No evidence for your false assertion, ehh?
So wait... you complain that I'm not providing evidence for the assertion... but you feel totally justified in asserting that it is false without providing any evidence for that yourself?
Of course, I don't actually *have* to provide evidence to the statement that consciousness can not exist without a proper mechanism for it and that this mechanism can not exist within the planck epoch. You DO however have a burden of proof when you claim that it *is* possible. He who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Regardless of your personal beliefs; the laws of reality do not allow for consciousness to exist without a physical mechanism. And no physical mechanism complex enough to allow consciousness to function could exist during the planck epoch.
If you want to dispute these basic facts, you will have to provide either some mechanism capable of allowing consciousness during this period; or must provide some plausible means by which consciousness can exist without a physical mechanism. You've had more than enough opportunity to present either, and your failure to do so tells us everything we need to know.
Obviously the presupposition of Goddidit or Goddidn'tdoit is enough to satisfy all inquiry into the matter for someone such as yourself.
No matter how poor your grasp of english is, there is no way that someone could possibly reach this absurd conclusion from our exchange.
although desire to avoid research into consciousness may influence some anti-theists into avoiding certain branches of thought, much like the hypothetical weird fears you claim religious people have that will cause them to avoid looking into the origins of the universe.
It's actually *because* of our research into the nature of consciousness that we have learned it can not exist without a physical mechanism. Do not confuse your own inability to accept scientific facts that contradict your beliefs with some sort of universal truth about people. I would *love* for evidence to show that consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical mechanism for it. But no such evidence exists and by all likelihood never will.
On a side note, if all forces exist at the beginning, and consciousness is a manifestation of force, consciousness was probably around at the beginning as well.
...
You can't possibly think that's an actual argument.
Consciousness is not a force; much less a fundamental one of physics at that. Consciousness is the result of interactions taking place as a result of the specific (and complex) organization of a physical system. Human consciousness for example, can only exist as a result of a brain within which neural activity is taking place. You will not produce consciousness if you simply take a pile of brain matter and think that's that; it needs to be organized in the right form and some form of activity must be taking place within that form. The simplicity of existence in the moments directly after the big bang prohibits the existence of an organized physical system with enough complexity to produce consciousness.
Consciousness is the physical mechanism. Period.
Haha...
no.
Consciousness is an emergent property of a physical system. Consciousness itself is not physical; but it can not exist without a physical system to produce it.
No. It's not circular, although I can see how you thought that. Mirror technique, many apologies for the asymmetry of the beginning:
If there is not a consciousness, then positing there is can lead to the creation of incorrect imaginary scenarios that neglect the truth.
If there is a consciousness, then positing there is not can lead to the creation of incorrect imaginary scenarios that neglect the truth.
Except nobody is 'positing there is not'. We're simply not *assuming* there is. There is a fundamental difference. If the evidence suggests there was a consciousness, we'll follow the evidence. So far, all the evidence points in the *opposite* direction.
*You* want us to give serious consideration to a consciousness existing at the birth of the universe. *Science* however, doesn't want to waste its fucking time and resources on a hypothesis that has already been discredited by research into the nature of consciousness. Science is, however, willing to change its mind if it uncovers any actual evidence suggesting its prior research is wrong; whereas you, don't seem to be particularly inclined to accept evidence that runs contrary to your pet beliefs.
We're just saying that there is no reason to assume that gods exist or are needed. Nothing in reality or beyond requires a god to explain.
You don't know that.
I do actually. We have not run into a single problem in our understanding of the universe that requires us to assume a god exists. Sure, you could argue that we MIGHT encounter such a problem in the future... but if you're reduced to making that argument, then god has fallen very very very very far indeed.
What, the old assert God isn't required to explain things, therefore it is foolish to insert God into things claim?
It's called Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that is supported by evidence tends to be likeliest. Inserting god when the chain of events (as is the case with the creation/evolution of the universe) can be explained *without* the use of such a god is adding complexity where it isn't needed. Adding god at that point becomes the equivalent of adding the idea that in order for your car engine to start you need to sing to it first. The engine works perfectly well without you singing to it.
Nope. I'm obviously (context!) not talking about taking events and chopping them into more events. More events = more calculations. At smaller distance scales, more interactions occur. The number of calculations might be balanced out by gravitational time dilation... but maybe not- there is, after all, absolutely no complete quantum theory of spacetime that I am aware of (I'm not talking about speculation, like loop QG).
You seem to be ignoring the part where I explained to you that what I said *is* correct on account of the fact that the universe already exists in its current form, and therefore retroactively adding more events to the theory doesn't change anything.
religion isn't what you think it is, it's what it is.
"Religion is what it is". Because that totally explains it.
Your claims indicate prejudice against religious people as a whole. Mine do not.
Yeah, I think it's about time to wrap this one up. It seems you've consistently been either unable or unwilling to actually understand what's being said to you; arguing against strawmen instead. Given your propensity to exhibit this behavior no matter the topic, I have to wonder whether or not its an intentional tactic to annoy people into giving up.
