[1] Isn’t this a ’circular argument’?

[2] Isn’t this just saying that the universe could very well be creating itself? Isn’t the addition of a hypothetical ’Creator’ just an unnecessary complication?

[3] "Can the 'paradigm' be shown to represent a 'good' theory"

[1] Isn’t this a ‘circular argument’?

This is no more a ‘circular argument’ than saying that, “a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center” is a ‘circular argument’. The basic structure of the paradigm is in the form of a ‘syllogism’. A syllogism is a form of philosophical ‘argument’ that takes a proscribed form of (1) a major premise, (2) a minor premise, (3) a term or terms that connect these premises, and (4) an implied or stated conclusion.

The major premise of the ‘paradigm’ can be reduced to:
“The Universe is involved in a process of self-creation.”

The minor premise can be reduced to:
“The ‘Creator of the Universe’ is involved in a process of self-creation.”

The connecting terms consist of the words:
“wherein and whereby”

And the implied conclusion is that:
The Universe and the ‘Creator of the Universe’ are involved in a ‘symbiotic’ process of self-creation.”

I contend that the major premise of the syllogism is completely defensible by normal, scientifically verifiable, empirical evidence. Evidence supporting the minor premise is of necessity more circumstantial, but nonetheless can show the all but absolute inevitability of this premise as well.

BACK TO TOP

[2] Isn’t this just saying that the Universe could very well be creating itself? Isn’t the addition of a hypothetical ‘Creator of the Universe’ just an unnecessary complication?

There is the possibility that this might be the case. It might prove to be possible for ‘entities’ from within the Universe to initiate the conditions that directly lead to the beginning of their context, but this is doubtful for the following reasons:

a. For something of the size and complexity of the Universe to become its own ‘first cause’ is highly unlikely. To be able to ‘directly’ create itself out of ‘whole cloth’ when by definition it is the total sum of reality would seem to strain the bounds of logic to the breaking point. In other words it does not seem that it would be possible for x to create x. Although still operating on the edges of credible logic it may prove to be possible for x to create y and for y to create x. This possibility would seem to increase if the situation where an “ongoing, staged process”. In other words, x1 creates x2, x2 creates x3.…creates y, and y creates x1.

The following may be seen to be somewhat ‘sophistic’ , but if stage2 where seen to ‘stand’ on stage1, stage3 to stand on stage2,….but the stage after stage7 ’rested sideways’ on stage7, what would this stage ‘symbolize’?

b. Nonetheless ‘if’ at some stage of a self-creating Universe, the Universe has the motivation and capability to initiate its own inception, then it can be said that it is no longer just the Universe, but has become the ‘Creator of the Universe’. What exactly the attributes and resources of this ‘entity’ remain to be seen , but if it initiates the existence of the Universe, it would be the ‘Creator of the Universe’.

BACK TO TOP

[3] Can the ‘paradigm’ be shown to represent a ‘good’ theory?

Yes. Dr. Steven Hawking says, “A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives the test, though it never can be proved to be correct.” In science this is known as a ‘positivist approach’ and was originally put forward by Karl Popper and others.

The ‘major premise’ of the paradigm or theory can be confirmed or ‘falsified’ by standard, empirical, scientific observations. Although the ’minor premise’ can be seen to have more than one point of view, from one ‘valid’ point of view it can be seen that it predicts events that have not yet taken place, so the only ‘tests’ that can be presently made would be of a philosophical nature. It is contended that the premise and conclusion that, “The ‘Creator of the Universe’ and its ‘Creation’ are involved in a ‘symbiotic’ process of self-creation.” can be shown to display a high degree of validity if they can answer heretofore very difficult philosophic/religious questions in a straightforward, predictive manner by the use of these relatively simple postulates.

A question that has perennially ‘plagued’ theologians and philosophers can be stated as, “Why would a benevolent and beneficent God create or otherwise tolerate the existence of evil or imperfection in the world?” Other than the fact that we will be using the more sexually neutral term ‘Creator’ in lieu of the often masculinized term ‘God’, it can be shown that the ‘paradigm’ answers this question by the use of the following predictive extrapolation: The ‘paradigm’ contends that we are involved in an “ongoing, staged” process. If the ’paradigm’ is reflective of the actual case and the process of self-creation is expected to be accomplished in distinct stages, then it would seem to follow that the purpose of any given stage would be to prepare the way for the next stage of development. For any given stage to evolve into a premature state of ideal perfection could be seen as effectively ‘dead ending’ the macro process. Seeing that the only real collective hope of any particular constituent of the process for long term (unending), quality existence might lie in the success of the macro process as a whole, it can be seen that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a benevolent and beneficent ‘Creator’ to tolerate the existence of a certain degree of imperfection within any given stage.

Like the ‘paradigm’ itself, this is a new and important moral conceptualization. If this reasonable extrapolation is to be believed, then it stands to reason that, “the achievement of ‘ideal states of perfection’ are NOT legitimate goals”. The ’unvoiced’ assumption and presumption that ‘it goes without saying’ that ideal states of perfection are not only legitimate goals, they are oft times endemically and insidiously thought of as being the only legitimate goals, is totally WRONG, if the ’paradigm’ and its logical moral extrapolation are to be believed as being representative of the actual situation we and our world are involved in.

BACK TO TOP

It is to be expected that these questions and responses
should raise more questions.
Feel free to direct these questions to:
admin@self-creation.net