Can there be a creation, without an architect?
Leave religion-bullshit aside. We are talking about reality.
i also want to hear /lit opinions on that
>>>/sci/7971784
>>>/his/918601
If we're looking at reality then there is no difference or separation of the creator and the creation. Mythologically speaking, God created the world, but God is eminent in the world. The apparent separateness of things is only secondary. "I and the Father are one", that whole thing.
>>7875451
You do understand that you're argueing for pantheism right? Not theology. Thats heresy!
>>7875459
>heresy
Welcome to the real world, where truth isn't delegated by the middlemanclergy
>>7875442
If I found a copy of Finnegan's Wake sitting around, I'd assume it was written by an intelligent designer.
On the other hand, the same can not be said about YA fiction, which has been known to arise spontaneously out of swamp puddles. So we may never know
>>7875442
The problem with the idea of a creator is the "Who created the creator?" argument.
The nature and origin of the universe, whenever we discover it, is most likely going to be cyclical.
there is no 'creation' to talk about it here, reality just 'is'.
>>7875478
>The problem with the idea of a creator is the "Who created the creator?" argument.
Assuming you are 12, or mentally on that level it is.
>The nature and origin of the universe, whenever we discover it, is most likely going to be cyclical.
The model which implies argues for it is impossible because of entropy and even a cyclical, eternal universe is easily placed into standard Aristotelian argument which as is assumes the world is eternal
>>7875442
Creation - creator is just language structure
>>>/sci/7971804
what did he mean by this?
>>7875484
In an infinite universe entropy matters very little and eternal cyclical occurrence can, and probably does, happen.
>>7875442
You first need to define both architect and creation.
We have some people from /sci/ and /his/ for sure.
I don't know how many of you guys notice, but they have philosophical arguments of Pavlovian dogs. They hear something once and endlessly repeat it. Like with
>>7875489
>>7875483
>>7875478
We clearly see that the dumbest people of 4chan have invaded. Usually the arguments from theists and atheists here are at least reminiscent of actual philosophy, of course simplified, but the basic education on the subject is usually given. And this isn't me giving /lit/ credit, it's the other boards being filled with uneducated philistines.
>>7875508
Take him away
>>7875508
maybe, but what is wrong with a scientific outlook on the matter of the creation of the universe?
The sci link on the OP has atleast some science in it
>>7875519
Nothing is wrong with it except that creator versus no creator isn't even a scientific question considering it assumes a metaphysical reality to prove its point and simple dismissal isn't a refutation making the arguing on a philosophical battleground necessary for all parties. Science here is just a means for indications of metaphysical truths. Hence why Christians use intelligent design (which has nothing to do with creationism aside supposition that God created the world).
>>7875519
Scientific outlook is only possible in the context of a particular philosophy. It is a result of a particular philosophy.
>>7875528
agreed
>>7875523
agreed
but the OP question, while its wording supports methaphisical discussion, also leaves room for a current scientific viewpoint about where this universe comes from and if it could have had natural causes or if it necessitates some kind of creation. A scientific viewpoint is valid in this discussion. And as >>7875523 pointed out
>Science here is just a means for indications of metaphysical truths
it may be very important for any philosophical discussion
>>7875543
From what I know science does not tell anything about creation of universe. Only it's evolution is explained. The are simply no scientifical statments or hypothesis on this topic.
>>7875508
Well well, look at this pavlovian puppy, he really thinks he isnt one. How cute.
I thought we had left this subject/object, active/passive agent stupid dualism in the past. It seems that, either I was wrong about the current philosophical trends, or /lit/ is full of dilettante, pseudo-philosophers.
>>7875562
in regards to cosmogeny modern science has no valid theories about the how, what, why etc. before the big bang (as the most likely model) yes. But there are many hypothesis' in the scientific community on the "why is there something"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w
(don't mind the atheist stuff in case you are automatically butthurt by that; just listen to what he has to say about the physics of it)
>>7875601
I don't understand, what is your position, specifically?
