How did the universe come into existence?

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Most means the majority, although the majority is not necessarily more than a tiny smidgeon over half.

If you say "many, if not most" you are defining "many" to mean less than "most" and so you are suggesting an amount that is perhaps less than half, but perhaps more than half.  It's definately a very long way from suggesting "all" so you were right in that case at least.

---

Thankyou. I was right about it all those years ago, but they chose to abandon their native language because they

wanted

it to have meant the majority.

 

In response to the rest of your post...

I haven't tried to dictate how people use words. It's all been about you trying to dictate something that I assume, regardless of me repeatedly telling you that I don't don't assume it. I don't even assume a creator, let alone an intelligent one. I lean strongly in that direction because I find the "always there" scenario to be incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean that I assume it.. As I said before, the word "creator" is generally used to mean an intelligence behind it. E.g. "the creator of the universe" is generally used to mean an intelligent creator, such as God.

You said, "

As to what I have said, I told you that your use of the word created assumes a creator, and it does. 

Whether or not you assume a creator is a separate matter

". Whether or not I assume a creator is exactly what this side-issue has all been about. You stated more than once that I have that assumption, and I told you more than once that I don't, but you refused to accept it. Instead, you tried to prove that I have an assumption that I said I don't have. If you'd accepted it, instead of trying to prove the opposite, which was never going to be anything but a futile effort, this side-issue wouldn't have happened. I'm sorry, but it's the way you dealt with it that has dragged it on for so long. All you need do is accept what I've said all along - that I don't assume a creator - and that's the end of it.

ETA: Have a read of your post #337, which followed the one that I quoted from in this post. You use the word "creator" quite a lot but not the phrase "intelligent creator". Anyone reading what you wrote about a creator in that post would understand that you were talking about an intelligent creator. There's nothing wrong with the post and your use of "creator" in it. The point is that you repeatedly used the word in the way it is generally used when talking about the universe - intelligent creator.

---

You're welcome.

I don't know why you think that if you use the word creator, created, and that if someone responds to what you are saying following your use of the word, that it's reasonable to propose that everyone must think the responder's use of the word means intelligent creator, while your's does not.  I do feel you've had plenty of chances to explain that and the fact that you have not done so indicates to me that you can see no reason why this would be the case either.

As to who was telling who what their words mean, that was you telling me what my use of creator means or looks like. I told you what the language you are using and hence what your argument assumes.  I do not know why you are unable to distinguish comments describing what you have said from what you think.  This post here is not the first one into which I have typed the word "miscommunicated" in this thread.  I don't believe you can find a post of mine where I am telling another poster "I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent creator".

As it happens nothing about my use as distinct from your use indicates any such thing.  You've had ample chances to show why your use does not mean such a thing and yet mine does.  Bear in mind that of the two of us, only one of us has said "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it" in a situation where the question referred to is "How did the universe come into existence?"  Despite your claims, nothing about it being an answer to that question, and nothing Porky said prior makes that statement not mean "an intelligent designer created it.  It really does beg belief that you want to shove down my throat that my use must mean to everyone an "intellligent creator" while you wish to claim the contrary for your own use. 

The fact is if you use a word and someone uses that same word in response, it's beyond silly to suggest their use looks one way while asserting your's is not like that unless you can substantiate the distinction between them.  Blanket and vague claims that "everyone" will read it to mean a certain thing, while you cannot explain why everyone would not read your use to mean that thing, is just silly, and some even might construe it as just arguing for the sake of it. 

So far as my use is concerned, whether or not he creator is intelligent is wholly undefined and utterly irrelevant to the arguments I was making so nothing makes my use look more like intelligence is involved than your own use, the big difference being, I've never specifically asserted anything about an intelligence capable of design, but you've unambiguously asserted one.

 

Or put bluntly, it's not someone who is not you who is trying to redefine the meaning of words in this instance.  Certainly someone in this thread is trying to redefine what "creator" means, based on who is using the word, which is probably more silly than trying to redefine the phrase "many if not most" for everyone's useage.  At least those girls were being consistent in their redefinition rather than expecting everyone to swallow that "many if not most" means one thing when they use it, and another thing when you use it, and further that "everyone" would read it so.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything.   

