Why does there have to be a Creator, or anything created?

This is just speculation, and thinking aloud on my part, and is not meant to insult anyone's beliefs, etc

Why does there even have to be a creator, or anything 'created' ?

Before you all get out your flamethrowers let me explain my thinking.

To talk of a creator, or creation, whether in the religious sense, or in scientific terms immediately implies something that wasn't, and then somehow was.

So what's the problem with that I hear you ask.

Well... first and foremost the universe is both time and space... ALL time and space. The same way all space exists within the universe, all time does too. What we think of as past present and future are all there, and from a universal perspective have no meaning, the universe just IS...

Past, present and future are simply a concept to explain how our limited consciousness interacts with the universe

What about free will then?... If the universe just is that means everything is predetermined. We cannot make any choices, since all our choices have already been made.

Not necessarily

If, as has been theorised, the universe is just one of an infinite number of universes (a multiverse), and the same principle applies as before (everything within that multiverse just IS), you now have an infinite number of possibilities/paths for consciousness to follow, and in turn choose. YOu therefore have your cake and eat it... ie: all possibilities/paths exist but you can still choose which one to take.

However, things start to get a bit tricky, from here on.

The obvious question to ask, having said what I've said, is ' How can it be free will if the DECISIONS you make, when choosing your path, just ARE too.

Well, my theory is that we either exist as individual conscious beings - beings who deliberately limit their consciousness in order to 'experience' individual aspects of the universe... OR... WE are all part of some 'superbeing' (some would call it GOD) who is continiously releasing little chunks of itself to experience the universe in a limited (and perhaps novel) way.

Why do this? ... One can only speculate as to the motivation of some superbeing, or beings. They might be more comprehensive versions of us, but who can say as to the 'why'. Perhaps when you see all of everything it gets a tad monotonous, and limiting your consciousness by remembering a past, experiencing a present, and looking forward to an unknown future, is the godly equivalent of a ride on a rollercoaster...lol ... or perhaps we are just one manifestation of the universe experiencing itself.

So, I return to my original statement... why does there have to be a creator, or anything created?



Please feel free to comment/specualte/trash my thoughts at will... I look forward to any comments

Oh... I should say. I was going to post this in the 'If God Created Us! Who Created God?' thread, but decided it might have taken that thread a bit off-topic, so I made a new thread. If any MOD thinks I did wrong please move or delete the thread, as appropiate.

Interesting question and bound to have been mused about by just about everyone at some point in their life.

Maybe you can explain how we could discuss 'we' and 'ourselves' and 'universes' and 'consciousness' and 'super-beings' ... without first establishing how ANY of these came into being ?

Doesn't it seem to you that even if only one 'thing' is responsible for the existence of the above (and everything to which they in turn gave birth) then that 'one thing' is the creator .. even if that 'one thing' is a blob of gunk ?

No need to use the term 'creator' .. if you prefer, we could name it 'the origin' or 'the start' or 'the seed'.

You can believe whatever you want. For you, there doesn't have to be anything. So, honestly, what does it matter?

I believe in God. I believe everything that got us here over billions of years is mathematically impossible to be coincidence. Do you have to believe that? No.......

If you want, believe that 1 + 1 = 3

I think you both missed my point.

The concept of creation requires something to not exist, then exist. This idea of something coming into creation stems from the way we view time.

If something just IS, it doesn't need to have been created.

I know it's not an easy concept to get the head around... My brain fries just thinking about it

Input:

Infinity contains all-that-is, always has and always will. Therefore nothing is ever "removed" or "added" (hence nothing created) but merely emphasized or de-emphasized by our conscious-attention. But we do make it appear as if there is a creating agent for the purpose of cosmic entertainment.

Maybe this is more the type of conversation you were thinking of when posting.

Hi Dagar!

First off - excellent OP and very thoughtful. Look forward to following the discussion. Please note that since you have placed this as a speculative thread in Skunk Works you are afforded more protection to keep this a positive discussion on your thoughts. So please let a mod know if some one starts attacking you.

Okay - here are my thoughts as a person who 1.) Believes in a Creator, and 2.) has a science-based education.

First off, no one ever HAS to believe there is a Creator...that's the beauty of free will.

Second, in response to your thought experiment in which you state a Creator implies something that wasn't, but then was in a universe that is made up of time and space:

1. Time - time is a man made measurement of change in the form of either decay or movement. But even if you want to reject the "man made" nature of time, you will have to most likely accept that if there were no change at all (no movement, no decay - including energy decay to the form of entropy) there would be absolutely no way to measure time. If there is no way to measure or detect time - there is no passage of time. Time ceases.

2. Space - space is a necessity of matter. If there were no matter, there would be no need for space. Space is, in fact, both the measure by which we define matter, but also dependent on matter. We would not be able to measure space if we had no material object with which to gage it, or physically measure it...in fact, there would be no physical nature to space if there were no matter.

With these two concepts in mind let us conceive a moment in time (or more accurately stated as a "moment prefacing time") where there is perfect equilibrium of energy (possibly 100% in the form of entropy) and there is no matter. "Perfect equilibrium" implies absolutely no change - a PERFECT equilibrium would even mean there is no change at all (i.e. in the imperfect equilibriums that we can have in a material world "equilibrium" is defined as the "average equals zero change", but at the molecular level there is still movement and change, but it nets out to zero on the average). So let us conceive of a pure energy form, with no material/matter characteristic to it and in a perfect state of equilibrium.

There is no time, there is no space, but there is ALL the potential of the universe. That potential can be matter, it can be new energy forms (kinetic, chemical), it can be intellect, it can be spirit, it can be emotion, it can be all things.

And then it does.

I know there are those who choose not to believe, and it is okay with me. But I hope it is okay with them, that I have chosen to believe.

Thank you for letting me talk to you about this.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Dagar
I think you both missed my point.

The concept of creation requires something to not exist, then exist. This idea of something coming into creation stems from the way we view time.

If something just IS, it doesn't need to have been created.

I know it's not an easy concept to get the head around... My brain fries just thinking about it

...............................

If something just IS, it doesn't need to have been created.

How did it arrive at it's state of 'is-ness' ?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Input:

Infinity contains all-that-is, always has and always will. Therefore nothing is ever "removed" or "added" (hence nothing created) but merely emphasized or de-emphasized by our conscious-attention. But we do make it appear as if there is a creating agent for the purpose of cosmic entertainment.

Maybe this is more the type of conversation you were thinking of when posting.

Dang... I wish I could put things as simply and succintly as that. Spot on

Consciousness is a way for the universe to experience itself, but for that experience to have any meaning it has to lose it's knowledge of everything. That's why WE can only see backwards in time, never forward... so we can experience the moment, remember it, and choose our next.

Mind you, by implication, when we leave this mortal coil does that mean we see everything again?... past present and future?

I feel another brainfry coming up.. lol

One thing folks... I'm a really. REALLY slow typer, so if I don't reply to a post immediately pleaee be patient. It might take me a while to get around to it.

Originally posted by Valhall


Okay - here are my thoughts as a person who 1.) Believes in a Creator, and 2.) has a science-based education.

[First off, no one ever HAS to believe there is a Creator...that's the beauty of free will.

Strangely enough, I don't really know if thyere is or not... For those who know there is a creator it is an article of faith. For those who know their isn't it is also an article of faith added to which there is the impossibility of proving a negative.

Personally, I'll keep an open mind on the posiibility.

Second, in response to your thought experiment in which you state a Creator implies something that wasn't, but then was in a universe that is made up of time and space:

1. Time - time is a man made measurement of change in the form of either decay or movement. But even if you want to reject the "man made" nature of time, you will have to most likely accept that if there were no change at all (no movement, no decay - including energy decay to the form of entropy) there would be absolutely no way to measure time. If there is no way to measure or detect time - there is no passage of time. Time ceases.

It still boils down to 'time' being a human construct. Yes, to explain change, granted. In our case to explain why something was, has changed to why it is, and to predict what it might become. My point is, that all those three states WE measure exist... From our point of view, when measuring time, something was (but no longer exists), is (and exists), and will become something else (but that doesn't exist yet.

