Wisdom behind creation.

[s1eep]

I’m an Atheist, but I’m in disagreement with other Atheists who believe there was not wisdom behind the genesis of the universe. How can something composed come about without science behind it? A tree, for example, comes from a seed – the seed, the tree.

If the big bang happened, then we all came about through that. The question I’m bringing to the table is, beyond God, why did the big bang occur? There has to be a reason for such an event, especially one that’s considered scientifically, super-massive.

My own answer is that there was primal imagination.

[StringJunky]

 

I’m an Atheist, but I’m in disagreement with other Atheists who believe there was not wisdom behind the genesis of the universe. How can something composed come about without science behind it? A tree, for example, comes from a seed – the seed, the tree.

If the big bang happened, then we all came about through that. The question I’m bringing to the table is, beyond God, why did the big bang occur? There has to be a reason for such an event, especially one that’s considered scientifically, super-massive.

My own answer is that there was primal imagination.

 

However you cut it you are invoking a creator which is no different from a god ...you are just not attributing that entity to a prescribed religion. You have your personal 'religion'.

[EdEarl]

I second StringJunky, and ask, "Where did this imagination come from? In other words, what created the imagination?"

[s1eep]

However you cut it you are invoking a creator which is no different from a god ...you are just not attributing that entity to a prescribed religion. You have your personal 'religion'.

This is not something I worship, or preach, I think there are more stressing issues, such as the natural world, that are more worthy of worship.

 

I'm sceptical as to what natures are out there...

 

How did we come up with the big bang? Reverse engineering, of course, plus, we must have took to idea of from explosions or 'bangs' we experienced...

 

Shouldn't we be able to apply reverse-engineering to the big bang?

 

It stems from a cause---I'm sceptical as to whether a cause exists, and rightfully so, because it makes no sense that there was nothing behind such a composition. In a sense, I'm being rational; there's a flaw in the common Atheist logic. I've put the pieces of the puzzle together, I've been consistent with the universe by applying it's own kind to events in the past, just as we did with 'bangs' and the 'big bang'. I have not delved all the way into fiction, unless I'm incorrect; it's something that can be traced back to natural observation, but on the other hand there is no evidence for God.

 

Creation and God are not mutually exclusive, we can approach creation scientifically. For example, a male and female create a child---this is knowledge about the universe.

 

I second StringJunky, and ask, "Where did this imagination come from? In other words, what created the imagination?"

 

 

I'm sorry that my answer was the highlight of the post, it's a guess based on my own senses and feelings about the evidence I've experienced.

 

It's the same scenario as me asking about the big bang, however, I will try to give you an answer...

 

Imagination is so simple, yet intricate and complex when analysed in depth. My hypothesis is that nothing possessed a type of mindless imagination by default.

Edited August 8, 2014 by s1eep

[Acme]

...

Imagination is so simple, yet intricate and complex when analysed in depth. My hypothesis is that nothing possessed a type of mindless imagination by default.

An untestable hypothesis is worthless by default. Wise creationism is an oxymoron.

[Thorham]

It seems to me that there has simply always existed something uncreated, and what or who that something is, is unknown (otherwise you'd get nonsense such as things popping into existence from absolute nothingness).

[EdEarl]

I'm sorry that my answer was the highlight of the post, it's a guess based on my own senses and feelings about the evidence I've experienced.

 

It's the same scenario as me asking about the big bang, however, I will try to give you an answer...

 

Imagination is so simple, yet intricate and complex when analysed in depth. My hypothesis is that nothing possessed a type of mindless imagination by default.

You seem to be saying that a super intelligence exists an nothing else; then it created matter, energy, space and time from nothing. That explanation seems more complex to me than the Universe spontaneously created from nothing, and I favor simpler explanations. But, neither can be proved.

[s1eep]

You seem to be saying that a super intelligence exists an nothing else; then it created matter, energy, space and time from nothing. That explanation seems more complex to me than the Universe spontaneously created from nothing, and I favor simpler explanations. But, neither can be proved.

I don't say, and I confirmed I didn't in my last post, this 'primal imagination' was everything and everywhere, but I asserted was the cause behind the big bang, and to add, maybe accounts for the creativity, and the "Why?" factor of the universe.

 

The question was, "what caused the big bang?".

 

My answer was not irrational. There could've been chaos prior to the big bang that caused it to occur, this chaos I have defined as primal imagination (not controlled within a vessel such as the mind, but spontaneous; creative energies), creating things, opposed to nothing, something. My idea of it is that there was such an amount of chaos, possibly infinite imaginations, that the state of nothing became super-massive, and parts of the imagination started to purify (become realer), harmony was found, and this is where all the material required for the universe came about, through sheer intensity of imagination, that eventually created a big bang.

