Activity

Okay, thanks for the corrections. I did use some different words than you. I hope I wasn’t too far off in getting your meaning. I’m not understanding where you are saying consciousness came from. What do you mean by “universal”.

We have different ideas on what proof is, that’s going to cause problems for us. Many things are “possible”, but that is very different from “probable”. We have no evidence of anything showing signs of consciousness unless it has some neural activity, for example. So the probability of consciousness existing without a brain is very low. Conversely, the theories of some of the best minds in the world are not “only speculation”. If you could take something Brian Greene said and make an argument against it and have other cosmologist say that’s a good argument, then you might be able to say that. But what other cosmologist say now is that these theories are still being worked on, but they have merit and reasons for being possibly true.

The “first cause” argument on the other hand, is not science at all, it’s philosophy. There are many objections to it. Although, in the end, you’re right, it is not disproved. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/