Does God require a creator?

[ratiocinator]

If all of space and time were not connected, we could not have photons of energy.

We don't anyway. Photons have energy (as does everything else) they are not particles of energy.

If we break that connection of space-time, we would have frequency without wavelength and wavelength without frequency; separated time and separated space, but no energy. All we would have is infinite entropy; infinite complexity of states but without substance as we know it. This allows for virtual reality; moving at the speed of thought, that can ignore the limits of the three legged race, to create something from nothing.

Some sort of nonsense poetry, perhaps...?

 

[1213]

Wow. That's quite a small part of the physical universe and would mean that nothing material at all existed for the first 380,000 years after the big bang.

Why do you believe there was a big bang?

 

[1213]

By that measure, the universe has a lot of "not material" stuff in it already.

Like what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like what?

Energy waves, electricity, neutrinos, subatomic particles whizzing around on their own, etc.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why do you believe there was a big bang?

Evidence.

Like what?

Plasma (most of the sun is plasma, in fact most ordinary matter in the universe is) doesn't consist of atoms, it is a state in which the atoms have been broken down into ions and electrons. That's before we get to other free particles, electromagnetic radiation, space-time, and so on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would say that, yes, but with the rather astonishing caviat that the God character and story has emerged in every culture and time that humans have been on Earth.

No.
All cultures have their own gods. It's not the same god that pops up everywhere.

This is like saying that Darth Vader, Skeletor and the Goa'uld are the same thing.
They are not.

So if you're trying to imply a equivalent signifigance between them I would disagree with that.

You'ld have to be dishonestly pretending that all gods in all cultures are the same character.
They are not. Not even remotely.
Jawhe, Quetzalcoatl, Visjnoe, Odin, Ra, Apollo, Jupiter, Toutatis,.... these are not the same character.

I also would say that it's very strange to me that you would let the idea of God so easily alter or define your concept of existence.

I would say that it's very strange to me that you would pretend all those gods are the same god.
Clearly they are not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not time as we measure it relative to space.

That's not an answer to my question.
I asked you what it IS and you replied by saying what it is not.

You said "Why couldn't the universe 'just be'?"
..and now you are saying that it had a beginning, and that it is the beginning of time..

Which doesn't contradict it. Why don't you quote the full post in context?

..in other words, the beginning of everything that could possibly exist.

I don't know about that.

What about other universes? Do they have to begin at the same time as ours?
Why could they not begin before ours?

I don't know about other universes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are the same in relation to an author who is writing a book that includes both legal laws and physical laws.

No, they are not.
Again, the laws of physics are not prescriptive.
There is no "author".
There's only an author when it concerns prescriptive.

I know. It's super easy to understand the concept. It works equally well for any invisible anything.

Invisible and undetectable and, most of all, imaginary.

Imaginary things have the advantage of not having to comply to the rules of reality.
I can imagine a space ship that can travel faster then light and which can POOF into a capsule that I can fit in my pocket like the products from Bulma's Capsule Corp in Dragonball Z.

I can imagine plenty of things that don't make any sense in actual reality.

 

[dybmh]

No, they are not.
Again, the laws of physics are not prescriptive.
There is no "author".
There's only an author when it concerns prescriptive.

Well now you're just being silly.

The author of Harry Potter didn't create their own physical laws? Flying cars and such? Walking through walls?

Invisible and undetectable and, most of all, imaginary.

Imaginary things have the advantage of not having to comply to the rules of reality.
I can imagine a space ship that can travel faster then light and which can POOF into a capsule that I can fit in my pocket like the products from Bulma's Capsule Corp in Dragonball Z.

I can imagine plenty of things that don't make any sense in actual reality.

And? What does that have to do with understanding how a god can be outside of time as we know it, and physical laws as we know them, and existence as we know it?

 

[dybmh]

There is no "author".

... that you are aware of.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does God require a creator?.

If God does not require a creator, then does that logically imply that the universe does not either? Something can come out of nothing.

If one assumes that something can't come out of nothing, and this is a reasoning for their belief in God, then don't they have to question where God came from?

"God exists outside of time"
Time is relative... right? In the original Planet of the Apes (spoiler alert) them astronauts time traveled due to their speed and time's relativity, right? So, if time isn't concrete and static throughout the universe, I guess it's reasonable to assume a deity could be outside of time.

"God exists outside of existence." maybe?

I dunno

God definitely requires a creater.

The person who made up their God created God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Does God require a creator?.

If God does not require a creator, then does that logically imply that the universe does not either? Something can come out of nothing.

If one assumes that something can't come out of nothing, and this is a reasoning for their belief in God, then don't they have to question where God came from?

