Why does God need a creator?

[Willamena]

The laws of physics cooperate together. How? If their nature is about relationships between things how did the things appear without physical law?

Ahh. They're just too smart for me.

 

[savagewind]

That's a non-argument.

For that to become an argument, you'd have to explain, in detail, why a spirit can have always existed, but why other things cannot have always existed. What unique properties of a spirit allow it to have always existed, in comparison to other things?

It is a non-argument. But right now at millions of computers people are arguing it. :help:

I can't explain how spirit exists but I know it does.

 

[Penumbra]

It is a non-argument. But right now at millions of computers people are arguing it. :help:

An argument is different from a definition.

To say that spirit can do X but other things cannot do X, without basis, is not an argument. It lacks a persuasive element. What it is, instead, is just a definition, a usage of semantics, that doesn't provide content. It's a matter of defining some set of things as one word, and another set of things as another word, without articulating the differences.

For it to become an argument, meaning for it to become a statement that has a persuasive element to it, it would require a statement on what makes some things, defined by you as "spirit", to be able to exist eternally and other things not to have that property.

I can't explain how spirit exists but I know it does.

I didn't say anything concerning the existence or nonexistence of spirit.

My post was about the topic of origins and consistency of applied logic.

 

[George-ananda]

The universe, as we know, has existed for approximately 14 billion years. Many speculate that there wasn't literally "nothing" before the Big Bang. That, in one way or another, the universe has always existed in some form; and will continue to exist in some form or another. Basically, the universe really has no real starting point and is "eternal"; even if it does go through cycles of creation and destruction.

With that in mind, if the universe doesn't necessarily need a singular starting point, then why does God? Why is it more plausible to believe in an eternal universe rather than in an eternal Source? Why does God need a creator?

One thought I have is that Advaita teaches that God/Brahman/Consciousness is fundamental and the universe is just a product of God. Without the product (the universe) time doesn't exist as we think about it so the question where did God come from doesn't make much sense without time. But this thinking is over my head and I believe God must be experienced; not understood by finite minds.

 

[savagewind]

An argument is different from a definition.

To say that spirit can do X but other things cannot do X, without basis, is not an argument. It lacks a persuasive element. What it is, instead, is just a definition, a usage of semantics, that doesn't provide content. It's a matter of defining some set of things as one word, and another set of things as another word, without articulating the differences.

For it to become an argument, meaning for it to become a statement that has a persuasive element to it, it would require a statement on what makes some things, defined by you as "spirit", to be able to exist eternally and other things not to have that property.


I didn't say anything concerning the existence or nonexistence of spirit.

My post was about the topic of origins and consistency of applied logic.

I can't argue spirit as I am not spirit. I am countering the belief that all physical reality always existed versus spirit always existing. Spirit is one thing. Physical is trillions upon trillions upon trillions of things. It is easy for me to believe one spirit always existed. It is impossible for me to even consider all the many trillions of possible physical combinations always existed and will continue existing without a command.

 

[Sunstone]

The universe, as we know, has existed for approximately 14 billion years. Many speculate that there wasn't literally "nothing" before the Big Bang. That, in one way or another, the universe has always existed in some form; and will continue to exist in some form or another. Basically, the universe really has no real starting point and is "eternal"; even if it does go through cycles of creation and destruction.

With that in mind, if the universe doesn't necessarily need a singular starting point, then why does God? Why is it more plausible to believe in an eternal universe rather than in an eternal Source? Why does God need a creator?

If you posit that everything must be caused, then you're going to run into difficulties explaining why everything except god must be caused.

 

[Sunstone]

That's a non-argument.

It might also be called, "an unsupported claim".

 

[Penumbra]

I can't argue spirit as I am not spirit. I am countering the belief that all physical reality always existed versus spirit always existing. Spirit is one thing. Physical is trillions upon trillions upon trillions of things. It is easy for me to believe one spirit always existed. It is impossible for me to even consider all the many trillions of possible physical combinations always existed and will continue existing without a command.

Is the universe really trillions of things?

All matter can be converted into energy. And the expansion of the universe has evidence for the universe once being a singularity, with even the fabric of spacetime itself having expanded.

Plus, there are reasonable suggestions that this could be a zero-energy universe, meaning the total sum of all energy, including matter, might add up to nothing. In that sense, something equal to nothing might be what exists, but in a particularly interesting form rather than oblivion.

I think your basis for differentiating between spirit and the universe might have more to do with misconceptions about the current state of scientific understanding of what the universe is observed to be, as well as what it might turn out to be with further research, rather than an accurate comparison between two different things. The idea that the universe consists of trillions of separate things is not really something that has scientific basis and therefore doesn't lend itself way to the point you're making.

 

[Desert Snake]

In that sense, something equal to nothing might be what exists, but in a particularly interesting form rather than oblivion.

but we don't observe something 'from' nothing, we may not know why certain particles react in various ways, but it isn't a particularly good answer to pre-existing or self created deity concepts.

 

[Penumbra]

but we don't observe something 'from' nothing, we may not know why certain particles react in various ways, but it isn't a particularly good answer to pre-existing or self created deity concepts.

The idea of a zero-energy universe doesn't answer all questions, but it's certainly an interesting topic for looking at ways for how something exists. It's an interesting direction to pursue, if one can determine that the whole universe actually balances out to zero.

Besides, it had little to do with my post overall, but was rather an interesting aside. The core of the post was that if one is comparing a single spirit to the idea of a universe consisting of trillions of things, in order for their argument to work, then that's a rather inaccurate comparison, because all things in the universe can be converted into a shared energy, and all things are believed to have come from a singularity where they were once together in that form anyway. So, the number of "things" is more like a dynamically changing set of pieces of something more fundamental and unitary. Viewing the universe as a set of strictly different things seems to be necessary for that argument to work, but it doesn't appear to be an accurate understanding of the universe.

 

[Desert Snake]

The idea of a zero-energy universe doesn't answer all questions, but it's certainly an interesting topic for looking at ways for how something exists. It's an interesting direction to pursue, if one can determine that the whole universe actually balances out to zero.

Besides, it had little to do with my post overall, but was rather an interesting aside. The core of the post was that if one is comparing a single spirit to the idea of a universe consisting of trillions of things, in order for their argument to work, then that's a rather inaccurate comparison, because all things in the universe can be converted into a shared energy, and all things are believed to have come from a singularity where they were once together in that form anyway. So, the number of "things" is more like a dynamically changing set of pieces of something more fundamental and unitary. Viewing the universe as a set of strictly different things seems to be necessary for that argument to work, but it doesn't appear to be an accurate understanding of the universe.

That would not seem to support the argument for a 'created' God, then no? Sounds more like pre-existing Deity to me.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's usually in reverse; when someone suggests god doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe?

 

[Penumbra]

That would not seem to support the argument for a 'created' God, then no? Sounds more like pre-existing Deity to me.

The post doesn't address deities at all. It's interesting that that is what you read from it.

It was, instead, more of like a description of the universe as currently understood, along with some potential ideas, and why the argument I was responding to was not a valid contrast.

Getting something about created gods or pre-existing deities out of it requires making multiple leaps in logic about the origin of consciousness and intelligence, which were entirely absent from the post.

 

[Desert Snake]

The post doesn't address deities at all. It's interesting that that is what you read from it.

It was, instead, more of like a description of the universe as currently understood, along with some potential ideas, and why the argument I was responding to was not a valid contrast.

Getting something about created gods or pre-existing deities out of it requires making multiple leaps in logic about the origin of consciousness and intelligence, which were entirely absent from the post.

No, the context of the thread is about 'why does God need a creator, nothing 'interesting' about how I read that.

anyways I think i'm done here.

 

[Glaurung]

The idea of a infinitely regressing universe that has always existed in some form or another is not something I can readily accept. But I also accept that the belief in God's non-contingent and non-temporal nature is a position of faith, and not something that I can prove. If I can't prove existence, then I'm not going to try to convince anybody of attributes.

Nonetheless, non-contingency and intemporalness is why I do not apply to God to the same rules as I do to the material universe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why does God need a creator?

Do you mean what you have written? In Abrahamic religions, YHWH/God/Allah himself created the universe. In Hinduism, the task was delegated to Lord Brahma. We have so many Gods/Goddesses. If one God/Goddess was to everything, then what will the others do? So, in Hinduism, there is a lot of delegation. Creation to Brahma, sustenance to Vishnu, destruction to Shiva (according to some views), arts and education to Saraswati, motherhood to Parvati, welfare and prosperity to Ganesha and Lakshmi, security to Murugan and Hanuman, death to Yama, etc.

 

[savagewind]

Is the universe really trillions of things?

All matter can be converted into energy. And the expansion of the universe has evidence for the universe once being a singularity, with even the fabric of spacetime itself having expanded.

Plus, there are reasonable suggestions that this could be a zero-energy universe, meaning the total sum of all energy, including matter, might add up to nothing. In that sense, something equal to nothing might be what exists, but in a particularly interesting form rather than oblivion.

I think your basis for differentiating between spirit and the universe might have more to do with misconceptions about the current state of scientific understanding of what the universe is observed to be, as well as what it might turn out to be with further research, rather than an accurate comparison between two different things. The idea that the universe consists of trillions of separate things is not really something that has scientific basis and therefore doesn't lend itself way to the point you're making.

OK. But I didn't say it is made up of separate things. It is made up of different things. Now....let's see you explain how everything is the same.

 

[chinu]

With that in mind, if the universe doesn't necessarily need a singular starting point, then why does God?

Because God resides beyond "Time". He's "Time-less".
Indeed, there's no room for anything to start or stop... where-there-is-Timeless. But still the word God/Timeless is used to make this a complete understandable sentence because human mind isn't capable of understanding "Timelessness".