As described in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor (Klevius 1992) the basis for existence is motion/dynamics in a changing complexity of evolution and devolution (i.e. in the "disturbed" CP-violation section in the aftermath of the "Big Bang"*). In such a picture there is no place for "creation", or "the first mover". In fact, it's a lot more difficult to establish a "starting point" rather than critically scrutinizing the very concept of "creation". Such a scrutiny seems to lead to similar results as the philosophical search for "the free will"!
* "Big Bang" is a double tautology. It can't have been big - in fact it was she smallest (a black hole?) of all bangs. And it can't have been a bang - what/who experienced it (Klevius 1992)?!
Creation is a "civilized" (not to say imperialistic) human invention
What was before? Before what? Before the "disturbance" that "was" in entropy?!
In so called "primitive" societies it used to be fairly common to describe existence as a "spirit" blown into a primordial being. This is precisely the opposite to the ridicilous view which suggests creation from nothing and then replaces "nothing" with "god"(P. Klevius 1992:21-22)!
A less emotional synonyme for "god" is uncertainty
The problem/advantage (for creationists etc) with creation is its introducing of "the creator"/"mechanism for creation", because it is, by definition, positioned outside its creation, hence leaving the creationists etc in uncertainty about what "it" really is. This is not a problem for us "primitivists", though!
But there is yet another uncertainty inside the "creation" itself, namely the unforeseeable "chaos" that makes it impossible to fully determine internal causes, no matter how deterministic your approach is (P. Klevius 1992:36).
By the way. Where (if anywhere - compare Fred Hoyle and others) did the "Big Bang" occure?! And if nowhere, where did it "bang"?
Also see Klevius' definition of religion!
No comments:
Post a Comment