The Universe and Consciousness

[The Eagle]

can consciousness exist before the universe existed or vise/versa?

firstly lets clear up the definitions

"Consciousness "

noun
1 [mass noun] the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings:
she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later

2 a person’s awareness or perception of something:
her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world:
consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain

"Conscious"

adjective
1aware of and responding to one’s surroundings:
although I was in pain, I was conscious

2having knowledge of something:
we are conscious of the extent of the problem[in combination] concerned with or worried about a particular matter:
they were growing increasingly security-conscious

3(of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional:
a conscious effort to walk properly(of the mind or a thought) directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned:
when you go to sleep it is only the conscious mind which shuts down

we have the obvious quandary - if the physical universe hasn't been created, there is no physical reality so consciousness cant be "made" of anything. if we consider "something cant come from nothing" and consciousness is not made of anything - then the physical universe cant come into existence.

if consciousness came before the universe - what can "consciousness" be conscious of? (yeah i need a better vocab). the only thing that consciousness can be conscious of - is its own existence as it has no surroundings to be conscious of.

in order for consciousness to create "physical reality" there are issue with the "how". as above, if consciousness is not made of anything then its only attribute is thought and that thought is limited to its own existence. the problem is a thought alone can’t create something physical.

so if we have the starting point of "consciousness came first", we have to assume the physical universe has never come into existence and further, the universe and all that is in it is actually an inward thought of the consciousness.


now - if the universe came first.

"something can’t come from nothing" should still apply. In order for the universe to exist prior to consciousness we have to assume that the physical universe has always existed. there isn't any issues with what consciousness is "made of" as we now have "energy".

we do have a problem with how can something non-conscious can become conscious though. To become conscious of your own existence you can be aware of your surroundings and through that become aware of your existence – so we can see how it can develop. But using that idea we have to assume that the universe has somehow been able to take in information about itself. Perhaps then life is the first instance of consciousness in the universe and has built up senses without consciousness and through sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste built up consciousness from the information taken in. it’s a big assumption but not illogical.


The last options are if the universe and consciousness came into existence at the very same time – or perhaps more logically that the universe itself has always existed and has always had consciousness. If all energy has a very basic level of consciousness – not necessarily even of its own existence, but aware of the energy “beside it” we can still have the growth of the universe - the development of life and the development of consciousness in life as above, plus any issues from the previous arguments are gone.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

I think maybe there is a difference between intelligent consciousness and consciousness? After all the sun flower does turn to face the sun but it does not do so because it is intelligent. It does so in a conscious way though so to speak. So basically the universe and consciouisness go hand in hand but the evolution of intelligent consciousness post dates the creation of the universe?

[SamZee]

I don't wish to go too deep into this subject or get caught up in a discussion that takes me a year to type one post. I'll just share my thoughts to stimulate the topic.

I don't think one can apply the "chicken-or-the-egg" concept to this. I mean, of course you can if that suits your understanding; in which case just ignore me. I'm just saying that the type of universe I believe in works differently. In order to understand what that is, let's first look at what it's not.

Generally the religious philosophy is that consciousness, "God" as most view divinity, existed first and willfully decided to create the universe. God is understood as this omniscient entity. A sort of, isolated being. Now of course, these monotheists would greatly oppose that last statement, but there is a great difference in understanding here. They might say, "He's not isolated! He's with us!" Yes I know, I meant isolated in that he's the only thing that's divine.

Then of course, the purely scientific view is that the universe somehow evolved completely randomly and eventually yielded life which then evolved such that it could be conscious. Consciousness is then understood to be a result of the physical body.

As I'm sure you know, the former philosophy is referred to as "Downward Causation," and the latter as "Upward Causation." The Samzee causation, however, is both. :p As I see it, sequence does not truly exist, but for the purpose of this discussion, I'll say that first the downward causation occurs, and then upward. Infinite consciousness becomes the universe, and then the universe becomes infinite consciousness. They're one and the same, and the space-time continuum as we understand it, is like a medium through which this consciousness experiences itself. Within this system of philosophy, everything is conscious, and exists at every level simultaneously. As above, so below.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@ SamZee,

Yes, what you said...
I was just taking a shot in the dark obviously. Lol

[SamZee]

[The Eagle]

so Samzee - how do you think it affects things if all of the time space continium is the universe experiencing itself.

there is no right or wrong, good/evil, also how does free will fit in with the idea? - i..e if everything is the universe experiencing itself can free will in people still exist?

[The Eagle]

I think maybe there is a difference between intelligent consciousness and consciousness? After all the sun flower does turn to face the sun but it does not do so because it is intelligent. It does so in a conscious way though so to speak. So basically the universe and consciouisness go hand in hand but the evolution of intelligent consciousness post dates the creation of the universe?

well conciousness itself cold be a result of a chemical reaction - both in terms of the universe itself and us as individuals.

[SamZee]

so Samzee - how do you think it affects things if all of the time space continium is the universe experiencing itself.

there is no right or wrong, good/evil, also how does free will fit in with the idea? - i..e if everything is the universe experiencing itself can free will in people still exist?

Could you specify the first question? I could answer that a million different ways.

Within this system of philosophy, the subject of good/evil becomes one that is not easily understood. Heh, most subjects do come to think of it. One's thinking must operate on the scale of the universe, and not within the Ego if that makes sense. Good and evil are understood to be opposite polarities of the same thing. The "service-to-self" and "service-to-others" polarities are just two different ways the creation chooses to experience itself. At lower levels of existence, they're more dualistic, but at higher levels, they increasingly meld together. The philosophy of the yin-yan comes into play. To serve yourself is also to serve all, and to serve all is to serve the self. It's just that, the more unified the creation becomes, the more these polarities become the same thing. Sure "good" and "evil" exist. It just depends on how you view it and on what frame of mind you're in.

Free will absolutely exists within this system of philosophy. It's actually extremely important -- under this Logos anyway. It must be the free will of the entity to experience as it wishes. Individual experience is like the microcosm of the infinite consciousness experiencing itself. Does this sufficiently answer the question?

[The Eagle]

so Samzee - how do you think it affects things if all of the time space continium is the universe experiencing itself.

there is no right or wrong, good/evil, also how does free will fit in with the idea? - i..e if everything is the universe experiencing itself can free will in people still exist?

Could you specify the first question? I could answer that a million different ways.

