Theory of Everything? (1 Viewer)

[datonn]

Been thinking for the past year or two...what if the various accounts of creation and/or the visits/acts/commands of "gods" from written accounts in different world histories/religions all got a portion of the story correct? What if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan/Aztec accounts from the Americas, and numerous other active and now dead religions are all at least partially correct? Not saying it's true...but it is interesting to think about it.

For example, let's pretend that panspermia is correct...and that rather than the seeds or building blocks of life being transported by inanimate objects and just happening to crash into Earth, that intelligent life directed/delivered it here. Then, after allowing the seeds of life to take hold, let's say that said intelligent lifeform(s) came back to check on things or "steer development" from time to time. Mostly in stealth mode. But occasionally in full view of said creation(s). Even interacting with it, on some occasions. And now let's say that different missions (at different periods of time) were conducted over centuries/millenniums, and that much like on Earth, different "astronauts" come in different sizes. Different genders. Different skin colors. Speaking different languages. Flying different craft (like humanity's evolution from unmanned craft, to the Apollo missions, to the Space Shuttle, etc.). Not to mention similar to the fact that the Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc. have all been sending up craft and astronauts over the years as well.

Kind of like a "theory of everything," religion-style. It would make an awful, AWFUL lot of sense if there is, in fact, an intelligent Creator, and differing accounts from different periods in history can be found on nearly every corner of the globe (before phones, the internet, sea travel, etc.). Of course, even suggesting the idea would result in my ridicule/demise from people on pretty-much every side of the issue! Atheists will say that the answer is that there is/was no creator, dummy...while the followers of every other major world religion will say that their beliefs/teachings are the only true account of how things are...and anything apart from that is heresy. All I'm saying is: what if the correct answer is a combination of "B, C, and E" or "all of the above?"

 

[Raider Nation]

I read all of datonn's posts in Charlie Kelly's voice.

 

[datonn]

I read all of datonn's posts in Charlie Kelly's voice.

Aw...not Ronald (Mac) McDonald? Seriously though, it is an interesting topic to ponder. I had a few years of religion/theology/apologetics in college...and these were the types of questions that drove my professors insane.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I read all of datonn's posts in Charlie Kelly's voice.

That's interesting. I usually bug out a couple of sentences in. It's like an impenetrable wall of text.

 

[datonn]

That's interesting. I usually bug out a couple of sentences in. It's like an impenetrable wall of text.

How is one supposed to communicate anything remotely intelligent, "reasoned," or thought-provoking in, say, 144 characters or less?! Is that why much of the FFA has been reduced to and whenever the topics of politics or religion are introduced?Or is that part of the problem in our society today...the fact that we've got the attention spans of your average gnat?

 

[Raider Nation]

How is one supposed to communicate anything remotely intelligent, "reasoned," or thought-provoking in, say, 144 characters or less?! Is that why much of the FFA has been reduced to and whenever the topics of politics or religion are introduced?Or is that part of the problem in our society today...the fact that we've got the attention spans of your average gnat?

Depends entirely on the subject matter. My mind went numb on this one two sentences in.It should make for a spirited debate with tim, however.

 

[timschochet]

http://religionbookclub.com/article/all-everything-everything-all-baruch-spinozas-philosophy

 

[proninja]

http://religionbookc...ozas-philosophy

disappointingly short response

 

[tdoss]

Smells like pantheism.

 

[joffer]

I suppose the probability that multiple religions "got it right" in small droves is slightly higher than the probability that only one "got it all right". However, when you're comparing two such small numbers, who cares?

 

[(HULK)]

Been thinking for the past year or two...what if the various accounts of creation and/or the visits/acts/commands of "gods" from written accounts in different world histories/religions all got a portion of the story correct? What if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan/Aztec accounts from the Americas, and numerous other active and now dead religions are all at least partially correct? Not saying it's true...but it is interesting to think about it.

For example, let's pretend that panspermia is correct...and that rather than the seeds or building blocks of life being transported by inanimate objects and just happening to crash into Earth, that intelligent life directed/delivered it here. Then, after allowing the seeds of life to take hold, let's say that said intelligent lifeform(s) came back to check on things or "steer development" from time to time. Mostly in stealth mode. But occasionally in full view of said creation(s). Even interacting with it, on some occasions. And now let's say that different missions (at different periods of time) were conducted over centuries/millenniums, and that much like on Earth, different "astronauts" come in different sizes. Different genders. Different skin colors. Speaking different languages. Flying different craft (like humanity's evolution from unmanned craft, to the Apollo missions, to the Space Shuttle, etc.). Not to mention similar to the fact that the Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc. have all been sending up craft and astronauts over the years as well.

Kind of like a "theory of everything," religion-style. It would make an awful, AWFUL lot of sense if there is, in fact, an intelligent Creator, and differing accounts from different periods in history can be found on nearly every corner of the globe (before phones, the internet, sea travel, etc.). Of course, even suggesting the idea would result in my ridicule/demise from people on pretty-much every side of the issue! Atheists will say that the answer is that there is/was no creator, dummy...while the followers of every other major world religion will say that their beliefs/teachings are the only true account of how things are...and anything apart from that is heresy. All I'm saying is: what if the correct answer is a combination of "B, C, and E" or "all of the above?"

