Third Honk said:
A what!?
Third Honk said:
This is definitely one of the big questions. Physicist Victor J. Stenger has claimed that science has finally solved this conundrum. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with all the details of his claim. I listened to Stenger talk once, and what I understood is that we have evidence that suggests the sum total of energy in our universe is precisely zero. So with the net energy of the universe being zero—or existing in positive and negative parts that add up to exactly nothing—we need only, according to Stenger, posit the existence of quantum fluctuations for a universe to begin. Though the question now becomes what created these quantum fluctuations (which is arguably a less difficult question than what created the universe), Stenger has described the creation event as essentially nothing coming from nothing rather than something coming from nothing.
Third Honk said:
I very much endorse Richard Dawkins' commentary on this topic, not because I am a godless heathen, but because his points are simple, sensible, and contagious. He argues that a supernatural entity (say God in the theist sense) capable of creating a universe this complex and simultaneously observing every action and thought performed by every created being in addition to intervening as seen fit must itself be more complex than its creation. So our postulating a super-intelligent agent to explain the complexity of life and the universe is essentially postulating something even more complex which demands an even greater explanation. And then of course, the mother and father of all explanatory cop outs occurs when we decree God outside of space and time by sheer fiat to avoid explaining His creation event.
This is intellectual treason!
Third Honk said:
I like to think the First Cause concept ties into the information I provided about Victor J. Stenger and the zero-sum concept of the universe.
Third Honk said:
I think the ontological argument is a confusing word game. According to Dawkins, it was first proposed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 and has since been restated in different forms by numerous philosophers. Although this is not exactly what the ontological argument claims, I do not care for the notion that because I can conceive of something, it must therefore exist in the real world.
For now, I'll have to stop here.
:beer:
.