Within this system of philosophy, the subject of good/evil becomes one that is not easily understood. Heh, most subjects do come to think of it. One's thinking must operate on the scale of the universe, and not within the Ego if that makes sense. Good and evil are understood to be opposite polarities of the same thing. The "service-to-self" and "service-to-others" polarities are just two different ways the creation chooses to experience itself. At lower levels of existence, they're more dualistic, but at higher levels, they increasingly meld together. The philosophy of the yin-yan comes into play. To serve yourself is also to serve all, and to serve all is to serve the self. It's just that, the more unified the creation becomes, the more these polarities become the same thing. Sure "good" and "evil" exist. It just depends on how you view it and on what frame of mind you're in.

Free will absolutely exists within this system of philosophy. It's actually extremely important -- under this Logos anyway. It must be the free will of the entity to experience as it wishes. Individual experience is like the microcosm of the infinite consciousness experiencing itself. Does this sufficiently answer the question?

Hey SamZee - sorry it has taken so long to reply - busy time of the year for me work wise!

the trouble with that is that on a universal level there is no good nor evil or even polar opposites - because the division between good and evil - and the scale of polar opposites is at the "ego" level. its us as humans who decide what is good or evil - the universe doesnt have an opinion, so good/evil it only exists as an opinion held by us humans.

i think there is a gap in logic too with the idea that free will can exist at the same time as the universe is experiencing itself. the idea of free will and the idea that we are an individual being - surely must exclude the idea that the universe is experiencing anything. otherwise we are not individual beings - and if we are not individual beings - then free will is an illusion.

the fundamental question is - how does the universe experience something. if we take human experience out of the equation - and how humans experience things - i.e. thought - and further than that - senses - then how does the universe experience anything? - unless you say life has always existed also to enable the universe to experience.

[SamZee]

the trouble with that is that on a universal level there is no good nor evil or even polar opposites - because the division between good and evil - and the scale of polar opposites is at the "ego" level. its us as humans who decide what is good or evil - the universe doesnt have an opinion, so good/evil it only exists as an opinion held by us humans.

Heh, that is exactly what I'm saying. In the grand scheme of things, polarity doesn't exist because the source of all things is completely without it. However, polarity is a means by which the creation chooses to experience itself. So within that illusory process we call life in this space-time continuum, it does exist, but it derives from a source in which it doesn't. That's why I say that it's ultimately simultaneous and therefore depends on how you look at it. It's important to note that I believe in an "Octave Cycle." Eight densities, we're in the third. So when viewed as a multidimensional concept, the existence of polarity is like a gradient -- if you look at it sequentially, that is.

As for free will, just because everything would derive from the same source, doesn't mean that we aren't individuals at this level. The answer comes back to the same thing which is the simultaneous multidimensional existence. It's not like we're controlled by the source, we are the source and we choose to live as we do. I don't know how else to say it. We have free will because we exist.

How does the source experience anything? Because the only thing it experiences is itself, and it is the only thing that's real. Heh, you know how you can understand something in your mind but there's no way you can translate that understanding into words? That's how this often is. :p

[The Eagle]

it is difficult to discuss as the words we use already have exact definitions.

ok this is where i have the problem with it - and i seem to diagree with a lot of budhists etc about this lol. for us to understand, learn or experience something it is done by ego. it is done by ego believing in something - and that gains the understanding. this is ego as in the mind - not good/bad ego and i dont wish to get into a debate about someone can expereice somethingwithout thiking - thats for another thread and another argument.lol.

so in order to understand how the universe is experiencing itself - the idea we come up with - the belief we come up with - whetever it is - is actually human ego driven. we see we hear we taste we touch we smell - the universe does not do this. we could exist and the universe doesnt even know we are here. again to know is a human ego thing.

this is what leads me to the idea that the universe whilst concious at a very (hate to say it ) "basic" level - the universe is not about knowing, or experiencing or learning - these are human traits. the univese is just about "being" - its about existing.

we should not put a minds attributes to the universe when it doenst have a brain.

[cscourge]

There's a definition of consciousness that was not taken into account: "The process of the mind that controls logical thought."

Logical thought is still possible before the universe exists. So essentially, conscious thought is possible.

I'm sorry, but using a dictionary defintion of consciousness, especially when there are multiple definitions, doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[The Eagle]

There's a definition of consciousness that was not taken into account: "The process of the mind that controls logical thought."

Logical thought is still possible before the universe exists. So essentially, conscious thought is possible.

how? - how is logical thought possible before the universe exists?

for logical thought to occur a mind needs to exist - so this mind that exists before the universe existed - consists of what?

I'm sorry, but using a dictionary defintion of consciousness, especially when there are multiple definitions, doesn't prove or disprove anything.

no of course it doesn't - this is a discussion of how and why.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Hey Eagle,
I was reading you more recent posts about ego and how the universe has no ego.
First let me say that Im posting from my phone so I cant quote or view this thread in a easy manner.

But about the ego and universe not having an ego. I just wanted to say again that the universe must have some kind of senses or something for it is ever changing and adjusting. Wether chemical or other reactions, it is not simply "just is"

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Hey Eagle,
I was reading you more recent posts about ego and how the universe has no ego.
First let me say that Im posting from my phone so I cant quote or view this thread in a easy manner.

But about the ego and universe not having an ego. I just wanted to say again that the universe must have some kind of senses or something for it is ever changing and adjusting. Wether chemical or other reactions, it is not simply "just is"

[The Eagle]

Hey Eagle,
I was reading you more recent posts about ego and how the universe has no ego.
First let me say that Im posting from my phone so I cant quote or view this thread in a easy manner.

But about the ego and universe not having an ego. I just wanted to say again that the universe must have some kind of senses or something for it is ever changing and adjusting. Wether chemical or other reactions, it is not simply "just is"

depends on how you are defining ego i guess.

by saying it "just is" doesnt say it is not concious - but it has no motive other than just to" be".

as you say - the universe is forever changing and adjusting - but we must consider the universe as a whole. it is adjusting to itself. we know it reacts to our conciousness - anything else the universe is changing because of already estabished universal processes - which are of course is part of the universe itself.

for an egoless universe to exist in terms of not being concious at all - then the universal processes - gravity for example explain all the changes and adjustment - reactions. and then all we are left with is our conciousness affecting the unconcious universe.

[cscourge]

So the real argument, then, is what the mind consists of, and whether some form of conscious thought can exist beyond a material being.

