OK, let's assume a creator

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

A perfectly inanimate cause can create order. Think of the random movements of wind and tide, which can arrange 3 twigs to form a perfect triangle.

It is not a scientific fact that wind and tide are random movements.

Nor does the Earth move randomly through space. Nor do galaxies randomly move so as to clash with each other (they are, in fact, all moving away from each other at accelerating velocities).

 

[The_Exodus]

That does not follow. A perfectly inanimate cause can create order.

Then the order is illusory, and only a product of your mind, not inherent in the universe itself. Have you ever read Kant?

Order, on your view, is a subjective construct of your thought - nothing more. Thought then determines existence, and not vice versa. Ironically, one can prove the existence of God in this way a priori by the ontological argument, for if thinking makes a thing what it is, then thinking “God” makes God exists.

spock:

That does not follow either. “Necessary” existence is a philosophcial nonsense. The creator could be a scientist, or a group of scientists, who gathered the existing “material” in the realm they dwell, and created our universe. Or it could be that these scientists were working on some project, and left the unnecessary junk in the trashcan - which is our universe. The trashcan is just a “black hole” in their system.

Firstly, “scientist” implies human being - unless you want to posit an imaginary “non-human” scientist. Do you think a human being created the universe, or that such is possible? And you don’t think a higher power could be responsible?

Secondly, you equivocated “creator” and “prime mover” in your original post, so I deduced attributes applicable to a creator. Of course, if you posit a prime mover simply, that mover may not be related to the universe in such a way that means the universe springs from it ex nihilo. Plato’s ideas are like this, because they exist independently, in their own sort of “necessary” God-like state.

spock:

What does it mean: “properly speaking”? Create means to bring forth a new entity.

“New” indicates that which previously was not, does it not?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

No, it is not obvious. First, it could be that the creator is not even sentient.

Well, I guess it is just obvious to me. I will explain why it is obvious to me though. I suppose one could consider a Creator non-sentient. But then it would not follow that said creator would have created anything at all. A non-sentient being (that is, a being without any perception) would not create anything. A non-sentient creator is an oxymoron, that is, a being that cannot perceive might create something. Not possible. Plants (non-sentient) do not “create” per se. Their reproduction is passive. Animals (sentient) creates out of necessity. Their reproduction is active. They might build a house for themselves or some kind of structure that would attract a male or female, but those are out of necessity. Rational beings (humans, admittedly some of us are irrational) create mostly out of desire (intention, motive, etc…) and maybe a little necessity (perhaps with offspring). We create beings and create things (architecture, literature, music, art, etc…). We are sentient beings but we are beyond bring just able to perceive. Looking at the history the discovery of the Periodic Table of Elements will, our love of nature and other things, we can easily see that it is beyond our sentience that allows us to create things that are not necessarily “needed”. We love creating things and figuring stuff out just for the heck of it. Therefore, this creator (of mine) MUST be at the very least sentient. Since there was no “need” to create the universe, then this Creator must be a rational being. We started with one “assumption” and that is that He created a universe. It is logical that this creator is sentient. This is probably going to be impasse though.

Second, even if we assume (no offense intended) that the creator is (or was) a purposeful being, it does not follow that every activity of the creator was actually purposeful. When we create something, there can be (and usually are) side products, which we did not intend to make. (Example: the delicious blue cheese called Roquefort was not intended, it was the random by-product of the activity of shepherd who left his lunch in the nearby cave.) It can be that our universe is simply the “trash can” for the creator, who intended to create something unimaginable for us, and the threw the leftover into the trash can. I do not offer this as a likely scenario, I only point out that it is possible.

Due to my argument above, I think I have shown that a universe creator may be more reasonable than you think. But, I will grant this comment.

