People often cannot understand the difference between the two. Before I continue, let me clarify a few things:
1) I am not referring to Creationism when I say "Creator"; I am referring to the origins of the entire universe.
2) I am not suggesting, in any way, any further than the original concept of a creator
Now, the thing you must understand is the value of evidence and logics. You can go a certain distance on logic alone; although there is no objective evidence that our universe was created, it is not an illogical idea to theorize that it was. The reason being?
Everything happens or occurs, can do so only in two possible ways (this is an observable fact)
1) It is caused to happen or occur
2) It happens or occurs entirely independent of "influence"
For instance, let's say there is a mountain. An earthquake occurs (a natural occurance) and causes an avalanche.
This is different than if Humans specifically detonate explosives with the intent of starting an avalanche.
The reason this is relevant is because it displays my point, which is that all which happens is either caused to be intentionally, or it happens on its own. Hopefully you understand what I am saying here.
If we are questioning the origins of the universe, it is not illogical to theorize it was created. There is no reason to believe that, but it is an open possibility and, as of now, we cannot determine probability. i.e, it isn't a ridiculous concept that our universe was created.
As to this point, the concept is not ridiculous because it relies on logics. Remember, we are not actually specifying anything, but we are trying to be as basic as possible. The simple notion of a creator is not illogical or ridiculous, yet, because the concept relies on logics.
The point where it becomes religion is where it becomes ridiculous. Firstly, allow me to clarify that when I used "creator", I was not referring to any particular deity, deities, etc, primarily because all of those are products of religion.
"Creator" only means the force of creation; it could be one creator or more, it could be a He, a She, an It, or something else entirely. I am NOT claiming anything beyond the notion of a Creator.
At the point where religions give faces and details to these creators, logic fails.
Let me clarify: at the basic concept, we can come to the conclusion based on logic and possibility. However, if you make further claims you NEED evidence, because logic can't carry you further.
We can use logics to suppose a creator, but we cannot to suppose anything further. Therefore, religion and concept are different.
As I have already explained, we can take the concept of a creator and call it, at best, " a logical possibility". If, however, we are then to state "this creator is blue, he has three heads, he lives in a palace, he does this and that"
The problem created is that logic won't carry you further, and you NEED evidence at this point because you are making claims, not only suppositions, and these claims are not based on either logic or evidence.
Therefore, religion becomes impractical because the claims it makes are unreasonable, both logically and based on evidence. The reason I do not believe you can say the concept is unreasonable is because it remains a logical possibility, based on what we can observe about intent and natural cause. Please, please understand this.
It is when you make claims as to the nature of said "creator", that logic fails. Nothing in the universe can make me come to the conclusion that there is a blue creator with three heads that lives in a palace. In truth, nothing in the universe can even make me come to the conclusion that there is a creator. However, at the basic concept, I can suppose a creator (again, only by that I mean a force of creation) and it wouldn't be ridiculous or illogical.
Now, to me, the universe having begun naturally and having been caused to be are, more or less, equal chances, both because logic supports both and evidence supports neither. I have already explain what I have observed about forces of change, or causation.
Religion, by making specifications, demands evidence, because logic only goes so far. That is the difference between religion and concept.
Now, if you do indeed find even the concept of a creator (force of creation, it could be one, two, or who knows what, I'm not making claims as to the nature), why is that?
That is why I think the notion of a creator remains a "logical possibility" that is not that ridiculous. It's not logical to assume a creator, but it's not illogical or ridiculous to suppose a creator, based off what we know, can observe, and can logically and rationally come to conclusions.
1) I am not referring to Creationism when I say "Creator"; I am referring to the origins of the entire universe.
2) I am not suggesting, in any way, any further than the original concept of a creator
Now, the thing you must understand is the value of evidence and logics. You can go a certain distance on logic alone; although there is no objective evidence that our universe was created, it is not an illogical idea to theorize that it was. The reason being?
Everything happens or occurs, can do so only in two possible ways (this is an observable fact)
1) It is caused to happen or occur
2) It happens or occurs entirely independent of "influence"
For instance, let's say there is a mountain. An earthquake occurs (a natural occurance) and causes an avalanche.
This is different than if Humans specifically detonate explosives with the intent of starting an avalanche.
The reason this is relevant is because it displays my point, which is that all which happens is either caused to be intentionally, or it happens on its own. Hopefully you understand what I am saying here.
If we are questioning the origins of the universe, it is not illogical to theorize it was created. There is no reason to believe that, but it is an open possibility and, as of now, we cannot determine probability. i.e, it isn't a ridiculous concept that our universe was created.
As to this point, the concept is not ridiculous because it relies on logics. Remember, we are not actually specifying anything, but we are trying to be as basic as possible. The simple notion of a creator is not illogical or ridiculous, yet, because the concept relies on logics.
The point where it becomes religion is where it becomes ridiculous. Firstly, allow me to clarify that when I used "creator", I was not referring to any particular deity, deities, etc, primarily because all of those are products of religion.
"Creator" only means the force of creation; it could be one creator or more, it could be a He, a She, an It, or something else entirely. I am NOT claiming anything beyond the notion of a Creator.
At the point where religions give faces and details to these creators, logic fails.
Let me clarify: at the basic concept, we can come to the conclusion based on logic and possibility. However, if you make further claims you NEED evidence, because logic can't carry you further.
We can use logics to suppose a creator, but we cannot to suppose anything further. Therefore, religion and concept are different.
As I have already explained, we can take the concept of a creator and call it, at best, " a logical possibility". If, however, we are then to state "this creator is blue, he has three heads, he lives in a palace, he does this and that"
The problem created is that logic won't carry you further, and you NEED evidence at this point because you are making claims, not only suppositions, and these claims are not based on either logic or evidence.
Therefore, religion becomes impractical because the claims it makes are unreasonable, both logically and based on evidence. The reason I do not believe you can say the concept is unreasonable is because it remains a logical possibility, based on what we can observe about intent and natural cause. Please, please understand this.
It is when you make claims as to the nature of said "creator", that logic fails. Nothing in the universe can make me come to the conclusion that there is a blue creator with three heads that lives in a palace. In truth, nothing in the universe can even make me come to the conclusion that there is a creator. However, at the basic concept, I can suppose a creator (again, only by that I mean a force of creation) and it wouldn't be ridiculous or illogical.
Now, to me, the universe having begun naturally and having been caused to be are, more or less, equal chances, both because logic supports both and evidence supports neither. I have already explain what I have observed about forces of change, or causation.
Religion, by making specifications, demands evidence, because logic only goes so far. That is the difference between religion and concept.
Now, if you do indeed find even the concept of a creator (force of creation, it could be one, two, or who knows what, I'm not making claims as to the nature), why is that?
That is why I think the notion of a creator remains a "logical possibility" that is not that ridiculous. It's not logical to assume a creator, but it's not illogical or ridiculous to suppose a creator, based off what we know, can observe, and can logically and rationally come to conclusions.
Last edited:
