Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[gnostic]

You didn't answer my question, did consciousness arise from unconsciousness or consciousness.

I did answer it, from my first reply, when I talk about the Homo sapiens evolving from earlier species of Homo - the Homo heidelbergensis.

You are playing game of cat and mouse, but you are not paying attention. I have answered, you don't like the answer, so you repeated the same stupid question again, as if I didn't answer them.

All vertebrate animals are conscious organisms, they are conscious because they have brain and spinal cord, hence the Central Nervous System (CNS). The CNS controlled all their sensory perception organs (eyes, ears) or tissues (sense of touch & pain).

The Homo sapiens have always been conscious, because of their sensory organs and CNS, just as the predeceessor species, the Homo heidelbergensis, and the one before that, the Homo erectus, and so on, each of them have CNS, so every single ones of them have conscious.

Why are you being dishonest, playing this game?

I have answered. You don't like the answer, then tough. I won't answer the same question again. If you don't like it, then ask someone to be patient where you play the cat-and-mouse game, and see just how patient they are.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I did answer it, from my first reply, when I talk about the Homo sapiens evolving from earlier species of Homo - the Homo heidelbergensis.

You are playing game of cat and mouse, but you are not paying attention. I have answered, you don't like the answer, so you repeated the same stupid question again, as if I didn't answer them.

All vertebrate animals are conscious organisms, they are conscious because they have brain and spinal cord, hence the Central Nervous System (CNS). The CNS controlled all their sensory perception organs (eyes, ears) or tissues (sense of touch & pain).

The Homo sapiens have always been conscious, because of their sensory organs and CNS, just as the predeceessor species, the Homo heidelbergensis, and the one before that, the Homo erectus, and so on, each of them have CNS, so every single ones of them have conscious.

Why are you being dishonest, playing this game?

I have answered. You don't like the answer, then tough. I won't answer the same question again. If you don't like it, then ask someone to be patient where you play the cat-and-mouse game, and see just how patient they are.

You are being purposely obtuse, my question is clear and to the point, may God be the judge as to which of us is being dishonest.
Good day sir, and God bless you dear gnostic.

 

[simsi]

The significance to me is that you appeared to be quoting Baha'u'llah about the universe as though he were some sort of science authority when in my view he is demonstrably no such thing.

No, not by a long shot. Thanks for asking.

I didn't literally quote Baha'u'llah in my post. And I didn't use him in a physics sense unless you call philosophical generalisations physics. I tried to apply myself broadly to a theoretical physical model without broaching physical details. How did you get 'science authority' out of any of it?

 

[gnostic]

You didn't answer my question, did consciousness arise from unconsciousness or consciousness.

Was the universe conscious from the beginning, or did it come later?

I gave you answer, in regarding to man’s consciousness, as well as other animals, especially vertebrates that have Central Nervous System (CNS), but you don’t like my answers, so you keep repeating the sam question, as if i didn’t answer them. Hence the cat-and-mouse game.

Now, you are changing the subject, from man’s consciousness, to the Universe being conscious. That’s moving the goalpost.

Do all pantheists act like you, Ben, using such dishonest tactics?

I wasn’t being obtuse, as I gave you honest answers, the best I can, but you keep playing these stupid games, baiting me to play them. You are being tiresome and dishonest, and I am tired of these games.

Either you accept my answers that I gave you, that disagree with your worldview, or you don’t accept my answers, but at the very least you can do is stop playing these games of yours.

 

[danieldemol]

I didn't literally quote Baha'u'llah in my post. And I didn't use him in a physics sense unless you call philosophical generalisations physics. I tried to apply myself broadly to a theoretical physical model without broaching physical details. How did you get 'science authority' out of any of it?

Sorry you appear partially correct there.

What you said was,

Baha’is believe that the universe is eternal.

So I'm unsure if I missed context by coming in late to the discussion, or whether you are missing the context that this is a science and religion forum where we debate science and religion relative to each other.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that in my view the Baha'i belief about the universe being eternal is not science, because science is about knowledge which I define as demonstrably correct or justified belief.

Science has to be based on evidence, not the guesswork of a 19th century religious leader which at times turned out to be wrong in my view.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I gave you answer, in regarding to man’s consciousness, as well as other animals, especially vertebrates that have Central Nervous System (CNS), but you don’t like my answers, so you keep repeating the sam question, as if i didn’t answer them. Hence the cat-and-mouse game.

