Can something come from nothing? Logically speaking no...

Can the universe create itself from nothing? no.
Can a God create a universe from nothing? no.

Can consciousness create itself from nothing? no.
Can the brain create consciousness from nothing? no.

Can consciousness ever be certain anything beyond itself (e.g. brain or universe) even exists? no.
Does consciousness have any real evidence for anything other then qualia, which is itself. no.

End result: Consciousness concludes itself to be the eternal spiritual creator of everything within/of itself, which is all that exists. I am God.

The main question that your post revolves around, in my opinion, is that of creation. Based on what you say, how can a given consciousness be the creator of “all that exists”? If, for one, everything within/of itself is itself? If it’s all itself, then it could’ve never been the “creator” of them, in as much as this already presuppose the fact of their reality, as opposed to non-reality, before its very act of creating them, & therefore they would’ve never been non-real, thus being capable of being created or made actual, in the first place. Yet, on the other hand, if you’re to go on to claim that they’re not identical with consciousness, I still don’t see how consciousness can be, in your view, the creator of them? Moreover, & how you’re to avoid the conclusion that all consciousness is co-eternal (un-created) along with whatever is other than it? Since neither can create, or comes from, another. A view that’s in disagreement with both scientific consensus & religious or spiritualistic consensus.

Can something come from nothing? Logically speaking no. — OmniscientNihilist

Logic and physics are by no means a perfect overlap of each other. It's understood that it's the vacuum, the nothing, that's unusual, because somethings keep coming "from" the nothing all the time.

End result:... I am God. — OmniscientNihilist

With appropriate qualifications, I think this is as close as it gets. Of course it means that God is at all times a work-in-progress.

No thing can create anything, because something can't come from nothing. True creation of any kind is impossible because at its heart is the claim that something came from nothing, which is magical thinking. Therefore whatever exists must exist eternally. Matter cannot create spirit and spirit cannot create matter, but also matter cannot create more matter and spirit cannot create more spirit. Because any of those options is claiming something came from nothing.

We only have evidence for qualia and consciousness therefore they must both be the same substance, and be eternal. Neither can increase or decrease itself, or fundamentally change itself. Death is impossible.

Even memory cannot prove change because even memory is just more qualia NOW. So the "past" only proves the present. Absolute truth can only be found right now. Going into the mind for answers will just create more and more philosophy. An infinite regression of illusion.

Sciences big bang idea, and religions god idea, are both logically flawed and therefore false.

No thing can create anything, because something can't come from nothing. — OmniscientNihilist

A reasonable supposition, and from it much that seems reasonable flows. Just not in accord with the reality of the world. Which means that reason can be incomplete and deceptive. Not to overthrow reason because it's the best way, but rather to acknowledge reasoned, reasonable processes retain a provisional aspect. Usually a non-issue, but sometimes an issue, as with the claim above.

Proper reason, or proper meditation(seeing reality as it actually is), both lead to the identical conclusion, proving each other, and absolutely+omnisciently refuting everything else as an illusion.

A lot of what you say is opinion-based, & not strictly logically determined, even though I get the feeling that you believe differently.

“No thing can create anything, because something can't come from nothing. True creation of any kind is impossible because at its heart is the claim that something came from nothing, which is magical thinking.” — An actual thing can most definitely create or make other things, this is the heart of what it means to cause what’s possible to become actual; the very fact of this consequence is creation, in as much as its being is impossible without its having been made actual, or created by, something other than itself; possibility cannot cause itself to become actual, & therefore necessitates something other than itself to make or create it to be as such. Thus creation isn’t impossible.

“We only have evidence for qualia and consciousness therefore they must both be the same substance, and be eternal. Neither can increase or decrease itself, or fundamentally change itself.” — How does having evidence for the former & the latter (signified by two different terms) lead, therefore, to concluding that they’re one & the same substance? Wouldn’t the very fact of having evidence for both of them prove that they’re not identical, i.e., not one & the same thing or substance, in as much as they’re distinguishable from each other? Thus, them being one & the same substance isn’t a rational/logical reality; nor are they invariantly united, for whatever is distinguishable from another thing doesn’t depend on that other thing for it to be (& so can be apart from & without each other); therefore the association of their reality isn’t rationally/logically necessary but merely presumed from a-posteriori experience.

What I say is based in omniscience, not opinion.

1- We are talking about two different kinds of creation. I'm talking about creating a new substance, a new thing into reality (metaphysics). Which is impossible. You are talking about remixing a pre-existing substance into a new form and calling it creation. Which is possible.

2- Consciousness and qualia are two different descriptions/properties of the same thing. Don't let words confuse you into thinking they are different metaphysically.

Words going into the mind turn into illusions and misunderstandings

1– First things first, according to you, what is (by definition) a “substance” (such that a new one cannot be created)? Moreover, no, I’m not talking about remixing any pre-existing form (as in modification), but creating an actual one that wasn’t as so before such a consequence was realized (it being a mere possibility, & not nothing, before this).

2– What’s the “property” of something, as opposed to the thing?

Also, how do the descriptions of the two differ, can you provide a concise description of them or their difference?

Omniscience? Lol, boy, you’re quite the character, with assumptions for days.

