Mother Nature vs. God?

[McBell]

Experience has taught me that nothing is created unless thought is first applied.

So you assume that if something exists, it had to be "created"?

 

[Anonymouse]

So you assume that if something exists, it had to be "created"?

I assume it must first be imagined.

 

[McBell]

I assume it must first be imagined.

Ah, so you start with the assumption that if a thing exists it had to be imagined, then created?

 

[Anonymouse]

Ah, so you start with the assumption that if a thing exists it had to be imagined, then created?

Imagination, thought and wonder are powerful starting points towards creation.

 

[PolyHedral]

Imagination, thought and wonder are powerful starting points towards creation.

Not the only ones, though.

 

[lunakilo]

Your first example does not leave much room for an individual's purpose or personality.

I’m going to lean towards your second example. There are some laws of nature that humans do not (yet) have the intelligence to hack or mod and there may be laws that are set not to be tampered with (if only for the purpose that the program runs efficiently). If one can get into the mind of the programmer, one can find evidence that some natural laws were designed so that they should run by themselves (without any outside influence having to constantly observe or fix it) while some laws could be bypassed and experimented with (creative software that allows others to share in the creativity).


Experience has taught me that nothing is created unless thought is first applied. So there may have been an original entity (who thought itself into existence) but I do not share in the concept that this entity created everyone or everything. I have no preference whether these designers occupy a physical or spiritual form. Part of my philosophy is that some of these (spiritual) “gods” (designers, programmers) could now currently be active players (enrolled in a physical experience).

Ahhh, my head is exploding

I love your theory (love it, not agrre with it)

 

[McBell]

Imagination, thought and wonder are powerful starting points towards creation.

Interesting how you avoid answering the question.
Not the least bit surprising though.


So tell me, why do you assume that everything that exists had to be "created"?

 

[idav]

That depends on you definition of a god.

Does a god have to be sentient?
If not, god does not have a will to impose on us.
You could have a kind of god whose only concern is the laws of nature.

I don't know how godlike such a god is. But if the effect of gods decisions are lange enough then I guess the fact that god needs a brain smaller than that of an earthworm to make the world turn isn't really important

No I don't believe god has to be sentient but I do believe at least some sort of perception would be necessary. An omniscience would be ideal without needing to be all powerful. When we get down to the basic building block like say an atom we find that the atoms arranged in a certain very complex order that they become sentient but if this is so how is it that this atom doesn't have awareness to begin with. At least I would think that the atom reacts to stimuli similar to a living being. I do believe we existed before we were born in some form or another. I also believe when we existed we were perceiving as far as matter and energy go. We just aren't aware that we can perceive until we become a sentient being. For example how a tree perceives without having a brain.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Perhaps "God" and "Mother Nature" (i.e, the universe) are mutually inclusive. What if the universe created itself?

 

[PolyHedral]

Creating the universe doesn't make sense, because time is an integral part of the universe.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Creating the universe doesn't make sense, because time is an integral part of the universe.

There are actually many modern physicists that believe time is an illusion. The only thing that makes time appear to us is the universe's constant change of state. We are living in an infinite number of "nows."

This was a very interesting article in Scientific American. You should check it out.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

 

[PolyHedral]

There are actually many modern physicists that believe time is an illusion. The only thing that makes time appear to us is the universe's constant change of state. We are living in an infinite number of "nows."

So it still doesn't make sense to say the universe was created. You've have to bring in another, seperate "time" for that.

 

[idav]

Creating the universe doesn't make sense, because time is an integral part of the universe.

So your saying the universe couldn't have a beginning or end just because time is part of the fabric of the universe? I'm not too sure about that. Time would have been "created" along with the universe.

 

[science_is_my_god]

So it still doesn't make sense to say the universe was created. You've have to bring in another, seperate "time" for that.

Well, sure. I'm not necessarily using "creation" as a means of something coming from nothing, but more of a "creation" from a previous existence. The universe as we know it was created, but only from another state of existence.

It's like if you were to take a glass vase and smash it to pieces, then rearrange it into a mosaic.

 

[idav]

What if the universe created itself?

Then the universe would be its own god.

 

[Anonymouse]

Mestemia-Interesting how you avoid answering the question.
Not the least bit surprising though.

I thought I already answered it.

Mestemia-So tell me, why do you assume that everything that exists had to be "created"?

Post #140

anonymouse-Experience has taught me that nothing is created unless thought is first applied.

Now my question to you Mestemia is:
Does your experience greatly differ from mine?

 

[science_is_my_god]

Then the universe would be its own god.

Ding ding ding! Give the man a cigar!

 

[McBell]

I thought I already answered it.

Hmm...
Seems you did.
My bad.

Post #140

Does not answer the question:

Why do you assume that everything had to be created?
​

Now my question to you Mestemia is:
Does your experience greatly differ from mine?

Nope.
Every thing that is created must have a creator.
Seems to me that that is a Captain Obvious remark.
What you have been avoiding is why you assume that everything has been created.

 

[McBell]

How does something that does not exist, think?

 

[PolyHedral]

So your saying the universe couldn't have a beginning or end just because time is part of the fabric of the universe? I'm not too sure about that. Time would have been "created" along with the universe.

No, the universe quite clearly has a beginning, though I'm not sure about an end. However, "creating" the universe involves there being a time where there wasn't a universe, which is nonsensical.