Can there be a creation, without an architect?
Leave religion-bullshit aside. We are talking about reality.
creation is its own architect
why cant brainlets fathom this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
>>7968724
Sure. People just can't fathom nothingness though.
Whatever our idea of nothingness is, is still something. Even a pitch black, empty, energy-less point.
Takes true nothingness to get something.
>>7968724
What's the problem with the concept of god being the universe itself ? It is all that existed ,exists and will exist. And it's will is unreachable for mere humans understanding.
>>7968727
Probably this. There is no real reason to entropy than "it just happens". Entropy is its own maker of random events ,and eventually ,given the scale of the universe ,shit happens ,and there we are.
In any way that's the same as the free will debate. If there is no free will ,questioning it is part of destiny ,whats so different ? Plato's cave allegory shows that we're restricted by our own senses and we can only form our understanding of the world by observations ,which are personal.
t. Drunk french
>>7968737
Emptiness and nothingness are two different things.
Our brains can't imagine non-existence of itself so we can't comprehend such thing as nothingness, on the contrary we can emptiness.
Still, that doesn't proof thing as Self-organization relative to Universe and it's nature. We still are far behind finding hidden truths but as for me, the more I study and learn about everthing(1st year into electrotechican[programming and such]) the more I disbelief that we are just a "event".
It's discussion, trolls and fags not welcomed.
>>7968751
Have you ever experienced OOBE or that state after some psychodelic substance which basically in some people awakens new conscious?
Me myself have experienced things that science didn't explain yet. But, I believe that there is more than just entropy and probabilty into reality.
>>7968759
tbf never. I don't do drugs. I think most of these things are due to the brain insane perseverance to rationalize things. Some things ,even totally random kinda makes sense ,because you're geared to make sense of things.
I'm always sceptical because of the physical implication of thinks like OOBE.
I don't hold entropy and probabilty as ultimate makers of reality either. The former is more a representation of why things aren't constant like newtons' law would imply ,and the second as why even unlikely events ,given a grand enough scale may exists.
Like I said ,if something is out of our reach of understanding ,it really is ,and thus ,imo, holds no real place in science ,because the mere fact of recognizing its existance would go against our rationalization
It seems impossible to me to prove this. I don't see how I could find any example of something that was created without an architect.
My initial thought was that a series of random events can create something and since they are completely random that have no architecture, but how could I prove that there is no architect to randomness. I know human cannot reproduce perfectly randomness, but one could say it's due to our limited capacity.
>>7968727
>What is the meaning of life?
Same answer with that question. They project their emotional humanity so fucking much they are unable to think clearly.
>creation is its own architect
More correctly, "Entropy is the architect of creation." You have nothing without entropy. Kind of ironic really.
There could be an architect, but given how fucking complex things are in the universe, do you really think we, as humans can even try to comprehend the nature of such a creator?
The creator of the universe is the universe itself
we are part of the universe
we experience it from the inside
the universe is just way for the creator to "exist" and to experience itself
duh
>>7968724
Can a creator exist without his own creator ?
If the asnwer is no ; then there is no creator
If the answer is yes, then universe can exist without a creator
>>7969854
>If the asnwer is no ; then there is no creator
nonsense, it might end with the creator creator
btw that was a slippery slope argument
It's all because we can't comprehend infinity. There is no need for cause and effect when it comes to this. No need for an unmoved mover.
>>7969873
Then you are accepting that things can exist without a creator.
This logic is impenetrable because both answers lead to the same door.
Can there be an architect who is not a creation?
If so, why can't there be a creation without an architect?
Perhaps there is no creator, but rather a cycle which needn't have a creator, and the architect is pure entropy, through the reactions of chaos a formative system is erected and eventually reformed as energy and matter start to coalesce in different reactions.
>>7968759
Gee mind-altering substances made you experience something weird? No way! What a brilliant discovery!
>babbies first paradox
>>7968724
Creation meaning what? Maybe you want to go back to /lit/?
Whatever the fuck is going in this universe, there is a ultimate/prime cause that started it all, the last answers science can provide. We call that God.
>>7970003
*I call that God
>>7968751
As always I'm going to defer to Occam's Razor. Why should you immediately bounce to God, something of infinite complexity and nothing more but additional questions, when it's far more likely that something a lot more simple can explain the same thing.
>>7968724
Personally, I'll put my money on this simple thought experiment:
Which is more likely, for there to be a complex God, or an insanely simple attribute that can through near infinite repetition in a specific pattern manifest something as complex as our universe?