An all powerful creator actually makes little sense, as a God anyways. A creator implies the question, who created the creator? Who created the creator of our creator? And so fourth and so on. Eventually somewhere back, something came from nothing, or everything that is always was, or whatever. No one knows. My only point is that to say that there was an intelligent creator actually makes a lot of sense ### you did there, yeah, it really makes less sense than the no creator scenario as that is one less degree of complexity.

 

[Maelstrom]

That's interesting. I usually bug out a couple of sentences in. It's like an impenetrable wall of text.

How is one supposed to communicate anything remotely intelligent, "reasoned," or thought-provoking in, say, 144 characters or less?! Is that why much of the FFA has been reduced to and whenever the topics of politics or religion are introduced?Or is that part of the problem in our society today...the fact that we've got the attention spans of your average gnat?

How is one supposed to communicate anything remotely intelligent, "reasoned," or thought-provoking in, say, 144 characters or less?! Is that why much of the FFA has been reduced to and whenever the topics of politics or religion are introduced?Or is that part of the problem in our society today...the fact that we've got the attention spans of your average gnat?

Depends entirely on the subject matter. My mind went numb on this one two sentences in.It should make for a spirited debate with tim, however.

It was only 3 paragraphs long!? Wow, it doesn't take a to read 3 paragraphs.

 

[Maelstrom]

Been thinking for the past year or two...what if the various accounts of creation and/or the visits/acts/commands of "gods" from written accounts in different world histories/religions all got a portion of the story correct? What if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan/Aztec accounts from the Americas, and numerous other active and now dead religions are all at least partially correct? Not saying it's true...but it is interesting to think about it.

I would say it is more likely that people made up stories to explain things they didn't understand, and as those stories were passed from generation to generation, they grew to the level of being about "god".

 

[timschochet]

Larry Boy used this same argument about dragons and dinosaurs, I think.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Been thinking for the past year or two...what if the various accounts of creation and/or the visits/acts/commands of "gods" from written accounts in different world histories/religions all got a portion of the story correct? What if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan/Aztec accounts from the Americas, and numerous other active and now dead religions are all at least partially correct? Not saying it's true...but it is interesting to think about it.

I would say it is more likely that people made up stories to explain things they didn't understand, and as those stories were passed from generation to generation, they grew to the level of being about "god".

A mix of that and people making up scary punishments and sweet rewards (like in the afterlife) to get people to behave.

 

[datonn]

An all powerful creator actually makes little sense, as a God anyways. A creator implies the question, who created the creator? Who created the creator of our creator? And so fourth and so on. Eventually somewhere back, something came from nothing, or everything that is always was, or whatever. No one knows. My only point is that to say that there was an intelligent creator actually makes a lot of sense ### you did there, yeah, it really makes less sense than the no creator scenario as that is one less degree of complexity.

Think of it as though we (humans) visit Mars in 2062 and seed it with all the building blocks of life as we know it. We study it intently, but otherwise basically leave it alone (other than making sure it survives and/or grows the way we want it to). We do this for hundreds/thousands of years...periodically checking in, "steering" its development, killing off any bad apples or "weeds," etc. As the planet can support it, we eventually introduce more intelligent life to Mars as well...doing the same (studying it intently, but mostly leaving it alone other than intervening when we feel it is at some critical points in its development). Though those pesky Chinese astronauts keep coming to dink around with what we're doing and get our creation to eat fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge. Said life eventually develops oral and then written language, and passes down the story of us (humanity, its Creator and "God," as far as it knows) for generations. Along with any "commandments" we've given them. Maybe we are known by many names. Maybe we are occasionally seen as "angels" or are arriving in "pillars of fire." And many even a couple of us come to visit the planet under what might be seen as miraculous circumstances and come to be known as "Jesus" or ???Again, not saying it is true. Just saying that it seems at least plausible. More plausible to me than life just happening here on Earth by dumb-luck or coincidence...or the Earth only being 6,000 years old. And it is a heck of a lot of fun to think about and discuss.

 

[joffer]

How would organic, self-replicating molecules forming on this planet 4 billion years ago be considered "dumb luck or a coincidence"? What's it coincident to?

 

[Ranethe]

Been thinking for the past year or two...what if the various accounts of creation and/or the visits/acts/commands of "gods" from written accounts in different world histories/religions all got a portion of the story correct? What if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan/Aztec accounts from the Americas, and numerous other active and now dead religions are all at least partially correct? Not saying it's true...but it is interesting to think about it.

I would say it is more likely that people made up stories to explain things they didn't understand, and as those stories were passed from generation to generation, they grew to the level of being about "god".

A mix of that and people making up scary punishments and sweet rewards (like in the afterlife) to get people to behave.

And maybe mix in with all that a touch of the human tragedy, awareness of your mortality.

 

[datonn]

How would organic, self-replicating molecules forming on this planet 4 billion years ago be considered "dumb luck or a coincidence"? What's it coincident to?

