@LoisL
Yeah, big-bang is ping-pong
singularity came from big-bang and vice versa
Therefore the problem is where the matter
(quantum particles ) came from
It came from nothing
You say where did the laws come from?
Honest answer is dont know.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: "If it’s OK to posit that the laws of physics gave rise to the universe without knowing where the laws came from why is it not OK to posit a non-material creative agency without knowing where that came from? Can you really not see the fallacies in your position here?"It's not a fallacy at all. In the one case, you are simply recognizing that the universe is in fact governed by certain physical constants. We do not even have to ask "where they came from" because the universe evidently could not exist as it does without them.
In the other case, you are postulating a “non-material, creative agency” which apparently has intelligence, able to think ahead and make plans. If not intelligent, how can it have creativity? You are certainly free to imagine such a thing if you like, but I think the point Lausten is making is that you haven’t answered the original question. “You can’t solve a complex problem by proposing something just as complex as the solution.”
Congratulations, Sherlock! You’ve just landed yourself in the Infinite Recursion Trap! Where did God come from, Dad? “Well, son, if we follow Sherlock Holmes’ sterling logic, God must have been created by an even more intelligent creator.”
Didn’t we already discuss the blind watchmaker somewhere?
If one accepts that there is no way of proving anything, how does one determine the best method of understanding reality?
Wouldn’t the best method be to analyze all options and choose the one that both reflects reality and can be used to make predictions and is testable? And/or choose the one that falls to Occam’s Razor first?
I can understand that axioms are never provable, but to take that idea to mean that all axioms are therefore equally valid, is illogical (to me, anyways). It opens the door to an infinite number of supposedly equally valid axioms.
The infinite number of axioms that explain the universe can be divided into two sections: self-defining (god) and empirically based (science). The only differentiation between the various self-defining ones is the human brain that they exist in. The empirically based ones are differentiated by the human brain that they exist in and empirical knowledge. The addition of empirical knowledge makes all the difference, because even though there might be all sorts of ways of interpreting data or the data might not be perfect, it is still a measurement of reality.
This difference makes the self-defining options not worth entertaining or examining (in fact, how can they be examined?)
Sherlock:"It disproves your and Lausten’s claims that the proposed origin of something cannot be “more complex” (whatever that means to you) than the thing it explains."Wrong. All it does is show that it is possible for humans to invent an explanation that's unnecessarily complex... nothing more. How does the mere existence of the idea of a god make the idea equal to scientifically derived ideas? The unnecessary and absurd level of complexity is what demotes it to irrelevant.
If the unfortunate son were to be told that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, would that be worse than if he were told that your god did it? I fail to see any difference.
From what I heard, the evidence for the “creation ex nihilo” argument isn’t strong. The prevailing notion now is that it has always been. No creator, no creation, it just is. Something from nothing hasn’t been demonstrated (although some observations in quantum physics “might” suggest that, but that’s at the quantum level). But there is really nothing to suggest a creator or a designer and more than enough to show a series of reactions that behave according to laws and rules that we have seen and observed. In short, shit just happens and there isn’t a “reason” or intelligence behind it that I can see.
Some mystics and spiritualists would say otherwise, but all they have is their fervent say-so which means nothing.
As it stands, it would seem that matter has always existed. No creator, no “from”. As hard as that might be to believe.
No one intelligent has said humans came from nothing. We developed somehow, we just don’t know exactly how it happened, though we have clues. Is that a reason to make something up, such as that a god created humans by supernatural magic? What’s wrong with saying we don’t know?
socrat44: Big Bang doesn’t explain where matter came from
Neither does creation.
No one with at least half a brain has said humans came from nothing. We developed somehow, we just don’t know exactly how it happened, though we do have clues that have nothing to do with creation. Is that a reason to make something up, such as that an unknown, unknowable, unseen god created humans by supernatural magic? What’s wrong with saying we don’t know?
LoisL: "No one with at least half a brain has said humans came from nothing. We developed somehow, we just don’t know exactly how it happened, though we do have clues that have nothing to do with creation. Is that a reason to make something up, such as that an unknown, unknowable, unseen god created humans by supernatural magic? What’s wrong with saying we don’t know?"You're a wise young lady Lois. If we had smilies I'd blow you a kiss and send some flowers?
Because saying “I don’t know” is scary.
Doctrine’s are creations of our ever fertile minds.
Physical creation is something that’s unfolded independently of, and out side of, our ego driven minds.
Like the song goes: Life is what happens while you’re busy manufacturing doctrines.
; - )
Moral, sometimes it’s best just to watch and absorb and learn.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: "The example does not allow you to conclude that every “thing” exists because of a preceding “more complex thing” it doesn’t lead to that nor did I say that."Yes you did. I was sitting right here. You were so eager to prove that Lausten and I were "wrong" about something that rather than simply point out the slight ambiguity in his statement, you jumped in feet first with your computer analogy. It's a good analogy. In another context it might have been spot on. But I have every right to infer that you meant it to apply to the origin of the universe, because that was the topic we were talking about. And if it is the "correct answer" to the origin of the universe, then it must also be the "correct answer" to the origin of your non-material "creative force", plus any other "creative force" which we might imagine.
Of course if you are really going to sit there and in all innocence claim that you were talking about a completely different topic, then your comment is irrelevant to the point Lausten was originally making. 
Citizen’s Challenge:
You’re a wise young lady Lois. If we had smilies I’d blow you a kiss and send some flowers?
You got me at “young”.