Now, you are changing the subject, from man’s consciousness, to the Universe being conscious. That’s moving the goalpost.

Do all pantheists act like you, Ben, using such dishonest tactics?

I wasn’t being obtuse, as I gave you honest answers, the best I can, but you keep playing these stupid games, baiting me to play them. You are being tiresome and dishonest, and I am tired of these games.

Either you accept my answers that I gave you, that disagree with your worldview, or you don’t accept my answers, but at the very least you can do is stop playing these games of yours.

I see now why you're misunderstanding the logic of my line of questioning all along, if the Universe is not conscious, as you believe is the case, then human consciousness (and all consciousness) arose from unconsciousness. Do you see that?

 

[simsi]

Sorry you appear partially correct there.

What you said was,

So I'm unsure if I missed context by coming in late to the discussion, or whether you are missing the context that this is a science and religion forum where we debate science and religion relative to each other.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that in my view the Baha'i belief about the universe being eternal is not science, because science is about knowledge which I define as demonstrably correct or justified belief.

Science has to be based on evidence, not the guesswork of a 19th century religious leader which at times turned out to be wrong in my view.

My post was in another thread whose title indicated that my post was relevant so far as I could tell. I was a little surprised to see my post in your thread. I'm new and don't know fully how this works.

I thought about your messages and here's some feedback overall. Your way of referring to a person who may be considered their guide in life by many people sounds offensive, even to one who isn’t concerned by it. I do note, however, that this is how science, as you imagine it, prompts you to interact with others, who may not always live up to your personal standards. Your initial post is evidence, immediately pointing out what you perceive to be faults in your reader’s position. Does this suggest to you that you’re even looking for a discussion, as per the purpose of this forum which you seem to be at pains to point out to me? For the same reason I'm not responding to the issues of scientific interest you raise above.

Speaking of evidence, I personally doubt you’ve read much of the Baha’i Writings and are therefore in a strong position to say anything convincing about them or their author. As for your initial post, I’m no expert, but does a minuscule sampling, of a statement about copper or even several such sentences, justify writing off thousands of other sentences that may actually say something of interest? That’s a possible approach to this religion. Have you ever come across the Baha’i teaching regarding the relationship between science and religion? It’s interesting, to me anyway.

Nor do I think have you read the other authors whom you initially cited as evidence that not classifying them as prophets, say of the same rank as Muhammad, is mistaken. They’re interesting reading too, and for my money the classification is accurate. And the classification doesn’t denigrate, but classify, and it's very helpful to me as a guide.

I think we’re obviously both happy and satisfied with our positions. However, I think we both know why you messaged me in the first place, but let’s say you’ve said what you’ve said to help me along, and I’ve done likewise for you.

Anyway, at the end of the day, the question is, do we convince ourselves, as I’m sure you’d agree.

 

[wellwisher]

None of the distant galaxies we observed through the observatories (optical or radio astronomy) and through space telescopes (the Hubble, JWST, etc), also cannot be brought to the labs, wellwisher. The same are with surveys of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) by COBE, WMAP, the Planck, BICEP Array, none of that can be recreated in lab experiments.

All observations including the data acquired (eg measurements), are all processed and calculated through computers...and yet these are all evidence for galaxies.

And speaking of CMBR, the energy densities of the universe, have been measured & calculated the baryon matters (just under 5%), according to the Planck’s 2013 Data Release. While Dark Matter at 26.8%, Dark Energy at 68.3%.

See Planck Science Highlights from the European Space Agency (ESA). But if you are really smart, and don’t mind reading the technical reports for those data releases, go here, Planck Publications. As I am not an astrophysicist, I would suggest the first link, if you’re like me.

Most of the data collected from the universe, is from the past, not the present. If a takes a billion years for a distant quasar signal to reach us, we will get real time data in the lab, but that real time lab data is from an old event in the past. A good analogy for the universe data, is like having a scrapbook of pictures about your entire life. In a sense, your baby pictures and your adult picture are all in one place, therefore one might conclude they all exist at the same time; now, in terms real time evidence, since I can flip back and forth in real time.

In reality, most of the evidence is from times gone by, and from what was, and not what is, now. The pictures have stopped time and do not express the flow of time. Dark matter and dark energy appears to be connected to that time confusion, which is why we cannot make it in the lab, in the here and now.

