Is there a Creator?

[Thief]

The 'time' argument will derail this thread.
And there is a thread for it...somewhere around here.

Good to see some hope of God as 'creator'.
He has been labeled and denied in so many ways.
'Creator' would be a label, which should be left to Him.

Not that I practice religion.....I don't.....however...
If ever it can be shown His hand was not applied....
All scripture, anywhere and everywhere, fails.
Religion goes with it....and social order right behind that.
Morality taught by believers would need be replaced by martial law.

This thread deals with God as the source of all things.
Science can't be used to support this.
This topic is a matter of faith, and faith need not be proven.

To look up into clear starlight, and pronounce a denial of God, seems blind to me.
To feel this life, for better or worse, while not having a belief of 'something' greater, will end at the grave.

I suspect, 'nay' sayers are persistent, because they have no anticipation beyond death. They don't want to deal with the possible rejection religion professes to be there...waiting for us, one and all.

Rejection is not a matter of sin. It's a discussion of what you believe.
If you say and perform, as the angelic would do...fine, no problem.
Your denial cuts short, the possibility They might have some interest.

This is not directed toward anyone or any religion in particular.

 

[Gharib]

The 'time' argument will derail this thread.
And there is a thread for it...somewhere around here.

since we're here i might as well say this.

i few posts back i believe i've said Allah is beyond time, actually Allah is time:

​

Hadith Qudsi 4:​

​

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah said:


Sons of Adam inveigh against [the vicissitudes of] Time, and I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day (1).

(1) As the Almighty is the Ordainer of all things, to inveigh aginst misfortunes that are part of Time is tantamount to inveighing against Him.
It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Muslim).

 

[Thief]

The thread I referred to is a discussion whether are not time is a physical entity. Time does not exist. It is a number on a chalkboard. It is not a form of energy or mass.

Your post opens the door to a discussion that disproves the existence of an
entity who claims to be time itself.

Time is a measurement. A cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.

I'm sure you don't want God thought of in this way....a cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.

 

[darkendless]

I'm sure you don't want God thought of in this way....a cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.

That is exactly what God is to man. A backing decision because some of us are too weak to make our own decisions. Everything good or bad can be rationalized as long as the belief is held that God would agree.

 

[Thief]

You're confusing religion with...belief in God.

Religion has been, and now is, the source of difficulty between men.
Religion divides, and then Man decides to go forth and conquer.
All in the name of God, even though...'thou shalt not kill'.

When God said...go forth and dominate all things...Man included his neighbor in the list of things to dominate.

God gave Man domination. It is therefore Man that allows the pain and suffering...not God.

That religion is faulty in the minds, and the hands of Man, doesn't go on to say, believing in God is incorrect.

 

[Gharib]

I'm sure you don't want God thought of in this way....a cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.

you don't understand that hadith. Allah is not time as in a watch or the day and the night, those are elements with which we measure time, but no one know what time really is.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

"Time is not completely objective in its reality, and that is the point."

That was not your point but I really don't care any more.

"but it should not be taken as given that Time is objective nor necessary for existence to work. I will certainly agree that it is a very good assumption that the rest of reality uses Time (or something very close to it), but that is all that it is: an assumption."

It is far more then an assumption, but then you already know that.

Anything which is part subjective in its composition, cannot be presumed to have a completely external existence. This makes it an "illusion" of sorts.

And no I don't know that it is far more than an assumption. My framework of understanding would have to be severely altered in order to comprehend the realms above operating without time (or something similar to it), but that is not the same thing as saying time MUST be true.

Time is integral to our understanding of causality (an opinion) because we have no experience with anything other than temporal causality. If we had experience with causality in which time was not a factor, then we would not be having this discussion. Consider: I exist because the cells in my body exist. That is causation of sorts that does not require time. Why couldn't all of reality be predicated on a similar form of causation?

MTF

 

[nonbeliever_92]

most like no, there isn't a creator.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

most like no, there isn't a creator.

If by creator, you mean an agency upon which responsibility for the action of creation can be squarely placed, then I would say that the answer is not "most likely no," but for certain no.

