Endercreeper01

Well thats true from one perspective, but from the perspective of a consciousness, it would have "always" existed in a way if it is constantly "existing" if that makes sense. There is nothing that makes the existence of a higher power in the universe impossible.

Evidence can be seen throughout reality as the unique appearance of specific numbers over and over again, as a synchronicity. It is evidence of a higher power at work in the universe.

It's not a supernatural being, its a higher power that created everything around consciousness.

If the consciousness has always an existence, then there would have been life elsewhere before in order for it to exist within.

What is wrong with the idea that consciousness is fundamental to existence? How about a number such as the phi ratio appearing over and over again in the universe?

the reasoning is about consciousness creating reality around it. Although it's not a very complicated reasoning, it has yet to be refuted by anyone on this forum. Synchronicity is about specific numbers appearing in the universe over and over again. It is not about isolated incidents of a number appearing. The more a number appears in this way, the less likely it is statistically to have the potential to show you. As the chances get smaller and smaller, it becomes clear that a higher power is behind number synchronicity. God of the gaps s different from what I am doing. I am explaining reality itself with god; I am not explaining a physical phenomenon with gid, so your statement about god in the gape makes no sense The question of what happened before a new consciousness was born is very difficult to answer, if working within the bounds of the classic view of time. However, if we try to answer this question, we can say that before there was life, then if there was consciousness before life existed here, it would have had to exist elsewhere in order to exist within the context of life.

Made up? Or sought to understood themselves and reasoned an idea about reality?

It isn't supposed to surpass scientific thought, rather it accompanies it instead in gaining a new perspective and understanding of the universe. Numbers are evidence of a higher power, when specific numbers and sequences appear over and over again in the universe. The reasoning is that consciousness creates reality, because consciousness is what truly has a fundamental existence which makes it necessary for it to create everything around it, so that it can exist within it.

Explain to me how my reasoning has no value. Obtaining an idea in a non scientific process does not invalidate the idea. Synchronicity of numbers in the universe shows that a higher power has been at work all along in reality itself. Well, that's fair. It's just that there are more routes to knowledge than a strictly physically based evidence approach, and the validity of an idea can be shown, but not proven, with reason. It's not that I don't have proof for this reasoning. Number alignments and synchronicity appear in all areas of reality, and can only be the result of a higher power.

It's not "supernatural", it's philosophical. And t's not being put in favor of any scientific process. Sometimes a different process is necessary to find knowledge, outside of the reach of scientific inquiry.

Why does it have to be a strictly scientific way of proving a higher power? After all, it is about proving a higher level using reason rather than rigor.

I'm not explaining any "gaps" with a higher power other than what seems like gaps in reality itself... You act as if being unscientific invalidates whatever I have reasoned, when the truth is that science is not a complete view of reality and does not answer questions about existence of the conscious self and of reality itself.

They are only coincidences when you see them individually. When you see the whole picture, patterns will emerge.

I already reasoned, but I am not getting a proper refutation of my reasoning. It does not in and of itself disprove the idea if it is unscientific.

Just saying that I am being meaningless is not a counter argument to my reasoning.

They can be evidence when they are all taken into consideration as a whole and not looked at as individual cases with coincidences. Once the perspective is changed in this way, patterns emerge which clearly show some sort of synchronicity to be occurring.

Tell me how a consciousness, as in the self at the core of my very being, is explained by science. You can't, because science explains a reality existing around a central point of observation, which is the self or "I am" point of consciousness. Nothing around this self can explain its existence of experiencing reality. And how about you tell me what started the big bang? Or more specifically, what need was there for the universe to exist such that there had stop be a starting point as a big bang? My point is that the "I' exists within the external reality, but that the "I" is what fundamentally creates the reality around it in order for it to exist within it as an "I". The creation of the reality around it is what is done a higher power, or simply a power, which is not distinguished from the "I".

Science is not the only route to knowledge.

They are not scientifically based facts but can have facts supporting it, facts which include number synchronicity in the universe.

Denying my reasoning is not refuting my reasoning. Evidence for a higher power is clear in number synchronicity. Supernatural or not, it doesn't refute the concept of a higher power.

It has reasoning, but only from a certain perspective of understanding deriving from a specific idea.

I clearly stated that my beliefs were philosophical and not meant to be scientific. The belief is not a belief but an understanding of one's own consciousness that leads to one's reasoning of reality based on a higher power. It is definitely measurable in that it affects change in reality, by starting a process that leads to the formation of the universe, solar system, earth, and life on earth. Number synchronicity in the universe is a way of theoretically knowing of the influence of a higher power, as an actor on reality as a whole and not in the same way as forces of physics act.

It's not about a god, it's about a higher power. The reasoning is supposed to show how a higher power creates around consciousness.

The reasoning only works if you accept a certain idea. The idea of my argument is not that consciousness exists independently from the body. Instead, it is about a higher power creating everything around the consciousness, through physical processes, in order for the consciousness to exist in. That essentially means that the consciousness creates it's own existence. The higher power can be said to be the consciousness in the universe, that creates around it in order to exist within something else.

The reasoning derives from a specific idea that needs to be accepted first If this idea is accepted, the rest follows.