I went off in a different direction to avoid this time confusion, caused by the vast separation in space and time; space-time. I added separated space and separated time to account for human imagination and games it can play. This brings us back to consciousness and even universal consciousness.

If I throw a ball, the moment it leaves my hand its future has already been defined. The inertia from the BB, has set things into motion via an event that started it all. In a sense, the timeline is the same now, as in in the past. But that is better modeled by separated space and time, since the past and present are not one thing in space-time, but can be in separated space and separated time.

It is like coming to a cross roads of life and the decisions we make influencing our entire future. One hopes for the best, but what will be may not be what we hope for, since the imagination is working in separated space and time, and may be overly optimistic. Even in the Bible, God creates man with high hopes and dreams, but the creation takes a detour and becomes a disappointment; theory that has reached its peak of usefulness. This does not mean lack of faith in science but hope for a better science future that can take into account the most important tool of science; consciousness.

 

[gnostic]

I see now why you're misunderstanding the logic of my line of questioning all along, if the Universe is not conscious, as you believe is the case, then human consciousness (and all consciousness) arose from unconsciousness. Do you see that?

No, I was replying to about human consciousness, that consciousness existed because like every other tetrapod vertebrates (eg non-human mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians), as they all have Central Nervous System, hence each ones have brains and spinal cords that control and process all sensory organs and tissues that have nerves, that provide consciousness of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch.

Those are the facts, and they are evidence as to the reasons why humans have consciousness.

What you are talking about, that the Universe itself is conscious, is nothing that test, verify & validate, as your claim about the conscious Universe is nothing more than YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF, hence your claim is really no better than a fairytale.

 

[danieldemol]

My post was in another thread

Not correct, i quoted from this thread in this thread (Hint: you can click on the name at the top of each quote and it will take you back to the original quote)

...whose title indicated that my post was relevant so far as I could tell.

It is relevant to post religious views in this sub-forum *and* to have them rebutted as being not science or antiscience as the case may be.

I'm new and don't know fully how this works.

Ok

I thought about your messages and here's some feedback overall. Your way of referring to a person who may be considered their guide in life by many people sounds offensive, even to one who isn’t concerned by it.

If you are offended by debate there is a Baha'i DIR (stands for Discuss Individual Religion) sub forum here where only Baha'i may post to each other.

I do note, however, that this is how science, as you imagine it, prompts you to interact with others, who may not always live up to your personal standards. Your initial post is evidence, immediately pointing out what you perceive to be faults in your reader’s position. Does this suggest to you that you’re even looking for a discussion, as per the purpose of this forum which you seem to be at pains to point out to me?

Yes this is the place to discuss scientific faults with religion in my view, as pointed out above there are other areas for people not interested in debate.

For the same reason I'm not responding to the issues of scientific interest you raise above.

Speaking of evidence, I personally doubt you’ve read much of the Baha’i Writings and are therefore in a strong position to say anything convincing about them or their author.

It is easier to assume ignorance of your Interlocutor than to address how they are wrong, that is known as ad-hominem in my view (ie looking to address the character rather than the truth of the character's statements)

As for your initial post, I’m no expert, but does a minuscule sampling, of a statement about copper or even several such sentences, justify writing off thousands of other sentences that may actually say something of interest?

False statements do not justify writing off true statements, and i wasnt doing that in my view. Rather i was pointing out that false statements undermine Baha'i faith as an infallible scientific authority, so if you wish to convince us a certain statement is true, you must do so using evidence.

Hoping that because Baha'i said something we will believe it must be true does not cut the mustard in this sub-forum in my view.

That’s a possible approach to this religion. Have you ever come across the Baha’i teaching regarding the relationship between science and religion? It’s interesting, to me anyway.

Yes, a careful investigation of Baha'i teachings will reveal it is nothing but an empty marketing slogan in my view.

Nor do I think have you read the other authors whom you initially cited as evidence that not classifying them as prophets, say of the same rank as Muhammad, is mistaken.

You are making reference to things i never said here in my view. You said Baha'i accept all Prophets, i pointed out they do not and cited examples i am well read in. It is called "shifting the goal posts" to introduce your statement about them being of the same rank of Muhammad when neither your initial comment nor my reply had anything to do with their rank in my view.

I think we’re obviously both happy and satisfied with our positions. However, I think we both know why you messaged me in the first place, but let’s say you’ve said what you’ve said to help me along, and I’ve done likewise for you.

Ok

Anyway, at the end of the day, the question is, do we convince ourselves, as I’m sure you’d agree.

I sure am convinced of my position.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I was replying to about human consciousness, that consciousness existed because like every other tetrapod vertebrates (eg non-human mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians), as they all have Central Nervous System, hence each ones have brains and spinal cords that control and process all sensory organs and tissues that have nerves, that provide consciousness of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch.

Those are the facts, and they are evidence as to the reasons why humans have consciousness.

What you are talking about, that the Universe itself is conscious, is nothing that test, verify & validate, as your claim about the conscious Universe is nothing more than YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF, hence your claim is really no better than a fairytale.

The fact is gnostic, that consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness, just like something cannot come from nothing, if you can't acknowledge that science cannot disprove these facts, then there is nothing to discuss.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact is gnostic, that consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness, just like something cannot come from nothing..

I agree with that. My intellect tells me, that it must have an origin ..
.. and the existence of brains does not satisfactorily explain it.

Neither can it be proved that a stone or leaf does not possess consciousness .. it is just assumed.

 

[gnostic]

The fact is gnostic, that consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness, just like something cannot come from nothing, if you can't acknowledge that science cannot disprove these facts, then there is nothing to discuss.

First. i have never claimed that consciousness arise from non-consciousness, so you are inventing a strawman to attack.

Second. You haven’t presented any fact, Ben.

All you have done is repeatedly made up some mystic pantheism BS that God & Universe being synonymous with each other, and that you believe that the Universe is conscious.

Those are not facts, they are just claims of your personal beliefs.

For anyone to know they have a fact, then you would require to present evidence to support & verify a claim to fact, just like scientific theory would require evidence, which you very obviously haven’t done.

Claims are not facts, and claims are not evidence, Ben. Claims without evidence are merely baseless personal opinions or personal beliefs.

Your claim to Universe & God to be one & the same - belief, not fact.​

​

Your claim that the Universe is conscious - belief, not fact.​

Biology showed that consciousness exist among all vertebrate animals, because they all have Central Nervous Systems - brains & spinal cords - facts.

Awareness come from those same animals having some sorts of sensory organs or sensory tissues that provide stimuli to the nerves, that the information get transmitted to the brain, for processing those signals, as visual (sight) or audio (hearing) or smell or taste or touch, as well as sense of pain and sense of balance. Some or combination of these sensory perceptions all play their roles for organisms, to being conscious and aware of their environment.

So consciousness involve the anatomical structures (sensory organs, sensory tissues, nerves, brain, etc) and physiological functions.

The following related to sensory nervous systems of mammals, including humans.

vision - photoreceptors of eyes - visual cortex (occipital lobe of the brain) - visual system​

​

hearing - mechanorecptors of the ear (particularly the inner ear‘s cochlea) - auditory cortex (temporal lobe) - auditory system​

​

smell - olfactory receptors (chemoreceptors) of the nose - olfactory cortex (temporal lobe) - olfactory system​

​

taste - gustatory receptors (chemoreceptors) of the tongue - gustatory cortex (insular lobe & frontal lobe) - gustatory system​

​

touch (as well as sense to temperature, pain) - mechanoreceptors (mechanosensory information) for touch, nociceptors for senses of temperature & pain - somatosensory cortex (parietal lobe) - somatosensory system​

​

balance - mechanoreceptors of the inner ear (particularly the 3 semicircular canals & vestibule) - vestibular cortex - vestibular system​

The sensory nervous systems along with the central nervous system all played parts of animals being conscious.

 

[gnostic]

I agree with that. My intellect tells me, that it must have an origin ..
.. and the existence of brains does not satisfactorily explain it.

Except that @Ben Dhyan is talking about facts, and facts require evidence or demonstrations to support his concept…facts and evidence that he don’t have, muhammad_isa.

What Ben has, are unsubstantiated claims - which are no better than having baseless opinions or beliefs.

Fact requires evidence, just as science requires evidence. Without evidence, it is meaningless sophistry rants.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

First. i have never claimed that consciousness arise from non-consciousness, so you are inventing a strawman to attack.

Second. You haven’t presented any fact, Ben.

