> > What kind of assumptions would you need > > to entertain in order to believe that > > there is a 'creation' - since it has > > been established that there is in fact, > > no 'science of creative intelligence'? > > Curtis wrote: > This is completely fallacious. > Maybe so, but it just seems more logical to me to think that there's no creation because we don't experience anything in life that would lead us to infer that there are any things or events. I mean what's to prove that we aren't in fact dreaming? Is there a single thing in the waking state that we cannot experience in a dream? We do the same things in dreams that we do in the waking state: in dreams we can run and jump and consult our friends.
> There can be a primacy of existence itself > without the need for a creator. If this > fallacy was valid you would need to imagine > a creator for the creator in an infinite > regress. I stop at creation itself without > the need to imagine a creator. > In order to avoid the fallacy of infinite regress, a person would have to propose an uncaused cause, and accept the idea of causation. But what if there is no causation? Causation implies change, but can one thing change into another thing? This seems illogical. According to Sage Kapila, creation is impossible, for something cannot come out of nothing; change implies something to change; "whatever is, always is, and whatever is not, never is." - Samkhyakarika, XVII