In terms of the mind as we know it on Earth: no.

In terms of something possible greater than the world itself: yes.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

This is interesting and I must say I'm not one to typically get deep into philosophy. So please don't think I'm being a smart ass, when I'm actually just trying to follow along.

[The Eagle]

This is interesting and I must say I'm not one to typically get deep into philosophy. So please don't think I'm being a smart ass, when I'm actually just trying to follow along.

not at all! i welcome your points raised and questions!

[The Eagle]

So the real argument, then, is what the mind consists of, and whether some form of conscious thought can exist beyond a material being.

In terms of the mind as we know it on Earth: no.

In terms of something possible greater than the world itself: yes.

well what has lead you to believe that it is possible?

we can go back to "how" - how can a mind exist without physicality?

if the argument is "anything is possible" - yes sure it is - then in the same instance you can't discount vampires, unicorns, werewloves, pixies, fairies, elves, orks, trolls, the tooth fairy, santa, the easter bunny, dragons, flying pigs etc etc - you get the point.

[cscourge]

True, anything can be taken into account as possible. However, unicorns and vampires are all material things. Therefore, we can observe them or observe the absense of them in our material world.

However, you cannot use that logic with something that is not material. How can you observe an essense?

How too might you desribe, say, a file cabinet in non-material terms? "That in which it is the nature to store." Well, it stores "stuff." And, if you translate that, it becomes "the essence of storage." Which it isn't. It just stores stuff.

What about a pre-existing conscious thought? A definition would be "That in which it is the nature to be." Or, "the essense of existence/creation." That holds up, and it is a non-material definition.

Two points:

You cannot observe something non-material since we live in a material world.
Something non-material is likely to behave in a manner that is different than material things.

Hence why it is POSSIBLE for an otherworldly thing to have a conscious mind before existence.

[St. Dymphna]

the eagle is never wrong

[cscourge]

the eagle is never wrong

Is that so?

[The Eagle]

True, anything can be taken into account as possible. However, unicorns and vampires are all material things. Therefore, we can observe them or observe the absense of them in our material world. .

interesting!

but....... if you open up the door to say "otherworldly" to allow the possibility of something to exist - then unicorns and such have the possibility of having "otherworldly" capabilities. so to put them as solely material things in order to dismiss as non existent as we cant observe them - doesn’t hold up.

What about a pre-existing conscious thought? A definition would be "That in which it is the nature to be." Or, "the essense of existence/creation." That holds up, and it is a non-material definition .

I agree it holds up as a definition of a pre-existing conscious thought – but “that in which it is the nature to be” it also holds up for anything else you may wish to apply it to.
“The essence of existence/creation” – doesn’t necessarily apply to conscious thought.

Two points:

You cannot observe something non-material since we live in a material world.
Something non-material is likely to behave in a manner that is different than material things.

Hence why it is POSSIBLE for an otherworldly thing to have a conscious mind before existence.

Hmmm….. If you are to say you can’t observe something non-material – how are able to say what is “likely” about its nature?

I agree – if you open the door to terms like “otherworldly” – then sure anything can exist. But logically at the same time you can’t say something doesn’t.

it’s a world of possibilities!

so then even if we say concious thought is possible before the universe exists - how does the universe come into existance from a non-material concious thought?

[The Eagle]

the eagle is never wrong

Is that so?

St. Dymphna is just trolling - he does it a lot.

[DRLHyper]

I am Agnostic most certainly, because in practice, a "Supreme Being" (Hindu/Sikh term for 'God'), can not be known to be exist, or not. An examination of the different theories of the universe reveals to us that empirical evidence is lacking. We only have mathematical ecuations, and mathematical formulae without empirical evidence to back them are just that; numbers on a board, imaginary. This is a similar process applied to the entire "multiverses" reasoning; out of nothing, multiple realites are created.

So, you can discount the flawed mathematics and base yourself on the core of the theory itself. If we remove all the flaws of the Big Bang and Creationist theories, we get the following: In the first, there was nothing, then *boom*, and the universe started. In the second: There was nothing but a single God-Creator, who then made the universe. There exists the possibility that both theories are also correct in a way -- perhaps a creator 'set the universe in motion', so to speak, but 'retired' himself so as to let it's creation proceed it's course... That would negate not free will nor an intelligent creator.

Now you might ask what all the above has to do with this subject? Not much, if I say so myself. However I did it to prove I am Agnostic and relatively open-minded on the subject (even if I demand empirical evidence, I will accept that if the theory can not be disproven nor proven, then there exists a possibility that it is true).

On the matter at hand: I would like to mention that, if a creator existed, it would by definition be beyond our comprehension -- even if we could still contact it, or react to it, then it would only be a 'part' of it, not the whole creator. This is because, in the probability that a creator exists, we could never understand it's whole -- indeed many theories in favour of a Creator's existence mention that we are 'a spark from God'. Imagine that it is true for a moment, and we could barely recognize a 'flame' -- let alone the entire Creator.

Furthermore, to be a Creator, it would have to transcend the laws of Creation... In a similar way a scientist transcends the random number generator it created. Therefore, the definitions we have of consciousness, conscious, intelligent, etc., probably would not apply to it.

[ettabet]

Hi, Im really enjoying this thread, so interesting. I have a question, if the universe is consesness, and it "was" before the universe, and from it everything was created, and in the begining it was only self conscience... from where did "it" get the ideas for the things "it" created. Where there is nothing... a void, I can't imagine where things like "I want to experience happyness or even love, or being a tree ect... with out sadness how does one even as magnanimus as "God" think up happyness, and vise versa. with out hate how does one imagine (let alone create) Love... with out ever seeing or being something, lets take a tree for example, how does the notion of one come into the "mind" of the creator and then create one, ane know how to keep it alive, first we have to think about creating "alive" ... Im not trying to be difficult, I really do wonder about this. Remember in the movie the secret, where it said that if the mind has never known about something, it cant even see it, it used columbus's boats off shore and the indians couldn't see them because they had no idea that something like the ships existed, so their minds couldn't conceptualize them enough to even be able to see them, with that said, if NOTHING exsisted, and "God" had nothing except self, how did it come up with everything in the beginning in order to creat it. How do you create something that doesnt exsist? Sorry for the ramble, I have a hard time explaining what Im trying to ask. Id love to hear what your ideas on this are. It really does intrege me. and one more thing.... sorry for the spelling, I know Im a terrible speller. Thanks for your input.

