There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2011, 11:47 PM
 
There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
I would like to know who else share this opinion with me?
As well as share with me with what you think of they following essay/article (if I may call it) which I wrote recently, but never did publish it anywhere.

Quote:In the past during the pagan age, the deity that man believed in were more of demigods, so to say. God of the mountains, god of the seas, god of the trees, god of the rain and so on are some of the many examples which believers believed in; and in fact, some of them are believe to not be completely immortal. But eventually mankind started questioning their existence - they started believing in these gods as creators. Then eventually believing in just one god - a revolutionary idea which transformed the platform of religion from polytheism to monotheism. The idea of one true supreme god - often characterised as being omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolant. In fact, many polytheistic religion too have that one figure who represents the king of the gods or the one ultimate god, some as such that all the other demigods are just a representation of that one main god.

Whatever the case is, this one god is often characterised as an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolant divine creator of the world. Even so, the different religions who view their god to have these characteristic may not agree on one another. Some may consider all these monotheistic gods are one and the same, but some may consider them different. In this case, a god is one’s own idea, one’s own image, or one’s one representation of a creator. This is where I beg you to differ the definition of a god and of a creator. A creator is an intelligent being or beings who created the universe, and a god is one’s own representation of what that creator may be like. Let’s imagine the following scenario:

Quote:
One day mankind has advance so profoundly, technologically, to the point of almost fully understanding the universe - solved the theory of everything - and to the point of being able to simulate their own “mini” universe in a quantum computer or perhaps a more advance form of computer. Although we consider it a “simulated” universe, it does perform it’s function as a universe just as our, and because of this it has to be considered as an actual universe, but in its own form in its own dimensions - the quantum computer. It has to be recognised as a real universe, just as an email is recognised as a real mail even though its not written in ink on paper, but it is nevertheless a mail it is, but in its own form in its own dimensions - electronics.

Regardless of the details of how the universe was formed and on what dimensions, the universe grew to form stars of its own kind, and planets of its own kind, and eventually lifeforms of its own kind. Eventually generation after generations of lifeforms, these lifeforms have varied in existence, some dying out, some surviving on, becoming more and more complex from generation to generation to eventually arising a species of intelligent life form - an intelligent life form capable of communicating via invented languages, and eventually capable of questioning their existence. They too eventually belief that their creator has to be omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolent divine being. But there are a disagreement between the different groups of these intelligent life forms, the different groups have their own representation of their creator.

But in fact, their creator or creators are mere mortal. A scientist who will later die of old age, or die of a decease, or perhaps murdered. Perhaps even fired from their current position. Although you can’t deny that this scientist or perhaps these group of scientists are a superior being to those in the simulated universe, but they definitely are not omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolent - and certainly not divine, in the religious sense. They may be the creators of the universe but certainly are not gods.

So all these various gods that mankind believe in are imaginations of what our creator or creators is or are like; guesses of what our creator or creators is or are like; theories of what our creator or creators is or are like; beliefs of what our creator or creators is or are like. But just like the the imaginations of the intelligent life forms in the “mini” universe, it is very unlikely that even one of the many guesses falls anywhere near being labeled accurate. So I can safely say that none of these images of the creator exist, in other words, none of these “gods” (in my definition) exists. But does a creator exist? May be. Our universe could be just one of the many “simulated” universes that was created experimentally out of another group of mortal scientist from another universe, hence having a creator.
Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2011, 01:21 AM
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
Interesting...
If you were to define a god as a persons representation of the creator, and the creator as being the one or ones that created the universe, then if we were to in effect create a universe, then we would be gods in our own eyes (as we would recognize that we created the/a universe).
I suppose that christians would say that they have it right because god has communicated the truth to them, ruling out that fallible mortals created everything. Even if we were to dispute that, it would still not convince anyone.
Still interesting, though.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2011, 01:47 AM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
I suppose that you're right about this won't convince theists. I suppose, this writeup is suited more for atheists to have a think about or perhaps some of the less extreme theists.

Theists needs to understand how to differentiate fact from myths, before they can accept any rational arguments about creationism and religion.

For those who do believe in a god or gods, they can only appreciate this writeup if they can accept the fact that religious beliefs are beliefs and are not facts, and that believers believe in them and not know them, because if one does know it as a fact, then there is no need to have faith to believe them as a belief, but rather have evidence to know them as a fact, nor will they be able to appreciate this writeup if they can’t identify the difference between credible evidence and suggestive statements.
Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 09:10 AM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
I am a fairly scientific person so logically to me, a creator just doesn't seem possible. But hypothetically let's say there's a deity, or multiple deities. I highly doubt that any of the religions (past and present) have gotten all their stories and ideas right. Chances are, they are all wrong.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Killermolls44's post
17-05-2011, 09:37 AM
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
A creator is a possibility , but until evidence is found that there was intention and a deliberate action from an intelligent sentient being in creating our universe it's pointless to assume there is something. Can our entire universe be an experiment and all of us a sample in a pietre dish ? Possibly , but attributing characteristics and worship to a creator before we know what said creator is or what its intentions are , it would just be an exercise in futility.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 10:05 AM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
I would think if a creator did exist and created all that we know to exist as an exercise of it's powers, it wouldn't be reticent about showing itself, when it's already shown proof of it's creative energies everywhere we look, even in the mirror.
If it or they, in the case of polytheism, could create all that is it would be of a higher consciousness than mere we, who are lesser equipped in every way. And then that would mean that maker of it all would know full well how in deficit we are so as to fully consciously comprehend it's self.

