If something exists then there has to be a creator ?

[FishandChips]

Some people would argue that the universe could not have come from nothing and a creator must have initiated the creation of the universe the planets, solar system etc.

What are your thoughts on this ?

 

[Carrock]

If something exists and there has to be a creator, then the creator also has to have a creator etc.

Turtles all the way down.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, FishandChips said:

Some people would argue that the universe could not have come from nothing and a creator must have initiated the creation of the universe the planets, solar system etc.

What are your thoughts on this ?

I would start by asking for some evidence that the universe came from nothing. There is no point asking about a creator unless there is evidence of an act of creation.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, FishandChips said:

Some people would argue that the universe could not have come from nothing and a creator must have initiated the creation of the universe the planets, solar system etc.

What are your thoughts on this ?

Why do you ask?

[taeto]

4 hours ago, Carrock said:

If something exists and there has to be a creator, then the creator also has to have a creator etc.

Turtles all the way down.

Mathematically there is nothing wrong with having turtles all the way. Cosmologically, maybe, but I am no expert.

It sounds more to me like a chicken versus egg kind of question. Which I believe to be resolvable, though I seem to forget the exact solution.

[Carrock]

3 minutes ago, taeto said:

Mathematically there is nothing wrong with having turtles all the way. Cosmologically, maybe, but I am no expert.

It sounds more to me like a chicken versus egg kind of question. Which I believe to be resolvable, though I seem to forget the exact solution.

As long as the turtle at the bottom doesn't think about what he's walking on, everything should be fine.

[iNow]

The problem for me is they’re making an argument based on nothing more than logic, but then are failing to apply the same logic to their own conclusion. 

Claim: Something cannot come from nothing. 

Conclusion: Goddidit !!

Follow-Up: Where did god come from then?

Answer: Nothing

Conclusion: This is a specious bullshit argument worth nobody’s time and works only for the uncritical and ignorant 

Edited February 15, 2020 by iNow

[taeto]

3 minutes ago, Carrock said:

As long as the turtle at the bottom doesn't think about what he's walking on, everything should be fine.

What's his/her name again, the turtle at the bottom? Or have they numbers to them in place of names? Number 1729 counting from the top perhaps is the bottom one? 

[iNow]

Her name is Karen, and she prefers being called the foundational one rather than the bottom one. 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, taeto said:

What's his/her name again, the turtle at the bottom? Or have they numbers to them in place of names? Number 1729 counting from the top perhaps is the bottom one? 

Is that an interesting number, I wonder.

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, taeto said:

It sounds more to me like a chicken versus egg kind of question. Which I believe to be resolvable, though I seem to forget the exact solution.

It was the rooster.

 

[taeto]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Her name is Karen, and she prefers being called the foundational one rather than the bottom one. 

Very well, I see this is a philosophy thread. I imagine her real name is Kanti-Ann, and she would insist that there is actually nothing to see here.

Edited February 15, 2020 by taeto

[Carrock]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Her name is Karen, and she prefers being called the foundational one rather than the bottom one. 

He's one more turtle than I could think of, and now she's suing me for failing to create her.

Fortunately I have a £1 million bank loan backed by a foundational sub prime mortgage.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, taeto said:

Very well, I see this is a philosophy thread. I imagine her real name is Kanti-Ann, and she would insists that there is actually nothing to see here.

depends on the op's answer.

[poo thrower]

i believe so, and also there is no basis to assume there is single universe, nor if the multiple have any basis of equivalance to one or another.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

I would start by asking for some evidence [because i know that you cannot answer in terms i understand] that the universe came from nothing [and despite being created].

science [versus theology translation.]

highly intelligent people will not even open to the premise of the question (because this world is for the meek...).

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Of course the universe can exist without a creator. I assume the universe is what you were referring to? 

It is very egoist of human beings to apply anthropomorphism to the universe. We think that just because we can create things and that nothing that we can create can exist without our having created them, this must means surely that the universe - because it exists - must have a creator. How egoistic this attitude and way of thinking is. The universe does not need to have been created at all, just because it exists. And just because you cannot get your head around that, and cannot possibly even begin to understand - doesn't mean there had to be a creator. Again, this is egoist and anthropomorphic. The universe doesn't care, by the way, what you want or what you think. And you wanting something to be so (the universe having a creator) won't make that so or doesn't mean that is so. Imo, like most rational thinking people with a deep respect of science, I don't think the universe owes its existence to a creator. 