 

It's just a guess, but can you tell me why I'm religious because of this? Again, creation is not mutually exclusive with God.

[EdEarl]

Do you have a name for your religious order?

[s1eep]

Do you have a name for your religious order?

Rationalism.

[StringJunky]

You seem to be saying that a super intelligence exists an nothing else; then it created matter, energy, space and time from nothing. That explanation seems more complex to me than the Universe spontaneously created from nothing, and I favor simpler explanations. But, neither can be proved.

The simplest explanation, I think, is that the universe always existed and I don't think it was necessary for time as we know it -

because it probably had certain pre-requisites - to have always existed, so the idea of 'a beginning' can become moot. This is one way to avoid the infinite-regression problem which the OP's solution arouses..

 

 

I don't say, and I confirmed I didn't in my last post, this 'primal imagination' was everything and everywhere, but I asserted was the cause behind the big bang, and to add, maybe accounts for the creativity, and the "Why?" factor of the universe.

 

The question was, "what caused the big bang?".

 

My answer was not irrational. There could've been chaos prior to the big bang that caused it to occur, this chaos I have defined as primal imagination (not controlled within a vessel such as the mind, but spontaneous; creative energies), creating things, opposed to nothing, something. My idea of it is that there was such an amount of chaos, possibly infinite imaginations, that the state of nothing became super-massive, and parts of the imagination started to purify (become realer), harmony was found, and this is where all the material required for the universe came about, through sheer intensity of imagination, that eventually created a big bang.

 

It's just a guess, but can you tell me why I'm religious because of this? Again, creation is not mutually exclusive with God.

Prior to the BB, I think it unlikely it just popped into existence at the behest of some supernatural consciousness. I'll give you that you aren't being religious but it is supernatural which is in the same realm of potential scientific validity i.e. none. I don't pretend to know the answer and I'm sure a lot on these boards has been down the same sort of thought-paths as you are expressing here at some point in their lives but in the realm of these scientific boards we must think soberly in the light of available evidence. What you are doing, in essence, is filling-in where science can't yet touch with a supernatural explanation or entity ...the God-of-the-gaps.

[s1eep]

The simplest explanation, I think, is that the universe always existed and I don't think it was necessary for time as we know it -

because it probably had certain pre-requisites - to have always existed, so the idea of 'a beginning' can become moot. This is one way to avoid the infinite-regression problem which the OP's solution arouses..

 

 

Prior to the BB, I think it unlikely it just popped into existence at the behest of some supernatural consciousness. I'll give you that you aren't being religious but it is supernatural which is in the same realm of potential scientific validity i.e. none. I don't pretend to know the answer and I'm sure a lot on these boards has been down the same sort of thought-paths as you are expressing here at some point in their lives but in the realm of these scientific boards we must think soberly in the light of available evidence. What you are doing, in essence, is filling-in where science can't yet touch with a supernatural explanation or entity ...the God-of-the-gaps.

I understand up until "the God of the gaps"---"the answer of the gaps" would be correct. I'm Atheist, belief in a cause for the big bang is not belief in God, it's rational belief.

[StringJunky]

s1eep, on 09 Aug 2014 - 3:54 PM, said:

I understand up until "the God of the gaps"---"the answer of the gaps" would be correct. I'm Atheist, belief in a cause for the big bang is not belief in God, it's rational belief.

But your proposed cause is some sort of purpose-driven consciousness. Evolution, in inorganic or living systems, emerged through a combination of chance and the chemical/physical properties inherent in the interacting materials so why should it be different before the big bang? Just because scientists are currently ignorant of the mechanisms prior to it doesn't mean that you or anyone should invoke some supernatural phenomena or entity.

[s1eep]

But your proposed cause is some sort of purpose-driven consciousness. Evolution, in inorganic or living systems, emerged through a combination of chance and the chemical/physical properties inherent in the interacting materials so why should it be different before the big bang? Just because scientists are currently ignorant of the mechanisms prior to it doesn't mean that you or anyone should invoke some supernatural phenomena or entity.

I don't agree, I think there was purpose-driven consciousness in our evolution.

 

I hate it when scientists say, emotions and senses are only chemical reactions in the brain and body, because it is incorrect and biased to one perspective; the cause and effect are equal. It's like saying vision is the eyes, that's partially true, but vision is also vision, the effect of the cause. Are you truly asserting that there was no consciousness involved in our evolution? There had to be, for we didn't only evolve, we survived.

 

Something happened to what was 'nothing', for it to create the universe. Simply saying that "a big bang happened to nothing", is in the same predicament as saying "imagination happened from nothing".