Short answer, I guess, would be that any organic molecules of any type got here by their own accord...that our planet was not entirely composed of inorganic material (at least how we understand it/them). Maybe you'd say (as I might say as well) that organic material was delivered to our planet almost as a "virus," via comets/asteroids/meteoroids or possibly in some other manner. But even if this is the case, where did the first organic material in the universe/multiverse come from?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

That's interesting. I usually bug out a couple of sentences in. It's like an impenetrable wall of text.

How is one supposed to communicate anything remotely intelligent, "reasoned," or thought-provoking in, say, 144 characters or less?! Is that why much of the FFA has been reduced to and whenever the topics of politics or religion are introduced?Or is that part of the problem in our society today...the fact that we've got the attention spans of your average gnat?

How is one supposed to communicate anything remotely intelligent, "reasoned," or thought-provoking in, say, 144 characters or less?! Is that why much of the FFA has been reduced to and whenever the topics of politics or religion are introduced?Or is that part of the problem in our society today...the fact that we've got the attention spans of your average gnat?

Depends entirely on the subject matter. My mind went numb on this one two sentences in.It should make for a spirited debate with tim, however.

It was only 3 paragraphs long!? Wow, it doesn't take a to read 3 paragraphs.

Yeah, that's the problem.

 

[(HULK)]

An all powerful creator actually makes little sense, as a God anyways. A creator implies the question, who created the creator? Who created the creator of our creator? And so fourth and so on. Eventually somewhere back, something came from nothing, or everything that is always was, or whatever. No one knows. My only point is that to say that there was an intelligent creator actually makes a lot of sense ### you did there, yeah, it really makes less sense than the no creator scenario as that is one less degree of complexity.

Think of it as though we (humans) visit Mars in 2062 and seed it with all the building blocks of life as we know it. We study it intently, but otherwise basically leave it alone (other than making sure it survives and/or grows the way we want it to). We do this for hundreds/thousands of years...periodically checking in, "steering" its development, killing off any bad apples or "weeds," etc. As the planet can support it, we eventually introduce more intelligent life to Mars as well...doing the same (studying it intently, but mostly leaving it alone other than intervening when we feel it is at some critical points in its development). Though those pesky Chinese astronauts keep coming to dink around with what we're doing and get our creation to eat fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge. Said life eventually develops oral and then written language, and passes down the story of us (humanity, its Creator and "God," as far as it knows) for generations. Along with any "commandments" we've given them. Maybe we are known by many names. Maybe we are occasionally seen as "angels" or are arriving in "pillars of fire." And many even a couple of us come to visit the planet under what might be seen as miraculous circumstances and come to be known as "Jesus" or ???Again, not saying it is true. Just saying that it seems at least plausible. More plausible to me than life just happening here on Earth by dumb-luck or coincidence...or the Earth only being 6,000 years old. And it is a heck of a lot of fun to think about and discuss.

Of course it is plausible. What I am saying is that as that is more complex than life developing in the absence of a creator, it is less likely. You said it makes a whole lot of sense, and it does not is all I'm saying.

 

[(HULK)]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So Prometheus.

 

[Jayrod]

An all powerful creator actually makes little sense, as a God anyways. A creator implies the question, who created the creator? Who created the creator of our creator? And so fourth and so on. Eventually somewhere back, something came from nothing, or everything that is always was, or whatever. No one knows. My only point is that to say that there was an intelligent creator actually makes a lot of sense ### you did there, yeah, it really makes less sense than the no creator scenario as that is one less degree of complexity.

Think of it as though we (humans) visit Mars in 2062 and seed it with all the building blocks of life as we know it. We study it intently, but otherwise basically leave it alone (other than making sure it survives and/or grows the way we want it to). We do this for hundreds/thousands of years...periodically checking in, "steering" its development, killing off any bad apples or "weeds," etc. As the planet can support it, we eventually introduce more intelligent life to Mars as well...doing the same (studying it intently, but mostly leaving it alone other than intervening when we feel it is at some critical points in its development). Though those pesky Chinese astronauts keep coming to dink around with what we're doing and get our creation to eat fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge. Said life eventually develops oral and then written language, and passes down the story of us (humanity, its Creator and "God," as far as it knows) for generations. Along with any "commandments" we've given them. Maybe we are known by many names. Maybe we are occasionally seen as "angels" or are arriving in "pillars of fire." And many even a couple of us come to visit the planet under what might be seen as miraculous circumstances and come to be known as "Jesus" or ???

Again, not saying it is true. Just saying that it seems at least plausible. More plausible to me than life just happening here on Earth by dumb-luck or coincidence...or the Earth only being 6,000 years old. And it is a heck of a lot of fun to think about and discuss.

Of course it is plausible. What I am saying is that as that is more complex than life developing in the absence of a creator, it is less likely. You said it makes a whole lot of sense, and it does not is all I'm saying.

Complexity and likelihood are not in exact correlation. To say that because something is more complex makes it less likely is a very narrow and would be completely false on many, many, many occasions.

 

[Jayrod]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators.

