Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:49 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:59 pm
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:02 pm
[
Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66"This is all still very theoretical and an unknown, but it really does remove the whole question away from the solution of a god waving a magic wand."
How? By having inert emptiness waving a magic wand?
Not if the emptiness doesn't need one as the potentiality is there and always has been
"I have to remind you that your 'move' to assert that nothing can only act like Something if a Cosmic Mind makes it happen has already been countered, since because you have to explain where such a complex entity came from."
But you don't need anything for a complex universe to come from?
Yes, you need chemical evolution. That is the tendency of simple energy -packet formations to form larger units, thus forming 'stuff' or basic matter.
I repeat that this is hypothetical- theoretial; just a suggestion, but noting experiments that suggest that energy can exist in nothingness. Plus the realisation that particles are pretty much nothingness doing stuff.
And I would ask you to account for the origins of a cosmic mind and why that is more credible than this something from nothing I outlined, and why it would go through an evolutionary process instead of just making what it intended to make all in one go?
"Not if the emptiness doesn't need one as the potentiality is there and always has been"
How is that any different from having emptiness waving a magic wand?
"
I repeat that this is hypothetical- theoretial; just a suggestion, but noting experiments that suggest that energy can exist in nothingness. Plus the realisation that particles are pretty much nothingness doing stuff.
I'm not convinced that such experiments carry much weight since the zero-point field seems to be the lowest level of energy within this puff of smoke we refer to as the Known Universe, which means that we don't actually have any Nothingness to do any experimenting with. "Pretty much" doesn't cut it.
"
And I would ask you to account for the origins of a cosmic mind and why that is more credible than this something from nothing I outlined, and why it would go through an evolutionary process instead of just making what it intended to make all in one go?"
I find it more credible because I believe that a process of elimination leads in that direction. If you hold with the law of conservation, which states in part that energy can't be created, then you
definitely can't get something from nothing.
And I don't feel obligated to speculate on the motives or methods of a cosmic mind. Again, that's epistemology and not cosmology.
Because it is the difference between Schridinger's cat and pulling a rabbit out of a hat. the nothing that is also something is like the cat that is or is not (Indeterminacy is scientifically supported) whereas a complex entity that came from nothing is playing a trick on the audience.
Again, this isn't about the known Universe which does have an origin in the Big Bang. It is the origins of the 'stuff' that the BB event was made from that has to be explained.
A process of elimination leads more credibly (or so I suggest) to a non -created nothing that can become the most basic 'something' that there can be. If you think that doesn't cut it, a complex being with no origin cuts it far less. As to the law of conservation of energy, that's fine on the physical world we live on and work with, but it's a different matter at sub atomic and quantum level, and even more so when talking of (not dismissing out of hand) evidence of a nothing that has innate energy.
"
And I don't feel obligated to speculate on the motives or methods of a cosmic mind. Again, that's epistemology and not cosmology." And that's evasion where there is no explanation, let alone one that would 'cut it'.
Again, this is all very speculative, but it does make 'something from nothing' a hypothesis with far less to explain away than a god without any origin. And it isn't even important as you'd still have to show which god it was before you could validate any particular religion - which is what the debate is Really about.