Who Is God?

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Offending you is not my intention, so I apologize if I hurt your feelings in post, Darrell. However I will explain why my argument is not "bullshit" as you believe.

I fully appreciate your (1) and (2) hypotheses, yet merely pointed out they are part of the theory you have submitted here "without proof".

no. I have stated hypotheses for consideration of alternatives in an argument. when I submit a theory, I'll let you know. (btw, my bull$hit went with your kindergarden label of my statement of positions, not your argument. by what you wrote here, you imply differently -- thus providing a potential red herring.)

Clearly (no problem) you are asserting you may utter a creation theory without proof.

here I am pointing out the legal maxim that what can be uttered without proof can also be denied without proof. nothing more.

Clearly, apart from vague/speculative philosophy ("we are here"), you state no facts exist to support creation.

just as you state no facts by which to dismiss creation.

On creation I believe I am not contradicting myself, but attempting to narrow its definition (excluding births, big bang expansion and indeed 'creating' a work of art: we are considering the origin of Everything, of Space-Time, of our Universe!!), while you are expanding it to the point that your next successful bowel movement might qualify a creation too. (Formation of matter which never before existed ?!)

so now you wish to modify your definition of creation to making something from nothing. trouble is, that gets you nowhere. I can argue that God made everything in our space-time experience from parts of himself. That would still be something from something -- not something from nothing. Yet would that not be what you mean by creation in your revised definition by exceptions?

and just from the perspective of pure physics, I can also argue that matter is made from energy -- again not from nothing but from something. In fact, one can defend the argument that matter is nothing more than slowed down energy. Einstein thought so, anyway.

Now as to you blowing your top over the Kindergart(d)en remark: note I am not attributing stuff to your person, but to your argument. Thinking one's own failing/error may be forgiven due to others having made errors as well is a fallacy often succumbed to by much younger minds. You may think my theories are totally baseless. And maybe I am a truly a fool . Yet when you make a claim, your defense of your position stands/falls by itself. You have facts (or not). You can prove your case (or not). You have reasoned evidence (or not).

And the fact of the matter is that the (lack of?) quality of my theories has no bearing on it.

I am of the opinion that you are unable to distinguish between opinion, hypothetical arguments and theory. There are no theories presented in this thread in my humble opinion, other than one alluded to by dr. wu.

It is my opinion that everything that we believe to exist is a product of creation. It is only the process of creation that remains a total mystery. Whether our universe is created by a creator God using part of himself as its basis, or whether our universe is created by some as of yet unknown precondition to the big bang is the question no one can answer. But as far as I'm concerned, a creation event occurred in either case and all we know resulted from it. Thus everything is evidence of things being created via various processes and from various materials and/or energies that preexist their being. I am convinced that nothing was ever created out of literal void.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Darrell

so now you wish to modify your definition of creation to making something from nothing. trouble is, that gets you nowhere.

Hi Darrell, actually that is a good post, and deserves to be answered carefully. (Partial) quote overhead may be a misunderstanding: I'm not moving in the direction of creation from nothing (=absolute void), and find it something of a challenge to pin down (my theoretical) mechanisms for a cyclic multiverse. Mind boggling matter .


orangekea

[Darrell]

orange (RE 302)

Okay, good. We agree that creation is something converted to something else. Can we now also agree that whether by a deity or by a natural process from currently unknown preconditions to the big bang, all that now exists (whatever existence means) is here due to an evolution of creative processes? If not, why not?

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Darrell

no. I have stated hypotheses for consideration of alternatives in an argument. when I submit a theory, I'll let you know. (btw, my bull$hit went with your kindergarden label of my statement of positions, not your argument. by what you wrote here, you imply differently -- thus providing a potential red herring.)




here I am pointing out the legal maxim that what can be uttered without proof can also be denied without proof. nothing more.




just as you state no facts by which to dismiss creation.



so now you wish to modify your definition of creation to making something from nothing. trouble is, that gets you nowhere. I can argue that God made everything in our space-time experience from parts of himself. That would still be something from something -- not something from nothing. Yet would that not be what you mean by creation in your revised definition by exceptions?

and just from the perspective of pure physics, I can also argue that matter is made from energy -- again not from nothing but from something. In fact, one can defend the argument that matter is nothing more than slowed down energy. Einstein thought so, anyway.



I am of the opinion that you are unable to distinguish between opinion, hypothetical arguments and theory. There are no theories presented in this thread in my humble opinion, other than one alluded to by dr. wu.

It is my opinion that everything that we believe to exist is a product of creation. It is only the process of creation that remains a total mystery. Whether our universe is created by a creator God using part of himself as its basis, or whether our universe is created by some as of yet unknown precondition to the big bang is the question no one can answer. But as far as I'm concerned, a creation event occurred in either case and all we know resulted from it. Thus everything is evidence of things being created via various processes and from various materials and/or energies that preexist their being. I am convinced that nothing was ever created out of literal void.

There's an unavoidable element of the preliminary in my reply, that is: I'll be as simple and clear in my positions as possible, yet fill them out a little later. Here your (critical) questions will help me.

