0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This assertion " Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality " is unevinced.The "proof" is unable to distinguish between a God and a big bang.This "One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere." sems to me to be an assumption rather than a deduction. Further more it seems to be equivalent to the assumption that there is a God. If that's right then the proof is meaningless. It does nothing but prove it's own assumption.Anyway, it still leaves the time honoured question of where did God come from?
Unevinced is the opposite of evinced. It means that there is no evidence supplied for it."Did the big bang cause itself?"Did God cause Himself?It's the same problem. From the available evidence something must have been the primary cause. We can't say with certainty what it was because we were not there at the time. However there is evidence from the observation of the expanding universe that the universe was once at a point (or at least something very much smaller than it's current size.There is no evidence for any God.So, now you know what the word unevinced means you will understand when I say that "The question of "where did God come from?" is answered; One thing has always existed everywhere!" is unevinced, yet you calim it to be true.By assuming it to be true you are effectively assuming the existence of God. Proving God's existence based on the assumption that He exists is simply tautology. It's a waste of time.This statement "Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed" is roughly equivalent. It is stated, but not proven to be true; and it forces the existence of something eternal which you can label as God.The proof simply isn't valid.