Does the creation make sense without the creator?

Question

I'm not talking about describing its properties and how it's made;I'm talking about purpose&reason.We can describe an anthill all day everyday,&how its made of clumped dirt.But if the ants arent present or the anthill apears to be abandoned;then it doesnt make sense for it to be there if it had no purpose.
In the same way,can skeptics honestly say they know why the universe is here if they dont know the purpose&/or the creator?Cuase if there's no creator then there's no good reason&no bad reason for the universe to be here;it shouldnt even exist.Can you really separate the creation from it's creator&truthfully say what the purpose is?And wouldnt it be delusional&denial to say creation(anthill,universe ect) has no purpose when all things made/created have a reason for their creation?
Again, we can describe properties&how things are made all day,but what's the purpose of making something if it has no purpsose for being made?

And does it give you comfort to believe everything is random and spontaneous, so you dont have to deal with and understand the reality of God?

Answer 1

No. But as there was *no* creation, there is also *no* creator.

The Big Bang was an inflation, not a creation, and the diverse and splendid variety on life was largely evolution, not creation.

And who cares *why* the Universe is here (it's an impossible question with no answer, as there is no purpose at all)... let's determine more around *how* it's here (Big Bang initiation.)

[Edit]: I have a deal for you: You deal with God and I'll deal with the equal reality of Santa and the Loch Ness Monster (both, by the way, have *far* more sightings than any "creator".)

Answer 2

You seem to be confusing inhabitants and creators... I like you ant hill analogy in a way, because it represents things pretty well, if the ant hill were abandoned, it would be meaningless whether or not it existed, likewise, without sentient beings in the universe, it wouldn't mean anything that there was a universe because nothing would be consciously aware of it. But once there are ants in an ant colony, does it matter whether it was man-made, or made by those ants, or made by another species of ant entirely?...

Also, why should something need a reason to exist?... Do you know of any good reason why the planet orbitting closest to the star we call "Norma" exists?... What about the star Fornax?... I suppose Zeta Virgo has the exact same reason for existing?... Does your God provide reasons for all of these billions of stars other than making them pretty to look at from far away? Something as enormous and grand as the rest of the universe diserves at least a trillion times more of a reason for being that we do (this is far from being to scale, as we are MUCH smaller than even a trillionth of the galaxy, let alone the universe).

How do you know we aren't just here because we happened to orbit the pretty picture that is our sun which was made for someone else, and just happened to overhear a divine being talking to something else?...

Answer 3

You are committing the fallacy of assuming that it was "created". If we were to agree that the universe was created, then logically, yes...that would imply there is a creator.

However, you have only stated your opinion, and I don't agree to assume it was created, so your question about the creator becomes moot. Don't worry, it's a common rookie mistake.

I never said I know "why" the universe is here. Again...you are assuming there is a purpose...that is not the only choice. It is at least equally possible that the universe is just a random event that happened, and there simply is no purpose. The universe just is....because it is.

I happen to be fine with that.

I understand that you have a need to believe there is a purpose, you don't want it to just be meaningless random existence. But the truth exists in spite of you not accepting it.

Answer 4

Your question, and explanation assumes that:
1 - We are a creation; the universe was made by something.
and
2 - If something has no purpose granted to it, it should not exist.

The first assumption is moot for believers, and an assumption that nonbelievers won't accept without evidence. You didn't bother justifying the second, and it is not true unless the first assumption is also true...meaning that it's pointless for any purpose you may have had in communicating it.

To put it another way, "Does being a theist make sense without a god, and does being an Atheist make sense with a god?"

No matter which direction you're coming from, the question serves no purpose.

Answer 5

Why assume the creator is personal? That is why assume the eternal cause could have a temporally limited effect(i.e by virtue of the cause's free choice). In other word's, why assume God has free will and had somekind of reason to create his/her/it's creation. Heck, why assume there is a creator? Anyways, no one will ever know if there is or what the reason why were here is.

Answer 6

Everything within the universe is subject to Karma (Cause and Effect). We can see the effects being the universe but we don't know the Cause. You are assuming this Cause to be a God but the fact is, we don't know what the Cause is. This doesn't mean that one day scientists will not develop technologies to measure the existence of God.

Answer 7

while discussing technology vs. scientists etc, you're discussing "creators" that are difficulty to motives and prerequisites to upward push up themselves. No scientist or architect has ever popped into being from "nothingness", besides the undeniable fact that this writer "God" has been assumed to accomplish that, otherwise somebody or some thing might might desire to have created one in all those "writer", yet then one in all those "God" would not be so "proper" as claimed to be. maximum people who juggle this question are caught in dualistic thinking, linear time and fail to renowned the coolest judgment that not something in our commonly used universe arises with out motives and prerequisites, so the place might this "God" come from? Even any known theories on the "vast Bang" admit that it arose from motives and prerequisites, and there is not any such ingredient as "nothingness" because of the fact each and everything is created from some thing. I invite you to locate the Buddhist good judgment on the illogical nature of what you're presenting, and check out it with an open concepts. you do not might desire to be Buddhist to do it. sell off your theory of linear time (Alpha and Omega, commencing up and end) and toy with the possibility that there is not any such writer being as is presented. detect the theory that one and all issues, even your concepts, upward push up via motives and prerequisites etc... as quickly as you start up seeing the coolest judgment of such concepts, you are able to start working backward in direction of this theory of even if if there relatively is a writer god or not. wish this facilitates some. that's a extensive topic and not plenty area to debate it effectively right here. maximum Tibetan Gelug priests spend YEARS debating each and all of the candies that flatter this difficulty! LOL additionally, you will possibly get a kick out of examining the e book "The Quantum and the Lotus" by using Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan... that's a sturdy e book that discusses the scientific "stuff" ideal next to Buddhist philosophy and it only may well be ideal up your alley. _()_

Answer 8

How can you believe there is a Creator with a Creator Creator? You logic fails. There has to be something original (Aristotle's "First Cause"). There is no evidence that whatever was original had to be intelligent. Although a purpose is a nice thought, there is no evidence; it is pure supposition.

Answer 9

I would love to take the time to read your questions, but since you insist on not using decent grammar, I just can't get past the first sentence. You make my head ache. Salient questions that are short and come right to the point are best if you really want answers.

Answer 10

Maurice, I think you are not asking religious questions. This question is on the nature of Causality and Purpose, both of which are topics better suited for the Philosophy section.