OK, let's assume a creator

[Spock]

Remember, one thing is to CREATE and another is to COMBINE from already existing matter, yet another, is to DISCOVER. Until you iron these things out, this thread is not going to advance.

I don’t know what is there to clarify.

You seem to use “create” in the sense of bringing forth something from nothing - or “to create ex nihilo”. From your usage it seems that you would deny that Shakespeare “created” Hamlet, after all he just “combined” the existing letters of the English alphabet into a new sequence - which is not a “creation ex nihilo”. Beethoven did not “create” the Ninth Symphony, since he just “combined” the existing sounds into a new order. Is this a fair representation of what you say?

When scientists “discover” a regularity in nature, and “create” a new theory, they do not really create anything new, they just madea a discovery. Is that your opinion?

 

[You]

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.

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.

Hi, are you asking us to argue for something we do not believe, here?

 

[CTuck]

I have to say, how can we be asked to use logic alone, then have probability and likelihood discarded as not conforming to the restrictions of the thread? We could never have absolute certainty, in the strictest since of the word, of the Creator’s existence unless, seeing as we are not capable of forcing His revelation, we have His existence revealed to us. Even then, we could still deny it, not being thoroughly convinced. For to be thoroughly convinced takes an openness to being convinced. We are capable of self-deception. You certainly could not even convince a man of his own existence, lest he opened his heart to it and desired to believe it even to the smallest degree.

We are restricted to come to a logical conclusion of the Creator, but what is deemed logical that we must exclude probability and likelihood? Are the attributes of the Creator to be known mathematically? Statistics are used to predict outcomes, yet are seldom to be absolutely accurate, in the strictest sense. Should we abandon statistics?

I hold that the reality of our ignorance concerning the accuracy of ours claims pertaining to things temporal, or transcendent, and of the extent of our certainties, without revelation, as well as, by definition, the processes by which these claims arise, being scientific in nature, and of various fields, allows for claims based on probability and likelihood to retain their reputation as being validly logical.

It seems logical to conclude there is a First Cause, the origin of existence. It seems logical, because it is probable, to conclude the First Cause is a person, intending to call into existence things other than Himself. It seems more logical than not that this Creator is imaginative, intelligent, and wise, creating a variety of identities and things, characteristics, potentialities, and purposes, according to His specific intent, as well as instilling laws by which they might be ordered. And it seems most logical that the Creator is personal. The knowledge we possess of peoples and cultures says that the overwhelming majority of mankind has cried out, " We believe You are there, whoever You are!" If we had an account of all the claims of Man dealing with the supernatural, it would vastly outweigh our accounts of all of our scientific discoveries. Man is bent on looking for his purpose. Why? Are we intrinsically delusional? Even those who don’t believe spend a good deal of time looking for purpose, and a good deal of time excluding some. Given this, as well as, the previous, I see it only logical that the Creator is personal, making Man to seek after Him, to look for the ultimate purpose of his existence, that He might be sought, and that they might have communion. Please do not criticize the “He’s” and capitalized c “Creator’s,” I do them out of reverence, not for the sake of debate. Thank you.

 

[JackQ]

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.

The First Cause would have to have within itself an impetus of some kind, something that brings about the creation activity. Otherwise the First Cause wouldn’t be the First Cause, because it wouldn’t have caused anything. Moreover, if the First Cause is really the First Cause, then there is nothing prior to it. That means there can’t be anything prior to the First Cause that compels the act of creation, including the nature of being the entity that is the First Cause. All of its characteristics and its actions must be, so to speak, simultaneous. More. Every effect of every cause is compelled in some way by the action of the cause. But the First Cause has no cause, and there can be nothing compelled about it, or about anything it does. So any action of the First Cause is a completely free act. Now a free act without a decision to act is hard to imagine. So it seems that the First Cause acts by decision. But decision implies something like a mind to do the deciding.

So what I can think of, right off the top of my head, is that the First Cause has mind and acts freely.

How’s that?

 

[david_friol_1]

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.

Hey Spock
This post is probably beyond me but I will at least try to answer. The things that come to my mind about a creator of such a world are:

-this creator must be more powerful than the combined total of all the energy in the universe because an inferior thing cannot produce a superior effect.

