A creator vs a creative force

[Cris07]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

 

[lakotak]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

I guess the question that pops into my mind would be could just a “creative force” have the intelligence to bring all of this complexity together? If just a creative force was able to bring the complexity of our world together and give us laws to live by, then wouldn’t this force be a divine being?

 

[dshix]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

Your friend must define what he means by “creative force” and say why he thinks it is more compelling or logical than a God, before you have to disprove it.

Sounds to me like he’s just trying to mix you up.

 

[Karen107]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

because we know that God has the characteristics of a human being. We are made in His image. Just think about it. Only a person with a mind of a human, though intelligent mind, could have created who we are, with a heart, a soul, emotions, love… That doesn’t come from a physical force, that comes from a divine being.

 

[JerryZ]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

A physical force has contingency. It cannot be the primary source of creation.

Only a God uncreated, for ever existant meets the requirement. Total lack of contingency.
Everything is contingent upon Him.

Explain to him that at time = 0, just before the Big Bang happened, there were NO laws, NONE (gravity, strong force, weak force, etc). Nothing Physical existed: Atoms (matter), Energy, Space, time, were all = to zero that is NON EXISTANT.
Tell him not to try to figure out an empty box when in fact there was NO BOX.

–

 

[bzkoss236]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

A physical force or law requires a physical universe. Some other theoretical physicists run into the same issue when they claim that another universe created our own.

That physical force would have to have come from a physical universe, and then where did that physical universe come from?

And an impersonal metaphysical force lacks the intention to create.

 

[Cris07]

Thanks for the answers. A follow-up… Does the timing of the creation matter? I mean, if there was a non-contingent creative force instead of a creator, is it a valid question to ask why creation happened when it did and not sooner or later?

 

[Moonbug]

“GOD DOES NOT MAKE: HE MAKES THINGS MAKE THEMSELVES."
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks for the answers. A follow-up… Does the timing of the creation matter? I mean, if there was a non-contingent creative force instead of a creator, is it a valid question to ask why creation happened when it did and not sooner or later?

Frankly your friend is just using a substitute term for God. If it was me, I would tell him on a certain level, I agree with him, but I give a different label to that “First Cause.” I don’t think timing matters, unless your friend is depriving the uncreated force of some kind of sentience. If that is the case, then what other factor triggered the non-sentient force to initiate creation?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . why creation happened when it did and not sooner or later?

Hmm, how about: there was no time before; there was no sooner or later before creation.

 

[superwimp]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

Hello Cris,

I also believe in the Creative Force rather than a Supreme Being.  God or the CF is one.  That is the only item of catechism which resulted from 40 years of Moses talking to God.  Consequently that's the only item of theology which is actually important.  

Jesus in the garden revealed that he and the father were one and that we are all to be one in them.

JN 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word;
JN 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me.
JN 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that
they may be one, even as we are one:
JN 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in
one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast
loved them, as thou hast loved me.

If God is an individual being than it would be impossible to become one with this being, however if he is a spirit and we are spirits (souls) who have just taken on these temporary bodies then our spirits can become one with this spirit.

lakotak>>>I guess the question that pops into my mind would be could just a “creative force” have the intelligence to bring all of this complexity together? If just a creative force was able to bring the complexity of our world together and give us laws to live by, then wouldn’t this force be a divine being? <<<

With regards to the laws to live by there are a great many spirits who have already united (to some extent) with the one force. In the book of Daniel they are called Watchers and they are involved in the activities on earth.
The complexity is a result of continual tweaking rather than everything being perfect from the beginning. All force is a part of the one force rather it’s electricity or gravity. Our greatest understanding (I believe) can come from the study of instinct. In some cases it totally takes over the survival of species and through hit and miss it learns the best means for survival for each particular species.

 

[Bahman]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

This is a dilemma that no one can provide a logical prove for it since one cannot prove whether an intelligence is required for the level of complexity that we experience. Evolution is the result of changes governed by determinism and randomness. What randomness is no one know but they are crucial since determinism cannot lead to complexity since they are are on opposite side of each other meaning that once a thing is complex then it cannot be explained deterministically and vice versa.

 

[JerryZ]

This is a dilemma that no one can provide a logical prove for it since one cannot prove whether an intelligence is required for the level of complexity that we experience. Evolution is the result of changes governed by determinism and randomness. What randomness is no one know but they are crucial since determinism cannot lead to complexity since they are are on opposite side of each other meaning that once a thing is complex then it cannot be explained deterministically and vice versa.

That is illogical, all the complexities of the Universe cannot be explained by mere chance.
There is a principle of physics called the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Also known as the Entropy law.

The Universe is a closed system all the matter and energy within it is a constant.
We see all around us that left alone all reactions tend to go toward chaos. And yet here we are intelligent beings pondering if there is or not a God. We are an aberration of the laws of physics. We should not exist and yet here we are.
Do you know what are the odds that from that initial outburst of energy 13,7 Billion years ago, intelligent life could evolve from it?

it has been conservatively calculated to be 1 x 10 exp 125 against.
So you would need to throw the dice 1 followed by 125 zeroes times, to have 1 chance that this happened by chance.
It is many many thousands more probable that you win the lottery.

