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

Originally posted by Toadmund
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.

Entirely possible of course.

Our view of the world and reality tends to be a product of our nature and experience. It's therefore no surprise that even the Big Bang Theory requires a change of state and then movement (what we perceive as time). It's how we experience reality, so natural for us to define as such too.

The Universe is a big place, infinity is hard to grasp.

from our limited consciousnes, impossible I'd say. So is the concept of everything just being, no past, present or future.

Hell... I'm suggesting it, and I can't get my head around it either

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

and we're back to square one... creation implies non-existance

Originally posted by Dagar

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.

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

Seconded by me.

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.

I was pondering on this very thing last night, the main thing that let's me down, is the remembering bit.

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

I had an (Hallucinatory) experience when I was in my twenties (Early Eighties) where I was taken by my 'dead' friend to the 'other side', and all the discarnate beings appeared to me as bright pinpoints of light surrounded by a kind of holographic energy which gave me the ability to recognise them for who they were when incarnate, and yes, as I was in a similar state of being to them at the time, all time and space, knowledge and stuff was rolled into the present moment (Maybe that's how prophetic visions are accessed, through glimpses of that state of being), but somehow it didn't seem to matter and was just a kind of acceptance of how things are. A very blase and everything taken for granted kind of attitude, but filled with a love and ecstacy to an almost unbearable degree.
As a result, I see all this living and dying thing as a kind of tennis match of existence, where we're bouncing between life and death.
When we're 'dead', we know everything, and want to unlearn, and when 'alive' we know nothing, and want to learn.
The old Yin Yang thing.
I've read many things like 'The world is an illusion', and 'Everything is one', and such like in books on spirituality and stuff, and this ties in with my/our idea that we become incarnate into the densest state of being in order to slow down our experience of the present to a step by step approach, out of pure interest, if nothing else, and so we are hard-wired into an interface, or body which is conditioned to be restricted to a materialistic viewpoint so we can experience the challenge of liberating ourselves from the illusion of seperateness to a truer state of oneness.
Maybe the idea is to reach a point where we are conscious of both states of being in the same moment, where life and death are irrelevant, at which point we plunge ourselves into a new state of ignorance to do it all over again from a different viewpoint.
I still cannot fathom why this has to be, and the only conclusion I can come to, is that we've nothing better to do, and the universe is God's/Our playground, and we're playing in it.
Please be aware that I'm not saying this is how it is, and i know most of it has already been said, but it's just my way of seeing it, and as such, a belief.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to ramble on about this, as it occupies most of my waking thoughts.

Laters.

I.A.

P.S. Apologies for the screwy quote organisation, but I'm not very familiar with how to do these things.

OOOPS!!... Double post

[edit on 10/2/2008 by Dagar]

But it does arouse the thought that creation is on going, and we cannot put our finger on the 'time' it was created.
Obviously time is reletive so lets put 'time' to one side.
Hence the question of the threat "Why does there have to be a Creator, or anything created?"
There doesn't, it's just perception, it is how you see it, because there is NOTHING to prove who put us here... maybe death enlightens you to the truth, but of course none of us will know because we are not.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Makungo]

reply to post by Illegal Alien



Great post Illegal Alien . Most insightful and matches much of my thinking at the present time.

I know it's only opinion (your's and mine), but the 'experiencing the universe' scenario is the only one that makes any sense, at least when you start stretching the boundaries of what we would consider to be logical thinking, it is.

You have scientists theorizing that consciousness determines the nature of reality (collapsing probabilty waves and all that stuff) which by implication means that there is no 'reality' without consciousness.

On the other side you have religion with it's concept of an everlastiong soul that is part of, and one with, a universal entity (AKA GOD)

The 'experiencing the universe' scenario is the only one that sits nicely on both concepts... in my opinion

Thanks for that great post

reply to post by Dagar

Thanks for the positive response.
Usually, I get a weird look, or one raised eyebrow when I start this stuff.
One major advantage of posting on a forum, I suppose, you can't see who's reading.
Obviously, I haven't gone into every detail of what occurred on those wonderful occasions, but I think the general essence of the experience was conveyed.
I think the most profound explanations for these kind of things are very simple, and we then have the choice to either accept them as they are, or delve deeper into the ever increasing complexities beyond.
I prefer the latter, and though I frequently end up in a cul de sac, I have a great deal of fun getting there, and my imagination gets some much needed excercise in the process.
Thanks again.

Onwards and inwards

Originally posted by Dagar

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

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

That doesn't make sense. Sorry. ' Just is '.

Why 'is' ?

What 'is'?

How 'is' ?

It sounds like a play with semantics, claiming 'Arrival implies a journey' in response to 'How did it arrive at its state of 'is-ness'.

You're claiming is-ness simply 'is'.

