How was the world created?

[cleanhippie]

[phantom power]

1. The poison, frost and cow substrate theory seems very plausible.

[Rambis]

2. Ronald Raygun crapped it out (nm)

x

[rug]

3. Are you conceding the world was created?

[cleanhippie]

5. Define created.

[rug]

7. As in "How was the world created?"

[cleanhippie]

8. Is that a question or a definition?

Kindly define just how you are using this term and I can then answer your first question. Please, be specific, and feel free to use any dictionary of your choice. I'm not interested in arguing the definition in any way, I am simply unable to answer you unless I know just how you are using the word.

[rug]

9. It's a question about the definition used in your question.

[cleanhippie]

10. Well, until you can define how you are using the word, I am unable to answer your question.

Feel free to continue this game by yourself if you like, but until you define how you are using the word in your original question to me, progress cannot be made.

[rug]

11. I see. You posted the word "created" in your OP title without settling on a meaning.

It is indeed a standoff.

[cleanhippie]

13. Its not a standoff. You asked me a question, I asked for clarification, you refused.

Now, if you think playing Russian Roulette solo is a standoff, your comment makes perfect sense. Good luck with that.

Have a nice day, rug.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. He's playing the

"ask an illogical question enough times that you get pissed off enough to have a post hidden" game. It's his MO.

[rug]

21. I see you're playing the take an indirect swipe by addressing someone else game.

A trite MO.

Maybe you can explain the definition of the word he typed himseld in his title.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

23. Yep, many of us can play the passive-aggressive game

See how fun this is?

[rug]

27. You still haven't answered the question.

How many meanings are there to "created"?

(And I don't think you know what the passive-aggressive personality disorder is, despite its frequent use from your quarter.)

[cbayer]

36. It is one of the most commonly misused phrases in this group, but it sounds really neat.

[Gore1FL]

24. Choose one:

Created earth definition--

A> Some unexplained superbeing built the planet and life on it through conscious act

B> The forces of nature, some hydrogen atoms, the laws of physics, and 13.72 billion years allowed for the formation of at least one planet where life evolved.

C> Other, please explain.

Please pick one so we understand your interpretation of the word "create" when you ask your question.

If you do pick C, please explain in reasonable detail what you understand the word "create" means in your own words. Thanks!!

[rug]

28. So you believe the universe was "created" by the forces of nature.

That's helpful.

[Gore1FL]

29. There are only four of them:

Weak,
Strong,
Electromagnetism, and
Gravity

Why does that deserve ?

Additionally, are you chosing A, B, or C? If C, please be specific as mentioned above.

Thanks!

[rug]

30. To date.

However, the question is about the word, not the physics.

cre·ate
verb (used with object)

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

Since these forces did not exist at the instant of the big bang (if you subscribe to that), they could not have created the universe.

[Gore1FL]

31. By that definition, then no, the world was not created.

It compiled, if you wish. It formed, if you like.

It wasn't out of the ordinary. It was perfectly natural (4 forces of nature). It took no unexplained entity to do build it. Intelligence was not required, or likely present.

[cleanhippie]

41. Yep, I was onto that bullshit from the first post.

He's one of the most hypocritical and disingenuous posters here.

What really pisses me off is how he perpetrates the stereotypical lawyer meme. It gives an honorable profession a bad name.

[humblebum]

38. Well, if "nothing" created it, then it must have not been created. However,

if "something" created the world, then how was that something created? Out of nothingness? you really do need to define yourself before you go asking such a question. Does not "created" imply a creator?

[humblebum]

40. I think you need to admit you asked the wrong question.

The fact is, of course, that neither science nor religion can provide an objective, empirical answer.

[cleanhippie]

42. I think you need to admit you cannot comprehend what you read.

[humblebum]

43. If you cannot comprehend what you write, how can anyone comprehend

your meaning.

[cleanhippie]

44. You have become incoherent again.

To borrow a phrase from SkepticScott... rounds are over.


You have a really, really nice day.

[2ndAmForComputers]

12. Is that all you've got?

Have an even nicer day.

[rug]

15. And that has more substance than your smiley.

Alternatively, you could post about it in Meta.

[gtar100]

4. Treating mythology as fact does a great disservice to mythology.

There is a great deal of psychological insight about humanity and individuals within mythology and often those insights are wrapped up in creation myths. Joseph Campbell had a gift for explaining this well. Organized religions unfortunately make the mistake of anthropomorphizing their stories which, in the very least makes them sound silly, or at most, dangerous to open, critical thought sometimes to the point of violence. The richness of the teachings within these religions unfortunately can get overlooked and lost because of an obstinate point of view.

[cleanhippie]

6. I agree.

There is a lot to be learned about our past from our mythology, but treating those myths as fact undermines any wisdom that may be gleaned from them.

[skepticscott]

17. Not just about our past

but about ourselves. But, as you say, people who have not achieved the intellectual and emotional maturity to be able to place myth in its proper perspective will be unable to appreciate much of that.

[mmonk]

22. Very astute.

[DrewFlorida]

14. Which came first. the chicken or the egg?

As much as people would like to believe they can answer the question of how the world came to be, it seems most likely that the answer is unknowable. In other words, it is an "Unkowable Unknown".

I'm ok waith not knowing, or rather, I have no intention of wasting my valuable time on a wild goose chase. I can still be a compassionate socially responsible human being without the benefit of devine guidance, or as I call it, someone else telling me how to live my life.

[cleanhippie]

16. That seems a simplistic reduction of the question.

While true "knowing" may escape us, we can concede to that which is both plausible and probable. Religious explanations, while having a toehold in the realm of possibilities, have yet to even establish a beachhead in what is plausible, and don't even exist is what is is probable. We humans use testable evidence, reason and logic to conclude what is plausible and probable, and only science gets that deep.

That is why I agree with you on your point of not wasting time on a wild goose chase, which is trying to find plausible and probable answers in religion. Science, OTOH, is anything BUT a wild goose chase. I would hope you share my sentiment.

[DrewFlorida]

18. I generally agree with you.

Yes;
I generally agree with you. I believe organized religion is nothing more than a fairy tale, a stupid moronic story made up to satisfy peoples desire to know where we come from and what our purpose is for being. Which most people who say they believe, don't really believe, it's a social activity they use to pretend they are better than other people.

I also believe that science provides rational material evidence and plausible theory as to our evolution as humans, however science is limited to our ability to understand, which grows exponentially. Our understanding of earth and the universe is very important to help us potentially continue to survive and prosper as a species.

The real problem is as simple as the question of the chicken and the egg, in that, even if we were able to ascertain how the earth was formed and how humans came into being on earth, that still doesn't answer the question of how the universe was formed and by what and how the stuff that formed the universe was formed, and how the stuff that formed the stuff which formed the universe was formed.

At it's simplest form the question of where everything came from is a self perpetuating stream of questions.

[Gore1FL]

25. Science has a pretty good idea how we came to be

That isn't to say we know it all. We do know a lot. We live in the greatest age of discovery. The specificity is not always good, to be sure. Not all of the questions are answered--and not all of the questions have been asked, yet.

Brian Cox explains it better than I can starting at the 11:00 mark of his TED talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_6uKZWnJLCM#t=690s

[DrewFlorida]

34. Now you have taken our history back to the Big Bang, what about before that?

The point of the chicken and egg question is, simply that the question goes on ad infinitum, because it is essentially asking how did we get from a point of nothing existing to a point of something existing, or how did nothing create something?

[Gore1FL]

37. I'm in the middle of a book about that.

It's quite interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342887107&sr=8-1&keywords=a+universe+from+nothing

[DrewFlorida]

45. Interesting stuff.

I'm sure it's a good read, enjoy!

[chknltl]

32. Unless you dont believe in evolution, the egg came first.

I know, off topic but with a name like mine, how could I not weigh in on your question? From the view of evolution, the egg came first and that is that.

[DrewFlorida]

33. I think you miss the point.

If the egg came first, then what created the egg, and if something else created the egg, then what created that, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

[chknltl]

35. Perhaps, please permit me to make my case:

From a strictly evolutionary point of view: There was a first chicken.

The parents of that first chicken were not themselves chickens, they were very similar to chickens but technically not chickens. These parents of that first chicken could be called 'proto-chickens'.

Perhaps these proto-chickens themselves came from eggs but that is besides our point, neither of them were that very first chicken.

Because all true chickens come from eggs, that first chicken included, we are left with the inescapable fact that the egg came first!

From a Christian point of view, it is arguable that the chicken came first, (using a similar line of reasoning) but I would leave that to Christian religious scholars to debate, for me the matter has been solved.


?t=1242052727

[DrewFlorida]

46. This discussion is an endless loop discussion due to the subject at hand, lol.

Because of that, neither of us can win, so I will end the discussion here with a friendly chuckle.

Thanks.

[cpwm17]

20. To find out you must simplify all of reality

That's ultimately what science does: finds simpler explanations for a seemingly very complicated world. Science discovers how our complex world arises or evolves from a less complex world.

The religious often do the opposite: they see that the world seems very complex. The religious then claim that it must have been created by something that is even more complex. Strangely, they are often satisfied with this explanation.

Ultimately there is a reality that just exists - nothing made it. It's just a brute fact with no explanation. For the religious this ultimate reality is an extremely complex God.

Reality is probably infinite in age and always evolving, and our Universe is just one of an infinite number of universes (or at least a huge number) that exist right now or that have ever existed. The huge number of universes (Multiverse) allows there to be some that can evolve life - a huge number of lottery tickets. This is a far more mundane explanation for reality than some miraculous god that we can't explain:

Logical evidence for the Multiverse from 11:10 to 26:40 - ignore the rest:

[madrchsod]

26. the big bang.....

i like reading mythologies