You protest that the concept "beginning" is restricting because it's only a human construct - but aren't all things conceivable to us, including a universe without a beginning also human constructs? OK, KJ - let's say the coin analogy unintentionally let in a 3rd option which you have identified as the Universe as having always been. You've succeeded in working God in there in a pretty clever way but... The original proposition was that given an either/or situation - the Universe having originated either by divine will or by natural law. A universe that had a beginning could not have been brought into being by way of natural law given that the natural law system, being an inseparable component of the Universe couldn't predate the Universe except, perhaps by way of existing in the mind of a lawmaker ( a divinity ). This would leave us with only the divine option. I was hoping somebody would address this proposition as it was presented but it seems that the coin analogy sabotaged my intentions. So let's deal with your rim equivalent - the Universe as having always existed and whose existence is/was not dependent on a divinity. Actually, it's an excellent option and a pretty good subject for investigation. 1) A purely natural Universe that is infinitely old and has the power to bring into being all things that exist fits the criteria for a divine entity except that it needn't have a consciousness in order to bring things into being because it happens that part of its natural system is the process we call evolution. But there's a fly in this ointment called consciousness. If the almost god-like Universe has no consciousness how can it generate consciousness given that consciousness is different in essence, as well as in function, from anything available in such a Universe prior to the appearance of consciousness? Consciousness would have to exist prior to the appearance of anything generated by the Universe that has consciousness. By its very nature consciousness must be associated with a discrete entity and the only entity that could be conscious prior to the appearance of discrete products of the Universe that have consciousness would be the Universe itself. The Universe itself, then, besides being eternal and having the power to generate all things, would be a conscious entity and so would fulfill all the criteria of a divinity. If you're able to parse all this into absurdity I've got another one for you: a universe that's always been can't be a natural universe because the always-been scenario contradicts natural law.
I'm sure my analogy is not a particularly good one - at least insofar as it failed to confine the discussion to a 2-option scenario as I had intended. So... what sort of combinations and permutations might you[i/] suggest lurk in terra incognito? If the Universe was not either brought into being by a divinity or by natural law then how might it have come to be?
Cosmologists are always discrediting each others' theories. The Hindus are probably closer to the truth than are the scientists even if their numbers are out a little. An oscillating Universe works but only if it exactly repeats itself.
You are waking up. The maker of this world is indeed a crackpot who enjoys conflict among his minions. Conflict insures the longevity of time, and hence the longevity of it's maker. The Adam and Eve story masks the fact that the crackpot is unable to make anything that actually lives. It shifts "blame" to it's creation, once again, insuring it's own longevity. It's insane. But it is an expression of freedom for the sake of experience. This crazy world was asked for, and it has been delivered. It's possible to see it as the "gift" that it is from a larger perspective. But about now, it's time to return the green tie to the store it came from and get a refund. Jesus
This consciousness proposition is the central dogma of intelligent design, i.e., the premise that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents reverse entropy in all circumstances. However, in a published scientific paper, "Evolution of Biological Information," Dr. Thomas Schneider, PH.D., proved mathematically that a random array of genetic material can become more ordered, by imposing conditions of mutation and selection. Mutation and selection causing information gain does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because because the organism which becomes more ordered is subject to an external energy source: background radiation which strikes the genetic material and causes the mutations. If information, in this case, genetic information, can become more ordered, then there the only obstacle to the development of consciousness (consciousness defined as a highly ordered state of being) -- is time. And, if the universe is forever, then there is sufficient time for a biological consciousness to evolve. I present the above scenario, not because I can prove it has happened, but only to demonstrate that iit is scientifically possible.
Aha! Interesting. Very interesting. You allow for the coexistence of a possible god and evolution - not only evolution but a failed evolution - the embedded supposition being that this evolution would be purposeful, i.e. part of some grand design! From this I deduce that you are potentially a supporter of cosmological ID. All we need do now is to move you from possible god to probable god to capital 'G' God.
My experience is that if you even mention Big Bang or the name of any old earth evolutionists, they become very angry. But of course I believe what you're saying!
Hey, that's all you need do here, KJ - demonstrate that whatever scenario you're presenting is.. well, I wouldn't ask that it be restricted to being 'scientifically possible'; if it's at all logically possible or even logically intriguing that's certainly enough for me. I have a problem with the definition of consciousness you're using though. Just got a phone call. Gotta go. Will pick up on this later.
You lost me here. The universe has had a very short life (relatively speaking). What did you mean here?