Which seems more plausible: An uncreated deity, or an uncreated universe? Upon what do you base your answer?

Question

primoa: Thanks, but you didn't explain why one is more plausible than the other.

Samurai: Good point :-)

skeptic: A good honest answer! :-)

Medina: I really don't understand that answer, I'm sorry to say.

Answer 1

Neither...

God has no beginning and no end.

And He created the universe.

Well actually.....I sort of jumped there......God IS uncreated so.....the first one is the most plausible

Edit:
I believe the first to be true because we HAD to have a Creator.....and that Creator had to be eternal. We didn't just get here by some accident in space....it was God who created everything....including us

Answer 2

Whoever said the universe wasn't created at some point? I have no idea what happened to start this whole universe, but one thing I know; we live in it now, created or uncreated... but I've yet to see a sign of God's existence.

Both have been created, that's what I think. I have no idea what created the universe we live in, but I do know that humanity created deities. But the world of deities is simply a fantasy world, so anything can happen there, even uncreated deities... so uncreated deities is the most plausible of the two. Who's to say that it is the truth, though?

Answer 3

The issue here boils down to one of Kolmogorov Complexity. The more complex an entity is the more ways it could have been otherwise and hence the more unlikely it is. For a god to have uniquely created the universe it would need to be more complex than the universe it is creating. This can be easily be seen from the Definition of Kolmogorov Complexity and from the fact that this god would be in effect an algorithm for creating the universe. So an uncreated universe is more likely since it must be simpler.

The most likely scenario by far however is that the universe we observe is part of an uncreated uncaused, tautologically simple, infinite multiverse. Any amount of complexity needs to be accounted for, because if reality as a whole is complex then it is also correspondingly unlikely. Finite sets especially large ones must be complex to some degree. Only infinite or empty sets can be tautologically simple ( zero complexity ) and we know the universe is not empty.

Personally I know of only one thing which is known to be both uncreated (and uncaused) and tautologically simple, yet contains the infinite variety which would be needed to represent nature. That is mathematics. Unsurprisingly, we notice that mathematics also has incredibly deep correspondances with the reality we observe. I do not think this can be merely a coincidence. There have been far too many discoveries of physical phenomena based on mathematical beauty alone. Well known is Eugene Wigner’s famous paper of the "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Albert Einstein in his Sidelights on Relativity stated, "How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?"


While the space-time and mass/energy we observe may not appear to be mathematics to the unsophisticated observer, that is because our understanding of reality is layered. You see the world in terms of large physical objects. But you are aware that those are illusions made up of atoms, and atoms in turn are made of smaller particles. Most physicists today believe that these so called "fundamental" particles are not fundamental but are built on a deeper layer of mathematical objects. My belief is that all reality including space-time itself is built upon (actually is ) mathematics and mathematics itself is what is truly fundamental.

By mathematics we simply mean necessary logical truth.

The reason why we see top layers instead of lower layers is due to our inability to see all of the the details in the lower layers.

Answer 4

It relies upon. If the life of the uncreated smart author is posited to describe the life of intelligence in our universe, then the uncreated universe seems greater possible. If, on the different hand, the uncreated smart author is purely asserted to exist (without serving as an evidence for an journey) then they're the two possible. as an occasion, i could desire to declare that the dressmaker of a compute software is an "uncreated smart author" in that the molecules that make up his/her physique have continuously existed the two as count or power.

Answer 5

An uncreated universe is more unlikely because an uncreated God would have to be self sustaining, but an uncreated universe needs another cause if it is not created. and I don't think an eternal uncreated universe works either, since that universe would have burned out an eternity ago.

Answer 6

An uncreated Deity.

I base my answer on the following:

A) The universe is an incredibly complex mechanism, but is composed of materiality.

B) Matter, space and time begun to exist after the 'Big Bang'.

C) So there is a need for an immaterial reality to have created the 'Big Bang'. And that immaterial reality that created this universe must be an uncreated Deity: G-d Himself.

Answer 7

The Universe

- Occam's razor
- 1st Law of Thermodynamics implies a Universe that was always here in some form

Answer 8

An uncreated universe.

The spontaneous complexity necessary for an intelligent being capable of creating the universe exceeds that of the universe alone.

Answer 9

If things exists, that means that there is a principle of existence. That principle of existence must have always been, but there seem to be no necessity for matter to have always been.

Wrapping one's mind around the idea either way is difficult. But I believe that existence must be (a) good. I follow the scholastics in believing that "goodness" and "existence" are actually one and the same thing. We call something "bad"--like an ear--when it lacks that quality of its being which allows to hear well. An ear which is its own being consummated (which would include being attached to an organism with a brain) is a "good" ear.

Now existence is obviously its own being consummated, since it is by its nature the definition of being. Thus existence is perfect goodness--and thus we have one quality of the Christian God.

The next order of thought is time itself. Time is nothing more that a way to understand movement. If there is movement, then there is "before" and "after". "Before" this chair was at the desk, but "after" that it was moved, and so on. But being itself can have no movement--it is immutable. This is because consummate being must be pure actuality (as opposed to having any potianality). Existence simply is was it is--to quote Exodus, "I AM THAT AM". Thus we can say that being is "eternal" insofar as it lies outside of the human concepts of "before" and "after".

Know, does existence know itself? That is the defining question. Does simple immateriality imply absolute cognition? Some things have form and no intellect. Other things have an intellect, and thus are able to have forms other than themselves in themselves--i.e. as images in their mind. It seems to be that materiality itself is the reason a thing is contracted into incognition, whereas things which have aspects of themselves which are immaterial are to that degree cognitive.

So does existence know itself? To quote St. Thomas Aquinas,

"God [existence] understands Himself through Himself. In proof whereof it must be known that although in operations which pass to an external effect, the object of the operation, which is taken as the term, exists outside the operator; nevertheless in operations that remain in the operator, the object signified as the term of operation, resides in the operator; and accordingly as it is in the operator, the operation is actual. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima iii) that "the sensible in act is sense in act, and the intelligible in act is intellect in act." For the reason why we actually feel or know a thing is because our intellect or sense is actually informed by the sensible or intelligible species. And because of this only, it follows that sense or intellect is distinct from the sensible or intelligible object, since both are in potentiality.

Since therefore God has nothing in Him of potentiality, but is pure act, His intellect and its object are altogether the same; so that He neither is without the intelligible species, as is the case with our intellect when it understands potentially; nor does the intelligible species differ from the substance of the divine intellect, as it differs in our intellect when it understands actually; but the intelligible species itself is the divine intellect itself, and thus God understands Himself through Himself."

I find this far more plausible, not to mention more intellectually engaging, than matter coming from nothing, since matter is a participator in the principle of being, which precedes matter at least in idea.

Answer 10

An uncreated deity makes more sense, as deities can't be observed or measured, and don't obey any of the natural laws. The universe can be observed and measured and we judge what is natural based on our observances of the universe.

Answer 11

Is amazing to doubt of what is so obvious.

U just can not say about neither of both, coz at least in ur mind u already created them both: according to ur statement deity and universe already exists as concepts in ur brains...