What Is the "Creator?"

[MineralMan]

Before we try to figure out where it is, we have to try to understand what it is.

"Creator" is a term that diffuses godlike qualities, rather than focusing on a particular deity. It's a way of saying, "Well, there's only one God, but it has had many names in many places and in many societies." And that's a way of minimizing the many deities humans have created to explain the unexplainable until the unexplainable has been explained.

A "Creator" is only needed to explain stuff humans didn't create for themselves. It's a word that lets us forget about things that are hard to understand. It's a word we can use to get back to thinking about mundane things by simply saying, "The Creator did it."

It's one of those words we use when we are trying to get all spiritual about our thinking, but don't want to be parochial in our use of language.

It's a very good word for all of those purposes, but really doesn't have a very specific meaning. It's one of those glittering generality words that can mean a lot of different things, or nothing at all. Words like that are useful when being specific is difficult.

[Cartoonist]

1. And who created the creator?

When you can answer that, then you can explain infinity and eternity.

[MineralMan]

2. Whoever uses the term has created the creator.

It works the same way with individual deities. They get created, as needed, by the human who need them.

Bottom line is that humans create gods so they can assign difficult explanations to them. All of those "Why?" questions can be answered, "Because God." That lets people move on to important things like survival and reproduction.

Deities have no independent existence. They exist because people have named them and assigned attributes to them.

For example, one member of this group has "found" the "Creator" in many places. The word "found" can also mean "discovered." It can also mean "create." Humans found their own deities and founded religions. So, it's no wonder deities can be found almost anywhere. It takes only a moment to create a deity when one will be useful.

Why did that tornado tear down my house? "God did it. It's beyond our understanding." That's an easy answer to a question that would require a lecture on violent storms to explain. If you assign the destruction to a deity, you no longer have to try to explain what really happened.

Simple.

[Act_of_Reparation]

3. It's a word for the Abrahamic "God"....

...commonly deployed by Abrahamic theists trying to present their religions as more universal than they really are.

No one is fooled.

[MineralMan]

4. Oh, some people are fooled. Yes, indeed.

Some people are easy to fool, or have a strong desire or need to be fooled. Of that, there is ample evidence.

[PJMcK]

5. You love to do this!

While I love to read the discussions!

Have a good Friday, MM.

[Bayard]

6. V YGER found him.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Try "prime mover" instead...

The question "How did we get here?" has been asked since we first noticed that there is a "here". Aristotle synthesized the first principles (Prime Mover) and while it there is no proof of it, it's still a rational argument.

Not a definitive one, but one rationale for why we are here. The problem with arguing against any prime mover (or God) is that to prove it is nonexistent, one would have to come up with an equally plausible explanation. Asking "who created God" is not an argument-- just a question, like where is infinity.

[trotsky]

9. But simply using the terminology "prime mover" begs the question.

Of course one can't "come up with an equally plausible explanation" when the initial terms have been loaded to prefer one.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Nothing is "loaded". The question is "how did we get here" and as yet we have no answer...

so the floor is open to all ideas. The only problem is when someone insists they have the one, true answer.

If there is no prime mover (and I am not saying there is one) then what is an alternate suggestion?

[trotsky]

18. Particles and their anti-particle counterparts pop in and out of the vacuum of space all the time.

Totally uncaused.

Why couldn't the universe have come about the same way?

Thing is, I haven't heard any scientist say they have the "one, true answer." I've heard quite a few theists say that, though.

[MineralMan]

11. Instead, humans invented the scientific method,

which allows us to investigate such questions though falsifiable testing of hypotheses. We created a process that actually offers the promise of getting real answers that aren't just based on our limited imaginations.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Hmmm... I believe it was Aristotle who first codified logic, but he...

quite logically came up with his first principle.

The scientific method only works when there is proper evidence to evaluate. Alas, we know little about the origins of the universe but hypotheticals and conjecture. The Big Bang is the best answer so far, but it depends upon a belief, (yes, belief, not observation) that this tiny point blew up and started everything.

Logically, that hypothetical is not much better than the finger of God saying "Let it be". It is certainly a better answer., but not the answer.

[MineralMan]

16. Science often reveals truths slowly, particularly when

events cannot be directly observed. We can't directly look inside an atom, but we have a good understanding of its structure and components through indirect evidence from experimental processes. So, I do have a good picture of an atom in my head.

The big bang is something like that. We're getting closer to seeing that point in the origin of the universe. Closer all the time. The math and the hypotheses align with what we're learning more and more closely. We're getting closer to a convergence of observations and predictions of what will eventually be observed.

Science is always fascinating it gets closer to accurately defined truths. It's a bit hard to follow, at times, though.

[marylandblue]

20. The evidence points to a big bang

Because only in a universe with a big bang would there be microwave background radiation and galaxies moving away from each other.

"Let it Be," has no evidence behind it because all possible universes are consistent with that start.

[edhopper]

15. Is the Prime Mover

a conscience entity, or just an intial spark or event?

[TreasonousBastard]

17. It's almost irrelevant...

just something that happens. Aristotle's point was that there has to be a starting point. Or a starting something. The term "prime mover" came along later-- he called it the first principle.

The Big Bang could be called the first principle, but then where did that wee ball that exploded come from?

[Voltaire2]

21. It isnt irrelevant.

The argument of first cause is used as a prop to hold up bogus arguments for the existence of creator deities.

By itself the claim that there has to be a first cause is fine. But there is nothing else entailed from that claim.

[guillaumeb]

22. The wee ball that exploded just happened to be lying around

so it could conveniently explode.

[Lordquinton]

19. Aristotle was wrong on many fronts, like Atomic Theory

and it took us a long time to recover from his point of view.

We know the universe exists, the only thing about deities or "prime movers" is that people insist that one must exist, with absolutely zero supporting evidence. It's prescribing that there needs to be something, which just kicks the can down the line to another question, why does there need to be a creator? Perhaps, like Sagan said, we could save a step and say the universe has always existed, what is wrong in that?

[NeoGreen]

8. Fictional (nt)

[uriel1972]

10. All hail...

The random fluctuation in a quantum matrix... doesn't sound as great as All Hail the Mighty <insert name here>
Unless you are a science geek like me that is...

[MineralMan]

12. Sounds great to me, and after reading more about it,

it sounds much more plausible that somehow speaking it all into existence.

[guillaumeb]

23. 46 out of the last 80.

Interesting to observe, and to speculate as to motivation.

[MineralMan]

24. I'm interested in discussing religion.

You appear to be good at counting.

[guillaumeb]

25. I have another opinion on the matter.

And yes, small numbers are barely within my skill set.

[MineralMan]

26. OK...

[guillaumeb]

27. The One who creates.

And the One who created.
And the One who will create.

[Binkie The Clown]

28. G.O.D. -- Giver Of Data. The programmer who wrote this simulation. That's obvious. nt