Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:

[bornagainathiest]

Basically this...

Almost 14 billion years ago 'something' gave rise to our reality.

It sprang instantly into existence and Inflated to a size at least 1,000 times larger than we can see.

This ultra-rapid phase of Inflation then halted in our region of space.

But, far beyond the limits of our observable universe, inflation is continuing to this day!  

And will probably never cease...

Inflation will never cease inflating (creating from scratch) universes like ours, every split second... forever and ever!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi BAA- the above post has been very helpful.  The more I consider all these amazing scientific findings, the more it strikes me as illogical to consider a 'supernatural' being who is responsible for the universe/s.  If I may reword the apostle Paul's famous saying:

 

''For since we now know how the creation of the world came about (via the Big Bang) nature's invisible qualities--its eternal power and  nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been discovered about the universe, so that people are without excuse.''

 

Josh, I'll check out that video when I get a chance, although I suspect it will be a bit too deep for me. 

 

Hello BC. 

 

Well, in the face of the facts, it is illogical to hold on to the thoroughly human God of the Bible.  But, having said that...  I think there's an entirely logical (psychological) reason why we are predisposed to do so.  Projection.  That which is unknown becomes the target of our inner wishes and desires, pretty much as Josh has already suggested.  After all, what can be more appealing and comforting than a future state of eternal bliss, perfect love and immortality?

 

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:31 AM, by Josh Pantera.

"BC, the speed at which you catch on to things and excel is most impressive."

 

I agree, BC.  You do.

So, now please let me take you one step further.  I think you can handle it. 

Let's re-visit and re-write the red portion of my quote, to take into account what the Cosmological Principle says about the Observer.  All observers are equal and none can lay claim to existing at any special time or any special place.  This applies to any and all observers (including us) in any region of any of all the universes that are being continually being inflated in their own Big Bangs.

 

Each observer will see exactly what we see.

They will appear to occupy a central position in their universe - just as we appear to do.  There will be a visual limit as to how far they can see - just as we can only see so far and no further.  Their universe will have appeared to have sprung into existence - just as ours has.  Like us, they will be unable to see further back in time than the instant their universe had it's own Big Bang.  This is because, for them, time and space will have begun in their own Big Bang - just as they did in our universe.  Can you now see how, when the CP is applied correctly, it levels the playing field for all observers, BC?  Nothing is favored over anything else and this has to apply in every possible circumstance. 

 

This... "Almost 14 billion years ago 'something' gave rise to our reality." ...must now be re-written to take the equality of the Observer effect into account.  If we, as observers, are the same as all other observers, no matter where and when they are, who are we to say this continual and never-ending production of new universes began with OUR universe?

 

That is a claim we cannot make and still remain true to the CP.

If we say that the eternally-inflating multiverse began with our universe, then we are saying that our location and our time is special and is different from that of all the other observers. Doing that violates the CP.  We cannot claim to be the first of anything and remain equal to all others.  We cannot claim to be the reason or cause of everything and still say we are of equal status, with all other observers.  It's one or the other.  Not both.

 

Therefore, I must now re-write things, to place us on the same level as all other observers.

From our point of view only, 'something' gave rise to our reality, almost 14 billion years ago.

But ours was not the first universe/reality to come into being.

Just as Inflation is still and has been continually inflating (creating from scratch) universes like ours, every split second, for the past 14 billion years - so this MUST also be true, before our local Big Bang, to satisfy the conditions of the Cosmological Principle.

 

'Something' has always been doing this.

Universes have always been springing into existence and will always do so.

Behind us is an infinite, eternal past and ahead of us is an infinite, eternal future.

An infinite ensemble of universes existed before ours, an infinite ensemble of them co-exists with ours now and an infinite ensemble of them will exist forever more.

 

Individual universes may die, but because the latest Planck data supports the full outworkings of Eternal Inflationary theory, these will be replaced and the Multiverse, as an infinite global whole has always existed and will always do so

 

This is the ultimate conclusion of the Cosmological Principle, when applied equally and impartially.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The usual terms and conditions apply here, BC.  Anything that's not clear or ambiguous - just flag it up and I'll attend to it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlackCat]

Hi BAA    Very good post.  I'll re-read it a few times so as to ensure I've understood you.  Some things have occurred to me, but I'll hold fire til I've re-read your post.  I'm quite busy for the next few days, so will endeavour to come back to you soon.