Well, it SHOULD follow that a purposeful being have purpose with his creations. WE did not intend to make that cheese. We did not create that kind of cheese. Roquefort cheese takes about 3 months of rottenness. WE do not actively create it. Actually, we cannot create it. Nature takes its course to do that. We may add some yummy stuff to it but we did not make it. (Is it even “made”?) Besides, we are not talking about cheese; we are talking about the universe. (I know that was just an example but one that actually relates might have been nice.) WE did not make the cheese. Like you said, it was a by-product. Nature “made” that cheese. In this case, Creator created the universe. If you view this universe as a trash can, then so be it. I sure do not.

And that trashcan comment is completely unjustifiable in regards to a creator creating a universe (the unimaginably awesome on) and then creating ANOTHER universe as the trashcan… I guess the assumption with the trashcan theory is that he made a mistake and then created something to put his mistakes in. However, IF one can create a universe, do you think He unintentionally made a mistake in creating it? Or that He purposely created useless things in it (as you seem to be suggesting)? If you do consent to Creator making a mistake, then what would constitute as making a mistake when it comes to creating the universe (material and immaterial)? If you affirm that Creator created purposeless stuff, then that would seem odd that Creator even created the universe in the first place.

Then these (mistakes and purposelessness) goes back to the Creator even sentient. But then a non-sentient being would not create the universe. If we grant that Creator is just sentient (not rational), then there would be no need of creating the universe and therefore, mistakes and purposelessness would be irrelevant when compared to Nothing; Creators own being would be nothing because it is purposeless. Its existence would be irrelevant. If we grant that He was a rational being (transcending sentience, if that is a word) and had no need to create a universe (such as this), then there would be purpose in creating it. If there was no need in creating the universe AND Creator had a purpose in creating it, then Creator would not be careless in creating and therefore, “universe-al” mistakes would just not be.

I know you said only possibly, but that would not be likely, or even possible for that matter.

According to this explanation (as an explanation in response to yours), then this Creator would have to be non-sentient, sentient or rational (transcending sentience). With all this said, Creator IS a rational being, said universe is from this rational being and my previous post is justified. That is, given these demonstration (not proofs) that this Creator is sentient and rational and creates the universe purposefully.

I guess the logic from the beginning of my previous post was much more intrinsic than I had even imagined. Now I understand your objections after typing this whole mess up.

Take care buddy

 

[yppop]

Ok, I read it. A few observations.

1. This is not what the OP stipulates. We start from the assumption that this physical universe was created. It does not say that there was “nothing”. There was some creator, or creative force, which dwells in some realm, different from our universe. We make no stipulation about this realm, nor about the nature of this creator. To give an example: Strictly speaking black holes are not part of our universe. There is no communication between our universe and the black hole. If a black hole would be a universe of its own right (not logically impossible), then the hypothetical beings in that realm could not know about our existence. They could imagine that their realm was created by us, or they could imagine that their world is the result of some natural force - and this second assumption would be right.
2. I disagree. Our mind is the function of our brain. The brain is a physical organ, but its activity or function is not a physical object. But that does not imply something supernatural, or “spiritual”. Example: our leg muscles are physical, but their activity - walking - is not a physical object. Yet that does not imply a “spiritual” dimension.

Since I do not accept your two basic stipulations, the rest simply hangs in the air.

Spock

I am disappointed with your response to my post, which was a serious attempt to answer your question: " What can you say about this creator?"

I understand that you have been inundated with posts to which you feel obligated to respond and I would have understood if you begged off answering mine on the grounds that you had no time. I had hoped that you were seriously interested in other explanations about the nature of the creator and would make a genuine effort to extract the meaning of what I presented. Instead you dismissed my post with a lame hand-waving response, from which I can only conclude that you either don’t have the intellect to engage my thesis or you are only interested in creating superficial discussions. I have better things to do than to engage in such.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Not relevant. We do not talk about “which assumption is more likely”. We talk about “is it a logical absurdity”. And I have said that before. It is irritating that I have to repeat simple things like that.

OK, then, I’ll be your Huckleberry: “Which one is the more logically absurd hypothesis?” You know, you aren’t the only person herein that can get angry. I mean, why couldn’t you have simply transposed it to the way you wanted it, instead of glowering at me for the piece of candy you wanted and didn’t get!?

