Question of creation

F

FyreStar

Faithless since 1980
Registered Senior Member
Fellow minds -
I have noticed several arguements based on whether a god created the universe, or vice versa. I have seen many people say that creation requires a sentient creator. My questions are as follows;
If the universe requires a creator, does its creator also require a creator? If not, why? It seems as if creationists use the arguement both ways, that the universe does, yet the creator of the universe doesn't. If there is something that does not require a creator, how can it be stated that something does require a creator just because it is there?

Regards,
FyreStar
 
The universe does not "require" a creator, as the universe is comprised of all that exists, including God, who is, was, and always will be. However, certain aspects of the universe exist as a result of God's creative activity, including humans. God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos. Humans are the climax of God's creative activity. We resemble God because of the dominion that God gives us over the rest of creation. The rest of "creation" was made by God for human's sake.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 07, 1999).]
 
FyreStar--

I would turn the question back at you first: "If the big bang is true, and a hypercondensed mass exploded to form the universe we experience, what created that original mass?"

In its most naked form, the debate becomes whether we have a cheerleader force rooting for us in the universe, or if time itself becomes a fiction. If nothing begins--that is, there is no moment of genesis for the universe, then time is arbitrarily fixed, and everything from electron orbits to your daily appointment schedule becomes useless fancy. If, however, we have an omnipotent God watching over us, then much remains to explain the state of things--either God's mystery has nothing to do with people, or it's quite pointless, random, and cruel.

One thing I would urge you to consider when viewing the paradox of faith is that the faithful have faith because they don't think of "having it both ways". One of the nice things about having religious faith is that you are licensed by God to be rude to people. That's a mighty empowerment. If a concept doesn't make sense--that is, if, say, a Biblical principle is utterly violated by conduct of the alleged faithful--then the perpetrating faithful can throw up their hands and say, "It's God's mystery." How could the forcibly illiterate societies of modern Europe oppose the Inquisitions? After all, the cruel priests just held out their hands and said, "It's God's will."

So in that sense I'm always amused by religious creation myths. After all, if we look at the Bible, it's so unclear as to how God created the universe that the writers had to make up two different stories. Furthermore, I asked a pastor who created God, on that very same principle as your question. My answer from this Lutheran preacher was that "We do not ask those questions in God's house." Of course, all the universe is God's house, so there goes the free will to ask questions.

And yes, true, scientists don't know where that original mass came from. But their answer is better: "Stay tuned, we'll let you know." Hey, at least there's a show to make the ticket price palatable. In the Godly theatre, the writers went on strike 2000 years ago, and all of the actors just plain suck.

***

Truestory--

If we remove the capitalization, and make the word "god" instead of the name "God", then there is nothing in your 10/7 post which I can disagree with. But I'd like to ask about one aspect:

I don't understand the notion that "God" (capital G) is a being which resembles humankind. Certainly we resemble the godly image, but only if that image is all the universe and its confines. We cannot be something which the universe will not allow. But when I hear people talking about resemblance and God's relationship with humans, I get that old notion of the bearded guy in a toga and sandals with lightning shooting out of his ears and so on. And that just doesn't work for me.

I'm sure we've exchanged ideas about "god" as a parallel for "universe" somewhere here before. But I'm trying to be a little specific here, so forgive me if I'm asking for the intimate details of your faith. But I simply don't get the image of God that makes us, as godly creations, any more special than worms, ferns, stars or lightning.

Philosophical "resemblance" to god I can understand; I've reached a few hypotheses that have served me well in life. These view the religious world as pre-science, or science without science. That is, a means for reflecting all we have observed as a human race, and all that we know or think or feel. But the physical resemblance is what I have a problem with. Help me out here ... I'd hate to think I'm writing this many words in response to a point I'm missing.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
 
Tiassa,

The resemblance of mankind to God includes, but is not limited to, the following:

As God has dominion over all things created in the universe, so God has given mankind dominion over the rest of creation.

As the eternal Holy Spirit is a major aspect of God, so God has given mankind an everlasting soul, capable of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

As God has the ability to rebuke Satan (evil), so God has given mankind the ability to rebuke Satan (evil).