[Joshpantera]

BAA, good job laying out the logical conclusion to the CP.

 

This whole thing just keeps getting all the more interesting.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi BAA    Very good post.  I'll re-read it a few times so as to ensure I've understood you.  Some things have occurred to me, but I'll hold fire til I've re-read your post.  I'm quite busy for the next few days, so will endeavour to come back to you soon.

 

Dear BC,

 

I await your 'things' with interest. 

 

Once they are investigated to our mutual satisfaction, shall we then move on to the conclusion of my cosmology-based objection to ID?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, good job laying out the logical conclusion to the CP.

 

Thanks Josh!

 

I try to communicate these issues as simply as I can - without jeopardizing their internal consistency and logic. 

Please don't hesitiate to call any error to my attention.  I rely on the keen eyes and minds of others to keep me honest!

 

This whole thing just keeps getting all the more interesting.

 

Hmmm...

 

How about this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance (See Cosmology)

 

and this...  

 

...being the flipsides of the same reality coin?

 

 

Interested, much?

 

BAA

[Joshpantera]

Sorry BAA, I was a bit side tracked from this science issue by the recent goings on in the General Christian Theology forums with BC and others: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56123-is-jesus-the-anti-christ/

 

 

In physical cosmology, the power spectrum of the spatial distribution of the cosmic microwave background is near to being a scale-invariant function. Although in mathematics this means that the spectrum is a power-law, in cosmology the term "scale-invariant" indicates that the amplitude, P(k), of primordial fluctuations as a function of wave number, k, is approximately constant, i.e. a flat spectrum. This pattern is consistent with the proposal of cosmic inflation.

 

 

Sorry, please continue. 

[bornagainathiest]

Sorry BAA, I was a bit side tracked from this science issue by the recent goings on in the General Christian Theology forums with BC and others: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56123-is-jesus-the-anti-christ/

 

 

In physical cosmology, the power spectrum of the spatial distribution of the cosmic microwave background is near to being a scale-invariant function. Although in mathematics this means that the spectrum is a power-law, in cosmology the term "scale-invariant" indicates that the amplitude, P(k), of primordial fluctuations as a function of wave number, k, is approximately constant, i.e. a flat spectrum. This pattern is consistent with the proposal of cosmic inflation.

 

 

Sorry, please continue. 

 

Simply this, Josh.

 

The latest Planck results show anomalies which are difficult to account for in Inflationary models that assume the universe is smoothly and uniformly distributed beyond a certain scale.  However, models of Chaotic Inflation do account for these anomalies.

 

From the Wiki page on Eternal Inflation.

"Eternal Inflation is an inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. In theories of eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the universe. Because these regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal."

 

It seems that we're living in a fractal universe, Josh. 

Fractals are scale-invariant patterns that self-repeat.  Instead of being smooth and uniform at the largest scales and non-uniform at smaller ones, a fractal repeats itself at ALL scales.  This is what scale-invariance means. The scale at which you look at a fractal makes no difference.  If you zoom in on a fractal, eventually the pattern you saw when you started will be seen again.  If you zoom out, you get the same result.  Again and again and again and...

 

Hence the reference to Noel Harrison.

(Holy ****!  I'm really showing my age with this one.)

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[BlackCat]

 

Hi BAA    Very good post.  I'll re-read it a few times so as to ensure I've understood you.  Some things have occurred to me, but I'll hold fire til I've re-read your post.  I'm quite busy for the next few days, so will endeavour to come back to you soon.

 

Dear BC,

 

I await your 'things' with interest. 

 

Once they are investigated to our mutual satisfaction, shall we then move on to the conclusion of my cosmology-based objection to ID?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Hi BAA- sorry for the delay.  I thought I was waiting on you.  I got mixed up.  Sorry. 

 

To be honest, having read through your post again, I can't think of what those 'things' were now   ........Everything you say makes sense.  So please proceed.  

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Hi BAA    Very good post.  I'll re-read it a few times so as to ensure I've understood you.  Some things have occurred to me, but I'll hold fire til I've re-read your post.  I'm quite busy for the next few days, so will endeavour to come back to you soon.

 

Dear BC,

 

I await your 'things' with interest. 

