The existence of a creator.

Here is another HYPOTHESIS that does not require more than one universe nor more than one go around for the universe.

In quantum physics, particles come and go. They pop into existence and then out of existence.

I will content that in the very early universe (before the big bang) that protons and the neutrons were being created little by little. This was a very slow process because they had to be a precess size for them to survive the initial creation (and remember, in quantum physics, particles pop in and out of existence.).

There goes the 1/10th of 1% rule you claim.

As more and more protons and the neutrons were being, the gravitational pull becomes greater and greater holding then all in place. However, the thermal radiation also increases, to the point that gravity can not longer hold it, and BOOM! You have The Big Bang.

There ya go, no multi-universe needed., only created once and most importantly, no designer or god needed.

Keep in mind one thing, this is actually based on what little know about quantum physics. While I doubt this is how the universe was created, it is more reasonable than some designer or god. We (as in the human race) have already proven that particles do pop in and out of existence in the quantum physics. So my HYPOTHESIS is based of real information. Unlike a designer or god which is based on the imaginations of the human mind.

 

Thank you for proving that you are not here for any serious debate. If you were, you would be willing debate this real evidence.

But alas, you are not. You simply regurgitate what I said about yourself and Megadeath in a few posts back. Your whole goal is to simply troll and derail threads with your sophistry BS.

 

In the same token, it amazes me that creationists insist that the universe had to have a creator, but nothing created the creator. 'The creator always has been”.

Why cant matter always existed w/o any creation? That logic is no different that saying the creator always was. Yet that doesnt fly with creationists. Go figure.

 

So, when the evidence shows that you are operating strictly on presumption, and is required to operate on presumption because of you NOT KNOWING the mind of God, then the stated evidence (your presumption) is immediately deemed as trolling and as an attempt to derail the thread. You challenged me directly to respond to your statement. I did just as you asked me to do. There is no trolling and no derailment of the thread.

BTW: Thanks again for yet another compliment of being a Sophist. They are really a unique group of people.

 

You're presuming that I am presuming that his was a presumption.

Once again, I am not presuming anything. I am taking the stated argument, that "there is a level of design", and showing how that presumption is not necessarily true.

 

Not true. Your statement ""I don't have to in order to point out that your presumption of design is not valid."" clearly shows you naming his as a presumption. If you cannot PROVE that his was a presumption, then your claim against me is in error. So we are right back to square one where I asked you why you feel that your presumption is any more valid that the presumption you accuse him of. In other words, if you cannot prove that there is no 'level of design' then you are in error and you have shown that you are presenting a presumption regarding the other poster as well as a presumption about me.

 

Ok. The big bang doesn't not prove the existence of God no matter what the catholics say. A big FART in your direction. Why does anyone feel the need to prove anything? The truth is you will live and die and that is it. What you are worth has nothing to do with what you can prove, it has to do with what you achieve and how much love you have to give. Go to the people who matter to you and make a difference. Or sit here and argue like asses....

 

The reasoning behind why you say existence is probably a creation and probably has a creator is what leads to that notion

Watch is to well-ordered to be a product of nature = someone made watch

Humans and life and the universe there in is to complicated and well ordered to come about on its own god must have built them in the beginning the end.


But after thinking about it if order needs a designer a god who would design the universe is to well-ordered and complex to just happen to exist on its own

Needs a god of its own repeat forever


The other possibility

Complicated god can exist on its own without need of being engineered by super being

More thought

Complex order can exist on its own without need of being engineered after all because that’s part of what a god would be and prove by its own existence negating the need for an ultimate designer because even ultimate complexity can just exist on it own

Either gods need gods or no one needs god’s though any number of gods or none at all might be the case

 

um why are you hear arguing that we should not be arguing then?

 

Excuse me.... I was just farting

 

of course

let he who has never dealt it complain about having smelled it ^^

 

I apologize for posting on this thread when I find the subject meaningless. I don't believe that faith in an ultimate creator will give anyone fulfillment anymore than I believe the the opposite will. I do believe that I was born and will die. I like to think the things I do will make some difference. To believe that I have to have some faith that existence has meaning. If everything is exactly as it seems what meaning do we have?

