There does NOT have to be God or Intent of Creation

[justoneman]

Sean Carroll:

So what I did to fill my time was two things. First, I talked about different ways the universe could have existed before the Big Bang, classifying models into four possibilities (see Slide 7):

1. Bouncing (the universe collapses to a Big Crunch, then re-expands with a Big Bang)
2. Cyclic (a series of bounces and crunches, extending forever)
3. Hibernating (a universe that sits quiescently for a long time, before the Bang begins)
4. Reproducing (a background empty universe that spits off babies, each of which begins with a Bang)

What Happened at the Big Bang? – Sean Carroll

www.preposterousuniverse.com

Those four ideas are every bit a guess as is the existence of God.

 

[Jacksprat]

Those four ideas are every bit a guess as is the existence of God.

Except he is a physicist and not a theologian.

 

[bomberfox]

I dont think it makes any sense to say before time existed.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I dont think it makes any sense to say before time existed.

You are right. It's like asking what is north of the North pole. But that is true only for obsevers that are limited by the same number of dimensions as we are, for their senses.

It's like a stickman asking what is up, when he lives on a two-dimensional plane. Up does not exist for him. But it does exist for all the space and observers that are not confined to living in a two-dimensional plane.

 

[watsup]

Those four ideas are every bit a guess as is the existence of God.

That is sorta true. They are GUESSES. The scientists are looking into pre-Big Bang theories. That does not mean that they overlay their "guesses" with claims of a "God", for which their is no evidence. They will keep looking, not just throw up their hands and proclaim that "God did it".

 

[Galactic Spin]

I dont think it makes any sense to say before time existed.

@bomberfox More:

The reason we get this is because we understand the sums of infinite series. To get somewhere, you have to go halfway, first. Then halfway again. And then again, and again...

If you did not understand sums of infinite series, you might say one can never "go" anywhere, because they will never arrive. They always have to go halfway first.

But if you do understand those sums, you know that 1/2 + (1/2)(1/2) + (1/2)(1/2)(1/2) +... = 1. So you always arrive at your destination.

The same applies for watching someone fall jnto a black hole. If you watch that happen, you will never, not ever, see that person cross the event horizon. Not even if you had an infinite amount of time to observe it.

However, to the person falling in, nothing special seems to happen at all.

So if I asked you what the person who fell in looked like to you "after" falling in, that question would have no meaning. Like asking what is north of the North pole.

(If i asked the person who fell in, they could just grab a mirror and describe what they see. )

So the difference comes down to your frame of reference. For those "inside" of our universe (frame), it seems likely we could go back in time forever and never reach a beginning. But to an observer outside of our universe, they may just see the beginning of our universe occur in their own real time.

 

[Galactic Spin]

They are GUESSES.

But they are educated guesses with argument and established, self consistent theory supporting ther possibility.

Guessing a god is none of this. Just argument from ignorance and special pleading.

 

[watsup]

But they are educated guesses with argument and established, self consistent theory supporting ther possibility.

Guessing a god is none of this. Just argument from ignorance and special pleading.

That is exactly true. They are "guesses" based on present scientific knowledge.

 

[Galactic Spin]

That is exactly true. They are "guesses" based on present scientific knowledge.

And if any religious person wants to say, "Science is all just guessing anyway", let them. That's absolutely right. Scientists guess at what is true and then try to prove it false. Rinse, repeat. Look at the wonderous success of this process.

If there is an opposite of this process, religion is it. Take a snapshot of mankind at (50,000 - 80,000 years of religion), and another at (150 years of modern science)... Yes let's compare our "silly guessing" with religion.

All day.

 

[Slavister]

Makes more sense for there to be a creator, a God, than for it to just mysteriously burst onto the scene.

So... who created God? Or did it just "mysteriously burst onto the scene"?

 

[DrewPaul]

If a scientist talks about God, he is not performing science and therefore is not being a scientist. Scientists don't consider magical gods.

Just as a surgeon who rides a bike is not performing surgery.

