So are you agreeing that the hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator?? I didn't touch any particular religion, just the concept of a creator. 

 

1)  I don't understand the connection you try to make between scientists, scientific theories, and religion.  So perhaps you are missing some logic. 

2)  If there is a creator, no one can "corrupt" him by hating his religion.  Also, religious people are more common to hate all other religions than non-religious people (proved by history)

 

 

"The very idea of a creator" is unnecessary and inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation of existence.

It is not worth "hating", it arises from an ancient predisposition of the human mind to imagine a conscious agent behind any event that we can't imagine occurring from 'mere' non-sentient objects and their interactions. It is a failure of imagination.

I could possibly be said to 'hate' the willingness of believers to deeply distort and violate well established principles and fruitful and honest means of seeking the Truth about existence, purely to defend their presuppositions.

 

 

Possibly, how can you say this so strongly is what I am trying to understand. Assuming there is no creator is 1 position, but the other is,..there is/could be a creator. Both are assumptions and neither are conclusive. Now if a creator is possible, how is that irrelevent? Perhaps irrelevent in that the "created" might not be able to understand the "creator" because it is outside our potential. But are there not implications with that possibility? How can it be said so strongly?? My guess is that once again, hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

What some people might not get about where I'm coming from, is that I can agree that religion has done plenty of damage. But I can't see how the possibility of a creator isn't just as valid as the possibility of none. 

 

Forgive, your tag says "theist". Do you believe in a creator?

 

re: 1. I'm simply saying that there are many very smart people who deny the possibility of a creator. I have seen no evidence that fully supports that position or contradicts it. How then can they be so confident? My best guess is that religion has corrupted the idea of a creator.

re 2. Who has said that if there is a creator, said creator has a religion?? Not I. 

Supposing for a moment that there is a creator WOULD explain our existence just as much as multiple universes COULD explain it. If it all boils down to a creator is non provable and thus meaningless in scientific terms, I can understand that position. However, if it appears that it is inferred, ie anthropic, is it not at least philosophically debatable? 

But we have no indication that a creator is possible, it is literally infinitely beyond any current evidence based understanding of reality. It certainly is not necessary. If there was such an entity, we could not possibly know anything with any confidence about its motivations, either in general, or with respect to us. It would logically destroy the possibility of certainty of knowledge, since we would have to allow the possibility that it could change the nature of reality at large or small scale at a whim.

It is not remotely on an equivalent status to current cosmological theories, which are NOT based purely on naked assumptions in the way that religious ideas have to be.

The investigations of science has revealed no indication that such an arbitrary influence is present, merely an underlying apparent statistically pure randomness underlying the workings of simple physical relationships, the opposite of what could be seen as indications of the actions of a sentient agent. The complexity we see arising as increasingly complex webs of such interactions are considered, as we work our way up from elementary particles to the complex assemblies of massive numbers of such elementary components is a far more productive framework for explaining things like conscious life. Such complexity is intimately dependent on the existence of stable, indefinitely complex structures, which is totally dependent on matter.

So the idea of an immaterial super-intelligence conflicts with everything we currently have established as a set of frameworks for explaining ever more aspects of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

A creator IS inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation for existence, since it doesn't explain its own existence. The existence of such an entity would only complicate any ultimate explanation by introducing an inherently incomprehensible entity into the scenario, and, as Stephen Hawking recently stated, it is not necessary.

Of course these theories are incorporate a range of assumptions, but the assumptions have to be broadly consistent with current established ideas. The more we have to stretch or suspend current frameworks, the more justification we require from the hypotheses in terms of their potential power to provide a workable framework for observations that we can't fit easily into current theories.

If you restrict your argument to 'possible' or  'not possible' you will not be able to grasp the point.

There are many indicators (such as pretty much all of science) which suggest strongly that a 'creator' is extremely unlikely. The infinite and omni qualities are extremely problematic, and not even logically necessary for a creator.