"God exists outside of time"
Time is relative... right? In the original Planet of the Apes (spoiler alert) them astronauts time traveled due to their speed and time's relativity, right? So, if time isn't concrete and static throughout the universe, I guess it's reasonable to assume a deity could be outside of time.

"God exists outside of existence." maybe?

I dunno

Not necessarily. The Creator is the ‘Uncreated’ so is independent. But the universe which is ‘created’ is in need of a creator and maintainer in order to exist and continue to exist. Due to the limitations of our own minds which are finite and born in a world of time, we in our present form are unable to understand fully concepts such as infinity and timelessness so we confine our knowledge of God to our minds limitations which is not God but our own imaginations.

God definitely exists. Just as we can easily accept that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe, it’s just a few step further to acknowledge the existence of an Ultimate Supreme Intelligence responsible for existence. We only really have to be humble enough to accept that we are not the be all and end all of all existence. Once physically, we thought all Life revolved around us only to find we are but a speck in the universe not its centre. Sooner or later, as we mature, it will become evident that far higher intelligence exists than us if we can call our race who kill & destroy truly intelligent. That if there is higher life forms, there can also be an ultimate uncreated God Who we just cannot fathom due to our mind’s limitation.

A stone could claim that sight, hearing and reasoning does not exist due to its own limitations and an animal may never be able to discover scientific reality but that is not because these things do not exist but due to the limitations of the rock and animal. Just because we cannot perceive God within our limited minds does not exclude His Existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

... that you are aware of.

No. By nature of what the laws of nature are. Descriptive of how things work.
Descriptive laws aren't "authored". Prescriptive laws are.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Creator is the ‘Uncreated’ so is independent. But the universe which is ‘created’ is in need of a creator and maintainer in order to exist and continue to exist.

How do you know?

God definitely exists.

How do you know?

Just as we can easily accept that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe, it’s just a few step further to acknowledge the existence of an Ultimate Supreme Intelligence responsible for existence.

Simply doesn't follow at all. We have quite good evidence to suggest that other life exists in the universe (and therefore quite possibly intelligent life) but none whatsoever to suggest a creator god, which would be something entirely different.

We only really have to be humble enough to accept that we are not the be all and end all of all existence.

We can do that quite easily without accepting some god.

A stone could claim that sight, hearing and reasoning does not exist due to its own limitations and an animal may never be able to discover scientific reality but that is not because these things do not exist but due to the limitations of the rock and animal. Just because we cannot perceive God within our limited minds does not exclude His Existence.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well now you're just being silly.

I don't see what's silly about point out the obvious difference between the laws of physics and the laws of a country. What seems silly to me, is to pretend they are in the same category, like you are doing.

The laws of physics are descriptions of how physics works.
The laws of a country are not such. Instead, they are prescriptions of how society should be organized.

Enormous difference.
They use the same word: "law". But they are NOT synonymous. Not even remotely.

It's more like the word "light" in these sentences:

"This feather is very light"
and
"Turn the light on".

In the first sentence we mean "not heavy". In the second, we mean a lamp.
This is the order of difference between the word "law" used in context of physics or in context of legality.

The author of Harry Potter didn't create their own physical laws? Flying cars and such? Walking through walls?

No. What they do there is describe an imaginary universe where magic exists.

And? What does that have to do with understanding how a god can be outside of time as we know it, and physical laws as we know them, and existence as we know it?

I think I just told you........

Just because we can use our imagination to imagine senseless things, that doesn't mean they are also actually possible in actual reality...........
I can imagine breaking / violating / suspending the laws of physics by being able to fly at light speed like Son Goku using only "Ki".
That doesn't mean it is also possible in reality.

And it definitely doesn't mean that I get to use such imagination as an argument that it IS in fact possible - just because I can imagine it.
What a silly proposition...............

 

[1213]

Energy waves, electricity, neutrinos, subatomic particles whizzing around on their own, etc.

So, if universe has lot of immaterial things, why would it be impossible to have immaterial God?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, if universe has lot of immaterial things, why would it be impossible to have immaterial God?

So, is that what you mean by a "god"? waves, neutrino's and such?

 

[viole]

No, because God didn't "come from" something. Whereas empirically we know the universe did. It hasn't always been as it is now. It's contingent. So, the argument goes, something necessary must underlie it.

It could be the universe is necessary, too.

here is an interesting exercise for everybody: defeat the claim “the universe might be necessary”, without circular reasoning, non sequiturs, nor special pleading.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

So, if universe has lot of immaterial things, why would it be impossible to have immaterial God?

Sorry, did somebody claim that it was impossible to have an immaterial god? There is a huge gap between something not being impossible and some credible reason to take the idea at all seriously.

 

[Left Coast]

It could be the universe is necessary, too.

I don't think so. You're part of the universe, aren't you? Are you necessary?