OK, let's assume a creator

[Spock]

This is your assumption, and I am going to go along with it - in this thread. Let’s assume that this universe is not all there is. Let’s pretend that your “first something”, “prime whatever”, etc… type of argument was successful. What can be deduced from this assumption? Use your logic only. The only starting point is that the universe does not stand on its own right, that it was created. No reference to faith, revelation and such. No other auxiliary assumptions. What can you say about this creator?

If you don’t like the restrictions, do not post. I am only interested in your logical conclusions. Show me how logical you are. I will post my views later. Don’t want to influence your ideas.

 

[AdriannaJean]

See Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[tonyrey]

The immense value and complexity of life imply that the Creator is immensely good, immensely wise and immensely powerful.

 

[Apollos]

Adding to TonyRey: Its existence would be self-evident; its essence would be being; it would not be a body but more like a form; its essence and existence would be the same; have no accidents; be altogether simple; not enter into composition with anything; its existence would be necessary; there is only one of him; he is radically unlike any other thing; doesn’t change; is in act; is perfect; is infinite; omnipresent; is outside time; can love; and maybe other things too.

 

[Julian0404]

GOD’s engineering is beyond explanation and understanding.

GOD’s power is evidenced by the powers of HIS universe.

GOD’s art is living and not dead, dynamic and not static.

GOD’s imagination is without limit.

GOD’s owns and manages time.

GOD uses the simple to demonstrate HIMSELF.

GOD is not constrained by HIS creation or creatures.

GOD loves you.

 

[buffalo]

1. 
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.)

 

[illmatic]

Universe was created by someone or something.
[Universal truth does exist as there is a single fact at the start of everything.]
I exist in the universe and was created by someone or something.
As it’s creation I have little/no hope of understanding this entity without its help.
If universal truth exists, I can be right or wrong in my beliefs, assumptions and ‘learnings’.
The only entity with access to this universal truth is the creator.
The only way to learn about universal truth is through this creator.
The pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of this creator.

Does that stand up?

 

[ricmat]

OK - assume there is a Creator of the universe.

A being with the immense power to create the universe (with all the fine tuning required, etc.) does not make “mistakes.” There are no “accidents.”

Since we are not mistakes, the Creator made us (Ricmat, Spock, etc.) for a purpose.

And the logical (indeed required) follow up question is - “Why did our Creator make us? What is our purpose?”

There are many different opinions about the answer to that question. But, the question is certainly worth an attempt at an answer by every individual.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If we assume a Creator, we need to decide whether the Creator is Good or Evil. But life, being a gift, suggests a good God, not a malevolent one, a God who cares about Creation, rather than being indifferent to it or hateful toward it. A good God would lay down rules for us to follow that it would be in our interests to follow, such as the Ten Commandments. A good God would warn us that disobeying these rules would result in disaster. A good God would offer us salvation, but at a price … the price of earning it, not having it forced upon us. This earning of moral excellence and wisdom would require effort and self-discipline, much as we see exhibited in the achievement of an athlete, an artist, or a scientist. Repudiating the counsel of God through his messengers (Scripture and Church) would be as foolish as an athlete refusing to accept the counsel of his coach, who sees him as he is and knows what he must do to perfect himself. Yet this God is not a tyrant. He allows men by their free will to choose Him or to repudiate Him. He warns them of the consequence, but allows the consequence to show that it is we, not He, who are free to choose between Good and Evil, who are free to damn ourselves rather than to be damned.

 

[Spock]

So far the answers go from extremely disappointing to not too disappointing. Let’s take them, one at a time.

See Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

An empty post, with nothing in it. Rated “F”.

The immense value and complexity of life imply that the Creator is immensely good, immensely wise and immensely powerful.

The starting premise is merely a subjective assessment. Logic is pitiful. From the projected belief of the poster (Life is “immensely” valuable) it does not follow that the same can be assumed of the creator. Moreover, the fact that 99.999999…% of the universe is hostile to life flatly contradicts this assumption. Rated “F”.

GOD’s engineering is beyond explanation and understanding.
GOD’s power is evidenced by the powers of HIS universe.
GOD loves you.

A horrible post. It assumes - without any justification - that the creator is God, in dire contradiction to the OP, which only talks about “some” creator and specifically asks to leave “faith”, “revelation” etc. out of this thread. Rated “F-minus”.

1. 
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.)

1. 
   Same as the previous one. Rated “F-minus”.
   

   Universe was created by someone or something.
   [Universal truth does exist as there is a single fact at the start of everything.]
   I exist in the universe and was created by someone or something.
   As it’s creation I have little/no hope of understanding this entity without its help.
   If universal truth exists, I can be right or wrong in my beliefs, assumptions and ‘learnings’.
   The only entity with access to this universal truth is the creator.
   The only way to learn about universal truth is through this creator.
   The pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of this creator.
   
   Does that stand up?

