Simple question, who created the creator(god)? And who created the creator of the creator? And if the creator simply always has been there why is it so hard to comprehend that some form of matter simply always has been there?

The idea that everything needs a Creator is flawed; if that were the case, then an Infinite Regress occurs in which nothing is created. Instead of that premise, take this one,"what has a beginning has a creator." Now did the universe have a beginning? The universe is expanding right? Put the tape in reverse and eventually you get to a beginning point.

It's hard to comprehend some form of matter has simply always been there because in order for matter to exist it would have to have one thing in particular: space in which to exist. But that space needs to come from somewhere, as it can't just pop out of nowhere. To say that space is always there is inconsistent with the idea that a beginning to the universe happened. So to say matter could have just always been is flawed.

Jcarl,

The idea that everything needs a Creator is flawed; if that were the case, then an Infinite Regress occurs in which nothing is created.This far in your reasoning is accurate. But it erroneously implies that creation is still a requirement.

Instead of that premise, take this one,"what has a beginning has a creator."This is also flawed since evolution shows that nothing needs a creator. Can you give an example of anything that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process?

Now did the universe have a beginning? The universe is expanding right? Put the tape in reverse and eventually you get to a beginning point.Again an entirely flawed argument. Consider the internal combustion engine – a piston moves away from the explosion only to return again in an endless cycle. Current science is now once again proposing, based largely on the realization of dark matter that the universe expansion will slow, contract and end with a big crunch, and then begin again.

It's hard to comprehend some form of matter has simply always been there because in order for matter to exist it would have to have one thing in particular: space in which to exist. But that space needs to come from somewhere, as it can't just pop out of nowhere. You have defeated your own argument. If we accept that something doesn’t come from nothing then the rather obvious conclusion is that it has always existed. There is no reason to search any further. The imaginative concept of a supernatural creator becomes entirely superfluous.

To say that space is always there is inconsistent with the idea that a beginning to the universe happened. I agree but then there is no reason to believe that the universe just happened – goes back to your earlier flawed reasoning.

So to say matter could have just always been is flawed. As I have clearly shown your conclusion is itself seriously flawed.

Kat

what caused the big bang wasnt it spontaneouse? and also what about the space that the big bang occured in there's no telling how long that void has been there, if
not always.

I would also say that a true creator cannot exist. Some things just came into existance or were always there.

This far in your reasoning is accurate. But it erroneously implies that creation is still a requirement.

Then what does it imply?

This is also flawed since evolution shows that nothing needs a creator. Can you give an example of anything that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process?

If something doesn't need a creator, then how does it get there? To say that it always has been doesn't fit in with the fact that the universe is running down.

How does evolution explain morals or love?

Again an entirely flawed argument. Consider the internal combustion engine – a piston moves away from the explosion only to return again in an endless cycle.

it isn't endless because gas keeps the whole thing running; it relies on something outside of itself to start the whole thing. If this wasn't the case, then it wouldn't run down and would have to have existed forever.

Current science is now once again proposing, based largely on the realization of dark matter that the universe expansion will slow, contract and end with a big crunch, and then begin again.

How is it to begin again and still comply with entropy? If it runs out of usable energy, how is it to start again? If we're to say that it "falls down to another energy level"(like a bouncing ball) it still only has a finite past. (somewhere the ball had to initially be dropped)

You have defeated your own argument. If we accept that something doesn’t come from nothing then the rather obvious conclusion is that it has always existed. There is no reason to search any further.

But space can't always have been for the reasons above. Eventually, no matter what model is used, it eventually comes to a beginning.

The imaginative concept of a supernatural creator becomes entirely superfluous.

You're assuming that God would need space to exist. This isn't the case as God is a Spirit, which isn't natural and needs no space.

1. The universe is not "running down". That's just the creationist misunderstanding of entropy. In fact, it may be "cycling" as Katazia said.
2. The postulated "creator", whether "spirit" or not, also has to have it's own "beginning". As Lemming3k originally said, a creator needs a creator needs a creator....

is there anything in existence that as far as we know, has no beginning, or just always was?

How could we know?