Which is more likely, that despite virtually infinite odds against it, our universe was born but once with all the variables just right to create life? Or that this here has happened and will happen an infinite amount of times, and we'll only be here to question it when things happen to be just right for complex matter and lifeforms to be created in that specific universe?
As some computer simulations have hinted at, the simplest way for all of this to be possible is for reality to be literally nothing but a variation in potential: 1's and 0's, or rather "something" vs "nothing". It would have a sort of philosophical beauty to it too.
Disregarding the semantics that time as we know it did not exist before our universe was born... given nothing but 1's and 0's in an infinite random pattern through an infinite amount of time, would inevitably lead to the simplest of variables and multipliers required to spawn all this energy with the required emerging properties the physical laws as we know them.
In short, the only way for "nothing" to exist, is for there to be something. And so reality in its basest form is binary. Which would always ultimately lead to every possible outcome that could ever exist, an infinite number of times.
At least, in the absence of any better ideas where we're all forced to form our own asinine opinions of what's what, this makes the most sense to me.
>>7968724
look at my dubs
>>7968727
Cool poster, I agree with most of it, but 10 and 12 weaken the whole thing and should be changed or removed.
>10. ... I am a product of my choices -- not my circumstances.
You can make all the "right" choices and still die in a tsunami, get robbed, be cheated on by your spouse, whatever. Your choices definitely shape who you are, but so do your circumstances.
>12. ... all people are created equal.
This is just blatantly false. Everyone is born with different brains, different neurons, different DNA... some people are born with one arm or as a Siamese twin or with Down Syndrome. Yes you can choose to make the best of your situation, but claiming that we're all dealt the same hand from the start is ignorant.
>>7970151
>that despite virtually infinite odds against it
>infinite odds
>infinite
philosophy major spotted
>>7969891
Even if you buy this solution, you still have this infinitely long chain of cause and effect. What caused this infinitely long chain to exist? Who defined the rules that cause and effect follow?
>>7968727
>pantheistic bullshit
>calling other people brainlets
o.O
>>7970237
Perhaps existence is the default state of the universe. That perspective changes the game a bit. However, I tend to agree with you that the existence of rules and laws within nature suggests an underlying intelligence. This does lend credence to the "universal consciousness" theories. Interestingly enough in The Bible, God describes himself as "I Am" which has interesting philosophical implications as well.
>>7968724
mfw your little chimp brains can even begin to fathom the universe and how it came to be.
mfw when the answer is right in front of us but we will never be able to comprehend how something came to be in a space not bound by physics.
mfw you fill the void with calculus
>>7968727
mike rowe for prez
>>7968724
Legally speaking, yes. Architect's not necessary for 4 walls and a roof.
>>7968724
An architect implies intentional order. What we clearly have instead is a bunch of disordered matter and energy that has by coincidence clumped together in orderly ways to a very small degree.
>>7970877
Not necessarily, what we have now can all be offshoot results of what was originally created, maybe it was initially made to be this way.
We'll never truly know because I doubt we'd even be able to comprehend such a thing.
>>7968727
>>7970220
>>10. ... I am a product of my choices -- not my circumstances.
This is just the usual victim-blaming drivel. Circumstances underlie all human endeavor. The importance of choices and individual volition shouldn't be undersold, but this is so superficially inspirational not because it leads the individual to realize they have more power over a situation than previously thought but because it appears as a universal maxim and turns others' discontent into purely an issue of personal volition. It enables coping by denial with the matter of a fundamentally unjust and predatory world.
>>7968724
Yes. Next question?
>>7970233
>odds = probability
high schooler detected
you can have infinite odds
>>7968724
Can there be a circular argument without an r-tard?
>>7968727
>I live in America
>I deplore dept and do all I can to avoid it
>I believe that my eductation is my responsibility and absolutely critical to my success
Poor guy
We'll likely never be able to understand why the universe came to be, because we're part of it.
let's also get the opinions of some people better educated in philosophy:
>>>/his/918601
>>7971784
No thanks. Philosophy may be good for human questions but regarding the understanding of the universe, it's just the retarded little brother of physics.
>>7968752
>fags not welcome
Looks like you gotta go
>>7968752
>Our brains can't imagine non-existence of itself
Yes it absolutely can. I'm sure you've had dreamless sleep at least once in your life.
>>7968724
From chaos, comes order
>>7971804
Barely
>>7971790
holy fuck, /lit is full with shitslinging manchildren arguing about why the other ones favourite philosopher is shit.
/lit, not even once
>>7968724
Yes. Why not?
>wants to talk about metaphysics
>on a science board
>"who made the universe? Btw no religion"
>>7968727
Mike Rowe always seemed like a cool guy to me
>>7968737
No such thing as nothingness where is there nothingness you brain dead fuck?