Does that really make sense to you, apart from word-play ?

Are you suggesting 'is-ness' is basically a vacuum in which Time and Space are suspended, lacking beginning or source ?

What .. it all just popped into is-ness ? Something/everything from nothing ? Pop ?

reply to post by Illegal Alien


Nice post. I´ve had similar experiences.


A note on the quotes: When you edit your post, everything between the quote-tags is in quote. So on that one you´ll have to remove the quote-tag on the bottom.

reply to post by Illegal Alien


It does sort of make me chuckle to think that the whole reason for everything is cause we're bored.

The new 42... The meaning of life, the universe, and everything amounts to 'We were bored and decided to take it all apart again!'

reply to post by Dock6


I swear to you I'm not trying to play with semantics. I'm attempting to think of a universe where the concept of time has no meaning. I too struggle with it because we're used to defining and measuring everything by how we perceive reality.

The idea of something just being, without having come into existance is as alien to us as trying to imagine infinity.

From our perspective everything exists within a time frame, and everything exists within a boundary. It is how we experience reality, I'm trying to catch a glimpse of what might lie beyond that reality by trying to imagine what might lie beyond the limited senses and limited view we have of reality.

At the risk of repeating myself...To us, everything has to have a beginning (a creation point) and has to exist within something else. It is how we view reality.... but just because we view it like that doesn't mean that reality is limied to those concepts.

Dang... here comes another headache

Originally posted by Dagar
reply to post by Dock6

 

I swear to you I'm not trying to play with semantics. I'm attempting to think of a universe where the concept of time has no meaning. I too struggle with it because we're used to defining and measuring everything by how we perceive reality.

The idea of something just being, without having come into existance is as alien to us as trying to imagine infinity.

From our perspective everything exists within a time frame, and everything exists within a boundary. It is how we experience reality, I'm trying to catch a glimpse of what might lie beyond that reality by trying to imagine what might lie beyond the limited senses and limited view we have of reality.

At the risk of repeating myself...To us, everything has to have a beginning (a creation point) and has to exist within something else. It is how we view reality.... but just because we view it like that doesn't mean that reality is limied to those concepts.

Dang... here comes another headache

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

No, to us, everything does not necessarily have to have a beginning (creation point) and exist within something else. Past-Present-Future =All One is a commonly accepted theory.

Boundaries (of whatever description) are a convenience. Many appreciate this. Just as many of us consider we may be experiencing numerous 'realities' simultaneously, erroneous though our concept of 'reality' (singular, multiple) and 'us' may truly be.

It's this

' The idea of something just being, without having come into existance is as alien to us as trying to imagine infinity

that I'd like you to define, if you're able and would be so kind .. as it relates to the thread title: 'Why does there have to be a creator, or anything created? '

In one of this thread's posts, a poster stated he believed in God in addition to agreeing with your theory. Which poses quite a contradiction, to my mind.

But to return to your remark: ' The idea of something just being, without having come into existence ... '

I need clarification please. You're prepared to credit the existence of 'something', let's call it 'chalk', without it's having come into existence. What ... you mean it *never* came into existence ? So how can it 'be' ?

Use anything you like as symbolizing the 'something' to which you refer within ' The idea of something just being, without having come into existence .. '. The 'something' could be space, the universe, a speck of dust.

I'm perfectly content to agree that once the speck of dust attains a state of 'just being', then it may remain as 'just being' for eternity .. no boundaries, no change, unaffected by what we call Time, etc.

But I'd like to learn how the speck of dust 'became' before the 'just being'.

A speck of dust from where, from what ... how ?

Did it attain Speck of Dustness in thought ?

Or did the speck of dust just pop 'into being' ? If so ... how ?

To suggest the speck of dust has always existed still does not explain it's origins.

I suspect, in light of your eariler responses that you may say that the speck of dust 'just is'. But that doesn't work for me. I'm not being deliberately obstuse. I need an explanation for what constitutes 'just is'. Specks of dust, even if just *imaginary* specks of dust, have their origin in something: in the case of imaginary specks then that origin is 'an' imagination. In which case, it's Imagination which IS the creator .. (of that speck of dust).

In an earlier post, you mentioned a universe. Which is considerably more substantial than a speck of dust. But the same principle applies: again, I'm content to agree that a universe may exist beyond/outside etc. of what we refer to as Time. But how does a universe attain a state of 'just is-ness' or 'being' ? A universe simply self-generates ? If so .. what prompted this self-generation ? A thought ? A warp in non-existent Time? If so, then the Thought or Warp is the creator.

I'm more than happy to agree that 'absolutely everything' has no existence other than our belief. But then our belief becomes the creator.

