Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Ex nihilo is the argument that something was created out of nothing.

I wonder if the universe was never created at all, or if the universe created itself (which links in with pantheism which may argue that 'God is the universe'). By never created at all, it doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist, but rather is an automatic manifestation, from a logical world.

Mathematically this could maybe work by re-imagining the concept of zero. Instead of nothing, it is instead two 'polarities'; +∞ and -∞ (but probably here you have to alter the meaning of infinity here to mean 'everything' as ∞-∞ is not necessarily 0), which together are zero, and always have been zero. This could explain why in physics charged atoms/molecules (known as ions) eventually decay until they have stable polarities.

All matter in the universe could also be a combination of polarities.

There is a fundamental problem with this thinking though; logic must have some kind of existence/form (a machine wouldn't work without its engine). There are questions about metaphysical nature of logic itself, which is confusing to talk about because we feel we are already part of a logical world in which we can come up with mathematics/logical axioms.

Additionally this argument doesn't address the dilemma of consciousness; why is it we project consciousness from ourselves and not everyone at the same time (or from no one)? Could there be an intelligent being which chooses who we are born as? If you had a clone who was physically the same as you, would you experience their consciousness too? Perhaps it depends on relative time; according to relativity we may all experience time at a slightly different rate due to factors like our relative velocity (maybe? I'm not qualified enough in physics to answer this.).

There is also the fact (from what has been tested from science so far) that the speed of light is a constant (3x10^8 m/s), which may raise an argument of whether it is a remnant of intelligent design.

This universe could also be one of many universes, not the 'highest' (if one exists), like the popular simulation idea.

Thoughts?

Well if there a creator, who/what created the  creator? To me a creator explains nothing. I think there is an emotional need to have a creator for many. I think of looking at a field of grass or a forest  and everything is so specifically placed. Some are tall, others short, the spacing, it is tempting to think it was designed by something to be just so. No not really. I am who I am because of a very specific set of circumstances. If my parent had had a headache the night I was conceived I might not have happened at all. I could have very easily been born genetically  female had a different sperm fertilized the egg. No, I am not designed or destined to be. Don't buy it. If someone does though, I'm fine with it.
Moni

To fully understand the origin of the (a?) universe requires going beyond where current science can take us.  There are a few different ideas involving multiple universes that come and go.  For example, some consider a black hole in our universe to be a big bang in another.  There's another theory where universes are like bubbles in a foam, that independently form, grow and collapse.  There are also some theories that depend on quantum physics.  Please note that not currently understanding does not imply a creator.  As mentioned above, if you have a creator than something (someone?) else must have created the creator.  If this creator has supposedly always existed, then it much more likely that the universe or some trigger mechanism has always existed.  To claim the universe was created by some supernatural being is to yield to deliberate ignorance.

The bottom line is we don't currently know and may never know, but to attribute it to a "god" is nonsense.

My stance is simple on this. For there to be nothing, you have to have something. Lack of existence, predicates existence.

I could mangle some Kant as a roundabout explanation, but I prefer to leave it simple. ;D

Quote
The bottom line is we don't currently know and may never know, but to attribute it to a "god" is nonsense.

But many of the greatest philosophers and critical thinkers in history, in fact many of the people who defined the very logic and reasoning modern agnostic and atheist philosophy is based on, found justification for belief in god--that was not just a product of culture at the times (they would dismantle everything, and build it back from scratch). The teleological argument is a perfect example of this. Of course if you mean explicitly something such as the anthropomorphized view of the Christian God and related dogma, that is a different matter entirely (in which arguments for are entirely a matter of faith regardless), but that requires a semantic distinction versus "a god" in general. Even more, many great minds in the truest sense have expressed beliefs that line up neatly with definitions of a god, even if they do not ascribe to any dogmatic beliefs.

Perhaps some of the greatest work into the nature and reality of existence was Descartes, all cliches aside, and he was quite devout in even a dogmatic sense. While Descartes's faith does not in the least define or influence my own, I believe it would be a mistake to dismiss his belief as nonsense simply by the strength of everything else he has done. (Basically, he's got some cred. ;D)

Quotefound justification for belief in god--that was not just a product of culture at the times

Well, you'd better get busy explaining the existence of this god.  If you can't do that then claiming this god created the universe gets you nowhere.

