We all had one

@suzianne said
"Let there be light" aka the Big Bang.

I 'think' there have been many 'Big Bangs', not a single event that started everything.

Expanding and contracting is simply the order of things.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Again, I do not accept there was ever a time when there was 'nothing.' (And before you rush to reject the idea of an 'infinite' universe, remember that is a quality you attribute to God).

Time itself is a human concept.

Time is just a way to keep everything from happening at once.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I 'think' there have been many 'Big Bangs', not a single event that started everything.

Expanding and contracting is simply the order of things.

This is as may be, but we only 'know' of this one time.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Post here more often Phil.

😀

Agreed.

@suzianne said
This is as may be, but we only 'know' of this one time.

Hence me putting 'think' in inverted comas.

🙂

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I 'think' there have been many 'Big Bangs', not a single event that started everything.

Expanding and contracting is simply the order of things.

Was there always consciousness or did that have a beginning?

It takes you into difficult areas if you work with your parallel between foetal development and stages of evolution since of course the moment at which conscious life arrives in the individual human being might be separated from the arrival of the physical substance of new life for some, but not for others.

@indonesia-phil said
Your third paragraph makes no definitive sense, one may equally ask where did your god come from. You will say that your god has always existed, but it equally well may be true that matter and energy has always existed, it makes just as much sense, since either way it's beyond our knowledge and understanding. What it comes down to, as always in such discussions, is bel ...[text shortened]... nderstanding).

So, believe away, but don't present your belief as 'logic', 'cause that it ain't.

Well Phil, we have one thing in common. We both roll our own cigarettes. 🙂

It is upon God's Word, and logic that I base my beliefs, contrary to assumptions of science. You, and the others, can believe science and presume ignorance and denial on my part, but I've heard all, or most, of what you posted that science claims to have discovered before, nevertheless I have the opposite perspective with regards to origins, and as spurious as it may sound to you, it is in fact by logic and reason I hold to my belief in creation rather than an open ended assumption about the findings of science concerning origins of matter and life in time out of mind.

Take for example an atom, science does not know what holds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus, and try as it might science can't, and never will, figure that out. Why? Because science doesn't understand that it isn't what holds an atom together, but who.

Your logic fails. You say, "anyone can of course ignore or deny all of this science," which is highly presumptuous; creationists don't ignore science, and you can presume that "ignorance and denial" is the cause of belief in creationism, but logic doesn't allow belief based on theoretical presuppositions of conjecture.

And another thing, you stated that, "when the Bible was written they didn't have any of this information or understanding". That again is presumptuous, therefore illogical based on the fact that you have no way of knowing that, and given the fact that we know that the mathematics of the Egyptians and other ancient civilizations are still a mystery today it's not a stretch to believe "they" probably knew more about natural science than we understand.

Furthermore, it is not logical to believe that science has discovered even a fraction of all there is to know about the formation of life and its antecedent matter/energy, nor is it logical to base factual knowledge on the ideological assumption of evolution.

Spiritually speaking intelligence is borne of light. When God said, "let there be light", it was when there was no light. It is scientifically illogical to assume light has always existed, especially when science cannot prove otherwise.

@petewxyz said
Was there always consciousness or did that have a beginning?

It takes you into difficult areas if you work with your parallel between foetal development and stages of evolution since of course the moment at which conscious life arrives in the individual human being might be separated from the arrival of the physical substance of new life for some, but not for others.

I believe consciousness had a beginning, just not 'matter.' The same applies to intelligence.

Consciousness only comes onto the scene when the right 'matter' are aligned. (Rather like the flavour of my sandwich only coming to life when the right kind of cheese and pickle are brought together).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I believe consciousness had a beginning, just not 'matter.' The same applies to intelligence.

Consciousness only comes onto the scene when the right 'matter' are aligned. (Rather like the flavour of my sandwich only coming to life when the right kind of cheese and pickle are brought together).

But would the cheese and pickle have the flavour if there were no consciousness? Would there be consciousness if there were no cheese and pickle? At least one of these questions seems important but which one?

@secondson said
Well Phil, we have one thing in common. We both roll our own cigarettes. 🙂

It is upon God's Word, and logic that I base my beliefs, contrary to assumptions of science. You, and the others, can believe science and presume ignorance and denial on my part, but I've heard all, or most, of what you posted that science claims to have discovered before, nevertheless I have the ...[text shortened]... ically illogical to assume light has always existed, especially when science cannot prove otherwise.

I completely agree that there are many things that defy scientific understanding. I like to read about the search for the anatomical seat of consciousness simply because there are more questions than answers, but I can't see a reason not to just live on in a state of uncertainty. What harm does that do if you can conform to reasonable social behaviour without needing to conform to a religion?

@petewxyz said
But would the cheese and pickle have the flavour if there were no consciousness? Would there be consciousness if there were no cheese and pickle? At least one of these questions seems important but which one?

They all relate to sandwiches so are equally important.

The sandwich only has the right flavour when it has the right ingredients. Prior to that the flavour doesn't exist. The same applies to conscious life.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
They all relate to sandwiches so are equally important.

The sandwich only has the right flavour when it has the right ingredients. Prior to that the flavour doesn't exist. The same applies to conscious life.

At what point does the flavour exist? When it is experienced as a flavour, when it was within the sandwich components but not yet mixed in the mouth? When the chemicals that were destined to form the complex molecules first came into being?

@petewxyz said
What harm does that do if you can conform to reasonable social behaviour without needing to conform to a religion?

Are you a Christian Pete?

I am, and I'm not "conformed" to any religion. I take my cues from the Bible, and the Bible says "In the beginning God created..."

What unreasonable social behavior does believing that have on others?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
They all relate to sandwiches so are equally important.

The sandwich only has the right flavour when it has the right ingredients. Prior to that the flavour doesn't exist. The same applies to conscious life.

But under hypnosis adults can recall having conscious awareness as infants, and a child in the womb is aware of his mothers voice.

I do believe though that consciousness is developed over time. Each new learned thing contributes to awareness. The conscience is refined by knowledge and experience.

I'm just talking off the top of my head here. Your thoughts?