SERAPHIEL wrote:Summerlander wrote:The creator notion doesn't always apply. For example, in the origin of the cosmos, such notion only aggravates the problem with infinite regress. In other words, you then have to ask who created the creator and who created that creator ad infinitum. Physicist Lawrence Krauss, who has the latest updates on where science stands, proposes a universe fermented in quantum mechanics (to cut a long story short). His scientific theory is certainly a more plausible explanation and evidence certainly demonstrates that no god or deities are required for the manifestation of the cosmos.
It is also true that there is a Many-Worlds interpretation in quantum theory. But such picture does not imply an intelligent creator at all. In fact, it could simply be a vast waste of a multiverse where life could be scarce. Even our universe is not perfect. The vast deadliness of space, the barren moon, natural disasters and deadly microbes on Earth, mutations and cancers that plague our gene pool, our planet being the only one in the Goldilocks zone in our solar system thus rendering it habitable etc.
Also, our anatomy is far from perfect despite millions of years of evolution. To imply a creator he would have to be lazy, careless, lacking intelligence and seriousness, or being callous or evil. Since he is as probable as a unicorn, I have to say I don't believe in him.
It's not about belief, faith or anything else.
From an entirely pragmatic and scientifically pure viewpoint in the final analysis based on the evidence, if there is a creation there is a creator.
It's that simple.
The limited trying to fathom the unlimited?
Can't happen.
The problem with your logic is that you are assuming something to be intelligently created when there is no evidence that that is the case whatsoever. Not everything is a creation in the sense that it was intelligently made by a sentient being. In fact, in cosmological terms, evidence weighs against it and that is where science stands. As I have pointed out to you in my previous post, the infinite regress problem clearly highlights that the "creator" hypothesis is no solution and only aggravates the problem of working out the origins.
To explain the origins of a complex universe by saying that a complex creator is responsible makes no sense. You then have to explain how the creator came to be and you find yourself trying to solve this problem - which is really about something you are not even sure exists. That's logic. Science has evidence weighing against this notion and that is where science stands. A creator does not applied in every type of origin.
Your logic is equivalent to saying, "look at those hoof prints, they were made not by horses but by unicorns." Where is your evidence that aliens create minds fields in order to abduct us? Why can't it be in our heads? What kind of logic is, "If when we phase we are more conscious on their side then it HAS to be same in reverse"? Why is that? If I can swim in the ocean, does that mean that the shark can swim on the ground?
There is a rhyme and there is a reason. It's paradoxical, and by that very same measure intoxicating.
What does this even mean? All you are pointing to are concepts that live in people's heads. Meaning is subjective and this is the reason why we are able to play with it and produce subliminal forms of expression aka art.