You're projecting your own godaphobia to scientists. True the majority of scientists don't believe in magical gods but how can they not consider the possibility when scientists are seeking to create their own universe. If they succeed its not going to be magical. Its going to be the result of hard work, intelligence, engineering, applied science. If they do succeed are they not the Gods of that universe?

Its no coincidence some scientists are seriously considering the possibility our reality is artificially created when they realize scientists are creating virtual realities. Its possible our best computers are comparable to a commodore 64 in its heyday.

Is reality a computer simulation? Does it matter? | Aeon Essays

Philosophers and physicists say we might be living in a computer simulation, but how can we tell? And does it matter?

aeon.co

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

www.scientificamerican.com

Trust Us, We Definitely Live in a Simulation

You don’t believe we all live in a simulation? Come on, use your noodle: that’s exactly what the simulation’s architects would want you to think!

www.scientificamerican.com

Modern computer technology is extremely sophisticated, and with the advent of quantum computing, it’s likely to become more so. With these more powerful machines, we’ll be able to perform large-scale simulations of more complex physical systems, including, possibly, complete living organisms, maybe even humans. But why stop there?


The idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds. A pair of philosophers recently argued that if we accept the eventual complexity of computer hardware, it’s quite probable we’re already part of an ‘ancestor simulation’, a virtual recreation of humanity’s past. Meanwhile, a trio of nuclear physicists has proposed a way to test this hypothesis, based on the notion that every scientific programme makes simplifying assumptions. If we live in a simulation, the thinking goes, we might be able to use experiments to detect these assumptions.

What scares you about the possibility the universe was intentionally caused to produce planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, matter, gravity, laws of nature and ultimately intelligent life? No one is proposing it was magic. No doubt things we create today and take for granted would be magical to someone 200 years ago. We're getting closer to the point where the notion the universe was intentionally caused isn't a preposterous concept. You just haven't got there because of your god-a-phobia.

 

[Slavister]

You state as a fact the universe doesn't require a creator.

I explained logically why that is the case in the OP.

You make a knowledge claim, then admit its a belief claim.

Looks like you are confusing different claims. One claim (in the OP) is that our Universe does not NEED a Creator. Another claim is whether there HAPPENS to be a Creator.

For example, it's possible some God got created via natural processes in some Universe and then decided to create our Universe. Sure, that's possible. However, whatever natural processes created that other God is also natural processes that might have created ours for all we know. There is no NEED for there to be a Creator since whoever Created us must have come from somewhere themselves.

Are you claiming it was caused by a unicorn and 4 magic turtles?

It's as good a guess as any other God.

I believe the universe was intentionally designed and engineered to cause and support intelligent life. I can't state for a fact it had to be so. It's a fact the virtual universe was intentionally designed and engineered to duplicate the physics and look of the real universe.

So we are in a matrix? Sure, why not - it's possible. It's also possible we are not.

No doubt some of those virtual people will come to believe there existence was intentionally caused. Others will mock such people and ask if the universe was the result of a unicorn and 4 magic turtles. Just for fun in this hypothetical who would be correct?

In a hypothetical where there is a Creator, subjects believing in that Creator would happen to be correct.

Just like in a hypothetical where there is NO Creator, creatures believing there is NO Creator would happen to be correct.

So, who cares.

You don't need to answer no one in this forum ever does.

I answered but you still did not. Answer the OP question - who created your God? How could they have come into existence?

Are you aware some scientists believe they can cause a universe to exist?

Yes.

Suppose they are successful. Would you still dispute that it was intentionally caused and designed like I believe our universe was? Would you claim they invoked magic? Would you say it can't be true because then we'd ask who created the creators? We would ask who created the creators but it wouldn't dispute the fact they caused a universe to exist using non-magical means.

I already answered above this scenario, in earlier post as well as in this one.

Fine what exactly is your counter explanation for why mindless natural forces without intent or reason would cause a universe and all the conditions necessary for intelligent life to exist. What evidence do you offer in favor of this naturalistic cause? Then we can compare facts and actually have a discussion.