–

 

[OliverR]

I was using Aquinas First Cause argument and the cosmological argument to show that there must have been a “creator” that set everything in motion. My friend replied why did it have to be a “creator” vs. a “creative force.” Why not some physical force or law instead of a divine being?

I’m stuck! Thanks.

Would a creative force interact with humans after creation?

 

[Bahman]

That is illogical, all the complexities of the Universe cannot be explained by mere chance.

Why chance is not enough? If you believe in laws of nature then law of nature in one hand describe how things should moved based on four forces which exist in nature in deterministic manner, in another hand determinism cannot lead to complexity so the random event is the only key for appearance of complexity.

There is a principle of physics called the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Also known as the Entropy law.

This doesn’t apply to expanding universe since the system cannot be described in equilibrium state.

The Universe is a closed system all the matter and energy within it is a constant.
We see all around us that left alone all reactions tend to go toward chaos.

No please read previous answer.

And yet here we are intelligent beings pondering if there is or not a God. We are an aberration of the laws of physics. We should not exist and yet here we are.
Do you know what are the odds that from that initial outburst of energy 13,7 Billion years ago, intelligent life could evolve from it?

The odds apparently was enough to give a chance to our existence, moreover universe is infinite or at least there is no prove that shows it is finite.

 

[JerryZ]

Why chance is not enough? If you believe in laws of nature then law of nature in one hand describe how things should moved based on four forces which exist in nature in deterministic manner, in another hand determinism cannot lead to complexity so the random event is the only key for appearance of complexity.

This doesn’t apply to expanding universe since the system cannot be described in equilibrium state.

No please read previous answer.

The odds apparently was enough to give a chance to our existence, moreover universe is infinite or at least there is no prove that shows it is finite.

Hmm, So what you are saying is that the expanding Universe is NOT a closed system?

I believe you have a misunderstanding of what equillibrium means.
The Universe is expanding as a result of the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
The amount of energy that was given to our Universe is a constant, it is not changing. That is, is not increasing.
That is a steady state. Wheather the Universe expands forever or contracts onto itself does not change the fact that energy wise the Universe is NOT gaining any.

If you have an alternative theory I certainly would like to see it.

If the system is not closed please formulate your hipotesis of where the imbalance is.
Where is the extra energy coming from and how much of it?
Remember none of it can come from within the Universe.
Do you have mathematical or astronomical data to back your theory up?

As for the Universe being infinite, that is an odd statement, you are trying to use science and the laws of nature to counter God existence and yet you flatly deny science’s mathematical, physical and astronomical proofs that the Universe is NOT infinite, HAD a beginning and WILL have an end. You are mistaken, THERE ARE proofs of it. Will you accept them? Is another question.

–

 

[Bahman]

Hmm, So what you are saying is that the expanding Universe is NOT a closed system?

I believe you have a misunderstanding of what equillibrium means.
The Universe is expanding as a result of the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
The amount of energy that was given to our Universe is a constant, it is not changing. That is, is not increasing.
That is a steady state. Wheather the Universe expands forever or contracts onto itself does not change the fact that energy wise the Universe is NOT gaining any.

If you have an alternative theory I certainly would like to see it.

If the system is not closed please formulate your hipotesis of where the imbalance is.
Where is the extra energy coming from and how much of it?
Remember none of it can come from within the Universe.
Do you have mathematical or astronomical data to back your theory up?

As for the Universe being infinite, that is an odd statement, you are trying to use science and the laws of nature to counter God existence and yet you flatly deny science’s mathematical, physical and astronomical proofs that the Universe is NOT infinite, HAD a beginning and WILL have an end. You are mistaken, THERE ARE proofs of it. Will you accept them? Is another question.

–

No what I am saying is that universe is not at equilibrium state since otherwise we would end up in state of chaos as you stated before. Please also read the following for the relation between entropy and direction of time: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28arrow_of_time%29

 

[Ad_Orientem]

St. Thomas writes in the Summa Theologica (I, Q4, a2):

God’s existence includes in itself life and wisdom, because nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him who is subsisting being itself.

To prove this he quotes or paraphrases Aristotle as saying of God that

He lacks not any excellence which may be found in any genus.

Unfortunately Thomas doesn’t specify where in Metaphysics, Book V Aristotle says this, but with a little searching I’m sure you can find it.

 

[JerryZ]

No what I am saying is that universe is not at equilibrium state since otherwise we would end up in state of chaos as you stated before. Please also read the following for the relation between entropy and direction of time: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28arrow_of_time%29

But that is precisely it, the Universe IS currently going towards chaos.
Entropy is increasing.

The suns (stars) burn H2 the He4 then up until they either explode or collapse.
Black Holes get bigger and bigger until…
Eventually all matter will be consumed and the Universe will die.

Once the last photon flickers off the Universe will be a black, cold, lifeless empty void.

–

 

[OliverR]

But that is precisely it, the Universe IS currently going towards chaos.
Entropy is increasing.

The suns (stars) burn H2 the He4 then up until they either explode or collapse.
Black Holes get bigger and bigger until…
Eventually all matter will be consumed and the Universe will die.

Once the last photon flickers off the Universe will be a black, cold, lifeless empty void.

–

What about Hawking radiation?