 

Once they are investigated to our mutual satisfaction, shall we then move on to the conclusion of my cosmology-based objection to ID?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Hi BAA- sorry for the delay.  I thought I was waiting on you.  I got mixed up.  Sorry. 

 

To be honest, having read through your post again, I can't think of what those 'things' were now   ........Everything you say makes sense.  So please proceed.  

 

Thanks BC! 

 

Please read post #382 in this thread and #1115 in the, 'To All of God's Critics' thread in the Lion's Den.

 

My on-going tussle with the Christian fanatic OrdinaryClay isn't relevant to our dialog.  Nor is the theological conclusion I draw from the linked information. The scientific conclusion I draw from them is.  The Planck data indicates that we inhabit a fractal Multiverse.

 

So, the next BIG question for you to wrap your head around is... how does our fractal Multiverse affect I.D.?

 

The usual terms and conditions apply.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[ExCBooster]

Oh, that's so cool! It seems the legends were true.

 

I love fractal geometry in the morning. (Basically, a fractal is a figure you get when you plot on a graph special equations that repeat, causing self similarity. That means that small baby versions are nested inside the larger pattern. All just from plotting points on a graph. We couldn't really explore fractals before computers because the number of times you have to repeat the equations are large, and a human would get bored, and go too slow.) Here's an easy one you can do yourself, at home. The chaos game version is the repeated equation way to draw it.

 

The most famous fractal is the

. (Cool!) It's a very simple equation, actually, but with very complex results.

So, there'd been suspicions, that ours was a fractal-like universe, but this is the first I've heard of some kind of confirmation.

[Ravenstar]

hmm... so, is the fractal thing a QUALITY of reality? Or Is it something that occurred during the BB?, like the beginning of space - could it be a quality of space itself.. or just matter?  Does it apply at the quantum level? OR, is the 'equation' a quality of the singularity, or the interactions between branes?

 

The visual image I get when I read that is of the Lotus... and how in esoterics it multiplies (the thousand petal Lotus)

 

The fractals I've seen are very beautiful... I'm probably WAY off, but I had an interesting thought.. what if the fractal equation came 'first'? It's easy to see how a very minute and simple equation could have been the 'seed' for our universe... hmmm

[bornagainathiest]

hmm... so, is the fractal thing a QUALITY of reality? Or Is it something that occurred during the BB?, like the beginning of space - could it be a quality of space itself.. or just matter?  Does it apply at the quantum level? OR, is the 'equation' a quality of the singularity, or the interactions between branes?

 

The visual image I get when I read that is of the Lotus... and how in esoterics it multiplies (the thousand petal Lotus)

 

The fractals I've seen are very beautiful... I'm probably WAY off, but I had an interesting thought.. what if the fractal equation came 'first'? It's easy to see how a very minute and simple equation could have been the 'seed' for our universe... hmmm

 

Hey Ravenstar!

 

The fractality of everything is a function of the infinite size of the Multiverse versus the finite number of patterns that matter/energy can be arranged in.

 

Here's a quote from The Infinite Book, by John D. Barrow.

"No matter how small the probability of an event occuring, so long as that number is non-zero when multiplied by infinity it will give infinity.  This is the number of occurrences of that event that wil be found in an infinite universe." 

 

In this context, the word 'event' can also mean pattern, planet, person or anything else that is physically possible.

So, because we know that there is ---> 1 <---planet Earth... in an infinite Multiverse there must be an infinite number of Earths.

Because we know that there is ---> 1 <--- Ravenstar... in an infinite Multiverse there must be an infinite number of Ravenstars.

And an infinite number of BAA's writing this message, right now.

 

You get the drift?  (Please look at my profile page to see where I'm located!  )

 

So... Yes, Ravenstar. 

The fractality of everything is infinitely bigger than our 'local' Big Bang.  Perhaps a good way of thinking about it is to consider our observable universe (93 billion light-years in diameter) as just one pixel in ExCBooster's fractals.  (Thanks for the great visuals Ex-CB, btw!  ) You can zoom in or out of a fractal forever, because it's pattern repeats forever. 

 

Which is why I wrote what I did to Josh yesterday... explaining that it just doesn't matter what scale you look at reality from, the pattern is scale-invariant.  I.e., the scale is irrelevant.  Reality repeats itself, over and over and over again, at ALL scales.