[The Eagle]

Hi, Im really enjoying this thread, so interesting. I have a question, if the universe is consesness, and it "was" before the universe, and from it everything was created, and in the begining it was only self conscience... from where did "it" get the ideas for the things "it" created. Where there is nothing... a void, I can't imagine where things like "I want to experience happyness or even love, or being a tree ect... with out sadness how does one even as magnanimus as "God" think up happyness, and vise versa. with out hate how does one imagine (let alone create) Love... with out ever seeing or being something, lets take a tree for example, how does the notion of one come into the "mind" of the creator and then create one, ane know how to keep it alive, first we have to think about creating "alive" ... Im not trying to be difficult, I really do wonder about this. Remember in the movie the secret, where it said that if the mind has never known about something, it cant even see it, it used columbus's boats off shore and the indians couldn't see them because they had no idea that something like the ships existed, so their minds couldn't conceptualize them enough to even be able to see them, with that said, if NOTHING exsisted, and "God" had nothing except self, how did it come up with everything in the beginning in order to creat it. How do you create something that doesnt exsist? Sorry for the ramble, I have a hard time explaining what Im trying to ask. Id love to hear what your ideas on this are. It really does intrege me. and one more thing.... sorry for the spelling, I know Im a terrible speller. Thanks for your input.

thats an interesting idea to discuss - i mentioned earlier if conciousness existed before the universe existed it could not be aware of surroundings - one of the definitions of conciousness! it can only be concious of its own existence.

at that point we must decide if "ideas" can come from nothing - or are they insipred by surroundings. this does make a difference in the argument. for if we say at some point conciousness came up with the idea of the universe we have to accept the logic that something can come from nothing. which allows either argument to flourish -i.e. conciousness/life can come from nothing

the other alternative is that conciousness always has had the knowledge of the physical universe - yet again we have to add something on to the "always" pile of arguments in order to make it fit. - you can see how the idea develops to "god knowing all things" comes about.

however one point still stands - if conciousness existed before the universe - what is the universe made out of? we aahve to assume that the universe is made out of the pre-existing conciousness - unless of course we say something can come from nothing! lol

[DRLHyper]

Do not forget: the possibility of a creator surpassing our definitions of 'consciousness' are still viable ones. It makes sense that the creator of the Universe ought to be more... 'Complex' than the Universe itself.

[The Eagle]

Do not forget: the possibility of a creator surpassing our definitions of 'consciousness' are still viable ones. It makes sense that the creator of the Universe ought to be more... 'Complex' than the Universe itself.

true - sorry it has taken so long to relply!

i agree the possibility is there - it would be unscientific to say the possibility was not - or to rule it out completely.

its also possible for the earth to be flat. lol.

i think there is only three things that a pre-existing conciousness needs to put in place for the universe to exist. the bare minimum shall i say.

energy existing, gravity, and angular momentum. that is the only three things that need putting in place if (and it is an if) - energy itself has the ability to form life. thats the only three things i think pre-existing conciousness needs to know and put in place.

to quote from the gospel of paul.........mccartney...lol

"Though It Takes A Lot Of Power To Make A Big Tree Grow.
It Doesn't Need A Pot Of Knowledge. For A Seed Knows What A Seed Must Know."

the trouble is when we consider pre-existing conciousness forming the universe - we have to accept the logic that something can come from nothing - which helps both sides of the argument. thats why i favour the middle ground as a logical stand point. the universe has always existed and the universe has always been conciousness.

the implications of that is conciousness itself is a phsycial thing - and everything (without exception) is part of "god". in my opinion of course.

[DRLHyper]

true - sorry it has taken so long to relply!

i agree the possibility is there - it would be unscientific to say the possibility was not - or to rule it out completely.

its also possible for the earth to be flat. lol.

We have empirical evidence to disprove the flat Earth theory.

We also have empirical evidence which reveals to us less than 1% of the Universe.

"Though It Takes A Lot Of Power To Make A Big Tree Grow.
It Doesn't Need A Pot Of Knowledge. For A Seed Knows What A Seed Must Know."

the trouble is when we consider pre-existing conciousness forming the universe - we have to accept the logic that something can come from nothing - which helps both sides of the argument. thats why i favour the middle ground as a logical stand point. the universe has always existed and the universe has always been conciousness.

the implications of that is conciousness itself is a phsycial thing - and everything (without exception) is part of "god". in my opinion of course.

The last line equates intelligent thought to instinctual reaction.

(It would also be technically wrong, because a seed cannot 'know' anything...)

However, if you are reffering to the workings of the universe ('a seed will do what a seed will do'), then that is another situation, which I would like to retake.

My point is -- when a geneticist creates a new lifeform, even if it is a very simple one, he [the creator] surpasses the definition of life as far as to the microverse it matters. True, both are 'lifeforms', but one is vastly more complex than the first. The geneticist also has relative omniscience as far as to the affairs of the bacteria matters. And one could argue relative omnipotence. Likewise, the bacteria is unaware completely of the geneticist. It is beyond the bacteria's senses to undestand, or even acknowledge, it's creator.

Transfered to the Human - God relationship, humans are vastly more complex than bacteria, so it is expected we may be able to 'acknowledge' the possibility of a Creator existing. But this means that our Creator has to be, necesarily, much more complex than us -- and even more complex if he created something as great as the Universe itself.

Furthemore, it is very possible he may escape our comprehension. As per the bacteria example -- the geneticist trascends whatever 'thoughts' or 'understanding'' the bacteria may have. It would be a similar situation to compare a Creator and humanity. Even if empirically we could prove the existence of a Creator, it may be too great for our understanding in the end.

[The Eagle]

We have empirical evidence to disprove the flat Earth theory.

well like we discussed in a thread a few weeks ago- observable evidence always has an element of uncertainty.

now whilst i dont believe the world is actually flat - my knowing that the world isn't flat is based on theory gained by evidence that i believe to be true. i.e. - logical justified belief.

however every piece of observable evidence could be explained differently. the possibility is still there that the world could be flat. - its an illogical belief in my opinion - but no evidence we can observe can wipe away 100% of the possibility of the earth being flat. remember science has the principle of uncertainty.

The last line equates intelligent thought to instinctual reaction.

(It would also be technically wrong, because a seed cannot 'know' anything...)

However, if you are reffering to the workings of the universe ('a seed will do what a seed will do'), then that is another situation, which I would like to retake.