-this creator must be intelligent because of the order that we have in the universe(we do not seem to be just wizzing around in space otherwise the universe would probably look more like Japan right now after the disaster {God bless them all})

-Because this creator is powerful and intelligent I see that there must be some kind of personal quality to this creator because outside the slums and away from the harm people cause each other, the world has many beautiful places to see (Looking down from a high mountain, for example). And I know that artistic people put their heart and love into the pictures or music that they create. I think there are similarities there.

-From this I would even say that this creator is not only personal but very loving because the love must exceed the total effect just like the artist who paints often has a love for the painting that exceeds the painting itself

Interesting question Spock
God bless you and your family!

 

[greylorn]

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.

You’ve done a fair job of refuting the ordinary stuff. Good work, getting that much feedback! Now refute these…

• God must think. Therefore God does not know everything.
• Got did not know how to make a universe when he (or she, it, they) undertook the project.
• The universe is entirely a project of intelligent engineering.
• The universe has at least one purpose, measured from the perspective of its Creator.
• God is physical; i.e. interactive with the principles of physics.
• It is impossible for nothing to produce something. Yet something exists. Therefore, “nothing” has not ever existed, and God could not have made the universe out of it.
• If God made the universe he made it out of something.
• He cannot have created the something from nothing, therefore it must have previously existed.
• An entity or any group thereof capable of creating our magnificent universe is not stupid. It will not create incompetently.
• Most humans are not competent, and range from stupid to dreadfully ordinary beings who are controlled by outside programming. God did not create the stupid/ordinary parts.

Of course we both know that I have failed to meet the terms of your argument for having omitted the essential primary premise. But we both know that it is too advanced for this thread, and that for the sake of argument you can consider that it has been explained elsewhere in a more appropriate venue, which is true.

 

[ijf90]

…
-this creator must be more powerful than the combined total of all the energy in the universe because an inferior thing cannot produce a superior effect.

-this creator must be intelligent because of the order that we have in the universe(we do not seem to be just wizzing around in space otherwise the universe would probably look more like Japan right now after the disaster {God bless them all})

David you have posted two of probably the most relevant points in this thread.

The idea that the creation of the universe was a God-less, chance, disorganized happening (Big-Bang or whatever you want to call it), violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

---

Everyone here is thinking as humans do (naturally). We are not capable of the thoughts of God. We must be content with mysteries. We are thinking of an origin, a begining… of temporal concepts. We can not comprehend the eternal. We speculate about a begining while realizing still that something must have been before the begining. We speculate about an end while realizing that something must be after the end. We realize an eternal but can not comprehend it.

God reveals Himself as “I Am”. He Is, He always Was, and He always Will Be. He is the Eternal.

---

Oh and Spock, you better hope Surak doesn’t read this thread… but then, you are only half Vulcan… maybe he’ll cut you some slack.

 

[greylorn]

…
-this creator must be more powerful than the combined total of all the energy in the universe because an inferior thing cannot produce a superior effect.
…

David,
That statement is untrue. The WTC towers and several thousand lives were destroyed by inferior things, Muslims, with their evil hands on two cockpit joysticks.

Any U.S. or Russian nuclear submarine commander can destroy a large coastal city of his choice by pressing a button.

Everytime you take to the highway, you control the actions of a ton and a half of fast moving machine with a soft hand on a power assisted steering wheel.

Powerful spacecraft are controlled with a few microwatts of radio telemetry broadcast from earth at the command of comfortably seated button-pushers.

Intelligence has learned, through physics, to multiply power. Today, “superior effects” the world over are controlled always by inferior beings, never by superior beings. That old philosophical claptrap, courtesy of Aristotle and ya-ya’d by Aquinas, simply does not work. It is an ostentatious failure of incompetent thought which happens to sound “superior.”

 

[ijf90]

David,
That statement is untrue. The WTC towers and several thousand lives were destroyed by inferior things, Muslims, with their evil hands on two cockpit joysticks.

Any U.S. or Russian nuclear submarine commander can destroy a large coastal city of his choice by pressing a button.

Everytime you take to the highway, you control the actions of a ton and a half of fast moving machine with a soft hand on a power assisted steering wheel.

Powerful spacecraft are controlled with a few microwatts of radio telemetry broadcast from earth at the command of comfortably seated button-pushers.