I deny the validity of using “create” to be the equivalent of “create ex nihilo”. The distinction is very important. Beethoven “created” the Ninth, even if he used the pre-existing vibrations of air. Shakespeare “created Hamlet”, even if he used the pre-existing letters, words and concepts and “merely” rearranged them into a suitable sequence.

According to your usage, no one has ever “created” anything (except God), and so the word “create” cannot be used for any human or termite activity. And no, that is not a straw-man. The opposite (which is what you say) is equivocation.

The Oxford English Dictionary - online:

Origin:
Late Middle English (in the sense ‘from out of nothing,’ used of a divine or supernatural being), from Latin creat- ‘produced,’ from the verb creare.

Thus, I deny your denial. I’m sorry, but, if we are going to use modern derivatives, or nuanced versions, of words, everyone should be advised to no longer participate. Further participation would be a logical absurdity, besides being a waste of time. But, maybe that’s what you want?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Order is not design. Every showflake shows a nice, hexagonal pattern, and there is no need to assume a snowflake-maker. If a child would throw magnetically charged balls on the floor, they would “assemble” themselves into a pattern, and that would not prove that the child “cared” about the outcome.

Again, this only follows if you restrict the intended meaning of “create” to some new, borrowed and derivative meaning. And, merely saying that “we need not assume a creator,” is a naked assertion, based on no evidence whatsoever - except your personal predilection.

And there is no sign of “interest”. I showed that the lack of interest does not imply chaos. Yes, the creator could be a limited being (hardly could be anything else), but not part of this universe. So Hubble could not find it.

Hmm, that’s very interesting. But, let’s see, who would be a greater logician than Aquinas . . . and, he says,
Were an agent not to act for a definite effect, all effects would be indifferent to it. Now that which is indifferent to many effects does not produce one rather than another. Therefore, from that which is indifferent to either of two effects, no effect results unless it [the agent] be determined by something to one of them. Hence it would be impossible for it to act. Therefore every agent tends to some definite effect which is called its end. - Summa contra Gentiles, Bk. III, ch. 2.
Or, it would act haphazardly, producing all sorts of new, and unforeseen (by the creator!) things. You proved this wrong? Wow! I missed that. Would you mind reiterating it?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

This would be the pinnacle of pride. How can anyone claim that there are no beings in the universe who are much higher than humans?

Possibly even a “termite?”

Incorrect assumption. Is the termite colony “less” than the builders of the colony? From observing the termite mound you cannot deduce that the termites have the knowledge of climate control, that there is a conscious designer within the colony.

No, but we can deduce that instinct, the survival dynamic (whatever that might be?), and evolution might produce insects that build mounds, etc., that build in whatever it takes to maintain the colony within the temperature tolerances necessary for survival.

If the mound was greater than the termites, why did it not build itself? And, with all the necessary ventilation and temperature control? Ready-made for the colony?

But, man did not build the universe. And, the universe did not build itself. Nor did a multi-verse build itself. Nor did a singularity build itself. Each one of these presupposes a predecessor, by science. The scientific conclusion: that whatever this is has always existed. No proof; no logic; no more than naked assertion without revelation; without deduction; without induction; without any logic at all!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Certainly. But even here on Earth to say that man is some kind of a “pinnacle” is anthropomorphism. It depends on what one thinks is the “greatest” attribute. When it comes to survival, the insects are much “higher” than humans. The shark is the ulitmate predator in water, it has survived millions of years, without changing. It is all a matter of viewpoint.

But Megalodon went extinct. Its evolutionary predecessors had to become smaller. Why? And, they’re having a rough go of it now, with man so intent upon mounting them on our walls. So, who’s the more pinnacle? Insects breed everywhere, in evolutionarily enormous numbers. That does not equate to being “higher.” They even breed in our waste! Yes: they’re higher.

Yes. the colony is less. Mineral life, even the finest diamond, is less than animal life.
You compare incommensurables. By the way, saying “mineral life” is an oxymoron. The termite mound is an amazing structure, built by nonsentient beings. So your concept that “lesser” causes cannot create “higher” ends is incorrect. In many cases we understand that the sum is greater than the parts.

