Creation of the Universe: Who, How, and Why?

[greylorn]

The basic premise of this thread is that at least some components of the universe are created. While this premise is widely shared, it is not shared by members of the world’s fastest growing belief system, namely, science-based atheism. The creation premise will find little credibility in the minds of educated young people until it is moved from the domain of religion into the realm of scientific plausibility. This requires completion of the following:

Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe in a complete and logically consistent manner.

Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project, preferably one which does not declare human beings to be the primary focus of the creation process.

Determine whether or not it is reasonable for such a creator to exist.

This has already been done, but I’m looking for even better ideas. Positive ideas are welcome, but reiterations of belief are not useful for the purpose of this thread, which invites innovative thought.

 

[Belle777]

I’m bad at this, but I’ll see what I can do.

Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe in a complete and logically consistent manner.

The creator is infinite and an intelligent being.
They have the will to create, and the infinite knowledge and power to do it.
…
Okay, even I can tell that’s not the answer you’re looking for…bare with me, I’m bad at this.

Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project, preferably one which does not declare human beings to be the primary focus of the creation process.

There really doesn’t need to be a reason for it, though you can’t really say God was bored…God wanted something beautiful and meaningful in existence, perhaps.

Determine whether or not it is reasonable for such a creator to exist.

It all had to start somewhere.
The first item that came into the world that triggered the existence of everything was put here by God?
…
Uh…ya know, I’m leaving this up to wiser people…walks away

 

[greylorn]

I’m bad at this, but I’ll see what I can do.

The creator is infinite and an intelligent being.
They have the will to create, and the infinite knowledge and power to do it.
…
Okay, even I can tell that’s not the answer you’re looking for…bare with me, I’m bad at this.

Devise a suitable motivation…

There really doesn’t need to be a reason for it, though you can’t really say God was bored…God wanted something beautiful and meaningful in existence, perhaps.

Determine whether or not it is reasonable for such a creator to exist.

It all had to start somewhere.
The first item that came into the world that triggered the existence of everything was put here by God?
…
Uh…ya know, I’m leaving this up to wiser people…walks away

Belle,
Thanks for giving it a shot. Might be worth stepping outside existing religious paradigms and revisiting.

 

[tonyrey]

The basic premise of this thread is that at least some components of the universe are created. While this premise is widely shared, it is not shared by members of the world’s fastest growing belief system, namely, science-based atheism. The creation premise will find little credibility in the minds of educated young people until it is moved from the domain of religion into the realm of scientific plausibility. This requires completion of the following:

Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe in a complete and logically consistent manner.

 

[Dameedna]

Why does one suppose that the universe has been created? Why does one suppose that human thinking can some-who come close to answering these questions…or that the way we think…can provide us with truthful answers and not simply nonsense.?

IE…why are the questions what they are.

Why does the universe require “logical” thinking and “consistancy”?

Why does the “creature” have to have a certain nature, motivation or intention?

Why does this have to be reasonable?

You want to try and answer this question without introducing faith, but that’s what you’ve already done, or at least philosophy that’s often based from a position of faith.

You have a certain view of mankind, that may or may not have anything to do with this universe. Human kind puts so much stock in it’s own nature. It’s mind, it’s rational thinking as we call it. People lack imagination. Why put so much importance onto the way a human mind works, in a universe that is immensly old large and pretty much misunderstood?

Don’t worry, I know why humans ask the big questions. What is astounding to me sometimes, is that we think…because we little humans “rationalize” and “analyze” everything that this has anything actually to do with the universe itself? As though our “thinking” is some-how driven by an original universal goal.

If you aren’t happy with my answer I’ll bail out. The point I’m trying to make is difficult to articulate.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why does the universe require “logical” thinking and “consistancy”?

The nature that is “existence”, encourages us to. Don’t blame me, blame existence.

 

[liquidpele]

Obviously we were blinked into existence 25 seconds ago with full memories of the past intact and the universe just looking to us like it’s very old. We are part of a simulation that the great praying mantis beings are conducting, trying to map out all the possible universes and possible ways life can form so they can find which ones are the most delicious… and as soon as they are done watching us run around for a bit they will shut off the simulation and we will be destroyed, only surviving on their memories if even that.

Go ahead, just try to prove me wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

Why does one suppose that the universe has been created?

The evidence of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe make it more reasonable to believe it was created.

Why does one suppose that human thinking can some-who come close to answering these questions…or that the way we think…can provide us with truthful answers and not simply nonsense.?

