This conversation is closed.

Universe creator, what attributes must a Creator possess? I’m asking about just the necessary attributes to be able to create what is.

Using William of Occam's concept, Quantum Philosophy boils it down to 2 basic attributes.

"A creator" has turned out to be bad wording, too many associations. A creator in the plane sense of the word does not have to be a deity. But this question has proved how bias our scientific minds are. We have proven to be no less jaded / conditioned than men of faith. Talking to men of science about a creator has proven to be similar to talking to men of faith about science, too many biases to get to the rational part of the brain. Being a man if science I would think better of my peers.

  • Aug 4 2012: Intelligence.
    A healthy aversion to obsolescence.
    A map of the universe showing where his/her/it's home is located
    A direct method of contact and a better response time

    Oh, if I am to apply Occam's Razor to this topic, then I would suggest a good shave before appearing in public.
    But, I forgot, there have been no public appearances.
  • thumb
    Aug 8 2012: Must have the attributes of:

    1. Consciousness
    2. The ability to self-divide
    3. The ability to spin that consciousness (or sub-divisions of) in at least four axes.
    4. Boredom

    5. Consciousness - A creator must have within his resources the most important aspect of life, without which everything is pointless.
    Self-division - He must be able to make other sentiences (smaller consciousnesses)
    Spin – I believe it will be shown scientifically that particulate matter consists simply of a four axis spin, from which is derived, gravity, electromagnetism, time, space, relativity, all the laws of physics, forces and constants, .... (I realise I am before my time here, but just answering the question).

    Boredom – a creator must be bored otherwise he would be happy with his solitude.
  • thumb
    Aug 8 2012: If I must explain it you would not accept it ... If you accept it I do not have to explain it.

    All the best. Bob.
  • Aug 5 2012: This is very complex question in itself. Really though, it seems the whole question is more of a philosophical one than a scientific one. The whole idea of a creator is rather unexplainable by science. If one says that the universe is based on physical constants and scientific laws, then a theist would state a creator created the constants and the laws. It is really two different outlooks. Belief in a creator doesn't really contradict science (for science cannot really address things beyond the physical realm), and a belief in a creator shouldn't make one forsake science. The two can coexist peacefully. (sorry for the rant! I am rather tired of all of the incredibly biased opinions that I have been hearing from my friends about this topic lately. If you are at all interested in this approach though, the BioLogos.org web page has a lot of information on the topic. Francis S. Collins has also written a very detailed book on the matter. I am a Christian who also believes in evolution; the two can coexist.)

    To try to answer your question, I think it is almost impossible to say what would be required in a creator. The only really quality would be that He (It?) would have to be able to create. We base our view on what would be required for life; however, we only know about the life on earth. If the universe was created totally different with different constants and different laws, would life require the same things? We are applying Occam's razor to a concept (a creator) that is supernatural. This once again goes back to my idea that this is really more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.
    • Aug 5 2012: I believe that your comment is an almost perfect view. It was a pleasure reading it. The question is very philosophical in nature but it can also be address through scientific lenses also. The ability to create I would definitely say is a necessary attribute. If I were to ask you for 2 specific qualifying traits what would they be?
    • thumb
      Aug 8 2012: Hypothetical, not just philosophical.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2012: My Maths vocabulary is not strong enough to define attributes, do you mean like the information plotted on the two axis of a graph. Do you mean like in an experiment where you have a reaction caused by the actions of one substance on another. What about reactions that occur like waves. Need a bit more information.
    • Aug 4 2012: Any way of representing a working creator is fine. 1. It has to be able to create the worlds as it is 2. It should be reduce to its most basic aspects. I’m not that math savvy either.
  • Aug 4 2012: Ok guys I’ll say this, the catalyst or creator must have created all things from that which had already existed. The only thing that existed at this point was its self. If you look into anything that exists you will find 2 things 1. Power / energy 2. Potential
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Thinking big,... really big! And more likelihoodly* on tiny levels! :o)


    * does this word exist?
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: The universe creator must be something within the realms of human imagination.

    That is all.

    Applying Occam's Razor, why add the complexity of a god when trying to understand the origins of the universe?
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: I guess the question is hypothetical given all the information we have points to natural processes and there is no evidence for any beings that might have taken part in creation.

    Why do you assume one creator? Does this reflect your cultural religious experience? Why not a group effort.

    And this group could have been created by another group of more powerful beings and so on and so forth.

    And why assume the universe was created in the first place?

    Whether it be the diversity of life, lightening, earthquakes or disease we now have better explanations than a god or goddess is responsible.

    We have no explanation for any beings that could create the universe we live in.

    Assigning attributes to these things is kind of how the people inventing or refining the ideas of gods may have defined them.

    It's answering a question with an even more difficult question. It's hard enough understanding the origin of the universe as we see it today without having to explain things that existed before the universe and had the ability to set 14 billion years of the universe in motion.

    We have no idea what this thing might be if it existed or how it would create the universe. We have no idea if there is one or a hundred or millions of entities that may be involved in creation.

    In the end you are fooling yourself to think you have answered the question about the origin of the universe if you refer to something for which there is no evidence and is even harder to explain than the universe itself.

    Calling something eternal, spiritual, outside time and space, all powerful, all knowing is just words.

    Actually the gods don't need to be all powerful or all knowing, they just need to exist and have the capability to make the universe collectively. Who is to say there is not more to know?

    They certainly don't need to be all loving or unchangeable.

    Before I play the game, can you describe the creative process. Just set off a big bang and watched or more active involvement?
    • Aug 4 2012: My brother philosopher

      It seems that you have a point to make. You debate yet you don’t actually address any of my topics. I’m not sure you are aware that you are doing this. This topic is simply to apply Occam's razor to the concept of a Creator. I have no belief in religion or the standard concept of God. I understand you don’t believe in God. What I am trying to tell you is you don’t need to.
      • thumb
        Aug 8 2012: Hi William

        If I applied Occams razor I would not propose a creator at all. A creator is superfluous in the first place unless there is some evidence otherwise.

