Does Our Creator Have A Creator Itself?

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[CharlesP]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[CharlesP]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

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.

 

[omicron]

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 If I knew u were trying to say that I would have just shut up because I totally agree with u

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.

 

[omicron]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hmmm... What instrument do you use to detect God? Thats another of seeing it.

I am so glad you asked! 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.