>>7971305
{2n+1 | nāā}
>>7971845
>I'm sure you've had dreamless sleep at least once in your life.
This is highly unlikely. Whether you remember your dream or not doesn't mean it was dreamless. You're sub-conscious brain has to process your day somehow and dreaming is how it does it.
But then again I'm not an expert in the area.
No. There is no God but Allah. Search your heart, you know it to be true.
>>7973351
Alwayst trust /sci/ to cling on to semantics and manage to miss the building-sized elephant of a point that's sitting on their face.
Honestly, this whole board, and most people in real life too... I don't get how you people do this. I mean, how do you keep bothering to explain things to people who clearly don't even want to understand? This is why within the past few years I've basically stopped commenting altogether. No point explaining, no point discussing, no point in sharing.
Serious question: When was the last time you people saw someone indicate they actually got the point, that they learned something? Conversely, how many insults, trolls, misunderstandings, and retarded cases of missing the obvious did it take to get there? How the fuck did this species ever evolve to this point, I wonder, or is it just this time and era where everyone has the skills to make the noise and share their thoughts, when only a few have any actual thoughts worth sharing, and any ability to learn from others? So much white noise and bullshit it's impossible to make out the actual signal?
>>7973364
Free will doesn't exist.
>>7972493
>where is there nothingness you brain dead fuck?
In your pants!
>>7973364
>Alwayst trust /sci/ to cling on to semantics and manage to miss the building-sized elephant of a point that's sitting on their face.
I'm not denying your position of their being nothingness/ not able to have nothingness, just your example was wrong. Don't get busy because you muffed up.
>Honestly, this whole board, and most people in real life too... I don't get how you people do this. I mean, how do you keep bothering to explain things to people who clearly don't even want to understand? This is why within the past few years I've basically stopped commenting altogether. No point explaining, no point discussing, no point in sharing.
Keep sooking sook.
>Serious question: When was the last time you people saw someone indicate they actually got the point, that they learned something?
I honestly don't get your point from your example.
>Conversely, how many insults, trolls, misunderstandings, and retarded cases of missing the obvious did it take to get there? How the fuck did this species ever evolve to this point, I wonder, or is it just this time and era where everyone has the skills to make the noise and share their thoughts, when only a few have any actual thoughts worth sharing, and any ability to learn from others? So much white noise and bullshit it's impossible to make out the actual signal?
Your telling me, white noise.
>>7973366
You couldn't have phrased it better. Honestly, I'm seeing nothing but people too full of themselves that the only thing they do is talk about their opinions and call others retards. This isn't even a discussion anymore, it's a bunch of monologues compiled together.
>>7973389
>I'm not denying your position of their being nothingness/ not able to have nothingness, just your example was wrong. Don't get busy because you muffed up.
*I'm not denying your position of THERE being nothingness/ not able to have nothingness, just your example was wrong. Don't get HUFFY because you muffed up.
My bad, didn't proof-read lol.
>>7973389
>...just your example was wrong.
I wasn't the poster, so it wasn't my example. But the point was so fricking obvious and this fucking frustration has been building up over those few years so now was as good a time as any to share.
HIS example, being a metaphor, was spot on. It was 100% correct. You don't read into metaphors literally, OBVIOUSLY.
>Your telling me, white noise.
"You are", being "you're". But see, I get your point here (see what I did?). And desu I actually agree. I dropped the ball, wasn't intending to insult you specifically and yet that's what I did. My frustration is directed at a wider audience, and even towards my own inability to understand people who get so bent up over rules and semantics and purposeful misunderstandings, that they continually miss the obvious.
>>7973366
>Free will doesn't exist.
I absolutely agree. And yet this statement has as much to do with my post as if I replied to you by saying "But apples are sweet, not sour!".
Yes, people dream even if they don't remember they did. Everyone knows that, no need to waste your time spewing that out like the special knowitall in the class. The expression "dreamless sleep" must therefore refer to the kind of sleep after which you DON'T REMEMBER dreaming anything.
Similarly, no, free will does not exist. But something like 99.999% (point: the percentage is made up, it's meant to indicate an insane majority of a group, don't get all triggered over it) people have a tendency to refer to their actions as choices and decisions, rather than what they truly are: reactions imposed on them by the sum total of their entire live's nature and nurture.
See how much space is wasted, having to constantly explain the obvious? How much energy, how much effort, by multiple people no less? A dreamless sleep works, because instead of experiencing it like a void, like the absence of "something", you experience nothing at all. To you, no time passed, no thoughts were formed.
>>7968724
Of course. Architect dead, but creation is.
