--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Without going through these arguments, you can use your own > > > > logic and reason to answer what is needed to create a universe. > > > > At the very least you need to have length, width, and height > > > > to manifest a universe. But these dimensions need > > > > consciousness to define, understand and manifest a universe. > > > > Without consciousness, it's impossible to create a universe. > > > > There is only NOTHING. > > > > > > So you think there is no universe without us to perceive it? > > > > I don't think that's what John is saying. As I understand > > him, he's suggesting that the property of consciousness > > (universal and nonlocalized) would be required for a universe > > to be created. > > I know what he's saying!
Well, your question asked him whether he thought something he *didn't* say (and doesn't believe). I jsut want to know why he > believes that rather than something that doesn't > require a universal god/consciousness thing. I want > him to get that it's a guru belief thing and not part > of science. I think he knows it's not part of science. But it may be more than "guru belief." <snip> > > > It's a bit problematic using your own logic and reason if > > > you hold beliefs like yours because it kind of hamstrings > > > you into only accepting mystical explanations from gurus > > > rather than the hard won findings of science all of which > > > get along just fine without consciousness. My books do > > > anyway! > > > > It shouldn't be "rather than." You don't have to give > > up the findings of science to believe that everything > > emerges from consciousness. > > That's what you think. If the purpose of science is to > explain things in the simplest possible way this idea > cocks that right up because it invents (choosing words > careful here) an uneccessary level at complexity for > no reason other than that some people like the idea. > What is the point? Different question. Perfectly reasonable one, but that wasn't what you suggested above. Occam's razor isn't infallible; it works only in an adequate frame of reference. What was the situation "before" the Big Bang? The question can't even be asked coherently, since time didn't come into existence until the Big Bang. It may be that for a sufficient explanation for the universe's existence, one will have to look beyond science. And universal consciousness may be more than just an idea; it may be the experiential realization of some people.
