You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

bbleeker comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 14 March 2016 08:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (212)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (212)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: bbleeker 16 March 2016 11:24:28AM 0 points [-]

It makes a lot of sense that the nature of questions regarding the "beginning" of the universe is nonsensical and anthropocentric, but it still feels like a cheap response that misses the crux of the issue. It feels like "science will fill in that gap eventually" and we ought to trust that will be so.

I think that's one question that science probably won't be able to answer. But that's no reason to just make something up! Maybe we can't rule out a 'powerful, intelligent creative entity' – but why would you even think of that? And of course it just shifts the question to the next level, because where would that entity come from?

Comment author: Brillyant 16 March 2016 01:11:12PM *  0 points [-]

Maybe we can't rule out a 'powerful, intelligent creative entity' – but why would you even think of that?

Others have thought of it. I'm asking why I ought to dismiss it. I think we have good reasons to dismiss, for instance, Christianity, because of the positive claims it makes. I don't see the same contradiction with something like deism.

And of course it just shifts the question to the next level, because where would that entity come from?

This isn't a compelling argument to me. Can we rule out an intelligent prime mover with what we know about the universe? If so, what do we call the events that first caused everything to be?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit