PostHeaderIcon A Possible Means Of Creation

Many people earnestly believe that our universe (multiverse?) and all within it were the result of a conscious act by an intelligent being. I propose to describe, in this article, a possible method whereby that might really have happened, devoid of any and all acts by that dynamic duo Hocus and Pocus.

I begin with a fact that is self-evidently true… if there was/is a creator, that creator pre-existed that which it created – in this case, the present universe which we inhabit. That being true, it must be equally true that the creator of this universe is not OF this universe, therefore any attempt to “know” anything about said creator is doomed to failure. This is because all our ability to “know” or to “describe” anything is based on the known laws of this universe, leaving us helpless to “know” or “describe” anything outside this universe where whatever laws may exist are unknown to us.

Having established that basis, let us try to agree that there are two primary methods by which this universe might have been created. The first, which I will label the “Zap! – Zam! – Viola! method which, of course would depend on magic (the “creator” having magically “created” everything in this universe via supernatural methodology). Since it is impossible to have a rational discussion on any subject that necessarily includes superstition, the supernatural or mysticism, I reject this method.

The second likely method by which this universe might have been created I will label “Law Based Creation”. Using this method, our creator would establish a body of laws (or immutable rules if you prefer) by which the proposed universe is to operate, create some manner of “spark” (e. g. a “big bang”) to start the process, then sit back an watch the universe unfold.

I propose that, if this universe was indeed “created”, this second method is the one the creator used to create this universe and I further propose that it is still actively pursuing said creation.

Now, while the created universe is based on immutable physical laws, it is not without some chaos. At the point of initiation, that chaos would have been universal, while seeming to subside as the “laws” tend to replace chaos with order. (By way of illustration, imagine, if you will, a purely human condition where, despite a set of well thought out traffic “laws”, we humans still manage to collide with each other on a regular basis.) Indeed, I imagine that the residual chaos in this universe is such that, if this universe exists long enough, everything that CAN happen WILL happen.

As we can well see around ourselves, at some point in the chaotic unfolding of this universe, a combination of electro-chemical events combined to create life. Whether this happened only once or whether it happens with some frequency is an aspect of this universe that we are, as yet, unable to determine. (Dave, by “life” I mean the origin of creatures able to recreate themselves and also able to die – that is, cease to be alive.)

One attribute of the “life” that originated in this universe is an unquenchable desire to collectively continue its existence. That is, even though individual instances of life invariably die, the life force itself continues through other instances that survive long enough to replicate themselves.

It further follows that, in their desire to collectively survive, certain individual instances of life refine or adapt themselves to their immediate environments in order to enhance their collective survival rate. We call this process “evolution” and, I propose that through the evolutionary process, the original singular life form has evolved itself into all the myriad life forms that exist today and that have ever existed within the current existence to this universe.

Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, at least one of these myriad life forms has evolved the ability of self-perception as well as the ability to, to some extent, manipulate its environment.

Which brings us to the present state of this universe and to the end of this article.

Please comment, refute and otherwise contribute to the conversation.

Troy L Robinson

6 Responses to “A Possible Means Of Creation”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    First, to clear the air, please remember the nature of my skeptical, contrarian, ‘mismatcher’ mind, which I have often mentioned. When asked to consider an idea, it deems points of agreement so obvious as to be unremarkable. It assumes instead that it is being asked to find the hidden flaws, and gleefully reports such findings as sport. These reports can be considered helpful, or irritating – reader’s choice – but they are delivered honestly, with the general intent of being useful, interesting, or at least entertaining. 🙂

    Now, without getting into the infinite regression regarding what created the creator, for the purposes of your discussion I will assume that there was one. Yet, I am unclear how your second case is any less hocus-pocus than the first. The power you have ascribed to it is still magic. All that really changed was the timescale.

    Even Genesis described a busy week, and modern theists, faced with some pretty compelling science and geological data, often argue for a biblical interpretation that turns ‘days’ into eons. Then, as I read it, creating man was an afterthought for the project, which the creator frequently regretted and threw violent tantrums over. 🙂

    In any case, whatever the timescale required, why would the Universe require intelligent, intentional, or purposeful design? Even if there were an entity of some sort outside our universe that created it, it is entirely possible that it did so by sheer accident, and – if it still exists – remains completely unaware of our puny insignificant existence.

    Allow me to wield Occam’s trusty razor, to eliminate the need for your creator to “establish a body of laws…” What if they already existed and were the universal ‘laws of nature,’ in the larger realm of infinite universes inhabited by our creator, outside our own?