I would also say that a true creator cannot exist. Some things just came into existance or were always there.Why can't a true creator exist?

good answer. i didnt think of that.

good answer. i didnt think of that.You are not the only one, wolf ;)

Why can't a true creator exist?

I see no reason why not.

I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't exist.

I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't exist in 5 seperate universes, without any knowledge of eachother.

I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't create even more true creators.

I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't wonder how he came to be.

I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't marvel at the existance of existance itself, and feel humbled.

I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't realize that he is unnecessary.

Oh, you are right guys. Perhaps I should think about the things I write a bit more :D

Yeah, a true creator can exist. But there are also Matnay´s statements,
they are also possible.

Then again, perhaps there is no creator, just an initiator. Who knows? :)

I was using true creator to define original, perhaps i should rephrase, though the point still stands, its a chicken and egg scenario and i wanted to see peoples thoughts and what they consider logical reasoning on the matter, I believe something can have always existed, since i feel its the only logical conclusion to the problem of everything needs a creator, even the creator itself and there could never be a first creator, so therefore we still have something that must have always existed.

A creator might have been the first thing that existed.
The thing that just was there.

Perhaps he grew bored and started making things. Then again, there
would be the question which material did he use to create things.
Again, it must have been something that just existed or the creator used
his "body" tissue to create things, making the universe his body....

So many possibilities. :D

If a creator can just 'be there' then why cant matter and energy or anything scientific just 'be there' and form the universe? This is a common arguement for a creator i have never understood, if he can simply have existed for all time then it is possible he didnt exist for all time but matter and energy did. Your right theres many possibilities, though i constantly try to get my head around the prospect of something simply always being there.

1. The universe is not "running down". That's just the creationist misunderstanding of entropy. In fact, it may be "cycling" as Katazia said.

How come we don't see examples of this in nature and stuff, I mean, once a person gets AIDS or some thing it gets worse, it doesn't eventually get better and go away.

@ Lemming3k

I also did not understand this argument for a creator. At least not entirely.

About a year ago, I tried to imagine how and why something could just exist, no matter if it is energy or god or whatever, I was thinking real hard about it and for quite a long time. It nearly drove me mad. And yes, I mean "mad" as employed for someone who seriously insane.

2. The postulated "creator", whether "spirit" or not, also has to have it's own "beginning". As Lemming3k originally said, a creator needs a creator needs a creator....

What if this creator made is without the abillity to fully be abel to comprehend it. Like so what little it did reveal would cause us ti be in awe of it?

About a year ago, I tried to imagine how and why something could just exist, no matter if it is energy or god or whatever, I was thinking real hard about it and for quite a long time. It nearly drove me mad. And yes, I mean "mad" as employed for someone who seriously insane.
I constantly try to answer questions like this, i feel they require such intense thought, as you say to the point of madness, that the answers would be remarkably enlightening(if i could ever get my head round any of it), and of course they are more interesting than questions like 'whats going to be in fashion next year'.
Just remember theres a fine line between madness and genius, though im sure i already crossed into the madness side a while back....

I think I crossed that line when I tried to imagine nothingness. That blew some fuses I think. Using all your capacity to imagine nothing, real, absolute nothing is not healthy I think.

Jcarl,

Then what does it imply? Sorry you’ve lost me, what does what imply?

If something doesn't need a creator, then how does it get there? It evolves from something else. And physics shows us that nothing is ever created or destroyed, matter and energy are simply interchangeable. Everything that currently exists has always existed although has probably undergone an infinite number of transformations.

To say that it always has been doesn't fit in with the fact that the universe is running down.But that isn’t a fact. A credible alternative is that the universe is in the expansion phase of an infinite cyclic loop. Try this link on the cyclic universe –

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

How does evolution explain morals or love?These are products of your brain and your brain evolved just like everything else.

it isn't endless because gas keeps the whole thing running; it relies on something outside of itself to start the whole thing. If this wasn't the case, then it wouldn't run down and would have to have existed forever.Hmm, well the analogy was only meant to demonstrate a cyclic mechanism.

How is it to begin again and still comply with entropy? Entropy is irrelevant for a cyclic universe; it is reset at every cycle. Read the article.

If it runs out of usable energy, how is it to start again? The universe cannot run out of energy, there is nowhere for it to go.

