Creation theories... No deities.

[Exmortis]

Lets keep this short.

I am irritated because theists keep saying how did such and such come about without a deity.
I wish I could hit them... I don't even think they know they are contradicting themselves: How did your deity come about, if he was always here then why can't energy or matter or chemicals also always have been here? What is so inprobable about scientific theory.(never mind that without technology we would most likely be living in tiny grass huts)

(alternate personality) Ah... there it is... I feel your pure hatred like a cool summer breeze... so refreshing.

...anyway, dump your theories on creation here... it will make a good reference.

 

[WolfAU]

...anyway, dump your theories on creation here... it will make a good reference.

Such comments by creationists are not "theories" or even "hypotheses", they're speculation, make believe and wishful thinking, calling them anything else is dignifying them and giving them way more credibility than they deserve.

When discussing such matters with a Creationist, start by asking alot of questions about their views regarding truth, burden of proof and "what value they place on truth in regards to the existance or lack of existance of a deity", example "If I had proof, absolute proof that God did not exist, would you wish to see it, would you rather know than not know, would knowing that God did not exist have value to you or would you just feel that this was purely a bad thing?"

If you don't like the answers you're hearing, just walk away, every time I talk with such an individual my faith in humanity plummets and I feel somehow harmed by the experience, like they've taken something of value from me.

In regards to the specific discussion you raise, your counter-argument is completely valid, arguing a God just "came into existance" is ridiculous and far less likely than a universe coming into existance, and whats more, we have proof, not only as to the fact that it occured, but HOW, they have neither.

 

[Exmortis]

Facinating, facinating... BUT!.... hehehe... I ment scientific creation theories.... maybe I am not phrasing that right... did I say that right phrasing.... Phh-rasing, Fph-ra-sing, sing....Sing!

But thanks for the pointers, circulate your strategies, and let them evolve.

 

[nemesiss]

here is a video, which is from the RichardDawkinsFoundation youtube account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

its called a universe from nothing by Lawrence Krauss which he gave at the AAI 2009.
i would love to see a longer lecture on the subject from him, it sounds really amazing.

 

[Nogre]

Hmmmmmmm... Okay, first of all, this is simple speculation, and I don't see it as a logical proof of anything. I simply see it as logical reasoning about the traits of the supernatural (creation/soul/afterlife/so on), assuming it does exist. This is also the analysis that leads me to believe that this is possible.

Imagine you're in a video game. But your memory was erased (for some reason...just humor me), and you're completely immersed. The world did exist before you actually "came into being," and so did you, but in a more advanced form. You don't realize that what you're seeing is a computer screen and what you're hearing is sound coming out of headphones. You don't realize that your interface with the world is really a keyboard and mouse. You think, completely and fully, that the game is your world. You can move through it, you can look around in your own way, hear things, and interact with it in every way you've ever known you could interact with the world. So the world you're seeing is a bunch of pixels on a screen and vibrations coming out of a headset, but the real nature of the "universe" is a bunch of ones and zeros and computer code. And the only body you're aware of is your virtual body. But also, you do have an end; you are aware that everyone eventually quits and "passes on" (leaves the game).

You've probably seen it by now, but here's a similar description, but just on a different level, with our physical world instead of the "virtual world" and a hypothetical non-physical world in place of what was formerly the physical world. You're in a world, and you have no memory or recollection of existing outside of this world. You don't realize that what you're seeing is really just a bunch of electrical signals coming to your brain (well, you really do; but science comes into the picture later). You can't see or feel any interface, so you assume none exists. You can move, look around, hear, feel, and interact with the world. You're really seeing a bunch of photons that are taken in by your eyes and then transmitted to your brain; you hear the vibration of atoms, and your other sensory feelings are far different from they apparently are. The world is really a world of quarks, protons, neutrons, and electrons, along with photons/light, and all the forms of energy. The only body you're aware of is your physical one. But also, you do have an end; you are aware that everyone eventually quits and "passes on."

I think this could very well be the nature of our reality. What lies beyond? Maybe an afterlife, maybe a soul, maybe a creator, maybe free will independant of the physical laws of the universe. How can we find out? We can't. Whatever is beyond is likely so far beyond our comprehension, the Matrix doesn't even vaguely do it justice. Or there could be nothing beyond the physical. =P This is just a thought experiment that I think shows how certain things could exist, and also prove that we shouldn't be concerned about such things, as they're probably beyond our comprehension.

So, how do science, religion, and morality work into this "model" of sorts?

Science in a virtual world could (possibly) figure out how the world is made up of data, 1s and 0s, and so on. It could also figure out the laws of the world or whatever, and they'd be things beyond simple sight. You'd likely only be able to make a good approximation without being able to directly read the computer code, though. Real science is the same; we can make approximations and make those approximations better, but we can't fully understand the world from within it. We can certainly expand our knowledge, and we certainly should. But complete and full comprehension really isn't possible from within the world.

Religion is a fiction we create, and simply a way to understand the world. It has no more bearing on the real creator or supernatural than fictional gods in video games have on the actual companies that create them. If there really are gods, that is the best analogy: try to imagine a video game company that could create the world out of quarks, electrons and the other particles; create an interface for us by setting up evolution to lead to our senses; and so on. It's simply beyond our comprehension. Is this god personal? I seriously, seriously doubt it. No more than a gaming company is personal with their players inside their games. This is why I think being a deist is as acceptable as being an atheist and that they should be virtually indistinguishable from each other based purely on their actions. The afterlife is the same: we can't have any possible idea of what it could be. We, ourselves, may have a part of our personality that we aren't even aware of right now and isn't in place whenever we're interacting with this physical world.

Now, morality, and also some philosophy. I think we have to establish a few foundational assumptions first. The ones I go with are: The universe exists (at least as far as it really matters) and it's consistant, so we can learn something about it. Emprically, physical evidence and reasoned logic (PEARLism) has the best track record at establishing ideas closer to truth (the marketplace of ideas as well), so I go with it as the basis for establishing knowledge. I also trust what I see as the most undeniable and basic things about living beings: we seek happiness and avoid suffering. I don't think this can be truly denied. This desire can even overcome the desire for life, and with advanced thinking, even the desire to reproduce or a personal desire in the name of others' happiness. I think this is a safe premise with which to work with, along with the assumptions behind PEARLism to establish morality. I've discussed several ways to go from selfish seeking of happiness and avoidance of pain to basic utilitarianism elsewhere, but my favorite is simply recognizing that "mine" is just a perception and a limitation, and I should, logically recognize all happiness, since there's no objective way to differentiate between my happiness and anothers'.

So...that was little more than just a creation "theory," but the ideas behind the creation idea needs the framework I've outlined, so I figured I should share it. What do you think?