How would a definition of god that doesn't extend further than an intelligence behind the origin of the universe stand up to scrutiny?
Most people pick apart the notion of a creator due to opinions as to whether he interacts with the universe and how well he may or may not perform this duty.
If you say that your only concept of a creator was a non-human intelligence that set in motion the universe, and left the rest open ended; could we not find credence in some peoples notion of a higher intelligence?
For some, myself included, we have determined that systems established through technology are automatically assumed to have a creator/designer. I tend to carry this thinking into the universe. I see an incredibly complex order that could denote an intelligent design. This belief doesn't give credence to any religion as there is no evidence to the nature of a creator or reason behind creation so how could I make a judgement.
Describing a mythical creature or absurd monster doesn't really counter this argument because, as some have said, we can use natural observations to determine the unlikelihood of their existence to the near infinite.
When held simply to the possibility of an intelligence behind the system that is the universe, it seems that a "creator" is as much a possibility as any other explanation.
Since you both think there is/could be a creator. Can you please post the reason's you think a creator is necessary?Yes thats true, it may very well be the case that the universe was created (consciously influenced). It may not be science (science wont/cant consider it), but reality isnt constrained by the limits of the scientific method.
I think the belief that there is no creator, or that he is redundant, is based on a string of assumptions. It all starts with the assumption that the physical ingredients in general are devoid of consciousness. Also, as i mentioned earlier, the current universe needs consciousness to be the way it is. Many assume that consciousness is a late arrival, limited to the brains in which it "emerged", and think that the universe could exist perfectly well without it. But upon closer inspection, this "emergence" business has no examples anywhere in nature to back it up.
Yes and even if there was an incredibly simple situation, there is no logic to suggest that simplicity implies lack of conscious influence. I remember reading Victor Stengers hypothesis of a pre-bigbang void of "unphysical" zero energy. He made it seem like it was an argument against a creator.
Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.
You might want to read the timeline before you explain how a creator was necessary for this process. I don't see it. Looks like an extremely lengthy natural event that got us where we are, and it's still going on.