True Creator?
- Thread starter Lemming3k
- Start date
The idea that everything needs a Creator is flawed; if that were the case, then an Infinite Regress occurs in which nothing is created. Instead of that premise, take this one,"what has a beginning has a creator." Now did the universe have a beginning? The universe is expanding right? Put the tape in reverse and eventually you get to a beginning point.
It's hard to comprehend some form of matter has simply always been there because in order for matter to exist it would have to have one thing in particular: space in which to exist. But that space needs to come from somewhere, as it can't just pop out of nowhere. To say that space is always there is inconsistent with the idea that a beginning to the universe happened. So to say matter could have just always been is flawed.
It's hard to comprehend some form of matter has simply always been there because in order for matter to exist it would have to have one thing in particular: space in which to exist. But that space needs to come from somewhere, as it can't just pop out of nowhere. To say that space is always there is inconsistent with the idea that a beginning to the universe happened. So to say matter could have just always been is flawed.
Jcarl,
Kat
This far in your reasoning is accurate. But it erroneously implies that creation is still a requirement.
This is also flawed since evolution shows that nothing needs a creator. Can you give an example of anything that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process?
Again an entirely flawed argument. Consider the internal combustion engine – a piston moves away from the explosion only to return again in an endless cycle. Current science is now once again proposing, based largely on the realization of dark matter that the universe expansion will slow, contract and end with a big crunch, and then begin again.
You have defeated your own argument. If we accept that something doesn’t come from nothing then the rather obvious conclusion is that it has always existed. There is no reason to search any further. The imaginative concept of a supernatural creator becomes entirely superfluous.
I agree but then there is no reason to believe that the universe just happened – goes back to your earlier flawed reasoning.
As I have clearly shown your conclusion is itself seriously flawed.
Kat
I would also say that a true creator cannot exist. Some things just came into existance or were always there.
Katazia said:
Then what does it imply?
If something doesn't need a creator, then how does it get there? To say that it always has been doesn't fit in with the fact that the universe is running down.
How does evolution explain morals or love?
it isn't endless because gas keeps the whole thing running; it relies on something outside of itself to start the whole thing. If this wasn't the case, then it wouldn't run down and would have to have existed forever.
How is it to begin again and still comply with entropy? If it runs out of usable energy, how is it to start again? If we're to say that it "falls down to another energy level"(like a bouncing ball) it still only has a finite past. (somewhere the ball had to initially be dropped)
But space can't always have been for the reasons above. Eventually, no matter what model is used, it eventually comes to a beginning.
You're assuming that God would need space to exist. This isn't the case as God is a Spirit, which isn't natural and needs no space.
1. The universe is not "running down". That's just the creationist misunderstanding of entropy. In fact, it may be "cycling" as Katazia said.
2. The postulated "creator", whether "spirit" or not, also has to have it's own "beginning". As Lemming3k originally said, a creator needs a creator needs a creator....
2. The postulated "creator", whether "spirit" or not, also has to have it's own "beginning". As Lemming3k originally said, a creator needs a creator needs a creator....
How could we know?
I see no reason why not.
I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't exist.
I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't exist in 5 seperate universes, without any knowledge of eachother.
I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't create even more true creators.
I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't wonder how he came to be.
I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't marvel at the existance of existance itself, and feel humbled.
I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't realize that he is unnecessary.
Oh, you are right guys. Perhaps I should think about the things I write a bit more 
Yeah, a true creator can exist. But there are also Matnay´s statements,
they are also possible.
Then again, perhaps there is no creator, just an initiator. Who knows?
Yeah, a true creator can exist. But there are also Matnay´s statements,
they are also possible.
Then again, perhaps there is no creator, just an initiator. Who knows?
I was using true creator to define original, perhaps i should rephrase, though the point still stands, its a chicken and egg scenario and i wanted to see peoples thoughts and what they consider logical reasoning on the matter, I believe something can have always existed, since i feel its the only logical conclusion to the problem of everything needs a creator, even the creator itself and there could never be a first creator, so therefore we still have something that must have always existed.
A creator might have been the first thing that existed.
The thing that just was there.
Perhaps he grew bored and started making things. Then again, there
would be the question which material did he use to create things.
Again, it must have been something that just existed or the creator used
his "body" tissue to create things, making the universe his body....
So many possibilities.
The thing that just was there.
Perhaps he grew bored and started making things. Then again, there
would be the question which material did he use to create things.
Again, it must have been something that just existed or the creator used
his "body" tissue to create things, making the universe his body....
So many possibilities.
If a creator can just 'be there' then why cant matter and energy or anything scientific just 'be there' and form the universe? This is a common arguement for a creator i have never understood, if he can simply have existed for all time then it is possible he didnt exist for all time but matter and energy did. Your right theres many possibilities, though i constantly try to get my head around the prospect of something simply always being there.
@ Lemming3k
I also did not understand this argument for a creator. At least not entirely.
About a year ago, I tried to imagine how and why something could just exist, no matter if it is energy or god or whatever, I was thinking real hard about it and for quite a long time. It nearly drove me mad. And yes, I mean "mad" as employed for someone who seriously insane.
I also did not understand this argument for a creator. At least not entirely.
About a year ago, I tried to imagine how and why something could just exist, no matter if it is energy or god or whatever, I was thinking real hard about it and for quite a long time. It nearly drove me mad. And yes, I mean "mad" as employed for someone who seriously insane.