Let's break this nonsense down into its parts:
Negativity is a manifestation of consciousness, positivity. E=MC^2 demonstrates this. Energy is exponentially denser and more powerful than matter.
Yes, negativity is a manifestation of consciousness, as is positivity. The universe has no subjective state. The universe is, and we assign values to it. E=MC^2 does not demonstrate what you say. That's like saying 'everything negative comes from my brain, and the Pythagorean Theorem proves this.' Well, no, it doesn't.
All matter is created by consciousness.
No, matter predated consciousness.
A couple examples that demonstrate this are motion and dreams.
Motion is the application of energy, and dreams are not tangible. Neither one of them is matter. Neither one of them are examples of how matter is created by consciousness.
For motion to begin with no source of energy to first exert motion is physically impossible.
This is not true. All matter/energy that will ever exist was seeded by the Big Bang. Therefore, all motion was made possible from the energy released during the Big Bang.
If you believe everything was created from nothing, as the big bang proposes, then it would take nothing short of a miracle, consciousness.
Call it a "miracle" or whatever synonym you want. One thing it would be incorrect to call it is "consciousness."
Let's say the universe has been in constant motion for all eternity and wasn't spawned from one instance
Let's not say this, because it's not accurate. The universe was spawned in one instance and has been in motion for as long as it has existed. That's an accurate thing you
could say.
Add consciousness to the equation. Unless you believe humans are robotic reactionary magnets bouncing through space with no intellect or freewill, humans require a consciousness to hold intelligence and give freewill. But this is not exclusive to humans, thinking so is quite egocentric.
All completely irrelevant to the Big Bang and the universe. You know what else is irrelevant to? Adding milk. Instead of adding consciousness to the equation, let's add milk. It makes just as much sense.
Humans came from earth, so in order for humans to have consciousness, earth must hold the same consciousness, just as the animals and plants do as well.
This is bullshit. Earth doesn't have consciousness. Earth is an inanimate object. Animals have consciousness because they have a brain. Except for limited instances in certain species, animals have a consciousness without self-awareness. Plants do not have a consciousness or self-awareness. Maybe we should try adding milk?
Science reinforces this and that plants are indeed aware of their surroundings.
This is something you just made up. Science is very pissed you're defaming it. I hear it's thinking about suing you for slander. This is something you should be worried about, because unlike the rest of us, you believe that inanimate objects have consciousness, and therefore, the reality that science might actually sue you for slander should be a very real possibility.
So if humans are intelligent beings, earth is a conscious host cell that we inhabit.
False conclusion based on nonexistent equivalency. Why don't we instead say "If humans have fingers, pushups like the color purple." The conclusion is just as valid, and just as unconnected to the premise.
And if earth is a conscious host cell, then the star dust it is composed of must also be conscious.
Already established it's not, but why not add in another unrelated conclusion. So now we have, "If humans have fingers, pushups like the color purple. If pushups like the color purple, then the colors red and blue, which make purple, must also have fingers."
Dreams further prove humans are conscious beings and not willless flesh robots pinballing through a game of fate endlessly.
This was never in question. No one was maintaining this. You've successfully concluded something
nobody was arguing against.
Matter is a lower dimensional occurrences consciousness has created in order to experience itself from a foreign perspective of negativity and division, rather than positivity and unity.
Matter exists outside consciousness. It always has. It always will. The rest of this sentence is a string of words that when put in their current order have no meaning. Except to milk. Milk likes that sentence very much.
Negativity is a necessary part of experiencing this world of 3D space and death, but it is not a necessary trait of existence, while positivity is, as it is endless. Negativity cannot possibly result in an energy of a higher density or power. Matter is incapable of replicating an energy of a higher dimension.
Milk likes this too, as it's all devoid of meaning.
This sentence doesn't mean anything. It's kinda like saying Milkity milk milk milky milk. Of course, milk loves that sentence, but it has no meaning. Mmmmm, milk.
Negativity is the creation of love, consciousness. Satan is merely a deep illusion god has created to perceive self from a different perspective, for if negativity never existed, we'd always be a singular point of infinite love.
Even though this statement is coherent, it's self-contradictory
to itself. "If negativity never existed, we'd always be a singular point of infinite love." -You. Then, "Negativity is the creation of love." -Also, you. So according to you, only love would exist without negativity, but love comes from negativity, so we have to stop being negative so we can have more love, but we have to be negative in order to create love.
Do you see the logical inconsistencies with this single statement? It's a microcosm of all your posts.
TL;DR: Everything you said is milk.
This response has been sponsored by milk.
