[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Darrell

Here you are again going back and forth between whether we start from something existing or not existing. (BTW, started = originated = created = made.) And wouldn't something that didn't exist before be "nothing?" If you stay with your dictionary definition, you are back to something from nothing. Frankly, I'm disappointed. Still no progress. I thought we had come to some common ground that true creation is nothing more than the conversion of something to something different.

I'm not going back and forth but am attempting to bring varying hypotheses together, Darrell. Your disappointment comes from failing to read my (repeated) statements proposing something (Reality) did not come from nothing. I am not responsible for what the dictionary SUGGESTS to you where I'm "back to", but when using the English language, a term primarily means what it says in there.

But with the above refinement (sumtin don't come from nuttin) I am sure we have some common ground. Challenges remain though.

Originally Posted by Darrell

Furthermore, I see no reason to precondition the act of creation with the act of planning or of intention. I throw garbage in a heap. Over time, things decay and microorganisms munch away. Eventually, compost is created. No planning. No necesssary intent. No something from nothing. Yet compost is created. Yes?

Bad example. Having processed the information from your first time composting (no doubt reading up on others' experiences), you repeatedly, intentionally and under your intelligent control, have thrown your garbage in a designated heap for composting. If you were my friend, I'd call you the Creator of Garbage, and get a smile in return. But take away your planning and intention and you'd be throwing filth in your livingroom, your kitchen, on your disappointed dog and be sleeping on the horrid pile with your loved ones. No creation, you'd in the shits and smelling the part.

Originally Posted by Darrell

Time for you to either $hit or get off the pot. If we can agree that creation is the conversion of something which exists to something different that also exists as the result of a conversion process, we are ready to move on. If not, I'm tired of your endless circles and will probably withdraw from the discussion. We are awfully far into this thread (which you CREATED) to not be able to agree on a simple definition for creating things.

Yes, time to be clear. I position myself to say that a hypothetical creation does basically mean 'to cause something to come into existence'. But your conversion mechanism sounds fine to me. Only I'd (try to) fit it into the Big Bang model, with its historical observation horizon: looking back, we cannot see anything earlier than expansion start. Imo from our Space-Time perspective the state prior to Big Bang does not exist. I theorize that from said prior state (its version of reality) OUR REALITY/UNIVERSE/SPACE-TIME does not exist. Thus in my modelling one version of reality converted to another version, or to put it differently: one universe passed into another dimension, by contraction to atomsize followed by expansion. From mutual perspectives, the other universe does not exist, although experienced from within a universe it does exist, and real. Is a creator causing the conversion, or physics laws?

Originally Posted by Darrell

Here is what I think your problem is. You are so entwined with the ancient terminology used between religionists and atheists referred to as the "creation versus evolution" argument that you have put blinders on as to how these words can be used in their broadest senses. You fail to see that garbage can create compost via an evolution of biochemical processes or that a God creator can invent physical laws and evolutionary life processes. Creation does not have to involve a God; nor does evolution automatically declare freedom from one.

I respectfully disagree. Our languages and terminology comes from human inventions made in ancient (God, Creator) and prehistoric times (Spirit, Ghost). These we are using here, and must to try use as precisely as possible. And here lies the rub, you wish to use creation in such broadest senses you might include every conceivable process and aspect of reality in it. Backyard compost is "creation". Evolution is creation. The Big Bang is creation. Sexual reproduction too.

Don't you risk making everything creation, while accidentally Everything constitutes your evidence for creation? Could you be reasoning in a perfect circle? Using a definition which includes everything makes it fundamentally unverifyable.

Originally Posted by Darrell

I suggest you expand your thinking. Creation in the general sense means to begin, start or originate something new from something old. Example: use flour, sugar, eggs and heat to create a cake. Evolution is simply a path taken via a set of processes and selected options. Example: all the plays/results recorded chronologically in the last superbowl would comprise the evolution of that particular contest. The act of creating needs no god; and the evolution of something is not a defender of science. (There is certainly nothing especially scientific about how this thread has evolved which you created.)

Once you opt for a transformative process without intention, without a god doing the creating, equalling starting something new from something old, you merely use the term Creation for Physics Laws.


orangekea