>does any of you smartasses actually know how to dismiss the "who created the creator?" argument. Just because it is often brought up and parroted, doesn't mean it's bad. Can you dismiss it?
I mean the very fucking concept of platonic ideals is that they are fucking eternal and uncaused same with unmoved mover. It's absolutely moronic to use the who created the creator argument and there's a reason why no serious philosopher will use it.
>>7875604
1) i want to hear a refutal of the argument if there is any. I don't know one and would be open to hear one if there is any, but all i ever hear is just some philo-snobs pointing out it's just silly/pleb tier/babies first philosophy...whatever derogatory meme comes in mind without ever making argumentative points
2) i'm generally pissed off with people just tossing away discussion with ad hominem attacks and solely pointing out that one viewpoint is childish/invalid... without going deeper into the reason why exactly that is
>>7875612
About the Platonic forms, the greatest advance made with them is that, even though, of course subjectivity is important as a the formal activity of universals, the thing in itself (or the their essence) is something self-moving and self-generated. Much like the logos of Heraclitus.
>>7875619
That's because the places you're discussing this subject is simply not appropriate for the depth of it. I'm sorry but you have to stop discussing them and start to actually comprehend the Notion behind those arguments through aserious study of Philosophy, by yourself.
>>7875619
>1) i want to hear a refutal of the argument if there is any. I don't know one and would be open to hear one if there is any, but all i ever hear is just some philo-snobs pointing out it's just silly/pleb tier/babies first philosophy...whatever derogatory meme comes in mind without ever making argumentative points
You are a philosophically uneducated philistine who knows literally nothing about the subject. The refutation was never even necessary because the argument is fundamentally retarded to the point no one with a brain will argue for it.
>2) i'm generally pissed off with people just tossing away discussion with ad hominem attacks and solely pointing out that one viewpoint is childish/invalid... without going deeper into the reason why exactly that is
There's a thing called the platonic tradition which has existed for around 2300 years. There's a massive amount of reading to do just to get through it alone, and it takes years to do, not even counting the modern redefinitions and updates on the arguments.
Take a book called The Republic and maybe read it.
>>7875632
You fundamentally right, but there is no need to be rude with the guy.
>>7875641
You're*
>>7875612
i don't get what your saying
because the concept of a creator is a platonic ideal which is eternal the argument can't be made, because the creator will always be that eternal concept?
This is just a concept and doesn't apply to reality?
>>7875632
>The refutation was never even necessary because the argument is fundamentally retarded to the point no one with a brain will argue for it.
So you guys are telling me the argument is invalid because the idea of a creator of the universe itself is just an idea and has nothing to do with reality.
You are right i have no idea what you are both talking about. I'm not even sure i wan't to go deeper into philosophy, it sounds like incoherent brainfuckery. I think i will just go back to /sci and hide all philosophy threads
>>7875442
define creation and architect, which dictionary are you using?
The word creation implies that Something Is createtd When Something Is created there is a creator. But there are a few Things to Consider.
This does not negliate that the Kreation itself Is also the creator.
(Like a PC boots hisself)
Another thing to Consider Is that Maybe the creator Is just nothing, but with this Point one should Look how war Science allows such a Point.
At Last while everything created has a creator that implies that Things that arent created dont have a creator. And Maybe not everything that Is has to ne Made.
>>7875451
read aquinas
>>7875648
Let me explain it to you.
1. These guys are complete morons. They are like look mommy i've read about plato and husserl and im so fucking edgy.
2. They argument is like this: notion of creator implies that he cannot be created so you cant ask about it, case closed. Please go make amurrica great again.
>>7875641
I'm just annoyed by the influx of plebs and the general invasion on /lit/ going on right now.
>>7875648
>i don't get what your saying
Of course, it's a pretty extensive subject best understood through reading books dealing with the subject
>because the concept of a creator is a platonic ideal which is eternal the argument can't be made, because the creator will always be that eternal concept?
The concept of creator can be seen as a platonic ideal and ideals are higher truths of which the world is a sort of a shadow.
