creation = evolution (not intelligent design)

[icekold]

This is a theory Iv proposed on my blog feel free to challenge or just simply reject because it does does not conform to your religious indoctrination.


In the beginning before there was matter there was only energy.
This energy was sentient and was infinitely powerful.
This sentient energy was lonely and had nothing to experience so using itself it created matter.
This creation happened in a massive transmutation which some have described as a big bang while others have described it as let there be light.
In that one moment this infinite intelligence created the rules of the universe for one specific purpose.
It needed to create intelligent lifeforms who are able to understand and create things themselves.
Since this sentient energy would become the very matter of the universe it calculated exactly what would need to occur using gravity and other forces to result in planets which could support life,
chemical reactions which could turn into molecules
molecules which could increase in complexity and with an influx of energy (lightning?)
could eventually become alive.
These life forms would need to have an innate ability to replicate but with enough errors to create variation.
This variation would allow the life forms to evolve
Till eventually one life form wold gain an intelligence which would allow it too create and experience with enough intelligence to question the very nature of its existence.
The universe will eventually collapse all matter will return to energy all our experiences will return to the infinite intelligence. Until its time to begin again.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Question.
Why the anthropomorphizing of energy?

 

[Quintessence]

Eh, while my own form of creationism stems from something similar to this, I too find the anthropomorphizing unnecessary when it gets to supposing the "intelligence/sentience" of the universe was "lonely" and therefore wanted to create other "intelligent" life. I ascribe a sort of "intelligence/sentience" to all things of the universe, but not in that kind of fashion.

 

[icekold]

Ahh the Anthropomorphizing is actually one of my theoreticall constants. By analysing the characteristics religions hold true as to what their creator is, immortal, all encompassing etc i believe the closest analogue to it scientifically is energy.
I then use it to enable me put my self in the supreme powers shoes.
There are actually quite a few of these assumptions that i should probably state at some point. Basically i am assuming that the goal of creation is to produce organisms which think like the creator in order for them to discover its intentions through the study of its work(maths/chemistry/physics/biology).
It may help you to understand my viewpoint by reading my "hi i'm new" page in Are you new to ReligiousForums. I wrote about my religious viewpoint which is a "god" created man, man created religion hypothesis but arguing there may still be some truth hidden in their texts.

 

[shawn001]

Ahh the Anthropomorphizing is actually one of my theoreticall constants. By analysing the characteristics religions hold true as to what their creator is, immortal, all encompassing etc i believe the closest analogue to it scientifically is energy.
I then use it to enable me put my self in the supreme powers shoes.
There are actually quite a few of these assumptions that i should probably state at some point. Basically i am assuming that the goal of creation is to produce organisms which think like the creator in order for them to discover its intentions through the study of its work(maths/chemistry/physics/biology).
It may help you to understand my viewpoint by reading my "hi i'm new" page in Are you new to ReligiousForums. I wrote about my religious viewpoint which is a "god" created man, man created religion hypothesis but arguing there may still be some truth hidden in their texts.

icekold, what is the Cosmic Microwave background radation?

 

[Vile Atheist]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

My "theory" that my grandmother created everything holds just as much water. It's clear you're trying to "mold together" two "opposing camps", but it's not working. You have no model to base your future prediction on. You have no evidence to build said model. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is, of what energy is. You assert that "energy" has human qualities like thoughts, feelings, and desires, but you have not shown this to be true. It's merely one big assertion.

 

[Quintessence]

Ahh the Anthropomorphizing is actually one of my theoreticall constants. By analysing the characteristics religions hold true as to what their creator is, immortal, all encompassing etc i believe the closest analogue to it scientifically is energy.

Interesting. I'd keep in mind though that not all religions consider the "creator" (if it is even construed as such) to be immortal or all-encompassing. In Pagan religions, a given deity is limited in terms of its domains of influence and there are many stories about death-rebirth in Pagan mythology as well. I think that your energy analogue can still work with these things in mind, but I thought I'd point it out.

Basically i am assuming that the goal of creation is to produce organisms which think like the creator in order for them to discover its intentions through the study of its work(maths/chemistry/physics/biology).

A large part of me doesn't like this kind of idea because it overstates the importance of humanity relative to the rest of the universe. I'm not a fan of belief systems that put humans on a pedestal; this in effect serves to do that. I can understand the appeal of the assertion, though.

