If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Frannie]

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

Consciousness is one product of the brains functioning

Consciousness involves the whole being. There is no one part of the brain that controls consciousness. The brain receives feedback from all of our senses.

So if you remove the brain from a body the body is still conscious.

Kid u r a retard

The question is can consciousness exist in and of itself. Right? My answer is not without the source of all consciousness.

You said that the entire being is conscious, now tell us how a humans body without a brain is still councious

I am calling you out schizzo

 

[ding]

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

And has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Ancient man understood that the material world had a beginning and that man arose from that creation.

Why are you referencing ancient man who knew nothing about anything

It's in Genesis 1.

So what

So they knew 6000 years ago what we know today.

 

[ding]

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

Consciousness is one product of the brains functioning

Consciousness involves the whole being. There is no one part of the brain that controls consciousness. The brain receives feedback from all of our senses.

So if you remove the brain from a body the body is still conscious.

Kid u r a retard

The question is can consciousness exist in and of itself. Right? My answer is not without the source of all consciousness.

You said that the entire being is conscious, now tell us how a humans body without a brain is still councious

I am calling you out schizzo

Call me whatever you need to call me to make yourself feel better.

 

[Frannie]

As I said, you are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I can't make you read the entire thing.

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

I don't think you did understand or you wouldn't continue to insist that he is saying he knows what consciousness is. You are convinced and I don't believe (which is not the same thing as knowing - hint, hint) I am going to change that.

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

 

[ding]

As I said, you are free to make it up.

I'm not making anything up. Science tells us that our universe was created from nothing. That it had a beginning. The question of what came before that is a valid question. There is not an infinite number of what came before thats. There is one source. A first cause. This first cause must be uncaused. Therefore, it must be eternal. It's simple logic.

No, science does not. And there is a term in computer logic: garbage in - garbage out.

He has his own science based on his erector set

My science is based on red shift and cosmic background radiation. Do you disagree that both of those are indirect measurements of the birth and expansion of the universe?

Before those were accepted the universe was static, before that it was 2 dimensional, now the brightest minds are claiming that it is a computer simulation.

Now tell us why what ancient man believed is relevant today when they believed that earthquakes were caused by god

You are proving my point that the universe is effectively nothing more than information and information is the domain of consciousness and intelligence.

But putting that aside, you never addressed my point. Are you denying that red shift and cosmic background radiation is not evidence of the beginning of the universe and its subsequent expansion?

 

[ding]

What am I ignoring? That he can't tell if a frog is conscious? That he believes consciousness is impervious to science?

No. I understand he said those things. What am I missing and how does that change the fact that he said he believes consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception?

I don't think you did understand or you wouldn't continue to insist that he is saying he knows what consciousness is. You are convinced and I don't believe (which is not the same thing as knowing - hint, hint) I am going to change that.

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

 

[Taz]

I don't think you did understand or you wouldn't continue to insist that he is saying he knows what consciousness is. You are convinced and I don't believe (which is not the same thing as knowing - hint, hint) I am going to change that.

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

 

[ding]

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

Making you look bad.

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[Frannie]

If he knows that he is conscious and can ask the question what is consciousness then he knows what consciousness is.

Are you - a conscious being - arguing that YOU don't know what consciousness is? Think, McFly, think.

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

Again every schizophrenic believes that what they say is honest and true

 

[Frannie]

Tell us again that a human without a brain is still concious

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

Making you look bad.

Actually you are claiming in one post that God created the universe, then in another you are claiming that science explains everything. Thus you are completely inconsistent which is due to your mental state

 

[Frannie]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

What is your scientific education level?

Being that you claim to be a scientist that has nothing better to do than quote genesis here which is not scientific

 

[ding]

That depends on if you believe you are more than just material.

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

Making you look bad.

Actually you are claiming in one post that God created the universe, then in another you are claiming that science explains everything. Thus you are completely inconsistent which is due to your mental state

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

So science is totally compatible with God as God is the author of nature so to speak.

What better way to learn about God than by studying what he created. I could do the same thing to you. I could learn all kinds of things about you by studying what you created.

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

What is your scientific education level?

Being that you claim to be a scientist that has nothing better to do than quote genesis here which is not scientific

Bachelor of Science in engineering.

 

[Frannie]

Consciousness is material it is the product of brain activity in short it is ram memory running on electrical synapses. Totally material. Any belief otherwise says that the brain is not needed

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

Making you look bad.

Actually you are claiming in one post that God created the universe, then in another you are claiming that science explains everything. Thus you are completely inconsistent which is due to your mental state

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

So science is totally compatible with God as God is the author of nature so to speak.

What better way to learn about God than by studying what he created. I could do the same thing to you. I could learn all kinds of things about you by studying what you created.

But when we take life to Mars we are God and did not create nature

 

[Frannie]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

What is your scientific education level?

Being that you claim to be a scientist that has nothing better to do than quote genesis here which is not scientific

Bachelor of Science in engineering.

Currently unemployed and babbling here

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

What is your scientific education level?

Being that you claim to be a scientist that has nothing better to do than quote genesis here which is not scientific

Bachelor of Science in engineering.

Currently unemployed and babbling here

No. Off today getting ready to travel to Alaska to go fishing.

 

[ding]

Thoughts are not material. Just like the laws of nature are not material. Just like music isn't material. Or science isn't material. Or mathematics isn't material. Or potential isn't material.

But they all have one thing in common. Information. Which by the way isn't material. So why is it so hard for you to imagine the immaterial. Or that the source of information can be something which is immaterial. Which by the way would qualify it as something that can be eternal which could qualify it as the solution to the first cause conundrum.

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

Making you look bad.

Actually you are claiming in one post that God created the universe, then in another you are claiming that science explains everything. Thus you are completely inconsistent which is due to your mental state

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

So science is totally compatible with God as God is the author of nature so to speak.

What better way to learn about God than by studying what he created. I could do the same thing to you. I could learn all kinds of things about you by studying what you created.

But when we take life to Mars we are God and did not create nature

Talk to me when we create time the laws of nature and time and space.

 

[Frannie]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

What is your scientific education level?

Being that you claim to be a scientist that has nothing better to do than quote genesis here which is not scientific

Bachelor of Science in engineering.

Currently unemployed and babbling here

No. Off today getting ready to travel to Alaska to go fishing.

Dude you are off everyday

 

[Frannie]

dingbat, it's a thread about honesty, so what's are you doing here?

Making you look bad.

Actually you are claiming in one post that God created the universe, then in another you are claiming that science explains everything. Thus you are completely inconsistent which is due to your mental state

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

So science is totally compatible with God as God is the author of nature so to speak.

What better way to learn about God than by studying what he created. I could do the same thing to you. I could learn all kinds of things about you by studying what you created.

But when we take life to Mars we are God and did not create nature

Talk to me when we create time the laws of nature and time and space.

Why don't you explain where all that came from to us unscientific fools.

Fact you do not know what is in my left pocket and we are so close that we are touching in universal terms. Yet you know what everything is and where it came from.

Now impress us all and tell us what is in my pocket