“Nothing begins with Consciousness, and everything begins and ends with information”

Under cosmology and information theory, or digital physics.., information and energy are two sides of the same coin.. They are both substance and value. And are considered the base substance to existence itself. Volume, capacity, you, me, the stars, and the universe are all essentially 1 entity made from the same pile of sand..

You can reference these articles:

* Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation
http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864016-information-the-material-physical-cause-of-causation-

* Cosmological Reasons For God’s Nonexistence
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16527

To give people an idea what this is entailing or pointing to, you can reference Pantheism:

Wiki:
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.

So when you know enough science, or come to understand information theory, you can look back and the Universe that challenges you to comprehend it with a smile and say: HEH, I know you! I am you!

Note that none of this takes into account non-linear time, parallel time(s) (it presupposes that time has to behave in a specific way; no infinities or loops and that time is not a convertible state/property that gets eaten up and recycled (fiction example: Stephen King’s The Langoliers)), or issues such as our current universe being formed out of an vacuum from the energy pool that forms the basis of that vacuum. For more on this, see virtual particles, energy vacuums (Dirac sea)).

Note that the 1st law of thermodynamics kicks in here as well; ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.’. As such, what’s the point of a ‘beginning’ at all? It only seems to serve a purpose as a theistic presupposition, not as an answer gained from actual investigation. (The same confusion occurs in the ‘right to life’/'pro-choice’ debates on ‘when life begins’. A concept that any biology student knows is nonsense on it’s face but somehow the same people often forget that and consider it is actually the issue being discussed when it logically can not be.)

If science is rejected as a means to examine this, so should the big bang and the KCA that leans heavily on some but not all current science. In either case, the big bang theory does not posit that there was nothing then *boom!* there was something. That’s an idea often used by creationists to mock the big bang. It also (as mentioned above) contradicts the 1st law.

In sum: Why play the game the theists roll out, with the decks stacked against any answer but theirs? Even when you ‘win’, they just change the rules, and ignore the older game as if that old invented fiction had nothing to do with the current rules of the game.

Their goal isn’t to learn, it’s to either bolster their own current presuppositions to squelch doubt, or wear you down with nonsense till you either agree with them or leave them alone so they can go and get more followers with children’s books and dioramas demonstrating the joys of a boat full of animals and global genocide derived from the much older Epic of Gilgamesh.

Note that none of this takes into account non-linear time, parallel time(s) (it presupposes that time has to behave in a specific way; no infinities or loops and that time is not a convertible state/property that gets eaten up and recycled (fiction example: Stephen King’s The Langoliers)), or issues such as our current universe being formed out of an vacuum from the energy pool that forms the basis of that vacuum. For more on this, see virtual particles, energy vacuums (Dirac sea)).

Note that the 1st law of thermodynamics kicks in here as well; ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.’. As such, what’s the point of a ‘beginning’ at all? It only seems to serve a purpose as a theistic presupposition, not as an answer gained from actual investigation. (The same confusion occurs in the ‘right to life’/'pro-choice’ debates on ‘when life begins’. A concept that any biology student knows is nonsense on it’s face but somehow the same people often forget that and consider it is actually the issue being discussed when it logically can not be.)

If science is rejected as a means to examine this, so should the big bang and the KCA that leans heavily on some but not all current science. In either case, the big bang theory does not posit that there was nothing then *boom!* there was something. That’s an idea often used by creationists to mock the big bang. It also (as mentioned above) contradicts the 1st law.

In sum: Why play the game the theists roll out, with the decks stacked against any answer but theirs? Even when you ‘win’, they just change the rules, and ignore the older game as if that old invented fiction had nothing to do with the current rules of the game.

Their goal isn’t to learn, it’s to either bolster their own current presuppositions to squelch doubt, or wear you down with nonsense till you either agree with them or leave them alone so they can go and get more followers with children’s books and dioramas demonstrating the joys of a boat full of animals and global genocide derived from the much older Epic of Gilgamesh.

Unless we work out a concept of metaphysical time for God… well until then I’m a non-believer now.