Rob,
There seem to me to be a few assumptions here.
If an entity created this universe, then necessarily that entity would sit outside the realm of our direct experience.
It is like ants hatched in a plastic container.
They are sitting in a closed system.
They cannot know anything of what lies outside that system except by conjecture, (which by definition, is not knowing). The only way they can know what lies outside is if we open the container and break into their realm of experience.
This next part of the analogy is loose and is only used to explain the principle that there may be conditions outside our closed system that do not correlate to anything within it, or if they do are still unknowable.
If that container was suspended in thick, sticky goo, then the ants [experience of] physics would not correlate with that outside of the container where things float. How can they actually know that outside the container, objects are suspended in green goo?
When you postulate that -
It is true that nothing can exist without a physical form. to exist, something must have mass.
Well maybe in our experience, (although I did think that there were things that composed no mass and consisted of spin - but this is probably my ignorance, so please stick boot in here...if I am talking cr.p)
But the point remains that you are making an assumption that nothing can exist without mass outside of our closed physical system. I cannot see how you can possibly know this.
As for your second statement -
Religion states that a sentient being created everything out of nothingness.
You are on much steadier ground here, for instance, Christianity states that a sentient being created this universe out of nothing. It uses the Hebrew word 'bara' which is widely accepted to mean 'creation ex nihilo' in this instance.
You go on to state -
This is not possible; to create something, the being would already have had to be there, therefore contradicting the entire belief of creation since something that doesn't exist can't just appear, fully formed and sentient out of nothing.
Well yes, the sentient being would already have to be there, but the middle part of the statement -
?therefore contradicting the entire belief of creation
I hope you are talking about ?our beliefs about creation? and not saying 'contradicting what the whole of creation believes' - I'm just being facetious
Maybe you mean 'in contradiction to our current sum of knowledge that leads us to believe that...'
Well either way, you are applying principles that are formed within, and apply to a closed (or self contained) physical system.
You state -
something that doesn't exist can't just appear, fully formed and sentient out of nothing.
The Christian faith claims that God just exists. It says that God simply is. There is no reference to time here or any point where God came into existence. It recognises the difficulty of applying temporal terms to God?s existence and just accepts what it believes God says about himself ? ?I am?.
So no claim is being made that something does not exist and then just appears, fully formed and sentient out of nothing.
And again, if such a claim was being made, I repeat - you are applying principles that are formed within, and apply to a closed system.
You go on ?
People can then argue, doesn't that apply for the multiverse as well.
I cannot comment really on this ? I am ignorant of multiple universe theories.
You say ?
The answer is yes, it does, the multiverse also could not have sprung out of nothingness.
Here, you do seem to acknowledge that those of a religious bent and those of a purely scientific persuasion encounter some of the same issues when we think about what it means when our current experience of time doesn?t apply.
You say ?
?but, to believe that the infiniverse was there before life is much more logical because life is a product of the golden laws.
You seem to assume that life is only ever a product of universal laws. Well in our experience it is, but only in our experience of the closed system we sit within.
You say ?
?people then say, who invented these laws. The answer is that these laws could not have been invented because intelligence is a product of the laws.
I see the circular nature of this argument and why you reject the question, but your response is actually framed within another assumption ?
I believe that intelligence can only be a by-product of the laws of this universe.
Yes, within your frame of reference this is true. But only within the framework of what you know and this cannot include what lies outside of the closed physical system within which you live.
I do understand that it is as much of an assumption to say there is anything other than nothingness outside of this universe/multiverse, but it is enough to counter the claim that the way you state things is the only possible way it can be.
Regards,
Blacknad.