So consequently, given it provided all evidence something created all that is creation, it would have no problem showing itself when it's shown proof of itself in such ways. So Bibles would not exist as errant refutable historic fictions. Religions would not be necessary, asking the faithful members of it to hold faith something exists as creator of all things. When that what did do so, would be a fact and would know enough to prove it to a world population totaling now near 7 billion who by majority hope it's there.

If there was a creator, it wouldn't be shy. And faith, wouldn't exist.
That's a fact. Wink
Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 10:49 AM
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
(17-05-2011 10:05 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  I would think if a creator did exist and created all that we know to exist as an exercise of it's powers, it wouldn't be reticent about showing itself, when it's already shown proof of it's creative energies everywhere we look, even in the mirror.
If it or they, in the case of polytheism, could create all that is it would be of a higher consciousness than mere we, who are lesser equipped in every way. And then that would mean that maker of it all would know full well how in deficit we are so as to fully consciously comprehend it's self.

So consequently, given it provided all evidence something created all that is creation, it would have no problem showing itself when it's shown proof of itself in such ways. So Bibles would not exist as errant refutable historic fictions. Religions would not be necessary, asking the faithful members of it to hold faith something exists as creator of all things. When that what did do so, would be a fact and would know enough to prove it to a world population totaling now near 7 billion who by majority hope it's there.

If there was a creator, it wouldn't be shy. And faith, wouldn't exist.
That's a fact. Wink

well put.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djgenx7's post
17-05-2011, 06:29 PM
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
I see no reason to believe an intelligent being made the universe for the simple reason that I have never seen evidence of a "mind" without a physical brain. Once I see evidence that a disembodied mind can exist, then I might consider an intelligent creator as a possibility. I see any postulation of a creator as presenting more questions than answers, altogether unnecessary.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nontheocrat's post
17-05-2011, 09:45 PM
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
I think if there is a creator, 'god', or whatever he had a life span of somewhere around 250 years (advanced medical knowledge can only go so far) and never knew we'd even exist.

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 02:33 AM
 
RE: There Is No God, But There May Be A Creator
(17-05-2011 09:37 AM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  A creator is a possibility , but until evidence is found that there was intention and a deliberate action from an intelligent sentient being in creating our universe it's pointless to assume there is something. Can our entire universe be an experiment and all of us a sample in a pietre dish ? Possibly , but attributing characteristics and worship to a creator before we know what said creator is or what its intentions are , it would just be an exercise in futility.
Yes, I agree, it is pointless assume something. It's just that people often don't distinguish a god from a creator.

(17-05-2011 10:05 AM)GassyKitten Wrote:  I would think if a creator did exist and created all that we know to exist as an exercise of it's powers, it wouldn't be reticent about showing itself, when it's already shown proof of it's creative energies everywhere we look, even in the mirror.
If it or they, in the case of polytheism, could create all that is it would be of a higher consciousness than mere we, who are lesser equipped in every way. And then that would mean that maker of it all would know full well how in deficit we are so as to fully consciously comprehend it's self.

So consequently, given it provided all evidence something created all that is creation, it would have no problem showing itself when it's shown proof of itself in such ways. So Bibles would not exist as errant refutable historic fictions. Religions would not be necessary, asking the faithful members of it to hold faith something exists as creator of all things. When that what did do so, would be a fact and would know enough to prove it to a world population totaling now near 7 billion who by majority hope it's there.

If there was a creator, it wouldn't be shy. And faith, wouldn't exist.
That's a fact. Wink
I would have to disagree... If lets say a company who has the funds gathers all the brilliant scientist to create a universe for scientific research and study purposes. For example, Richard Dawkins used a computer programme to simulate evolution, where these creatures could evolve via natural selection. Of course these creatures are not actual life. To exaggerate this further, instead of just a life, the company creates an actual universe which eventually creates actual life in a different form, which eventually produces intelligent life. The purpose is to just study the specimen, and not to communicate with them. If the scientist never did show themselves, to the specimens, their creation is still a mystery hence faith exist. if the scientist did show themselves, before they showed themselves, the specimens creation was a mystery hence faith exist. And because faith did exist, the would deny the fact that these scientist are their true creator due to their faith, hence faith still exist.

But honestly if I was one of the party which was responsible for the creation of that universe, I wouldn't want the scientist to show themselves, so that the universe could go on as it is for us to understand our universe better, for study and research purposes.

(17-05-2011 06:29 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  I see no reason to believe an intelligent being made the universe for the simple reason that I have never seen evidence of a "mind" without a physical brain. Once I see evidence that a disembodied mind can exist, then I might consider an intelligent creator as a possibility. I see any postulation of a creator as presenting more questions than answers, altogether unnecessary.
I think you misunderstanding the whole idea behind my writeup.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: