What started it all?

I have been pondering the Origin question lately and wanted to share my thoughts on the matter. I will number them out to hopefully make it easier on the eyes, as well as, make my specific points easy to address.

1. There is evidence that as we observe our environment, particles act specific ways vs. when there is no observer. Many believe that the universe would not exist if they do not observe it.

a. My first thought on this is how is that possible? People existed here way before I did. My mother existed and taught me the basics of the world I was born into.

2. As I pondered this I realized that number 1 above was tied to the idea of NO conscious observer. If there was no conscious being to observe, then nothing would be here.

a. This led me to the thought of when consciousness actually came to be... If we evolved from single cell organisms, then were they conscious? I don't think so.... So does this mean I cannot believe in evolution?

3. Then I realized that no, I can still believe in evolution if I choose to and this is how. What if, science has it right, and we were one tiny ball of energy that was released and began to expand and eventually stars, planets, moons, ect. formed and then life did begin (on earth) from the chemical compounds mixing together just right?

4. My conclusion to this line of thinking is, that 3 could have been the case. This would require a conscious observer to simply look at our specific ball of energy and BANG!!!!

So, we're are all here simply because someone decided to look our way.

This thread is in no way advocating the existence of a supreme being that has control over us all. It is merely me sharing my thoughts and hoping for some feedback on my observations.

Thanks!

reply to post by AtcGod

4. My conclusion to this line of thinking is, that 3 could have been the case. This would require a conscious observer to simply look at our specific ball of energy and BANG!!!!

My theory goes as thus: there was a mass of energy (don't know what shape or size) that became conscious IN AND OF ITSELF. Because it desired to know itself, it began using its own "flesh" to create everything we see today. This would fit the Newtonian law that matter (energy) can be neither created nor destroyed. I suspect that the process actually cycles in pieces...as in, quadrillions and quadrillions of years from now, there might be another Earth in this same exact spot, possibly even using the same souls (remember, souls are energy).

The "Big Bang" may have just been the beginning after another end, because I really believe that there is no end and no real beginning to all of this. It's cycles within cycles...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Thanks for posting your thoughts! This is what I was hoping for and its nice to get a response like this so quickly. I hope that more folks will continue posting their ideas, as it keeps me walking away from the burning box behind me.

reply to post by AtcGod

The entire premise of your argument lies on a faulty understanding of quantum mechanics, i.e. that somehow consciousness changes the result of experiments or is a prerequisite to the universe. It isn't.

reply to post by john_bmth


Consciousness is a prerequisite for motion. Physics itself had to be designed...and who designed it? Whoever designed the atomic structure of the universe.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Your post doesn't make a great deal of sense. What do you mean by "consciousness is a prerequisite for motion"? The rest of it about a designer is pure speculation that is not supported by any objective evidence.

reply to post by AtcGod


All of creation occurs through us. There is nothing that can exist unless we choose for it to exist.

This applies to everything that is life on both a micro/ macro level. So this means that for a world to exist its birth must be triggered or occur through us.

This is what the Mayan's refer to as their gods (if you apply this to their creation myths). The people they refer to as gods are very simply (and not so simply) creators of worlds. It is through them that the dismantling/ birthing of worlds occur. We are each going to have the opportunity here pretty soon to witness this on a collective level within the physical world and also experience this for ourselves individual. This is the ascension process (on an individual level).

reply to post by john_bmth


Cars are not conscious, and yet something conscious had to design them. Physics is automated, but something had to design the forces that govern it. The probability of the physics being just right are astronomical...suggesting that something controlled the development.

reply to post by nicolet


No. All creation does not occur through us. Through us, something bigger can create something smaller. We are the blood cells in the pinky finger of the hand that wants to create more. But we have the choice, we have the free will. And because of that, it'll take us longer to develop. When we stop running around like little ants, we will begin to come into our true inheritance.

And if that doesn't happen...we're all screwed.

Originally posted by nicolet
reply to post by AtcGod

 

All of creation occurs through us. There is nothing that can exist unless we choose for it to exist.

So who chooses to get cancer?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Cars are not conscious, and yet something conscious had to design them

And? Cars don't breed, does that mean sexual reproduction cannot occur in nature? Equating inorganic objects we know are designed with life itself is a fallacy.

Physics is automated, but something had to design the forces that govern it.

What do you mean by "automated"? You are using non-standard definitions of words that have very specific definitions. Again, your assertion that "something had to design the forces that govern it" is unsubstantiated conjecture that is not supported by objective evidence.

The probability of the physics being just right are astronomical...suggesting that something controlled the development.

Oh really? Care to show us the equation you used to arrive at those odds? Either way, "astronomical odds" occur all the time, especially with the time scales of the universe. It is not evidence of a designer. This is puddle thinking. Life adapted to the universe, not the other way round.

No need to ponder. The Doctor created our universe, vanquished Satan, looks after humanity, and can get away with wearing a decorative vegetable.

reply to post by john_bmth


My premise is that the presence of a conscious (self aware) observer is needed for things to exist. Without someone or something that is self aware, then what is the point for it existing. If it is not observed then it matters not if it exists or doesn't exist.

Experiencing is what makes things real. It is what makes things matter.

Originally posted by AtcGod
reply to post by john_bmth

 

My premise is that the presence of a conscious (self aware) observer is needed for things to exist. Without someone or something that is self aware, then what is the point for it existing. If it is not observed then it matters not if it exists or doesn't exist.

Experiencing is what makes things real. It is what makes things matter.

"What's the point?" is a very anthropic perspective. There does not need to be a point to anything. Your assertion that consciousness is a prerequisite to the universe existing is completely speculative and unsupported by objective evidence, let alone extremely doubtful considering the universe was getting along fine before mankind even existed.

reply to post by john_bmth


My point exactly my friend. The universe existed long before man. Of course there were most certainly other self aware entities before us, but what before them. In my logic, something observed that speck of energy just prior to the big bang, and by observation, set the creation of our universe into motion.

It is just a thought. You are right, i have nor need evidence to prove a thought. I was simply sharing this idea with the ATS community.

Thank you for your input thus far. I appreciate your attention to my thread and look forward to any other comments you wish to make.

reply to post by john_bmth

And? Cars don't breed, does that mean sexual reproduction cannot occur in nature? Equating inorganic objects we know are designed with life itself is a fallacy.

Who says something that's conscious has to breed? I don't understand where you are drawing these questions from. Not everything in the universe is organic, and not all life needs to be organic. Ever heard of spirit?

What do you mean by "automated"? You are using non-standard definitions of words that have very specific definitions. Again, your assertion that "something had to design the forces that govern it" is unsubstantiated conjecture that is not supported by objective evidence.

In America, "it" has three different usages. If that doesn't make sense to you, you need to study languages more. When I say "automated", I mean that they need nothing to guide or power them. They are automated. And in the 500 years modern science has existed (as compared to the 14 billion years the Earth has existed) I don't think you nor anyone has any right to say that physics is not automated. How do you know physics wasn't designed? Everything was designed. Throw a bunch of chemicals together and you sure as hell won't get a tree.

Objective evidence? Try math for objective evidence. In gambling terms, the chances of Earth even forming right were phenomenal. Life growing on it? Astronomical. If you were a gambler watching it all go down, you would have been crapping your pants in anxiety, before the show even started.

Oh really? Care to show us the equation you used to arrive at those odds? Either way, "astronomical odds" occur all the time, especially with the time scales of the universe. It is not evidence of a designer. This is puddle thinking. Life adapted to the universe, not the other way round.

Absolutely.

For instance, if gravity were just slightly stronger, the universe would have collapsed long before life evolved. But if gravity were a tiny bit weaker, no galaxies or stars could have formed. If the strong nuclear force had been slightly different, red giant stars would never produce the fusion needed to form heavier atoms like carbon, and the universe would be a vast, lifeless desert.

Fine Tuning

That's a taster. And how about this one? Paul Davies has something to say on the subject:

Q - So for all of these to happen -- for instance, for carbon to be formed, for gravity to have the precise strength that it does -- you're suggesting that it's more than coincidence that they are just right.

A - That's right. To just shrug this aside and say, well, if it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here, would we? -- that's no answer to the question.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Even without stars and flags, a few conscious observers choose to debate and discuss this topic. Thanks Infinity for your inputs.

I agree that there is potential for life and consciousness outside of our understanding. I do also appreciate the other end of the argument, as it challenges our beliefs and makes us ponder these sorts of subjects.

Bravo!

And yes, the Rum is beginning to kick in a little

reply to post by AtcGod


I wish I had some. It all went with the 4th, though.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by john_bmth

 

And? Cars don't breed, does that mean sexual reproduction cannot occur in nature? Equating inorganic objects we know are designed with life itself is a fallacy.

Who says something that's conscious has to breed? I don't understand where you are drawing these questions from. Not everything in the universe is organic, and not all life needs to be organic.

You completely missed my point. Man-made, inanimate objects are completely different form life, to say that because one is designed ergo so must the other is as absurd as saying that life can reproduce therefore cars must be able to reproduce.

Ever heard of spirit?

Sure, but no objective evidence what so ever exists that supports such an idea.

What do you mean by "automated"? You are using non-standard definitions of words that have very specific definitions. Again, your assertion that "something had to design the forces that govern it" is unsubstantiated conjecture that is not supported by objective evidence.

In America, "it" has three different usages. If that doesn't make sense to you, you need to study languages more.

When I say "automated", I mean that they need nothing to guide or power them. They are automated. And in the 500 years modern science has existed (as compared to the 14 billion years the Earth has existed) I don't think you nor anyone has any right to say that physics is not automated.

But that's not what automated means:

Convert (a process or facility) to largely automatic operation

Using terms and changing their definition does not make for good discourse, it only serves to confuse matters. I'm not being pedantic, I still do not fully understand the point you are trying to convey here.

How do you know physics wasn't designed? Everything was designed.

How do you know it was? Do you have any objective evidence? You may sincerely believe this, but to expect others to do so without any objective evidence is unreasonable.

Throw a bunch of chemicals together and you sure as hell won't get a tree.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to say that is analogous to abiogenesis or evolution? If so, you understand neither. Really, that is a poor analogy. Unless you wish to clarify?

Objective evidence? Try math for objective evidence. In gambling terms, the chances of Earth even forming right were phenomenal. Life growing on it? Astronomical. If you were a gambler watching it all go down, you would have been crapping your pants in anxiety, before the show even started.

That's not objective evidence, that is the Argument from Improbability fallacy. The chances of winning the lottery are "astronomically small", yet it happens to someone every week. But I ask again, what are these "phenomenal" odds and how did you calculate them? You speak of math so show me the math. Given enough time, even the most improbable odds will turn up. 13-odd billion years is a heck of a long time.

Absolutely.

For instance, if gravity were just slightly stronger, the universe would have collapsed long before life evolved. But if gravity were a tiny bit weaker, no galaxies or stars could have formed. If the strong nuclear force had been slightly different, red giant stars would never produce the fusion needed to form heavier atoms like carbon, and the universe would be a vast, lifeless desert.

Fine Tuning

That's a taster. And how about this one? Paul Davies has something to say on the subject:

Q - So for all of these to happen -- for instance, for carbon to be formed, for gravity to have the precise strength that it does -- you're suggesting that it's more than coincidence that they are just right.

A - That's right. To just shrug this aside and say, well, if it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here, would we? -- that's no answer to the question.

Again, this is nothing more than puddle thinking. We adapted to the universe, not the other way around. If the laws of this universe could not let life arise then we would not be here to witness it. That is a far cry from "it must be designed else life would not exist". Does a puddle wonder how it's surroundings so happen to fit so perfectly? Surely the hole must have been designed for that very puddle, if it was any other shape the puddle simply could not fit and thus form. This must be evidence of intelligent design!

You have yet to post any objective evidence to support any of your assertions. If you continue to do so, I see no point in discussing this any further. I have no issue discussing this with you and hearing your thoughts, but I have seen these sorts of discussions going around for eternity with no evidence being presented. I personally do not find such discussions fruitful, but every man/woman to his/her own.