If we're to say that it "falls down to another energy level"(like a bouncing ball) it still only has a finite past. Then don’t say that, it’s a bad model.

(somewhere the ball had to initially be dropped) Not if it has always been in motion.

But space can't always have been for the reasons above. And refuted.

Eventually, no matter what model is used, it eventually comes to a beginning.But that is impossible. If everything had a beginning then how did the first thing start? An infinite universe is the only credible answer since it doesn't require a beginning.

You're assuming that God would need space to exist. This isn't the case as God is a Spirit, which isn't natural and needs no space. No. You missed the point. The issue wasn’t about space but about things popping out of nowhere. If the universe has always existed then the issue of “popping” from anywhere is mute and a requirement for a supernatural creator simply evaporates.

Kat

is there anything in existence that as far as we know, has no beginning, or just always was?
I take a wild guess here,
the Universe?

I see no reason why not.

I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't exist.

I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't exist in 5 seperate universes, without any knowledge of eachother.

I also see no reason why 5 true creators couldn't create even more true creators.

I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't wonder how he came to be.

I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't marvel at the existance of existance itself, and feel humbled.

I also see no reason why a true creator couldn't realize that he is unnecessary.If there were more than one true creator then there would be more than one truth, truth would become lie, even if the creators didn't know about eachother in seperate universes.

If there were only one truth but more gods then they wouldn't be gods, since God is the one that created the truth, they couldn't have created it together cause then the truth wouldn't be pure, and if the truth weren't totally pure then it wouldn't be a truth anymore but a illusion, thus the illusion that there exist more than one God.

The true creator also knows how it all came to be and why He is the only one (maybe - just maybe - because He actually penetrates nothing), nothing is totally pure, though so is God, thus God may know what nothing actually is which is totally beyond our comprehension - though still we have the idea of nothing...

Though this depends on how you define God. If you define "god" like "angel" then there would be more then one god, but then we would need another word for God.

Also we have the problem of thinking of God in human terms, sure His meaning stretches all the way to us, but down here the meanings gets mixed up and are interpreted the wrong way.

Cyperium,

That really was complete gibberish.

Why couldn't multiple gods share the same truth - at their level of understanding one would expect a consensus? Why couldn't the universe have been designed and created by a committee?

I cannot see anything intrinsically essential to the god fantasy that prevents imagining multiple gods instead of just one.

Kat

1. The universe is not "running down". That's just the creationist misunderstanding of entropy.[/B][Quote]

The enlighten me: how is it a misunderstanding?

[Quote] In fact, it may be "cycling" as Katazia said.

Then once it gets to the "bottom" of the cycle(Like a piston getting farthest away fromt the explosion) how does it get back to the top?

Why couldn't the universe have been designed and created by a committee?
It could, i just hope the people they sent down as representatives arent margaret thatcher and the conservative party....

Jcarl,

Sorry you’ve lost me, what does what imply?[/B]

The infinte Regress; if it doesn't imply a Creator as a brute fact, then what does it imply?

It evolves from something else.

That backs the question up to How did that thing it evolved from get there?

And physics shows us that nothing is ever created or destroyed, matter and energy are simply interchangeable. Everything that currently exists has always existed although has probably undergone an infinite number of transformations.

Since when has heat energy that the universe creates able to become usable energy?

But that isn’t a fact. A credible alternative is that the universe is in the expansion phase of an infinite cyclic loop.

How is a closed system(which the universe is) closed and consistent at the same time?

these are products of your brain and your brain evolved just like everything else.

SO you'll explain the fine-tuning to an unintelligent source?

Hmm, well the analogy was only meant to demonstrate a cyclic mechanism.

It shows that a closed system cannot be going forever because it eventually reaches an equilibrium of sorts.

Entropy is irrelevant for a cyclic universe; it is reset at every cycle. Read the article.

Okay so my interpretation of what the article is this(I probably have this wrong, so be ready to correct me): there are more ten or so dimensions. At the end of the universe(the crunch) one dimension(?) is disposed of with another of the ten taking its place.

What happens when the other dimensions are used up? (Note: I am looking at one of the sources to this article; it is 16 pages long so give me some time to read it)

The universe cannot run out of energy, there is nowhere for it to go.