This isn't true. It could be the case that a creator just exists uncreated, just as you're arguing that the universe just exists uncreated. There's no inherent need for a creator to need to have been created himself.Edit: I understand that having an uncreated creator is less parsimominous than stopping one level earlier and having an uncreated universe. I'm just responding to your argument that a creator necessitates an infinite series of creators, which is just wrong.

 

[Mister CIA]

Been thinking for the past year or two...what if the various accounts of creation and/or the visits/acts/commands of "gods" from written accounts in different world histories/religions all got a portion of the story correct? What if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan/Aztec accounts from the Americas, and numerous other active and now dead religions are all at least partially correct? Not saying it's true...but it is interesting to think about it.

I would say it is more likely that people made up stories to explain things they didn't understand, and as those stories were passed from generation to generation, they grew to the level of being about "god".

This reminds me of the words of Harry Crews.

 

[(HULK)]

An all powerful creator actually makes little sense, as a God anyways. A creator implies the question, who created the creator? Who created the creator of our creator? And so fourth and so on. Eventually somewhere back, something came from nothing, or everything that is always was, or whatever. No one knows. My only point is that to say that there was an intelligent creator actually makes a lot of sense ### you did there, yeah, it really makes less sense than the no creator scenario as that is one less degree of complexity.

Think of it as though we (humans) visit Mars in 2062 and seed it with all the building blocks of life as we know it. We study it intently, but otherwise basically leave it alone (other than making sure it survives and/or grows the way we want it to). We do this for hundreds/thousands of years...periodically checking in, "steering" its development, killing off any bad apples or "weeds," etc. As the planet can support it, we eventually introduce more intelligent life to Mars as well...doing the same (studying it intently, but mostly leaving it alone other than intervening when we feel it is at some critical points in its development). Though those pesky Chinese astronauts keep coming to dink around with what we're doing and get our creation to eat fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge. Said life eventually develops oral and then written language, and passes down the story of us (humanity, its Creator and "God," as far as it knows) for generations. Along with any "commandments" we've given them. Maybe we are known by many names. Maybe we are occasionally seen as "angels" or are arriving in "pillars of fire." And many even a couple of us come to visit the planet under what might be seen as miraculous circumstances and come to be known as "Jesus" or ???

Again, not saying it is true. Just saying that it seems at least plausible. More plausible to me than life just happening here on Earth by dumb-luck or coincidence...or the Earth only being 6,000 years old. And it is a heck of a lot of fun to think about and discuss.

Of course it is plausible. What I am saying is that as that is more complex than life developing in the absence of a creator, it is less likely. You said it makes a whole lot of sense, and it does not is all I'm saying.

Complexity and likelihood are not in exact correlation. To say that because something is more complex makes it less likely is a very narrow and would be completely false on many, many, many occasions.

However, in this instance, less complex is more likely. Break it down like this:1) We were created by random chance

2) We were created by intelligent beings who were created by random chance

3) We were created by intelligent beings who were created by intelligent beings who were created by random chance

4) We were created by intelligent beings who were created by intelligent beings who were created by intelligent beings who were created by random chance

5) and so forth into infinity

Scenario 1 is the most likely. I'm not ruling out any other scenario, but I'm positive 1 is more likely than the others. For 2 to have happened, the creator beings must've arisen from random chance, which is equal in probability to us arising from random chance. BUT, and this is a big but, beyond arising from chance, the creator beings must've grown to a point where they are intelligent enough to travel the universe (something we are not yet) AND have the ability, the will and desire to create life on new planets (something that wouldn't necessarily be an act every intelligent species with universe traveling capabilities would bother to do). Thus, scenario 2 and beyond are less likely than scenario 1.

Beyond that, there is no real reason to assume anything other than scenario 1. Why assume something more complex and convoluted? There is no rational reason to do so.

 

[(HULK)]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators.

This isn't true. It could be the case that a creator just exists uncreated, just as you're arguing that the universe just exists uncreated. There's no inherent need for a creator to need to have been created himself.Edit: I understand that having an uncreated creator is less parsimominous than stopping one level earlier and having an uncreated universe. I'm just responding to your argument that a creator necessitates an infinite series of creators, which is just wrong.

Why does our existance necesititate a creator if our creator's existance does not? Step one, create a rule for us. Step two, break it for our creator.That is not strong logic.

 

[(HULK)]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

 

[datonn]

Why does our existence necessitate a creator if our creator's existance does not? Step one, create a rule for us. Step two, break it for our creator.

That is not strong logic.

Isn't Christianity at its very heart/soul, along with many other Creation/God stories passed down by multiple civilizations in the past, predicated on this exact thing? Or maybe think of it this way:

Father - always was, and always will be (as far as we know)

Son (Jesus) - arrived on Earth ~2000 years ago, part of God, but "created" in human form to do the Father's work and complete some very specific tasks before going back to the mother ship/planet

Holy Spirit - left behind to influence us/things...and to let us tap into its guidance if we are only willing to listen and seek God with our hearts

The Father could be one being, or it could be one species (collectively) which has existed for eons. Since before the Earth even was starting to form a core and collecting its material. The Son could be an "astronaut" who was sent by mission control to do one of the most important tasks assigned by the "space program" since life was seeded on our planet. The Holy Spirit could be just about any form (or non-form) of energy/thing that humans can tap into if we only still our hearts/minds and truly seek its message and guidance.

