What are the minimum requirements for a Creator of the universe?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Creator
Must have existed before the universe
Must be intelligent enough to understand they are creating something.
Must create something that wasn't there and allow it to change

It's very, very hard to contemplate all of this at once.

"Before the universe" there was neither time nor place in which to "exist." So from the point of view of such a creator, itself and its creation must be coeval (having the same date of origin).

 

[paarsurrey]

It's very, very hard to contemplate all of this at once.

"Before the universe" there was neither time nor place in which to "exist." So from the point of view of such a creator, itself and its creation must be coeval (having the same date of origin).

Not exactly, G-d is neither a physical thing nor even a spirit, He is an attributive Being, must exist to create time, space and everything in it and related to it, right, please?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not exactly, G-d is neither a physical thing nor even a spirit, He is an attributive Being, must exist to create time, space and everything in it and related to it, right, please?

Regards

That is precisely the issue that this thread is about! The word "attributive" is slightly different than an adjective. In "a tasty pie," tasty is an adjective, but in "an apple pie," apple is an attributive. It says more about what the pie "is" than what the pie "feels like."

But if we don't know what a "pie" is, what could we possibly say about it, about what sort of thing it might be, or whether it might please or displease us?

This is the problem with God: God is a human invention to explain something that we cannot yet explain. But that means that we must apply attributes to the very idea of "God," or it is not explanatory at all. So when I started this thread -- that's exactly what I did: I said, "okay, assume there is a God/Creator -- what attributes must it have to fulfill that role?"

The next step, which I never mentioned, is "if we can agree on what those attributes must be, can we demonstrate that they are logically coherent?" We're not ready to answer that question yet.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is the problem with God

There is no problem with G-d, He solves the problems, right?
The problem is with the Atheism people, they don't think reasonably, right, please?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no problem with G-d, He solves the problems, right?
The problem is with the Atheism people, they don't think reasonably, right, please?

Regards

Incorrect -- sometimes. I don't know if I always think "reasonably," but I always try to think rationally. It is, in my opinion, religious people who make any assumptions that they like, and then pretend that the can use reason to make those assumptions yield some rational conclusion.

If I assume, for example, that there is an absolute minimum size that a point could be -- then geometry (Euclid's) would be forever opaque and irrational.

 

[Yerda]

Don't see that, myself. There is a strange loop in a creator of the universe have the property of having already done so.

I'm the creator of my breakfast and have already done so. Is that a strange loop?

Here's what I meant:

If something created the universe it is, by defnition, the creator of the universe. The other things that people imagine in a creator god sound like reasonable expectations of such a creature, but the minimal requirement has only to be that it created the universe.

For example, does it need to be omnipotent? No, not if it created the universe and is not omnipotent. The same applies, muatatis mutandis, to all the other features people apply to a creator god.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This thread speaks, in part, from the perspective of Occam's Razor -- the idea that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.

Then the simple answer is the question we need to ask our own selves.

What is the minimum requirement for a human to embrace the Creator of all the unlimited worlds and all the unlimited Universe's.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then the simple answer is the question we need to ask our own selves.

What is the minimum requirement for a human to embrace the Creator of all the unlimited worlds and all the unlimited Universe's.

Regards Tony

What you want to.

 

[Pogo]

Then the simple answer is the question we need to ask our own selves.

What is the minimum requirement for a human to embrace the Creator of all the unlimited worlds and all the unlimited Universe's.

Regards Tony

That there be something to embrace?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That there be something to embrace?

No, just believe in. It is a fact that you can believe and still die of old age.

 

[LuisDantas]

This thread speaks, in part, from the perspective of Occam's Razor -- the idea that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.

1. Omnipotence: The ability to exert unlimited power and control over all aspects of existence, at the most macro- and microscopic levels, including the creation of the universe itself.
2. Omniscience: Complete knowledge and understanding of everything, including the intricate workings of the universe and all its components.
3. Transcendence: Existing beyond the limitations of time, space, and physical laws, allowing the deity to create the universe from nothing or from a state beyond our comprehension.
4. Immanence: The ability to be present and active within the created universe, sustaining and guiding its development and functioning.
5. Creativity: The capacity to conceive of and bring into being something entirely new, such as the universe, with its vast complexity and diversity.
6. Intentionality: Purposeful action or will directed towards the creation of the universe, implying a desire or plan for its existence.