You still don't get it that a creator cannot explain all of what exists, which must include itself. I am not restricting my request for an explanation of existence or 'reality' to our physical space-time, so proposing something outside our experienced physical reality is not answering the question. 

Proposing something that could could create the laws of the universe is most definitely 'putting the cart before the horse' - there has to be a coherent reality underlying any higher-level entity. Since science shows that the necessary precursor to our universe need be nothing more than something as close as possible to absolute nothingness as is possible, that seems an far more parsimonious assumption than a magic god who can somehow 'will' laws into existence without being governed himself by necessary conditions, ie laws. IOW, for a God to exist, there already has to be coherence and logic in existence, and that is all we need for 'creation' events. Inserting a sentient being in there only confuses the issue.

Any assumption of specific motivations is totally unverifiable, hence the only logically justifiable position is that we can't know, hence religious dogma can only be pure speculation, whereas we can empirically establish levels of increasing probability for explanatory frameworks that are ever more helpful in making sense of our reality.

All conjectures are not equally plausible.

As I keep trying to point out, the 'outside of our space time' concept is irrelevant, since I am addressing the question of existence, not just the part of existence we are aware of as our space-time.

Moving the creator back a step does not address the problem of 'what created the creator'.

Again, proposing a creator solves nothing in any ultimate sense - you are just putting a label on those aspects of reality and origins that we currently do not understand.

Yes, it is reasonable to propose that 'something' started everything, but that tells us nothing about that thing, certainly has no logical implications about it being a sentient being or not.

A coherent existence, ie something consistent with the primary laws of logic, ie that there are differentiated aspects of existence (law of identity - there are 'things'), and that any identifiable entity is distinct from that which it is not (law of non-contradiction). That is the primary requirement for anything more complex to exist, including hypothetical creator beings.

Of course, you can propose any number of weird convoluted narratives of the origin and nature of the universe, and design them to be consistent with what we observe. But if we can explain it all equally as well with far fewer and more manageable assumptions, and which still allow us to make useful predictions about what will follow from certain initial states of existence, and what will be the consequences of our actions, then why complicate things unnecessarily? Some guy from Occam had something to say about that a long time ago.

Sure, keep discussing origins, and that is certainly happening, but the fact that we are here observing proves nothing beyond the fact that the universe is such that our emergence is possible.

 

Well, I am not arguing in favor of any religious type of creation per se. I'm not suggesting any YEC concepts. I find it reasonable to assume the 14 +/- billion years is our best estimate. Which  it then follows, thats simply how long it takes for us to get here, intentionally created or not. It's just that it seems that a hate of religion corrupts the possibility (in many minds) that we are intentionally created. When I think they are mutually distinct questions. A creator hypothesis, doesn't require any religion. Although religion does require a creator. 

Except that those proposed theories are are all based on extrapolations from current established theories, and are targeted at explaining current problems.

Whereas a creator is simply a label on whatever initiated existence. Nothing needed to be 'set in motion' - that is a medieval misconception. The modern conception is that a chaotic pervasive 'sea' of quantum-scale 'twitchiness' is all that has to pre-exist.

Not much different, it is true - it is only when you attribute to this 'creator' the traditional attributes of a God (sentience, will, omni-crap, etc) that you are off into fairyland speculation.

I think I'm a pantheist, that the whole universe is the creator. Plus I believe in certain principles by which the universe eventually sheds its material form and ascends qualitatively back into it's original state of literally universal potential. Then follows a period of inactivity, contemplation if you want, after which there is a new Big bang and new creative manifestation of that potential. In this way, there is no actual creation of anything, just better and better expression of existence. There is even no such thing as nothing, ever. Positive existence is a basic state, I suppose. 

My opinions also should be compatible with M-theory. M-theory takes things from human point of view, bottom to up, because starting with the "creator" up to the bottom is impossible. As Bob said, "creator" is just a label on what we don't know.