1) I didn't say run out of energy. I said run out of usable energy.

But that is impossible. If everything had a beginning then how did the first thing start?

We have to assume that something is infinite right? That's a brute, self-evident fact. You say that infinte thing is the universe; I say it's God.

Everything does not have a beginning. You've said so yourself. Eventually we run into a brick wall of infinity. Something has to just be.

1) I didn't say run out of energy. I said run out of usable energy.
Energy is always usable, just because we havnt developed a way of using it doesnt mean it isnt usable, just unusable to us, eventually we will be able to turn energy from one thing into another and then back again, eliminating the worries about usable energy.

Jcarl,

We have to assume that something is infinite right? That's a brute, self-evident fact. You say that infinte thing is the universe; I say it's God.

Everything does not have a beginning. You've said so yourself. Eventually we run into a brick wall of infinity. Something has to just be. Bingo. We are now on the same page.

Now simply applying Occam’s razor we can exclude God as a credible proposal.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Reasoning –

We know the universe exists.
We have no good evidence that it hasn’t always existed.
We know something infinite must exist.
We have prominent theories explaining how the universe can be infinite, e.g. cyclic, bubbles, curved, and doubtless others, all of which are based on natural phenomena.

The creator concept requires –

The existence of a supernatural realm and there is no evidence of such a thing or that any such thing could ever be possible.

An immense intelligence and power beyond our comprehension – again there is no evidence for such things.

Conclusion -

The creator concept lacks even the beginnings of credibility – it is a non-starter.

Kat

Jcarl,

Okay so my interpretation of what the article is this(I probably have this wrong, so be ready to correct me): there are more ten or so dimensions. At the end of the universe(the crunch) one dimension(?) is disposed of with another of the ten taking its place.

What happens when the other dimensions are used up? (Note: I am looking at one of the sources to this article; it is 16 pages long so give me some time to read it)Yes I see you are a little confused.

Imagine matter and energy flying out from the center and then galaxies starting to collapse in on themselves into tremendous black holes which eventually merge and in turn create a massive attractive force resulting in all expanding matter and energy to reverse course and return to the center. An earlier version of this theory many years ago was dismissed because it was felt there was not enough matter to make this possible and that the expansion would continue forever with the universe reaching a uniform inert state. The realization that dark matter and energy must exist brings this theory back into sharp focus as a very probable answer.

That is something of an over-simplification but I hope that helps.

Kat

Can you give an example of anything that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process?

Random quantum fluctuations...

How do you know?

Cyperium,

That really was complete gibberish.

Why couldn't multiple gods share the same truth - at their level of understanding one would expect a consensus? Why couldn't the universe have been designed and created by a committee?

I cannot see anything intrinsically essential to the god fantasy that prevents imagining multiple gods instead of just one.

KatThe belief in one God isn't without purpouse, and it's not just a fantasy for us that believe in Him.

You are describing a committee were people share ideas and so on, imagined gods wouldn't need to share ideas, they are purer than that, so pure that each one would know exactly everything about each other. Thus being not many but one. It would be like us being in one body with many parts.

If there were more than one god that didn't know what each other were thinking or feeling, then the gods wouldn't be totally pure, since there only can be one purity, one truth. Since God is Truth then there can only be one God, also since God is totally pure there can be only one God, also since God is perfect He wouldn't need more gods.

I guess that there can only be one perfect tree, and with the same reasoning there can only be one perfect God and there can't be a imperfect God, God doesn't make mistakes.

God doesn't make mistakes.
Which god is that?

Why is a god pure and true?

Why can there be no deceitful abd evil god? Or more than one?

Who says that god must be perfect?

Who says that god must be perfect?
good point, he could just be a higher being.

Why is a god pure and true?

Why can there be no deceitful abd evil god? Or more than one?

Who says that god must be perfect?I don't know the definition of a typical "god", though God that I believe in is perfect and I can only make arguments regarding the god I know and the properties associated with Him. If you want another view on it then talk to someone with another view. Though I have stretched my view to the limits regarding more than one God.

You can allways talk to me about different ideas and I will try to see how my view on God fits with the idea or argument. Though I won't change my view on God to make it fit your idea...