Question 1: Can any refine this list, or add to it (or perhaps subtract from it)?

Question 2: When looking at your completed list (if you refine, add or subtract), how do you explain the existence of something so immensely complex?

Question 3: Is the notion of the birth of matter/energy from a tiny "singularity," eventually resulting in the elements and properties we know today without guidance, more or less complex than your concept of a Creator deity?

Are we talking about Abrahamic expectations, or about the Real World(TM)?

If the former, then it is a lost cause. There are just way too many contradictions involved.

But in the Real World(TM) the one necessary attribute would be intentionality.

The Universe is exactly as chaotic and accidental as one would expect without an intentional "creation". But if we are considering a "creator", then there must be the intent to create.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That there be something to embrace?

That sounds logical!
[

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That there be something to embrace?

The evidence of all that is provided to us.

The issue we face is that God has granted it to be our choice to Know and Love God, there is no compulsion in religion.

To truly Love one must know evil, and only choose Love.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What you want to.

The opposite of self based choices is one requirement. If we base it on what we want, we will not find God.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The opposite of self based choices is one requirement. If we base it on what we want, we will not find God.

Regards Tony

Well, then that is what you want. You follow what you want by following what you believe to be God.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Are we talking about Abrahamic expectations, or about the Real World(TM)?

If the former, then it is a lost cause. There are just way too many contradictions involved.

But in the Real World(TM) the one necessary attribute would be intentionality.

The Universe is exactly as chaotic and accidental as one would expect without an intentional "creation". But if we are considering a "creator", then there must be the intent to create.

Unless the intent was to create something else, and there was a misfire of some sort...or that we're just a minor contamination of the cosmos, not something that was intended...

 

[LuisDantas]

Unless the intent was to create something else, and there was a misfire of some sort...

That would still fulfill the requirements for being a creator, I think.

or that we're just a minor contamination of the cosmos, not something that was intended...

This I take as a given. The evidence is just too overwhelming.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This thread speaks, in part, from the perspective of Occam's Razor -- the idea that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.

1. Omnipotence: The ability to exert unlimited power and control over all aspects of existence, at the most macro- and microscopic levels, including the creation of the universe itself.
2. Omniscience: Complete knowledge and understanding of everything, including the intricate workings of the universe and all its components.
3. Transcendence: Existing beyond the limitations of time, space, and physical laws, allowing the deity to create the universe from nothing or from a state beyond our comprehension.
4. Immanence: The ability to be present and active within the created universe, sustaining and guiding its development and functioning.
5. Creativity: The capacity to conceive of and bring into being something entirely new, such as the universe, with its vast complexity and diversity.
6. Intentionality: Purposeful action or will directed towards the creation of the universe, implying a desire or plan for its existence.

Question 1: Can any refine this list, or add to it (or perhaps subtract from it)?

Question 2: When looking at your completed list (if you refine, add or subtract), how do you explain the existence of something so immensely complex?

Question 3: Is the notion of the birth of matter/energy from a tiny "singularity," eventually resulting in the elements and properties we know today without guidance, more or less complex than your concept of a Creator deity?

Just to be clear, we're assuming "Creator" as an anthropomorphic deus faber, yes?

 

[paarsurrey]

Incorrect -- sometimes. I don't know if I always think "reasonably," but I always try to think rationally. It is, in my opinion, religious people who make any assumptions that they like, and then pretend that the can use reason to make those assumptions yield some rational conclusion.

If I assume, for example, that there is an absolute minimum size that a point could be -- then geometry (Euclid's) would be forever opaque and irrational.

" sometimes. I don't know if I always think "reasonably," but I always try to think rationally "

Did one apply the same reason/rationale of arguments to "Atheism" which one applies to other religions or since others could not stand one's criticism one came to the perception that Atheism is or must be true, right, please?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

" sometimes. I don't know if I always think "reasonably," but I always try to think rationally "

Did one apply the same reason/rationale of arguments to "Atheism" which one applies to other religions or since others could not stand one's criticism one came to the perception that Atheism is or must be true, right, please?

Regards

No, not at all. I examined everything I had ever been told about gods or God, and came to realize that everything, all of it, was so full of holes that it couldn't possibly be true. And if there are no gods, then that leaves atheism (no god) as the default.