 

Interesting. My understanding is that before the BB it was nothingness. Not that I can wrap my head around that. Further clarified, what is described as the singularity, was not so much a physical entity, but better stated as a coordinate of 0/0. I'm curious what principles are you describing when you say "sheds its material form"?  I have been wondering if the ramifications of the "measurement problem" indicate that the mind precedes the physical. I haven't exactly gotten clear on what my induction is trying to get at, but am compelled to feel there is something interesting there. Hope that even makes sense. 

The BB was the Universe, not a location within it. It encompassed ALL locations, not center. There is no center in our Universe, and no 'edge', as far as we know. As such, a coordinate would be meaningless when the Universe had virtually zero volume.

Also it may be of interest that the nett energy content of the BB Universe is believed to be zero, when you account for the nature of gravitational potential energy, so there is no violation of conservation of matter/energy in the BB.

Also the continuing expansion of the Universe prevents any problem with the law of entropy, as it continually 'creates' space for more entropy increase.

The singularity may well be a mathematical approximation to what existed at the start, but there was a physical entity. 

Physical reality inevitably precedes our conception of it. To imagine otherwise is to fall for the TAG fallacy.

What "measurement problem"?

The ignorance of non-empirical concepts of reality, from creation stories to those of the Greek philosphers, has been repeatedly demonstrated.

 

If a grandma had a big dick she would be a grandpa.

 

Thank you.  This is much better, no string theory whatsoever.

1)  I think that many people use deduction. In other words, they test various hypotheses that start with "If there were a creator then..." When an overwhelming number of hypotheses is proven to be false, these people conclude that the idea of a creator is false, or at least irrelevant.

2)  If there is a creator and there is no religion, then religion is irrelevant to the creator.  I strongly doubt that if you never tell your kids anything about church/god/etc. then one day your grown up kid will come to you and say "I have just figured out there is a creator".

 

If there were a creator then it should be a close friend of Eloise ruther than Mr. Yahweh.

 

 

She could just have a strap on dude. C'mon think it through. 

 

It is easy to falsify various old simplistic versions of god/s/dess.  If you want a god/s/dess who is infinite, incorporeal, uncaused first cause, etc, then I suppose you could get into a space where proving said entity does or does not exist is a little more difficult.

No empirical or experimental support implies to me that that something does not exist.  Existence implies empirical or experimental support.  Yes, love has empirical and experimental support - it's called hormones.  We can measure them.  We can also measure someone's actions and determine if it is love or manipulation.  Once you have been with a partner who does not love but manipulates, you can get pretty good at telling the difference.  If you have never been in that kind of relationship, you are very fortunate and can take my word for it or corroborate my opinions online.

I do not need an incorporeal infinite being around to complicate my life.  I don't need to be loved by someone I can't physically touch and who has never physically touched me.  I don't need a purpose in life other than the one I came up with for myself.  I feel joy and see the beauty around me.  A foggy morning crossing the bridge in winter with the trees all back lit by the rising sun into shades of rose and red - why do I need some busy body god to appreciate the view?

So do I know there is no god/s/dess?  Close enough.  Do I know there are no pink (or white) unicorns, no invisible (or visible) dragons?  Maybe on some distant planet maybe there are said creatures.  Do I worry about it?  What for?  The unicorns, dragons, god/s/dess do not exist on my planet and they can not be measured nor can anyone create experiments to determine their existence.  For all intents and purposes, they don't exist and I don't need to worry about any of them.  Very Epicurean, very pragmatic, very sensible from my point of view.

 

The position that there must be either an explanation that conforms with physicalism or an exo-universal deity is a false dichotomy. We have no proof of supernatural creators anywhere in this universe and plugging them into the pre-universe gap may be entertaining from a philosophical perspective but it's logically flawed. Personally, I'm enjoying relrick's elevated position on this thread but I think giving the god hypotheses equal credibility with that of the falsifiably demonstrable on the basis of mystery is a fundamental error.