The universe can very easily have a creator (which is a "being" of any wide variety of sort), but that hardly matters to the question of whether there is a "God" or not. The question of "does Existence have a creator?" is a very different one from "does the universe have a creator?" Action, desire, planning, etc these are all features which require Existence, require causality. In order for Existence to be created there must be something which can "act without acting."

What does this mean, exactly? Well honestly I can't claim to know. It's beyond our ability to understand. The "best" description I have come across is akin to the gnostic concept of emanation. You take "God" and as a "virtue" of the mere fact that there is such a thing as "God" then Existence spontaneously comes into being and everything begins to work from there...

MTF

 

[darkendless]

In order for Existence to be created there must be something which can "act without acting."

Nope, not at all. Energy works by itself. A creator or an "action" in terms of energy is obsolete.

What does this mean, exactly? Well honestly I can't claim to know. It's beyond our ability to understand. The "best" description I have come across is akin to the gnostic concept of emanation. You take "God" and as a "virtue" of the mere fact that there is such a thing as "God" then Existence spontaneously comes into being and everything begins to work from there...

Creation is beyond our ability to understand because we have no authority to base our prediction on. People make a claim that there is a creator based on lack of evidence rather than partial evidence. They do so because they're scientifically lazy or redundant.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Nope, not at all. Energy works by itself. A creator or an "action" in terms of energy is obsolete.



Creation is beyond our ability to understand because we have no authority to base our prediction on. People make a claim that there is a creator based on lack of evidence rather than partial evidence. They do so because they're scientifically lazy or redundant.

What are you talking about? Energy exists. If there were no existence, then energy would not be able to exist. I'm not even sure what your argument is referring to. Just for clarification the Universe =/= Existence. Existence is the framework upon which all real things are able to be real.

"Creation is beyond our ability to understand because we have no authority to base our prediction on..." *snip* Good call. The best we can do empirically is generalize features which know to be true inside our small portion of reality to the higher portions and see if the model sticks. But metaphysics is one of those funny disciplines where you consider logic. And logically it is impossible for for something to create itself (assuming it exists) and for something to come from nothing (assuming imperfection; which is everything real). So the possibilities we end up with are something I have tried to out-line here: Perhaps you'd like to respond?

"People make a claim that there is a creator based on lack of evidence rather than partial evidence. They do so because they're scientifically lazy or redundant." Generalizing much? I suspect you are talking about Abrahamic notions of creator, because much further than that and you are talking serious hubris on your part. Exactly how are you going to "explain away" the possibility of hyper advanced ET intervention? You can't. We have fine tuned cosmological laws which appear to come out of largely probabilistic laws. "Emergent Phenomena" is code-word for we don't actually know how something happens because it is so complex that we cannot identify the proximal cause let alone the ultimate cause. The strong anthropic principle would have us believe that "we did it." (the observers). Well, that's all well and good, but "observer status" isn't just reserved for us unless we are the only sentient life in the universe...

I don't need to believe in a creator for the universe. In point of fact I have no vested interest one way or another. I am just willing to keep an open mind and wait for us to have a better understanding of what is actually happening in the universe before I listen to "scientific speculation" about why things are the way they are now. "Cold Earth/Faint Sun Paradox" anyone? Whether the universe has a creator or not is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a "God" or not. So I have no idea what all the issues with "intelligent design" is about. Intelligent design can only ever point to an ET, since anything which is real and imperfect is Not "God."

MTF

 

[zenzero]

Friend MTF,

Perhaps you'd like to respond?

I don't need to believe in a creator for the universe.

Surely there can be a response provided you can explain who this *I* is

Love & rgds

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The "I" was referencing myself; as in I was attempting to establish that I have no bias towards a created universe or an emergent universe.

And as far as the "respond" is concerned I always welcome thoughts on the fundamental aspects of Existence.

MTF

 

[Jeremiah]

Anything which is part subjective in its composition, cannot be presumed to have a completely external existence. This makes it an "illusion" of sorts.

And no I don't know that it is far more than an assumption. My framework of understanding would have to be severely altered in order to comprehend the realms above operating without time (or something similar to it), but that is not the same thing as saying time MUST be true.