>>7973419
>The expression "dreamless sleep" must therefore refer to the kind of sleep after which you DON'T REMEMBER dreaming anything.
This is how I meant it. If you cannot remember the vaguest hint that you existed over a period of time, you have automatically conceptualized your own nonexistence. This applies to all anterograde amnesia.
Everybody should get a bag of benzos, pop a heavy dose, immediately snap back to reality days later and marvel at the vanished drugs and appearance of a half-dozen cereal bowls in various points around the house at least once in their lifetimes
>>7971284
well written but youre still just complaining about the way things are instead of taking action like an alpha male
>>7973851
No part of that implies I'm not personally taking action. I'm speaking in general terms and indeed, >>7971284
>The importance of choices and individual volition shouldn't be undersold
You're just jumping to conclusions to confirm your own bias and reject my point out of hand
>implying you can't do both
>implying doing more of one ever necessarily means doing less of the other
>>7970220
It's neoliberal garbage. "Work hard and smile and never question the system and you can be just as successful as me!" Says the guy who can sing opera and got his own television show (and is a straight white man but more in that later).
>>7973993
>(and is a straight white man but more in that later)
>>7968724
>Can there be a creation, without an architect?
No, of course there can't. Only atheists believe that nonsense.
>>7973993
All correct until that straight white man part.
>>7974016
Not really. The only difference is in what theists and atheists believe counts as having been 'created'.
>>7974034
Other way around. We differ in who/what created.
Theists say it's the Creator, atheists say it was random processes
>>7973419
>...the point was so fricking obvious...
>HIS example, being a metaphor, was spot on. It was 100% correct. You don't read into metaphors literally, OBVIOUSLY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Our brains can't imagine non-existence of itself
>Yes it absolutely can. I'm sure you've had dreamless sleep at least once in your life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The metaphor in this retort being?
That statement suggests to me that not dreaming equates to nothingness, but it was a bad example of that as we always dream.
But like you said maybe I don't understand his position. But that's on him to explain it so that the lowest-common-denominator (me), can understand it.
As for his position as I understand it, I will say this; We can't even imagine nothingness. Emptiness sure, but nothingness? Just like what's on the other side of the expanding universe.
We can have theories of what it is but we've never experienced nothingness, so how can we know what it is?
That's just my 2 cents anyway.
>>Your telling me, white noise.
>"You are", being "you're". But see, I get your point here (see what I did?).
This is semantics.
I was between hosting friends and shitposting from my phone that I use swipe key on, so I wasn't really proof-reading.
I didn't attack his sentence.
See >>7973396, there were quite a lot of mistakes, lol.
Cont>>
>>7973419
<<Cont
>>7975068
>And desu I actually agree. I dropped the ball, wasn't intending to insult you specifically and yet that's what I did.
I don't think you insulted me, it just seemed like a blow-up on your part. I maybe pre-judged and imagined a NEET kid just freaking out, hence calling you a sook. But after hearing your explanation I can understand where this frustration came from.
I get a little peeved when people speak with such authority on /lit/, /sci/ or any other board without the need of showing their experience in the subject they're talking about. I'm guilty of this but I will usually point out if I don't know much about the subject matter. Which is quite often lol.
>My frustration is directed at a wider audience, and even towards my own inability to understand people who get so bent up over rules and semantics and purposeful misunderstandings, that they continually miss the obvious.
I like the cut of your jib, we could all do with a couple of breaths before posting. In saying that it is good seeing passionate posts. It's good to know people actually care about what they are typing about... maybe.
Good discussion though
>>7975068
Just read the exert from the earlier post. That first quote was an earlier post again that he was quoting.
Also picked up an earlier mistake I made from my first post. >>7973351
>>I'm sure you've had dreamless sleep at least once in your life.
>You're sub-conscious brain...
>your sub-conscious brain...
Fix'd
>>7968724
Yes. Unless you want to play fairy with the definition of the terms "creation" and "architect," in which case the answer is no true Scotsman.
>>7975068
>But that's on him to explain it so that the lowest-common-denominator (me), can understand it.
>hurr if I'm to stupid and lazy to understand it's the other guy's fault
Shameless dodging of the barest hint of responsibility aside, that's an awful precedent to set anywhere. Like M-theory should make sense to middle schoolers or be discarded on principle tier.
The point is that whether or not you ACTUALLY HAD dreams is entirely irrelevant to whether or not you SUBJECTIVELY EXPERIENCED not having dreams after the fact, which is how you can conceptualize nonexistence. What actually happened is irrelevant, like the benzo blackout example. I clarified my point in >>7973786, you really have no excuse.