Out of the current theroys im swayied by the mutiverse theroy and the consept of higher dimentions, the universe could have been started in a higher dimention but all we see is the ripple. I do like the simulation theroy that we are basically ai's and fits in nicely with the probible likeyhood that its far more likely than we happen to benthe 1st evolved life around our area of space.

Its all very interesting atm imo

The best answer, based on current science, is I don't know what, if anything, pre-existed the known universe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: AnneK on February 10, 2018, 04:46:26 PM
Well, you'd better get busy explaining the existence of this god.  If you can't do that then claiming this god created the universe gets you nowhere.

I have no need to explain the existence of god, because I did not assert any such thing.  :-X That is not the same as not dismissing it as nonsense however.

Though 100% purely for fun, I will give it a shot nonetheless! I would start with a similar concept to my belief on existence. What we would call a god (not necessarily/most likely not/almost certainly not an anthropomorphic god) existed because something had to exist. (And logically, the simplest assumption is always preferred. The inherent existence of a singular entity is a simpler assumption than the inherent existence of a complex multi dimensional universe no matter what you call it. See: any teleological argument. So this is actually more in keeping with any standard of rational logic.) Said entity becomes the original mover, regardless of intent or purpose. Again, this was purely a lark, not a legitimate argument I'm going to waste time defending.

I mentioned not mangling Kant before, and I'll also avoid mangling Hume here. I will say though, I believe his (brilliant) treatise on cause and effect can be applied quite liberally to pretty much everything, and it is a fallacy to dismiss something such as the general concept of a god-like entity (again, non-anthropomorphic being a key distinction here) because many of the supposed flaws in logic also exist at some point in science (seriously, we don't actually know how 99% of medicines even do what they do, we just list observed effects). Of course that is not the same as saying you shouldn't roll your eyes when someone tells you an angel spoke to them through a piece of toast or that they found a new book of the bible out in the woods. (Or that millions of alien ghosts slain by an ancient space warlord flew into a volcano and now form human souls, and weigh precisely 1.5 ounces.)

I remember George Carlin had a bit where he referred to a god and dismissed him using the imagery of a sky wizard. That is a supremely narrow minded view of the potential of what we would call a god, and falls prey to the very same ignorance ingrained in the limited view of the nature of god within some religions. One is simply a negative reflection of the other, even though there exists a vast array of concepts of god that are not addressed by that view (the anthropomorphic sky wizard) from either direction. In general though, these other views are far, far more difficult to find logical fault with (at least no more than anything), so it is inconvenient to acknowledge them and easier instead to just make fun of people who go treasure hunting for noah's ark.

Anywho, don't want to go down a deeper rabbit hole on this. I've got school work to do! ;D

Astronomers have collected many images of galaxies being created and destroyed all the time. Einstein showed the world that Energy and Mass are interchangeable. What is there to question?

I get a Big Bang out of answering questions like this.  ::)

Quote from: Roll on February 10, 2018, 02:34:56 PMLack of existence, predicates existence.

          Quite! We have Western Cultural Tradition buffs here too? About the most accurate thing Fritjof Capra said, in his epilogue to "The Tao of Physics", is Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science, but man needs both. . . .

          My fav theoretical "explainist" is Francis Bacon who anticipated our modern quantum particle view (Einstein relativity) by about 500 years!  From Idols Which Beset Man's Mind:

          "For man's sense is falsely asserted" (by Progagoras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras)' "Man is the measure of all things") "to be the standard of things: on the contrary, all the perceptions, both of the senses and the mind, bear reference to man and not to the universe; and the human mind resembles those uneven mirrors which impart their own properties to different objects . . . and distort and disfigure them" _{Novum Organum,i,41}. . . . "the human understanding, from its peculiar nature, easily supposes a greater degree of order and regularity in things than (it) really (finds) exists . . . Hence the fiction" _Ibid,i,45

           Is it mere coincidence human kind stands precipitously on a razor's edge between the infinitely small and infinitely large? We are nothing more than a highly organized PRODUCT of a universe we were otherwise specifically evolved, designed and constructed (created?) to, put most simply, better "perceive" for basic survival?

          The construct of 'gender" the 1st real division of labor? The dislike of "homosexuality" in The Bible due solely to lack of "sowing seed", furthering procreation? Lord knows we 'ave the reverse problem today! (too many people)

In my opinion the importance of believing in a creator is about having faith in the absence of proof; faith is important since it brings hope, hope of limitless possibilities, and that bad times are only temporary.  Personally, I don't believe that God cares whether we believe in their existence or not; I mean they are an omnipotent being, and probably not crippled with some of our less flattering traits such as jealousy and ego. Anyway, it's interesting to ponder the why's and what if's; it kind of gives me a headache though when I start to think of how this whole shebang got started.

In Buddhist cosmology, there was no beginning.  The universe has always existed, therefore it never needed to be created.

There is no conflict of this with modern science.  Although science has no knowledge of anything before the "Big Bang", it does not assert that there was nothing.  One possibility that most scientists consider plausible (though currently unsupported by evidence) is that the Big Bang was just a rebound after a preceeding "Big Crunch".  This is consistent with the Buddhist view that the universe is cyclic.

With no need for a beginning, there is no need for a creator.

The problem with the big crunch idea is that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate.  A big crunch requires that it expand at a decreasing rate, eventually reaching a maximum point and then start contracting.  Of course, you have to consider dark matter and dark energy in this too, neither of which we know anything about.

The origin of the universe may always be unknowable, but that does not imply a creator, only a lack of knowledge.

QuoteI mean they are an omnipotent being, and probably not crippled with some of our less flattering traits such as jealousy and ego.

Or is this god just a figment of someone's imagination?  It's certainly not a figment of mine.

QuoteWith no need for a beginning, there is no need for a creator.

One other thing, a "beginning" is a function of linear time, which we appear to experience in everyday life.  However, Einstein showed that time is not linear, but affected by gravity.  So, to understand whether there was a beginning, we have to fully understand time.  Of course we also have to add in the weirdness of quantum mechanics to really have some fun with this.   ;)

Quote from: AnneK on February 11, 2018, 02:15:28 PM
Or is this god just a figment of someone's imagination?  It's certainly not a figment of mine.

I can't picture anyone enjoying the movie Van Wilder, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. ;D

Quote from: AnneK on February 11, 2018, 02:20:59 PM
One other thing, a "beginning" is a function of linear time, which we appear to experience in everyday life.  However, Einstein showed that time is not linear, but affected by gravity.  So, to understand whether there was a beginning, we have to fully understand time.  Of course we also have to add in the weirdness of quantum mechanics to really have some fun with this.   ;)

But Einstein's discovery shows one thing more than anything else: Humanity's perception of reality is flawed. We are tiny, insignificant beings in the scheme of things. By the nature of that incomplete perspective how can we possibly discount that what we would, by any reasonable standard, consider to be a god does not exist? (Though again, I speak of a non-anthropomorphic "god like entity", much as Einstein often did.) M

QuoteHow can we possibly say that we would consider a god does no exist?

It's easy.  I have often said I have no use for any such god and view religion as deliberate ignorance to explain the world/universe with fairy tales.  Religion came about at a time when there was no such thing a science and everything had a spirit etc.  There's no need to continue with it, when science and knowledge can show so much.

The problem with faith is that it requires one to believe things in the total absence of any evidence.  This leads to incredulity towards things that actually do have evidence and in turn leads to an extremely ignorant society such as we see in the USA and in the Middle East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: AnneK on February 11, 2018, 02:57:01 PM
It's easy.  I have often said I have no use for any such god and view religion as deliberate ignorance to explain the world/universe with fairy tales.  Religion came about at a time when there was no such thing a science and everything had a spirit etc.  There's no need to continue with it, when science and knowledge can show so much.

But why is your faith in scientific knowledge so absolute? We have not even scratched the surface of the surface's surface of existence, and 99% of what we do is guess work and assumptions based on observation. (Hume, who was an atheist in a time of devotion by the way, said that far better than I ever could, and I highly recommend his stuff on causation.) Even something as simple as table salt has undergone dramatic shifts in the view towards it in science over the course of the past few decades. Science on a regular basis is used to empirically assert many terrible, monstrous things. We make inferences and guesses, dressed in a sufficient technical jargon filled peer reviewed paper to make it seem valid to laymen. (Not to mention, it is often for profit. And I'm not talking about corporate scientists, everyone needs to get that grant money. How is that different from televangelists lining their pockets claiming salvation?)

Not sure if this particular video is any good, but seemed to hit the high points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJW0uJQn-48

While Hume was a skeptic of his day, and focused primarily on questioning zealotry and assumptions of many philosophers of the day (who, remember, were the scientists of the time), the important points are issues with causation and the flaws in inductive reasoning. I hold though that he did not take it far enough, at least in a modern day context, and as we have delved deeper into science that we don't truly understand the issue becomes less of day to day assumptions and more a fundamental flaw in the absolute belief in the scientific industry (make no mistake, it is an industry).

