However - the question of "where did the creator come from" is an illogical one, because creation denotes time, and time is a creation. The creator of time has always existed.

Where then, does consciousness arise from?

Honestly your claim just replaces the notion of 'God' with a concept of consciousness. Therefore there is no more substance to your claim as there are to the ones which you reject.

The same reasoning applies.

Awareness is a circular concept. For one to know that they are aware, then they must be aware that they know.

To know, there must be knowledge of. For there to be knowledge of, there must be experience to be reasoned to gain such knowledge of this awareness.

Therefore consciousness itself is impossible before there is anything to be aware of.

Well, I suppose the claim could be made that consciousness is uncontained, and therefore free of all physical form.

That would require a brand new definition, though.




I have found that the concept of consciousness has yet to be clearly defined or determined, and therefore, every logical inadequacy within the concept would also apply to any given construct based upon such a premise.

Regarding your preference in the definitions...

The totality of conscious states necessarily implies more than one. If there is more than one state, then what is the distinction regarding the differences?

Allow me to answer that for you...

Different products of physiological constructs. Life.


Take your time.

Oh yeah,

My point in this thread is to help you to open the mind that words have closed...

What realization could music(consciousness) possibly have without the instruments(life) from which the music comes?

It would have about as much reality as awareness would without anything to be aware or anything to be aware of.

I wanna make an apple pie, what then do I need for this apple pie?

Ingredients!!!

Which must be first!

What are the ingredients for awareness?



Damn sarcasm rubs off, does it not.

Take your time.

Ok...

That would be my ego...

Still wanna play that game?

Is this still the case?

Or perhaps it could be below... once again!

Ok James,

Now you can say that I allowed my ego to come into play!

Do you perceive the difference, or are you still unaware of it?

If you can describe awareness(consciousness) logically without using elements and/or principles which originate from life, then you may be able to effectively make a sound claim that it existed before life.

Until then, your argument is no more soundly supported than any other religion which necessitates the acceptance of an eternal existence of a concept, in some way, shape, or form.

All you have done is replace 'God' with consciousness.



Could you bring something new to the table?

I'm hungry.

I only know that you are the one who is always bringing up the notion of ego.

So for that reason alone it appears to me that you have well-established that ego arises from you.

Why you have suddenly become this way I don’t know. You never used to be like that.

As to the questions from the OP,...


1.Consciousness arises from life.

2. Life arises from consciousness.

3. A separate creator, the "All Mighty God" created everything.

I’ve stated before that these are the only real three possibilities.

1. Atheism - Consciousness arises from life.

2. Pantheism – Life arises from consciousness.

3. Dogmatic religions – There exists an external Godhead or gods.

From my point of view #3 has no serious support. There isn’t any dogma on planet earth anywhere that would suggest at truly intelligent Godhead. All of the dogmas that make such claims portray seriously inept picture of very unwise and lame Gods that could not possibly be wise enough to have created this universe. And then there’s the additional fact that all these dogmas are grossly self-inconsistent anyway.

So if there is an external Godhead we can be sure that we don’t have any doctrine that came from that God. Nor do we have any other evidence that such a God exists. We can’t rule it out entirely, but we can rule out doctrines that claim to be from any such Godhead based entirely on their own absurd claims.

So #3 could be true. But that doesn’t answer any questions. It only brings up the question of where the original creator came from. After all, if the whole idea is that we are seeking an explanation to why we exist, then to make up an arbitrary imaginary creator doesn’t solve a thing, because they we have to ask where it came from. And that’s a never ending question because if our creator had a creator than it’s creator must have had a creator ad infinitum. It doesn’t get us anywhere.

Similarly #1 suggests that consciousness just happened by pure accident. So it’s face with two unanswerable questions. Where did ‘stuff’ come from in the first place, and then how did ‘stuff’ become conscious by accident after that?

This bring us to #2. This is also a spiritual concept. It’s an idea of a ‘god’, but not an external one. It’s the idea that we are this entity we call ‘god’. If we can believe in a spiritual entity that can have consciousness without form (and any concept of God or Spirit must be able to do this), then consciousness can indeed give rise to the physical world we see around us.

I’m convinced that of these three choices #2 makes the most sense. I feel it on an intuitively level. It makes the most sense to me on a scientific level. And yes, it’s true that it doesn’t answer the question of where we ‘came from’ originally. But then neither do the other two. It’s just as easy to imagine that we are god as to imagine that there is a god external to us who created us. In fact, the idea that we are created from an external godhead is actually wildly more problematic.