[ACG52]

 

 

This is not something I worship, or preach

You just did. And continue to do so. You've simply renamed god.

[s1eep]

You just did. And continue to do so. You've simply renamed god.

You're trying to force me to be religious, this is typical of 'modernized' scientists and what they consider 'stupid'.

Edited August 9, 2014 by s1eep

[ACG52]

 

 

You're trying to force me to be religious,

You're doing it yourself. You just prefer to call it something else.

[s1eep]

You're doing it yourself. You just prefer to call it something else.

No, you're saying I'm doing it. It's your 'half-arsed' signature one-liners that imply I'm religious, I clearly implied I didn't believe in God, and creation isn't God-exclusive. You think God is understood somewhat, and things apply to God; nothing applies to God, it's a fallacy. Things apply to the big bang, we can use reverse-engineering to predict a big bang occurring, and then use the same process on the big bang. I have have implied that the big bang has intelligent design, that fundamental imagination was behind it, that is by no means God-belief, I took imagination from the real world, you can't take God from the real world. I answered with imagination for the question "What happened before the big bang?", not God. You 'think you understand God' because you then say what I'm doing is 'God-like', you know nothing about God apart from stories, you're a fallacy. What I like to call 'unknowingly religious'.

[StringJunky]

Religious - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

 

How do your thoughts or beliefs differ from this definition?

Edited August 9, 2014 by StringJunky

[ACG52]

Well that was terribly confused.

[Fuzzwood]

I understand up until "the God of the gaps"---"the answer of the gaps" would be correct. I'm Atheist, belief in a cause for the big bang is not belief in God, it's rational belief.

It is, however, still something you believe. Science doesn't care for beliefs, only testable hypothesis and theories that match our observations. Religion cares for belief.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[s1eep]

Religious - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

And where are we controlled by this imagination I suggested? I never elaborated on the hypothesis, I admire it's technicality and wish to think more about it, as a fail-safe measure in-case it does exist. It's not an answer I will pursue with great devotion, this thread only. I was hoping for more ideas, it doesn't seem you believe your mind is powerful enough to understand this far back, or resist religion, so you don't even try. Science, is not perfect, it's conducted by an imperfect organism with it's own attributes to take account of, and these attributes effect science conducted. Just because this imagination was involved in the composition of humans, doesn't mean it controls them. It's like a force of nature, it simply is, what connects us all together, the imagination of the universe. No controlling what-so-ever; impersonal, you don't speak to it in words; not God, things like nature and time, or as I put it, imagination. There is creativity to everything, we must admire the end result of science, sometimes more so than science, other times not.

It is, however, still something you believe. Science doesn't care for beliefs, only testable hypothesis and theories that match our observations.

What is the "big bang", to you, if only a percentage (probably) true?

Edited August 9, 2014 by s1eep

[Dr. Funkenstein]

AS often happens in these types of discussions, the terms outweigh the values and thus the gist becomes lost. let's say "something happened to something" that is the value, Let's add God was the cause, that's the term we know best to describe one variable of the two something's. Lets say that at present we can't know rather one something in wisdom started it all or scientific process, But we can surely say that something happened. Whatever that something was equal the term of God, even if it stem from a scientific process.

[s1eep]

equal the term of God

No it's not, God is a fallacy, it cannot really be applied to even creation, for Theists do not know anything about God. When they call him 'he', they commit another fallacy, and 'creator', another. The definition of God is composed of some natural things, which were taken from nature, this is combining science with religion. Because of this, it should be noted that God is not only a fallacy when used in a religious context, but also when used in a normative context. Atheism should not even exist---the perfect Atheism is non-existent. However, Atheism does exist, doesn't mean we should rule out the scientific principles behind God; creation we probably learned from observing ourselves; sex and reproduction are natural forms of creation. By no means am I saying this thing is one thing, and I haven't suggested it was male; like the before poster said, it fits the missing piece of the puzzle, it's the answer of the gaps. I'm simply pondering whether it exists or not, it was rationality that led me to believe there was a cause behind the big bang, not God, and have given an answer, based on natural observation, and I've brought it up for discussion. It's not something I follow with great devotion, and it's not something that is God-exclusive. How you know God is stupid...

[zapatos]

@s1eep -- After reading your posts I have to conclude that you are essentially a deist as the term is commonly used. The only difference is that you use the phrase 'purpose-driven consciousness' where everyone else uses the term 'god'.

Deists don't believe in supernatural events, worship, or prophets. They do however believe they can understand the origin of the universe through rationalism.

 

You can call yourself an 'atheist' all you want, but I don't think you'll convince many people as long as you claim there was 'wisdom' behind the genesis of the universe.