My point is -- when a geneticist creates a new lifeform, even if it is a very simple one, he [the creator] surpasses the definition of life as far as to the microverse it matters. True, both are 'lifeforms', but one is vastly more complex than the first. The geneticist also has relative omniscience as far as to the affairs of the bacteria matters. And one could argue relative omnipotence. Likewise, the bacteria is unaware completely of the geneticist. It is beyond the bacteria's senses to undestand, or even acknowledge, it's creator.

Transfered to the Human - God relationship, humans are vastly more complex than bacteria, so it is expected we may be able to 'acknowledge' the possibility of a Creator existing. But this means that our Creator has to be, necesarily, much more complex than us -- and even more complex if he created something as great as the Universe itself.

Furthemore, it is very possible he may escape our comprehension. As per the bacteria example -- the geneticist trascends whatever 'thoughts' or 'understanding'' the bacteria may have. It would be a similar situation to compare a Creator and humanity. Even if empirically we could prove the existence of a Creator, it may be too great for our understanding in the end.

do we have empirical evidence to wipe away the idea that that seeds dont have inteligent thought? - or is it a possibility?

your argument also works the other way though. the creation can be more complex than the creator if the creation has the abilty to learn and grow by itself.

[DRLHyper]

Indeed, observable evidence could be falsified. However, you do not have to believe me that the world is flat -- even since ancient times the Greeks have theorized that the world 'could not be flat'. (This is because of the sea-level effect, since after the ships reach a distance in the ocean it seems as if they were at a 'lower' position).

As far as intelligent thought it matters, I think it would be appropiate to say that 'yes'. The seed lacks any signs of intelligent activity and lacks the necesary elements to produce such. Empirical evidence shows that elephants have a brain size comparable to humans, for example -- but they lack the necesary synaptic conections to evolve into 'intelligent' life.

Certainly, I have no issues with the theory of the creation gaining more complexity than the creator itself... But for the purposes of the discussion, let me rephrase: At the time of creation, the creation is necesarily of a lesser complexity than the creator. So to speak, if I had the knowledge and resources to create an intelligent AI, chances are I know much more than the AI does when it comes to 'life' -- yet as time goes it would probably surpass me.

[The Eagle]

Indeed, observable evidence could be falsified. However, you do not have to believe me that the world is flat -- even since ancient times the Greeks have theorized that the world 'could not be flat'. (This is because of the sea-level effect, since after the ships reach a distance in the ocean it seems as if they were at a 'lower' position).

its not just about falsification -its about observing something and building a theory based on those observations. ancient civilizationshad circumnavigated the and mapped the world - interestingly they even mapped the south pole before it had ice covering its river inlets. i dont dispute this in terms of my own beliefs.

however this is about a possibility that what is observed has another explanation - however unlikely we logically think it is.

ships going off into the distance - what if it only just appears that way? a visual effect because of what awaits at the end of the earth? once they reach the end of the earth - god transports the ship to the other side - like pacman going off one end of the screen and appearing on the other lol. - to the individual on the jounrey it will appear the world is round.

we have mapped the stars in the sky and this shows the spherical nature of the earths movement -but if we bring in the possibility of a god that can do anything - then those stars can be placed there with any amount of precision everynight.

we have flown into space and seen the round earth - oh hang on i havent so i would have to believe someone who has- and even if we do believe his story - then he has to believe what he saw was real - what if it wasn't?

ridiculous as all that sounds to a logically minded person - as the evidence together is all locical and we believe it. my point is - is there a possibility that the earth may not be spherical and what we have observed all can have a different explanation? certainly - if we bring into the logic something that cant be observed, and defies logic as we understand it - i.e. god on this occasion.

As far as intelligent thought it matters, I think it would be appropiate to say that 'yes'. The seed lacks any signs of intelligent activity and lacks the necesary elements to produce such. Empirical evidence shows that elephants have a brain size comparable to humans, for example -- but they lack the necesary synaptic conections to evolve into 'intelligent' life.

careful now though. you are applying not observing to discount something (intelligence in seeds)- but arguing the possibility of something even though you cant observe (conciousness before the universe exists).

Certainly, I have no issues with the theory of the creation gaining more complexity than the creator itself... But for the purposes of the discussion, let me rephrase: At the time of creation, the creation is necesarily of a lesser complexity than the creator. So to speak, if I had the knowledge and resources to create an intelligent AI, chances are I know much more than the AI does when it comes to 'life' -- yet as time goes it would probably surpass me.

hmmmm.... not necessarily. (to use your own argument against you) - our logic doesnt have to apply to a preexisting conciousness lol.

of course there is another option - the universe is created by mistake - an accident - that even if conciousness existed before the universe - it doesnt necessarily suggest the the universe was deliberate. it also doesnt suggest that the conciousness has to be aware of the universe it created by accident. lol

[DRLHyper]

ridiculous as all that sounds to a logically minded person - as the evidence together is all locical and we believe it. my point is - is there a possibility that the earth may not be spherical and what we have observed all can have a different explanation? certainly - if we bring into the logic something that cant be observed, and defies logic as we understand it - i.e. god on this occasion.

Theorically, a god could do so.

However, what would be it's purpose? Furthermore, there must at some point be signs of intelligent manipulation. Every sentient leaves a recognizable mark in history. A god would be no different -- at some point, we would realize we are being manipulated (which, strangely, goes quite well with the 'possibility' of a god existing).

careful now though. you are applying not observing to discount something (intelligence in seeds)- but arguing the possibility of something even though you cant observe (conciousness before the universe exists).

Correctly.

And I am also stating that if a creator exists, it could be beyond our definition of 'consciousness'. By necesity, at the point of creation (if the creation was deliberated), it must be of a higher complexity than the creation.

hmmmm.... not necessarily. (to use your own argument against you) - our logic doesnt have to apply to a preexisting conciousness lol.

Specially when it is possble it may be not a 'consciousness' at all.

of course there is another option - the universe is created by mistake - an accident - that even if conciousness existed before the universe - it doesnt necessarily suggest the the universe was deliberate. it also doesnt suggest that the conciousness has to be aware of the universe it created by accident. lol

It is certainly a possibility as well. However such would eliminate the need of deliberation, and hence the need of an 'intelligent' creator, which would also render the definition of 'consciousness' unnecesary.

[The Eagle]

Theorically, a god could do so.

