Does Our Creator Have A Creator Itself?

  • Thread starter Answer
  • Start date
  • #51
There is no creator:
the word creator implies a beginning and the universe can't have a beginning
because that would be an exactl moment in time and physicists can't measure
time exactly even in principle (look up Heisenberg uncertainty on web).
 
  • #52
StatusX
Homework Helper
2,564
1
harvey1 said:
You have a 3+1 dimensional object, you are saying that its existence has nothing to do with whether it was caused or not? Is this structure not your primitive? If so, then it is uncaused. If it is not your primitive, then what is your primitive?

I don't pretend to know what's at the bottom of everything. All I'm saying is that god does not help explain anything, because simply postulating his existence still leaves the question "Why is there a god?" But this is just another way of saying "Why is there a universe?", which was the original question, and we've gotten nowhere.

By the way, causation and time are not as intertwined as you suggest. In a 3+1 dimensional universe, such a universe could be a baby universe to a universe having many more spatial and temporal dimensions. Also, a quantum theory might require that the classical 'arrow of time' is an emergent property of our universe, with quantum phenomena being the causal structure to this temporal property of the universe.

By universe I mean all that exists, including any "mother universes" and including any super powerful beings. Causation applies to things that already exist, but there is no reason to assume that the set of all things that exist, ie, the universe, was caused. What could have caused it?

A temporally finite uncaused beginning is a little different story than a temporally infinite uncaused beginning, but if there is no zero time, then Zeno's infinitestimal paradox seems like it would be a problem for you. That is, you never have an earliest moment in time since you can always get closer to 'zero time' by scaling down from seconds to milliseconds to microseconds to nanoseconds to attoseconds, etc. In that case, there is no first event unless you are prepared to say the first event was an infinitestimal, in which case the whole 3+1 timeline must be considered a collection of infinitestimal moments. In that case, all of these infinitestimal moments are uncaused, not just the first moment.

But I thought you said time and causation were two different things?

When I say ontological truth exists, I mean that there is a conceptual structure that exists which provides justification for certain axioms to exist, some of which instantiate the universe to exist. So, for example, let's say that Noether's symmetry arguments are axioms that instantiated the universe (speculatively speaking). Then, the symmetry axioms are said to exist because they are true. This conceptual structure called truth exists. It has certain properties that are interwoven with this structure. For example, Tarski's concept of satisfaction might be one of these interwoven properties. Perhaps coherence is another interwoven properties (i.e., some kind of ontological logic).

Ok, now I think I understand your position. You are saying there are certain "truths" that existed before we were here. For example, even 10 billion years ago, 5 was greater than 4, and addition was commutative. For such statements to have been true, there must have been some kind of mind to comprehend them. Do I have this right?

Truth is only a valid concept for a mind. We cannot imagine a universe without a mind because all that we know is our minds projection of the universe. Before we were here, there were no truths. There was no structure to the universe, no atoms, no planets. There was just matter. We find structure in what we see, and we assume that structure is real, but it is not. And true statements can only relate the structures we have created.

The difference in the way you use the term 'truth' and the way that I use it in an ontological sense is that truth is an emergent property in a materialist worldview, whereas in an ontological view of truth, it is a primitive.

Well this is what I was talking about when I said your notion of truth presupposes a god.

Now, when I say that there is ontological truth to substantiate the state of affairs that exist, I have no idea what level this is happening. It might be as simple as verifying logico-mathematical axioms are indeed true in the universes which they are true for, and from there the whole universe results, or, it might be a complex modal language which sustains the universe from one moment to the next moment. It might even define the objects in our universe (e.g., valid wavefunctions). I have no clue. But, the main reason to believe such an ontological truth structure exists is because of causality. The causal chain of the universe is preserved by saying that causal relationships exist (e.g., the universe is a result of logico-mathematical statements, etc).

I see the materialist perspective either unable or inefficient to address the causal nature of the universe, whereas at a minimum, a logico-mathematical order preserves causality and makes sense of the causal events that we see daily.

We think in terms of cause and effect. Is this the only valid way to think? All that is happening is matter is interacting, and we label causes and effects. But like I said, this is all in our minds, and even though it seems a consistent reasoning in everyday life, there is no reason to assume it applies to the universe itself.
 