The Oxford English Dictionary - online -
Origin
From the early 17th century: from Latin sentient-‘feeling’, from the verb sentire. (I love the OED!)

If you are saying that Termites have no “feeling,” expect a letter from PETA soon!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That does not follow. A perfectly inanimate cause can create order. Think of the random movements of wind and tide, which can arrange 3 twigs to form a perfect triangle. (Before someone would repeat that it is not likely, I will preempt this. We are not talking about likelyhood, or economical explanation, we only only talk about what is a logical prerequisite.)

By sheer chance (which is a cause): a somewhat triangular-looking shape is made from three twigs, in a limited medium. Not even close to “equivalence”!

That does not follow either. “Necessary” existence is a philosophcial nonsense.

Pure, naked assertion. It is a wonder that we even have the word “necessary” in our idiom!

The creator could be a scientist, or a group of scientists, who gathered the existing “material” in the realm they dwell, and created our universe. Or it could be that these scientists were working on some project, and left the unnecessary junk in the trashcan - which is our universe.

Or, it could be the “flying spaghetti monster”!

The trashcan is just a “black hole” in their system.

That’s imbuing “black holes” with more significance than even science, in general, is willing to.

From the concept of “creation” it does not follow that the matter in our universe was created “ex nihilo”. It could have come from the matter already existing in the realm where the creator exists.

So, “science fiction” = Christian belief?

Nevertheless, it actually does follow. I have written it numerous times, in numerous threads, as well as have many others. It is irritating to have to keep repeating it!

What does it mean: “properly speaking”? Create means to bring forth a new entity.

Not according to the etymology of the word from the OED!

God bless,
jd

 

[Abba]

I did not ackowledge God at all. I talk about some creator.

Take a termite colony. They are not rational, thinking, sentient beings. Yet they create an amazingly complex structure - which looks like consciously “designed”. Of course it is not designed - in the usual sense of the word, it is not the product of a conscious activity. So we have an actual example of something which is not designed, but looks like designed. Therefore it is not a logical absurdity that the creator of this universe is not sentient either.

It is unfair or illogical to compare a/the/it creator of the universe to a termite colony. It is a given, that the universe is complex and within it’s complexity and diversity exist termite colonies and other species that function on survival and reproduction instinct each in their own particular way. It can be deduced that the creator created them all and is not limited to creating only one particular thing. Now, to call the universe a thing like an apple seems to me a bit illogical. You want to compare the universe to a termite mound and the creator to a termite colony. It does not follow because of the complexity of the universe and the very fact that within creation there are species that have something else that is above instinct. Can a robot make a human being? What or who is this creator who can begin LIFE? You cannot equate life to a mound, that is illogical.



May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you,

Abba

 

[Abba]

I am sorry you find it even a little offensive. The word “assumption” is as neutral as it gets. If you say that my lack of belief is also an assumption, I will not find it “offensive” in the least.

No, it is not obvious. First, it could be that the creator is not even sentient. Second, even if we assume (no offense intended) that the creator is (or was) a purposeful being, it does not follow that every activity of the creator was actually purposeful. When we create something, there can be (and usually are) side products, which we did not intend to make. (Example: the delicious blue cheese called Roquefort was not intended, it was the random by-product of the activity of shepherd who left his lunch in the nearby cave.) It can be that our universe is simply the “trash can” for the creator, who intended to create something unimaginable for us, and the threw the leftover into the trash can. I do not offer this as a likely scenario, I only point out that it is possible.

Thank you.

Why would I? A good wish stemming from good will is always appreciated.

Hello Spock,

How did you deduce that the universe is self sustaining?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

No, it is not obvious. First, it could be that the creator is not even sentient.

If this were so, then the creation would contain a power superior to the Creator.

Does that seem logical to you?