   A little better! The error is the assumption about some “universal truth”. The OP says says nothing about the specifics of the creator, nor does it assume the “start of everything”, only the start of this universe. It is not assumed that everything in the universe was also created. So the rest is not logical. Rated “D-minus”.
   

   OK - assume there is a Creator of the universe.
   A being with the immense power to create the universe (with all the fine tuning required, etc.) does not make “mistakes.” There are no “accidents.”

   Finally some good thoughts. The immense power is a good logical corollary. However from that it does not follow at all that there will be no mistakes. So the rest is not acceptable. Rated “C”.
   

   If we assume a Creator, we need to decide whether the Creator is Good or Evil. But life, being a gift, suggests a good God, not a malevolent one, a God who cares about Creation, rather than being indifferent to it or hateful toward it.

   Same error as above in tonyrey’s post. The subjective assessment that life “being a gift” does not logically lead to anything. The creator could be good, evil or indifferent. From the fact that evil abounds in the universe it does not follow logically that the creator is “good”. Much more likely indifferent. Rated “D-minus”, because at least it attempts some logic.
   
   Here is what I was hoping to see:
   
   From the assumption that the universe was created, the only logical corollary is that the creator could do it. Nothing else follows. It does not follow that the creator is “singular”, it could be plural. It does not even follow that the creator is sentient. It could be a natural phenomenon. It does not follow that the creator is (or creators are) still around. Even if the creator is sentient, it does not follow that the creation was a purposeful event. It could be that the universe is just a by-product of a different project. That is all.

 

[Apollos]

It does not follow that the creator is “singular”, it could be plural. It does not even follow that the creator is sentient. It could be a natural phenomenon. It does not follow that the creator is (or creators are) still around. Even if the creator is sentient, it does not follow that the creation was a purposeful event. It could be that the universe is just a by-product of a different project.

That’s awfully naive. Now I understand why AdriannaJean’s response was the best of all.

 

[tonyrey]

The immense value and complexity of life imply that the Creator is immensely good, immensely wise and immensely powerful.

 

[tonyrey]

From the assumption that the universe was created, the only logical corollary is that the creator could do it. Nothing else follows.

Your logic is appalling! If the universe was created it couldn’t have created itself nor could it have been created by nothing. Therefore…

It does not follow that the creator is “singular”, it could be plural.

You have infringed the principle of economy…

It does not even follow that the creator is sentient. It could be a natural phenomenon.

The onus is on you to explain how a natural phenomenon without insight or self-control could have produced beings with insight and self-control.

It does not follow that the creator is (or creators are) still around.

Why would the creator of the universe be extinct when created beings are less powerful, contingent and cannot exist by themselves?

Even if the creator is sentient, it does not follow that the creation was a purposeful event.

How can the purposeful activity in the universe be produced by purposeless processes? Purpose presupposes foresight which natural processes lack.

It could be that the universe is just a by-product of a different project.

Aha! “pro-ject” implies purpose!!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

spock

*From the assumption that the universe was created, the only logical corollary is that the creator could do it. Nothing else follows. It does not follow that the creator is “singular”, it could be plural. It does not even follow that the creator is sentient. It could be a natural phenomenon. It does not follow that the creator is (or creators are) still around. Even if the creator is sentient, it does not follow that the creation was a purposeful event. It could be that the universe is just a by-product of a different project. That is all. *

None of this follows from the idea of a Creator unless you want it to follow. It certainly doesn’t follow as a logical consequence of conceding the existence of God. You asked for logical inferences. The only logic we have is human logic. Your logic is the logic of a machine that concedes nothing more than that its creator had the power to create it. That’s not human logic.

You might profit from reading Whitecrayon’s conversion story on this page?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7433027#post7433027

 

[JDaniel]

This is your assumption, and I am going to go along with it - in this thread. Let’s assume that this universe is not all there is. Let’s pretend that your “first something”, “prime whatever”, etc… type of argument was successful. What can be deduced from this assumption? Use your logic only. The only starting point is that the universe does not stand on its own right, that it was created. No reference to faith, revelation and such. No other auxiliary assumptions. What can you say about this creator?

If you don’t like the restrictions, do not post. I am only interested in your logical conclusions. Show me how logical you are. I will post my views later. Don’t want to influence your ideas.

Spocker:

Are you asking for a primordial explanation of what we might see, as opposed to one colored by God’s revelations and figures such as Sts. Thomas and Augustine? IOW, sans religion? Or, after one is convinced by the dialectical inductions, i.e., intuitive logics of St. Thomas?

God bless,
jd

 

[AdriannaJean]

You asked a question and I told your where to find you answers. Aristotle’s Metaphysics go into great detail in natural theology (Aristotle was not a Christian, but surprisingly came to conclusions that God is a necessary being, essentially thought thinking itself, full actuality etc.) and then Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelian logic to further natural theology given Christianity. I am neither as intelligent or eloquent as either of these men, but if you wanted to find out real answers from the experts, I have given you a map, not an answer.

