Hijack from How is evolution possible without Creator?

[Ifga]

On 12/10/2018 at 10:48 AM, Itoero said:

You do understand that 'knowledge' is an evolved property? A while back, when we were still african apes, there was no 'knowledge'.

Do animals have beliefs? It seems to me they do. If they do not have beliefs, what do we call their mental activity regarding 'stuff'? 

A bird that uses tools to solve a problem has knowledge about the general quality of tools available. Given a choice, a better tool will be chosen. Similar for a chimpanzee.  

African apes, then or now, have knowledge, justified true beliefs.

Animals have not only brains, but minds as well. It seems to me.

On 11/12/2018 at 4:53 PM, mistermack said:

I'm with Carrock as to the "final answer". You may well keep going back until you find a gap in science. It's well acknowledged by all that we don't have all of the answers, and it's probable that some things ARE going to turn out unknowable. But to imagine that "there must be a creator" is an answer is just wishful thinking. It's no answer at all. You've just moved the mystery along a bit, to an imaginary being. If a gigantic god appeared in the sky tomorrow, and said in an almighty voice " I did it all !! " you still wouldn't be any the wiser, unless you found out what caused HIM, and what caused THAT. etc etc. 

Religious "philosophers" claim that there must be an "uncaused" cause to start it all off. But that's a nonsense. If you can have an uncaused cause, then you can have an uncaused Universe. It's no answer at all. Just the good old God-of-the-gaps, shoved in to put something in place of a mystery. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Just shove it in there. People have been doing it for thousands or even millions of years.

There are two choices.

1) An uncaused, spontaneous first beginning of everything, or, if you choose, of anything, from true Nothingness, in the most absolute sense.

2) An eternal existence without beginning.

The former seems, less than possible.

For the latter, there are two choices.

1) Unmotivated, undirectional, unnconscious, Existence, or, 

2) Motivated, directional, conscious Being.

I see no reason, logic, evidence, to favor the former. The latter, has had much support since pre-historic time. That, in itself, provides some small amount of reason and logic.

 

 

[Carrock]

55 minutes ago, Ifga said:

1) Unmotivated, undirectional, unnconscious, Existence, or, 

2) Motivated, directional, conscious Being.

or an unmotivated universe with at least a few billion motivated, directional, conscious beings who've been aware of each other since prehistoric times.

[Ifga]

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

or an unmotivated universe with at least a few billion motivated, directional, conscious beings who've been aware of each other since prehistoric times.

And that explains the beginning of the universe?

What is the logic, reasoning, or evidence to support such a claim?

[Moontanman]

36 minutes ago, Ifga said:

And that explains the beginning of the universe?

What is the logic, reasoning, or evidence to support such a claim?

What explains the creation of a creator? 

[Ifga]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

What explains the creation of a creator? 

We agree there is something eternal, it seems.

Something eternal had no need for a creator. Do  I really need to explain why?

[Carrock]

55 minutes ago, Ifga said:

And that explains the beginning of the universe?

What is the logic, reasoning, or evidence to support such a claim?

I made no such claim.

I added another suboption to your "An eternal existence without beginning" option but nothing I wrote has any relevance to the beginning of the universe.

 

3 hours ago, Ifga said:

There are two choices.

1) An uncaused, spontaneous first beginning of everything, or, if you choose, of anything, from true Nothingness, in the most absolute sense.

2) An eternal existence without beginning.

The former seems, less than possible.

Your evidence for 2) is it "has had much support since pre-historic time. That, in itself, provides some small amount of reason and logic. "

Really?

Would you agree that the concept that the sun circles the earth has had much support since pre-historic time?

If that isn't evidence that the sun circles the earth why is the common but never universal belief that the universe "has an eternal existence without beginning" evidence?

 

This too...

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

What explains the creation of a creator?

Following post was auto merged by forum software.

 

 

3 hours ago, Ifga said:

An eternal existence without beginning.

The former seems, less than possible.

For the latter, there are two choices.

1) Unmotivated, undirectional, unnconscious, Existence, or, 

2) Motivated, directional, conscious Being.

I see no reason, logic, evidence, to favor the former.

Your "Motivated, directional, conscious Being" seems very like a creator in "an eternal existence without beginning."

14 minutes ago, Ifga said:

Something eternal had no need for a creator. Do  I really need to explain why?

You need to explain your inconsistency. Or if you're being deliberately ambiguous, why are you posting on a science forum?

Edited December 14, 2018 by Carrock

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Ifga said:

We agree there is something eternal, it seems.

