> * The brain is too complex to appear all at once, it had to come about by a series of steps (evolution). > * There is no cause and effect in the universe, ev

> * The brain is too complex to appear all at once, it had to come about by a series of steps (evolution). > * There is no cause and effect in the universe, everything happens as part of 1 action. I don't see the contradiction, mainly because I don't support the second sentence as is. The steps that take place during evolution may happen without anyone there to observe them, so they would exist even without a complex brain to observe them. I don't see the existence of these steps as a flaw in my argument that the universe is self-generating and self-sustaining. Also, causes and effects being two sides of the same substrate is not the same as everything being a single action; a universe that transforms itself will have states (or configurations, or patterns, if you prefer) that are a direct consequence of its previous states, without those consequences being created by something different and external to that same universe; only by its current reality and its eternal state of change. I often find that both religious people and scientific rationalists are unable to differentiate sufficiently between the behaviour of reality and the knowledge we have of the behaviour of reality, equating them as if they were one and the same thing. For me, the concepts of "cause" and "effect" sit squarely in the "knowledge about reality" part, so none of the features we intuit about them can contradict whatever is actually happening in the observable world. My view of these two concepts is compatible with "the previous" universe being cause of "the next" universe, without the need of any external influence nor any specific "starting point". I'm enjoying this conversation a lot, but I don't know for how long we'll be able to keep posting on this thread, and I'm not sure I have much more to say. I have not tried to convince you of my point of view, as I'm pretty sure these are not beliefs that can be swayed by rational arguments, but are based on emotions linked to learned concepts. I have merely tried to present my understanding of the cosmos in a coherent discourse that does not coincide with the classical concepts of the origins of reality, in the hope that your view of them will provide me with new angles, which it has done. I'll be watching the thread to see if you say anything else, but for my part I don't think I have much more to contribute, just going in circles around more and more detail about the same ideas.