Proof of a Sentient Creator

Proof that a sentient being created the Universe.

#86 - Most Discussed (This Week) - Education
#66 - Most Discussed (This Week) - Education

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Universe
• creation
• evolution
• chance
• random
• sentience
• cosmology
• astrology
• God
• theism
• deism
• pantheism
• christianity
• islam
• judaism

[RuskePerson]

There is 1:1024 chance for ANY predicted series of ten coin tosses. 9 tails and a heads, 1:1024 probability. 4 tails and 6 heads, 1:1024 probability. I hate it when people misinterpret statistics so badly like this.

[doesgodnotexist]

@RuskePerson I don't see how that's a problem. It looks like you're playing with semantics. Yes, the aforementioned chance is present for any series of ten coin tosses. My video dealt exclusively with the 9 to 1 odds for obvious reasons, and that's why I only brought that one up. If THAT little detail inhibited you from seeing the entire point of the video, I sincerely, deeply apologize.

[AlexR4444]

Let's all have a slanging match!

I don't really think this is a 'logical' argument for a sentient being - it just seems to state that stuff is improbable, therefore anything that happens in spite of its improbability, especially something like the beginning of the universe, must have a sentient being working behind it.

[doesgodnotexist]

But WHAT caused the seed to move? We're talking about the origins of the Universe, because Planch's Epoch prevents us from seeing back any further, into a non-relative realm that would, by definition, be dubbed as SUPERNATURAL. I'm not saying it's unlikely the seed landed in the CORRECT hole in such a solitary state - I'm saying it COULDN'T HAVE. Chance is not an active force. It did not move the seed. So WHAT did (at the specific juncture we're presently discussing)?

[Purushadasa]

"Where did sentience come from?" is not a "problem:"

If we discovered a mysterious pile of machinery that included clocks and computer boards on the dark side of the moon, it is more reasonable to conclude that some sentience produced it rather than "chance."

The question "Where did the sentience come from" does not change the fact that sentience is a better explanation than chance.

In addition, if it was chance, then the same question could be asked: "Where did "chance" come from?"

[rchammer90]

this is so boring

[aarongregpon]

It takes 4 laws of physics for life to exist and as far as we know they did not exist before the big bang. So tell me how can a "God" exist to create the universe.

[DecepticonLeader]

"Everything is either guided, or it is not"

Indeed, the coin/seed is guided by the hand and it's movements like you said. The moment it's released from the hand is also when the hand decided where the seed would go. Chance isn't actually chance as it is guided by our actions, however this is not something we are directly aware of. Chance isn't actually chaos, but rather an infinitely more complex form of order. We have the power to choose, but not the ability to comprehend the choice.

[therecanbeonlywon]

If there was a big pile of seeds next to the field and a big gust of wind blew over it and across the field, you would find a number of seeds had filled hole x.

[KoanPhilosopher]

Second to my earlier post, there are an infinite number of ways in which the laws of physics could be arranged to allow for life. An infinite number of arrangements permitting.

Why did the sentience choose this particualr one? If there are an infinity of designs for a universe with life, why this particular arrangement?

One thing that is clear, is that no matter how many higher levels one adds to cosmic reality, there is always the question of where somethign came from.

[KoanPhilosopher]

The problem you highlight - if I am correct - is that if the original cause of the universe was non-sentient, we have no reason to believe that the laws of physics should be a certain way. The requirement of life is obviously incredibly specific. The sentience argument however faces problems. First, where did the sentience come from? An infinite series cannot explain itself - it does not complete causation. It also violates the principle of parsimony.