  • #53
16
0
StatusX said:
I don't pretend to know what's at the bottom of everything. All I'm saying is that god does not help explain anything, because simply postulating his existence still leaves the question "Why is there a god?" But this is just another way of saying "Why is there a universe?", which was the original question, and we've gotten nowhere.

I don't think this is the most effective way to approach ontology. I think a more effective way is to first ask the implications of the possibilities that you can conceive of, and then try and deduce the limitations of that approach, etc. I agree that a material universe is a first option since, obviously, we know that we have that before us. The problem, though, is that nobody is saying that chairs, tables, computers, etc, are fundamental objects, so we already move to a more abstract materialism than any of us experiences. Add to this that we must contend with mathematical-like laws in our physics equations, issues of causation, and a myriad of other issues, and soon we are really at the stage where that 'first option' is not something that we should be married to any longer.

Of course, that doesn't give us automatic license to believe in God, but we can't dismiss it out of hand either. As I said in my posts, I think most of our focus should be on modal aspects versus material aspects. As it turns out, I think modal aspects do entail a God, so it just happens to be like that. But, I don't think this is really a coincidence at all. Many of the well thoughout approaches to religion were based on modal considerations, so it is possible that modal considerations fueled the acceptance of God in terms of the ease by which it won over those who were really interested in such questions (e.g., Greek philosophers, medieval theologians, etc).

StatusX said:
By universe I mean all that exists, including any "mother universes" and including any super powerful beings. Causation applies to things that already exist, but there is no reason to assume that the set of all things that exist, ie, the universe, was caused. What could have caused it?

I'm not hung up on a cause for whatever you want to cite as your primitive. I understand that you have to start somewhere. The problem I have is that your primitive is the whole material universe. I expect that your primitive should be primitive in that we can easily imagine the world evolved from that simple point. Of course, there's no law that requires such, but all of our experiences point to this. If it were otherwise, then we might as well as believe anything that suits our fancy.

harvey1 said:
In that case, there is no first event unless you are prepared to say the first event was an infinitestimal, in which case the whole 3+1 timeline must be considered a collection of infinitestimal moments. In that case, all of these infinitestimal moments are uncaused, not just the first moment.
StatusX said:
But I thought you said time and causation were two different things?

Time and causation have certain things in common (e.g., asymmetry of events in terms of the arrow of time), but they certainly may not be the same things. Causality might have something to do with the arrow of time, but it might be just a coincidence. More science might help to understand the arrow of time (I'm not so confident science will solve the causal issues of the universe).

With regard to my argument here, the situation is a little different. I'm not saying time and causality are the same. Rather, I'm saying that any temporal beginning with a 'first uncaused moment' must be infinitestimal due to a similar argument that Zeno put forth. This argument is still valid and it raises a perplexing problem for materialists suggesting a finite beginning to the universe. I won't repeat my argument.

StatusX said:
Ok, now I think I understand your position. You are saying there are certain "truths" that existed before we were here. For example, even 10 billion years ago, 5 was greater than 4, and addition was commutative. For such statements to have been true, there must have been some kind of mind to comprehend them. Do I have this right?

Basically true. Truth is language based, and if you are going to say that modal statements (e.g., Peano's axioms) have some kind of ontological existence, then you must also say that those axioms have no meaning unless there is an aspect to the Universe (big U includes all ontology even God in my usage of the term...) which can comprehend the meaning of modal statements. Otherwise they exist without interpretation and are as meaningless as null statements.

StatusX said:
Truth is only a valid concept for a mind. We cannot imagine a universe without a mind because all that we know is our minds projection of the universe. Before we were here, there were no truths. There was no structure to the universe, no atoms, no planets. There was just matter. We find structure in what we see, and we assume that structure is real, but it is not. And true statements can only relate the structures we have created.

Well, you are concluding your premise here. If your premise is that materialism is valid, then you cannot conclude competing ontologies are wrong because they disagree with your premise.

harvey1 said:
The difference in the way you use the term 'truth' and the way that I use it in an ontological sense is that truth is an emergent property in a materialist worldview, whereas in an ontological view of truth, it is a primitive.
StatusX said:
Well this is what I was talking about when I said your notion of truth presupposes a god.

An ontological notion of truth doesn't necessarily presuppose a God. As I mentioned above, the statements of truth could be held to be meaningless or the comprehension needed can be argued as not tied to a God. Another poster had already quipped about this point. Thus, I don't think its a co-premise of my argument. Rather, it is one of the conclusions of my premise.

StatusX said:
We think in terms of cause and effect. Is this the only valid way to think? All that is happening is matter is interacting, and we label causes and effects. But like I said, this is all in our minds, and even though it seems a consistent reasoning in everyday life, there is no reason to assume it applies to the universe itself.

Well, I don't want to limit the universe by saying I am responding to your post because you disagreed with my point, but in general, the first to go in trying to develop a believable theory are those theories which make no sense whatsoever. There's always potential that theories that make no sense were right, but fair or unfair they usually do not get that kind of serious consideration. If materialism fails to provide a suitable account for causation, then you have to junk it. Materialism's main selling point is that we only encounter material things, so it is commonsense to start off by posing it as the preferred ontology. But, as I mentioned above, as science pushes us to extreme abstract things (e.g., virtual particles, wave-particle duality, wavefunctions, mathematical physics, etc), then materialism starts to lose its appeal. If materialism fails to account for causation, I would say that it isn't viable any longer.
 
  • #54
46
0
I think it stupid to think that our creator has a creator itself. As someone said:If God was created, he would by definition, not be God. Nothing created God! He's the first and the last and however u want to describe his greatness!I also think that people who don't believe there is a God(atheists) should be careful when posting cuz I always see it somewhere whether its in this thread or not. After all the thread is about "Does Our Creator Have A Creator Itself"? Not there is no God!
God has obviously tried to create superior beings like himself, wouldn't you say? he created beings called angels that were both good and bad to help God but only some did.
If angels was as superior than there would be many Gods. And God did not create bad angels. Why would God create something bad? From the Christian point of view, he created angels(which were ALL good) but one wanted to be as/or more superior than him. And one third of the other angels followed him.
I think our supposed "creator" was created by those he supposedly "created", that is, the Almighty is just a Godly figure that man dreamt up to cure his insecurities.
I think thats just stupid. Its like saying: Oooo I created a cup and the cup created me.:bugeye: If there is a Almighty than how can he be just a Godly figure? He would be more than just that.
harvey1 said: No, that's not correct.
You can't say that thats not correct. But u can disagree with it. Its PHILOSOPHY!
Logically speaking, god is an assumption. Most religion is based on the assumption that god exists.
I would agree with u on this on for some religion. But not all religions are based on God.
God is a pseudoscience
How can u say that God is a pseudoscience? U don't even know if there is such a thing as God. In the first place how can u prove that there is a God with science. If God was the almighty he would be beyond what science can do. Isn't that logical?
Of course, none of that answers the question of if our creator has a creator. I'll cast my vote and say yes, that some set of utterly basic conditions contain the potential to cause consciousness to originage accidentally, and the creator evolved from such a happenstance eons ago.
When u say "I'll cast my vote and say yes" do u mean that our creator has a creator? About ur last sentence, if that were true in reality, than our creator would not be the Almighty. Instead chance, luck or whatever u want to call it is the Almighty. So our the Almighty is either chance, luck, etc.... or our creator's creator?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose our creator had a creator. We name them X and Y respectively. So my question is why would u want to worship, praise, etc... X when Y is more superior than X. That would that be stupid right? So y bother about X when Y is more mighty? Its like Worshipping an angel instead of God!!
 
  • #55
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
omicron said:
I think it stupid to think that our creator has a creator itself. As someone said:If God was created, he would by definition, not be God. Nothing created God! He's the first and the last and however u want to describe his greatness!