 

Here's an interesting link for you.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

 

Enjoy!

 

BAA.

[Thought2Much]

Now you're making my head hurt, BAA. In a good way.

[Thought2Much]

There was a Scientific American article from some time ago that posited how close the nearest duplicate "you" might be to you in the multiverse. The numbers become so large that they lose meaning. As in, they had to use scientific notation where exponents had exponents, so it might have been written as 1 x 10 to the four hundredth to the 80th meters, or whatever the actual number was.

[bornagainathiest]

Makes like a frog...  

 

"Read it!" 

 

"Read it!"

 

"Read it!"

 

[Thought2Much]

Ah, found it. It's from May, 2003.

 

Here's a link to a PDF of the article.

 

So, the minimum distance calculated (at that time) between our universe and an identical universe was 10 to the 10th to the 118th meters. Oh look, I've gone crosseyed.

[Ravenstar]

BAA

 

 

That actually makes so much sense, especially since we see repeated patterns in nature all the time, at all scales. It also illustrates to me what Dr. Greene, in his special on quantum reality, said about other dimensions being 'curled-up' inside of our 3rd dimension. Finally! I've been hurting my gray matter trying to visualize that.

 

Mathematicians must love this.

[bornagainathiest]

Ah, found it. It's from May, 2003.

 

Here's a link to a PDF of the article.

 

So, the minimum distance calculated (at that time) between our universe and an identical universe was 10 to the 10th to the 118th meters. Oh look, I've gone crosseyed.

 

 

Good catch, T2M! 

 

Sorry about your strabismus, tho'. 

 

In a similar vein, here's Andrei Linde's Scientific American article from 1998.

 

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf

 

This will form the basis of the talk he's giving ( already given!) today, in the Netherlands.

 

Way to go, Andrei! 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA

 

 

That actually makes so much sense, especially since we see repeated patterns in nature all the time, at all scales. It also illustrates to me what Dr. Greene, in his special on quantum reality, said about other dimensions being 'curled-up' inside of our 3rd dimension. Finally! I've been hurting my gray matter trying to visualize that.

 

Mathematicians must love this.

 

Agree.

 

But what of the Christians?  Where can they insert their God now?  There is no, "In the beginning..."

 

I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for them. 

 

BAA.

[BlackCat]

BAA, you asked me:

 

So, the next BIG question for you to wrap your head around is... how does our fractal Multiverse affect I.D.?

 

 

And you replied to Ravenstar:

 

But what of the Christians? Where can they insert their God now? There is no, "In the beginning..."

 

Ok, I'm seeing the problem. 

 

Here's my initial thoughts: 'creation ex nihilo' is not something I have ever believed in because it is not 'taught' in the bible, so I'm not sure where they've got that from?  We're agreed that matter/energy (and God maybe??  ) are eternal.  So......

 

The 'creating' mentioned in the Bible, is really only an 'appearance' of creation as it is from our 'local' vantage point.  The 'fashioning' (which I think is what the word 'create' in Genesis actually means??) of matter/energy since the Big Bang, has given rise gradually to our univese, and so I don't see a problem with explaining the  'forming' of the universe as if it was created.  God/nature is always 'forming' universes.   

 

Or if we want to forget the Bible all together- God could still be 'everything' but as we can't see everything, we can never 'see' God. 

 

You have established (if these findings are correct) that we are not a special 'occurrence' in the universe and hence there is no special creation involved.  This would suggest that (from a human point of view) pain, suffering and love will continue eternally, and hence no ultimate reconciliation.    So which ever way I look at it, God doesn't seem to fit anywhere at all. 

 

Edit:  I can hear 'checkmate'............

[boftx]

Allow me to put forward a very simplistic view. It is not meant to be a full description, but merely a starting point and a tool for getting a grasp of what can otherwise be a daunting proposition.

 

It is not unreasonable, in my opinion, in one wishes to think of God as that which is embodied by the "natural laws" we can observe. That is, God is that fundamental truth represented by the statement 1 + 1 = 2 (using decimal notation.) Never mind that Whitehead and Russell required about 400 pages to logically prove that statement in a rigorous fashion.