As God has the free will to choose everlasting fellowship in the Holy Spirit with the souls of mankind, so God has given mankind the free will to choose everlasting fellowship in the Holy Spirit with God, if that is what one wants.
 
truestory -
Thank you for avoiding the question. I shall rephrase. Why, in that case, does humanity require a sentient creator, as opposed to a combination of forces in the universe?

tiassa -
Your question is irrelevant. The difference between myself and creationists is that I say "This is my best estimate as to what caused the creation of the universe", and creationists say "God created it". They seem to be certain, yet I see no cause for certainty. That is what I am trying to ferret out. Since you do not seem to be of this persuasion, then I won't redirect my question to you, but thank you for your attempt :)

FyreStar
 
FyreStar--

Your reply, also, is irrelevant. Thank you for demonstrating that your reading comprehension stopped after the first paragraph. Since you're not so concerned with what goes with the rest of the words, I won't waste any more on you.

Of course, if nobody's opinion is as valid as yours, I guess you don't have a reason to give them due consideration.

--Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
 
FyreStar,

Believe me, I made no attempt to avoid your question. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, I was one of the few who even attempted to answer your question, albeit not to your satisfaction... Perhaps there is just a misunderstanding.

If the focus is on "sentient" then I would add the following: There is no valid scientific evidence for human consciousness. This leaves some "guessing" about the validity or non-validity of the non-creationist theory.

There is, however, written evidence of the word of God. Taken by itself, there are those who believe the word of God and there are those who doubt it's validity.

Add to this the well-documented life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and we have further evidence of the existence of a "sentient" creator. Given both, the word of God and the well-documented life and teachings of Jesus Christ, there are still those who believe and those who doubt.

Add powerful individual spiritual experiences to the above, which can be explained only through the existence of a higher consciousness, and one comes to the point of certainty.

For example, if you were to have a number of powerful spiritual experiences in the future, then you probably would no longer have to guess. Your best guess-timate would most likely change to a certainty in the existence of a "sentient" creator.

I must caution, however, that you must be as open to the possibility of a "sentient" creator as you are to the possibility of creation through a combination of forces before you can understand what is actually happening.
 
tiassa -
My comprehension of your post is complete. You simply did not address what I was trying to discover in your reply. I didn't say that your opinions are invalid in some way, simply that they are out of context to this topic. I know the faithful don't think they are having it both ways, that is partly what I am trying to explore. Also, I'm not overly concerned with the bible, because it was written by men, and is the focal point of only some of the major religions. If you would like to continue with the conversation, you are welcome to, but be warned that I am only concerne with what I asked about.

truestory -
There is no "evidence" for the word of god. There are texts written by men attempting to quantify what they perceive as god. You or I could write something and call it the word of god, but it still would not be evidence. I am open to both of these views of creation, and many more, simply because I truly do not know how the universe started. Indeed, that is the crux of what I am asking.. how it is that some people can "know" a creator was involved.

FyreStar
 
FyreStar--

Ooh, forgive those who see your question in a different perspective than you intended! We would all love to be as relevant as you think we should be.

However, I'm sorry if it's not relevant to you that the question you're asking requires more than a simple yes or no. But asking as fact a question that pertains to the innermost aspects of a person's faith means you're not going to get the most objective answers. We've seen most of the sujbective come through here, so if its faith interpretations you're looking for, you need not even ask the queston.

But if it's objectivity you pursue here, you're not going to find it. To say that the converse or inverse of any philosophical question is irrelevant to the question is just flat out ridiculous. Before you can examine the answers, you have to understand the full implications of the question.

If you think your perspective on the question is so definitive that you have no need to consider perspectives which don't fit your subjective, pretentious template, then you might as well ask an innocent man why he committed murder.

Now, maybe you're not concerned with the Bible because it was written by men, but, aside from American Christianity, I don't see this question really being considered. There are two possible reasons for this, as I see it. Either, A) Sikhs, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, &c. have not yet reached the point in their social evolution where they can afford to consider these questions, or B) they've figured out that the question is paradoxical and have reconciled themselves to the perspective which best accommodates their faith. But take the Bible out of this argument, and you're asking a moot question.

Furthermore, you might want to consider that nobody else in the world has your set of experiences. Therefore, we all are bound to fail to be relevant. Unless, of course, you want to spill the details of your life history, including ridiculous stuff like bedwetting, masturbation, and how many times you fantasized about your mother. Perhaps then we will have the perfect set of experiences to consider when answering your question.

