seeds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:17 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm
Seed's, believe whatever you want. If you can make yourself believe there could be nothing, how can there need to be a, "creator." Is the, "creator," nothing? If you believe in a, "creator," than you do not believe there was ever nothing. It's impossible.
It is obvious that you made no real effort to carefully read what I wrote, for if you had, you would have seen that I declared that it
"makes no sense" to think that reality arose (or emerged) from nothing.
Furthermore, the fact that you took the following line...
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:59 pm
"...there was a time when there was only pure and absolute 'nothingness'?" for example, is pure meaningless fiction.
...and quoted it out of context in a way that made it seem like I was promoting it as being true, when, in fact, it was precisely what I was referring to that made no sense,...
...demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to be honest in a debate situation.
I've been following your discussion with Dubious, and find your understanding of the nature of consciousness very good and your explanations excellent. The reason I'm making a comment here is because you obviously felt I was being disingenuous in our earlier discussion and I wanted to go back to see where I might have been mistaken or misjudged what you said.
You are quite right that you said:
Yet, the problem is, if it truly was "pure and absolute nothingness" then it contained absolutely no precursory conditions or properties that could have given rise to the "somethingness" of the "reality" that we are presently experiencing.
So that makes no sense.
I you had left it there we would have been in total agreement. But what you went on to write confused me:
- 1. How and from what source did the "eternal somethingness" acquire its being and properties?
- 2. Why are the properties of the "eternal somethingness" so amenable to being shaped into pretty much anything imaginable - as is witnessed in the near infinite phenomenal features of the universe?
- 3. How did the "eternal somethingness" manage to "wake up"? In other words, how did it manage to organize its constituent properties in such a way that would allow consciousness to "emerge" from the fabric of the "eternal somethingness" - especially if that consciousness might have been an initial Creator Being who then brought order to the "eternal somethingness"?
The reason the questions confused me is because they assume a premises that contradicts your earlier conclusion that, "pure and absolute nothingness," "makes no sense." Your very first question contradicts that conclusion: "how and from what source did the
"eternal somethingness" acquire its being," assumes there could be a state or condition of no "something," i.e. "nothingness."
I agree that you definitely said non-existence is not possible, but then your first question assumes (or at least implies) it is, and that quite frankly confused me, and still does.
I also admit I ignored your other two questions because they are premised on the first and assume what is not really true.
Your second question of existence, "being amenable to being shaped into pretty much
anything imaginable," is a bit vague: it it means literally anything imaginable of course it is not true because all sorts of existents which are physically impossible or impossible because they are logically contradictory can be imagined, but if it only means that ways physical existence can be arranged has no possible limit, that is obviously true, just as there is no limit to the ways a series of 1s and 0s can be organized, but there is nothing mysterious about that.
The third question assumes that consciousness is a, "something," which must be produced by something else. That is a baseless premise like the one for existence itself. Existense is not contingent on anything else. Consciousness is not a thing but a property or attribute and, like the physical property mass, simply is what it is. Nothing else makes or causes it.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted what you intended, but I've honetly tried to understand what you mean. If I have, my explanation should make it clear why I find your questions meaningless. That does not mean you have to and I'm not trying to convince you.