True Creator?

[Lemming3k]

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 constantly try to answer questions like this, i feel they require such intense thought, as you say to the point of madness, that the answers would be remarkably enlightening(if i could ever get my head round any of it), and of course they are more interesting than questions like 'whats going to be in fashion next year'.
Just remember theres a fine line between madness and genius, though im sure i already crossed into the madness side a while back....

 

[Dreamwalker]

I think I crossed that line when I tried to imagine nothingness. That blew some fuses I think. Using all your capacity to imagine nothing, real, absolute nothing is not healthy I think.

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

Then what does it imply?

Sorry you’ve lost me, what does what imply?

If something doesn't need a creator, then how does it get there?

It evolves from something else. And physics shows us that nothing is ever created or destroyed, matter and energy are simply interchangeable. Everything that currently exists has always existed although has probably undergone an infinite number of transformations.

To say that it always has been doesn't fit in with the fact that the universe is running down.

But that isn’t a fact. A credible alternative is that the universe is in the expansion phase of an infinite cyclic loop. Try this link on the cyclic universe –

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

How does evolution explain morals or love?

These are products of your brain and your brain evolved just like everything else.

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.

Hmm, well the analogy was only meant to demonstrate a cyclic mechanism.

How is it to begin again and still comply with entropy?

Entropy is irrelevant for a cyclic universe; it is reset at every cycle. Read the article.

If it runs out of usable energy, how is it to start again?

The universe cannot run out of energy, there is nowhere for it to go.

If we're to say that it "falls down to another energy level"(like a bouncing ball) it still only has a finite past.

Then don’t say that, it’s a bad model.

(somewhere the ball had to initially be dropped)

Not if it has always been in motion.

But space can't always have been for the reasons above.

And refuted.

Eventually, no matter what model is used, it eventually comes to a beginning.

But that is impossible. If everything had a beginning then how did the first thing start? An infinite universe is the only credible answer since it doesn't require 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.

No. You missed the point. The issue wasn’t about space but about things popping out of nowhere. If the universe has always existed then the issue of “popping” from anywhere is mute and a requirement for a supernatural creator simply evaporates.

Kat

 

[Q25]

is there anything in existence that as far as we know, has no beginning, or just always was?

I take a wild guess here,
the Universe?

 

[Cyperium]

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.

If there were more than one true creator then there would be more than one truth, truth would become lie, even if the creators didn't know about eachother in seperate universes.

If there were only one truth but more gods then they wouldn't be gods, since God is the one that created the truth, they couldn't have created it together cause then the truth wouldn't be pure, and if the truth weren't totally pure then it wouldn't be a truth anymore but a illusion, thus the illusion that there exist more than one God.

The true creator also knows how it all came to be and why He is the only one (maybe - just maybe - because He actually penetrates nothing), nothing is totally pure, though so is God, thus God may know what nothing actually is which is totally beyond our comprehension - though still we have the idea of nothing...

Though this depends on how you define God. If you define "god" like "angel" then there would be more then one god, but then we would need another word for God.

Also we have the problem of thinking of God in human terms, sure His meaning stretches all the way to us, but down here the meanings gets mixed up and are interpreted the wrong way.

 

[Katazia]

Cyperium,

That really was complete gibberish.

Why couldn't multiple gods share the same truth - at their level of understanding one would expect a consensus? Why couldn't the universe have been designed and created by a committee?

I cannot see anything intrinsically essential to the god fantasy that prevents imagining multiple gods instead of just one.

Kat

 

[jcarl]

1. The universe is not "running down". That's just the creationist misunderstanding of entropy.[/B]

The enlighten me: how is it a misunderstanding?

In fact, it may be "cycling" as Katazia said.

Then once it gets to the "bottom" of the cycle(Like a piston getting farthest away fromt the explosion) how does it get back to the top?

 

[Lemming3k]

Why couldn't the universe have been designed and created by a committee?

It could, i just hope the people they sent down as representatives arent margaret thatcher and the conservative party....

 

[jcarl]

Jcarl,

Sorry you’ve lost me, what does what imply?[/B]

The infinte Regress; if it doesn't imply a Creator as a brute fact, then what does it imply?

It evolves from something else.

That backs the question up to How did that thing it evolved from get there?

And physics shows us that nothing is ever created or destroyed, matter and energy are simply interchangeable. Everything that currently exists has always existed although has probably undergone an infinite number of transformations.

Since when has heat energy that the universe creates able to become usable energy?

But that isn’t a fact. A credible alternative is that the universe is in the expansion phase of an infinite cyclic loop.

How is a closed system(which the universe is) closed and consistent at the same time?

these are products of your brain and your brain evolved just like everything else.

SO you'll explain the fine-tuning to an unintelligent source?

Hmm, well the analogy was only meant to demonstrate a cyclic mechanism.

It shows that a closed system cannot be going forever because it eventually reaches an equilibrium of sorts.

Entropy is irrelevant for a cyclic universe; it is reset at every cycle. Read the article.

Okay so my interpretation of what the article is this(I probably have this wrong, so be ready to correct me): there are more ten or so dimensions. At the end of the universe(the crunch) one dimension(?) is disposed of with another of the ten taking its place.