The fact that religions assign certain qualities to God doesn't mean they are correct. Why does God have to be "almighty"? Why does God have to have existed forever in the past? Why does God have to be all knowing. Think about it, God only has to be powerful, knowing and old enough to have brought about creation. Such a creator would still be an incredible being.


omicron said:
When u say "I'll cast my vote and say yes" do u mean that our creator has a creator? About ur last sentence, if that were true in reality, than our creator would not be the Almighty. Instead chance, luck or whatever u want to call it is the Almighty. So our the Almighty is either chance, luck, etc.... or our creator's creator? . . . . Suppose our creator had a creator. We name them X and Y respectively. So my question is why would u want to worship, praise, etc... X when Y is more superior than X. That would that be stupid right? So y bother about X when Y is more mighty? Its like Worshipping an angel instead of God!!

A "creator" of the creator doesn't have to be another conscious being, and that is what I was suggesting. Without going into detail about why, my vote for something having created the creator is because I don't think an infinitely-existing creator makes sense. You've heard it said God is light? Well, what if there is an infinite, never created ocean of light-essence that has the potential to accidentally spawn consciousness when certain dynamics occur. Say that consciousness, although having a beginning, evolves forever. Now, after zillions of eons of evolution it acquires the ability to compress light-essence to make mattter, evolves biological forms, and allows points of its own consciousness to enter biology to develop as individual consciousnesses.

I am not saying that is what happened. I am saying that some of us who believe there is a "creator" also want a creator model to make sense. Personally I don't think religious models of God make much sense.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
111
0
do we really have a creator or have we simply formed from the materials floating in space and evolved to our current state?
 
  • #57
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
9
z4955 said:
do we really have a creator or have we simply formed from the materials floating in space and evolved to our current state?


That's a matter of faith.

Note however your two alternatives are not really contradictory. It is possible to believe in a creator who started things up (say, the big bang leading naturally to chemicals in space..) and then let the physical laws he had decreed work their way. This was the belief of the Deists of the 18th century, and it is more or less the belief of some scientists today. Other scientists, of course, are flaming atheists.
 
  • #58
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
z4955 said:
do we really have a creator or have we simply formed from the materials floating in space and evolved to our current state?

Well, that's the big debate. But we could say that if you are correct that is the "creator." In other words, something created this situation we now find ourselves in, and there is no reason we can't call whatever it is the creator. Then the question becomes, what's the nature of the creator? Is it purely physical, or is some sort of consciousness part of it?
 
  • #59
46
0
The fact that religions assign certain qualities to God doesn't mean they are correct. Why does God have to be "almighty"? Why does God have to have existed forever in the past? Why does God have to be all knowing. Think about it, God only has to be powerful, knowing and old enough to have brought about creation. Such a creator would still be an incredible being.
So what are u saying?
The fact that religions assign certain qualities to God doesn't mean they are correct. Why does God have to be "almighty"? Why does God have to have existed forever in the past? Why does God have to be all knowing.
I agree with everything but why wouldn't God be almighty, all knowing etc... if he was the creator?
You've heard it said God is light?
Then u've also heard it said that God is love, life and every other thing.
Are u also saying that u believe that God is light?
 
  • #60
40
1
omicron said:
So what are u saying?

I agree with everything but why wouldn't God be almighty, all knowing etc... if he was the creator?

If God exists, and if God created the Universe, then He did not have to do it by the prescribed manner--ie, jump over our ant hurdles--to prove that He did. For all we know, if He created the universe, then he must have also designed it. If he designed it, then he imagined every detail. Yet if he imagined it, and designed it, and imagined every detail, then why would there actually be a need to create it? A creator able to imagine and design and build would also be able to simply imagine.

Such a creator would know the punch line to every cosmic joke in this universe; how does such a creator, if He is to create 'surprise' in the Universe, do that? Impossible? Hardly. He could do what any schizo on Earth does; he could divide his conciousness.

Is there conciousness in the universe? Sure. Is there divided conciousness in the Universe? Well, is there 'surprise?' Is any of that proof of anything? No, it is by illustration a demonstration that the whole concept of 'proof' of God is ridiculous and unanswerable. Either way, a matter of pure faith.

Whatever God is or isn't, one thing is for sure; there is exactly zero requirement that any such God jump through any ant hoops or hurdles to prove that He exists. He does not need a beard, he does not need to sit on a throne, He does not even need to be anything other than the entire material Universe that we live in, with all of its rules, surprises, and experiments, whether deliberate or random and chaotic. Whatever He is or isn't is by definition forever above our pay grade.

Agnostics do not know. Agnostic theists believe that it is probably our job not to know; that is our function in the Universe. To not know, and to live here anyway, to create surprise in the Universe.
 
  • #61
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Zlex said:
If God exists, and if God created the Universe, then He did not have to do it by the prescribed manner--ie, jump over our ant hurdles--to prove that He did. For all we know, if He created the universe, then he must have also designed it. If he designed it, then he imagined every detail. Yet if he imagined it, and designed it, and imagined every detail, then why would there actually be a need to create it? A creator able to imagine and design and build would also be able to simply imagine.

Such a creator would know the punch line to every cosmic joke in this universe; how does such a creator, if He is to create 'surprise' in the Universe, do that? Impossible? Hardly. He could do what any schizo on Earth does; he could divide his conciousness.

Is there conciousness in the universe? Sure. Is there divided conciousness in the Universe? Well, is there 'surprise?' Is any of that proof of anything? No, it is by illustration a demonstration that the whole concept of 'proof' of God is ridiculous and unanswerable. Either way, a matter of pure faith.

Whatever God is or isn't, one thing is for sure; there is exactly zero requirement that any such God jump through any ant hoops or hurdles to prove that He exists. He does not need a beard, he does not need to sit on a throne, He does not even need to be anything other than the entire material Universe that we live in, with all of its rules, surprises, and experiments, whether deliberate or random and chaotic. Whatever He is or isn't is by definition forever above our pay grade.

Agnostics do not know. Agnostic theists believe that it is probably our job not to know; that is our function in the Universe. To not know, and to live here anyway, to create surprise in the Universe.

Nicely said. Something I was trying to communicate to Omicron is that if one has faith there is a creator, if one also realizes there are no proofs of God's existence, and if knowing this one still wants to understand something about the nature of the creator, then possibly the best evidence we have is creation itself. When I think about the creator I ask myself "what abilities and materials would a creator need to bring about all that we find in creation. Such inductive contemplation has given me more clues than I first imagined it might.

In any case, that's why I said whatever the creator is, it only has to be powerful enough to create this universe. The concept of omnipotence, for example, is not indicated by anything we know to exist.
 
  • #62
133
4
Wrong Question

All these questions about god seem so unanswerable because they are the wrong questions. In any age science has advanced by solving problems which are at the borderline of the known. For our time this means Big Bang problems and Quantum problems. Try to think of experiments that probe the nature of the initial singularity or the density characteristics of dark matter.
 
  • #63
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
CharlesP said:
All these questions about god seem so unanswerable because they are the wrong questions. In any age science has advanced by solving problems which are at the borderline of the known. For our time this means Big Bang problems and Quantum problems. Try to think of experiments that probe the nature of the initial singularity or the density characteristics of dark matter.

I think you might be offering the wrong answer. Science advancement doesn't seem to have anything to do with knowledge of God. Questions about God are one thing, questions about the Big Bang or quantum problems are something entirely different. Why would probing the "nature of the initial singularity or the density characteristics of dark matter" tell us anything about God? It's going to tell us about the physical universe, and that's it.
 
  • #64
133
4
Les Sleeth said:
I think you might be offering the wrong answer. Science advancement doesn't seem to have anything to do with knowledge of God. Questions about God are one thing, questions about the Big Bang or quantum problems are something entirely different. Why would probing the "nature of the initial singularity or the density characteristics of dark matter" tell us anything about God? It's going to tell us about the physical universe, and that's it.

Everything that you can know about is defined by the instruments which detect it. Furthermore before some idea is accepted it must be fit into the mathematical formalism of the present scientific discipline. If you specifically reject this method then you have a serious credibility problem. It is obviously serious because you cannot define which god you speak of.
 
  • #65
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
CharlesP said:
Everything that you can know about is defined by the instruments which detect it.

