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

[greylorn]

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.

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.

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.

Reggie,
I am unaccustomed to so much agreement. It is reassuring, and I’m almost reluctant to disturb that positive state. Yet, to have a worthy conversation we must find a worthwhile point of disagreement.

I’d like to revisit my earlier statement—

“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.”

—and your reply:

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.

Your first sentence here is clearly correct. Actually, so is your second, but perhaps not for the reasons you might give (which I trust you will follow this up with).

For example, on an earlier thread which might have been named, “Can God Think?” I discussed the obvious contradiction between creative thought and omniscience. Only one of these properties is possible. Since there is plenty of evidence in my universe for creative thought on the part of the Creator, I’ve adopted “God thinks” as a working hypothesis to the exclusion of “God knows everything.”

A primary reason for the increasing popularity of atheism is that the current God concept does not fit the facts. Creation of the universe in six almighty acts of will is fairly consistent with the concept of an almighty God. The creation of biological life over a period of 3.5 billion years is consistent with a Creator who took a while to figure things out.

It seems to me that the concept of a limited God solves real problems. If it causes problems for theologians and philosophers, my only regret is that they will keep their jobs even longer by trying unsuccessfully to solve problems of their own creation.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

It’s a pity that when you think you have given a decisive argument, everyone else seems to run over it, not noticing it.

The initial questions of this thread arise out of a certain mentality and set of criteria concerning the existence and meaning of God or ontological creativity and wisdom. While the complementing mentality, and this is based on Nobel-price-winning science by Roger Sperry, would answer thus on these questions:

The questions are: “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.”

The other mentality answers: “For me there is no distinction between man and reality, my creativity is in micro the creativity of the universe, I’m a child of reality, a child of God. And I know there is a God because I see his work all around me, his art, his enterprise, his strive for the good.”

Subsequently these questions can be reversed of course according to this other, religious, mentality:

“Define the nature and properties of the pointless and Godless universe in a complete and logically consistent manner, logically consistent with the rise of the creativity of mankind and of other creative species in nature. Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project, preferably one which explains away the universes growth in complexity towards creative lifeforms. Determine whether or not it is reasonable for such an accidental universe to exist, given it’s inherent order and apparant ascent.”

 

[reggieM]

“Define the nature and properties of the pointless and Godless universe in a complete and logically consistent manner, logically consistent with the rise of the creativity of mankind and of other creative species in nature. Devise a suitable motivation for the accomplishment of that project, preferably one which explains away the universes growth in complexity towards creative lifeforms. Determine whether or not it is reasonable for such an accidental universe to exist, given it’s inherent order and apparant ascent.”

That’s a good point. There is rationality, beauty, intelligence, sophisticated harmony of parts and more in the universe. Trying to explain this as the result of unintelligent, unconscious and accidental forces causes inconsistency.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Ah well yes, I see you get my drift. But please notice the context I’m scetching, of different cognitive ways to interpret the same scientific data. In other words: you can see the ‘rationality, beauty, intelligence, sophisticated harmony of parts and more in the universe’, but I can assure you, there are others that do not. And it very much looks that way this has to do with the two main opposited but complementary ways of cognition our brain and consciousness is able to experience and interpret reality.

Since Roger Sperry this scientific phenomenon has given rise to an important discourse on this, expanding into not only neurological and psychological but also in sociological and historical research on the ascent of cultures and their respective world views. It has the promise of making an important step further in our understanding of the relation of man and reality. As the dutch philosopher André Klukhuhn sees it, it can provide a moderating meta-level in looking at the various discussions and conflictive collisions between contradictory world views or belief systems.

But indeed, despite all this, given the scientific data, given all we know right now about this universe, its subtle order, its statistically seen rapid growth in complexity, and given the fact its habiting us being completely naturally arisen creative lifeforms, the accidental universe is a logical absurdity.

 

[reggieM]

A primary reason for the increasing popularity of atheism is that the current God concept does not fit the facts. Creation of the universe in six almighty acts of will is fairly consistent with the concept of an almighty God. The creation of biological life over a period of 3.5 billion years is consistent with a Creator who took a while to figure things out.