---

Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control.  That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design.

 

If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current  understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand

everything

about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent.

 

In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this

First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to  avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development

Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence.

 

---

While there is perhaps insufficient reason to assume we cannot create a universe and exercise omnipotence, this is not the same as sufficient reason to assume we can do that, that anyone or anything can do that, or that omnipotence can exist in any form other than as a conceptualization of a thinking mind.

 

If something is omnipotent, then that thing can make a rock that cannot be lifted.  But if something is omnipotent there cannot be a rock that it cannot lift.  Omnipotence is paradoxial and so perhaps an impossibility in any form that exists outside the limits of imagination.

So we might both have the time and exist in a universe not created by a designer that implemented rules preventing us from creating universes, leaving our universe or exercising omnipotence, and yet still be unable to exercise omnipotence or even interact with anything within any universe we might eventually create.

Omnipotence is a long shot in my opinion.  It might be the case that the limits of our human minds prevent us from comprehending it and hence it merely appears paradoxical to (at least some of) us, but it's at least as likely and probably more likely, that the potential of our human minds allow us to conceptualize this impossibility despite the fact that it cannot exist in any form outside our minds and their imaginings.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Porky Gorky wrote:

---

---

 

 

 

There may be rules in place that prevent us from becoming omnipotent, they may even stop us from being able to create an artificial universe.

However if we can create an artificial universe, then we can design it to facilitate our omnipotence. To do so may result in a universe that is vastly different to ours. i.e. Maybe we need to introduce new chemicals and materials and laws of nature to allow us to take control.

Regarding your cake analogy, if there was a recipe clearing describing how to bake a cake that could transform into a unicorn that could  host an elf disco, then it should be possible for anybody to follow the recipe and create their own Unicorn Disco Party Cake given the right tools and ingredients.

nom nom I want cake now.

It may be that we can create a new universe, but never see it or interact with it. That of course would put a spanner in the works in the plan to become omnipotent. I guess if we could not design some sort of network to allow us to take control or even viewing rights over an artificially created universe then it would seriously devalue the purpose of creating our own universes in the first place.

 So I would guess that there are a key factors required for us to become omnipotent. We need absolute understanding over our universe. We need absolute understanding of how to design and create an artificial universe that allows humans to be omnipotent and we need to find a way to oversee and interact with our new universe to fully exploit our omnipotence.

That is quite a to-do list! 

---

To be omnipotent, it has to be possible to reconfigure the universe to anything, includiing forms not consistent with the design necessary to be omnipotent, in which case we would still not be omnipotent.  Omnipotent is not merely the means to control things in their current form, but to make anything come forth, to dictate form, to be without limitation in exercising wish or will.  To configure a universe so that can be possible, is itself limiting at the outset.  If we cannot make this universe an exact copy of our own, then that is a limit on our power within that universe and hence we are not omnipotent so far as that universe is concerned.

So far as the cake is concerned, I doubt such a recipe exists.  The point is the cake proves that creating something, even intentionally designing it, does not grant one limitless power of control over the creation.  There is a huge gap between "can be created" and 'grants omnipotence over the creation by virtue of being created" and just as large gulf between "can be created" and "can be designed to grant omnipotence in respect of it to its creator".

If it's not possible for cakes to turn into unicorns, then no matter how long you practice baking cakes, you will not bake one that turns into a unicorn.  If omnipotence is not possible as anything other than an idea, then it does not matter how long we practice making universes, omnipotence is just not going to happen. 

I find the idea that if we create a universe we could not interact with what is inside it, somewhat likely.  We do not see any evidence that we can interact with things not within our universe, so it's entirely possible that any universe we create would be boundered from us.  Perhaps it would not even exist within our universe.  We might not even be able to confirm that we created one if we did.  The experiment might look a failure yet have rendered a universe into existence, independent to and not within the bounds of our own.

Or in other words, it is difficult to over-estimate the degree of uncertainty, and the possibility of omnipotence as anything more tangible and effecting than a human idea, is far from certain, even before we start to look at the likelihood of humans achieving it, from within this universe.

I don't have any cake.  The best I can do for you right now is some liquorish all-sorts, and coffee, but it's the instant kind (the coffee, not the all-sorts).

[161488303349]

thinking about this more:

if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty

thats quite mind-blowing to me

would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable

+

here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

thinking about this more:

if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty

thats quite mind-blowing to me

would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable

+

here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell

---

if we knew the future with absolute certainty, would it matter if we told anyone or not? If the future has been figured out and is known, wouldn't that mean that it is unchangeable and whatever we do or say is what was going to be done or said so that there is no harm in telling or not telling because that is what was supposed to happen anyways?

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i liek tesla better myself anyways hehehehe

---

If you have the time...

---

 

i was watching a few minutes and i started to laugh when the guy was talking about the spaghetti and how they spent all this time trying to figure out why it breaks into 3 pieces..

---

I really liked the study done a few years ago to determine why toast always seems to land butter side down when dropped.  It turns out that the shape of a piece of toast causes it to turn or flip while falling and that because of the height range that it is usually dropped from within, it happens to be butter side down when it connects with the ground at the end of it's fall. 

I found this explanation very reassuring for some reason. 

 

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

---

Ha ha! I'm still trying to figure out what to wear today! 

---

Just stay naked.  Problem solved and now you've extra time on your hands to post in this thread.  As an added bonus, if the mail man comes to the door, you'll make his day.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

i was watching a few minutes and i started to laugh when the guy was talking about the spaghetti and how they spent all this time trying to figure out why it breaks into 3 pieces...

---

The first book about computer design I ever read (and the last ;-) was Danny Hillis' PHd dissertation on the design of

"The Connection Machine"

which is shown in that video. When I first heard Hillis' story of breaking spaghetti with Feynman, I broke about a half pound of the stuff in my kitchen. It does indeed usually break into three pieces and I'm thrilled to see I'm in good company in not knowning why, though I expect they got vastly closer to an understanding than I ever will.

Last year, I bought some microwave Kraft macaroni and cheese (it was on sale!!!!). You put everything in a bowl, then microwave, stir, and perhaps eat. I noticed something interesting upon removing the bowl from the microwave, and I present it for your amusement...

 

 

My theory is that, as the water boiled, the rising bubbles tended to align the macaroni bits vertically. Shaking the bowl of dry macaroni produced no change in the orientation of the macaroni on the left. I shall cherish this as my own personal Hillis/Feynman moment. I can hardly match their intellect, but I think I shared their joy over trying to find something out.

So there it is, from Hillis' machine to the shared joy of discovery, we as humans strive for...  

connection

.

---

Aside from the fact that you probably shouldn't eat that stuff, that's kind of awesome.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

16 wrote:

thinking about this more:

if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty

thats quite mind-blowing to me

would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable

+

here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell

---

if we knew the future with absolute certainty, would it matter if we told anyone or not? If the future has been figured out and is known, wouldn't that mean that it is unchangeable and whatever we do or say is what was going to be done or said so that there is no harm in telling or not telling because that is what was supposed to happen anyways?

---

I don't know if it would make a difference, since the discovery might make a difference at that time (the instant of discovery) as to what would have happened had you never made the discovery, and since you can only determine the future, but not necessarily what the future would have been if you did not make discovery, the difference your discovery made would probably not be ascertainable to you.

But certainly you'd not have to make a decision about whether you shared the discovery, since you'd automatically know at that point whether or not you were going to share the discovery because you already know all that will happen.  In fact you'd become decision-lazy since your future "decisions" would be more akin to reading a novel or watching a movie.  You'd simply observe yourself playing out the script you'd already read.

