If reality has existed forever (or exists out of time etc etc), then we can logically conclude that something must have the property of existing forever, and being capable of producing further events. Those are the only properties of that "something" that we can conclude. There is no reason to think that this "something" is sentient. Or that it has powers beyond starting Big Bangs.
But the Big Bang has a lot of strange follow-through - orderly forces and laws, biological life, consciousness, reason, etc. So I think that part is wrong - there is some reason to think the eternal "something" is sentient.
IF reality has existed forever, then adding "God" to the situation doesn't help. It just unnecessarily complicates the situation by inventing an all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, all-loving entity, where a simple higher dimensional wave function is all that's needed. And the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.
How can you say a non-sentient creative force is simpler than a sentient creative force? I think the opposite.
But the Big Bang has a lot of strange follow-through - orderly forces and laws, biological life, consciousness, reason, etc. So I think that part is wrong - there is some reason to think the eternal "something" is sentient.
It doesn't seem illogical to me to assume that these things all happened by coincidence.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
How can you say a non-sentient creative force is simpler than a sentient creative force? I think the opposite.
I wouldn't talk of a non-sentient creative force, merely of a non-sentient causative force.
Intuitively, a non-sentient causative force would have fewer parts than a sentient creative force.
__________________ If saying it's okay to be gay is promoting the gay agenda, then I promote the gay agenda.
How can you say a non-sentient creative force is simpler than a sentient creative force? I think the opposite.
What do you call "creative"?
Are air molecules being "creative" when they form a tornado?
Is a star being "creative" when it goes supernova and forms the elements out of which we all exist?
The "creation" of the big bang is just another effect from unthinking forces, even though it probably involved forces outside our space-time-continuum and are therefore difficult (if not impossible) to study and understand.
Claiming that something is sentient is complicating matters. For what claim would you want more evidence: that the tornado forms from the air by testable laws, or that the tornado forms from the air because the molecules want it? In the first case, you can just test the laws.. in the second, you get a whole slew of new questions, first of which is "how exactly does an air molecule want something "
I wouldn't talk of a non-sentient creative force, merely of a non-sentient causative force.
But this thread is about the causative force which also originally created. If you're talking about a force which acted on already existing stuff, that's different.
(In using the word "creative", I'm not trying to associate it with the capital "C" - Creator/Creation. But if a force caused something to exist which didn't previously exist, then it is a causative force, but also would correctly be called a creative force.)
Intuitively, a non-sentient causative force would have fewer parts than a sentient creative force.
Okay, but what the sentient force lacks in simplicity it more than makes up for in motive and ability.
Originally Posted by Mystman
What do you call "creative"?
Are air molecules being "creative" when they form a tornado?
Is a star being "creative" when it goes supernova and forms the elements out of which we all exist?
No, I don't call those things creative. They don't bring matter into existence, they process or re-arrange what was already created over 13 billion years ago, the same as a man does when he builds a chair, even though we might commonly and erroneously say "he created a chair".
The "creation" of the big bang is just another effect from unthinking forces, even though it probably involved forces outside our space-time-continuum and are therefore difficult (if not impossible) to study and understand.
The supposition of forces existing before the big bang is pure speculation, and only pushes the question back a notch anyway.
Claiming that something is sentient is complicating matters.
You've mentioned that a couple times now, as if our goal was finding the simplest answer, rather than the right answer. I agree God complicates things, but that has no bearing on whether God might exist.
For what claim would you want more evidence: that the tornado forms from the air by testable laws, or that the tornado forms from the air because the molecules want it? In the first case, you can just test the laws.. in the second, you get a whole slew of new questions, first of which is "how exactly does an air molecule want something "
Again, you're speaking of "causation" or "formation", not "creation". We both already agree that previously created laws and processes act on previously created matter.
This is off topic, but folks like you restore my diminishing faith in humanity. I don't agree with everything you say, but I love the way you're saying it.