Time is integral to our understanding of causality (an opinion) because we have no experience with anything other than temporal causality. If we had experience with causality in which time was not a factor, then we would not be having this discussion. Consider: I exist because the cells in my body exist. That is causation of sorts that does not require time. Why couldn't all of reality be predicated on a similar form of causation?

MTF

Anything which is part subjective in its composition, cannot be presumed to have a completely external existence. This makes it an "illusion" of sorts.

You cannot deny objective reality, even if you try and redefine it as an "illusion" you still cannot supersede its laws. But if you have a problem determining what is objective and what is subjective then I suggest you look up the scientific method. Because in the end it does not matter if it is an "illusion", we still find ourselves in a reality with laws that we cannot supersede and that is "objectivity". See, it is nothing but words games with you.



"That is causation of sorts that does not require time. "

No, it is not.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Anything which is part subjective in its composition, cannot be presumed to have a completely external existence. This makes it an "illusion" of sorts.

You cannot deny objective reality, even if you try and redefine it as an "illusion" you still cannot supersede its laws. But if you have a problem determining what is objective and what is subjective then I suggest you look up the scientific method. Because in the end it does not matter if it is an "illusion", we still find ourselves in a reality with laws that we cannot supersede and that is "objectivity". See, it is nothing but words games with you.



"That is causation of sorts that does not require time. "

No, it is not.

I cannot continue a conversation with literalist/pure materialist. If you are interested in probing your assumptions about reality further, then by all means respond, but as it stands you are convinced that science has shown objective reality, when it has done nothing of the sort. Our little corner of reality is a drop inside a cosmic ocean, and despite the fact that we might have a hard time conceiving of how things might be outside our universe it does NOT follow that how our universe works applies to all other portions of reality nor does it follow that the line delineating our universe from other things is all that great.


Incidentally yes it is a form of causation and no it does not require time. Causation is exigency. It is what is required in order for something else to exist. And if by virtue of something's existence something else must exist inside it, then a form of causation is occurring/occurred. The inside thing's exist is dependent upon the outer/higher thing's existence. All qualitative relationships are a form of causation.


And if science is so "concerned" with "objective reality" then kindly explain this....

MTF

 

[zenzero]

Friend ManTimeForgot,

You missed the point.
Religion is only a journey to know who am *I*?
If your understanding of *I* is just *yourself* then the journey has not begun.
Those who know more and more of the *I*, loose more and more of their *self*.
Love & rgds

 

[K.Venugopal]

... So although I cant say its the creator of the universe, or even the creator of mankind, maybe shaper is a better name for it?

I mean, to be called the creator of a work of art, do you have to have created the clay for the sculpture from nothing? Isnt it enough to have shaped the clay you found?

We use the word "create" in our daily lives in terms of producing a work of art or literature and do not thereby mean a production out of nothing. But I think when we use the word as in "Creator of creation", then such creation has necessarily to mean the bringing into existence something that did not exist before. Since those who posit that God created everything, it would beg the question as to with what God created? And since - as posited by those who believe in a Creator - that there was nothing except God before creation, the only possibility would be that creation is but a becoming by God as He would have himself become His creation because there was nothing else in existence.

 

[K.Venugopal]

God sleeps in the rock,
Dreams in the plant,
Stirs in the animal
And Awakens in Man.
Al Arabi

:rainbow1:

Al Arabi, the great Sufi, here expressing the oneness of existence.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Saying that a "creator" or "god" designed all of what we know today is ilogical. Its much more logical to think that what is always has been and always will be. To think that a single mind or spirit created all of the physical world and gave it laws to work by is just unreall. Humantiy is the work of millions of mutations and biological accidents. Why would laws have to be set or created by a creator, the laws we know are natural, they created themselves to make the world work in a uniform and logical way.

Everything is but life manifesting variously.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Reality is such an amazing thing. The indescribable beauty and depth of that which we all are is humbling, awe-inspiring and makes me feel lucky to be alive. I'm glad I can share this miraculous thing we call life with all of you.

I think to be with a sense of awe is to really live.