> Very interesting post. I think actually that this
> has been one of the most interesting AoM authors.
That's quite a commendation. Thank you!
> Do you think that if you use the word'creation',
> you immediately imply something that did the
> creating? I am not sure what word would best label
> the starting point of this universe, but I am sure
> that creator definitely isn't it! There still
> remains zero evidence for anything supernatural.
The problem is largely one of language. "Creation" implies "creator" as two entirely separate things. But just keep in mind the law of conservation of energy, and it's clear that we don't actually need anything other than energy: uncreated and indestructible - going from singularity state to space-time (probably over and over eternally).
We also use the word "Universe" as something separate from the Big Bang itself. But again, there's no true duality here. The Big Bang singfularity and the Universe are the same thing.
I do think the low-entropy beginning of the Universe requires a better explanation that naturalism is able to provide. Calling a non-naturalistic explanation "supernatural" would be a bit crude, since that word is used for miracles that break the laws of physics like Jesus coming back to life, or the sun standing still in the sky, etc. I don't accept such things. (Incidentally, paranormal and supernatural are not synonyms. The prefixes para- and super- carry different meanings. This is important in our discussion about psi; it shouldn't be lumped with the supernatural.)
So, all that being said, the limits of naturalism should lead us to an appreciation of a metaphysical explanation for the Universe. This, of necessity requires abstract thinking. As I've said before, pantheism is what I'm left with when I carefully work through the problems posed by monotheism and atheism.