But, of course, that does not preclude "other missions" to Earth. Other interactions with other civilizations in the Americas, or Asia, or ??? at other or even similar periods in human history.

 

[(HULK)]

Why does our existence necessitate a creator if our creator's existance does not? Step one, create a rule for us. Step two, break it for our creator.

That is not strong logic.

Isn't Christianity at its very heart/soul, along with many other Creation/God stories passed down by multiple civilizations in the past, predicated on this exact thing? Or maybe think of it this way:

Father - always was, and always will be (as far as we know)

Son (Jesus) - arrived on Earth ~2000 years ago, part of God, but "created" in human form to do the Father's work and complete some very specific tasks before going back to the mother ship/planet

Holy Spirit - left behind to influence us/things...and to let us tap into its guidance if we are only willing to listen and seek God with our hearts

The Father could be one being, or it could be one species (collectively) which has existed for eons. Since before the Earth even was starting to form a core and collecting its material. The Son could be an "astronaut" who was sent by mission control to do one of the most important tasks assigned by the "space program" since life was seeded on our planet. The Holy Spirit could be just about any form (or non-form) of energy/thing that humans can tap into if we only still our hearts/minds and truly seek its message and guidance.

But, of course, that does not preclude "other missions" to Earth. Other interactions with other civilizations in the Americas, or Asia, or ??? at other or even similar periods in human history.

The God of the Christians, Jewish, and Islamic is one that doesn't really have much of a description of where he/it came from. However, plenty of other religions have complicated orgin stories for most gods, Greek Mythology comes to mind.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators.

This isn't true. It could be the case that a creator just exists uncreated, just as you're arguing that the universe just exists uncreated. There's no inherent need for a creator to need to have been created himself.Edit: I understand that having an uncreated creator is less parsimominous than stopping one level earlier and having an uncreated universe. I'm just responding to your argument that a creator necessitates an infinite series of creators, which is just wrong.

Why does our existance necesititate a creator if our creator's existance does not? Step one, create a rule for us. Step two, break it for our creator.That is not strong logic.

It doesn't, IMO.

 

[(HULK)]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators.

This isn't true. It could be the case that a creator just exists uncreated, just as you're arguing that the universe just exists uncreated. There's no inherent need for a creator to need to have been created himself.Edit: I understand that having an uncreated creator is less parsimominous than stopping one level earlier and having an uncreated universe. I'm just responding to your argument that a creator necessitates an infinite series of creators, which is just wrong.

Why does our existance necesititate a creator if our creator's existance does not? Step one, create a rule for us. Step two, break it for our creator.That is not strong logic.

It doesn't, IMO.

Thats what I'm saying.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators.

This isn't true. It could be the case that a creator just exists uncreated, just as you're arguing that the universe just exists uncreated. There's no inherent need for a creator to need to have been created himself.Edit: I understand that having an uncreated creator is less parsimominous than stopping one level earlier and having an uncreated universe. I'm just responding to your argument that a creator necessitates an infinite series of creators, which is just wrong.

Why does our existance necesititate a creator if our creator's existance does not? Step one, create a rule for us. Step two, break it for our creator.That is not strong logic.

It doesn't, IMO.

Thats what I'm saying.

Yeah, you and I agree that our existence doesn't logically require the existence of a creator. But by the exact same argument, the existence of a creator wouldn't logically require the existence of a second-order creator either.

 

[Two Deep]

Been thinking for the past year or two...what if the various accounts of creation and/or the visits/acts/commands of "gods" from written accounts in different world histories/religions all got a portion of the story correct? What if Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the Mayan/Aztec accounts from the Americas, and numerous other active and now dead religions are all at least partially correct? Not saying it's true...but it is interesting to think about it.

For example, let's pretend that panspermia is correct...and that rather than the seeds or building blocks of life being transported by inanimate objects and just happening to crash into Earth, that intelligent life directed/delivered it here. Then, after allowing the seeds of life to take hold, let's say that said intelligent lifeform(s) came back to check on things or "steer development" from time to time. Mostly in stealth mode. But occasionally in full view of said creation(s). Even interacting with it, on some occasions. And now let's say that different missions (at different periods of time) were conducted over centuries/millenniums, and that much like on Earth, different "astronauts" come in different sizes. Different genders. Different skin colors. Speaking different languages. Flying different craft (like humanity's evolution from unmanned craft, to the Apollo missions, to the Space Shuttle, etc.). Not to mention similar to the fact that the Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc. have all been sending up craft and astronauts over the years as well.

Kind of like a "theory of everything," religion-style. It would make an awful, AWFUL lot of sense if there is, in fact, an intelligent Creator, and differing accounts from different periods in history can be found on nearly every corner of the globe (before phones, the internet, sea travel, etc.). Of course, even suggesting the idea would result in my ridicule/demise from people on pretty-much every side of the issue! Atheists will say that the answer is that there is/was no creator, dummy...while the followers of every other major world religion will say that their beliefs/teachings are the only true account of how things are...and anything apart from that is heresy. All I'm saying is: what if the correct answer is a combination of "B, C, and E" or "all of the above?"