I don't think matter can be brought into existence from nothing, either through a creative OR causative force. If we assume that the universe is infinitely large, can it not exist for an infinitely long time? The OP has an interesting idea about nothingness, and on the face it makes a little sense. If you know much about quantum mechanics, you know that anything--ANYTHING--is possible, just very highly improbable.... but that is usually in reference to the movements of particles and atomic structures, ie. the idea that I could (highly improbably) drop a bowling ball through the floor because both are mostly empty space. But if there are no molecules there to begin with, if there truly is nothing, then nothing can logically begin. Even the probability of something happening is based on something else causing it to happen. Without a cause, the probability is 0.
So I suppose I subscribe to the cyclical hypothesis about the nature of the universe, at least until the theorists come up with something better.
Or maybe we're all just shadows from the fourth dimension.
Thinking about this stuff warps my brain a little.
Yeah, I guess we can't get past the "turtles all the way down", but I think arguing about this is a lot more fun than arguing politics.
__________________ No silicon heaven? Where would all of the calculators go?
Kryton
Courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace. The soul that knows it not, knows no release from little things; Knows not the livid loneliness of fear, nor mountain hights where bitter joy can hear the sound of wings. How can life grant us boon of living, compensate for dull gray ugliness and pregnant hate unless we dare the soul's dominion? Each time we make a choice, we pay with courage to behold restless day, and count it fair.
Amelia Earhart
lol. I kind of get it, but see that last part? If there is so much nothingness, then probability doesn't exist either. In fact, I don't think we can guess anything at all in such a scenario. Everything we know about the universe is through the laws we have figured out, if those get taken out then there is simply a big question mark and nothing else. It is akin to theorizing what an alternate universe would be like.
Hmm, I see your point.
And for that matter, it doesn't seem like the concept of time would exist either. The problem is that we as humans and creatures of our own universe cannot wrap our minds around something that does not abide by any of the laws of our universe. Gah.
I think the theory still works though, as without logic and physics, spontaneous creation is still possible.
__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2 + 2 = 5
Just because we may not easily wrap our mind around the processes that would allow a stable universe to come into existence, it is not permissible to just explain it away with a simplistic myth like: "Invisible Uberman did it like a Watchmaker."
I am not cemented to my faith as a Deist, and I do not intend to try to hold it up if the concept of G-d is conclusively ruled out (or is ruled out in my mind) I will drop it and become an atheist or agnostic. The whole reason I posted this concept was to refute the claim that it is impossible for a universe (or would it be 'an universe'?... Huh...) to exist without G-d. I'm providing an alternative theory to my own faith, not supporting it.
__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2 + 2 = 5
Meh nice idea, but not very scientifically sound imho. :p
The correct argument against the "something from nothing!1!" crowd, that is 100% effective in convincing people who are actually trying to understand what you're saying, goes something like:
you: how can something come from nothing?
me: It can't. 'reality' has either existed forever, or is cyclical; the "something" is a product of some eternal or cyclical process/phenomenon. you: but how can something exist forever!?!?
me: No idea. It's a concept a human mind can't grasp. you: HA! So Christianity is true!
me: No, since the Christian God has the exact same problem of "how did it start". You're just postulating that by some intrinsic property, God has existed forever. Well, I can postulate the exact same thing for my unthinking colliding 11-dimensional brames (or whatever the current theory in string theory is..).
If reality has existed forever (or exists out of time etc etc), then we can logically conclude that something must have the property of existing forever, and being capable of producing further events. Those are the only properties of that "something" that we can conclude. There is no reason to think that this "something" is sentient. Or that it has powers beyond starting Big Bangs.
IF reality has existed forever, then adding "God" to the situation doesn't help. It just unnecessarily complicates the situation by inventing an all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, all-loving entity, where a simple higher dimensional wave function is all that's needed. And the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.
You can't just say "well God is allowed to be eternal, but your stupid wavefunction isn't!". You can't just say "well, you don't know everything, so you're wrong!1!1, ", even if your own lifeview has the exact same problem that you're attacking in someone else's view. You'll just have to accept that, yes, the concept of something existing for an eternity is a darned hard concept to understand. But no, inventing a "God" doesn't solve this problem; it only complicates it without good reason.
You: Oh. Wow.
(argh.. I've written this one before but in a better way.. but I can't find it in my post history -_-)
I hope by 'you', you don't mean myself. I was providing a way that something can come from nothing without the existence of a G-d.
__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2 + 2 = 5
" 
Linear Mode