Only possibly "nothing" being eternal, depending on how you define "nothing"...perhaps the best definition of nothing we can have is the quantum foam from whence the BB evolved from. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Quote

Something eternal had no need for a creator. Do  I really need to explain why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

 

[Ifga]

19 minutes ago, Carrock said:

I made no such claim.

I added another suboption to your "An eternal existence without beginning" option but nothing I wrote has any relevance to the beginning of the universe.

 

Your evidence for 2) is it "has had much support since pre-historic time. That, in itself, provides some small amount of reason and logic. "

Really?

Would you agree that the concept that the sun circles the earth has had much support since pre-historic time?

If that isn't evidence that the sun circles the earth why is the common but never universal belief that the universe "has an eternal existence without beginning" evidence?

 

This too...

Following post was auto merged by forum software.

 

 

Your "Motivated, directional, conscious Being" seems very like a creator in "an eternal existence without beginning."

You need to explain your inconsistency. Or if you're being deliberately ambiguous, why are you posting on a science forum?

I responded to this: "Religious "philosophers" claim that there must be an "uncaused" cause to start it all off. But that's a nonsense. If you can have an uncaused cause, then you can have an uncaused Universe. "

When you responded to me,  I assumed you were continuing the conversation.

Of course I do not agree "... that the concept that the sun circles the earth has had much support since pre-historic time?"  A heliocentric universe has been demonstrated as a false belief. It has not had any support I know about for centuries. Maybe among your circle of friends...?

I am not the one who raised the issue of religious philosophers. I see no inconsistency in my posts.

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Only possibly "nothing" being eternal, depending on how you define "nothing"...perhaps the best definition of nothing we can have is the quantum foam from whence the BB evolved from. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

 

I do not find the concept of "true Nothingness, in the most absolute sense." to be confusing, or ambiguous.  I do understand that others try to.

Statements such as " It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. " do not describe true Nothingness. I therefore take your reference to support my claim that the probability of such an occurrence is not some number greater than zero. "Essentially nothing", for my understandng, equates to "virtually nothing", which means quite clearly, something.

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, Ifga said:

We agree there is something eternal, it seems.

I do not agree with that, if you do then why can it not be that the universe is eternal, merely changing form ? 

Quote

Something eternal had no need for a creator. Do  I really need to explain why?

No you need to explain why the universe cannot be eternal, why add another layer of unsubstantiated complexity? 

 

Having looked back to the last few posts I might be confused about who i am answering, are we talking past each other? 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Moontanman

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Ifga said:

I do not find the concept of "true Nothingness, in the most absolute sense." to be confusing, or ambiguous.  I do understand that others try to.

I see the quantum foam as real nothing that has existed for eternity...

Quote

Statements such as " It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. " do not describe true Nothingness. I therefore take your reference to support my claim that the probability of such an occurrence is not some number greater than zero. "Essentially nothing", for my understandng, equates to "virtually nothing", which means quite clearly, something.

Irrespective "true nothingness"  may simply mean redefining.

[Ifga]

13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I do not agree with that, if you do then why can it not be that the universe is eternal, merely changing form ? 

No you need to explain why the universe cannot be eternal, why add another layer of unsubstantiated complexity? 

 

Having looked back to the last few posts I might be confused about who i am answering, are we talking past each other? 

Let's start with what you believe. If you do not believe something is eternal, then it seems you must believe at some point there was absolute Nothingness. Not essentially nothing, not virtually nothing, but absolute Nothingness. From that, it seems, something began. 

I do not understand how something can come about from nothing. Can you explain that somehow?

By my way of thinking, certainly the universe may be eternal. Or possibly it came about from something else - oscillating universes, arising, retreating, arising, in endless cycles.

Unlike you, I believe there has always been something, the past is infinate, without beginning.

As to whether or not a creator adds a level of complexity, I do not see it that way. When  I see a tree, I suppose there was a seed, then roots, then a stem. You might ask why all this complexity. There is a tree. Why must there be more of the history of the tree. Of course you do not. Trees begin with seeds (often, sometimes other methods, but never just suddenly just a tree). This is a natural progression. No reasonable person believes there has always been a tree.

Unlike you, I believe there always has been something. The decision is between a universe, or a creator. I

By my understanding, many Scientists say the universe had a beginning. They have no substantial clue what existed one second before the universe. That seems very complicated to me. They have to imagine there was something, matter, anti-matter, energy, some combination, but who knows.  A complete unknown. Hardly simple, or it could be described.