I asked you a simple question. How did you Creator come into existence? By all the same exact arguments you are making, it would follow, your Creator must have ANOTHER Creator. And then than Creator must have another Creator. Do you disagree?

Ironcially you say if a Creator exists it requires a Creator and so on. Yet you deny that intelligent humans require a Creator to exist.

You are missing the point. So let's go one step at a time. Answer my question first.

If we can exist without requiring a Creator why can't a Creator exist without requiring a creator?

It's possible we can exist without a Creator. It's also possible we are like a laptop (from someone's earlier post) which DOES have a Creator but then that Creator could exist without a Creator. That's my point.

My belief is the universe and human existence is the result of an intelligent agent. I make no claims about how or where the intelligent agent came from.

Well, that's weird now. You are so eager to imply that we MUST have a Creator. But then applying exact same arguments as to why that must be the case does not apply to the Creator???

 

[Galactic Spin]

You're projecting your own godaphobia to scientists. True the majority of scientists don't believe in magical gods but how can they not consider the possibility when scientists are seeking to create their own universe.

Not when they are doing science, they don't. If 100% of scientists became theists tomorrow, every single word I said would still hold.

So this "godaphobia" nonsense is a nonstarter for you.

Its no coincidence some scientists are seriously considering the possibility our reality is artificially created when they realize scientists are creating virtual realities.

Right, it's no coincidence at all. They are all human beings hardwired in much the same way. No human is immune to the appearance of design. Maybe evolution is design. But the theory of evolution explains it without design or a designer. That's all.

They are correct to say it's possible that our universe was artificially created. That isn't news.

 

[Galactic Spin]

What happens when scientists introduce God into their work? They cease doing science.

Newton and the God of the gaps | The Hump of the Camel

 

[watsup]

You're projecting your own godaphobia to scientists. True the majority of scientists don't believe in magical gods but how can they not consider the possibility when scientists are seeking to create their own universe. If they succeed its not going to be magical. Its going to be the result of hard work, intelligence, engineering, applied science. If they do succeed are they not the Gods of that universe?

Its no coincidence some scientists are seriously considering the possibility our reality is artificially created when they realize scientists are creating virtual realities. Its possible our best computers are comparable to a commodore 64 in its heyday.

Is reality a computer simulation? Does it matter? | Aeon Essays

Philosophers and physicists say we might be living in a computer simulation, but how can we tell? And does it matter?

aeon.co

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

www.scientificamerican.com

Trust Us, We Definitely Live in a Simulation

You don’t believe we all live in a simulation? Come on, use your noodle: that’s exactly what the simulation’s architects would want you to think!

www.scientificamerican.com

Modern computer technology is extremely sophisticated, and with the advent of quantum computing, it’s likely to become more so. With these more powerful machines, we’ll be able to perform large-scale simulations of more complex physical systems, including, possibly, complete living organisms, maybe even humans. But why stop there?


The idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds. A pair of philosophers recently argued that if we accept the eventual complexity of computer hardware, it’s quite probable we’re already part of an ‘ancestor simulation’, a virtual recreation of humanity’s past. Meanwhile, a trio of nuclear physicists has proposed a way to test this hypothesis, based on the notion that every scientific programme makes simplifying assumptions. If we live in a simulation, the thinking goes, we might be able to use experiments to detect these assumptions.

What scares you about the possibility the universe was intentionally caused to produce planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, matter, gravity, laws of nature and ultimately intelligent life? No one is proposing it was magic. No doubt things we create today and take for granted would be magical to someone 200 years ago. We're getting closer to the point where the notion the universe was intentionally caused isn't a preposterous concept. You just haven't got there because of your god-a-phobia.

VIRTUAL realities. Not a REAL universe. Beyond that, just more science fiction on your part.

 

[bomberfox]

@bomberfox More:

The reason we get this is because we understand the sums of infinite series. To get somewhere, you have to go halfway, first. Then halfway again. And then again, and again...

If you did not understand sums of infinite series, you might say one can never "go" anywhere, because they will never arrive. They always have to go halfway first.