We assume B -> C, but what if the unobserved A -> B, C? Well, okay, slight adjustment. Except.. then what if it was really D -> B and A -> C and we never observed D or A, suddenly B -> has moved from a causal relationship to a potentially haphazard correlation. That is a very important distinction. Which is then an endless rabbit hole, because we simply do not the capability of processing the depths of true causation. Which returns me to the ultimate issue of much of science being guess work, even if reasonable guess work. Theories and models are disproven constantly, it is in fact a fundamental part of the scientific method to begin with, yet we are trained to maintain absolute faith in everything proffered to us regardless. And make no mistake, it is simple faith, every bit as much as any religion is. (At least for 99.9999% of people.) And indeed, Hume also said it would be impossible to live life without making assumptions of causation. (Ie: I'm not going to walk around worried that there might be goblins living in the center of the earth that control gravity with electromagnetic bongo drums are going to cause me to float off into space, and instead just go with the whole physics explanation.) Yet in discussions of rigor, if we are to hold one thing (religion) to a certain standard (disbelief due to lack of absolute evidence), we must hold other things (science) to the same standard.

Quote from: Deborah on February 11, 2018, 03:07:41 PM
The problem with faith is that it requires one to believe things in the total absence of any evidence.  This leads to incredulity towards things that actually do have evidence and in turn leads to an extremely ignorant society such as we see in the USA and in the Middle East.

Much of what I said in my post I just put up applies here as well to the first sentence. Most people believe in science with total absence of any evidence, at least not that they understand. That is faith as well. If one type of faith is acceptable, why is the other not?

And the ignorance is absolutely not a product of faith, it is a product of... well, itself. People are people, and they will be ignorant be it bred of religion or science. Look at the Nazis (I know, bringing up the Nazis is not typically a preferred tact, but it is an easy comparison), their ignorance was based entirely on supposed science. Bad science, hypocritical science, but science nonetheless. Look at the countless physicians and scientists attempting to shock the gay away or performing lobotomies because... well, pretty much everything. That was science, not religion. The misuse and negative impact of some religion is truly terrible, but then the same goes for science.

I would also challenge the assertion that religion leads to ignorance. Religion led to science. In fact, much of the origins of modern science and knowledge are built on the studies and teachings of ancient Muslim universities. 9 out of the 10 of the greatest scientists and philosophers in history were religious (though often critical of popular doctrine). From Descartes to Tesla, each expressed varying degrees of faith that was often built upon critical skepticism.

Faith is belief without evidence.  Science is belief with evidence.  That such evidence might be incomplete or even in error does not change the fact that using evidence to establish knowledge is far superior to simply making things up or relying on the mythologies written by people 2000 years before the Age of Enlightenment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QuoteBut why is your faith in scientific knowledge so absolute?

Because it's based on evidence.  Because it gets update with more evidence.  Because it relies of observation and experimentation.  Because it's based on fact, not faith.  There's not a shred of evidence history or archaeology that supports the bible, for instance, but a lot that conflicts with it.  There are even some parts of it that conflict with others.  When you look at where the stories in the bible came from, you'll often find they were "borrowed" from other beliefs.  You'll also find the old testament was largely written by 3 groups who had nothing to do with the original events.

Quote from: Roll on February 11, 2018, 03:40:41 PM
I would also challenge the assertion that religion leads to ignorance.

There is no argument that in times past many great scientists were religious.  That is perhaps not surprising since many lived in times and places where not being religious was a capital offense.  Even until recently not professing a religion made one a social pariah.

We can see religious induced societal ignorance at work in a country where about half of the population believes that human beings came about by magic rather than by a process of evolution, where over 20% of the population believes that the universe is 6000 years old, where in many places the law requires those things to be taught in school as an alternative to the truth, where around 50% of the population believes our condition is a conscious choice because God doesn't make mistakes, where half deny climate change because God is in control.

These things and others are not simply innocent beliefs with no consequence as they lead to policies and laws that are harmful to both society and progress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe in the existence of gods, but I don't think they created the universe. It was created by something superior, let's call it the Whole. The Whole created the universe withouth reason, just because it was it's nature, just like the sun heates the ground and makes plants grow, not because it wants to, but because of it's nature. My theory is consistent at some point with the Big Bang theory.