That is nonsense, and I think you know it. Say there is a wavelength of light zipping through space, but you have a machine that cannot accurately record it. That wavelength exists as it is whether or not your instrument reflects its nature.


CharlesP said:
Furthermore before some idea is accepted it must be fit into the mathematical formalism of the present scientific discipline. If you specifically reject this method then you have a serious credibility problem. It is obviously serious because you cannot define which god you speak of.

More nonsense. Accepted by whom? You? Mathematicians? What if you say to me, express love as a mathematical formula? When I can't you say, "Oh, you can't? Then you have a serious credibility problem."

Maybe there are things which are impossible to fit into mathematical formalism. You don't get to make mathematics the defining factor of truth until you can prove it's the case, and neither you nor anyone else has. All you are telling us is that YOU are only willing to accept certain aspects of reality as true. Whether reality itself can be proven to be as you wish it were has not yet been decided by humanity.
 
  • #66
46
0
If God exists, and if God created the Universe, then He did not have to do it by the prescribed manner--ie, jump over our ant hurdles--to prove that He did. For all we know, if He created the universe, then he must have also designed it. If he designed it, then he imagined every detail. Yet if he imagined it, and designed it, and imagined every detail, then why would there actually be a need to create it? A creator able to imagine and design and build would also be able to simply imagine.
Duh! You should know that I wasn't born yesterday!
Whatever God is or isn't, one thing is for sure; there is exactly zero requirement that any such God jump through any ant hoops or hurdles to prove that He exists. He does not need a beard, he does not need to sit on a throne, He does not even need to be anything other than the entire material Universe that we live in, with all of its rules, surprises, and experiments, whether deliberate or random and chaotic. Whatever He is or isn't is by definition forever above our pay grade.
Who ever said that God has obstacles or anything like that? Certainly not me. Beard? Throne? Thats how man sees it. Of course he doesn't need it. He God! He has everything.
Nicely said. Something I was trying to communicate to Omicron is that if one has faith there is a creator, if one also realizes there are no proofs of God's existence, and if knowing this one still wants to understand something about the nature of the creator, then possibly the best evidence we have is creation itself. When I think about the creator I ask myself "what abilities and materials would a creator need to bring about all that we find in creation. Such inductive contemplation has given me more clues than I first imagined it might.
You know if u were trying to say that, u could just have said:"if one has faith there is a creator, if one also realizes there are no proofs of God's existence, and if knowing this one still wants to understand something about the nature of the creator, then possibly the best evidence we have is creation itself" in the beginning :rolleyes: If I knew u were trying to say that I would have just shut up cuz I totally agree with u :approve:
All these questions about god seem so unanswerable because they are the wrong questions. In any age science has advanced by solving problems which are at the borderline of the known. For our time this means Big Bang problems and Quantum problems. Try to think of experiments that probe the nature of the initial singularity or the density characteristics of dark matter.
Like what Les Sleeth said u can't just mix science and God. They just don't go hand in hand. And I believe that they will never.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
46
0
Les sleeth said:
CharlesP said:
Everything that you can know about is defined by the instruments which detect it. Furthermore before some idea is accepted it must be fit into the mathematical formalism of the present scientific discipline. If you specifically reject this method then you have a serious credibility problem. It is obviously serious because you cannot define which god you speak of.
That is nonsense, and I think you know it. Say there is a wavelength of light zipping through space, but you have a machine that cannot accurately record it. That wavelength exists as it is whether or not your instrument reflects its nature.
Hmmm..... What instrument do you use to detect God? Thats another of seeing it. :biggrin:
 
  • #68
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
omicron said:
Hmmm..... What instrument do you use to detect God? Thats another of seeing it. :biggrin:

I am so glad you asked! :smile: There is a theory, stretching at least back as far as the Buddha, that one has to find the instrument inside oneself. Some call the instrument the heart, some call it true self, some don't like to label it. I say it is the deepest and most sensitive part of our being. To use it, first one has to find it, and then practice feeling with it. Most people never take the time or make the effort to find out if their innermost instrument works in such a fashion or not.
 

Related Threads on Does Our Creator Have A Creator Itself?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
573
Replies
2
Views
613
Replies
6
Views
2K
Top