what is more likely?

[hornsby]

Question of origin.

Are we the result of a long drawn out process(non-intelligent evolution) caused by an event(big bang) in eternal cosmos,(the space surrounding our observable universe) or are we the result of intelligent design by one or multiple eternal beings?



To me it is more likely that a non intelligent space surrounding our observable universe is the final frontier of existence.



I base my belief on complexity. In my mind one or multiple highly complex and sophisticated beings (gods/creators) are far less likely or reasonable to have come from nothing or always existed, than space.


What makes more sense to you? What do you think is more likely, and why?

If I could have one request. Please refrain from saying "I believe this, because such and such holy book says design, or such and such science book says big bang and evolution", and then end up sidetracking the thread arguing about the merits of said books.

I am asking you to leave your beliefs, bias and convictions out of this decision and simply choose with a clear open mind what makes most sense and what you think is more likely rather than what you hope and wish to be true.

THANK YOU.

 

[WyattDerp]

I can't estimate a likelihood of something that has no comparison. I can talk about the likelihood for it being sunny tomorrow, but so far even just the last 100 years of physics have been so mind boggling, I'd at *least* have to wait until it, uhh, settles down a little, before I even begin to ponder the question.

In my mind one or multiple highly complex and sophisticated beings (gods/creators) are far less likely or reasonable to have come from nothing or always existed, than space.

EVERYTHING, even a puny photon, is infinitely more complex than nothing. Wait, I'll make you a diagram.

<--- less complex .................................................. more complex --->

Nothing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ ten gazillion pixels not shown] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ energy, matter, human civilization, the most fully featured god you could dream up

They're cramped so far to the right end, I find it hard to distinguish between any of it sometimes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Bookmakers make their fortunes from people not knowing what is likely or unlikely.
If a coin is flipped 1000 times and has always come down heads.
What is the chance for the next flip to come down tails?

 

[WyattDerp]

If a coin is flipped 1000 times and has always come down heads.
What is the chance for the next flip to come down tails?

Exactly the same as if it had come up tails 1000 times. However, we don't know how this particular "coin" is shaped, and we have no real statisticial data to deduce anything from.. I mean, it's not like we have other universes to compare with.

 

[Shiranui117]

It's not a matter of "likelihood," it's a matter of "evidence." And the evidence points to evolution. However, I don't see how God couldn't have used evolution and the Big Bang.

 

[hornsby]

Bookmakers make their fortunes from people not knowing what is likely or unlikely.
If a coin is flipped 1000 times and has always come down heads.
What is the chance for the next flip to come down tails?

if a thousand flips results in a thousand heads clearly the coin is rigged to come up heads

 

[hornsby]

It's not a matter of "likelihood," it's a matter of "evidence." And the evidence points to evolution. However, I don't see how God couldn't have used evolution and the Big Bang.

which of the two theories of origin is more likely?

evolution follows and could be applied to both theories of origin.... on theory one i call it non intelligent evolution shaped by the environment on theory two intelligent evolution....in other words. the creator designed basic lifeforms with innate evolutionary mechanisms to evolve over time....

so forget evolution for a second, which is more likely, that the space surrounding out observable universe always existed, or came from nothing.... or that one or more highly intelligent complex and sophisticated beings always existed by chance or randomly came from nothing

 

[Sir Doom]

Question of origin.

I can give you nothing but conjecture and/or speculation on the matter depending on how much trust you have in human cognitive abilities. Most specifically my own. I trust them very nearly without question, but I can imagine you'll be a harder sell on that one. In other words, the first line of my signature is not just a clever jab for this response.

Are we the result of a long drawn out process(non-intelligent evolution) caused by an event(big bang) in eternal cosmos,(the space surrounding our observable universe) or are we the result of intelligent design by one or multiple eternal beings?

I would say that's a false dichotomy as there should be at least a third option for both combined, and probably a fourth option for neither (though I haven't thought about what that would look like).

Anyway, I can suspend that for the purpose of the question. If I had to choose between one option or the other as far as likelihood goes, I assume you mean in a probabilistic manner? In which case the probabilities are dead even. There is only one universe that we can observe, and we are unaware of its origins. Therefore, there is no data with which to form a pattern.

We can't say, "75% of universes have started due to natural events and 25% of universes have started due to intelligent design, therefore it is more likely that our universe was the result of natural events."

We just don't have that data. What we can say is "100% of known universes have unknown origins." So, dead even on likelihood. Guess whatever you want.