[Kartazion]

On 2/15/2020 at 10:33 AM, Strange said:

I would start by asking for some evidence that the universe came from nothing. There is no point asking about a creator unless there is evidence of an act of creation.

29 minutes ago, ProximaCentauri said:

Of course the universe can exist without a creator. I assume the universe is what you were referring to? 

The creation is however intelligent. How to explain this?
 

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

The creation is however intelligent. How to explain this?

1. What evidence do you have that there was a "creation"?

2. What does "the creation is intelligent" mean?

3. What evidence do you have for this "intelligence"?

4. So what needs to be explained?

[Kartazion]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. What evidence do you have that there was a "creation"?

Because I am alive. "I think, therefore I am"

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

2. What does "the creation is intelligent" mean?

3. What evidence do you have for this "intelligence"?

4. So what needs to be explained?

That the system is stable. Very stable. The photon remains a photon no matter the cost.
Its EM wave is perfectly synchronized. His reaction is predictable and constant. And this goes to all particles.
In classical physics too. The mathematical formulas applied to it do not change.

Physics communicates with each other.

What about biology, which structures particles (intelligently) to be able to build an intelligent living body. Because biology understands how physics works.

I mean in the absolute by intelligent, understand the functioning of what governs us.

[ProximaCentauri]

38 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

The creation is however intelligent. How to explain this?
 

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only be changed form or transferred. Matter can be transformed into energy. And Einstein established that energy can be converted to matter and this was proved in an experiment by physicists at Imperial College London in 2014 when they changed the photon into an electron and positron. 

This means the universe of which is consisted of this energy and matter simply could not ever have been created. 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Because I am alive. "I think, therefore I am"

That is evidence of existence, not creation. 

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

That the system is stable. Very stable. The photon remains a photon no matter the cost.
Its EM wave is perfectly synchronized. His reaction is predictable and constant. And this goes to all particles.
In classical physics too. The mathematical formulas applied to it do not change.

Physics communicates with each other.

There is no conscious (intelligent) intervention required.

I think you need to define what you mean by “intelligence”. You appear to be using it in a non-standard way  

Perhaps you mean “stable” or “consistent”?

[Strange]

9 hours ago, ProximaCentauri said:

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only be changed form or transferred. Matter can be transformed into energy. And Einstein established that energy can be converted to matter and this was proved in an experiment by physicists at Imperial College London in 2014 when they changed the photon into an electron and positron. 

This means the universe of which is consisted of this energy and matter simply could not ever have been created. 

Unfortunately, things are not that simple in general relativity. Energy is not necessarily conserved on cosmological scales. (However, there is zero evidence for the universe being created, so I would not give the idea much consideration.)

[Kartazion]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

That is evidence of existence, not creation. 

But what is the difference? If I exist, I am created.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

There is no conscious (intelligent) intervention required.

I admit. But how to be sure? Certain organic matter are.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I think you need to define what you mean by “intelligence”. You appear to be using it in a non-standard way  

I mean by intelligent, understand the functioning of what governs us.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you mean “stable” or “consistent”?

Yes, consistent.

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But what is the difference? If I exist, I am created.

And we know that because we observe babies being born.

There is zero evidence that the universe was created. You are, of course, free to believe that. But it is not a scientific belief.

38 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I mean by intelligent, understand the functioning of what governs us.

So we are intelligent and can (partly) understand the universe.

The universe does not have to be intelligent to behave the way it does. Water does not need intelligence to run down hill.

[Kartazion]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

The universe does not have to be intelligent to behave the way it does. 

Its behavior involves movement. Isn't energy and movement a form of life?

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Water does not need intelligence to run down hill.

The water is done manipulated. Is chased by the wind. Divides under extreme temperatures and freezes in the cold.
And when it encounters an obstacle stronger than it, it stops.
Biology uses water as it sees fit. Consumed and rejected.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Kartazion