 

[Abba]

Earth calling Spock. Come in Spock…

On further reflection, I think that my post, #90, brings us to the logical threshold that Plato encountered. That is, that given the complexity, dynamic, diversity etcera of the universe, in order to deduce or come to recognize attributes of the Creator we need to consider universals or what Plato called Absolutes. That is essences, elements, whatever you want to call them that are encompassed/revealed by the universe accross/throughout the board. It follows that, we cannot attribute to the Creator attributes that are miniscule and expressed in singular or limited instances, such as mere instincts, when there are superior and more complex that encompass these which He/It/Whatever also created.

I would say that one of the attributes that can be deduced from the premise is that the Creator is intelligent. If not, what is intelligence? If the Creator is not intelligent then – what is? Another thing about the Creator that is an exclusive attribute of the Creator is that It/He/Whatever has the capacity to begin life or give life to matter. Who else can do that?

I’ll stop here.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

A few things we know:
_ A substance is something that is conceived through itself.
_ Mode is the affection of the Substance, each substance has a mode or many modes. The Mode is finite and conceived by others
_ God is an infinite substance, who is omnipotent, omniscient…
_ To be finite is to be limited by some other forces.
_ A true idea must agree with its object.
_ Two things that are not in common can’t create on another.
_Two substances can only be distinguished by its attribute(constituent) or its affection(mode)
Why is the Creator singular and not plural?
_ Assume that there are 2 substances, they must be distinguished either by their attributes or their affections. If they have different attributes, then there’s only one with an infinite and self-conceived attribute. Since a true idea must agree with its object, thus it follows that there can’t be such thing as 2 substances with different affections. Therefore, we must conclude that there’s only one substance.
Why God can’t be produced by an another force?
_ Since 2 things that are not in common can’t produce one another, and since there can’t be 2 substances with a same attribute or affection, thus we can conclude that God can’t be created.
Why is the Creator(the substance) must be infinite(that is eternal)
_ Since to be finite is to be limited by an another force. Since the there are no other substances, thus we must conclude that God(the substance) is infinite.

Since a true idea must agree with its object, hence, God can’t be immoral, for if God is immoral, then mankind cannot and will not be able to understand the definition of morality. God can’t be illogical, for if God is illogical, then the essence of logic won’t be able to sustain.

Since God’s intellect is different than human intellect(that is God’s intellect is the will that creates heaven and earth, existence and essence of all things, while human intellect is only able to perceive that Creation), thus many of us can say that the universe is chaotic. But to God, is it? We should regard that base on the Evolutionary model, we’re here because of the mercy of nature and the universe. One must realize when he studies natural sciences that man is not the cause for his own evolution, that’s absurd, but rather that because of nature’s movement, we’re here. So what we perceive as chaotic is actually in order.

If God created a universe and walked away from it, then one must question God’s logic. Since the notion of God indicate something beyond chance and probability, then that means God must be the God of design and order. Since God, whose the God of design and order created the world, he Himself can’t leave the world to chance, for that would eliminate his own nature(which is the only thing in which his essence and existence is explained). If God created something and walk away from it, then it must follow that God’s nature is not the nature of design and order, thus God is ceased to be called God, since if God want to be called God, he must be an absolute God. If there’s a contradiction in God’s existence, then God ceased to exist, since it is pertain solely on His nature for Him to exist(the substance is conceived through itself and by itself without any other forces)

Thus, by logic alone(sola ratio), we can conclude that God exist, and must necessarily exist

 

[Abba]

A few things we know:
_ A substance is something that is conceived through itself.
_ Mode is the affection of the Substance, each substance has a mode or many modes. The Mode is finite and conceived by others
_ God is an infinite substance, who is omnipotent, omniscient…
_ To be finite is to be limited by some other forces.
_ A true idea must agree with its object.
_ Two things that are not in common can’t create on another.
_Two substances can only be distinguished by its attribute(constituent) or its affection(mode)

Why is the Creator singular and not plural?

Is He/It/Whatever not plural but only singular? That’s the thing, can we with our puny little brains trap the Creator in a type - singular or plural? Or is the Creator by the very mystery of the Trinity express to us a contradiction in our reality that only he can express - simultaneously both - singular and plural? Just a thought.