1- To create a wholly new metaphysical substance something would have to come out of nothing, which is impossible. Otherwise you are simply remixing a substance that was already there in the first place.
2-Consciousness and Qualia are both properties of existence/reality/god/substance. The ultimate and ineffable reality which surrounds and engulfs you, that is you, that you are, here now.
3-All true knowledge ultimately comes from omniscience. You have it too. If you say one plus one equals two you are speaking out of omniscience. When it comes to metaphysics belief is not needed. You do not need belief to know yourself. Anything that requires belief is therefore not you, and therefore doesn't exist metaphysically.

Vacuum state fluctuation is real, and happens everywhere, all the time.

I gather this is what @tim wood was referring to.

Hence the supposition

something can't come from nothing. — OmniscientNihilist

is just wrong.


As for the Big Bang...

"God did it" is a poor explanation for anything, not because it doesn't;t work, but because it works too well. It is able to explain anything and everything, and hence is of utterly no use.

Why did the water boil? God did it. Why did the tree grow? God did it. Why did he say that? god made him. Nothing is gained.

Same with he Big Bang. Saying god did its is not providing an explanation.

Can the singularity be it's own causality without making it spiritual? Thanks — Gregory

There are plenty of physical explanations. That we do not know which of them, if any, is right, does not mean that we must conclude that god did it.

How doe you avoid solipsism?

1- If something comes out of a "vacuum" then that vacuum is not really empty metaphysically. So basically your falling for an illusion.
2- Present what you think solipsism is, and its flaw, and i will address it. I do not seek to avoid anything, but only to dispel illusions and point to the actual reality.

1- If something comes out of a "vacuum" then that vacuum is not really empty. — OmniscientNihilist

AN ad hoc reparation on your part. SO what is the vacuum full of?

Present what you think solipsism is, and its flaw, and i will address it. — OmniscientNihilist

Look it up. How do you explain my disagreeing wiht you?

1– Notice that you avoided answering my question, as I somewhat thought that you would’ve, & simply proceeded to repeat your prior assertions/assumptions without any explanations. Moreover, a new, actual substance, ideally speaking, doesn’t come out of an absolute nothingness, but out of an eternal possibility. You’re confusing yourself by thinking of this in terms of physical or material substance; which isn’t the case.

2– You realize that you neither describe or answer what either consciousness & or qualia is, nor answer my other question & explain what a “property” is & how it’s distinguishable from a “thing”, here, right? Again, simply assuming/asserting without any explaining. I see how you are, “mr. omniscience”.

3– I don’t want to dispute with you about this, I’ll simply just disagree without pressing the point.

1- If a 'vacuum' truly was empty then it would be nothingness and not exist. Therefore you are talking about nothing, and using a word that only exists in your mind

2- It's not my job to look things up that you assume are problems for me. haha. Present the problem yourself in your own words an i will address it.

If a 'vacuum' truly was empty then it would be nothingness and not exist. Therefore you are talking about nothing, and using a word that only exists in your mind — OmniscientNihilist

Now your words become a muddle. I have nothing in my pocket. I'll give you half of it.

And that's what your post - - is. A word muddle.

1- there is no such thing as a 'possibility' in reality. In reality everything exists absolutely.
2-Another word for consciousness can be awareness. Perhaps that will help. Qualia is color, sound, smell, taste, feeling.

"The highest truth is paradoxical" -Lao Tzu (or as you might call it 'muddle')

But don't worry, you dont need words to know yourself. You can use omniscience, which is intrinsic to your nature. Trying to use words to find yourself will only result in spinning in circles of illusion in the mind. Because you never left yourself.

If something comes out of a "vacuum" then that vacuum is not really empty metaphysically. So basically your falling for an illusion. — OmniscientNihilist

You miss the point. It really is a vacuum. Apparently nature really does abhor a vacuum. Your "vacuum" is simply an idea - and you can have that any way you want, with any set of consequences you want. Presumably though, you care to have some attachment to reality. Since that is not present in your idea, then it behooves you to recognize at the least that yours is just an idea, and no part of any reality.

Vaccum is a term used in science for pragmatic purposes. We are talking metaphysics here not science. Same way mathematicians play with the term zero, even though it only exists in the mind.

Yes, indeed the metaphysical nothing is not to be confused with the physicist's nothing. In your court now: please define your nothing. (See if you can get around the no-thing (gerund, from v. "to noth") of the nothing (noun?).)

Define something that doesn't exist? Doing so would only create more confusion.

Only something exists, and it is eternal and omnipresent and unchanging. If a vacuum was truly nothing you would not even be able to see or detect it in any way. Zero is a relative term, and those only exist in the mind for pragmatic purposes.

Quoting authority to excuse your own poor thinking.

My point is simply that metaphysics can get weird sometimes. It's normal. Simply take a break or request more clarification in an area. Get back to the basics. Or forget words all together because they aren't required. Just look instead. Deep looking is often called mediation.

Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

Mere word play.

My point is simply that metaphysics can get weird sometimes. — OmniscientNihilist

Especially when you do it wrong.

Koans are often purposefully used to stop the mind, which then helps someone to see the real reality once the mind is out of the way. The mind should serve the omniscience not cloud it.

Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand? (隻手声あり、その声を聞け) — Hakuin Ekaku

delete please

Sure. I posit that someone who chooses to call themselves "OmniscientNihilist" has a long way to go in understanding them. Tying yourself to a world view in that way shows a lack of imagination.

You are now attempting to change the topic.