 

It's not that some "God" created the rules, but rather that the rules are what Man perceives as God. I don't think there are any fundamental contradictions between such a belief and any reasonable cosmological theory, even the newest ones.

 

That allows for one to say that we exist because God exists. But it also begs the question of is the concept of God, even in that form, needed other than to allow for one who believes such to join the Masonic Lodge? On the other hand, when one speaks of God in such a fashion all of the contradictions and paradoxes that arise from having an omni-everything "God" such as Yahweh completely disappear as it is impossible to arrive at them in the first place.

 

It should be understood that in this view God is not a separate being of any kind that is apart from a "created" Universe. In this view, God is not a "being" at all, but instead is the ground of being, that which makes being possible. In other words, 1 + 1 = 2.

 

One might say that God is an attribute of the Universe (or Multiverse if that is the case) rather than the other way around.

[bornagainathiest]

Allow me to put forward a very simplistic view. It is not meant to be a full description, but merely a starting point and a tool for getting a grasp of what can otherwise be a daunting proposition.

 

It is not unreasonable, in my opinion, in one wishes to think of God as that which is embodied by the "natural laws" we can observe. That is, God is that fundamental truth represented by the statement 1 + 1 = 2 (using decimal notation.) Never mind that Whitehead and Russell required about 400 pages to logically prove that statement in a rigorous fashion.

 

It's not that some "God" created the rules, but rather that the rules are what Man perceives as God. I don't think there are any fundamental contradictions between such a belief and any reasonable cosmological theory, even the newest ones.

 

That allows for one to say that we exist because God exists. But it also begs the question of is the concept of God, even in that form, needed other than to allow for one who believes such to join the Masonic Lodge? On the other hand, when one speaks of God in such a fashion all of the contradictions and paradoxes that arise from having an omni-everything "God" such as Yahweh completely disappear as it is impossible to arrive at them in the first place.

 

It should be understood that in this view God is not a separate being of any kind that is apart from a "created" Universe. In this view, God is not a "being" at all, but instead is the ground of being, that which makes being possible. In other words, 1 + 1 = 2.

 

One might say that God is an attribute of the Universe (or Multiverse if that is the case) rather than the other way around.

 

Thanks for the input Botfx.

 

Two things spring to my mind about this.

 

First, isn't what you've described a Deist position?

 

Second, wouldn't there be a greater clarity in not calling this ground of being 'God'...?

I venture this, because I just couldn't understand the frequent and free use of the word, 'spirituality' by members who I knew for certain, weren't Christians..  For me that word had way too much Christian baggage attached to it.  This thread tells the story.  My turning point came in message #50.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/53729-woo/page-3

 

So, wouldn't the use of the word, 'God' be fraught with the same potential difficulties, Botfx?

 

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, you asked me:

 

So, the next BIG question for you to wrap your head around is... how does our fractal Multiverse affect I.D.?

 

 

And you replied to Ravenstar:

 

But what of the Christians? Where can they insert their God now? There is no, "In the beginning..."

 

Ok, I'm seeing the problem. 

 

Here's my initial thoughts: 'creation ex nihilo' is not something I have ever believed in because it is not 'taught' in the bible, so I'm not sure where they've got that from?  We're agreed that matter/energy (and God maybe??  ) are eternal.  So......

 

The 'creating' mentioned in the Bible, is really only an 'appearance' of creation as it is from our 'local' vantage point.  The 'fashioning' (which I think is what the word 'create' in Genesis actually means??) of matter/energy since the Big Bang, has given rise gradually to our univese, and so I don't see a problem with explaining the  'forming' of the universe as if it was created.  God/nature is always 'forming' universes.   

 

Or if we want to forget the Bible all together- God could still be 'everything' but as we can't see everything, we can never 'see' God. 

 

You have established (if these findings are correct) that we are not a special 'occurrence' in the universe and hence there is no special creation involved.  This would suggest that (from a human point of view) pain, suffering and love will continue eternally, and hence no ultimate reconciliation.    So which ever way I look at it, God doesn't seem to fit anywhere at all. 

 

Edit:  I can hear 'checkmate'............

 

Excellent, BC!

 

Josh was right... you do catch on quickly. 

God is excluded from the Multiverse.

 

Now for the pivotal point of my cosmology-based objection to Intelligent Design. 

First, I have to describe the context in which it works.  A context which (sadly ) you'll be all to familiar with by now, BC.

