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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

• 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.

For the latter - "from a state beyond our comprehension." that means that all bets are off. In essense we can't rule out, that a creator god has created the universe from a state beyond our comprehension.
And any answer whether that is the case or not, is based on how the given person reasons.

So my answer is that it is unknown what qualities a creator god has, because we apparently have no way of knowing.

 

[Pogo]

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?

The ability to manipulate the substance (matter/energy/fields/? into the form that inflated into what we know as the universe.
Everything else is unnecessary speculation and anthropomorphism. We do have a bad habit of doing that though.

 

[Alien826]

The ability to manipulate the substance (matter/energy/fields/? into the form that inflated into what we know as the universe.
Everything else is unnecessary speculation and anthropomorphism. We do have a bad habit of doing that though.

I'm inclined to agree with this one. As the universe after the "big bang" seems to contain within itself the ability to create everything we are aware of, then creation of the original "singularity" would be enough. Consciousness (including intent and design) is also an addition to that basic requirement. That's still quite an achievement of course.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

I would say this entire exercise is spurious until you can define, describe, or otherwise explain the properties of a singularity; which as yet, the greatest minds in science have been unable to do.

What do you think can be gained by comparing, let alone choosing between, two entities which defy all human understanding?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would say this entire exercise is spurious until you can define, describe, or otherwise explain the properties of a singularity; which as yet, the greatest minds in science have been unable to do.

What do you think can be gained by comparing, let alone choosing between, two entities which defy all human understanding?

Well, a lot of people who think as you do then immediately opt for a Creator -- which I am asking them to define, describe or otherwise explain the properties of. If they can't do that, then what is it that makes one more likely than the other?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Obviously the minimum requirement is to show exactly where this 'creater of the universe' is so everyone can see for themselves.

Otherwise it's easily dismissed.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, a lot of people who think as you do then immediately opt for a Creator -- which I am asking them to define, describe or otherwise explain the properties of. If they can't do that, then what is it that makes one more likely than the other?

What makes you believe you have any idea how I think, or who else “thinks as I do”?

Are you aware that one of the astronomers who first posited the concept of the singularity, was also a Catholic priest? I don’t know if George Lemaitre was ever asked to choose between God and science, but he seems to have been content enough dedicating his life to both; which rather makes your invocation of Ockham’s Razor (William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar btw) a false dichotomy.

 

[McBell]

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

Um..
Creating the universe?

Anything and everything else is nothing more than window dressing, right?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Um..
Creating the universe?

Anything and everything else is nothing more than window dressing, right?

That doesn't really go anywhere near answering the questions, though, does it? What attributes/powers/abilities/motives would you expect any entity would require to do such a thing?

 

[McBell]

That doesn't really go anywhere near answering the questions, though, does it? What attributes/powers/abilities/motives would you expect any entity would require to do such a thing?

Creating a universe is not an attribute/power/ability?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Creating a universe is not an attribute/power/ability?

No, it is an action. In order to take any action, you require attributes, powers and/or abilities.

 

[idea]

First, a beginning must be established.

I'm not convinced there is a beginning, so no creator.

Creator would have to create themselves - out of nothing - would all need to start from absolute nothing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First, a beginning must be established.

I'm not convinced there is a beginning, so no creator.

Creator would have to create themselves - out of nothing - would all need to start from absolute nothing.

And if there were, as you put it, "absolute nothing," where do you get a Creator? That is, after all, something.

 

[idea]

And if there were, as you put it, "absolute nothing," where do you get a Creator? That is, after all, something.

Precisely. Panspermia - the simplest solution is no beginning, no end, no creator, no created, all eternal.

The Beginning. by Brig Klyce

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, a lot of people who think as you do then immediately opt for a Creator -- which I am asking them to define, describe or otherwise explain the properties of. If they can't do that, then what is it that makes one more likely than the other?

It is unknown for what objective reality really is and thus we have methodological naturalism and the unproven unevidenced axioms of science.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Not necessary. Just enough power to complete the task.

1. Omniscience: Complete knowledge and understanding of everything, including the intricate workings of the universe and all its components.

Not necessary. Just enough knowledge to complete the task. If it works, fine, if it doesn't, try again.

1. 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.

To an extent. See below.

1. Immanence: The ability to be present and active within the created universe, sustaining and guiding its development and functioning.

Nope. There's no evidence for that and logically, if the universe was created perfect, there would be no need for that.

1. Creativity: The capacity to conceive of and bring into being something entirely new, such as the universe, with its vast complexity and diversity.
2. Intentionality: Purposeful action or will directed towards the creation of the universe, implying a desire or plan for its existence.

See below.

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

Yep.

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?

I had my list compiled some time ago: Are the Programmers Gods?.
It wasn't done with Occam's Razor in mind, but I think it qualifies as a list. It makes one additional assumption (the universe is simulated), but gets rid of all the infinities and of "creativity". Our universe doesn't have to be the first one. The creators could be copycats or even a single student creating a universe as an appointment.

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?

Less, as most of it could have happened at random, or be found by trial and error.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

...

Yeah, but that is first person internal cogntion. It doesn't tell us if any of the ideas is a fact.

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

1) I'd argue there is a lot of subtle bias from beliefs of the dominant monotheistic faiths there.

The "omnipotence" and "omniscience" only need to extend to the initial creation of the universe and the "immanence" isn't a necessity at all. After all, one plausible creator concept could be a being that turns itself in to the universe and by any concept, there is no need for the creator to know exactly how the creation would play out.

I think "creativity" and "intentionality" have the issue of anthropomorphising (also linked to dominant faith beliefs). While these things would have to exist in a creator being in some way, I don't think there is a need for them to be anything like the way we perceived or experience those concepts. That kind of ties in to "transcendence", which presents a being that is so far beyond the fundamental principles on which our existence is based that it could be said that no "human" labels could possible apply.

I compare this with the idea of extra-terrestrial aliens. Popular imagery focuses on things like little green/grey men and even when we try to more beyond that humanoid imagery, we still subconsciously lean towards what we know, and while all life is likely to share some core elements, if there are alien species out there, they'd likely be so much more different to us in so many ways than we could imagine.

Gods are created in man's image, and certainly shaped that way as they're used to try to explain how the universe works. Similarly though, if there is (or was) some kind of sentient universal creator being, it probably wouldn't match any of our self-centred assumptions.

2) I don't believe any such thing does exist, and if it did, it would indeed need a whole new set of complex explanation for it's existence. A creator god doesn't really answer any questions, it just (unnecessarily) shifts them back a step.

3) A singularity in and of itself is a comparatively simpler concept as the source of the universe than a sentient creator being, but that too would need an explanation for it's existence, something we're not currently (and may never be) able to explain.

It could even be some kind of god.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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?

When you create your dream world at night, how many of these requirements do the characters in your dream think you possess?