As for your humble opinion, D, I have a sense of optimism about being generally able to distinguish between opinions, hypothetical arguments and theory. I also have some skill in coming across as a virtual idiot, but if I fully convinced you this might prove less than helpful for our conversation. I must agree in your case a mix-up occurred, creating misunderstanding on what exactly I responded to. We must try to communicate, I promise to do my best.

I understand your maxim, but in context you immediately prior uttered precisely such DEFINITION of creator/creation without proof. And qualification Without Proof is part of your selected maxim, not mine.

You are correct in saying (in forum) I did not state facts by which to dismiss creation, yet I did not state there are no facts by which to dismiss creation (or propose a creatorless Big Bang, Abiogenesis(????), and Evolution). The latter has been your misrepresentation of my position, left unopposed so far.

We seem to be finding some common ground on the observable changes in Reality, but disagree on describing them as creation or, well changes (I have think some in order to start making sense). Neither of us think sumtin came from nuttin!


orangekea

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Darrell

orange (RE 302)

Okay, good. We agree that creation is something converted to something else. Can we now also agree that whether by a deity or by a natural process from currently unknown preconditions to the big bang, all that now exists (whatever existence means) is here due to an evolution of creative processes? If not, why not?

Sure, "something converted to something else", I'd like to think of transformative processes, leading up to observable Space-Time.

We do not agree that duh this is creation, this is something you seem convinced of, even leaning into a 'self-evident' position? For act/process of 'Creating' I use first the dictionary definition: "to cause to come into existence". May have to refine this. Would mere interplay between chaos, physics laws and the changes in distribution, form of our Universe constitute a creation? How a about an absence of planning or intent to 'create'. Would it matter? I'm just throwing out some ideas for your consideration.

I also have a problem with your term Evolution of Creative Processes. Neither the evolution of lifeless matter, nor of lifeforms has planning or intent toward higher complexity or consciousness. Just a sequence of changes imho. Most of these changes involve the loss of complexity, energy and existence. Humans and other succesful Earth life find themselves in a spot where everything worked toward their survival and supremacy, we are extremely complex/succesful organisms, maybe causing the illusion we have been created, and part of a creation.


orangekea

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Sure, "something converted to something else", I'd like to think of transformative processes, leading up to observable Space-Time.

We do not agree that duh this is creation, this is something you seem convinced of, even leaning into a 'self-evident' position? For act/process of 'Creating' I use first the dictionary definition: "to cause to come into existence". May have to refine this. Would mere interplay between chaos, physics laws and the changes in distribution, form of our Universe constitute a creation? How a about an absence of planning or intent to 'create'. Would it matter? I'm just throwing out some ideas for your consideration.

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.

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?

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.

I also have a problem with your term Evolution of Creative Processes. Neither the evolution of lifeless matter, nor of lifeforms has planning or intent toward higher complexity or consciousness. Just a sequence of changes imho. Most of these changes involve the loss of complexity, energy and existence. Humans and other succesful Earth life find themselves in a spot where everything worked toward their survival and supremacy, we are extremely complex/succesful organisms, maybe causing the illusion we have been created, and part of a creation.

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 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.)

[Jurgen]

For those interested...

The History Of Devil

[dr wu23]

"Sure, "something converted to something else", I'd like to think of transformative processes, leading up to observable Space-Time."
-----------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know if this feasible to finite minds like ours but is it possible that reality has no beginning or end? Perhaps the Universe and all
existence never had what we would consider a beginning; maybe it's always been here in some way we don't understand. No creation per se but a perpetual state of beingness that just continues to exist in a circular loop of 'what is'.
Why does there have to be a finite beginning to satisfy our finite consciousness? Is such a thing possible or does reality need a beginning?

[Darrell]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

"Sure, "something converted to something else", I'd like to think of transformative processes, leading up to observable Space-Time."
-----------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know if this feasible to finite minds like ours but is it possible that reality has no beginning or end? Perhaps the Universe and all
existence never had what we would consider a beginning; maybe it's always been here in some way we don't understand. No creation per se but a perpetual state of beingness that just continues to exist in a circular loop of 'what is'.
Why does there have to be a finite beginning to satisfy our finite consciousness? Is such a thing possible or does reality need a beginning?

Let's look at your question from a scientific perspective. Can you find anything that MIGHT HAVE always existed? Perhaps energy strings (should they ever be shown to exist in the first place)? Or failing that, can you find anything that SEEMS older than the big bang? If you can find nothing that might have always existed, and nothing seemingly older than the big bang, then it would be a rather weak hypothesis to assume it possible.

But here's a second thought. Suppose that there is something that is outside of our space-time continuum that is older than the big bang, yet not eternal. Then it would still be possible for some entity, realm or some natural process to have created our "universe." Yet we would not have the problem of dealing with the "forever" concept. We simply move back the starting point to something that preceded us. Of course, we lose something in making this assumption. There is no way to look back (or outside) our space-time continuum (while remaining inside it) to learn anything about our beginnings prior to the big bang. Which leaves us right back where we started: NOT KNOWING.

[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