This post for: Shiva Kumar
I would like to apologize for the length of this post, but I hope to highlight in as simple a way possible my reasoning for arguing against your position.I remove god from the equation of creation by applying a reasoning tool known as Occam's Razor, I'll try to explain 'my version' of this-
[ link to an article on Occam's Razor here - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam's_razor ]
As I see things you would state that the order of creation is thus:
1. there was nothing
2. there is god
3. god creates everything
4. there is everything
At stage 2, a further question arises: How does god become if before there was nothing? (In addition please see infinite regression and infinite existence notes at the end)
This adds an additional unknown prerequisite before we meet state 3.
So this now becomes.
1. there was nothing
2. god came into being by unknown means
3. there is god
4. god creates our existence by unknown means
5. there is everything
This becomes a more complex idea. If we apply Occam's Razor, which seeks to simplify operations on the grounds that a hypothesis with fewer or simpler assumptions is more direct and therefore considered more accurate.
My argument against
I would then undertake the following simplifications:1 there was nothing
I would rephrase this to: 1. there was an as yet unknown state
I believe this to be a more accurate statement based on what we can understand based on facts.
Based on everything we as a species have learned, there is nobody alive, nor has there ever been a verifiable historical source with authoritative knowledge of what 'was' or 'was not' before our existence.
2. there is now something
This is observed fact from an anthropological stance, there is observable existence and it follows that based on such fact;- Existence must have come about by some as yet unknown means.
So, and I hope you are following this example so far...
1. there was previous to known existence, an as yet unknown state.
2. there was presumed to have been an as yet unknown event to bring about our existence.
3. there is now existence.
My example includes only 3 stages of variables, where as the version which would include a god figure would have 5 stages of variables.
Additional argument against
I would further reinforce my argument at this point with a reasoning tool known as Newton's flaming laser sword. This states that anything which cannot be settled by experiment is not worthy of debate.
From deistic creation:
- We can test existence as we know it.
- We cannot test a means by which a god figure could begin to be (or to itself exist).
- We cannot test a means by which a deity might 'create' existence as we know it.
In opposition - by way of anthropological deduction:
- We can test existence as we know it.
- By extension: we can, within this existence find testable facts which pertain to the creation of this existence.
- We do not yet understand how existence came into being.
Once again, the arguments which preclude a deity are simpler, and can by Occam's Razor be thought to be more accurate.
Infinite Regression/Existence
This is another application of Occam's Razor-Where god can be said to have existed outside of our reality (such argument would only further complicates the deistic creation argument) and/or has done so infinitely through all history.
With the same logic (ie that something can exist infinitely) we can posit that existence has been here and/or has been here into infinity of history.
Addendum:
I don't expect that you are willing to simply accept that any of the above should be 'true' however I would ask that you think on what I've written here, there are many resources that you can use to research for yourself.Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.If you have any further questions, or wish to talk further on this, you know where to find me!