The success of science…

Why does the universe require “logical” thinking and “consistency”?

How else do you think?

Why does this have to be reasonable?

Because reason cannot be derived from that which lacks reason.

Why put so much importance onto the way a human mind works, in a universe that is immensely old large and pretty much misunderstood?

You are using your power of reason to belittle reason!

What is astounding to me sometimes, is that we think…because we little humans “rationalize” and “analyze” everything that this has anything actually to do with the universe itself?

We cannot fully understand the universe but it does not follow that we cannot know anything about the universe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

*Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe in a complete and logically consistent manner. *

Here you are being unrealistic and unfair. To do as you ask would be to assume we are the God who created us.

Step back, listen to yourself, and have a good laugh.

 

[reggieM]

Positive ideas are welcome, but reiterations of belief are not useful for the purpose of this thread, which invites innovative thought.

There are some common ideas which indicate aspects of the nature of the creator which are not “beliefs” but inferences based on observation.
I think you’re saying that you don’t want to hear anything that you’ve heard before because you’re not convinced by it, right?
If so, that’s different than saying that all attempts to answer this question in the past have been merely “reiterations of belief” – as if accepted by revelation and not by the consistency of logic.

 

[greylorn]

Why does one suppose that the universe has been created? Why does one suppose that human thinking can some-who come close to answering these questions…or that the way we think…can provide us with truthful answers and not simply nonsense.?

IE…why are the questions what they are.

Why does the universe require “logical” thinking and “consistancy”?

Why does the “creature” have to have a certain nature, motivation or intention?

Why does this have to be reasonable?

You want to try and answer this question without introducing faith, but that’s what you’ve already done, or at least philosophy that’s often based from a position of faith.

You have a certain view of mankind, that may or may not have anything to do with this universe. Human kind puts so much stock in it’s own nature. It’s mind, it’s rational thinking as we call it. People lack imagination. Why put so much importance onto the way a human mind works, in a universe that is immensly old large and pretty much misunderstood?

Don’t worry, I know why humans ask the big questions. What is astounding to me sometimes, is that we think…because we little humans “rationalize” and “analyze” everything that this has anything actually to do with the universe itself? As though our “thinking” is some-how driven by an original universal goal.

If you aren’t happy with my answer I’ll bail out. The point I’m trying to make is difficult to articulate.

I’m not happy, and you needn’t bail just yet. It’s a tough set of questions.

You’ve replied with questions more so than answers, but your questions are germane. They appear to be distillable into a general sort of complaint to the effect that we either cannot answer such questions, or that the answers are irrelevant. You could be right, but if so, you’ve taken the fun out of thinking.

Not all people lack imagination. Some have it. Saddled with real information and bridled with logic, imagination has proven an effective tool for discovery. Perhaps when you said that, “People lack imagination,” you were referring to those with whom you associate.

Perhaps it is just as well that you bail out on these questions after all.

 

[greylorn]

There are some common ideas which indicate aspects of the nature of the creator which are not “beliefs” but inferences based on observation.

I was unaware that God has been observed, either formally or informally.

I’m aware of the commonly held beliefs about the nature and attributes of the Creator. They appear to be derived philosophically. In other words, someone made them up.

I’d be delighted to learn of those attributes which can honestly be derived from observation rather than invention.

I think you’re saying that you don’t want to hear anything that you’ve heard before because you’re not convinced by it, right?

I’m using this thread as an invitation to the imaginative. I know the dogma. I’ve heard the mantras. Hearing them again seems pointless.

If so, that’s different than saying that all attempts to answer this question in the past have been merely “reiterations of belief” – as if accepted by revelation and not by the consistency of logic.

I didn’t say that, did I?

I invite you to post to this thread constructively and imaginatively. Quibbling is not interesting. Thank you.

 

[reggieM]

I was unaware that God has been observed, either formally or informally.

Note again the following – I added emphasis.

There are some common ideas which indicate *aspects of the nature of the creator *which are not “beliefs” but inferences based on observation.

The teleological argument makes inferences about the nature of the creator based on observations of nature. That is different from saying that “God has been observed”.

I’m aware of the commonly held beliefs about the nature and attributes of the Creator. They appear to be derived philosophically. In other words, someone made them up.

Ok, it appears that you’re dismissing philosophical arguments, although I hope you don’t also dismiss logic – a branch of philosophy.

I’d be delighted to learn of those attributes which can honestly be derived from observation rather than invention.

Observations of nature and the cosmos show levels of complexity, symmetry, harmonious function and order which indicate the work of intelligence as a creative and coordinating power.

Thus, by observations we can recognize some attributes of the Creator through the things that have been created.

I’m using this thread as an invitation to the imaginative. I know the dogma. I’ve heard the mantras. Hearing them again seems pointless.

Ok, I understand what you’re looking for. Thanks.

 

[DavidHume]

You said you’re looking for imagination, and I’m looking for something to do.

Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe in a complete and logically consistent manner.

The creator of the universe is that entity which exhibits the strongest will to power. If you like such things, you can find ample documentation of the Hebrew/Christian God’s claim to this position in Scripture, e.g. Isaiah 45:7, John 1:3, Acts 17:24-25, and the quite popular, though primarily known with apocryphal embellishment, Ezekiel 25:17.

Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project, preferably one which does not declare human beings to be the primary focus of the creation process.

That’s neatly handled by the answer to the first question. Der alte Gott, ganz “Geist”, ganz Hohepriester, ganz Vollkommenheit, lustwandelt in seinem Garten: nur dass er sich langweilt. Gegen die Langeweile kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

Determine whether or not it is reasonable for such a creator to exist.

By definition one cannot successfully dispute, quarrel with, or deny the being that has superlative will to power. Therefore it is irrelevant whether it’s reasonable for it to exist or not.

 

[greylorn]

Note again the following – I added emphasis.

There are some common ideas which indicate *aspects of the nature of the creator *which are not “beliefs” but inferences based on observation.

The teleological argument makes inferences about the nature of the creator based on observations of nature. That is different from saying that “God has been observed”.

Ok, it appears that you’re dismissing philosophical arguments, although I hope you don’t also dismiss logic – a branch of philosophy.

Observations of nature and the cosmos show levels of complexity, symmetry, harmonious function and order which indicate the work of intelligence as a creative and coordinating power.

Thus, by observations we can recognize some attributes of the Creator through the things that have been created.

Ok, I understand what you’re looking for. Thanks.

Thank you for the clarification.

I agree completely with your statement, “Observations of nature…” I too use the physical universe as a bible. Observations indicate creative intelligence. However, observations do not support the God-concept adopted by the Church, which is that of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator. To the contrary, observations refute these commonly accepted attributes of God.

I do not dismiss any arguments, provided that they are competent. Philosophy has yielded little of value on this particular subject, so I tend to hold it in low esteem. That does not imply that philosophy will not yield a good argument someday, only that it will not come from credentialed philosophers.

 

[reggieM]

I agree completely with your statement, “Observations of nature…” I too use the physical universe as a bible. Observations indicate creative intelligence.

That sounds good. What I would suggest is to catalogue the attributes of the Creator that we can observe in the universe. Creative intelligence is a key attribute. We could also observe “vastness” and “subtlty” (consider the elegant mathematical formulas that explain the universe and its laws) … and others.

However, observations do not support the God-concept adopted by the Church, which is that of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator. To the contrary, observations refute these commonly accepted attributes of God.

Measures of the power of the Creator can be based in part by observation but are also enhanced with philosophy. If the Creator is not all-powerful, then there is potential and possibility that can be fulfilled. Philosophically and logically this provides some problems to deal with.

That does not imply that philosophy will not yield a good argument someday, only that it will not come from credentialed philosophers.

I fully agree with that regarding credentialed philosophers. I also believe the same about credentialed theologians and more importantly, biologists and physicists who lack philosophical experience and insight (these are generally materialist-atheistic types).

It’s good to hear that you’re open to a variety of options on this because the answers may come from sources that you didn’t consider as a priority originally.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

“Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe in a complete and logically consistent manner.”

Throughout the history of mankind the notion of spirits and gods and God, in various cultures, in various religions, came out of: an integrative experience and view of oneself, ones creativity mainly, and ones environment or world in general, including a synergy of epiphanic experience, search for ethical guidance and search for meaning.

This said this divine hardly can be reduced to some kind of researchable object in front of you. Because with the notion you do not exactly know what you’re pointing at, except that it is ‘creative’, ‘inventive’, ‘powerfull’, ‘compassionate’, at least: maybe, we think, believe.

But loosing this ‘integrativeness’ out of your self- and worldexperience – one speaks of the subject-object-distinction, that is so typical of modernity – you become a socalled autonomous subject, looking at the world that is understood as a pointless, nihilistic object – this is what Nietzsche meant by saying: God is dead.

It has to do with two different and opposited – but complementing - ways of experiencing and interpreting reality. Interesting in this is the following testimony by brainexpert Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor.

ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

 

[Geremia]

From a translation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s 1.2.2Summa Theologica from footnote on pg. 24 his Division and methods of the sciences, a commentary on Boethius’s De Trinitate, St. Thomas addresses whether it can be demonstrated that God exists:

Demonstrations can be made in two ways: one is through the cause, and is called propter quid, and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and this is called a demonstration quia; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us.

Another translation, from the Fathers of the English Dominican Province:

Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called a priori, and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration a posteriori; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us.

Natural science, which argues not through the cause of the universe (i.e., with a demonstration propter quid or a priori), can only prove the existence of this cause (i.e., God) through Its effects (i.e., with a demonstration quid or a posteriori), even if natural science, the study of the physical world, can never know the essence of God, Who is purely spiritual.

The problem is not that science cannot demonstrate God’s existence. It can. The problem is that many “sciats” (scientist-atheists) are materialists and/or pantheists; they maintain that matter is eternal and therefore does not need a creator. Science, especially quantum mechanics and particle physics, can prove that matter is not eternal; particles, such as matter–anti-matter pairs like an electron and anti-electron, can pop in and out of existence when interacting with each other, for example.

 

[DavidHume]

Science, especially quantum mechanics and particle physics, can prove that matter is not eternal; particles, such as matter–anti-matter pairs like an electron and anti-electron, can pop in and out of existence when interacting with each other, for example.

I think you’re relying on ambiguity of the term “matter.” From a philosophical, cosmological standpoint, “matter” is not necessarily just anything that has mass – it the stuff which composes all things in the universe. Even in physics, this “stuff” is described as the same thing in Einstein’s famous E=mc^2 equation.

With this sense of matter in mind, matter is not being created or destroyed in those cases; it is merely changing forms. When electrons and anti-electrons collide, photons are created.

 

[HelenaMT]

The problem I am having with this thread is that there are so many variables under each question. I added some comments and questions on this under each. Feel free to ignore if it doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

**Define the nature and properties of the creator or creators of the universe in a complete and logically consistent manner. **

In order to appeal to unbelievers, you need to start with the most minimalist assumptions. The only necessary qualities would seem to be awareness (in order to have the ability to actively make choices) and the ability to either create matter or transform it. Then there needs to be a way that this creator interacts with the creation to cause such creation or transformation.

Without knowing what method of interaction the creator has at his disposal, it is very difficult to determine what sort of properties he’d have. If he’s connected to everything at once somehow, his properties are different than if he set things in motion and then stopped creating/transforming. It also depends on how reality is actually set up. If time and causality are existent everywhere, even before the Big Bang or whatever caused our current universe, that creator will not have the attributes of a creator where there exists a “time before time”. In other words, if the creator can act outside of time(whatever that means) or can know all times at once, his motivations and attributes would not be the same as those of a creator who only has access to the past or present.

Also, how much can the creator concentrate on at any given moment? Does he simultaneously know all there is to know, or can he have started a project, set it on auto-pilot, and only sporadically check up on it? An all-knowing being would have different characteristics than one with limited knowledge.

Without knowing what sort of knowledge and power the creator has, it’s hard to speculate on characteristics.

Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project, preferably one which does not declare human beings to be the primary focus of the creation process.

The motivation would depend on whether the creator was the only one, or one of several, and what level of control the creator(s) had over the creation. It also depends on what sort of intelligence we are looking at. Can this creator have anything we recognize as emotions? How could that be if he has no biological body? Can we know whether a non-biological form can even have a form of thought we could recognize? If not, can we speculate on what qualities pure intelligence automatically comes with?

Though humans do not necessarily have to be the primary focus, I can’t imagine that a creative lifeform with any intelligence would not be interested in other life forms that grew to self awareness, even if the difference in IQ was astronomical. If I was the only intelligent being in existence, even someone with the IQ of a 4 year old would catch my interest. However,if there are more than one creator, this might not hold true (they’d have eachother for company)

Determine whether or not it is reasonable for such a creator to exist.

Without a full understanding of how our reality actually functions, it seems impossible to determine whether a particular creator exists or not. That “a” creator might exist seems reasonable, but if you are trying to do this scientifically, how can you defend any one particular version without first knowing, at least :
a. whether he is one or several
b. *how *or *if *he still interacts with the observable universe
c. whether he creates, or merely transforms what already exists

In other words, we would need evidence of the creator’s interaction with the observable universe that we could then use to speculate on further properties.