>This is just a concept and doesn't apply to reality?
No, God is seen as a being above reality in an eternal realm of sorts making it pointless to argue through materialistic eyes.
Just like you can't prove say gravity by arguing God created it you can't impose causality on something that isn't causal at all.
>So you guys are telling me the argument is invalid because the idea of a creator of the universe itself is just an idea and has nothing to do with reality.
Assuming you are a reductionist (and it's safe to do so), yes, it is completely fictional.
>I'm not even sure i wan't to go deeper into philosophy, it sounds like incoherent brainfuckery. I think i will just go back to /sci and hide all philosophy threads
For someone limited to his perception of it and no understanding whatsoever, indeed it's incoherent brainfuckery.
This may seem like a crazy advice, but read a book nigger. I'd like to say Russel, but he's horrible as a cover of philosophy. Start with the Greeks, or stay ignorant basically.
>>7875657
His metaphysics is quite pointless if the person is new to philosophy, he's hard for people into it, let alone people who didn't even read Plato.
What you meant to say is read Aquinas by Edward Feser.
>>7875670
>They argument is like this: notion of creator implies that he cannot be created so you cant ask about it, case closed
>>7875674
>i don't get what your saying
Of course, it's a pretty extensive subject best understood through reading books dealing with the subject
>because the concept of a creator is a platonic ideal which is eternal the argument can't be made, because the creator will always be that eternal concept?
The concept of creator can be seen as a platonic ideal and ideals are higher truths of which the world is a sort of a shadow.
>This is just a concept and doesn't apply to reality?
No, God is seen as a being above reality in an eternal realm of sorts making it pointless to argue through materialistic eyes.
Just like you can't prove say gravity by arguing God created it you can't impose causality on something that isn't causal at all.
>So you guys are telling me the argument is invalid because the idea of a creator of the universe itself is just an idea and has nothing to do with reality.
Assuming you are a reductionist (and it's safe to do so), yes, it is completely fictional.
>I'm not even sure i wan't to go deeper into philosophy, it sounds like incoherent brainfuckery. I think i will just go back to /sci and hide all philosophy threads
For someone limited to his perception of it and no understanding whatsoever, indeed it's incoherent brainfuckery.
thanks! That was really all i wanted to know.
I know about the /lit credo "start with the greeks" but to be honest i can't be arsed with that until im way into my retirement. So i guess we will talk again in about 40 years
>>7875674
You sir are just pathetic. You are talking about absolute banalities in delibatery obsure manner for your interlocutor, just to sound intelligent. I hope you know that for someone who knows what are talking about you sound like highschool fag
>>7875588
Thanks for the link. Actually I am an atheist.
Btw nice dubs there. Nazi ones.
>>7875718
>You sir are just pathetic. You are talking about absolute banalities in delibatery obsure manner for your interlocutor, just to sound intelligent.
This is the simplest philosophical jargon that you will ever find more or less, even introductory texts will lead you into them and use them from the point. And this is just the basic greek one, if you go into more specifics, such as philosophy of the mind, it's extremely easy to get lost (I know I do). Which words shouldn't have I used? Platonic ideals? Reductionism? Causality?
>I hope you know that for someone who knows what are talking about you sound like highschool fag
At least I know what I'm talking about.
>>7875674
>>7875632
>>7875612
>>7875508
>the observable world is a reflection of an unknowable world of absolute properties; abstraction represents recollection from this world
>therefore an agent that I presuppose exists and is the sole influence on the state of the universe at at least one instant need never have been influenced by another agent
wew.
>>7875812
Wew confusing Aristotle and Plato
Not knowing that universals are abstracted from particulars
>>7875824
>Not knowing that universals are abstracted from particulars
Did you seriously just misunderstand me? After you drowned that other guy in a flood of needlessly and deliberately abstruse, self aggrandizing bullshit rather than give a simple, two line argument, you dare to fuck up while reading MY shit?
-why should I accept forms?