But if you do understand those sums, you know that 1/2 + (1/2)(1/2) + (1/2)(1/2)(1/2) +... = 1. So you always arrive at your destination.

The same applies for watching someone fall jnto a black hole. If you watch that happen, you will never, not ever, see that person cross the event horizon. Not even if you had an infinite amount of time to observe it.

However, to the person falling in, nothing special seems to happen at all.

So if I asked you what the person who fell in looked like to you "after" falling in, that question would have no meaning. Like asking what is north of the North pole.

(If i asked the person who fell in, they could just grab a mirror and describe what they see. )

So the difference comes down to your frame of reference. For those "inside" of our universe (frame), it seems likely we could go back in time forever and never reach a beginning. But to an observer outside of our universe, they may just see the beginning of our universe occur in their own real time.

I dont even know if there is such a thing as beyond the universe.

 

[Jacksprat]

VIRTUAL realities. Not a REAL universe. Beyond that, just more science fiction on your part.

Yes, I don't know why he keeps talking about virtual reality.

 

[watsup]

I explained logically why that is the case in the OP.



Looks like you are confusing different claims. One claim (in the OP) is that our Universe does not NEED a Creator. Another claim is whether there HAPPENS to be a Creator.

For example, it's possible some God got created via natural processes in some Universe and then decided to create our Universe. Sure, that's possible. However, whatever natural processes created that other God is also natural processes that might have created ours for all we know. There is no NEED for there to be a Creator since whoever Created us must have come from somewhere themselves.



It's as good a guess as any other God.



So we are in a matrix? Sure, why not - it's possible. It's also possible we are not.



In a hypothetical where there is a Creator, subjects believing in that Creator would happen to be correct.

Just like in a hypothetical where there is NO Creator, creatures believing there is NO Creator would happen to be correct.

So, who cares.



I answered but you still did not. Answer the OP question - who created your God? How could they have come into existence?



Yes.



I already answered above this scenario, in earlier post as well as in this one.



I asked you a simple question. How did you Creator come into existence? By all the same exact arguments you are making, it would follow, your Creator must have ANOTHER Creator. And then than Creator must have another Creator. Do you disagree?



You are missing the point. So let's go one step at a time. Answer my question first.



It's possible we can exist without a Creator. It's also possible we are like a laptop (from someone's earlier post) which DOES have a Creator but then that Creator could exist without a Creator. That's my point.



Well, that's weird now. You are so eager to imply that we MUST have a Creator. But then applying exact same arguments as to why that must be the case does not apply to the Creator???

DrewPaul is very afraid to get into such a discussion because he knows that it will knock his little noise of “Creator” cards flat to the ground in a NY minute. As such, he will continue to make lame excuses forever.

 

[watsup]

Yes, I don't know why he keeps talking about virtual reality.

I don’t know why he keeps talking about anything at all. All it does is add to the embarrassment of posting illogical nonsense.

 

[Jacksprat]

I don’t know why he keeps talking about anything at all. All it does is add to the embarrassment of posting illogical nonsense.

He sounds like a straight forward theist trying to sound more sophisticated.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I dont even know if there is such a thing as beyond the universe.

Maybe there isn't. So, assuming there is nothing beyond our universe:

If the universe undergoes the "Big Rip" (as is expected) and fades to nothing, then there will exist nothing.

As such, if nothing can come from something, then why can't something come from nothing?

 

[Jacksprat]

if nothing can come from something, then why can't something come from nothing?

Agree.

 

[watsup]

He sounds like a straight forward theist trying to sound more sophisticated.

Exactly. It’s clear that he considers himself to be “intellectual” in his musings, but that is clearly a delusion.

 

[Jacksprat]

Exactly. It’s clear that he considers himself to be “intellectual” in his musings, but that is clearly a delusion.

Agree. He does not even know what begging the question means.

 

[Galactic Spin]

He sounds like a straight forward theist trying to sound more sophisticated.

True to a degree, and at times, but there are worse things to try to sound like. So I am good with that effort.