    When I first heard the suggestion of considering the curvature of space-time in our Universe as a bubble, the image of a bubble bath representing infinite, undetectable, nearby, and autonomous universes came to mind. Now, think of a toddler splashing around in it, gleefully destroying some while creating others, without the slightest intention or understanding of what might be happening inside any one bubble. 🙂

    To add another childhood memory, when the structure of an atom was first taught to me in grade school, the similarity to our solar system was inescapable. I actually wondered if there might be tiny people living on the electrons orbiting the nuclei. Such speculation seemed at least plausible to my young mind; but since we barely had microscopes capable of detecting single atoms, the hypothesis was untestable. 🙂

    What if sheer size, and finite limits of sensory perception, prevented this simple, naïve, creator in the bubble bath, from ever detecting our eventual spontaneous existence, much less care a whit about the affairs of men? And, yes, the bubble appears to still be expanding, whether this innocent creator is bothering to monitor the process or not. Whether this should be considered as an ongoing process of creation, or simply a stage in the life-cycle of a universe, is another, perhaps debatable, question. 😉 ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      First, please understand that I do not support such a tale — I was just trying to be generous of imagination and allow that a creation MIGHT have been possible.

      The power you have ascribed to it is still magic.

      Not necessarily. I allow the possibility that I simply do not know the where and how. BTW, I have another article to post later that truly expressed my attitude about the whole thing.

      Even Genesis described a busy week

      I suggested no time frame nor did I quote any book, real or imagined. My implication was, the laws were established, a spark set off an explosion then the universe proceeded to create itself per the laws and the interaction of the detritus from the explosion.

      Also, I did not suggest a creator that gave one iota about the things created.

      What if they already existed and were the universal ‘laws of nature,

      They had to come from somewhere. Or, is it more magic?

      Also, I did not imply that the creator gave one iota about the things created.

      My actual suspicion is that the “the bang” followed by an equally “big collapse” is nothing more or less than the rhythm (heartbeat?) of an infinite universe that had neither beginning or end.


      • ◄Dave► says:

        Come on, Troy, lighten up and stop being so defensive. In your first paragraph, you made clear it was just a proposal of a ‘possible’ method. I took it as clearly only an interesting thought experiment – a refutable hypotheses – not your belief. I took your last paragraph as an open invitation to participate, and relished the opportunity.

        I suggested no time frame…

        Actually you did, or at least the impression I got was that the first method (“ZAP!…) was more or less instantaneous, while the second method entailed billions of years to unfold and is still in process.

        In our culture, the vast majority of the people you mention in your first paragraph, come by their earnest belief in creation, from their acceptance of the story in the Book of Genesis as fact. They very much believe that their anthropomorphic creator takes a great interest in the affairs of mankind. We can ignore those details in this discussion if you wish, it is your thought experiment; but if they were untrue, we probably wouldn’t be hypothesizing alternative methods of creation. For my own part, any effort I might expend on such endeavors, would have at least a subtle intent of undermining thoughtless belief in the Genesis narrative. 😉

        They had to come from somewhere. Or, is it more magic?

        Of course it is magic, in the sense of Clark’s Third Law. Until we somehow advance to the point of understanding the process, it will remain magic. Then, as you suggest, there is no way we could ever know anything outside of our Universe, so we are deliberately playing with magic. 🙂

        Where did they come from? The same place your second creator did, or my bathing one. I agreed to avoid the infinite regression issue; but whatever created our creators would have most likely created the immutable laws of nature, too. The speculation in the realm of physics that other universes might have different rules, is just that – speculation. We have agreed that we will never know, because anything outside our own Universe is unknowable to us. To me, the notion that our (known) laws of physics are universal throughout existence, is at least as plausible as not.

        My actual suspicion is that the “the bang” followed by an equally “big collapse” is nothing more or less than the rhythm (heartbeat?) of an infinite universe that had neither beginning or end.

        Oh my! That is starting to sound like New Age woo-woo to me. One could establish a new religion, or at least a popular cult with that notion. Do you want to be its revered prophet? It might be a lucrative gig in retirement, and help keep your mind off mundane nonsense like politics. 🙂 ◄Dave►

        • Troy says:

          Come on, Troy, lighten up and stop being so defensive.

          You can’t be serious! If I got any lighter, I would float away. If you EVER find real evidence that I have taken myself seriously, please call J9 and instruct her to shoot me without delay.


  • Troy says:

    Dave, I am disappointed that you did not call me out on a point that I thought obvious. The so-called “proposed method” I described was actually a fanciful description of the Deist belief system.

    As for a time frame, I reject the instantaneous method in favor of one that I thought rather open ended time wise.

    Do you want to be its revered prophet?

    No way. there may be some profit in being a prophet but they too often come to an untidy end for my taste.

    Thanks for correcting my typos.


    • ◄Dave► says:

      I am disappointed that you did not call me out on a point that I thought obvious. The so-called “proposed method” I described was actually a fanciful description of the Deist belief system.

      I warned you that my mind often regards the obvious as unremarkable. You might notice that my reference to our hypothetical creator as unconcerned “about the affairs of men,” was straight out of the Deist language of our Founders. 😉

      Passing on the profitable prophet position is probably prudent. 🙂 ◄Dave►

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►