 

Non Avian Dinosaurs died off 65 MILLION years ago. That had nothing to do with humans.

Where did you get the ignorant belief that dinosaurs died off because of people?

 

Then you don't understand the point they're making.

The point is people say that there needs to be a creator because everything needs one. It's them saying that everything needs it, not us. We just show their "logic" to them when they then deny that the creator needs a creator.

 

Independent77, the only thing in the 4 scenarios in your post #62 that we have any experience with is the second part of your first scenario, namely that matter and energy cannot emerge from where it did not already exist. We have no reference for any of the other scenarios, including the first part of the first scenario, and that gives us exactly zero chance of evaluating any likeliness of them.

Since you, like anyone else, thus have no reference in order to evaluate the likeliness of the other scenarios (though you are always welcome to give it your best shot), the only conclusion to draw is that the scenario that you find more likely simply happens to fit your personal flavor. And that's fine. However, when you try to communicate your personal flavor to a greater audience than you and your bathroom mirror, saying that it's more likely for no other reason than it fits your flavor, which is what the watchmaker and anthropological arguments, the arguments of desire and ignorance and so on amount to, it just has no effect other than the odd curling of a toe or wrinkling of a nose.

 

It is the logical consequence of the statement that a creation needs a creator. Without a specific and valid reason there is simply no way to point at a creator without the creator being a creation in itself and therefore subject to the same argument.

Without a creator there is no creation, so the second part of your sentence is a red herring, i.e., using the concept of creation as being relevant to an issue that it has no relevance to. The question is not whether people insist that a creation must need a creator. In fact, everyone with a normal mental health will insist that a creation needs a creator since those two concepts are inherently linked to one another. The question is if something specific is considering a creation. If it's not then it's not only irrelevant to call it a creation, it is also in error.

 

What are the component parts that constitute something being 'valid'?

 

Context.

When writing the above I realized that what was missing in the post was the context of creation, namely to cause something to emerge from nothing. Hence, someone eager to ignore this context in order to troll the discussion could claim that if he created something (a drawing, a fart, whatever), it would mean that he himself, as a creator, was also created. Though trolling by deliberately ignoring the context of the current issue (creating something from nothing), this would actually be a valid reason to point at a creator without any logical consequence of the creator itself needing a creator. Thus I edited the post to add the phrase you highlighted.

The proper way to write this would of course be to point out that it's only a logical consequence in case the creation in question is ex nihilo creation. But I thought it to be redundant at the time.

 

Not at all. I don't have to prove that there is not a designer to show how a "level of design" is not necessarily true. We know a watch is designed because of our experience of watchmakers. We contrast this with things that occur naturally. We cannot say the same for the universe, and a perceived "level of design" does not necessitate a designer, (on top of having nothing to contrast it with).

 

And so if a squirl saw a watch but had never seen a watch before it would be most logical for the squirl to believe that the watch always existed and there was no need for a watchmaker.

 

It would be most intellectually honest for the squirrel to withhold a presumption of design assuming, of course, that the squirrel is capable of such cognitive ability.

Edit: To be clear, this is only true if the squirrel isn't already familiar with designed things like watches designed and made by watchmakers.

 

What a poor example.

A squirrel has no concept of what a watch is. If a squirrel came across a watch, it wouldn't even pay attention to it. The watch would not help the squirrel survive nor is it a threat.

 

Then please allow the readers to hear your own explanation (not one offered by some other person) of the Fibonacci sequence being found in so many things that are some distant in relationship to one another. Such as the spiral nebulae or various sea shells and the growth of a plant. What cause was present to instill in each of those things the same sequence of numbers?

Who do you speak for when you refer to "we"?

 

gravity, next

Why must you bog down thread after thread after thread with your sophistry BS?

 

As mentioned above gravity could be one explanation , but that isn't the point. The point is that I don't need an explanation in order for my previous criticism to be valid. How many times must I repeat myself?

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest when discussing this topic. If that doesn't include you, then we might as well stop conversing.