Intelligence has learned, through physics, to multiply power. Today, “superior effects” the world over are controlled always by inferior beings, never by superior beings. That old philosophical claptrap, courtesy of Aristotle and ya-ya’d by Aquinas, simply does not work. It is an ostentatious failure of incompetent thought which happens to sound “superior.”

You’re addressing only the latter portion of David’s statement that you quoted. Your examples show the control of energy, which doesn’t exactly represent the appearance or origin of energy in the universe. David is very correct… The Creator must be more powerful that the combined total of all the energy in the universe.

As per the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can be neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. We can then conclude if it is here now, it has to exist infinitely. The One that created the universe has to be more powerful than the energy that exists in the universe. Or at least equally powerful, that is, if one was to (foolishly) claim that the Creator exhausted or transfered himself completely in His creation of the universe.

 

[greylorn]

You’re addressing only the latter portion of David’s statement that you quoted. Your examples show the control of energy, which doesn’t exactly represent the appearance or origin of energy in the universe. David is very correct… The Creator must be more powerful that the combined total of all the energy in the universe.

As per the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy can be neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. We can then conclude if it is here now, it has to exist infinitely. The One that created the universe has to be more powerful than the energy that exists in the universe. Or at least equally powerful, that is, if one was to (foolishly) claim that the Creator exhausted or transfered himself completely in His creation of the universe.

Yes, I quoted only the last sentence. I made that perfectly clear to anyone who read my post. You do not appear to have done so.

Let me try one more time. I’ll try to use short words and simple sentences. The amount of mass in the observable universe occupies 4.6% of the stuff that’s out there. Raw energy constitutes about 74%. This means that God did not use all the available energy.

Your notion of “more powerful” than x-amount of energy suggests that a high school physics course would be good for you. Energy and power are not equivalent, as you seem to imagine. Power is a measure of the rate of energy transfer and is a time-dependent measurement. Your use of it above, outside a definable energy exchange occurring in spacetime, makes no sense.

 

[greylorn]

David you have posted two of probably the most relevant points in this thread.

The idea that the creation of the universe was a God-less, chance, disorganized happening (Big-Bang or whatever you want to call it), violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

---

Everyone here is thinking as humans do (naturally). We are not capable of the thoughts of God. We must be content with mysteries. We are thinking of an origin, a begining… of temporal concepts. We can not comprehend the eternal. We speculate about a begining while realizing still that something must have been before the begining. We speculate about an end while realizing that something must be after the end. We realize an eternal but can not comprehend it.

God reveals Himself as “I Am”. He Is, He always Was, and He always Will Be. He is the Eternal.

---

Oh and Spock, you better hope Surak doesn’t read this thread… but then, you are only half Vulcan… maybe he’ll cut you some slack.

In your first sentence you are fawning. Your second is simply fatuous.

Your third paragraph seeks to drag everyone else down to the level of your personal limitations. Not everyone is ignorant, and quite a large number of CAF posters, IMO, seek to correct that problem. Many of them ask good questions instead of beating their chest proudly, flexing their ignorance. So, best speak for yourself. Surak agrees and advised that you turn off the TV and visit a library, since you seem to believe that he is real. .

 

[grannymh]

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.

If the 'first something" type of argument was successful (see OP) as a philosophical argument, then the fact that the universe is created follows logically. Therefore, there is no need for me to post again according to the broad restrictions.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Spock, how do You explain, how do you “Source” the Intelligence in the Universe? Were the “laws” of Calculus, Gravity, Physics, Expansion of the Universe Back to One Point in time Scientifically all accidents? :ehh: Accidents of What?

 

[You]

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.

I would think there is a whole raft of logical branches stemming from the root assumption of a Creator of all. The problem would be how to stem the tide of ideas than how to craft one.
One of the first might be the creation of a perfect universe and a perfect world (how could a prime whatever create an imperfect something from nothing, that would be illogical), so our present less than perfect world demands a ‘fall from Grace’.

 

[Spock]

One of the first might be the creation of a perfect universe and a perfect world (how could a prime whatever create an imperfect something from nothing, that would be illogical), so our present less than perfect world demands a ‘fall from Grace’.