 

[pnewton]

You asked a question and I told your where to find you answers. …I am neither as intelligent or eloquent as either of these men, but if you wanted to find out real answers from the experts, I have given you a map, not an answer.

I do not think answers are being sought. If answers are sought, one would look to the great minds of throughout history, as you have suggested. I think the rating of others posts speaks more to the motive of this thread.

 

[JDaniel]

Here is what I was hoping to see:

From the assumption that the universe was created, the only logical corollary is that the creator could do it. Nothing else follows.

Spock:

You are correct, but only if we were some sort of robots. But, we are not. We are human beings. It is, therefore, completely logical that, after going through an appropriate dialectic, a logical human being could fairly conclude that a creator, with such immense power, would seem to be similar, in many respects, to its foremost creature.

It does not follow that the creator is “singular”, it could be plural.

Inductive logic can also take us to the conclusion that only something greater than the universe could have created it. For that which is greater is not created by that which is lesser. If this immense universe was created by that which is greater, that creator could not be finite. That which is greater, then, would be infinite. But, there cannot be two infinities existing side-by-side, unless one of them was a physical infinity and the other a non-physical infinity. And then, one would have to com-permeate the other. But, we know that there is not an actual physical infinity. Thus, the creator must be a singular, non-physical infinity.

It does not even follow that the creator is sentient. It could be a natural phenomenon.

“Sentience” must follow from this creation. The universe cannot be the creature of blind power. The creator cannot be apathetic to what it is creating. The logical premise for this is grounded in the continual order that we see. Not to mention that an infinite creator is still creating, as far as we’re concerned.

It does not follow that the creator is (or creators are) still around.

But it precisely follows that the creator is still around. An infinite, non-physical creator would not scurry off to some corner of the universe, or multi-verse. It is infinite; it’s everywhere: there’s no secluded place to hide. Besides, it is still creating.

Even if the creator is sentient, it does not follow that the creation was a purposeful event. It could be that the universe is just a by-product of a different project. That is all.

But, Spock, that would be impossible. As I said earlier, the creator could not be indifferent to the creature. If it were, there would not be any necessity of order, nor any fine-tuning for the precarious existence of life, unless one postulates a negligibly chance event. Which one is more preposterous? Furthermore, we are immediately struck by the fact that everything seems to have a purpose, some things even multiple purposes. Since all of the things we see have purposes, it would be completely illogical that an infinite creator, that would create this universe out of complete deference, would do so for no reason. Would it not?

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Aha! “pro-ject” implies purpose!!

A grammatical error: “pro-ject” implies purpose!!!

 

[In_Spiration]

This is your assumption, and I am going to go along with it - in this thread. Let’s assume that this universe is not all there is. Let’s pretend that your “first something”, “prime whatever”, etc… type of argument was successful. What can be deduced from this assumption? Use your logic only. The only starting point is that the universe does not stand on its own right, that it was created. No reference to faith, revelation and such. No other auxiliary assumptions. What can you say about this creator?

If you don’t like the restrictions, do not post. I am only interested in your logical conclusions. Show me how logical you are. I will post my views later. Don’t want to influence your ideas.

So:

Assumption 1:
(a) The universe is not all there is;
(b) The universe “was” created;
(c) The universe does not stand on its own.

I’d first have a few questions. One, what constitutes ‘the universe’? Here I’ll take it to signify all created being(s) which are in some substantial way embodied w/in spatiotemporal dimensions. Two, why must creation be spoken of in the past tense, as something that “was” created instead of, as traditional theists thought, something always currently being created in one eternal act of creation? Three (and related to the previous question), do you yourself know even the rough outline and conclusion of the classic “first mover” proof, since presumably that’s going to pertain to how we interpret our terms as well as deduce further? Moving on…

Assumption 2: The argument in favor of a first mover (or first cause, etc.) is sound.

One such argument, put briefly by Aquinas, runs (w/key premises, thus assumed for present purposes, in italics):

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. [a] It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now ******** whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for [c] nothing can be in motion except [as] it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves [another] inasmuch as it is in act. For [d] motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But [e] nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now [f] it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. [g] It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, [h] whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that ****** subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore [j] it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 2, Article 3​

Anyway, what may we deduce from all those assumptions?
(1) The first mover is purely motionless.
(2) The first mover is completely in act and utterly without any mere potency (i.e., it contains no potency which is not actualized).
(3) The essence of the first mover does not exclude, and is in fact identical to, existence.
(4) The first mover is one and only one.
(5) The first mover does not exclude any perfection (viz., e.g., those exhibited throughout subsequent motion and by subsequent movers) and is thus perfectly good.
(6) The first mover is absolutely simple.
(7) Everything of the universe is a composition of act and potency, existence and essence.
(8) Etc.

Explanations forthcoming… right…