You mean this is not how it happened? Those Alein heads in Mexico are human heads purposely misshapened.

 

[Jayrod]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO. So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

 

[datonn]

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO.

So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

Here's another question then: How come our (humanity's/Earth's) "creator" needs to be THE Creator? Could our Creator have not been created him/her/itself?! And could that Creator have been created by another being or civilization of beings?

 

[Jayrod]

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO.

So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

Here's another question then: How come our (humanity's/Earth's) "creator" needs to be THE Creator? Could our Creator have not been created him/her/itself?! And could that Creator have been created by another being or civilization of beings?

Absolutely yes to the last two questions. There is no end to that line of questioning. Just because that is the case, however, doesn't make the idea that a creator of our known universe is false.I had this exact crisis of faith when I was like 11 or 12. Freaked me out for a few days. I then came to peace when I realized that all we can deal with is what is before us. If some other being is somehow above God and decides to wipe us out, oh well...it was a good run.

 

[(HULK)]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators.

This isn't true. It could be the case that a creator just exists uncreated, just as you're arguing that the universe just exists uncreated. There's no inherent need for a creator to need to have been created himself.Edit: I understand that having an uncreated creator is less parsimominous than stopping one level earlier and having an uncreated universe. I'm just responding to your argument that a creator necessitates an infinite series of creators, which is just wrong.

Why does our existance necesititate a creator if our creator's existance does not? Step one, create a rule for us. Step two, break it for our creator.That is not strong logic.

It doesn't, IMO.

Thats what I'm saying.

Yeah, you and I agree that our existence doesn't logically require the existence of a creator. But by the exact same argument, the existence of a creator wouldn't logically require the existence of a second-order creator either.

Correct.What I'm saying is that the second scenario you describe with a creator that arose from randomness is more complex and less likely. The first part, something intelligent coming from randomness is equally likely, but then beyond that the creator must have the will and the means to create new life, which is much less likely as we have no examples of anything creating complex life out of all of the examples of life we have witnessed.

 

[(HULK)]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO. So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

What I'm saying is that for our existance to be predicated upon a creator is MORE complex than for it not to be. Due to the extra requirements (creator must exist, must have the power to create, must have the desire to create), it is less likely.I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying it seems less likely. For my assumptions, I default to the least complicated and most likely explaination... which is no creator. Please understand that I just consider this an assumption, not a fact/law/theory/etc. Just my default assumption. For me to change that, I'd need to see significant evidence supporting another scenario.

 

[datonn]

I wouldn't say I've ever had a "crisis of faith," as much as I've come to believe (realize?) that God might have created life on our planet, but that:

1. The story of God coming out of the Middle East and then Rome/Europe isn't the ONLY account that has strong elements of historical truth coming out of it. And if people would realize that Israel, Mecca, accounts coming out of the Americas, China, etc. are all grounded in some type of "experiential learning" for the people who inhabited those areas, all the stupid "Crusades" that have been going on even today (killing and torturing in the name of God? really?) would either go away or be exposed for what it truly is. One big cluster-#### and power-grab.

2. God doesn't care about if I have a "big test" in the morning, or a cold, or if my Mom's sick, or any of that. God cares about the macro...and about the 90% of how we respond to opportunity/adversity, rather than the 10% of what happens to us. At least in our day-to-day. So if I post in the FFA in a few years that I'm dying of cancer, don't say you'll pray for me to be healed. If I got lots of thoughtless "T&P" replies, I'd maybe need to go postal and take a few folks with me...lol. Rather, pray that I'll have the strength, wisdom, and peace I and my family need to deal with whatever is coming. And if I die? Well we've all got an expiration date...so it's no biggie.

Realizing that a multiple choice answer is okay (and probably correct), and that God doesn't "micro-manage" or care about all the little minutia of life is freedom. Not freedom to be bad (and sin)! Rather, freedom to focus on my ability to effectively deal with whatever comes...rather than howl/wail/beg for God to change or do _____________. God's plan has nothing to do with people getting sick, being murdered or raped, whatever. God's plan is that we "evolve" as individuals to the point where we can deal with whatever comes in a way that sets a positive example and move our species forward. IMHO.

 

[(HULK)]

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO.

So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

Here's another question then: How come our (humanity's/Earth's) "creator" needs to be THE Creator? Could our Creator have not been created him/her/itself?! And could that Creator have been created by another being or civilization of beings?

Absolutely yes to the last two questions. There is no end to that line of questioning. Just because that is the case, however, doesn't make the idea that a creator of our known universe is false.I had this exact crisis of faith when I was like 11 or 12. Freaked me out for a few days. I then came to peace when I realized that all we can deal with is what is before us. If some other being is somehow above God and decides to wipe us out, oh well...it was a good run.

Anything is possible imo.If you let yourself worry about things you cannot control, you'll go crazy.

If you start thinking about multiverses and an infinite cosmos where infinite scenarios play out in infinite time... well, there is plenty of room for gods there, as well as plenty of room for no gods. Its weird stuff and its unlikely we'll ever know much with certainity. People should just believe what makes them comfortable in life, because what else is there?

 

[(HULK)]

I wouldn't say I've ever had a "crisis of faith," as much as I've come to believe (realize?) that God might have created life on our planet, but that:1. The story of God coming out of the Middle East and then Rome/Europe isn't the ONLY account that has strong elements of historical truth coming out of it. And if people would realize that Israel, Mecca, accounts coming out of the Americas, China, etc. are all grounded in some type of "experiential learning" for the people who inhabited those areas, all the stupid "Crusades" that have been going on even today (killing and torturing in the name of God? really?) would either go away or be exposed for what it truly is. One big cluster-#### and power-grab.2. God doesn't care about if I have a "big test" in the morning, or a cold, or if my Mom's sick, or any of that. God cares about the macro...and about the 90% of how we respond to opportunity/adversity, rather than the 10% of what happens to us. At least in our day-to-day. So if I post in the FFA in a few years that I'm dying of cancer, don't say you'll pray for me to be healed. If I got lots of thoughtless "T&P" replies, I'd maybe need to go postal and take a few folks with me...lol. Rather, pray that I'll have the strength, wisdom, and peace I and my family need to deal with whatever is coming. And if I die? Well we've all got an expiration date...so it's no biggie.Realizing that a multiple choice answer is okay (and probably correct), and that God doesn't "micro-manage" or care about all the little minutia of life is freedom. Not freedom to be bad (and sin)! Rather, freedom to focus on my ability to effectively deal with whatever comes...rather than howl/wail/beg for God to change or do _____________. God's plan has nothing to do with people getting sick, being murdered or raped, whatever. God's plan is that we "evolve" as individuals to the point where we can deal with whatever comes in a way that set a positive example and move our species forward. IMHO.

If there is a god, I doubt he/she/it is paying much attention or actively participating.Earth may just be an experiment playing out (which prevents interference). Either we'll kill each other off, or will advance our technology to the point we become the experimenter's peers.Or this is all a computer simulation and we are unaware of it.Really, the list of things we can conceive as possibilities is pretty darn long. Best thing to do in my opinion is just to assume we're on our own and to do what we can for ourselves and each other.

 

[datonn]

If there is a god, I doubt he/she/it is paying much attention or actively participating.

Earth may just be an experiment playing out (which prevents interference). Either we'll kill each other off, or will advance our technology to the point we become the experimenter's peers.

Or this is all a computer simulation and we are unaware of it.

Really, the list of things we can conceive as possibilities is pretty darn long. Best thing to do in my opinion is just to assume we're on our own and to do what we can for ourselves and each other.

I'm mostly with you. I wouldn't say we're on our own though...as much as it is our "parent" letting us fall off that bike without training wheels a few (million?) times until we get the hang of things and learn what we need to learn. About technology. About pain. About effort. About patience. Whatever. Once our species took a bite out of the "tree of knowledge," and we went from being fat, dumb and happy (to just fat and dumb? lol), we've gotta get all those scrapes and bruises to learn to be behind the wheel without killing ourselves and others around us. Even go flying over the handle bars once in a while if we get too cocky/careless...or have to deal with the chain constantly slipping off the gears and the back tire always being flat, no matter how many thousands of times we've pumped air into the darned thing.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

My link

 

[Jayrod]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO. So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

What I'm saying is that for our existance to be predicated upon a creator is MORE complex than for it not to be. Due to the extra requirements (creator must exist, must have the power to create, must have the desire to create), it is less likely.I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying it seems less likely. For my assumptions, I default to the least complicated and most likely explaination... which is no creator. Please understand that I just consider this an assumption, not a fact/law/theory/etc. Just my default assumption. For me to change that, I'd need to see significant evidence supporting another scenario.

I understand exactly what you are saying, I just find it to be too simple for the topic...which is funny because that is what is usually said about the religious side of this debate.I've argued this before around here years ago and it is the primary reason for the line in my sig, "the truth is the truth no matter what anyone says does or believes and nothing can change that". Occum's razor is a cute theory, but what does it matter if its wrong? In the pursuit of truth it is a stupid box to put around things, IMO. On a side note, one thing that always gets me is the complete absolute certainty some people (not saying you, as we haven't discussed this) in abiogenesis when there isn't even a valid working theory around about how life came from non-life. Literally some of the brightest scientists of our day believe life was planted here on crystals from elsewhere. That is the best we have to work with. I think having abiogenesis as such an unknown variable, makes this a much more even debate then many atheists give it credit for. For too many people in the scientific community, it is a forgone conclusion without having actually settled anything.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO. So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

What I'm saying is that for our existance to be predicated upon a creator is MORE complex than for it not to be. Due to the extra requirements (creator must exist, must have the power to create, must have the desire to create), it is less likely.I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying it seems less likely. For my assumptions, I default to the least complicated and most likely explaination... which is no creator. Please understand that I just consider this an assumption, not a fact/law/theory/etc. Just my default assumption. For me to change that, I'd need to see significant evidence supporting another scenario.

