counter intuitive? I would say that the reverse is counter intuitive ( I agree that intuitive facts are not criteria)[
For particles there is a surrounding (fields generated by other particles for example) and laws that are assumed so there is no nothing
Not relevant."No nothing" can mean there as always something but not necessarily god/consciuousness. It may apply to the entire universe as opposed to someting seperate from it which is what you appear to believe.
Ok you don't answer anything so. Let me ask another way: for you what exist? (don't answer reality please 
)
The universe
In my case my only claim was what exist has to be conscious (in other word, reality is conscious)
I understand your claim but you have shown no evidence to support it; it is simply a personal belief. There are lots of things which I would not regard as being conscious
You almost understood:
Because we cannot know that we are dreaming or not (indeed you can be in fact in a wakeful state), it means that you cannot talk about your experiences as pertaining to reality before having proven that you are not dreaming (but you cannot)
But this point I told you was only against naive realism.
My point works as well if you are not dreaming because my point that because we have a subjective view we are not seeing reality anyway.
You are conflating two disparate things:
The possibility that I am dreaming or not and
The fact that our view of the world is subjective
I have made it abundantly clear that I believe our view of the world is subjective. Why your insistence on the dreaming bit? If your argument works either way, then drop the assumption that we may be dreaming. In any event, neuroscience can show this assumption to be mistaken. I have alreasy dealt with this in a previous post.
And then I said that because something (perception) has to come from something, reality has to exist But in fact the argument do not need to put it that way (as I will show below)
When have I denied that reality exists ? I thought we were agreed that it exists but that our perception of it is subjective
secondly because consciousness exist (dreaming or not) and because consciousness cannot come from unconsciousness it follows that reality is conscious (god) .
You have not shown that consciousness cannot arise independently. We simply do not know how it arose, so the intelligent answer is that we don't know. On balance, it would appear to have been part of the evolutionary process but, as we don't know we are not entitled to say it did not arise spontaneously. That is just an assumption on your part.
No you did not answer because your particle are inside a world (which is something)
I use the words "self evident" to say that it cannot be false,
You are right to say that something can appear self evident but that finally it is not (like: earth is flat).
Now if you see that something cannot come from nothing is not self evident, please show it!
I do not have to show anything; I am just not persuaded by your claim. It's up to you to prove your claim, so produce some evidence and we can discuss it. That is a cardinal principle of rational debate, so you cannot expect a special exemption.
I simply do not know, so there is nothing for me to prove. Do you understand ?
And in fact even if your statement was true that would mean that you don't have to worry about the existence of reality/god and you don't need to ask from where reality/god come from.So this argument is only against the eternal aspect of reality/god but not against its consciousness!!
so your argument does not even attack my point that reality is conscious (which was my only point that I wanted to show in fact)
Again. you are conflating two disparate issues. You talk about reality and consciousness as if they were interchangeable terms; they are not.
Further, you talk about "the eternal aspect of reality" as if it were a given, which it is not. Eternal means it always existed but you have not shown this to be true. I regard it as a possibility, nothing more. Your use of aspect has connations which I would resist.
What it comes down to is that reality always existed or it did not. I am saying I do not know the answer. You believe you have an answer but that's all you have; a personal belief
And if you don't believe in a reality behind our perception you are making a mistake because there is consciousness behind perceptions: without consciousness there would be no perceptions
You are confused. Yet again, must I say I do not deny reality. Of course there is a consciousness behind perception but you just can't jump from there and claim it for reality as a whole. We do not know how consciousness arose, at least not yet. There is, therefore, nothing to discuss.
So consciousness exist, it is god, it is the conscious reality!You cannot deny the existence of consciousness (I am not talking about your individual consciousness (ego) which is also a content of consciousness)
I have never denied the existence of consciousness. I infer that some other beings may be consciousness. It is part of reality. I cannot see what this has to do with reality as a whole or whatever it is you mean by god.
All we are entitled to say is that some part of reality is conscious.
My point was to try to convince you by using terms such as reality that if you use your logic you finally come to god (consciousness)
and if you say again that the word "god" does not mean consciousness or conscious reality, I invite you to read mystics from all over the world.
- The word "consciousness" can be misleading because people often associate it with there own consciousness but here it is the phenomena itself.
I disagree. Consciousness is a by-product of cerebral activity. It has no independent existence.
- The words "conscious reality" has the advantage to show that consciousness is the reality and that what you perceive is what is generated by consciousness but has the disadvantage to make people believe that the conscious reality is just a conscious mechanism.
- The word "god" can be misleading because of the many usage it has been used to refer to but it has also the advantage to refer to the same thing that many believer refers to when they experience a connection with the world, a spiritual feeling (using again misleading word) and it also as I said the word used by many mystics
I am fully aware of the various ways in whic "god" is used. What is your point ?
You will say that I did not need to go all the way as I did. That's true.
I believed using word such as reality, you would follow me more easily than If I would use directly: consciousness is god so god exist.
In this case, in fact I guess you would have said that it is just definition and not a evidence.
I see no warrant for conflating the notion of god with consciousness.
Some remarks:
At least , from the discussion (which was at first toward atheist realism) you should realize that scientists are in a worse situation than religious people (who just have to make other realizing that in fact god is consciousness) because science have to prove that we are not dreaming (something impossible).
Science does not have to prove the absurdity of every crackpot notion. Would you expect proof that there are no rabbits on Mars, just because you happen to say so ?
In event, I have previously explained that the difference between sleeping and waking states can be shown scientifically. Religious people are ignorant of such things , which is why they make stupid, unsupported claims.
After few days here in this forum, I saw a feeling of superiority from so called atheist over theist because of science, but in fact there is no basis for this feeling of superiority.
science cannot prove anything while people believing in god just talk about a feeling (which is personal).
Moreover here, by defining god as consciousness (shared by many mystic) we bring an evidence (Which is I agree self evident) of the existence of god (which is consciousness)
It is true that some religious people use their belief for manipulating people but these guy don't believe in god in fact, they believe in themselves (their ego)! Almost all of us do that except sometimes when we forgot ourselves when we are in love with one particular person, with people, with the world...
Please note that I am not against science in itself, I am against the scientific dogmatism and the scientists' believe in the absolute truth of scientific statements
Now you are greatly mistaken. No scientist believes the absolute truth of scientific theories. He will argue in their favour in terms of the balance of probalities but not go beyond that. The history of science shows that knowledge must always be regarded as provisional. Was it not you who misquoted Popper?
As science advances we get a little bit closer to the truth. Do you believe that the law of gravity will ever be proven wrong ? It's always possibe but highly unlikely.
Science for me is not about reality, but about ourselves (Personal opinion that I could argue for but not here)
