What exactly are the characteristics of a "creating being"?
If we are rejecting a deity, what are we rejecting? Let’s posit a creating being, based on what we think modern science “knows”. Then let's see if it is an irrational construct.
As a preliminary, it would be a mistake to apply any human characteristics to that entity which, we postulate, created the universe. Humans are material, finite, and are part of that universe which was created. The creating being must be thought of in very different terms.
First, a creating being need not be thought to exist within the constraints of space/time or mass/energy, these material parameters having been created at the Big Bang, and being constraints on the universe itself.
So having created the physical dimensions, there is no need to think that the original creator of these dimensions needs these material dimensions in order to exist. In fact it is not necessary to think that such a being requires any dimensions at all such as we think of them.
A creating being without dimensions could have inconceivable power and yet not have mass, energy.
Being restricted to no dimensions, a creating being might well cohabit the dimensions to which we are restricted, yet be undetected by the material beings resident there.
A creating being could quite likely have the ability to perceive its creation, yet not need light to see or sound to hear or mass to touch and feel. So its apprehension abilities would be unlimited by the material dimensions that limit our sense-apprehension abilities.
It would be intelligent as witnessed by the orderly, rational laws of its creation, but it would not be sequential in its intellectual processing since it doesn’t need time.
There is reason to think it possible that the Big Bang was caused by the collapse of a quantum type of equation or relationship, similar to the collapse of the Schroedinger equation or relationship when a quantum observation is made. This leads to two more possibilities; first that quantum realities we observe are a view into a different reality, and second that a sentient being was involved in the first equation collapse.
Are there material reasons to reject these postulates? Are there logical reasons such as internal non-coherence or paradox to reject these postulates? Is it irrational to accept these postulates as possible?
These characteristics of a creating being violate no rules of material reality. Nor do they self-reference, or self-contradict.
It is not reasonable, however, to reject these postulates based on any of the following frequently mentioned "reasons" for disbelief:
(1) Material evidence of all this is absolutely required, else it is declared absurd and impossible.
(2) The creating being must show itself to me, else it is declared absurd and impossible.
(3) The creating being is worshipped in ways that annoy me, by people that annoy me, so it is declared absurd and impossible.
(4) Material existence is beautiful and is enough to satisfy me, so the creating being is declared absurd and impossible.
(5) The creating being is evil according to my personal ethic, so the creating being is declared absurd and impossible.
(6) What created the creating being? Since I can’t answer this and neither can any other material being, the creating being is declared absurd and impossible.
(7) I don’t believe in faeries, unicorns, an orbiting teapot, or a flying spaghetti machine; so the creating being is declared absurd and impossible.
(8) I believe in evolution; therefore, a creating being is declared absurd and impossible.
None of these "reasons" for disbelief address the actual characteristics of the postulated creating being, nor do they address any probabilities of the existence of such a creating being.
It is not necessary to exhibit proof positive for a postulate in order to see its possibility and probability, especially for an entity that does not exist within our physical/material limitations. So disbelief in the face of the science-based postulates is seen to be based on a predisposed personal desire not to believe, not on objective, rational consideration.
2 comments:
"This leads to two more possibilities; first that quantum realities we observe are a view into a different reality, and second that a sentient being was involved in the first equation collapse."
Incorrect; there is no need for an observer to collapse the wave function. And, of course, the "quantum realities we observe" are precisely our reality, and not any other. I have no reason to even believe there is any "other" reality (the concepts of Multiverse do not imply it).
Your comment goes directly counter to published quantum theory; if you have a reference that states otherwise, please publish it here.
As for your reality, maybe you do create your own; the rest of us share a common reality, that which was created at the Big Bang.
Post a Comment