It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which Came First: Consciousness or Matter?

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I personally think consciousness came first. We know for sure that consciousness is true: we are it. I Am, and so are you. There are other prominent philosophers and scientists who agree:

"The All is Mind; The Universe is Mental." -The Kybalion.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." -Max Planck

This is why "The Word" of the Conscious God was able to create:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:1-3)


edit on 20-9-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Matter....that was easy



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Everything we see around us, with the exception of nature, was obviously first there in consciousness. It therefore follows that someone dreamed up nature too, before it was there.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Consciousness created matter is how it makes sense to me.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Perhaps neither was first and they're two sides of the same coin.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: VP740

In case you didn't notice, this thread marked your 666th post. Mean anything?



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: VP740

In case you didn't notice, this thread marked your 666th post. Mean anything?


The Jewish alphabet attributes letters to numbers. The letter W is attributed to 6. So It is fitting that my 666 (meaning WWW) would be posted on the world wide web.
edit on 20-9-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Evolution would say that matter came first, then as homo sapiens developed they developed consciousness. God is made in men's minds. When your dreaming, are you conscious of dreaming? Besides that there is no universal consciousness. If that were so we would all see the same thing, but we never do.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The old which came first questions.

"In the beginning the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" God's Holy Divine Consciousness was the beginning.

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Afterwards all things were made.

God is a soul as well as spirit and at some point in time (that is for us) he also took on a Body. Because we cannot understand or measure "from everlasting" and "to everlasting" we cannot understand how one lives in a condition that is past, present and future all at once as God does.

So we ask questions like, which came first.


edit on 20-9-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

You are very nigh unto the truth.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Neither. They've both always existed in my opinion. Matter requires consciousness to be formed and consciousness requires matter to have experience.

We as temporary beings seem to think that everything must have a beginning or end but that's not how it is when looking at the bigger picture in my opinion. Having a beginning or end implies a first and last, there is no such thing within infinity or eternity.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If neither came first then neither can exist.

There is always an action (consciousness) that must proceed a reaction (matter)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I would say consciousness came first, as all matter needed a creator/consciousness to be pre thought of before it was created. But thats just my opinion.....



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Every effect has to have a cause, so what caused the first cause? And that cause, what was it that caused that? Ad infinitum.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

you make things more complicated than they need be.

The Cause is consciousness the Effect is matter. The law of cause and effect began with the Word.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Energy has been evolving for 14 billion years. The collection of matter on Earth has been evolving for 4 billion years.

Since I can dream and have 'experiences' without actually interacting with the matter I am dreaming about, I am going to lean toward consciousness coming first -- because it may not be dependent on matter.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong.




posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Is there such thing as consciousness outside of a body though? A brain or similar structure is required for consciousness to arise as far as we can tell. It's a never ending or beginning process. The physical never had a beginning just as consciousness didn't in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Hi Cooperton
I agree with your first sentence here

I personally think consciousness came first.

However I am not so sure that your next sentence is true

We know for sure that consciousness is true: we are it.

Studies over the last couple of decades into the workings of the human mind and the nature of what we like to call human consciousness are indicating that much of what we have traditionally considered consciousness is really nothing more than learned behavior and unconscious repetition with little to no free will involved.
You also suggest that

There are other prominent philosophers and scientists who agree:

While at the same time the prominent philosophers and scientists who disagree are also lined up in a long line.

For me Cooperton, the question is a, if not THE, paramount question of human existence and I do not believe that it can be dismissed by a simple "it's simple". For me the nature of consciousness in general and specifically 'human' consciousness can only be understood by approaching it's nebulousness from both directions. And in juxtaposing both thoughts we might not only come to understand it better but also manage to become more 'fully' conscious.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
in the beginning, there was nothing. out of this nothing, came everything.
out of this nothing mind, matter, consciousness emerged.

one day the universe will cease to exist, and everything in it. some people call this the big crunch of the universe.
This is much like life and death how in nothing exists before you were born, and nothing exists after you die.

one could argue that we are like God in that we created ourself, as in the process of forming a human embryo is in the golden ratio and it is said that first god had to create the three dimensions.

Some people say that conciousness is the substance of the universe, and if true it would be as if we were a "thought"; and Thought create thoughts, much like the reproductive act. if the egg of your mother is yourself, and so is the sperm of your father, when they create an embryo that turns into a fetus(both the embryo is created in the golden ratio with the seed and flower of life as well as the human body when formed is in the golden ratio.)

They say sacred geometry holds the key to the manifestation of all matter, and this video may help explain to you how the chicken came before the egg.




really, you may be a figment of your own imagination.
edit on 20-9-2015 by Belcastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Neither. Matter and consciousness are the most ill-defined terms in the english language, and in this sense, meaningless. To assert the primacy of either is assumptive at best, completely false at worst.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join