One problem I see here is the notion of it “taking a while” for God to know something. Since God created the concept and existence of time itself, He cannot be bound by it or even subject to it. However long it would take God to learn something has already occurred in the infinite past – or actually occurs simultaneously in the infinite present of God. The nature of God occupies that one fleeting thing we seek – the present tense.

I don’t think we should limit the work of creativity to matters of chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics. Although, when one observes mathematical constants in the universe and the coincidental arrangments of the cosmos, making life on earth possible, we can see that those are precise and unchanging. So, that would be a Creator who didn’t need to learn anything from mathematics, or even physics. But there is also creative thinking in art, music, drama and literature. The products in these fields are not the result of “thinking a lot” or “being really smart” or “figuring things out”. Many great works are the product of inspiration and raw talent – things not learned, not evaluated in laboratories and not the product of IQ tests. We learn a lot about the universe in the contrast between light and dark. Is the universe “better” if there is no dark? The greatest beauty is “mystery”. We return again and again to the mysterious and wonder about it. But mystery is caused by ignorance. To create and work with beauty, one must appreciate and value the benefits of ignorance.

In Catholic terms, unchase, gluttonous and intemperate thinking is a matter of grabbing for more knowledge than needed (being educated beyond one’s mental capabilities and needs, for example). In grasping for knowledge one can lose the little wisdom he had. Wisdom is not the product of accumulated facts, but of an understanding for and appreciation of the mysteries of life. Attempts to strip away mystery are very evil in many cases. Thus we have a sex-trade or even simple invasions of privacy. Should we be free to know about everyone’s private life and make all of that public? Materialists should have no problem with it since there is no inner, private life to speak of.

But there are imperfections in the universe. I would guess your theory proposes that God is learning how to perfect the universe – and the imperfections we see are due to God’s ignorance.

There are many problems here. God would be striving for some kind of perfection that doesn’t presently exist. If God was imperfect, He couldn’t give perfection to anything else.

If God was striving for an unreachable, impossible-to-attain goal of perfection then this would be illogical and inconsistent.

It seems to me that the concept of a limited God solves real problems.

It does solve some problems. But it causes others because there is not evidence that the universe is “improving” or even that there is a standard by which one could measure good and evil.

If materialism is true, then there is no good or evil. The only good would be existence itself. To judge that the world is getting “better” is to have some kind of standard to measure by. In materialist terms, the universe just “is”. It doesn’t get “better” or “worse”. So, trying to judge those standards without reference to what the Creator desires as good or evil leads to confusion.

Solving a problem for the short term can cause greater problems overall. The positing of two Creators, for example, one good one evil, solves the problem of evil. It causes numerous other problems, however, which are impossible to reconcile logically.

 

[reggieM]

In other words: you can see the ‘rationality, beauty, intelligence, sophisticated harmony of parts and more in the universe’, but I can assure you, there are others that do not.

You may be correct, but I have never encountered anyone who does not recognize the meaning and presence of “beauty” for example. I propose that 100% of human beings (even some under the age of reason) recognize and have experienced the concept.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

I know lots of people that certainly do not recognise the meaning and presence of beauty in a tree for instance. They might see the beauty, but meaning… And most of the times this correlates with an atheistic and materialistic world view - nature is pointless, meaningless. Subsequently this has to do, as I have pointed out, with different cognitive ways of experiencing and interpreting reality.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity… and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.

William Blake

 

[tonyrey]

But there are imperfections in the universe.

If God created a perfect universe there would be two Gods!

 

[reggieM]

I know lots of people that certainly do not recognise the meaning and presence of beauty in a tree for instance. They might see the beauty, but meaning… And most of the times this correlates with an atheistic and materialistic world view - nature is pointless, meaningless. Subsequently this has to do, as I have pointed out, with different cognitive ways of experiencing and interpreting reality.

Ok, but I think the point is that there is beauty in the universe – this beauty exists. Some may see it more in one thing or another, but all see it. Everyone knows what beauty is – therefore it is universal in human experience.

 

[reggieM]

If God created a perfect universe there would be two Gods!

Good point.

As for the question: “How could a perfect God create an imperfect universe”?

It may only be imperfect in human perception. Again, without God as a reference point for what is good and perfect, it would not be possible to say that the universe is “imperfect”. The universe and life would just be what it is – not good or bad.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

ReggieM,

With your remarks we finally arrived at the notion ‘beauty’, but this is only a sub-sub-sub-aspect of the point I was making. And sofar I haven’t seen any reaction on that. In a discussion that is very unusual.