It make no sense to me that we would be pets to some higher being. Especially in the context that this higher being would actually want something from us like worship or obedience. That’s utterly ridiculous. And then to toss in the threat that it will punish us if we don’t turn out to its liking is even more absurd.

If such a higher being has that kind of power and wants obedient pets it could go about getting them without any need to threaten eternal punishment to the pets that didn’t fit its requirements. That kind of nonsense is just that, utter nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I think the only real statement is simply, “If we aren’t spiritual in nature, and the atheists are right, then this was some hell of an accident.”

The idea of an external zookeeper who punishes pets it doesn’t like is beyond weird. That would mean that life is like Freddy’s Nightmares and God is Freddy himself.

Pantheism is definitely the prettiest picture of the three without a doubt. If you have to just choose one why not choose the best?

This is my argument all along. Pantheism is the best GUESS!

And they're all guesses.

The point being that if they are all equally unprovable, then why not choose the prettiest?

And pantheism is by far the prettiest.

There can be no doubt about that.

How ?, how ? and how ???.

All information has a degree of validity. Which to me means that there is a 'reason' for all information. That includes religious dogma and myth.

When you stand back and look at these three choices, the information, the reasons for it and where they lead, you can then decide which one makes the most sense to you or you can decide not to decide and just remain confused or forget about it.

Since I had vowed that I would pursue truth, I looked critically at all three choices and I have concluded at this point that life arises from consciousness. This choice, unlike the two others does not have a dead end.

The other two choices have limitations and dead ends.

In the consideration and contemplation of infinity, I chose the one that has no limitations or dead ends.

Choice #1 The atheist's choice

#1 Consciousness arises from life: (The atheists view) Assumes and asserts that you must be alive, have a brain, be able to perceive through physical construct of sensing devices in order to have consciousness.

How these developments (life) came about and from what remains unknown, except for some theory of a big bang or evolution after some freak accident.

If this is true, and if the universe is finite and temporary then when the universe dies or ends or decays, once again there will be no life in existence until the next freak "accident." And it may not happen and it may not produce life, and it may not result in the evolution of humans or consciousness.

Given the nature of infinity, and a dieing universe, the end result would be... death. That's a dead end. Don't expect the creatures on the planet earth to save the universe from its own death in this scenario. We would be doomed. We are dead men and women walking. Compared to infinity and our own duration we don't even exist.

Also, with this choice, (the atheist choice) there is really no proof or evidence to support it. It is based on the lack of knowledge and evidence to support the other two views. (God and consciousness creating life.)

The atheist says "Those things don't exist because I cannot see them and you cannot prove them to me." This is a non-conclusion. It lacks vision or imagination.

A computer has no imagination. And yet it accepts any information you give it. It does not question what you tell it. It just processes information and that information is its "truth."

That is the way an atheist 'thinks.' It is not thinking at all because it does not include imagination or new ideas.

JB

1.)Some would say that the idea of a creator god is illogical.

2.)Time is not a creation. Time does not exist as a thing. (But that is a completely different subject for another thread.)

JB

It is not a "claim." It is a choice between two less reasonable choices.

Consciousness exists simply because the existence of NOTHING is impossible. NOTHING CANNOT EXIST.

That is my idea.

Explain to me, if you will, how NOTHING can exist and I will reconsider.

If nothing can exist, then please describe it.

Then tell me who is doing the describing.

JB

Totally incorrect conclusion on all counts. Both Abra and me have tried to explain to you why this is incorrect but you do not hear it. You are not understanding what I mean when I say that awareness comes in degrees.

JB

In case you haven't been paying attention, that is exactly the claim I have been making.

Consciousness is not contained and it is free of all physical form.




Try defining god.




If you are going to ask me a question, I would prefer that you allow me to answer it.

There are an infinite different degrees and states of consciousness.

JB

Would that be YOUR MIND?

You are correct that not one of the choices listed in the O.P. is soundly supported by any "proof." I never intended to make that claim.

I have not replaced "god" with consciousness. Religions replaced consciousness with god and made it more human.

I am looking for you or anyone else to bring something "new to the table."

Until then, I remain with choice # 2.

Life arises from consciousness.
Consciousness is not contained and is free of any form.
Consciousness manifests in infinite degrees and states.

JB

Sounds like The Buddha