Interpret, comprehend, innovate. Don't just stand there and say "I don't hear you because you're not saying what I want to hear." It's insulting to other people and reveals the lack of thought you've put into the issue.

So if you still care about the answer, it's "Yes with an if," or "No with an if...." Yes the universe requires a creator if you are so instructed to believe as a child. No, the universe does not require a creator if you're anyone who weighs the efficacy of a threat (belive in me or burn) against the efficacy of demonstrable processes (say, the scientific method).

But there is NO definitive answer. Not until you get out there with a camera and a tape recorder and ask God to do an interview for Vanity Fair.

You're only concerned with what you asked about ... hee-hee. That's the sound of an idiot trying to answer the question: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" It's all what you asked about. Or did you think that something like the creation of God was a narrow subject with its own considerations that have nothing to do with anything else?

Or are you one of those people who just likes to tell everyone they don't meet your approval?

Incidentally, your ill-writ, sarcastic response to Truestory was less than appropriate: if you read closely and think just a little bit about how someone's faith affects their decision-making and academic processes, you might notice that the answer you so loathe was about as on the mark as you could possibly want. I rarely agree with what Truestory actually writes, but you're obviously missing a few things if you think the post doesn't properly address your question. Your answer is there, painted with faith. But since you're too busy to do the brainwork yourself ... well, no, I won't speak for Truestory. And I also won't try to interpret that post for you because you really need to learn how to read context.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 08, 1999).]
 
FyreStar,

It sounds like you are getting frustrated with your search for an answer in this thread. I would ask you to please review the questions which you have posed, and realize that, although they might be related, you have actually asked a number of different questions.

First, you asked: If the universe requires a creator, does its creator also require a creator...?

Next you stated that your question was avoided and you rephrased, asking: Why does humanity require a sentient creator as opposed to a combination of forces in the universe? (You also indicated that you were trying to ferret out the reason why some people are "certain" about creation).

Third, you ask: How is it that some people can "know" a creator was involved.

I'm not sure if you are actually listening to the answers of others or not but, if you are serious in your quest, it might be helpful if you define your terms at this point. Specifically, how to you define "to know"?
 
As I see it, God is the energy that permeates all things and holds the universe together, down to the last quark. God was not created and cannot be destroyed, but has always existed and will continue to exist throughout eternity (remember the energy conservation principle?). God's laws are the observable, inviolable and immutable laws of physics.

That brings us to the question of how we were created in God's image - a good question, since God doesn't exactly have a body and therefore, has no image.

There are many clues in the Bible as to who our "creators" really were, at least in the general sense. Genesis 1:26 reveals that there was more than one creator: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...".

A number of passages tell us our creators had physical bodies and enjoyed physical pleasures. One example, Genesis 6:1-4 states, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughers of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Or how about Exodus 33:9-11, which tells us, "And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle."

There are hundreds of important clues in the Bible, but seldom do I find anyone who's actually read them.
 
tiassa -
You obviously took some sort of offense at one of my previous posts. I know you saw the question in a different perspective; that is why I told you it wasn't what I was looking for. Either way, your latest post is even more irrelevant. I'm looking for a discussion of the causes of creation, not blindingly obvious psychological suggestions. You should read my posts with a more objective view point, and consider that you are interpreting hostility where there is none.
By the way, you may note that the one thing you said pertaining to my question in your first post was in accordance with my own beliefs.

truestory -
I would define "to know" in this case, as such a strong feeling of confidence and surety in your belief that you would stake your life on it and tell others about it. I do not *know* a creator was involved. I can accept it as a possibility. I do not *know* that the universe started with the big bang. However, I accept it as a greater possibility because there is observable evidence that man had no hand in. I am trying to find out if others of opposite views have "why"'s and if so, what are they.

Searcher -
Thank you for the response. May I ask what caused you to make that conclusion?

Regards,
FyreStar
 
FyreStar,

I assume you are asking me how I came to the concusion that God is the energy that permeates the universe and holds it together? It's difficult to explain, but the more I studied physics, the more I felt I was studying about God. I saw many correlations between what I read in my physics books and what I read in the Bible. I suppose what set me on this path was when I learned the energy conservation principle: "Energy is neither created nor destroyed but only changed into other forms". In other words, the same amount of energy that has existed in the universe since the "beginning" exists now and forever.