[161488303349]

would we want someone else to tell us how to know the exact time of our death? would we want to know this? and to know everything we will do up to that time? stuff like that. is a few people i think would want to know this. i think there would be more who wouldn't want to know

+

the other thing is about mutability and how it can work within these kinds of deterministic systems. i can know that you will die on a date far in the future if i don't tell you. i can know that you will commit suicide tomorrow if i do tell you

[161488303349]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

16 wrote:

thinking about this more:

if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty

thats quite mind-blowing to me

would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable

+

here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell

---

if we knew the future with absolute certainty, would it matter if we told anyone or not? If the future has been figured out and is known, wouldn't that mean that it is unchangeable and whatever we do or say is what was going to be done or said so that there is no harm in telling or not telling because that is what was supposed to happen anyways?

---

I don't know if it would make a difference, since the discovery might make a difference at that time (the instant of discovery) as to what would have happened had you never made the discovery, and since you can only determine the future, but not necessarily what the future would have been if you did not make discovery, the difference your discovery made would probably not be ascertainable to you.

But certainly you'd not have to make a decision about whether you shared the discovery, since you'd automatically know at that point whether or not you were going to share the discovery because you already know all that will happen.  In fact you'd become decision-lazy since your future "decisions" would be more akin to reading a novel or watching a movie.  You'd simply observe yourself playing out the script you'd already read.

---

yes i can see how that could result. if it was immutable and that there was only one future path. in this case i would probably run off and be a hermit in a cave on a mountain top

edit: not probably. actually (:

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

16 wrote:

thinking about this more:

if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty

thats quite mind-blowing to me

would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable

+

here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell

---

if we knew the future with absolute certainty, would it matter if we told anyone or not? If the future has been figured out and is known, wouldn't that mean that it is unchangeable and whatever we do or say is what was going to be done or said so that there is no harm in telling or not telling because that is what was supposed to happen anyways?

---

I don't know if it would make a difference, since the discovery might make a difference at that time (the instant of discovery) as to what would have happened had you never made the discovery, and since you can only determine the future, but not necessarily what the future would have been if you did not make discovery, the difference your discovery made would probably not be ascertainable to you.

But certainly you'd not have to make a decision about whether you shared the discovery, since you'd automatically know at that point whether or not you were going to share the discovery because you already know all that will happen.  In fact you'd become decision-lazy since your future "decisions" would be more akin to reading a novel or watching a movie.  You'd simply observe yourself playing out the script you'd already read.

---

yes i can see how that could result. if it was immutable and that there was only one future path. in this case i would probably run off and be a hermit in a cave on a mountain top

edit: not probably. actually (:

---

If the future was immutable and you ran off to be a hermit, then that is what the future held for you anyways. If you found out your future path was not to be a hermit, then you would not be a hermit, because that is not what the future is for you.

Immutable means unchangeable? If so, then knowing changes nothing and not knowing changes nothing.

Only if the future could be changed would it matter if we knew it or not, in that case knowing the future would become much more challenging.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

16 wrote:

thinking about this more:

if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty

thats quite mind-blowing to me

would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable

+

here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell

---

if we knew the future with absolute certainty, would it matter if we told anyone or not? If the future has been figured out and is known, wouldn't that mean that it is unchangeable and whatever we do or say is what was going to be done or said so that there is no harm in telling or not telling because that is what was supposed to happen anyways?

---

I don't know if it would make a difference, since the discovery might make a difference at that time (the instant of discovery) as to what would have happened had you never made the discovery, and since you can only determine the future, but not necessarily what the future would have been if you did not make discovery, the difference your discovery made would probably not be ascertainable to you.

But certainly you'd not have to make a decision about whether you shared the discovery, since you'd automatically know at that point whether or not you were going to share the discovery because you already know all that will happen.  In fact you'd become decision-lazy since your future "decisions" would be more akin to reading a novel or watching a movie.  You'd simply observe yourself playing out the script you'd already read.