Quote from: AnneK on February 11, 2018, 03:43:35 PM
Because it's based on evidence.  Because it gets update with more evidence.  Because it relies of observation and experimentation.  Because it's based on fact, not faith. There's not a shred of evidence history or archaeology that supports the bible, for instance, but a lot that conflicts with it.  There are even some parts of it that conflict with others.  When you look at where the stories in the bible came from, you'll often find they were "borrowed" from other beliefs.  You'll also find the old testament was largely written by 3 groups who had nothing to do with the original events.

This is part of the problem with this debate, it is endless as people everywhere won't stop focusing on the bible or dogma. That is not the whole of religion, nor even the most important part of religion. At no point have I argued for the bible, and at no point have I defended it at all (I find great fault in many aspects of it). It is this limited view of religion from both positive and negative stances that I find fault in to begin with. Someone (not I) could just as easily discount all of science by latching onto a few more egregious errors over the years (Phrenology for one), all of which were based on observation and correlative evidence.

(I've typed a few things, deleted them. Typed a few more, deleted those. Deciding to bow out here. Because when it comes down to it, we aren't debating the same thing.)

QuoteThis is part of the problem with this debate, it is endless as people everywhere won't stop focusing on the bible or dogma. That is not the whole of religion, nor even the most important part of religion.

I used it as it's the one I'm most familiar with.  However, it shares one trait with all religion, that is it's based on belief, not fact, not evidence.  As for science, it's self correcting.  Errors, even deliberate ones, get detected and corrected.  No one in science is claiming you have to believe something without evidence or contrary to the evidence, as is the norm in religion.

Quote from: AnneK on February 11, 2018, 02:15:28 PM
Or is this god just a figment of someone's imagination?  It's certainly not a figment of mine.

Wow, thanks for quoting that small snippet of my post to make me look small, so that you can display your dominance. 

Quote from: kitchentablepotpourri on February 11, 2018, 09:19:20 PM
Wow, thanks for quoting that small snippet of my post to make me look small, so that you can display your dominance.

Sorry, that was not my intent.  My point is that religion, "god" included, was created by humans at a time when they had no concept of science and so they had to create something to cause the things they saw around them.

And I'd say to anyone who claims there is a god, prove it, show the evidence that the things that we see around us cannot have been caused by anything other than divine intervention.

Quote from: AnneK on February 11, 2018, 09:23:55 PM
Sorry, that was not my intent.  My point is that religion, "god" included, was created by humans at a time when they had no concept of science and so they had to create something to cause the things they saw around them.

And I'd say to anyone who claims there is a god, prove it, show the evidence that the things that we see around us cannot have been caused by anything other than divine intervention.

Fair enough; however my intent is not to save anyone's soul, and I really don't feel the need to prove God's existence, because I simply don't care whether you believe in God, or not. I am not religious, but I do believe that God is real, and I was merely sharing my opinion; you are more than welcome to disagree with what I said, but it really doesn't mean anything to me, because God doesn't need me or anyone else to come to their defense; they are God, and I am sure they can handle it if someone doesn't believe in them.

Here's a thought

Human: I don't believe in God, there is no scientific proof!
God: (doesn't care enough to comment since God does not seek approval or acknowledgement from us; God just is, just as the universe just is, and there is a lot going on out there that we don't even have an inkling about (and just because we don't know about it, it doesn't make it less real).

Human: I do believe in God; I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists!
God: (doesn't care enough to comment since God does not seek approval or acknowledgement from us; God just is, just as the universe just is, and there is a lot going on out there that we don't even have an inkling about (and just because we don't know about it, it doesn't make it less real). 

Where do people get the idea from that things have to have been created in the first place out of something.

We live in a world in which energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changes state. As far as we know, this could be the way it's always been and always will be, maybe there was always something there and it had no creator, it just is on the macro scale and on the micro things change state in and out of visible existence. We already know this to be the case with certain subatomic particles.

The idea something cannot come from nothing doesn't hold up if what you think of as nothing is actually something, you just can't see it. It's like a kid's idea of where anything comes from, someone has to "make" it. But there's nothing presiding over changes of state but the laws of physics by the looks of it. If you believe in evolution life didn't just happen, it used materials and conditions already existing to arrange itself into a sustaining chemical reaction. The means to make it was always there, waiting for the right conditions. 

We probably just think there has to be a creator or a creation because we have limited scope and try to anthropomorphize everything.

