• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Tomef

Tomef

Well-Known Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
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?
Click to expand...
The ability to remain indiscernible, imperceptible, untraceable - in other words having only an imaginary existence in the literal sense, consisting of nothing more than (very different) ideas inside the brains of believers, being undetectable in any other form.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Pogo said:
An uncaused existence is a logical possibility since I can conceive of one by definition of logical possibility.
Click to expand...
It's not logical by any justifiable course of reasoning available to us from within existence. Nothing in existence is perpetual, yet you want to claim that existence IS perpetual. There is no path of logic that would justify any such conclusion.
Pogo said:
Logical necessity is logically possible things without without alternatives ie there is only one way for them to exist.
Click to expand...
And the only one that can logically stand from our perspective is a transcendent source.
Pogo said:
Transcendant source is a hypothesis without evidence not a logical necessity.
Click to expand...
Evidence is an irrelevant concern. Either everything is evidence or nothing is. And either way the perpetuity theory, and the 'randomly popped into existence' theory are not logically viable by any course of reasoning currently available to us. The transcendent mystery source, however, does track with our current understanding of existential possibility. Which is why so many humans accept it.
 
Banach-Tarski Paradox

Banach-Tarski Paradox

*Banned*
PureX said:
It's not logical by any justifiable course of reasoning available to us from within existence. Nothing in existence is perpetual, yet you want to claim that existence IS perpetual. There is no path of logic that would justify any such conclusion.

And the only one that can logically stand from our perspective is a transcendent source.

Evidence is an irrelevant concern. Either everything is evidence or nothing is. And either way the perpetuity theory, and the 'randomly popped into existence' theory are not logically viable by any course of reasoning currently available to us. The transcendent mystery source, however, does track with our current understanding of existential possibility. Which is why so many humans accept it.
Click to expand...

Conversations like these can be frustrating, since although it is clear from the language used in making these mathematical metaphors that we are somehow discussing modal logic, people don’t specify which system of modal logic they are living in, so it is nearly impossible to follow the arguements.

I feel the need for more metaphorical precision before I can even make sense of the mathematical metaphors being tossed back and forth.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Banach-Tarski Paradox said:
Conversations like these can be frustrating, since although it is clear from the language used in making these mathematical metaphors that we are somehow discussing modal logic, people don’t specify which system of modal logic they are living in, so it is nearly impossible to follow the arguements.

I feel the need for more metaphorical precision before I can even make sense of the mathematical metaphors being tossed back and forth.
Click to expand...
This is a frustration a lot of people feel. They want some mechanism through which they can feel they have arrived at a valid conclusion. But the great mystery of existence does not give us that. All it gives us is the "what is". And even that only in a limited way. It does not give us any answers regarding the source of what is. Or why it is the way it is. So all we can find is speculate.

Those who really want that mechanism for reasoned resolution tend to satisfy themselves with the physical mechanics of existential expression. But ultimately, that does not really answer anything. And they are left frustrated and indignant.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
What are the minimum requirements for a Creator of the universe?

Must have following interconnected attributes:
Right?

Regards
Click to expand...
Yeah, okay. So what? Ninety-nine names don't exactly explain how creation happens, how all of creation fits together, how any of it makes sense.

You accept what you accept because you were taught to -- but nothing in your link says anything at all except that "Allah does all these wonders -- but there's nothing but magic to explain how."
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
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?
Click to expand...

IF the 'Source' exists that some call and define as God(s), and with the demands of the "must" meet certain criteria and questions is a contradiction of would be the nature of the 'Source' that cannot be described from the human perspective. The same problem exists from the perspective. of the different ancient tribal religions that define God on their terms as the true God, Gods or no Gods, and defined as their only true Revelation from the 'Source' they call their God.

If what is called God would simply exists as the 'Source,'
 
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Evangelicalhumanist said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why must a creator be a god?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Well, if we're talking about the creator of a universe, and universe is described as "all there is..."
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is not certain that there is no multiverse and that the creator of this universe is a natural one in aonther universe in the multiverse.
That is how these debates are in effect about different ways of thinking.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Well, if a "universe" is "all that is" (or a multiverse, I don't care for the term), then a "creator" that is in any way real cannot exist.
Click to expand...
Or, ... there is some sort of realm of being that transcends existence as we know it. Keep in mind that what we experience of existence is a combination of the physical and the metaphysical (cognitive). But maybe there are other realms of being that we are not aware of. Maybe we could call this the "God realm". Or the "divine realm". Or just the realm of transcendence.

It would at least give the mystery of existential origin some kind of explanation besides "I don't know" and "it all just suddenly happened, with no cause, and no purpose".
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Well, if a "universe" is "all that is" (or a multiverse, I don't care for the term), then a "creator" that is in any way real cannot exist.
Click to expand...

I see how that idea gets us to "the universe must not have a creator." I don't see how it gets us to "the creator of the universe must be a god."
 
bobhikes

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Evangelicalhumanist said:
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?
Click to expand...
My requirements

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.

Clarity
The creator may not have called it a universe.
The creator may not be around anymore.
The creator does not have to interact with said universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top