---

Decision laziness was the problem I observed in the belief that everything is preordained. If everything that is going to happen is going to happen in only one particular way, then any decision one could make would be the right decision as it is the only possible decision. Takes away a lot of pressure, and responsibility, and makes absolutely no sense.

[161488303349]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Immutable means unchangeable? If so, then knowing changes nothing and not knowing changes nothing.

Only if the future could be changed would it matter if we knew it or not, in that case knowing the future would become much more challenging.

---

yes, accepted

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Decision laziness was the problem I observed in the belief that everything is preordained. If everything that is going to happen is going to happen in only one particular way, then any decision one could make would be the right decision as it is the only possible decision. Takes away a lot of pressure, and responsibility, and makes absolutely no sense.

---

would be quite boring as well from a God's pov if he did exist and he did make it that way. maybe is why despite all the prayers and fattened calf sacrifices he don't come around here no more

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Decision laziness was the problem I observed in the belief that everything is preordained. If everything that is going to happen is going to happen in only one particular way, then any decision one could make would be the right decision as it is the only possible decision. Takes away a lot of pressure, and responsibility, and makes absolutely no sense.

---

would be quite boring as well from a God's pov if he did exist and he did make it that way. maybe is why despite all the prayers and fattened calf sacrifices he don't come around here no more

---

or maybe he's a vegan

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

16 wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Decision laziness was the problem I observed in the belief that everything is preordained. If everything that is going to happen is going to happen in only one particular way, then any decision one could make would be the right decision as it is the only possible decision. Takes away a lot of pressure, and responsibility, and makes absolutely no sense.

---

would be quite boring as well from a God's pov if he did exist and he did make it that way. maybe is why despite all the prayers and fattened calf sacrifices he don't come around here no more

---

From my particular spiritual viewpoint, I agree. I value curiousity and playfulness and creativity quite highly and imagine any creator would too. Why else would one create? The idea that a creator would be omniscient makes no sense me. I can't imagine why I'd get up in the morning if I knew everything. What would I do? What purpose would I have? What reason would there be for any action? It would bring me no new knowledge.

I have asked religious friends to contrast their own awe of magnificent adventures into the unknown, like Magellan's voyages or our exploration of space with the mind numbing emptiness of omniscience. "You think too much" hardly appeases my appetite for an answer.

;-)

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

16 wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Decision laziness was the problem I observed in the belief that everything is preordained. If everything that is going to happen is going to happen in only one particular way, then any decision one could make would be the right decision as it is the only possible decision. Takes away a lot of pressure, and responsibility, and makes absolutely no sense.

---

would be quite boring as well from a God's pov if he did exist and he did make it that way. maybe is why despite all the prayers and fattened calf sacrifices he don't come around here no more

---

From my particular spiritual viewpoint, I agree. I value curiousity and playfulness and creativity quite highly and imagine any creator would too. Why else would one create? The idea that a creator would be omniscient makes no sense me. I can't imagine why I'd get up in the morning if I knew everything. What would I do? What purpose would I have? What reason would there be for any action? It would bring me no new knowledge.

I have asked religious friends to contrast their own awe of magnificent adventures into the unknown, like Magellan's voyages or our exploration of space with the mind numbing emptiness of omniscience. "You think too much" hardly appeases my appetite for an answer.

;-)

---

I almost believed you until the part where you claimed to have been accused of thinking too much

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

From my particular spiritual viewpoint, I agree. I value curiosity and playfulness and creativity quite highly and imagine any creator would too. Why else would one create? The idea that a creator would be omniscient makes no sense me. I can't imagine why I'd get up in the morning if I knew everything. What would I do? What purpose would I have? What reason would there be for any action? It would bring me no new knowledge.

 

---

An omniscient creator would need no new knowledge, he would create us because he loves us so much he could not stand the thought of existing in eternal bliss without us.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

...he could not stand the thought of existing in eternal bliss without us.

---

Clearly you are not speaking of my ex-husband.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

...he could not stand the thought of existing in eternal bliss without us.

---

Clearly you are not speaking of my ex-husband.