To me it is more likely that a non intelligent space surrounding our observable universe is the final frontier of existence.

I wouldn't dispute this, but that doesn't eliminate an intelligent designer. That's why the third option I mentioned has to be there. A finite intelligence is just as likely as an infinite intelligence... in fact more likely since WE are finite intelligence and we exist. Its not too hard to imagine that other beings like us exist and more to the point beings nothing like us at all. If there is the non-intelligent space surrounding our universe, why is it devoid of life? Why is it devoid of intelligence? If it is devoid of intelligence, why is the observable universe not devoid of intelligence? If the frontier is not devoid of life, why can this life not be universe-creating beings? And why would those beings have to be infinite? Eternal? Omni-anything? No reason. Make up whatever you like at that point there is no way to know anything about it in any way shape or form. Not yet anyway. Who knows in the future? My compass on the matter is just as yours seems to be. Whatever makes the most sense. Go with that. Or, I suppose go into Theoretical Physics or Cosmology or other fields that I can't name off the top of my head and pursue what makes sense and see if turns out to be true! I don't have the depth for that myself. I'm clever, not smart.

I base my belief on complexity. In my mind one or multiple highly complex and sophisticated beings (gods/creators) are far less likely or reasonable to have come from nothing or always existed, than space.

Right, same problem really. Why must these creator/gods have always existed? They only have to have predated the big bang. Again, nothing indicates the creator must be infinite. We have examples of non-infinite beings (life on Earth). We have no examples of infinite beings. Why assume the creator must be infinite? I assume it isn't. No intelligence I've ever observed or have had second, third, fourth, on down the line hand information of, has ever had infinite existence and the universe in question hasn't had infinite existence to our knowledge... so... why would the creator need to be an infinitely existing being? I understand its a common assumption about God, I just don't think its necessary for the question of origin from a more objective standpoint. Not that its objective... just seems that way to me

What makes more sense to you? What do you think is more likely, and why?

Well making more sense to me is an entirely different question than more likely to me. So, I'll go with no intelligent designer of the universe. I believe life on Earth was designed by a god. Also, the Earth itself was probably designed in a way as well. I don't think of it as god eroding each and every pebble from a mountain, more like the random comet that brought all the water to Earth wasn't so random. If that makes any sense. So, my deities are nothing like the omnipotent super-master controller of all reality that most people believe in. Maybe the god that created life also created the universe but that isn't necessary in my view and I don't believe that it is the case. I think gods are as stuck in this reality as we are. They just get to have a lot more fun with it than we do.

If I could have one request. Please refrain from saying "I believe this, because such and such holy book says design, or such and such science book says big bang and evolution", and then end up sidetracking the thread arguing about the merits of said books.

Okay, I won't.

I am asking you to leave your beliefs, bias and convictions out of this decision and simply choose with a clear open mind what makes most sense and what you think is more likely rather than what you hope and wish to be true.

Sorry, I can't comply with that one. In my view there is no such thing as a statement made from a clear and open mind that makes sense and is not a statement of belief. Further, when we are discussing the idea of deities and the origin of the universe, you cannot help but inject your personal subjective opinion of how you want to see the universe. Because as I stated before there is no data on the subject aside from pure human cognitive reasoning which is at your sole discretion to trust or mistrust to whatever degree you consider accurate.

In other words, to bar me from answering your question with what I believe, however biased, and yet held with conviction is to bar me from answering the question at all.

So, I do believe that even though I have stated what I believe against your wishes, it still amounts to statements from a clear and open mind about what makes sense to me and what I find to be more likely even if it is additionally what I hope and wish to be true.

THANK YOU.

Quite welcome.

 

[freethinker44]

If you think about the nature of nothing, I mean really think about it, not just define it as "the absence of something" or "non-existence", it could be argued that if "something" exists, then there is not, nor has there ever been "nothing", only "something". "Something" can never be "nothing", and "nothing" can never produce "something".

This means that matter cannot come into existence. It can only change its form. So, if there was a creator/god, and it existed before the universe (which is the only logical axiom if it should be the first cause), it couldn't possibly have created the universe as it had no material to use.

So given that, I am just going to throw out the conclusion because I don't want to sit here for hours typing a huge wall of text that no one is going to read because it's too long. So we can just discuss it if you want.

