Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
For the one paragraph definition and explanation... (read on if you like)
Primarily, that which is specifically useful or otherwise beneficial for a self-aware, creative entity -or entities -rather than generally useful or beneficial would be the difference -the "generally" being available to be processed into the "specifically" -and requiring the self-aware creativity to do the processing. Sufficient "natural" development must precede a self-aware creator -and produce such until able to make increasingly independent creative decisions (applied to presently-available options), but further development which alters the otherwise-inevitable course of nature requires a self-aware creator.
Trying to be as open-minded as possible, I considered that which scientists and other experts have said.... such as...
In the beginning was simplicity, math/logic is the language of reality, an initial creator is impossible and not necessary, etc., etc.....
And I do agree, generally.... However, when observing the present state of reality I see that some things are not possible until intelligence and creativity make them possible.
Those things which are made possible are indicative of that which made them possible in terms of both complexity and purpose/usefulness.
It is assumed that extreme complexity and purposefulness do not require an intelligence or creator -but mostly because we only have the perceivable universe as a reference -which, any way you look at it -is not the entire equation or entirety of evidence.
We are able to see what is essentially an automated process which, from our perspective, produced all known complexity and purposefulness -including an extremely vast environment - BEFORE producing self-aware creators which might take advantage of it all -which imagine traveling and creating throughout it all.
Therefore, it is assumed that it must happen in this order -and that it generally began with the Big Bang.
Some of "science" might be interested in considering what unguided things might have resulted in the singularity, but there is little interest in considering whether or not self-aware creativity developed first -becoming capable of producing such -even though they consider it to be a natural development on their own level.
The difficulty arises due to the fact that we have the present state of nature to reference in comparison to something which was created and not otherwise possible.
Technically, we do not have pre-universe/pre-element nature to reference directly in the same way. However, we do have basic principles which apply at any level, as well as math, logic and "simplicity" as a reference.
From the other side of the question.... (as opposed to modeling the sort of initial simplicity which could also become all else using math, logic, etc.)....
If we can determine the attributes of otherwise-impossible "created" things which differentiate them from "naturally developed" things in and of themselves - rather than the fact that present nature would not produce them, we could determine whether things which preceded us were created or naturally developed.
For example: a 1976 Ford F-150 would not naturally develop -but what about it says so other than that simple fact?
Can we say that the entire universe and all which it contains is similarly and sufficiently as purposefully complex as a truck?
Should we assume that it all was naturally produced without a self-aware creativity because we see a portion of the equation? ...because it was -as far as science can determine -likely an automated process from the Big Bang onward? Is an automated process of such a description as the universe indicative of a lack of self-aware creativity -or would such an automated process be more indicative of such than direct creation?