---

Eh, maybe sometimes too much bliss is too much. Although I would lean more towards your tendency of using the periodic table of elements in lieu of a betty crocker cookbook  :catsurprised:

Don't get me wrong though, the chromium sconces were to die for, sometimes, there's just no accounting for taste.

[Phil Deakins]

There's just no stopping you is there?

 

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

I don't know why you think that if you use the word creator, created, and that if someone responds to what you are saying following your use of the word, that it's reasonable to propose that everyone must think the responder's use of the word means intelligent creator, while your's does not.  I do feel you've had plenty of chances to explain that and the fact that you have not done so indicates to me that you can see no reason why this would be the case either.

---

I've said this stuff so many times before in this thread but you seem to have an extremely selective lack of memory. When the universe is being talked about, the use of the word "creator" usually means a 'being' - intelligence. But that aside, I've also said that I don't assume any creator of any type. I lean strongly in that direction, for the reason that I also stated, but I don't assume it. I know that you hate being wrong, otherwise you wouldn't keep on and on about it, but, in this case, you did get it wrong. Live with it.

That applies to the rest of your post too.

[Porky Gorky]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Omnipotence is a long shot in my opinion.  It might be the case that the limits of our human minds prevent us from comprehending it and hence it merely appears paradoxical to (at least some of) us, but it's at least as likely and probably more likely, that the potential of our human minds allow us to conceptualize this impossibility despite the fact that it cannot exist in any form outside our minds and their imaginings.

---

You are most probably right, but I cannot accept such a theory absolutely. In a multi-verse that could potential contain an infinite amount of universe, the odds are that there should a universe out there that has suitable conditions to facilitate human omnipotence. Given an infinite amount of time, it is feasible that we should be able to  replicate such a universe ourselves.

I guess all I need to do to prove my theory, is to prove that infinity is real. RIght now infinity is only workable with abstract concepts such as Time and Mathematics, we cannot prove that anything with real substance can be infinite. I need to prove that the multi-verse (which I am assuming exists) is infinite and can spawn an infinite amount of universes. Einstein's theory of relativity dictates that a singularity (or big bang) does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that move mathematically towards infinity.

So, the first step in my journey to omnipotence is to prove Einstein wrong. No big deal :smileyhappy:

 

 

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

From my particular spiritual viewpoint, I agree. I value curiosity and playfulness and creativity quite highly and imagine any creator would too. Why else would one create? The idea that a creator would be omniscient makes no sense me. I can't imagine why I'd get up in the morning if I knew everything. What would I do? What purpose would I have? What reason would there be for any action? It would bring me no new knowledge.

 

---

An omniscient creator would need no new knowledge, he would create us because he loves us so much he could not stand the thought of existing in eternal bliss without us.

---

do not pass Go. do not collect $200. go directly to Heaven

oh! wait. i actual want to collect the $200. am sure there is shopping in heaven. would be hell if there wasn't

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

From my particular spiritual viewpoint, I agree. I value curiosity and playfulness and creativity quite highly and imagine any creator would too. Why else would one create? The idea that a creator would be omniscient makes no sense me. I can't imagine why I'd get up in the morning if I knew everything. What would I do? What purpose would I have? What reason would there be for any action? It would bring me no new knowledge.

 

---

An omniscient creator would need no new knowledge, he would create us because he loves us so much he could not stand the thought of existing in eternal bliss without us.

---

do not pass Go. do not collect $200. go directly to Heaven

oh! wait. i actual want to collect the $200. am sure there is shopping in heaven. would be hell if there wasn't

---

Well, that's just it. In our omnipotence, once we become tired of always being happy, we can make a bad guy, and we can make him so that he makes a lot of the good guys bad to, and then there can be a major war, and since we are all powerful of course we are going to win, so we banish him and his minions from our happy place and make him be miserable for all of eternity and then wonder why he hates us. Actually, we don't wonder, cause we know. a, we made him that way, and b, well, there is no b.

Sounds like a crazy sick fairytale to me.