Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Similarly, there is a wealth of scientific data indicating that the conditions in the early universe did not support sentience, and that sentience does not provide any ability to violate the conservation of energy or any other natural laws.Materialists assert that sentience is simply a question of complexity. We are also talking about the situation before the natural laws of this particular universe were established. If the universe emerged from nothing, then exceptions to the conservation of energy would have to be made regardless of a theistic or atheistic outlook.Similarly, the preponderance of the existing data for sentience suggests that it requires an old universe to exist at all. To assume the existence of sentience that existed otherwise would require a number of unlikely assumptions about the incorrectness of sentience requiring complex arrangements of mass and energy resulting from long periods of matter interacting via natural laws.The question is whether these assumptions are substantially more than required for a universe to spontaneously emerge from nothing.But based on what we DO know about sentience and how it works (machine guns and how they come to be), the idea that one just existed without evolving in an old universe (being built by living designers with knowledge of gunpowder, metallurgy, etc.) is laughable.As opposed to colliding "branes" producing multiverses? Is the notion of a near infinite number of parallel universes substantially more acceptable to Occam's razor than an intelligent designer?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |