Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Call  To finish, is a randomness so "highly improbable"? Given my deductions it is the only (and therefore simplest and most possible) "action" that can happen
Conclusions: 1. A consciousness was randomly created and randomly created the universe. or 2. Randomness created a flix flax flux (interesting note: flax is a synonym for "luck" in Sweden, hehe  ) and Big Bang was initiated.
If someone have an alternative to these conclusions or see a fault in the premises and arguments then please tell me so. Otherwise we should be able to agree that either of these should have happened, no? (without bringing in the Astral World, please) |
First of all I'm never dissed the big bang hypothesis and I disagree with people who reject it out of hand. Anyway, randomness is coincidence. The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe. Saying that "it just happened" takes a leap of faith.
The biggest problem with the "it just happened" hypothesis is that it conflicts with the law of conservation of energy. If you can provide me with any evidence that energy can just appear magically out of 'nowhere" then I'll grant your theory a little more weight. The concept of a creator as something non-physical and outside the realm of cause and effect seems more likely.
I'm also not claiming "god just did it" obviously there are mysteries out there that we are not able to solve at present but there is no reason to think that god (or consciousness or whatever you idea of god) works by magic. For example a forth-dimensional object might appear to do magic things when interacting with a third-dimension but it isn't magic. I believe gods methods are similar.
Concerning your problem of "who created god" argument. The first cause, that of creation (the big bang scientists believe) probably didn't happen by itself. If it didn't just cause itself then the "first cause" emerged outside of space-time as we know it. Only within the context of space and time does "who created god" sound like a good argument. It just isn't.
I also do not concede that consciousness (or gods consciousness) needs to be "explained" implying a physical object. We don't know what consciousness is so concluding that I need to somehow show you a mechanism by which god works is illogical.
Next you assume consciousness needs a brain. Why? There is no evidence backing that up. I on the other hand have evidence for consciousness being separate from body. That is the phenomenon of NDEs, ESP, PK, spontaneous remembrance of past lives in children etc. but I'll just quickly go over NDEs, which haven't been explained (as of yet) by physical means. As i mentioned in another post, some of NDEs occur when there is no detectable brain-functioning, casting doubt that the brain created the experience (in some cases like Pam Reynolds it was impossible). (Some NDEs also have verifiable features, although it they are contested by some and I don't want to go over all the arguments but it is worth noting). Anyhow, your conclusion is irrational ie that mind needs brain. You don't have enough evidence to make such a broad assumption.
To answer you question: yes randomness seems very improbable, your argument for such a conclusion is based on nothing but your distaste for the possible (and more likely) existence of designer (whatever the designer might be exactly). Nothing warrants your end conclusions.