Why God can’t be produced by an another force?
_ Since 2 things that are not in common can’t produce one another, and since there can’t be 2 substances with a same attribute or affection, thus we can conclude that God can’t be created.
Why is the Creator(the substance) must be infinite(that is eternal)
_ Since to be finite is to be limited by an another force. Since the there are no other substances, thus we must conclude that God(the substance) is infinite.

Since a true idea must agree with its object, hence, God can’t be immoral, for if God is immoral, then mankind cannot and will not be able to understand the definition of morality. God can’t be illogical, for if God is illogical, then the essence of logic won’t be able to sustain.

Since God’s intellect is different than human intellect(that is God’s intellect is the will that creates heaven and earth, existence and essence of all things, while human intellect is only able to perceive that Creation), thus many of us can say that the universe is chaotic. But to God, is it? We should regard that base on the Evolutionary model, we’re here because of the mercy of nature and the universe. One must realize when he studies natural sciences that man is not the cause for his own evolution, that’s absurd, but rather that because of nature’s movement, we’re here. So what we perceive as chaotic is actually in order.

If God created a universe and walked away from it, then one must question God’s logic. Since the notion of God indicate something beyond chance and probability, then that means God must be the God of design and order. Since God, whose the God of design and order created the world, he Himself can’t leave the world to chance, for that would eliminate his own nature(which is the only thing in which his essence and existence is explained). If God created something and walk away from it, then it must follow that God’s nature is not the nature of design and order, thus God is ceased to be called God, since if God want to be called God, he must be an absolute God. If there’s a contradiction in God’s existence, then God ceased to exist, since it is pertain solely on His nature for Him to exist(the substance is conceived through itself and by itself without any other forces)

Thus, by logic alone(sola ratio), we can conclude that God exist, and must necessarily exist

You can give me an F- because I fail to see how you have succeed to provide a logical proof for the existence of the Creator. Just a tip, you want to use the word Creator not God, as the OP is only providing that much and no more. [Bold is mine to note that I see you are familiar with Plato’s writings. I think that it is always good to note when we borrow something from an author and note how we apply to our own thinking, rather it applies or not. It is only fair as some people may not pick up on it.] Good Luck with Spock.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Why is the Creator singular and not plural?

Why cannot the Creator be both? A staggering concept for us, but not beyond conception: Three Persons in One God.

Could the Creator make us in his image and likeness? To some degree, why not. At least to the degree that we can relate to the Creator not only as Creator, but also as Lover of His creation. Why would the Creator create us if He did not love us?

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Why is the Creator singular and not plural?

Why cannot the Creator be both? A staggering concept for us, but not beyond conception: Three Persons in One God.

Could the Creator make us in his image and likeness? To some degree, why not. At least to the degree that we can relate to the Creator not only as Creator, but also as Lover of His creation. Why would the Creator create us if He did not love us?

That is assuming that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three different gods. But what Christianity proposes is simply that 3 persons are in one God. Just as there are 3 leaves in a shamrock, then there are 3 persons in the Godhead. They’re all in Union with one another, and thus make up a Substance in which we call God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

That is assuming that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three different gods.

The Trinity is a mystery that baffles us. Still, only three Persons in one God.

 

[JDaniel]

Spock

No, it is not obvious. First, it could be that the creator is not even sentient.

If this were so, then the creation would contain a power superior to the Creator.

Does that seem logical to you?

Excellent point, Monsieur. Now why didn’t I think of it?

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

If this were so, then the creation would contain a power superior to the Creator.

Does that seem logical to you?

It does not only sound logical, but it happens all the time. Children are not inferior to the parents, many times they are superior. The creators of the Deep Blue computer (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer ) are unable to win a chess game against their creation. It even won against the world champion, Kasparov.

There is no such principle which would say that a creative process always leads to “degeneration”; that the creator is always superior to its creation.

To everyone, participating: Will return later.