-how can you demonstrate that god is an ideal form (existence + uniqueness - this entails arguing to exclude everything outside your definition of god and justifying every inclusion)
>>7875442
No. There's a creator (deliberator, cause) behind every creation (new existence, emerging quality).
The problem is that people seem to think this is a prelude to the existence of God. But we have no confirmation that the universe ever "began", thus the act of creation may never have occurred, thus there is necessarily no creator. The universe may have always been. Given the transient, eternally recurring nature of all things, it's very probable that the universe always was, with no clear beginning or end, but simply an endless creator-less cycle. The distinction between creator and creation doesn't even make sense then.
>>7875824
Would you kindly
>>7876087
>>7875442
Who created the stalagmites in a cave?
They are so beautiful and detailed, they must have had an architect, some grand designer right?
I say there must be a god for caves, that is the only explanation.
>>7875924
>No. There's a creator (deliberator, cause) behind every creation (new existence, emerging quality).
Confirmed for never having read the actual argument..
>"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God"
The cosmological argument in no way proves a personal God, simply an uncreated and eternal actualization.
>The universe may have always been. Given the transient, eternally recurring nature of all things, it's very probable that the universe always was,
>THIS EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS TO BE GOD
>>7876294
There is no "first mover" for the universe if it is eternally recurring, except for the universe itself (but not really since there is no act of creation happening), so all you can do is call the universe God, which is pantheism. If that's what the original argument says then fine.
>>7876196
I've felt for a long time that the disciples of Speleology and Theology should be merged.
>>7876196
I'm pretty sure those colors are edited in and not actually natural. Shapes are cool but not too unreal that it would make me believe in a creator
>>7876324
See Aquinas' Third way
1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
>>7876436
Why are you bringing up Aquinas? His stuff is practically a millennia old, he's been BTFO since then.
>being
lol
>>7875477
Finnegans Wake*
:^)
>>7875718
You're just jealous that he writes better than you.
>>7875442
Fire fathers all
>>7876669
...You brought up even older philosophy and Aquinas has plenty of modern followers who have redefined and updated his arguments.
>>7876669
>Implying a philosophers arguments are invalid based on how 'old' he is
>Not acknowledging that Aquinas is still considered the pinnacle of scholastic and rigid logical methodology.
>Actually believing that Aquinas has ever been BTFO
Get out of here newfag.
>>7875442
The concept of a 'creator' is plai anthropomorphism, attributing human qualities to what you can't understand. Just like in ancient times people had a God that brought the rains and a God that made the crops grow, same shit, just stretched to encompass the whole of reality. The ultimate nature of reality lies far beyond our comprehension
I came up with my own proof of God. It goes like this:
God is omnipotent. Hence, if He didn't exist, God would just use his unlimited power to make himself real. QED God exists
>>7876762
who? no one but christian theologians and medieval philosophy specialists care about him. get off of 4chan.
>>7877720
No one but philosophy specialists care about most philosophers or theologians in any real depth, what's your point m8.
>>7875670
>notion of creator implies that he cannot be created
That's so silly. If they are allowing things that don't need to be created, then I nominate the universe as something that doesn't need to be created.
>>7875442
Well something can not come from nothing, it's the foundation of scientific knowledge.
The only two explanations are that something came from nothing once, and then never again for no reason at all.
Or that there always was something, and everything came from that.
>>7875442
such a shit and leading wording
you don't need an architect when you have a sufficiently multifaceted emergent system
yeah yeah "who created the big bang, where it came from?" I know I know
why there's this insistence of "something created something, before that there was nothing"? if there was nothing, it would've stayed nothing, if it didn't, then it wasn't nothingness to begin with.
things existed, exist, and will exist "as is", eternally and forever, no linear line from a "beginning" to an "end".<-illusion which probably exists because humans are born and will die, "begin" and "end", so the assumption will be that the same must apply to the universe
>>7877860
You are projecting your own delusional concept of "time" onto an indifferent universe.
Time is just another dimension of spacetime, and the universe is just an inert 4-dimensional blob of timeless matter.
Pull up your big-girl panties, and deal.