        If we are starting with the assumption of a creator.

        1) It needed to exist, either created itself or evolved itself or timeless etc. It does not even need to exist today. It could have consumed itself in the act of creation or simply willed itself to no longer exist.

        2) It needed the capability to create the universe.

        I was going to say it needs a will to create, but it could be unconscious. We could be a blip in the creators unconscious.

        It's not just that I don't have a belief in any gods, but I see no reason to suggest a creator is more likely than no creator unless creator just becomes a metaphor for natural processes or the limits of our knowledge.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Wanted: Creator of Everything.
    Must be Spirit. Infinite, Eternal and Unchangeable in Wisdom; Being; Power; Holiness; Justness; Goodness; Mercy; and Truth.
    • Aug 4 2012: That is a lot of attribute. Are you sure you can’t boil it down to two or three main must have attributes? There is a reason behind the question.
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2012: Occam's Razor is useful in developing a theoretical model. Is that what you are doing, Mr. Humphrey? If so, I am not sure the heuristic approach is appropriate. Empiricism, rules-of-thumb, and thinking inside the box are of limited value when seeking to understand the supernatural realm, where faith is the key. However, if you insist you may shorten my list to these three attributes: Infinite; Eternal; and Immutable. Thank you!
        • Aug 4 2012: So you’re saying as long as a catalyst has the ability to be "Infinite; Eternal; and Immutable" then those attributes allow he/she/it to create? I don’t see how these sets of attributes will bring about Me. Not saying the catalyst doesn’t have these attributes just saying I don’t think these are the qualifiers for a catalyst.
        • thumb
          Aug 8 2012: You know William in science and chemistry a catalyst has some defining characteristics.
          It speeds up a reaction and is generally not consumed.

          Apply this to your hypothetical situation and the great catalyst just speed up the development of the universe.

          We also don't know if it was consumed in the act of creation so may not be a catalyst at all.
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2012: RE: "So you're saying. . . "As with the other question currently before us I do not consent to your substitution of the word "catalyst" for my phrase "Creator of Everything". I was asked to shorten the description of the Creator of Everything. That vivisection of my definition deprives me of the needed substance to support my position. I find I have brought a knife to a gunfight. Unless I can choose my own weapon I am going to run away from this duel. Thank you!
        • Aug 5 2012: It is easy to predict the outcome when you design all of the controls but that is the nature of experiments. I like picking people’s brain. I to have conclusions for my questions and our destination am the same. Thanks for your wisdom and participation.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Yes William of Occam's concept Quantum Philosophy but also Fibonacci's golden thread of numbers. It is not just positive or negative it is positive and negative to create a new better product. Think, plan, evaluate, action, review, revise. Think safety net, think filter. Think Nature's filters.
    • Aug 3 2012: I like your idea but it sounds like there are more attribute that can be screened out by looking at the bare basics, just necessities. See if you can get the attributes down to just 2 or 3.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: I would suggest an ability to notice what resources there are, observe what they already do, think about an application but take time to think about the possible consequences and plan for them before they happen and if they do happen to have an appropriate safety net in place and if they still happen then stop doing what is harmful. Do not totally exhaust resources that cannot be replaced. Nature has it's filters to protect the global ecosystem of the planet, we do not have the technology to move to another planet yet. There isn't one! So we need to protect what is valuable, our own planet. Nature's measuring gauge as to what is helpful is us. If we get the balance right for humankind then we get the balance right for nature and for the planet. The more scarce a resource like fossil fuels for example then the more careful we must be about utilising it as effectively as possible. People will fight if there are insufficient resources and already the results of global warming are driving people to act in ways harmful to themselves. Look at war as the ultimate indication there is a major problem and then work backwards. First notice and observe then think and evaluate then act. Jumping in with more military hardware just makes things worse.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: Must be empty space in quantum state A, and have the ability to change to quantum state B with positive energy which enables particles with force and direction to be created.
    Must be able to self destruct i.e if it creates laws of physics which don't create a stable universe.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2012: Must have bootstrap logic built-in, i.e. it must create itself.
      • Aug 3 2012: Stewart Gault - that is the same answer in Quantum Philosophy. You got it exactly right. I find if you ask a question in the right way even in spite will we find wisdom.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Yea well it's just the current hypothesis which is most likely unless we're a baby universe which the LISA telescope will be able to confirm if in fact we are a baby universe.
      • Aug 4 2012: Whatever was the catalyst for the beginning of any and all possible universe must have these two qualities. 1. Ability i.e. power 2. Opportunity. Quantum philosophy basically stated that all that exists has a measure of these 2 components. It is the binary system of all that exist. Power can be understood physically as energy and opportunity can be understood as potential.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2012: The subject itself confirms there is creator......and seems subject also decided it should be one.........
    How sure you are about those two conclusions ?
    • Aug 3 2012: Sorry sir, the subject is not whether there is a creator or not. These two ideas that you have is simply the scenario not conclusions, just a bases for discussion. I don’t believe in God so to speak, I’m just building a logical model.
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2012: Pardon me sir for considering scenarios as conclusions.
        However as you are looking forward to build a logical model you defintely observed logic in my post above guess :)
        All the best with your model and will be following the discussion. Have a good day.
        • Aug 4 2012: There is logic to lots of things but your logic goes to a different subject. This subject is simply applying Occam's Razor to the concept of a creator. You have commented but made no attempt to acknowledge the subject. I believe reason should by orderly. One step at a time.
  • Aug 3 2012: positive