Conclusion: One of three possibilities:
The universe is the result of a creator/god's suicide
God exists and the universe is a severed appendage
God never existed and the universe itself is eternal

All of these options have serious implications for most of the world's religious population.

 

[Shiranui117]

which of the two theories of origin is more likely?

evolution follows and could be applied to both theories of origin.... on theory one i call it non intelligent evolution shaped by the environment on theory two intelligent evolution....in other words. the creator designed basic lifeforms with innate evolutionary mechanisms to evolve over time....

so forget evolution for a second, which is more likely, that the space surrounding out observable universe always existed, or came from nothing.... or that one or more highly intelligent complex and sophisticated beings always existed by chance or randomly came from nothing

Both involve an entity or Entity always existing or coming from nothing, and given the premise, both are equally likely. But likelihood does not equal truth.

 

[Shiranui117]

If you think about the nature of nothing, I mean really think about it, not just define it as "the absence of something" or "non-existence", it could be argued that if "something" exists, then there is not, nor has there ever been "nothing", only "something". "Something" can never be "nothing", and "nothing" can never produce "something".

This means that matter cannot come into existence. It can only change its form. So, if there was a creator/god, and it existed before the universe (which is the only logical axiom if it should be the first cause), it couldn't possibly have created the universe as it had no material to use.

So given that, I am just going to throw out the conclusion because I don't want to sit here for hours typing a huge wall of text that no one is going to read because it's too long. So we can just discuss it if you want.

Conclusion: One of three possibilities:
The universe is the result of a creator/god's suicide
God exists and the universe is a severed appendage
God never existed and the universe itself is eternal

All of these options have serious implications for most of the world's religious population.

Who said God's confined to logic? If God created everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, then doesn't it follow that He created it out of nothing? You do not create something out of something; that is merely changing the form of that something.

 

[ChristineES]

We have no way of finding out. If it came out of nothing or it has always been there, the result is the same- we are all here. Neither science nor religion has any way of answering the question of where the universe first came from. A combination of both science and religion doesn't explain where the universe came from.

But, if we want to think rationally, we should worry about the trouble our earth is in today and how we can fix it. That happens to be a more relevant question of both religion and science- especially if you follow both.

 

[Thief]

It's not complex.
The sphere is the most basic of forms.

 

[Blackdog22]

Both involve an entity or Entity always existing or coming from nothing, and given the premise, both are equally likely. But likelihood does not equal truth.

How do you see the most basic building blocks for the universe and a God that is infinitely more complex than our minds can conceive to be equally the same?

Given this premise it only makes sense to say that it is more likely that something complex came about than something "infinitely" more complex than that something.

Its like saying a grain of sand is just as likely as the Pyramids except times infinity. While both are amazing to have existed, the sand is more likely to have first come about.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It's not complex.
The sphere is the most basic of forms.

In some kinds of geometric mathematics; in others, not so much.

 

[Blackdog22]

Who said God's confined to logic? If God created everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, then doesn't it follow that He created it out of nothing? You do not create something out of something; that is merely changing the form of that something.

All hail The God of square circles ? :sarcastic

To the meat of what you said. If God is something, and he always was, then even him creating something would be him doing it from himself (which is something). He didn't create himself did he?

 

[Thief]

In some kinds of geometric mathematics; in others, not so much.

Go for it.....
But at the 'point' of singularity....

 

[Shiranui117]

All hail The God of square circles ? :sarcastic

I don't see why not. God is already a Trinity, after all!

To the meat of what you said. If God is something, and he always was, then even him creating something would be him doing it from himself (which is something). He didn't create himself did he?

No, God is uncreated. God creating something from Himself, if I understand exactly what you're saying, would imply that God is taking a piece of Himself and creating something out of it. Such is not the case.

 

[Thief]

I don't see why not. God is already a Trinity, after all!

No, God is uncreated. God creating something from Himself, if I understand exactly what you're saying, would imply that God is taking a piece of Himself and creating something out of it. Such is not the case.

I believe....Spirit first.
So then of course....The universe (the one word) IS of God.

 

[Blackdog22]

I don't see why not. God is already a Trinity, after all!

No, God is uncreated. God creating something from Himself, if I understand exactly what you're saying, would imply that God is taking a piece of Himself and creating something out of it. Such is not the case.

I'll just ignore the first part.

God, as you refer to him, maybe uncreated, but he is something. He is a something that has always been. If he creates anything it has come from something, that something being God. That would indicate there was never nothing.