I never really look at "Hi, I'm New" pages, but I'll go check yours out. It's fun to toy around with different ideas! I think I will wait until you post assertions related to that thread somewhere else before commenting on them, though. Unless it doesn't bother you if I do it in your welcome thread.

 

[icekold]

icekold, what is the Cosmic Microwave background radation?

a relic of the expansion process? the glue that holds the universe together? god? the bunsen burner acting on the petri dish the universe inhabits?? not sure more investigation is required what do you think?

 

[icekold]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

My "theory" that my grandmother created everything holds just as much water. It's clear you're trying to "mold together" two "opposing camps", but it's not working. You have no model to base your future prediction on. You have no evidence to build said model. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is, of what energy is. You assert that "energy" has human qualities like thoughts, feelings, and desires, but you have not shown this to be true. It's merely one big assertion.

I agree with your initial point but some aspects of my theory have a basis in actual scientific study big bang , energy, etc. While your grandma theory is amusing I think it is trivializing an open debate only because the universe existed before her.
I completely understand what evolution is and i understand what energy is scientifically. I think what i have said is not clear enough so making it easy to misinterpret. I am not saying energy currently has thoughts, feelings or desires. I am not even claiming a "creator" is currently working in this universe causing things to happen. I am discussing the possibility that what most scientist consider to have existed before the big bang could have been sentient and may have caused the big bang in a predetermined fashion to allow the universe to develop to produce a particular result (if it has an infinite intelligence it could calculate mathematically the probability of certain things occurring if constants were given) and may in fact be reconstituted in the big chill theory of the end of the universe.

 

[icekold]

Interesting. I'd keep in mind though that not all religions consider the "creator" (if it is even construed as such) to be immortal or all-encompassing. In Pagan religions, a given deity is limited in terms of its domains of influence and there are many stories about death-rebirth in Pagan mythology as well. I think that your energy analogue can still work with these things in mind, but I thought I'd point it out.

Ill have to research pagan religions some more but I don't believe any particular religion has everything completely right but there may be some information i am currently lacking to help me complete my theory thx .

A large part of me doesn't like this kind of idea because it overstates the importance of humanity relative to the rest of the universe. I'm not a fan of belief systems that put humans on a pedestal; this in effect serves to do that. I can understand the appeal of the assertion, though.

I knew that part will alienate some people but it is a bit closer to what i hold true. Its possible you misunderstand the role i believe humanity is to play in the development of the universe.
I do not completely rule out the possibility of other intelligent species with the ability to create and to understand the workings of the world around them.
I consider the role of humans is not to abuse and destroy this planet with no regard for other species. Personally I would consider it to be probably more in line with a supreme creators wishes if its little creators "us" were to develop sufficiently to a point where we are able to eventually leave this earth as a safe haven for another intelligent species to develop while we spread amongst the stars exploring seeding new life where there is none.
However unfortunately I do consider intelligent species as ones who are not only able to alter their environment to better suit them, are also able to perform tasks for reasons other than simply survival. There has to be some element of cultural and technological advancement and because that is in fact what makes us different from simple biological computers
[/QUOTE]

I never really look at "Hi, I'm New" pages, but I'll go check yours out. It's fun to toy around with different ideas! I think I will wait until you post assertions related to that thread somewhere else before commenting on them, though. Unless it doesn't bother you if I do it in your welcome thread.

i think ill comment there and move the topic

 

[Vile Atheist]

I am discussing the possibility that what most scientist consider to have existed before the big bang could have been sentient and may have caused the big bang in a predetermined fashion to allow the universe to develop to produce a particular result (if it has an infinite intelligence it could calculate mathematically the probability of certain things occurring if constants were given) and may in fact be reconstituted in the big chill theory of the end of the universe.

Sure, the evolution and the big bang have a ton of evidence behind it. But the assertion that "energy" is "sentient" and is "all-powerful" and "all-intelligent" does not have a shred of evidence behind it. This goes back to my first point. Unless you can actually demonstrate that "energy", in whatever sense you are using it, actually has these properties, it's just an unfounded assertion. And one that is unlikely to be even remotely true, given what we know about energy (the real scientific definition of energy).