However, what would be it's purpose? Furthermore, there must at some point be signs of intelligent manipulation. Every sentient leaves a recognizable mark in history. A god would be no different -- at some point, we would realize we are being manipulated (which, strangely, goes quite well with the 'possibility' of a god existing).

so then - the earth being flat is possible and eperical evidence as we have it can't rule out possibility. hence me saying the acceptance of a belie in an all powerful god - you open the door to the illogical being possible.

purpose is tricky - what is the purpose god would create a spherical earth? this is a being that can do anything so the why can only be understood by god. every sentient has made a mark on history cant be analysed - because there may have been sentients that havent - how can we prove or disprove a sentient that cant be observed that hasnt made its mark on history?

a god would be no different? - but every argument so far has been god is different so the rules dont apply??

careful now though. you are applying not observing to discount something (intelligence in seeds)- but arguing the possibility of something even though you cant observe (conciousness before the universe exists).

Correctly.

And I am also stating that if a creator exists, it could be beyond our definition of 'consciousness'. By necesity, at the point of creation (if the creation was deliberated), it must be of a higher complexity than the creation.

but you cant apply one rule to one thing and then discard the rule for something else -and it doesnt lead to a conclusion that god is more complex than the universe. - its a possibility. just the same as the possibility of there not being a creator at all.

[DRLHyper]

Theorically, a god could do so.

However, what would be it's purpose? Furthermore, there must at some point be signs of intelligent manipulation. Every sentient leaves a recognizable mark in history. A god would be no different -- at some point, we would realize we are being manipulated (which, strangely, goes quite well with the 'possibility' of a god existing).

so then - the earth being flat is possible and eperical evidence as we have it can't rule out possibility. hence me saying the acceptance of a belie in an all powerful god - you open the door to the illogical being possible.

Let me rephrase, then.

Not 'all-powerful' but 'creator' god. A creator god does not necesarily possess omnipotence or omniscience; merely it acts as a catalyst for creation.

a god would be no different? - but every argument so far has been god is different so the rules dont apply??

Yes, god could still be beyond our comprehension. But a non-Deist god (ala Christian, for example), would interfere with creation; hence at some point, even if we could comprehend the total element of god, we would be able to observe it's interactions with creation.

Correctly.

And I am also stating that if a creator exists, it could be beyond our definition of 'consciousness'. By necesity, at the point of creation (if the creation was deliberated), it must be of a higher complexity than the creation.

but you cant apply one rule to one thing and then discard the rule for something else -and it doesnt lead to a conclusion that god is more complex than the universe. - its a possibility. just the same as the possibility of there not being a creator at all.

Consciousness as we understand it pertains only to sentient beings as we know them. A creator god, being more complex, could be beyond this definition.

I do not discard the possibility that a creator god takes a non-interference aproach or, alternatively, that a creator god does not exists.

[The Eagle]

Let me rephrase, then.

Not 'all-powerful' but 'creator' god. A creator god does not necessarily possess omnipotence or omniscience; merely it acts as a catalyst for creation.

The point why a flat earth scenario was raised is once you allow the possibility for something – that is not based on empirical evidence – then you open the door for the sheer illogical to be possible. Therefore logic itself becomes redundant in order to narrow down possibility.

Yes, god could still be beyond our comprehension. But a non-Deist god (ala Christian, for example), would interfere with creation; hence at some point, even if we could comprehend the total element of god, we would be able to observe it's interactions with creation.

Hmmm – but that’s limiting god to the creation – or the created anyway.

Consciousness as we understand it pertains only to sentient beings as we know them. A creator god, being more complex, could be beyond this definition.

Ah but – the idea that the creator needs to be more complex is based on our consciousness and when we create things. Therefore the necessity for creator to be more complex does not need to apply to the creator god.

This is why I raised the issue last post – you can’t have something beyond our comprehension and then still apply rules we have learned and observed - to discard or justify ideas about said consciousness.

i.e. - If a consciousness that pre-existed creation is beyond our comprehension – then we can also surmise that “beyond” doesn’t necessarily mean more complex.

I do not discard the possibility that a creator god takes a non-interference approach or, alternatively, that a creator god does not exists.

I know you don’t

[DRLHyper]

The point why a flat earth scenario was raised is once you allow the possibility for something – that is not based on empirical evidence – then you open the door for the sheer illogical to be possible. Therefore logic itself becomes redundant in order to narrow down possibility.

The Big Bang theory is not based on empirical evidence, merely on post-event empirical evidence. The creation of the Universe, as is, we have no information about at all; merely theories and conjectures.

To speculate on something we have no information about does not necesarily means we have to invalidate things as we know them.

Once of the Postulates of Science is "The external world actually is." (Therefore: 'The external [outside of the mind] world exists).

Hmmm – but that’s limiting god to the creation – or the created anyway.

True.

If one were to believe in the Deist perspective, one could say god 'passed down' the potential for more creation to it's creations.

Ah but – the idea that the creator needs to be more complex is based on our consciousness and when we create things. Therefore the necessity for creator to be more complex does not need to apply to the creator god.

True.

But the point was that the bacteria was completely unaware of the geneticist. It is a typical Agnostic situation of "cannot be proven, but not disproven either." This does not makes it true.

It does however exists as a possiblity. We are more complex than the bacteria, so we could come up with the idea of a creator. This does not necesarily mean we have to be capable of perceiving that creator; but it could also mean that we are not capable of doing so at this time.

[The Eagle]

The Big Bang theory is not based on empirical evidence, merely on post-event empirical evidence. The creation of the Universe, as is, we have no information about at all; merely theories and conjectures.

well it goes back to the logical round earth though. its not the evidence itself that shows the round earth - its what it logically suggests. its not making things fit into a concept -its logically duducing what is possible based on evidence. god creating the universe is not based on evidence - "god did it" its a throw away label where a gap in the logic arises - i think that has always been the case throughout history though so its nothing new - slowly the gap closes.

i not a big fan of the big bang theory as the start of all creation - start of the universe as we know it maybe - but i still think there was physicality before - namely that i cant throw away the concept of something cant come from nothing.what interests is why some people think that a big bang theory excludes the idea of a creator anyway.

But the point was that the bacteria was completely unaware of the geneticist. It is a typical Agnostic situation of "cannot be proven, but not disproven either." This does not makes it true.