Citing Christian creation doctrine doesn't solve the problem of something from nothing anyway.  That doctrine states that the earth was created from nothing.  It was simply spoken into existence from a void.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Torchickens on February 10, 2018, 08:57:27 AM
Ex nihilo is the argument that something was created out of nothing.

I wonder if the universe was never created at all, or if the universe created itself (which links in with pantheism which may argue that 'God is the universe'). By never created at all, it doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist, but rather is an automatic manifestation, from a logical world.

Mathematically this could maybe work by re-imagining the concept of zero. Instead of nothing, it is instead two 'polarities'; +∞ and -∞ (but probably here you have to alter the meaning of infinity here to mean 'everything' as ∞-∞ is not necessarily 0), which together are zero, and always have been zero. This could explain why in physics charged atoms/molecules (known as ions) eventually decay until they have stable polarities.

All matter in the universe could also be a combination of polarities.

There is a fundamental problem with this thinking though; logic must have some kind of existence/form (a machine wouldn't work without its engine). There are questions about metaphysical nature of logic itself, which is confusing to talk about because we feel we are already part of a logical world in which we can come up with mathematics/logical axioms.

Additionally this argument doesn't address the dilemma of consciousness; why is it we project consciousness from ourselves and not everyone at the same time (or from no one)? Could there be an intelligent being which chooses who we are born as? If you had a clone who was physically the same as you, would you experience their consciousness too? Perhaps it depends on relative time; according to relativity we may all experience time at a slightly different rate due to factors like our relative velocity (maybe? I'm not qualified enough in physics to answer this.).

There is also the fact (from what has been tested from science so far) that the speed of light is a constant (3x10^8 m/s), which may raise an argument of whether it is a remnant of intelligent design.

This universe could also be one of many universes, not the 'highest' (if one exists), like the popular simulation idea.

Thoughts?

The physicist Pascual Jordan published a hypothesis that the MATTER in the universe was created ex nihilo.  His idea was very like the polarities you describe.  He believed that matter, being equivalent to energy, was produced by creating an equivalent amount of negative energy.  This negative energy was an attribute of the kinetic energy of the expansion of space. 

Some argued that amounts of kinetic energy are relative, and that by quantifying the negative energy of space expansion, Jordan did not understand that fact.  However, I am sure that a physicist of Jordan's standing understood basic kinetics.  I think that his dubious politics may have led to him being underrated.  Anyway, the theory of relativity is largely based on some things NOT being relative, such as the speed of light c and, significantly, the rest mass/rest energy of matter particles.

Obviously, Jordan was not a Big Bang theorist.  Steady State cosmology, even more than Big Bang cosmology, seems to suggest that there was no Creator, as it implies that the universe always existed in pretty much its present form.  I am a dinosaur, so I don't believe in the Big Bang theory.  For one thing, to me it implies that since we are looking into the past, the most distant galaxies should be closer together if there was a Big Bang.  I once had the opportunity to say that to Sir Patrick Moore (this entire post is just an excuse to name-drop).  He pointed out that the most distant objects in the universe have a different appearance to nearer ones.  I said that the Big Bang still didn't make sense to me.  "Nor me", he replied with a smile.  I know that some cosmologists say that the shape of space explains why distant galaxies do not seem closer together.  To me that seems like bending the facts to suit the theory but what do I know.

As to logic, I'm not sure that it is an entity that requires creation or even that some kind of universe could not exist without it.  As to consciousness, I agree that it is still mysterious.  There are theories but none so compelling that most scientists find them convincing.  Even if a computer program is created that successfully mimics human thought, I don't think that it would necessarily mean that we understand consciousness.  As to universal constants implying intelligent design, I don't follow the necessity but in any case some physicists think that they may change over time.

As to many universes, I currently think that quantum mechanics is consistent with me having my own personal 4D universe, interacting with the 4D universes of every other person and particle in the universe, including those of my own body.  After all, even early quantum physicists found that while one particle can be described as moving in 3D space, two interacting particles need two 3D spaces.

I rather liked the idea that the universe is a computer simulation.  At least a nine-year-old playing a computer game might be placated by prayer or praise.  Sadly, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi say that they have proved otherwise.

After all that, I still don't discount the idea of a Creator.  Ancient Hebrews were aware of the problem of a Creator existing without being created Himself but knew that they had to draw a line somewhere.  God told Moses to call him Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, "I Am That I Am".   In my logical moments I am an atheist but I pray every day.  What else can we do while at the mercy of this awesome universe?