All you have done is repeatedly made up some mystic pantheism BS that God & Universe being synonymous with each other, and that you believe that the Universe is conscious.

Those are not facts, they are just claims of your personal beliefs.

For anyone to know they have a fact, then you would require to present evidence to support & verify a claim to fact, just like scientific theory would require evidence, which you very obviously haven’t done.

Claims are not facts, and claims are not evidence, Ben. Claims without evidence are merely baseless personal opinions or personal beliefs.

Your claim to Universe & God to be one & the same - belief, not fact.​

​

Your claim that the Universe is conscious - belief, not fact.​

Biology showed that consciousness exist among all vertebrate animals, because they all have Central Nervous Systems - brains & spinal cords - facts.

Awareness come from those same animals having some sorts of sensory organs or sensory tissues that provide stimuli to the nerves, that the information get transmitted to the brain, for processing those signals, as visual (sight) or audio (hearing) or smell or taste or touch, as well as sense of pain and sense of balance. Some or combination of these sensory perceptions all play their roles for organisms, to being conscious and aware of their environment.

So consciousness involve the anatomical structures (sensory organs, sensory tissues, nerves, brain, etc) and physiological functions.

The following related to sensory nervous systems of mammals, including humans.

vision - photoreceptors of eyes - visual cortex (occipital lobe of the brain) - visual system​

​

hearing - mechanorecptors of the ear (particularly the inner ear‘s cochlea) - auditory cortex (temporal lobe) - auditory system​

​

smell - olfactory receptors (chemoreceptors) of the nose - olfactory cortex (temporal lobe) - olfactory system​

​

taste - gustatory receptors (chemoreceptors) of the tongue - gustatory cortex (insular lobe & frontal lobe) - gustatory system​

​

touch (as well as sense to temperature, pain) - mechanoreceptors (mechanosensory information) for touch, nociceptors for senses of temperature & pain - somatosensory cortex (parietal lobe) - somatosensory system​

​

balance - mechanoreceptors of the inner ear (particularly the 3 semicircular canals & vestibule) - vestibular cortex - vestibular system​

The sensory nervous systems along with the central nervous system all played parts of animals being conscious.

I am using the concept of consciousness in the sense of awareness, not necessarily just human mind awareness, but pure awareness, the state of awareness.

So human beings are conscious, but how did this awareness arise at the very beginning of human creation? What consciousness guided the creation of mankind?

 

[gnostic]

I am using the concept of consciousness in the sense of awareness, not necessarily just human mind awareness, but pure awareness, the state of awareness.

So human beings are conscious, but how did this awareness arise at the very beginning of human creation? What consciousness guided the creation of mankind?

A concept of any kind, is merely abstract idea, and such a concept cannot be tested, demonstrated or substantiated beyond the idea, then it is just another claim or opinion.

Calling a claim as a concept, doesn’t automatically default it as “fact”.

A fact requires evidence to verify it…which your so-called concept have not.

An untestable concept is even worse than a hypothesis. At least with a hypothesis, it has the potential of being tested.

You are still wasting my time with your sophistry.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A concept of any kind, is merely abstract idea, and such a concept cannot be tested, demonstrated or substantiated beyond the idea, then it is just another claim or opinion.

Calling a claim as a concept, doesn’t automatically default it as “fact”.

A fact requires evidence to verify it…which your so-called concept have not.

An untestable concept is even worse than a hypothesis. At least with a hypothesis, it has the potential of being tested.

You are still wasting my time with your sophistry.

But all words are concepts, reality is always on the other side of them, if I use the concept 'awareness', you should understand the reality the concept represents, yes, is that not a fact?

 

[gnostic]

But all words are concepts, reality is always on the other side of them, if I use the concept 'awareness', you should understand the reality the concept represents, yes, is that not a fact?

Except that concept is baseless abstract claim or assumption, if you cannot demonstrate or test it as being true or real…in this case, the concept that the Universe is “conscious”, is merely your personal opinion or belief.

You claim to have “fact”, when you don’t. Your claim about this, is just another one of your assumptions that have no evidence for.

As I stated repeatedly, a fact required evidence to support, just like with any scientific theory, would require evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except that concept is baseless abstract claim or assumption, if you cannot demonstrate or test it as being true or real…in this case, the concept that the Universe is “conscious”, is merely your personal opinion or belief.

You claim to have “fact”, when you don’t. Your claim about this, is just another one of your assumptions that have no evidence for.

As I stated repeatedly, a fact required evidence to support, just like with any scientific theory, would require evidence.

Yes, I am aware you do not do any serious religious practice, so it follows naturally that you cannot understand the reality represented by the concept of divine awareness, but what do you expect, you do not seek the reality represented by the concept of universal awareness. If you seriously want evidence, all I would say to you is, "knock and the door will be opened, seek and you shall find".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what is the subtle but practical difference in believing that God does not exist, and not believing that God exists?

The same as the difference between not believing that somebody is trustworthy and believing that they are untrustworthy. Everybody falls into that first category upon an initial encounter. If we know them long enough and accumulate experience with them, some will prove to be trustworthy and some will turn out to be untrustworthy. We go from agnostic (unknowing) regarding trustworthiness to knowing one way or the other.

But here's rub. We treat people we don't know about the same way as we treat people that we know are untrustworthy - we don't trust them. This is because while there are three opinions possible about somebody's trustworthiness - trustworthy, untrustworthy, not yet known to be either, there are only two ways to behave - trust or not.

Applying that to the god matter, an agnostic regarding gods is somebody who, when asked if gods exist, answers, "I don't know." He doesn't have enough information to say yes or no. By analogy, though there are three answers to the question of gods - yes, no, and I don't know- there are only two possible ways to live - as if one's answer were yes or as if it were no. The agnostic theist has chosen the first option. He agrees that he doesn't know if gods exist but chooses to think and act like one or more do. The agnostic atheist has chosen to live as like the person who claims that gods don't exist despite not making that claim himself.

To answer your question, these differences don't seem subtle to me, l though they must me inasmuch as so many people just can't see a distinction between agnostic atheism (I don't believe in gods, but don't claim to know that they don't exist) and gnostic atheism (there are no gods).

Also, there is no practical distinction between those two. Both of those people live the same way - without a god belief and outside of religion.

it is a fact that you do not know where consciousness came from.

Nobody does.

I cannot tell from your response whether you are someone who does not believe in theism, or someone who believes in atheism.

One cannot believe in atheism. He either believes in gods or not. The latter is the atheist.

The fact is gnostic, that consciousness cannot arise from non-consciousness

That's possibly the case, but you don't know that. The proper position for the critically thinking empiricist to take is agnosticism again.

As you may know, there are four ideas about what the fundamental substance of reality is and how mind and matter relate:

• Ontological materialism (or physicalism) - the physical world is fundamental and mind is an epiphenomenon of matter.
• Ontological idealism - mind is fundamental and matter its epiphenomenon; most Abrahamics fit here.
• Ontological neutral monism - both mind and physical reality are properties or manifestations of some prior substance as space and time are manifestations of spacetime
• Ontological dualism - reality comprises two unrelated substances

Presently, we can't rule any of these in or out. The four form a MECE set, that is they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, which is a convenient way to say that one must be correct (the CE part) but none or more than one (the ME part).

Panpsychism, or the idea that all of reality has elements of mind or consciousness, is consistent with the second and third of these. Panpsychism can be divided further comes in two flavors, one calling experience fundamental (panexperientialism) and the other calling thought fundamental (pancognitivism).

So human beings are conscious, but how did this awareness arise at the very beginning of human creation?

Consciousness on earth is older than humanity.

What consciousness guided the creation of mankind?

None that we know of.

Yes, I am aware you do not do any serious religious practice, so it follows naturally that you cannot understand the reality represented by the concept of divine awareness, but what do you expect, you do not seek the reality represented by the concept of universal awareness. If you seriously want evidence, all I would say to you is, "knock and the door will be opened, seek and you shall find".

I don't think you know anything of value in that department, because there is nothing of value to know. Lots of people like to represent that they have special knowledge, but there's no evidence that they do or that whatever knowledge they claim to have gives them any useful insights. For example, I believe I read that you consider the universe conscious (your words: "if the Universe is not conscious" and "was the universe conscious from the beginning, or did it come later?"). What use would that special knowledge have? None.

I group all so-called spiritual truths in that category. Besides having nothing to do with spirits and not being truth, such ideas are not useful even if in some sense they are correct, which is why I don't give any time to that world anymore and why I don't find such people to have anything interesting or useful to say to me. I'm more interested in what attracts them to and holds them to such activities - what need it fulfills.