From the point of view of an observer who knows the entirely of the universe how we perceive the change would have no meaning. They would just perceive it as BEING. There is no beginning, middle, or end to it, it just IS.

I think I'm getting a nosebleed...

2. Space - space is a necessity of matter. If there were no matter, there would be no need for space. Space is, in fact, both the measure by which we define matter, but also dependent on matter. We would not be able to measure space if we had no material object with which to gage it, or physically measure it...in fact, there would be no physical nature to space if there were no matter.

Agree totally

With these two concepts in mind let us conceive a moment in time where there is perfect equilibrium of energy (possibly 100% in the form of entropy) and there is no matter. "Perfect equilibrium" implies absolutely no change - a PERFECT equilibrium would even mean there is no change at all (i.e. in the imperfect equilibriums that we can have in a material world "equilibrium" is defined as the "average equals zero change", but at the molecular level there is still movement and change, but it nets out to zero on the average). So let us conceive of a pure energy form, with no material/matter characteristic to it and in a perfect state of equilibrium.

There is no time, there is no space, but there is ALL the potential of the universe. That potential can be matter, it can be new energy forms (kinetic, chemical), it can be intellect, it can be spirit, it can be emotion, it can be all things.

And then it does.

I know there are those who choose not to believe, and it is okay with me. But I hope it is okay with them, that I have chosen to believe.

Thank you for letting me talk to you about this.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Valhall]

What you describe (beautifully, may I add ) is a change of state. A change from a potential to an actual. I suppose, depending on your point of view, it could be considered a creation.

I'm already having HUGE trouble conceptualising a universe that just IS, with no past, present, or future. I think trying to imagine a state beyond that is one nosebleed to far... hehe

Thanks for your great post

Originally posted by Dagar

I'm already having HUGE trouble conceptualising a universe that just IS, with no past, present, or future. I think trying to imagine a state beyond that is one nosebleed to far... hehe

Thanks for your great post

No, THANK YOU for a great OP, and a wonderful response as well.

Ultimately - no matter which side of this debate you land on - whether it is an intelligent Creator or cycling expanding/contracting universe with no intelligence and randomness and probability coming together...no matter WHICH side you choose - we all come to the same unanswerable question:

BUT, how did it START! lol - and neither side can answer that. It is the "mental sound barrier" for which the human mind can't get past. That singular question is the limit of our imagination, or our understanding, of our ability to speculate...and for some of us we believe, the spiritual difference between us and a Higher Being.

At some point all the people on each side of this question who want to point fingers at the other side and ridicule and call names MUST confess they reach this point of "unanswerability"...or they are intellectually dishonest (and for at least one side spiritually dishonest). We all have a common

"?"

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Dock6

Originally posted by Dagar
I think you both missed my point.

The concept of creation requires something to not exist, then exist. This idea of something coming into creation stems from the way we view time.

If something just IS, it doesn't need to have been created.

I know it's not an easy concept to get the head around... My brain fries just thinking about it

...............................

If something just IS, it doesn't need to have been created.

How did it arrive at it's state of 'is-ness' ?

Arrival implies a journey, a journey implies travelling within time. If past present and future are purely human constructs, and the universe just is, then the universe 'arriving' has no meaning... as it never arrived, it always was, is, and will be.... ie: it just IS.

These are just my ramblings though. Thanks for the reply

Before I start this reply, i hope this is what you mean Valhall, as i don't wish to make a fool of my self

It is literally everyone to their own, in other words, the theory of creation/design/construction of our planet and the creatures that work it, is all to do with the individuals perception. For instance i personally believe that we were put here for a reason, to benifit another race, to be harvested for our experiances and knowledge.

Again, its all to do with perception and EVERONE has, and is totally acceptable to have their own OPINION, and I emphasise that

Originally posted by Dagar

Mind you, by implication, when we leave this mortal coil does that mean we see everything again?... past present and future?

My personal opinion is that a soul can, from a certain level of context, access all timelines.


Side-note: Watch some people turn this in to a Creationism vs. Evolution debate...two concepts which cant really compete with your OP.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Skyfloating]

Makungo,

It is actually very ironic in my opinion that when you get all the way back in the "differences" between some one who believes in a Creator, and some one who rejects the concept, that we FUNDAMENTALLY view the "choice" of what we believe DIFFERENTLY.

