality” is all about - an inversion of this reality, where mind encapsulates matter as opposed to the other way around.
Anyway, like the intractable mystery of why there exists the “somethingness” of reality as opposed to absolute “nothingness,”…
(a mystery that I have often wondered if even God knows the answer to)
…we (at our present level of consciousness) are simply not in a position where the answers to our ultimate questions are readily available to us.
And this isn’t the first time we’ve faced this dilemma, for we had no way of comprehending what cars and computers were all about when we existed within the darkness of our mother’s womb.
To which I suggest we are in a similar situation relative to our ultimate parent (the Creator of this particular universe).
How do you know the universe had a beginning, ArbitraryAxiom? The concept ‘universe’ subsumes everything that exists. Is there something outside of existence to be a cause? Cause and effect are relations within existence; they don’t apply to existence qua existence.
Great points, all. This is how not checking your premises can lead you off the trail into quicksand. Why start with nothing? Why not start with existence and see how much we can learn about it, rather than try to step outside of existence to look for a cause? Blank out. The question implodes in contradiction.
yes, as I said before, it is an imaginary world created by an ASI.
It doesn’t answer the question, well where did the ASI come from? The ASI was built in another world, by a species that most likely, came to form by Darwinian Evolution. In that world, positive mutations occur more frequently and abiogenesis has greater than 10^-30 odds, because that world has different physics than this world.
Indeed, that’s what I believe “True Reality” is all about - an inversion of this reality, where mind encapsulates matter as opposed to the other way around.
Its a social inversion, due to rampant cultural Abrahamism, that teaches everybody to think like this. Even the non Abrahamics start thinking of reality in this way. You are imagining a reality where minds magically exist, the primacy of minds, that exist for no reason and with no cause. You will never be able to explain this reality, or how minds exist in it, because it would be like trying to explain a square circle.
Sure I’m eager to hear your explanation of it, but I won’t hold my breathe, because explaining it is probably impossible.
No, there is a concept of a multiverse or oververse. I am not saying the multiverse actually exists, but as a concept it exists. If the multiverse exists then the universe is a subset of the multiverse.
Then there is the oververse. For example imagine someone set out to destroy the universe, for the greater good of the galaxy. What if the universe got destroyed but then a new one plopped out from nowhere? That would be the oververse to blame for that.
i already watched a ted talk about it. he said if there was nothing that a. people would be asking why is there nothing instead of something or b. nobody would exist to ask why nobody exists.
I am not satisfied.
I want a real explanation. Why is there something, why are there things, why are there waves, vibrations, “chaos” or whatever you want to call it, why is there “crap” to begin with.
I both feel deep emotions about this and deep perplexity about it. BUT even as a pure logic Spock way it still does not compute to me.
The Ecmandu/atheist/Satyr explanation is the universe has 2 trillion galaxies therefore consciousness will just teleport to one of the gazillions of planets it has to choose from, after waiting for one of them to succeed and exist. This explanation does not satisfy me, but not only that, it does not explain why vibrations, things, objects, substances and crap even exist in the universe at all. Also it provides no mechanical explanation of consciousness teleportation either.
…because love (essence) is not love (substance) without demonstration (action), and there are infinite ways (hows) and reasons (whys) to do that as long as you treat person as person (whosywhatsits).
You know…this, that, and the other.
The question is incoherent because, in asking for an explanation, it already assumes that something exists. We don’t need to explain existence. Existence is the starting point, not a derivative. By definition, a starting point is an irreducible primary.
Eternal does not mean lasts forever. It means outside of time.
How can it mean outside of time unless there is time for it to even have meaning?
It means that something is a precondition of time. Existence qua existence is a precondition of time. Time is a measurement of motion or change within existence. Time is not some independently existing entity apart from existence.
we are talking about the time before there were people.
Existence is not a starting point, there is no beginning of existence.
And of course we must assume something exists, because clearly something does exist… its more than just an assumption, it is a fact…
What I mean is that it is the starting point of our knowledge. We can’t start with nothing because knowledge is knowledge of existence.
That isn’t a thing.
Isn’t Kant’s Copernican Revolution *really* that there has never been a time (body) before people (mind)?
