Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing in that article negates a creator. Just more "We don't know..."
But nothing supports it, either.
You can just as easily say a magical unicorn created the universe, if we're literally going to say "any non-concrete idea is possible since we don't definitely know yet".
A giant sea turtle might have flown through the abyss laying eggs that became planets, or maybe the devil created the earth with good intentions and Yaweh destroyed it all and introduced illness and sin and messed it all up and then inspired the Bible with a bunch of lies to trick people, if we're going to go the route of "nothing...negates a creator, just more 'we don't know'."
Or maybe Thor did it.
"It must be something magical" isn't the logical nor automatic answer to "we don't know." It wasn't the answer to "we don't know what causes malaria," "we don't know why that hurricane happened," "we don't know why the baby died," "we don't know why some people are born with blue eyes instead of brown" and for all we know, it isn't the answer to "we don't know how the universe started," either.
Just because we don't know the answer yet to something doesn't mean some magical giant invisible creative creature is the cause. History and science have proven that many a time with many a scenario already.
Unless you still believe the night vapors, bathing and not praying enough cause infection?
Nothing in that article negates a creator. Just more "We don't know..."
A creator is negated if it is not necessary. That is called Occam's razor.
A creator is not necessary for creating:
the universe
the earth
life on earth, or
humans
All can be done by natural processes.
Don't you think it is telling that we have discovered billions of distant galaxies, quasars, cosmic microwave background radiation from a very early time in our universe ... and yet somehow there are no visible signs of any creator? What does that tell you about the likelihood of a creator?
Well, something must have existed before time, to spark the Big Bang, no?
I must say you are handling your argument very adroitly. But there are some assumptions being made. There is one idea of something being done in the sense of starting a process of "igniting,' as you say. But what is equally likely (at least) is that the process derives from what has gone before. The Event molecule (Quantum foam or Higgs-Boson field, or whatever the current term is) is supposed to have coalesced naturally out of a gathering together of the proto - matter (which I suggested could feasibly have come from what we would consider 'Nothing" and which, having reached a critical point "banged" or "Unfolded", as some cosmologists prefer to say.
Thus you can use the terms Created or Ignited, but it can be seen more as an evolution of events rather than initiation of some particular process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Mankind has always looked for it's source. It's just natural to want to know where we came from. Doesn't interest you?
Yes, but isn't that more a subject for the science forum?
You can just as easily say a magical unicorn created the universe, if we're literally going to say "any non-concrete idea is possible since we don't definitely know yet".
A giant sea turtle might have flown through the abyss laying eggs that became planets, or maybe the devil created the earth with good intentions and Yaweh destroyed it all and introduced illness and sin and messed it all up and then inspired the Bible with a bunch of lies to trick people, if we're going to go the route of "nothing...negates a creator, just more 'we don't know'."
Or maybe Thor did it.
"It must be something magical" isn't the logical nor automatic answer to "we don't know." It wasn't the answer to "we don't know what causes malaria," "we don't know why that hurricane happened," "we don't know why the baby died," "we don't know why some people are born with blue eyes instead of brown" and for all we know, it isn't the answer to "we don't know how the universe started," either.
Just because we don't know the answer yet to something doesn't mean some magical giant invisible creative creature is the cause. History and science have proven that many a time with many a scenario already.
Unless you still believe the night vapors, bathing and not praying enough cause infection?
I did not specify any particular creator.
Everything we see and know has a cause. Why not the universe?
A creator is negated if it is not necessary. That is called Occam's razor.
A creator is not necessary for creating:
the universe
the earth
life on earth, or
humans
All can be done by natural processes.
Don't you think it is telling that we have discovered billions of distant galaxies, quasars, cosmic microwave background radiation from a very early time in our universe ... and yet somehow there are no visible signs of any creator? What does that tell you about the likelihood of a creator?
The universe came from nothing? Natural process just suddenly started? That's illogical.
The universe came from nothing? Natural process just suddenly started? That's illogical.
It's illogical and warrants further scientific research, which is going on as we speak and will no doubt reveal something fascinating that includes natural laws, just like everything else.
It will be no less staggering and amazing for this. We will still watch and listen in awe to the story of how it all happened, just as we watch and listen in awe to any other natural process that, natural or not, nevertheless amazes us, and is beautiful in and of itself.
The universe came from nothing? Natural process just suddenly started? That's illogical.
It is not illogical. In fact - like abiogenesis - it is a logical hypothesis based on what we alrready know. It is, I concede, counter -intuitive, but that is more a common-sense than a rational argument and common sense is, as I said before, notoriously unreliable.
The phrase, "must have" indicates what your confirmation bias is, and that you are mounting what is most fundamentally an argument from incredulity. There is no "must have".
The only thing that gives meaning to the word "before" is "time". If there was no time, then there was no "before".
As creatures of time it is hard to imagine, so much so that we reflexively assume cause and effect, story arc and arrow of time where they may not have existed, or existed in a form we wouldn't recognize. Mathematical models point to this sort of weirdness approaching the BB however, much less prior to it ... assuming there WAS a "prior".
At this time no one can honestly say there was or wasn't "something before", much less that this something was a creator, or the nature of that creator. So the only intellectually honest position is to refrain from hypotheticals, particularly unfalsifiable ones (other than as admitted recreation perhaps) until such time as there are sufficient confirmed facts to speculate intelligently about it.
I have not specified any god, but only a creator (of some sort).
If you were not gunning for a forward-planning agent you would use the term cause or "first cause" rather than creator. "Creator" means "one who creates". So you are already assuming too much. Your very motivation arises from the desire to believe in an invisible forward-planning intentional agent. Even if this is the presently absent / indifferent / impersonal deist god, it provides the "explanation" you are seeking for "why" everything is here and what its "purpose", however distant, "must" be.
All these "musts" of yours inadvertently reveal how crucial your need for externally bestowed purpose and meaning are. To borrow a line from theists ... if only you would just TRY to make your own meaning and purpose, you'd find out how entirely satisfying it can be.
The irony of course is that you have been doing that, because -- like all humans -- it's all you actually CAN do. But you ascribe your found meaning and purpose to god, and eschew the credit for your own efforts. And one of the lynchpins of your explanations for meaning and purpose is the creator mythos -- which you need at any cost to avoid the perceived personal annihilation of losing meaning and purpose.
As one who let go of that mythology long ago, I can testify that it had zero impact on my sense of meaning and purpose. The sky did not fall. Life went on. I was happy and sad about the exact same things to the exact same degree. Except that my understanding of reality was far more aligned with the actual state of affairs I was experiencing, resulting in less cognitive dissonance and obviating the need to prop up unsustainable narratives like you are doing here. You ought to try it sometime. It's refreshing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I must say you are handling your argument very adroitly. But there are some assumptions being made. There is one idea of something being done in the sense of starting a process of "igniting,' as you say. But what is equally likely (at least) is that the process derives from what has gone before. The Event molecule (Quantum foam or Higgs-Boson field, or whatever the current term is) is supposed to have coalesced naturally out of a gathering together of the proto - matter (which I suggested could feasibly have come from what we would consider 'Nothing" and which, having reached a critical point "banged" or "Unfolded", as some cosmologists prefer to say. 
