Semantics. If we choose to call something a "Creation", then it was created by a creator by definition. Study "first cause". Now, I certainly agree that the origin of the universe and the creation of the universe are conceptually distinct in that the latter alone has reference to a cause. One may even say that the problem of creation is not properly a part of physical cosmology, but is a meta-physical problem.
ok, so if we call it creation, then it has a creator. what about if we call it a universe, does it then still require a creator? thats great. so did the universe require a creator or not? i like to keep the terms simple, because i am simple.
i am sure you can find a priest or shaman or some other kook that has it all sorted out very comfortingly.
I dont use a priest and im not looking for comfort. im a pretty content and happy dude. thats your misperception not mine. im just not quite arrogant enough to have it all figured out.
shamanism is crazy, those dudes eat peyote and let a crap load of ants bite them all over their bodies. i mean i can dig the peyote and bongos and whatnot, but the ants do not get my approval.
Already answered, quit splitting hairs. "the origin of the universe and the creation of the universe are conceptually distinct in that the latter alone has reference to a cause."
huh? you are quoting yourself as me. yes or no: the universe requires a creator? (i dont ask "metaphysical" questions. i dunno what that means.)
its the ritual to become a shaman, if you can't hack it, you cant be shaman. you may be right though.
seems silly to be confused when you could have it sorted. i guess you dont agree with the answers the priests have for you. you and i, we are arrogant that way.