 

The Christian apologists who promote ID do so... g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y ...bringing the interested seeker closer and closer to the point of committal thru a series of carefully prepared stages.  They know full well that a traditional, hellfire and damnation approach will not work for many people in the technology-driven 21st century.  So, they craftily pitch the message of their hidden agenda in up-to-the-minute scientific terminology, co-opting items of cutting-edge Astronomy, Cosmology, Particle Physics and Genetics that will appeal to the scientifically-curious. 

 

They use the Fine-Tuned Universe argument to (supposedly) show that the entire universe has been carefully designed to support life.  They use the Rare Earth Hypothesis to (supposedly) show that this planet has been carefully designed to support human life.  They cite as many examples of Irreducible Complexity as they can muster to (supposedly) show that molecular machines, DNA, cells and entire organs cannot function in any other way except that which implies the hand of an Intelligent Designer.  And so on... overwhelming the unwary person with a tsunami of 'evidence' that looks too convincing to refute.

 

Once the seeker has absorbed and accepted these (so-called) facts, the apologists then make the claim that it is the Christian God of the Bible that best fits the description of this all-powerful and benevolent Intelligent Designer.  By this stage, they usually know that they've got their potential convert 'hooked' and that landing their 'fish' is almost guaranteed.

 

That conclusion could have been your fate BC... had you not harbored a deep-seated thirst for the truth!.

.

.

 

 

Anyway, how does my objection deal with this?

 

My objection is based on the premise that we exist in a fractal Multiverse.  (Btw, you'll note that I held to this before that fact was confirmed by the recent Planck data.  So my objection was theoretical, but is now factual.) The true nature of this fractal Multiverse decapitates Intelligent Design by destroying the Fine-Tuned Universe argument - which is foundational and fundamental to ID.

 

In a fractal Multiverse ALL possible permutations of the natural physical laws will evolve.  Not just once and not just a few times, but an infinite number of times.  Therefore it's not surprising that our region appears to be designed for life.  Such an outcome is... inevitable.  And not just once... but an infinite number of times.

 

Therefore, there's no need whatsoever to invoke the supernatural hand of an Intelligent Designer to account for our existence.  Regions like our universe MUST spring out of the Multiverse.  If this result is simply a logical and inevitable result of the math, then no supernatural agencies are required to account for our existence. Thus, ID has no basis in fact!

.

.

.

.

As you say... Checkmate.

 

This concludes my explanation of my cosmology-based objection to Intelligent Design.  Thank you very much for your patience and diligence, BC.

 

 

Yours respectfully,

 

BAA.

[Thought2Much]

But... but...

 

Maybe God just created what looks to our eyes like a fractal multiverse...

 

Y'know. In order to test our faith.

 

[boftx]

BAA,

 

You are correct, on both points. The concept I described is not new with me by any means.

 

It has some beneficial uses. The primary benefit is that such a view can satisfy the "God" gene. That is, there seems to be some recent thought indicating that humans are predisposed to create "God" or "gods". A Deist view fully embraces science and cosmology as it exists now and as it will evolve. It is the bridge between science and the need for spirituality that you observe.

 

It can useful when speaking with people who are dissatisfied with the traditional "God" and see the contradictions and paradoxes, but don't want to or can't make the leap to atheism. This gives them something that eliminates not only the logical problems, but the moral ones and the whole issue of damnation and salvation. This can be a helping hand, so to speak, for those who want to break free from the bonds of the teaching they grew up with.

 

It is also useful when debating with the hardcore Christian who has absolutely no doubts and no desire to change. In that case it can be used to counter the several claims being made. However, it does lead one to be tempted to say "puny god" at times. (That was a great line.)

 

Last, once a person is fully comfortable with this view they can decide later if they continue to see a need for it, or want to move to a fully agnostic position.

 

So, yes, while the use of the phrase "God as Creation" can be tricky to an extent, this view completely dispels the theological baggage that comes along with "God as Creator". Obviously someone who is fully comfortable with agnosticism or atheism has most likely already deduced this position.

 

It should also be noted that a Deist view is also compatible with existentialism.

 

I would not be surprised to find out that there are lurkers reading this thread who are "on the fence" about "God". This discussion between us on this particular item might be helpful for them.