You can make the definition of a god whatever you want and make any kind of scenario with it, though I choose to make my definition of God a perfect God and totally pure. Truth is in itself totally pure, thus at the same level as God since God made everything and knows every relation to everything that He has made.

Now I'm gonna take a shower.

Greywolf, sure he can just be a higher being, but what is God? Just a higher being? A ghost? A angel?

Greywolf, sure he can just be a higher being, but what is God? Just a higher being? A ghost? A angel?
what makes u think that angels and ghost are higher beings, i belive them to be different types of beings but not exactly higher. Maybe the better question wouldn't be what is God but what is a God.

Ok, I think I understand what you mean.

My whole point is that since it is God that we talk about, then He should be at least the highest being. The highest of high.

God is unknown for us, therefor we shouldn't (at least I wouldn't) accept Him to be any less than He could be. He is even higher than our imagination.

But it all depends on the individual view on Him. I wouldn't accept that God isn't good. I wouldn't accept that God was any less than my imagination of what He could be, I would rather think He is so much higher than all the glory I can possibly think of.

I wouldn't imagine God as someone who made mistakes either, a mouse can't say to a human that he made a mistake, any less can we blame anything on God. Things that are, are things that had to be. God made everything. It's all up to Him who lives or who dies, who suffers and who don't. God gives both sunshine and rain, everything has it's purpouse. I get the feeling that some around here are accusing a imagined looser before the race is over.

Sorry for the late reply, even if it matters.



We know the universe exists.
We have no good evidence that it hasn’t always existed.

I'm still grappling with this one. How is it that once the universe reaches its heat death, how does it manage to start back up again? What allows this moment to overcome the 2 Law of thermo.?

We know something infinite must exist.[/B][/Quote]

Can an actual infinite really exist in this spatiotemporal universe?

It seems to me that this cyclic universe is an infinite regress by another name. For instance, what happened before the Big Bang? This theory would say a big crunch. What happened before that? an expansion; before that, a bang; before that, a crunch; and so on to infinity. Wouldn't it require a singularity happening sometime in the past? These may have an infinte future, but it seems like something had to happen to get the whole thing started.

The creator concept requires –

The existence of a supernatural realm and there is no evidence of such a thing or that any such thing could ever be possible.An immense intelligence and power beyond our comprehension – again there is no evidence for such things.

This is a presupposition of naturalism. You say that there is no evidence of a supernatural thing, but there is no good evidence that it doesn't exist.(this is using the same logic you used in your second premise.)

Conclusion -

The creator concept lacks even the beginnings of credibility – it is a non-starter.

Kat

Jcarl,

Wow this does go back a while.

I'm still grappling with this one. How is it that once the universe reaches its heat death, how does it manage to start back up again? What allows this moment to overcome the 2 Law of thermo.?It never reaches that point since gravity takes over resulting in a big crunch. Think of an elastic band being stretched to its limit and then snapping back again.

We know something infinite must exist.
Can an actual infinite really exist in this spatiotemporal universe?If it didn’t then there would be a point where nothing existed and there wouldn’t be anything to make the universe start, and then we couldn’t be here. Hence, either there is an infinite creator or the universe itself has existed for infinite time.

It seems to me that this cyclic universe is an infinite regress by another name. For instance, what happened before the Big Bang? This theory would say a big crunch. What happened before that? an expansion; before that, a bang; before that, a crunch; and so on to infinity. Wouldn't it require a singularity happening sometime in the past? These may have an infinte future, but it seems like something had to happen to get the whole thing started. Why? Where is the beginning in a circle?

This is a presupposition of naturalism. You say that there is no evidence of a supernatural thing, but there is no good evidence that it doesn't exist.(this is using the same logic you used in your second premise.)Second premise? Umm, which one do you mean? I am quite certain that I have never offered any attempt to prove a negative. But your argument is nonsense. If you are going to insist on evidence for things that do not exist then you will create utter chaos. For example please prove to me that you do not have 3 invisible immaterial heads in addition to the one I presume you have. Prove to me that pink polka-dot dragons do not exist. If you make a claim for something then the onus is entirely on you to show it is true if you want anyone to believe you, otherwise you should be rightly ignored.

Kat