If your theory demands that nothing exists and that the nothingness has no source (or origin or creator) then i'm interested to learn how your theory explains this. For instance, our consciousness. If that doesn't exist either, are we discussing it, or not ? If we are, how did our consciousness become 'just is' ? If it's always existed, fine. I'm ok with that. If it's existed for umpteen billion years, that's ok too. But in order to become 'just is', HOW did it become 'just is' ? And isn't the 'how' a creator?


(edited to add that unfortunately, it's almost 5 in the morning here and much as I'd like to stay to discuss this further, I'm unable to do so, although I'll certainly return as soon as I'm able. Best regards :-)










[edit on 10-2-2008 by Dock6]

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Dock6]

reply to post by Dagar


Exactly right Dagar and Valhall. I choose creationism as my belief system because it makes the most sense to me. The problem IS when we try to force our opinions on others...the cause of most wars in the past. Can't say that for the current war, but I guess really we can. Forcing our ideas on another country from false information.

Either way you look at it, there is a beginning, now proven by science. The beginning of OUR universe anyway. Creation implies something was made out of something. What that something is, we don't know. We haven't gotten that far yet and probably won't. Since we as humans have the ability to create, I have to assume we received that ability from another Creator. While there obviously is some form of evolution, I have to wonder where the original microform came from. If we are indeed star children (and I believe we are but only in the sense that our physical characteristics come from exploding stars), someone or something had to cause the first explosion into existence. I can't see it just happening by itself. Some kind of matter or form we don't understand had to exist to cause the explosion.

That's the same or very similar concept put forth in the book 'conversations with god'

In which it states we exist as individuals so that god may experience itself from an outsiders perspective.
Something you can't do if you are everything in the first place.
The physical universe is just a tool for this.

If you haven't read it and by some weird chance have come up with the same theory, read it. Trust me, you'll thank me later.

For something to move it must be acted upon. Movement, being the only existing thing, must have originated from a point.

Can you tell me who wrote that book? I would like to read it.

reply to post by idle_rocker


Neale Donald Walsch.

Wiki

reply to post by Dock6


Unfortunately the very question you are asking is coloured by the way we perceive reality

To us everything has to have a beginning... If we imagine something we have to imagine it on the basis of 'it came from something' or something must have happened to 'create' it

Both 'came from' and 'happened' are children of the concept of time. Since I'm postulating that everything just IS and we've created the concept of time as a way to explain the reality we perceive, then 'came from' and 'created' have no meaning in a universe that just IS meaning.

This is incredibly hard for me to try and explain... Heck, I'm having a real hard time visualizing it myself.

We are trying to define different things here.

Let me explain what I mean by defining different things, by using a non-related example from an Isaac Asimov book I read a while back

It seems that the reason Isaac Asimov fell in love with, and married his wife was because of a question that was asked, either when they first met, or onone of their dates (I can't remember)

The question was... What would happen if an immovable object met an unstoppable force?... Which would be the victor?

Apparently Isaac's future wife, after thinking about it for a while said... It's a nonsense question and it could never happen.... Why?... Because in a universe that plays host to an immovable object, by definition, an unstoppable object cannot exist. It has no meaning. Taking the reverse, in a universe that contains the unstoppable object, an immovable one cannot exist either.

Why am I saying this.

Because in a universe that just IS the concept of coming into being has no meaning. The same way that in a universe that is created that universe cannot just be.

I'm sorry... but I can't explain it any better than that... I wish I could


EDITED for spelling

[edit on 10/2/2008 by Dagar]

I'm sorry...I'm still not quite getting it

Originally posted by T0by
That's the same or very similar concept put forth in the book 'conversations with god'

In which it states we exist as individuals so that god may experience itself from an outsiders perspective.
Something you can't do if you are everything in the first place.
The physical universe is just a tool for this.

If you haven't read it and by some weird chance have come up with the same theory, read it. Trust me, you'll thank me later.

I'll definitely look it up TOby, cheers.

I hadn't read it. My thinking about this matter stems from a combination of SciFi books I've read (Heinlein springs to mind), an excellent book I read called 'Gods Of Eden' in which the author spends a chapter at the end discussing the possible nature of God and Reality, and (for the most part) indulging in my favourite pastime... Sitting down, doing nothing and just THINKING!... lol

Thanks for the book title

Hi all, I'm back.
Had to zoom off there for a while.

Here's my take on infinity and all that.

Thanks for all the comments, and the quote tips, by the way.

The way I understand infinity is this.....
My maths teacher at school told us that:

'Infinity is the point at which the two ends of a straight line meet.'

Therefore, as far as I can see, an infinite universe has neither a beginning or end.
The points at which the two ends of a straight line meet can be at any point along that straight line.
It's just up to the observer to choose where to make that point, in the here and now, there and then, or whatever.
Sort of an eternal now.

It's a simple explanation, but it has quietened my befuddled mind so far.
I.A.
Cheers all.