I understand exactly what you are saying, I just find it to be too simple for the topic...which is funny because that is what is usually said about the religious side of this debate.I've argued this before around here years ago and it is the primary reason for the line in my sig, "the truth is the truth no matter what anyone says does or believes and nothing can change that". Occum's razor is a cute theory, but what does it matter if its wrong? In the pursuit of truth it is a stupid box to put around things, IMO. On a side note, one thing that always gets me is the complete absolute certainty some people (not saying you, as we haven't discussed this) in abiogenesis when there isn't even a valid working theory around about how life came from non-life. Literally some of the brightest scientists of our day believe life was planted here on crystals from elsewhere. That is the best we have to work with. I think having abiogenesis as such an unknown variable, makes this a much more even debate then many atheists give it credit for. For too many people in the scientific community, it is a forgone conclusion without having actually settled anything.

It is the best theory we have right now. If another theory comes along which fits better, we'll change, right? There are no other proposed theories with a shred of evidence behind them.

 

[Jayrod]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO. So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

What I'm saying is that for our existance to be predicated upon a creator is MORE complex than for it not to be. Due to the extra requirements (creator must exist, must have the power to create, must have the desire to create), it is less likely.I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying it seems less likely. For my assumptions, I default to the least complicated and most likely explaination... which is no creator. Please understand that I just consider this an assumption, not a fact/law/theory/etc. Just my default assumption. For me to change that, I'd need to see significant evidence supporting another scenario.

I understand exactly what you are saying, I just find it to be too simple for the topic...which is funny because that is what is usually said about the religious side of this debate.I've argued this before around here years ago and it is the primary reason for the line in my sig, "the truth is the truth no matter what anyone says does or believes and nothing can change that". Occum's razor is a cute theory, but what does it matter if its wrong? In the pursuit of truth it is a stupid box to put around things, IMO.

On a side note, one thing that always gets me is the complete absolute certainty some people (not saying you, as we haven't discussed this) in abiogenesis when there isn't even a valid working theory around about how life came from non-life. Literally some of the brightest scientists of our day believe life was planted here on crystals from elsewhere. That is the best we have to work with. I think having abiogenesis as such an unknown variable, makes this a much more even debate then many atheists give it credit for. For too many people in the scientific community, it is a forgone conclusion without having actually settled anything.

It is the best theory we have right now. If another theory comes along which fits better, we'll change, right? There are no other proposed theories with a shred of evidence behind them.

Nobody's theory on the origin of life has a shred of evidence. We are all in the same boat here.

 

[joffer]

Life had to happen by dumb luck somewhere or you have a never ending chain of creators creating creators. Which is why your scenario is much less likely than us coming from dumb luck.

So an answer you don't understand is likely not true, because you don't understand it?I really hope our universe isn't limited to our ability to comprehend it. We'd be in big trouble if that was the case.

Without getting personal, I'm really annoyed with this response, I found it incredible pompous. I assure you I have no problem comprehending what I've said. Perhaps I have failed to explain it well.

Sorry to come across that way. I guess I just don't see Occam's Razor as a valid argument for the topic. Sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but how many things in life are that simple? To argue that the origin of life is likely a result of the least complicated process is just intellectually lazy, IMO. So to say that there is a creator then begs the question of where did the creator's creator come from means there isn't a creator? How is that sound logic? That is just a way of saying it is too complicated to keep going down that road, so I'm going to stop where I feel comfortable...with only what I know....hence my above comments about not understanding. I admit it is a difficult concept and begs more questions than answers, but to dismiss it as false simply because of the complexity of it seems weak.

What I'm saying is that for our existance to be predicated upon a creator is MORE complex than for it not to be. Due to the extra requirements (creator must exist, must have the power to create, must have the desire to create), it is less likely.I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying it seems less likely. For my assumptions, I default to the least complicated and most likely explaination... which is no creator. Please understand that I just consider this an assumption, not a fact/law/theory/etc. Just my default assumption. For me to change that, I'd need to see significant evidence supporting another scenario.

I understand exactly what you are saying, I just find it to be too simple for the topic...which is funny because that is what is usually said about the religious side of this debate.I've argued this before around here years ago and it is the primary reason for the line in my sig, "the truth is the truth no matter what anyone says does or believes and nothing can change that". Occum's razor is a cute theory, but what does it matter if its wrong? In the pursuit of truth it is a stupid box to put around things, IMO.

On a side note, one thing that always gets me is the complete absolute certainty some people (not saying you, as we haven't discussed this) in abiogenesis when there isn't even a valid working theory around about how life came from non-life. Literally some of the brightest scientists of our day believe life was planted here on crystals from elsewhere. That is the best we have to work with. I think having abiogenesis as such an unknown variable, makes this a much more even debate then many atheists give it credit for. For too many people in the scientific community, it is a forgone conclusion without having actually settled anything.

It is the best theory we have right now. If another theory comes along which fits better, we'll change, right? There are no other proposed theories with a shred of evidence behind them.

Nobody's theory on the origin of life has a shred of evidence. We are all in the same boat here.

I wouldn't say that. amino acids have been created. I'd call that a "shred".