The person who rejects the concept of a Creator will tell you that they have made that decision based on "logic and reason" and that the other side has chosen to believe in something with no evidence based on "superstition" or "fear".

The person who believes in a Creator will tell you that the person who rejected the concept of a Creator is exercising the gift "of free moral agency" (i.e. free will) and choosing "logic and reason" over faith in the Creator and that they have that choice via the Creator. So down to the very basic level of how the choice is viewed - WE ARE DIFFERENT. And we will always be different....and it is okay that we are.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by Excitable_Boy


In reality, whom ever got us here in the first place were our fathers and mothers. We were born, then afterwards we were educated in the beliefs of our fore fathers. "everything that got us here over billions of years is mathematically impossible to be coincidence " . Coincidentally, Einstein ,with a far superior capacity to calculate equations , along side with Stephen Hawking,

Originally posted by Makungo


Again, its all to do with perception and EVERONE has, and is totally acceptable to have their own OPINION, and I emphasise that

It is entirely reasonable and titally acceptable for everyone to have their own opinion on something.

As Valhall rightly pointed out, both religion and science can allow us to contemplate the wonders of creation, and marvel. Two individuals can take completely different paths and arrive at the same mysteries. Sometimes even come up with the same answers

The problem only starts when one starts to impose their point of view on another... an unfortunate, and ugly, human trait.

Nice post

Originally posted by Dagar

As Valhall rightly pointed out, both religion and science can allow us to contemplate the wonders of creation, and marvel. Two individuals can take completely different paths and arrive at the same mysteries. Sometimes even come up with the same answers

BINGO! It is like I have stated on this board about such things as various theories or positions concerning 9/11:

There is ONE set of factual events that have taken place. The historical record is unchangable, unmutable and the events that occurred are the ONLY right answer.

I can take one path in search of that one right answer, and you can take a totally different path in search of that same one right answer and if we just treat each other with respect along the way, AND STAY THE COURSE!!!, we CAN BE ASSURED that we will meet up in the end - because the TRUTH is standing still, in one place, waiting on us to converge.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Skyfloating


My personal opinion is that a soul can, from a certain level of context, access all timelines.

That's my thinking too. If you accept the concept that consciousness is a way of 'experiencing' the universe, it makes sense.

I have occasionally had very vivid dreams in which I become aware of existing in all these different parrallel universes. In the dream I'm aware of all these experiences and even how the separate timelines relate to each other. I've also actually time travelled (always back mind you) on occasion too.

Obviously these are most likely just dreams... but I have occasionally wondered if, in the relaxation of sleep, my consciousness has briefly touched that part of me that is aware of everything/everytime.

Those rare dreams are one of the things that have made me ponder the nature of time and reality.

Side-note: Watch some people turn this in to a Creationism vs. Evolution debate...two concepts which cant really compete with your OP.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Skyfloating]

I really hope not... as the evolution versus creatinism argument is a creature of blinkered and limited views by both sides (just my opinion ) ... and I'm hoping we can have a GENTLE discussion here about the nature of time, reality, and the universe.... not who made the earth, and how long it was in the oven for.

Well, I would go with, and it is also my personal theory, that nothing ever was created, it just always was.
No creator; never nothing, stuff was always there.

Was there a 'big bang' for the whole Universe? Or was the big bang just one of many big bang events?
The Universe is a big place, infinity is hard to grasp.

PS, I give the Universe a capital 'U' because it is the ultimate and I know it's there, as for god?
Did god create the Universe?
Still a big question. The biggest question of which, 'who created god?'

Maybe the Universe was never created, it just creates itself.

Originally posted by Toadmund


Maybe the Universe was never created, it just creates itself.

I like to believe that the Universe follows the 'elastic band effect'

The sub-atomic particle that is the epicentre of the big bang, is the mid point between creation and destruction. The 'stretching' of the elastic band is the out pouring of matter (not so much an explosion) stretching across, what we call the universe and eventually all the matter is recalled back towards the epicentre once more and the big bang happens again, and again, and again...
as it were ...I don't know.