For me, that was a very mind-boggling and profound idea. From there, I pondered the force causes electrons to orbit the nucleus of an atom, and one atom to combine with another to form a molecule, and how molecules combine to form a seemingly separate, tangible substance, and how many of these make up the earth, which is but one planet that orbits our sun, which is but one sun amonst millions in our galaxy, which is but one galaxy amonst millions in our universe, and so on. I found that one could go either inward or outward indefinitely, and never quite grasp the whole of it. Within our own galaxy, stars are formed and stars die in the way of all things, and yet the energy that keeps it all going like clockwork is forever the same.
 
Searcher,

The only problem is, the energy in the universe is constantly being "downgraded" from useful energy into waste heat. Ever-increasing entropy in your framework would roughly imply an aging and weakening God, I suppose. It would also imply that God will eventually "die" -- become totally useless and powerless, dissipating into nothingness.

Btw, Tiassa, this applies to you as well (your perception that reality == God).

P.S., Energy or physical nature exhibit no intelligence; they merely obey preset laws in a very predictable fashion. Hardly what I would call a creative force...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 09, 1999).]
 
Boris,

It would seem to me that the energy in a system is being continuously recycled. One star dies, giving up its heat - and another is born. I believe this constant and eternal cycle of renewal is what is being explained in Ecclesiastes 1:4-11:

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
 
Boris,

Energy or physical nature exhibit no intelligence; they merely obey preset laws in a very predictable fashion. Hardly what I would call a creative force...
Click to expand...

Preset by whom? To me, it is the orderliness of the universe that points to an intelligent force operating behind the curtain, so to speak. Whether or not we can accurately observe or comprehend that force is beside the point. I suppose the opposite of predictability would be chaos - would this seem to be more "creative" in your eyes?

I might also point out that what we "know" about our universe is ever-changing. For example, it was once thought that the movement of particles in liquid was completely at random (Brownian law, 1824). But since the advent of computers, we have discovered that particles in liquid actually have a "long-lived memory in motion". The initial speed and direction of a particle's movement is "remembered" collectively by those molecules which collide with the particle. So as the particle continues to bump into the same molecules again and again it is reminded of its initial velocity. Brownian law remained unchallenged for so long, because of the difficulty of observation. What changed is not God, but only the means of observation available to us.
 
Searcher -
Thank you again for your response; One more question; After the creation of the universe, did your god take an active role in the creation of humanity, or was that a natural occurance of the initial laws?

FyreStar
 
FyreStar,

I'm not sure whether you are referring to humanity on this earth, or "humanity" wherever it originally began in the universe? I must make clear that I think man was "created" or, more to the point, cloned from other beings who originally came from another planet. I also believe that evolution had already begun on this planet, which made it a suitable habitat for them to carry out their "experiment", if you will. Whether or not they had given evolution a helping hand is another question - I suspect they may very well have done so.

Although it is difficult to be certain of what happened on the "mother" planet, due to lack of evidence, I would tend to believe that those beings had evolved naturally over millions of years.
 
FyreStar--

I just think that for a question with such broad implications, you are insisting on far too narrow an "answer" to accomplish anything but reinforcing your own notions of what God is or isn't. And yes, I did notice that we agree about a thing or two. That doesn't change the fact that your casual dismissal of people's answers is laughable.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 09, 1999).]
 
Searcher,

First of all, you seem to not understand the third law of thermodynamics. Nothing gets completely recycled; with every single interaction energy is converted into unusable forms -- it's radiated away as heat. It is this law of thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) that ensures that if the universe does not collapse back upon itself, it will die a cold death.

Secondly, I would hardly call mechanistic behavior of matter and energy indicative of an underlying intelligence. What we observe is essentially a machine at work. Machines typically do not require, nor indeed exhibit, intelligence. Chaos, on the other hand, would indeed indicate an intervening creative force -- because such interventions would be totally unpredictable from our limited viewpoint. As long as we can explain every single observed process in terms of mere physical interactions, we have absolutely no evidence of a creative force.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top