Do you really think M theory compares to the concept of unknowable creator? Do you believe creation is reflected in our knowledge of this universe? If so, at what point do you discard falsifiable evidence? M theory really is recognised as being right out there but there is some core data based on duality that seems to support its basis. 

 

P.S. Does any brain box on here (cue Bob) actually comprehend M theory - I just wiki-ed it and my head did the splits.

 

 

 

 

M-theory is a plausible, while not (yet) provable or falsifiable, proposal, based on extrapolations from established theories, providing a possible framework to make sense of a set of current puzzles in physics and cosmology.

Creator god 'theories' have no empirical plausibility, have attributes inconsistent with the observed universe, and don't provide any even potential explanatory power.

They are simply primitive, half-baked ideas, that have no place in serious investigation of the origins and nature of reality. They are not remotely worth taking seriously.

I understand why someone with a limited grasp of science, and a lot of exposure to religious arguments, would adopt your position, but you need to persevere with re-examining many of your assumptions.

 

And I understand why a really smart person can't see the forest for the trees. I mean, what religious argument have I used??? I am constantly trying to re examine my assumptions. I only ask that everyone does. 

 

part of the discussion but relrick you are holding the door open for a theistic position for which there can never, ever be any falsifiable proof and saying it equates to M theory.

You are saying the 2 positions are equal, when one attempts to lay groundwork for a falsfiable explanation and the other requires a falsifiable explanation to be impossible.

 

 

Well, my understanding is, that there was somethingness, but little no dimensions for it to manifest in. The whole universe now has 11 dimensions according to M-theory, but we know only space, time and one-half of our own dimension. The other half of our dimension is the dark matter, which we can hardly detect.

My opinion is, that in the moment of BB there were major two lines of manifestation, matter and energy. When matter and energy combine, complexity arises, up to the point of intelligent life. But the idea is, that the matter itself under the influence of life changes its structure. It becomes able to convert its dimension partially or even totally, as the life demands. Eventually it will be able to ascend as the dimensions will fold back into the source. But that includes many notions that are considered supernatural, because there is obviously not enough biological life around to make that happen. The idea is, that dark matter is teeming with life, that the basic nature of energy itself is a fundamental principle of life and consciousness, that gains form once it's combined with matter. Of course, no such principles are yet scientifically discovered. There is just the observation that on quantum level basic particles can pop in and out of the underlying quantum foam.

Just on this point, which should probably be corrected, M-Theory is concerned with creating a work that encapsulates all types of string theories as ultimately the same theory from different starting points, and string theory is a mathematically proven bridge between physics in orders of relative magnitude, and physics in orders of quantum magnitude.  i.e. whether belief in a personal deity is reasonable has absolutely nothing to do with it.  The collective aim of the scientific establishment vis a vis 'gods' is basically to not enter into argument about them or anything one must, likewise, 'assume' to be true, because it corrupts the scientific process.  Ultimately M-Theory is concerned with String theory which is, in turn, concerned with uniting the two most successful predictors of physical phenomenon, quantum and relativity.

To say a science is concerned with avoiding any particular result is to level a heavy charge against the scientist, one his work will most likely not survive, under the scrutiny of peers. Generally, its fair to say, a scientific theory that has been given to a good hashing of review, and survived to be interesting to most of the community, must lack such a bias or it would probably have been picked off for it. 

I hope you'll see this as two good reasons to begin considering M-Theory more in the neutral sense, on the question of God, that it was most likely intended.  And for clarity, of course I am not saying physical theories cannot be relevant to questions about the existence or non-existence of god, of course they are, but if you would divest yourself of the thinking that any science of respect is primarily concerned with it you will find yourself much better understanding said science, I believe.

 

I am certainly open to what ever gets fleshed out. Facts are facts. Perhaps the LHC will let us know soon enough. I do think it is a false idea that if there are inferences to anything metaphysical they should be tossed. Let the cards fall where they may.