Prismatic567 wrote:Serendipper wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:How something came from nothing?
In the above statement your are assuming 'something' pre-existed without any proof that it exists.
If something-A came from something-B, then from what did something-B came from?
If you can present a source for something-B, i.e. something-C, then from what did something-C came from? and on it goes ..
In that case you are caught with the problem of infinite regression - which is a useless answer.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. The proposition is how consciousness came from unconsciousness (ie something from nothing).
What I am arguing against is; one cannot insist things must come from something ultimate.
Note I am not claiming consciousness came from unconsciousness.
What I am insisting is we must stick to the empirical facts and possibilities and nothing else.
Human consciousness is an empirical fact which can be proven empirically.
Human consciousness emerges from a living human brain and its properties.
We can only insist on the above empirical facts and nothing else.
To insist Human consciousness emerges from more than a living human brain, its properties within an empirical environment, example a universal consciousness independent of the human brain, is a falsehood.
So you're saying atoms arranged into a human brain = consciousness. So, junk + magic = consciousness.
Pantheism is not the easiest way out because it is still subjected to infinite regression and existential psychological impulses in a way?
It's the only way to explain the origin of life without requiring magic.
Nope!
Yep!
Are we schoolyard kids now?
The most optimal option to explain the origin of life is to restrict to what is empirical and the empirical possible.
Pantheism speculates on the empirical impossible, i.e. an ultimate being.
That is not an explanation, but an assertion.
The more practical is that of Buddhism, i.e. focus on the 'NOW' and act positively towards the well being of oneself and others.
Buddhist philosophy do take into account the past and the future as secondary but the primary focus is on the 'NOW.'
Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.
Hinduism generally refers to whatever spiritual philosophies and religions that are East of the Hindu river within India. In that sense, yes Buddhism is a part of Hinduism in the most general sense.
But to be more precise,
The majority of Hinduism comprised of spiritual philosophies that entail a belief in Brahman and atman.
Buddhism is anti-atman, i.e. anatman and anti-Brahman.
In this specific sense in terms of core principles, Buddhism is significantly different from the majority of Hindu philosophies.
Buddhism's philosophy of anti-Brahman and anatman do not entertain any proposition, there must be ultimately something for something to exists.
The atman in Hinduism is just a manifestation of the Brahman which is precisely the same with Buddhism's anatman being a manifestation of the universe as an organism. Neither religion asserts that you exist as a you. Buddhism says you're part of the larger organism and hinduism says you're a character in a play. Either way, you don't exist except as part of something bigger.
If you want to exist as a you, you'll need an Abrahamic religion where a god creates you as a spirit.
The theories of the universe can be categorized into 4:
1) The ceramic model: created by god.
2) The fully-automatic model: the creation minus the god: atheism.
3) The organic model: the universe is an organism: Buddhism.
4) The dramatic model: the universe is a play: Hinduism.
1) God always existed.
2) The quantum foam always existed.
3) The organism always existed.
4) The Brahman always existed.
#2 asserts consciousness came from nothing because complexly arranged junk cannot explain the emergence of consciousness from unconsciousness. #1,3,4 assert consciousness always existed.
Since 1 and 2 are silly and since 3 is a subset of 4, then 4 is the best explanation so far.
I'm open to a #5 if you can think of one.