It does however exists as a possiblity. We are more complex than the bacteria, so we could come up with the idea of a creator. This does not necesarily mean we have to be capable of perceiving that creator; but it could also mean that we are not capable of doing so at this time.

well we dont know if bacteria is aware of the scientist -how can we test it?

so what we are left with here is just because we can come up with the idea of a creator - it doesnt mean there is a creator or that creator is what our idea is -and even if a creator does exist or existed - we dont know if it is more complex than our idea or not. all things are a possibility and even if we have empirical evidence to support a claim of truth - it doesnt dimish any of the possibilites because any of the empirical evidence canbe explained differently by one of the other possibilites.... lol agnostic does seem to be more sensible. lol

i will just add this in -

an interesting concept i have run into some years ago was that of a universe that is circular in nature (dont know if i have put this in the thread so far so apologies if i have mentioned this before!). it is linked to what the mayans described as the heartbeat of the universe. where the universe expands and contracts - the point where all energy is collected at one point then "big bang" it expands again - it expands til it reaches a limit and then "collapses" back to that single point. its the circular (yes i back to circles again lol) idea means there is no "beginning" - i.e. circles dont have a starting point. in this theory there is no need for an all powerful god - or all knowing. "god" merely becomes that point in time where all energy is collected.

[DRLHyper]

well it goes back to the logical round earth though. its not the evidence itself that shows the round earth - its what it logically suggests. its not making things fit into a concept -its logically duducing what is possible based on evidence. god creating the universe is not based on evidence - "god did it" its a throw away label where a gap in the logic arises - i think that has always been the case throughout history though so its nothing new - slowly the gap closes.

A scientific fact is a close agreement between observations conducted by scientists.

How can, then, the Big Bang be a scientific fact if it can not be observed, studied, or replicated in any form?

i not a big fan of the big bang theory as the start of all creation - start of the universe as we know it maybe - but i still think there was physicality before - namely that i cant throw away the concept of something cant come from nothing.what interests is why some people think that a big bang theory excludes the idea of a creator anyway.

I used it as an example to invalidate the Atheist claims that the 'Big Bang' is all we need to prove there is no creator.

The Big Bang theory is not based on empirical evidence, merely on post-event empirical evidence. The creation of the Universe, as is, we have no information about at all; merely theories and conjectures.

well it goes back to the logical round earth though. its not the evidence itself that shows the round earth - its what it logically suggests. its not making things fit into a concept -its logically duducing what is possible based on evidence. god creating the universe is not based on evidence - "god did it" its a throw away label where a gap in the logic arises - i think that has always been the case throughout history though so its nothing new - slowly the gap closes.

i not a big fan of the big bang theory as the start of all creation - start of the universe as we know it maybe - but i still think there was physicality before - namely that i cant throw away the concept of something cant come from nothing.what interests is why some people think that a big bang theory excludes the idea of a creator anyway.

i will just add this in -

an interesting concept i have run into some years ago was that of a universe that is circular in nature (dont know if i have put this in the thread so far so apologies if i have mentioned this before!). it is linked to what the mayans described as the heartbeat of the universe. where the universe expands and contracts - the point where all energy is collected at one point then "big bang" it expands again - it expands til it reaches a limit and then "collapses" back to that single point. its the circular (yes i back to circles again lol) idea means there is no "beginning" - i.e. circles dont have a starting point. in this theory there is no need for an all powerful god - or all knowing. "god" merely becomes that point in time where all energy is collected.

Nothing new, that is the 'allways existed' theory. However, there is no evidence to validate or disprove it.

Personally, I prefer my things to have a beggining and an end, so I am not a big fan of the entire 'Ouroboros' concept. But as I stated before, empiricism says nothing about it this time.

[The Eagle]

A scientific fact is a close agreement between observations conducted by scientists.

How can, then, the Big Bang be a scientific fact if it can not be observed, studied, or replicated in any form?

i dont think anyone here is claming it as scientific fact are they? there is a difference between scietific fact and scientific theory. the big bang theory is based on evidence and then what that evidence suggests. gaps in the logic sure - thats the difference between what is described as scietific fact and scientific theory though isn't it?

I used it as an example to invalidate the Atheist claims that the 'Big Bang' is all we need to prove there is no creator?

showing there is a gap in the theory doesnt invalidate the claim for the need of no creator - it is still a possibility. its just people considering the theory as fact that is the issue. but like you said below-people like a begining and end so this is for most where the need to call the god theory or the big bang theory as fact.

Nothing new, that is the 'allways existed' theory. However, there is no evidence to validate or disprove it.

Personally, I prefer my things to have a beggining and an end, so I am not a big fan of the entire 'Ouroboros' concept. But as I stated before, empiricism says nothing about it this time.

i only raise it as its one of the possibilities that hadnt been discussed. evidence for the universe expanding is there added to the logic that (like i said early on in the thread) - i think someting has always had to exist.

for me it comes down to this: based on evidence and logic as we have it - that something always has to have physicality as we understand it at the moment, and conciousness itself has to have physicality in order to exist.

any ideas or possibilites that sway from that are not based on empiricism.

that is not to say the other possibilites can be discounted completely but emerical evidence leads logic - and i believe logic narrows down possibility.

[DRLHyper]

i dont think anyone here is claming it as scientific fact are they? there is a difference between scietific fact and scientific theory. the big bang theory is based on evidence and then what that evidence suggests. gaps in the logic sure - thats the difference between what is described as scietific fact and scientific theory though isn't it?

True.

showing there is a gap in the theory doesnt invalidate the claim for the need of no creator - it is still a possibility. its just people considering the theory as fact that is the issue. but like you said below-people like a begining and end so this is for most where the need to call the god theory or the big bang theory as fact.

Yes, that was what I was hinting at. Most Atheists tend to take the theory as a fact, when it is not. So long as it is regarded as a theory and not as a fact, I have no major issues with it.

i only raise it as its one of the possibilities that hadnt been discussed. evidence for the universe expanding is there added to the logic that (like i said early on in the thread) - i think someting has always had to exist.

for me it comes down to this: based on evidence and logic as we have it - that something always has to have physicality as we understand it at the moment, and conciousness itself has to have physicality in order to exist.

any ideas or possibilites that sway from that are not based on empiricism.

that is not to say the other possibilites can be discounted completely but emerical evidence leads logic - and i believe logic narrows down possibility.

Correct, one again.

Ultimately, it all narrows down to the tragicomical fact that we do not know enought facts.