What happens when the other dimensions are used up? (Note: I am looking at one of the sources to this article; it is 16 pages long so give me some time to read it)

The universe cannot run out of energy, there is nowhere for it to go.

1) I didn't say run out of energy. I said run out of usable energy.

But that is impossible. If everything had a beginning then how did the first thing start?

We have to assume that something is infinite right? That's a brute, self-evident fact. You say that infinte thing is the universe; I say it's God.

Everything does not have a beginning. You've said so yourself. Eventually we run into a brick wall of infinity. Something has to just be.

 

[Lemming3k]

1) I didn't say run out of energy. I said run out of usable energy.

Energy is always usable, just because we havnt developed a way of using it doesnt mean it isnt usable, just unusable to us, eventually we will be able to turn energy from one thing into another and then back again, eliminating the worries about usable energy.

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

We have to assume that something is infinite right? That's a brute, self-evident fact. You say that infinte thing is the universe; I say it's God.

Everything does not have a beginning. You've said so yourself. Eventually we run into a brick wall of infinity. Something has to just be.

Bingo. We are now on the same page.

Now simply applying Occam’s razor we can exclude God as a credible proposal.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Reasoning –

We know the universe exists.
We have no good evidence that it hasn’t always existed.
We know something infinite must exist.
We have prominent theories explaining how the universe can be infinite, e.g. cyclic, bubbles, curved, and doubtless others, all of which are based on natural phenomena.

The creator concept requires –

The existence of a supernatural realm and there is no evidence of such a thing or that any such thing could ever be possible.

An immense intelligence and power beyond our comprehension – again there is no evidence for such things.

Conclusion -

The creator concept lacks even the beginnings of credibility – it is a non-starter.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

Okay so my interpretation of what the article is this(I probably have this wrong, so be ready to correct me): there are more ten or so dimensions. At the end of the universe(the crunch) one dimension(?) is disposed of with another of the ten taking its place.

What happens when the other dimensions are used up? (Note: I am looking at one of the sources to this article; it is 16 pages long so give me some time to read it)

Yes I see you are a little confused.

Imagine matter and energy flying out from the center and then galaxies starting to collapse in on themselves into tremendous black holes which eventually merge and in turn create a massive attractive force resulting in all expanding matter and energy to reverse course and return to the center. An earlier version of this theory many years ago was dismissed because it was felt there was not enough matter to make this possible and that the expansion would continue forever with the universe reaching a uniform inert state. The realization that dark matter and energy must exist brings this theory back into sharp focus as a very probable answer.

That is something of an over-simplification but I hope that helps.

Kat

 

[Rappaccini]

Can you give an example of anything that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process?

Random quantum fluctuations...

 

[Katazia]

How do you know?

 

[Cyperium]

Cyperium,

That really was complete gibberish.

Why couldn't multiple gods share the same truth - at their level of understanding one would expect a consensus? Why couldn't the universe have been designed and created by a committee?

I cannot see anything intrinsically essential to the god fantasy that prevents imagining multiple gods instead of just one.

Kat

The belief in one God isn't without purpouse, and it's not just a fantasy for us that believe in Him.

You are describing a committee were people share ideas and so on, imagined gods wouldn't need to share ideas, they are purer than that, so pure that each one would know exactly everything about each other. Thus being not many but one. It would be like us being in one body with many parts.

If there were more than one god that didn't know what each other were thinking or feeling, then the gods wouldn't be totally pure, since there only can be one purity, one truth. Since God is Truth then there can only be one God, also since God is totally pure there can be only one God, also since God is perfect He wouldn't need more gods.

I guess that there can only be one perfect tree, and with the same reasoning there can only be one perfect God and there can't be a imperfect God, God doesn't make mistakes.

 

[Lemming3k]

God doesn't make mistakes.

Which god is that?

 

[Dreamwalker]

Why is a god pure and true?

Why can there be no deceitful abd evil god? Or more than one?

Who says that god must be perfect?

 

[greywolf]

Who says that god must be perfect?

good point, he could just be a higher being.

 

[Cyperium]

Why is a god pure and true?

Why can there be no deceitful abd evil god? Or more than one?

Who says that god must be perfect?

I don't know the definition of a typical "god", though God that I believe in is perfect and I can only make arguments regarding the god I know and the properties associated with Him. If you want another view on it then talk to someone with another view. Though I have stretched my view to the limits regarding more than one God.

You can allways talk to me about different ideas and I will try to see how my view on God fits with the idea or argument. Though I won't change my view on God to make it fit your idea...

You can make the definition of a god whatever you want and make any kind of scenario with it, though I choose to make my definition of God a perfect God and totally pure. Truth is in itself totally pure, thus at the same level as God since God made everything and knows every relation to everything that He has made.

Now I'm gonna take a shower.

Greywolf, sure he can just be a higher being, but what is God? Just a higher being? A ghost? A angel?

 

[greywolf]

Greywolf, sure he can just be a higher being, but what is God? Just a higher being? A ghost? A angel?

what makes u think that angels and ghost are higher beings, i belive them to be different types of beings but not exactly higher. Maybe the better question wouldn't be what is God but what is a God.