Beginnings

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause. Like, I threw a nail out of my window, and when I looked outside, there was a brand new car - that doesn't make sense.

And whether it's proven or not, it's not logical to automatically take a supreme consciousness off the table as a live possibility.

1. That analogy doesn't make sense.

2. What isn't logical is putting it on the table with no evidence or rationale beside anecdotal fuzzy-feelings.

1. Sure it does.

2. You know how everyone is always telling me I need to learn more science? Well, ok. But some of you really need to learn more about epistemology. I think you'd figure out why your point is silly if you even just read a wikipedia entry on what epistemology even is.

Your sentence would be better if it said "there is no evidence that is accepted by modern science" or "there is no evidence or rationale that me and my friends like." There is tons (and tons and tons and tons) of evidence. If you've bothered to investigate, the most truthful thing you could say is "I don't like the evidence", not "there is no evidence." Really important difference. Otherwise you're locked in a weird dogma where you assume only modern science produces truth (although modern science can't prove that only modern science produces truth).

The real point is that science simply can't help with these questions.

---

If I bake a chocolate cake, I get a cooked version of the ingredients I put in it. I don't get pizza.

What I can make out of cake mix that isnt cake:

Crepes
Cupcakes
I could make pizza, but it was be kinda gross.
Brownies


You know how you make each of these things? Differing how much water/milk you put in it.

Just off the top of my head. Not only do you not have a firm grasp of science, but baking seems to elude you as well.

If you made pizza, you'd need ingredients that don't usually go in cake - mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce. If you've got those ingredients on your final product, they must have been in the initial ingredients list.

If you've got consciousness in your final product, it must have been in the original list of ingredients.

---

Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause.

Really? All 'the start of the universe' is would be the big bang. Nothing that happens afterward would be influenced any further by the "first cause", it would just follow the laws of physics.

Here's a new analogy for you: I press a button, a rocket launches. Pretty amazing for just moving my finger.

Where did the Big Bang come from? And what banged out of that thing, anyway?

As for your analogy: Cool, except - who provided the ingredients for the rocket, engineered it and put it together? Who set it up that you can conveniently launch it with your button?

I move my fingers all the time, never launched a rocket...