And by the way, our knowledge of God is very limited, and always, as history shows, subject to reconsidaration. These days we’re looking at a universe that contains various phenomena as: baffling order, ceaseless creativity, enormous dimensions, etcetera, but also the Holocaust, Tyrannosaurus Rex and horrible diseases.

In his speech at Regensburg Pope Benedict spoke of the necessity of converging science with theology. And with that he implied that dogmatic notions as that of the perfect God aren’t that dogmatic any more.

While with this you also see an attempt to converge these different cognitive abilities we have, with on the one hand this investigative, dissecting, skeptic approach, and on the other hand this religious, holistic, but also sometimes dogmatic way of thinking.

 

[greylorn]

Ah well yes, I see you get my drift. But please notice the context I’m scetching, of different cognitive ways to interpret the same scientific data. In other words: you can see the ‘rationality, beauty, intelligence, sophisticated harmony of parts and more in the universe’, but I can assure you, there are others that do not. And it very much looks that way this has to do with the two main opposited but complementary ways of cognition our brain and consciousness is able to experience and interpret reality.

Since Roger Sperry this scientific phenomenon has given rise to an important discourse on this, expanding into not only neurological and psychological but also in sociological and historical research on the ascent of cultures and their respective world views. It has the promise of making an important step further in our understanding of the relation of man and reality. As the dutch philosopher André Klukhuhn sees it, it can provide a moderating meta-level in looking at the various discussions and conflictive collisions between contradictory world views or belief systems.

But indeed, despite all this, given the scientific data, given all we know right now about this universe, its subtle order, its statistically seen rapid growth in complexity, and given the fact its habiting us being completely naturally arisen creative lifeforms, the accidental universe is a logical absurdity.

That’s a lot of words. You’ve proven that you read philosophy books and dictionaries, but have yet to distill some conceptual understanding from that vast knowledge into a contribution to this thread.

 

[greylorn]

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.

You are dead wrong on this. Energy, not matter, is the central stuff of the universe. Whatever philosophers propose otherwise are in sore need of education, in physics.

 

[greylorn]

It’s a pity that when you think you have given a decisive argument, everyone else seems to run over it, not noticing it.

In my experience, whenever my arguments are ignored, either my presentation was incompetent or the argument sucked.

The most difficult part of cleaning up my act, an ongoing process, is getting past moments of self-pity.

 

[DavidHume]

You are dead wrong on this. Energy, not matter, is the central stuff of the universe. Whatever philosophers propose otherwise are in sore need of education, in physics.

All I meant to say is that they are two names for the same thing, as the equation demonstrates.

 

[greylorn]

One problem I see here is the notion of it “taking a while” for God to know something. Since God created the concept and existence of time itself, He cannot be bound by it or even subject to it. However long it would take God to learn something has already occurred in the infinite past – or actually occurs simultaneously in the infinite present of God. The nature of God occupies that one fleeting thing we seek – the present tense.

I don’t think we should limit the work of creativity to matters of chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics. Although, when one observes mathematical constants in the universe and the coincidental arrangments of the cosmos, making life on earth possible, we can see that those are precise and unchanging. So, that would be a Creator who didn’t need to learn anything from mathematics, or even physics. But there is also creative thinking in art, music, drama and literature. The products in these fields are not the result of “thinking a lot” or “being really smart” or “figuring things out”. Many great works are the product of inspiration and raw talent – things not learned, not evaluated in laboratories and not the product of IQ tests. We learn a lot about the universe in the contrast between light and dark. Is the universe “better” if there is no dark? The greatest beauty is “mystery”. We return again and again to the mysterious and wonder about it. But mystery is caused by ignorance. To create and work with beauty, one must appreciate and value the benefits of ignorance.

In Catholic terms, unchase, gluttonous and intemperate thinking is a matter of grabbing for more knowledge than needed (being educated beyond one’s mental capabilities and needs, for example). In grasping for knowledge one can lose the little wisdom he had. Wisdom is not the product of accumulated facts, but of an understanding for and appreciation of the mysteries of life. Attempts to strip away mystery are very evil in many cases. Thus we have a sex-trade or even simple invasions of privacy. Should we be free to know about everyone’s private life and make all of that public? Materialists should have no problem with it since there is no inner, private life to speak of.