[The one]

I haven't read most of this thread, but I have a theory on how the universe was created, in another thread anyway, but I believe that conciousness came before the 'fully formed' universe, or existence.

[The Eagle]

I haven't read most of this thread, but I have a theory on how the universe was created, in another thread anyway, but I believe that conciousness came before the 'fully formed' universe, or existence.

perhaps you can say how and why have you come to this conlusion? otherwise it will just be us stating our beliefs rather than it being a discussion.

[The one]

Oh yeah, well I have no evidence or explanation, actually I could come up with an explanation, but I have a thoery that in the beginning there was nothing. This was called the everything, and it was called Mundus, Mundus created a soul and then ceased to exist, and at the moment of the soul's entering into the everything, it started to blast existence into the everything. So that's why I basically said that counciousness came before the universe, not that I know anything though, it could be wrong.

[The Eagle]

Oh yeah, well I have no evidence or explanation, actually I could come up with an explanation, but I have a thoery that in the beginning there was nothing. This was called the everything, and it was called Mundus, Mundus created a soul and then ceased to exist, and at the moment of the soul's entering into the everything, it started to blast existence into the everything. So that's why I basically said that counciousness came before the universe, not that I know anything though, it could be wrong.

again it has major problems with the logic.

to sum up: there was nothing, but that nothing wasnt nothing - it was something and that something was everything. this everything created something and then everything ceased to exist. - but everything ceasing to exist still left something - that something is existence that was blasted into everything - even though everything had ceased to exist before.

so lets cut the contradictions out of the above theory otherwise we have in your theory nothing (no thing) - created a soul. no thing created a soul - so souls were never created. and we have something existing that blasted existence into something already existing.

so what we have is - in the begning there was something and that something created a soul, the something ceased to exist once the soul was created. that soul was the universe as you say it "blasts existence into everything"

i think we had gone through kina this theory previously in the post. ie the option of god existing creating the unvierse and ceasing to exist - or becoming the universe.

i think calling things "everything" and "nothing" as a name even though it doesnt mean everything or nothing is only going to lead to contradiction and having a theory with no structure.

[The one]

Oh yeah, well I have no evidence or explanation, actually I could come up with an explanation, but I have a thoery that in the beginning there was nothing. This was called the everything, and it was called Mundus, Mundus created a soul and then ceased to exist, and at the moment of the soul's entering into the everything, it started to blast existence into the everything. So that's why I basically said that counciousness came before the universe, not that I know anything though, it could be wrong.

again it has major problems with the logic.

to sum up: there was nothing, but that nothing wasnt nothing - it was something and that something was everything. this everything created something and then everything ceased to exist. - but everything ceasing to exist still left something - that something is existence that was blasted into everything - even though everything had ceased to exist before.

so lets cut the contradictions out of the above theory otherwise we have in your theory nothing (no thing) - created a soul. no thing created a soul - so souls were never created. and we have something existing that blasted existence into something already existing.

so what we have is - in the begning there was something and that something created a soul, the something ceased to exist once the soul was created. that soul was the universe as you say it "blasts existence into everything"

i think we had gone through kina this theory previously in the post. ie the option of god existing creating the unvierse and ceasing to exist - or becoming the universe.

i think calling things "everything" and "nothing" as a name even though it doesnt mean everything or nothing is only going to lead to contradiction and having a theory with no structure.

There's something you're not understanding. I said the soul blasted existence into nothing, I didn't mean that the soul actually became existence into nothing. Also, when I said mundus ceased to exist, it doesn't mean the 'everything' ceased to exist.

You may say, "but you said that mundus WAS the everything, so if Mundus went, how can the everything not go aswell?'

Well, this is hard to explain, but the everything could still exist (according to my theories non-exist) even if Mundus went, the everything would still remain. Like if I died, my body would still remain.

You mentioned that no thing created a soul. I didn't say the everything created a soul, I said that Mundus created the soul. Yes, I know I said that Mundus was the everything, but Mundus is something, even though it is in nothing. Infact, it didn't create it, it rebirthed itself, listen, go to my 'theories' topic in this thread, and read the explanation under 'creation theory'. It's in more detail than I've explained here.

You also mentioned that the soul blasted existence into something already existting. the everything is not existing at all, so nothing was already existing. And if you say Mundus was already existing, well it wasn't, mundus did not exist, and it cannoty ever exist.

[The Eagle]

There's something you're not understanding. I said the soul blasted existence into nothing, I didn't mean that the soul actually became existence into nothing. Also, when I said mundus ceased to exist, it doesn't mean the 'everything' ceased to exist.

You may say, "but you said that mundus WAS the everything, so if Mundus went, how can the everything not go aswell?'

Well, this is hard to explain, but the everything could still exist (according to my theories non-exist) even if Mundus went, the everything would still remain. Like if I died, my body would still remain.

You mentioned that no thing created a soul. I didn't say the everything created a soul, I said that Mundus created the soul. Yes, I know I said that Mundus was the everything, but Mundus is something, even though it is in nothing. Infact, it didn't create it, it rebirthed itself, listen, go to my 'theories' topic in this thread, and read the explanation under 'creation theory'. It's in more detail than I've explained here.

You also mentioned that the soul blasted existence into something already existting. the everything is not existing at all, so nothing was already existing. And if you say Mundus was already existing, well it wasn't, mundus did not exist, and it cannoty ever exist.

again you reply with illogical statements.

so when everything ceased to exist - called mundas - this didnt mean everything. it meant mundas that was everything that wasnt everything - was nothing. which was said before that mundas was nothing but was everything.

forgive me - by no means do i mean to offend you but it sounds like someone trying to sound spiritual - by talking a load of bollocks.

you siad hat mundas was nothing - but mundas created a soul - so you said "no thing" created a soul. please remember "nothing" has a meaning before you use it. it doesn't mean what you are applying to it. you are merly applyiing "nothing" as a label to "something". so the honest thing to do was call it "something".

your theories do not stand as logical theories i am afraid.

[The one]

No, I didn't say that everything ceased to exist, I said that mundus ceased to exist, leaving the everything. Also, I am not trying to "sound" spiritual, but I admit to believing this so blindly, of course I must be wrong, I mean I don't know, I just liked the idea, I guess that gives it even more reason to be illogical, oh well.

Mundus was something in the everything, not nothing, so then mundus (something) ceased to exist, leaving everything (nothing).