Yes, making claims is easy and that is why I keep introducing the concept in the hope that someone will come up with evidence to the contrary or, in my hopeful desire, come up with some supporting thoughts on the matter. The concept of Potential is not outrageous in scope and to me has several aspects which can be supported by science. I just lack the scientific skills to put them in mathematical language. But to ridicule without actually trying to understand my conception is not scientific either. I am not a wild eyed “savior” trying to convert. I am merely making a proposition which might help reconcile this seemingly unresolvable problem.
Can you do better??
There is nothing in your Potential paradigm to reject. You make no falsifiable hypothesis, offer no means of proving your idea wrong, then challenge others to prove it wrong. Worse, you offer nothing positive when you speak of Potential as if it is some grand unifying physical theory. What you have is a vague idea with no substance, no empirical evidence and no predictive powers. The burden of proof is on you, and you have none.
ok, scientists are trying to find the underlying simplicity in what appears to be an infinititely complicated universe. Better?
No, because from that it does not follow that atheists see the Universe and claim no intelligence could have created it. As I said, atheists see no evidence of a creator and no need for a creator. That is far different than claiming “no intelligence could have created the universe.”
I believe that most scientists agree that there was a beginning and that by definition is a creative process.
I know of no scientific theory which makes that claim, not even the Big Bang Theory. We have no evidence of what preceded the Big Bang, therefore can make no claims of whether the Universe began 13.7 billion years ago or existed infinitely long before that then.
I believe my Potential paradigm is as valid as any in any discussion on this subject. To threaten me with censure is not productive and smacks more of the tactics employed by the dogmatics than a reasoned rejection, which I am still awaiting.
If you want your Potential paradigm to achieve validity then you need to provide some evidence and a solid theory including explanations of things science cannot currently explain; until then you contribute nothing to our understanding of the Universe, you are only making noise. Further, I made no threat. I am not a moderator here, I was only expressing my opinion that your constant posts about Potential could be construed as a violation of the forum rules, specifically “(h) Threads that consist of repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling and may be locked or deleted at the Moderators’ discretion.” (emphasis added)