Who Was The Creator?

[naomi24]

The God of Abraham is just one among many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity

Other ideas welcome.

[Old_Geezer]

You appear to be lacking imagination :-)

[jomifl]

Maths is a language invented by man to describe natural relationships. It doesn't exist of itself..but we have been here before.

[scooping]

This what I have problem with, hampered by an almost total ignorance of physics. Two people make a child from sperm and egg. The child becomes mass. How is the child made of stardust? Surely his or her mass did not exist before?

[jim360]

That's a charge I've often had levelled against me. I really don't recognise it.

Instead, perhaps you could explain what you mean by "needing" a creator to provide the existence of maths? And what you meant exactly by your other point -- preferably without using the word "quantum", because it doesn't belong to that point at all.

[jomifl]

Physics doesn't come into it scooping, the parents were composed of stardust, their eggs and sperm also. That is it.

[jim360]

If you like, scooping, you can use this question here I just posted:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question1331575.html

[solvitquick]

Mankind has been the creartor of all the gods.
The creation of the universe, whatever its nature, is beyond mankind's, comprehension.
Hence the creation of the super-being(s) of one or more gods (in our likeness) as makers of mankind and the universe. The latter to give us a base and, given its immensity, for our delight presumably.
Briefly, we are mere animals currently at the head of the food chain and the faiytale of the creator is easier than denying ourselves any value other than temporary existence.
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Oh dear, jim and jomifl tempt me into chemistry and physics all over again! A temptation I have resisted (so far) and I have restricted my answer to the psychology of mankind althouth I'm no bloody psycologist!
Scooping, you have much to learn about the origin of the sperm and egg but we "oldies" have been their before, wading through the swamp of the primordial soup etc. Try searching science and religion, notably Khandro's question about self-replicating molecules.
Hell, how many times do we have to repeat ourselves? - even if it's fun:).
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

It's all Naomi's fault - the irresistable and stirringest contributor to AB. No, "stirringest" was not a word - but it is now. I am its Creator.
SIQ.

[jomifl]

SIQ, please NO not Khandro's question again it's just too much....sobs..

[solvitquick]

Dear jomifl,
Pmsl, relax jom, anyone who took part in that Khandro debate couldn't go back to that hell-on-earth!
I was just suggesting that our friend "scooping" might learn a bit after the "sperm and egg" statement, if he chose to get up to speed.
Oh, that's another dry-cleaning bill you owe me for my trousers:)
Regards,
SIQ.

[scooping]

Getting some grief again today. Sorry, but if I knew the answer to my question I wouldn't have asked it. Of course it may have been answered many times before on site but I'm new and apologise if I have been boorish. Yes, I may have much to learn. Suspect, in many subject areas, we all have. I hope that if I can be of help to anyone from the benefit of my experience and expertise I will do so with good grace.

[jim360]

Do you mean this one?

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question1291220.html

? :P

[jim360]

I don't think you've been getting any grief -- certainly it's not been intentional. It's just a case of asking the question elsewhere. Hopefully I provided a hint of the answer in the first page, but if you need more information then feel free to ask the question again, in a separate thread, where it can get the attention it deserves.

[solvitquick]

Dear scooping,
These philosophical/science questions give us all grief, honest.
Sorry if my patronising "you have much to learn" sounded like a put-down but I really meant on this type of debate it can be hard work boneing-up on past related debates.
I'm sure you have much to contribute unlike some newbies who pop-up and disappear mid-debate.
Here on this "thread" or jim's new one, please enjoy,
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.

[mibn2cweus]

Cweusly, "Who Was The Creator?" is in fact a loaded question. It presumes that existence is the product of a 'who' rather than a 'what', which leads immediately to a contradiction by implying that someone can exist apart from the means and process of existence that makes 'anything', let alone 'anyone' possible.

Such a contradiction arises from the mistaken belief that consciousness can possibly proceed that which gives rise to the process of consciousness by means of a complex highly evolved being by virtue of the preexisting universe in which the means and process of conscious became possible and emerged. To have a consciousness, one must first be conscious of the existence from which consciousness arose and to which consciousness applies. To be conscious of nothing is a contradiction of what it means to be conscious. There must first be something, existence, before there can be someone, a being conscious of existence.

[naomi24]

I’m attempting to get down to the nitty-gritty here of why people choose to believe that one particular god as opposed to another particular god was the creator of the universe. If it’s because the bible favours one, it could be argued that other sources favour another, so why believe the bible over and above everything else? It makes no sense.

[mibn2cweus]

I'm afraid that 'making sense', that is arriving at an understanding of ones own sensory experience requires a commitment to a disciplined process of reason that many people are not prepared to undertake, especially when the process brings into question and conflicts with what they simply prefer to believe.

[naomi24]

hmmmm .... a hopeless case then?

[mibn2cweus]

Unless and until they come to appreciate the value that a mutual understanding of our common realities presents to us by enabling and allowing us to participate in relationships that are mutually beneficial to us all.