But there are imperfections in the universe. I would guess your theory proposes that God is learning how to perfect the universe – and the imperfections we see are due to God’s ignorance.

There are many problems here. God would be striving for some kind of perfection that doesn’t presently exist. If God was imperfect, He couldn’t give perfection to anything else.

If God was striving for an unreachable, impossible-to-attain goal of perfection then this would be illogical and inconsistent.

It does solve some problems. But it causes others because there is not evidence that the universe is “improving” or even that there is a standard by which one could measure good and evil.

If materialism is true, then there is no good or evil. The only good would be existence itself. To judge that the world is getting “better” is to have some kind of standard to measure by. In materialist terms, the universe just “is”. It doesn’t get “better” or “worse”. So, trying to judge those standards without reference to what the Creator desires as good or evil leads to confusion.

Solving a problem for the short term can cause greater problems overall. The positing of two Creators, for example, one good one evil, solves the problem of evil. It causes numerous other problems, however, which are impossible to reconcile logically.

This is way too much to deal with item by item. It appears as though you’ve attempted to integrate some of your beliefs with a few of my ideas, which is like squeezing the world’s fattest woman behind the wheel of an Aston Martin. You’ve guessed at what my theory proposes, and gotten it totally wrong:

But there are imperfections in the universe. I would guess your theory proposes that God is learning how to perfect the universe – and the imperfections we see are due to God’s ignorance.

I don’t know of any imperfections in the universe which might be attributable to God’s creation. It seems to me to be a work of extraordinary genius. However, I don’t measure anything physical in the context of a “perfection” standard. Mathematical logic is the only thing capable of meeting such a subjective standard.

I do observe that there is plenty of incompetence and considerable evil manifested in the behavior of human beings. Contrasted to the behavior of animals and the brilliant engineering seen in all other aspects of the universe, it is obvious to me that God (whether your version or mine) cannot have created the human soul.

This conclusion, along with the limited-God hypothesis, solves the remaining problems you mention.

 

[DavidHume]

I don’t know of any imperfections in the universe which might be attributable to God’s creation. It seems to me to be a work of extraordinary genius.

I’m a big fan of those wasps that lay their eggs inside caterpillars. The larvae hatch and feed on the caterpillar’s insides, taking control of the caterpillar’s body and primitive nervous system, forcing it to gorge itself and to act as bodyguard until the larvae consume the caterpillar and metamorphose – simply exquisite.

“I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.”

(You know what they say cruelty to animals is a sign of…)

 

[greylorn]

I’m a big fan of those wasps that lay their eggs inside caterpillars. The larvae hatch and feed on the caterpillar’s insides, taking control of the caterpillar’s body and primitive nervous system, forcing it to gorge itself and to act as bodyguard until the larvae consume the caterpillar and metamorphose – simply exquisite.

“I admire its purity. A survivor… unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.”

(You know what they say cruelty to animals is a sign of…)

I imagine that this excerpt from nature is offered as an example of imperfection in the universe, a lesson in guided cynicism. What a curious take on biological life, which seems to have been living on other biological life since shortly after the invention of algae.

You’ve picked the wrong bunny to throw into a briar patch. This one finds the caterpillar wasp a nice way to get rid of tree-infesting worms, never was a fan of Disney style anthropomorphism, and doesn’t believe in a personally attentive Creator who even notices, much less cares, when I break a body part or get kicked in the groin, or when His creations blow one another up in His behalf.

The Creator in Whom I believe is not the God in whom you and other atheists disbelieve.

I suspect that He engineered the universe for more interesting reasons than a need to be loved by me and believed in by you, and if the bloodletting proclivities on this planet are any indication, He might not be the kind of entity which faithful Christians would label “kind.” .

Please practice your childish moralizing on someone gullible.

 

[greylorn]

All I meant to say is that they are two names for the same thing, as the equation demonstrates.

You are missing the point entirely. Matter and energy are not different names for the same thing.

Either take a calculus-level physics course or stop pretending that you know something about physics. Guys like you have made philosophy a meaningless exercise in wordmongering. Must you spread your verbal pollution into science?