Of course you should be able to define what “a perfect universe” would be. Without a proper definition (an exclusive list of attributes) this idea just “hangs in the air” - so to speak. I will offer you one attribute, which should be part of a “perfect” universe - it cannot be “tainted” or “destroyed” - not even by the creator. If something cannot be destroyed, it is obviously “more” perfect, than another one which can be destroyed - all other attributes being equal. And since according to the Christian mythology this world was “tainted” (actually God cursed it…) it could not have been “perfect” in the first place. But it was a nice try…

 

[You]

Of course you should be able to define what “a perfect universe” would be. Without a proper definition (an exclusive list of attributes) this idea just “hangs in the air” - so to speak. I will offer you one attribute, which should be part of a “perfect” universe - it cannot be “tainted” or “destroyed” - not even by the creator. If something cannot be destroyed, it is obviously “more” perfect, than another one which can be destroyed - all other attributes being equal. And since according to the Christian mythology this world was “tainted” (actually God cursed it…) it could not have been “perfect” in the first place. But it was a nice try…

You are getting ahead of yourself. A prime whatever created the universe, you say, so the universe exists within the prime whatever. And it will never be destroyed by anything. Only the prime whatever has the power to return the universe to the state of being it was in before he created it. A perfect universe is as perfect as its creator in design, detail, imagination, etc. but as a creation it is sub-ordinate not equal to its creator, but nonetheless perfect for that. The universe, our argument goes, was created perfect, but as always there are complexities. It was also created to be a temporal creation, something which as part of its nature changes over time.
So we can say that at some point in its changing temporal existence the universe fell upon hard times, as part of the prime whatever’s continuing favour, which had been keeping it perfect through time, was then withdrawn for some reason.

 

[Spock]

You are getting ahead of yourself. A prime whatever created the universe, you say, so the universe exists within the prime whatever.

That does not follow. The creation is separate from the creator, unless the whole creation is just imaginary, which only exists as a conglomerate of thoughts. Read this story, by Stanislaw Lem, it is simply awesome. psychadelicbus.tripod.com/mymosh.txt

And it will never be destroyed by anything.

It’s “perfection” was destroyed - according to the Chistian mythology. But until you can define what perfection is, we cannot go any further.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s “perfection” was destroyed - according to the Chistian mythology. But until you can define what perfection is, we cannot go any further.

If you require a definition, why did you give the conclusion that God’s perfection was destroyed? I don’t understand why you enjoy jumping to conclusions when you don’t even know what it is you are talking about.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

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.

… dear spock ,

… i’ve answered this throughout various recent posts and can give you a completely logical argument but to eliminate faith is ridiculous as man operates on the basis of faith for all belief bar one single thing , but if you mean catholic or christian faith i can tell you plenty and prove much absolutely ,

but i’ll only do it if you pm me and ask as you have voiced your contempt for my writing style to the extent you won’t even read it , in all charity spock this is sadism the way you carry on here – and judging the pains you put yourself through massochism is occuring too , you don’t present a model one would aspire too at all , do you really hope to convert anyone ??? ,

you seem miserable , catholics of serious deep faith have a special serenity and joy that is superhuman even in the worst trials or sufferings , you have nothing like this , why would anyone want what you offer , think dear friend , calm down and tone it down , if you want pure logic as far as it can go with these questions it’ll take some time but i’ll do it if you pm me dear spock , up to you , i have all the answers . but what use telling someone who refuses to listen ??? ,

… you can ridicule or mistreat me spock , but the reality is you don’t hate anyone or anything , you hate yourself , true , do you want me to explain this too ??? , i will if you ask …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[You]

That does not follow. The creation is separate from the creator, unless the whole creation is just imaginary, which only exists as a conglomerate of thoughts. Read this story, by Stanislaw Lem, it is simply awesome.

That is quite correct. Since before the creation there was only the prime whatever, nothing else anywhere but the prime whatever, no time, no space, just the prime whatever…:hypno:

So it follows logically that the prime whatevers creation exists in the prime whatever, as there is nowhere else.

And, as there was nothing else before the creation, all things had to be created from nothing by an act of pure will. Creation is indeed a thought tied up and bound in a knot and set to float free through a new created space. Creation is a thought, but a real thought not an imaginary thought.

It’s “perfection” was destroyed - according to the Chistian mythology. But until you can define what perfection is, we cannot go any further.

I have noticed in the past people tilting on the brink of argument for want a definition. Let us not be so hindered.
Perfection is where nobody sees anything bad.