Since the universe created all that is, doesn't that make it God?

Question

I believe that from the observence of the universe we will be lead to all knowledge, including past religion, and future science.
With religion there is only a basic understanding of God, but with science there is an advanced understanding.
Since the universe is just massive energy interacting, why not just call it God?

I will add an important detail if any one answers with a speific answer I am looking for.

Icyd.
THe universe is eternal.
Nothing ever reaches zero.
You can spilt an atom, but get rid of it you can not.

Answer 1

Your use of the word 'created' implies 'intent'. There is no compelling reason to think that 'intent' existed in the universe until intelligent life and consciousness (self-awareness) first evolved (as an 'emergent property') in the universe... whenever and wherever that might have been.

That said, though... the universe itself has been 'evolving' (changing, over time) for over 14 billion years. So, it has 'become' something different (more?) than it was in the past... and it will 'become' something more evolved (changed) than it is now, in the future. We know that complexity arises from simplicity. We know that self-organizing complex systems... which the universe definitely is... exhibit 'emergent' properties... unexpected features and functionalities of the 'whole' that are not evident (or even imagineable, sometimes) from consideration of the small-scale elements that make up the 'whole'. We also know that the transfer of information in fundamental reality is 'non-local' (not limited to the speed of light), per Bell's Theorem.

So... does this mean that the universe might some day achieve consciousness? I don't know.

Can we say that the universe has not already achieved consciousness? I don't know.

Is it possible that we are all small-scale elements involved in the efforts of the universe to understand itself? I don't know.

If the universe IS conscious, would it have supernatural capabilities? No. If it IS conscious, it would have gotten that way by natural means... emergent properties. Would the universe then be able to intervene in human affairs? Highly doubtful. Would the universe listen to and answer our individual prayers? LOL. That would be like asking if you listen to the prayers of your individual white corpuscles. Anyway... considering the time scale that we operate on, compared to that which the universe operates, the interval that represents a 'second' to the universe might very well represent a million years to us... not a scale on which effective communication is possible. A universe in which each of our lives would be perceived (if it was perceivable at all) as no more significant than a spark from a 4th of July sparkler. Where the entity's thought of "Oh, crap" (as it accidently destroyed 10,000 galaxies... a minor hiccup) would represent 100 million years, to us.

As you can see... this stuff is fun to think about... but it is of no practical use.

Anyway... I think the next 20 or 30 billion years should prove to be quite interesting. I can't wait.
.

Answer 2

Your theory is parallel to transcendentalism, in which "God" is the entire energy that makes up the universe. All humans are believed to be in interaction with this energy and are said to become a part of it once they have died. Buddhism follows a similar belief in which Buddha is a part of everything, and that every person is the other in that sense, that the entire universe is one.

Folks may say you're crazy, but it is a plausible theory. However, I personally believe that the Creator is somewhat greater than the universe itself, that the universe is merely a part of the Creator. Just as the Bible says that man was made in God's image, we can assume that God "created" the universe and thus created an interactive medium through which He would communicate. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the universe is a sort of body that God enters to speak, just as Jesus was a human vassal. The energy that we speak of may be that small part of the Creator that we can comprehend. It's pretty clear, judging by the complexity of the universe, that God is much too complex for the most intelligent of humans to comprehend.

Answer 3

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.


THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.



The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.


QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

Answer 4

It's a matter of perspective. You can see the universe as a cumulative entity, living and breathing new life every second and thus can be seen as God. With religion and science, it's hard to explain the matter because they tend to contradict each other, not by the subjects themselves, but by the people/beings explaining the matter.

Hence the posts above me. You can see the conflict already. A definite and truthful answer will not come from here that is for certain.

Answer 5

Because people in power won't be able to project their own desires onto "the universe". It would make them feel small, especially since we have a concept of the universe now.

You can't say..."The universe wants you to kill the enemy" now could you? Presidents and dictators would look pretty stupid trying to get you to die or kill people for "the universe". The original authors may have been trying to express this with the "alpha and omega" and all that, but Its better for the people in power to have a personified version of God. Its easier to convince people "what god wants" than what the supreme order of the universe is, the latter you would actually have to prove.

Answer 6

image that God is a guiding stress which could grant the types and good judgment for the enormous Bang to apply. there is skill (the Bang) in spite of the indisputable fact that it choose actualities to attempt at. A reason there is order extremely of chaos. in spite of the indisputable fact that it is a soft God who works by premiere and persuading, no longer capturing lightening bolts at everybody who displeases his royal highness (an theory borrowed from the Romans i think of). So issues crawl, consistently in direction of bigger and extra gratifying existence. after all, the universe is God's conciseness, the reality that provides him some thing to pay interest to.

Answer 7

The universe is our Creator, it should be loved and revered. I hold reverence for the universe, it made me and will take me when my time is over.

When we seek answers to the hows and whys of our existence we should be encouraged to learn the truth. Many religions discourage true knowledge seeking. The ancient stories of life and creation conflict with science, thus ignorance is preferred. My God doesn't fear questions and learning, the more we learn the closer we become to God.

Many religions work to separate us from God, they tell us that God is some elusive being not like us, I believe that God is us.

The universe is both the creation and the Creator, I choose to call it God.

Answer 8

Why not just call the universe "the universe"..?

There is no need to humour scientifically illiterate and hypocritical bronze age religious dogma by including their ficticious deity in the very sciences they have fought against, misrepresented and denied for so long..

A spade is a spade, and that should be enough.. The rest is unsubstantiated conjecture..

Answer 9

Those who hold a materialistic view believe that the instructions for life are deeply embedded in the cosmic matrix of matter and energy. It is like believing that the information in a book originate from the chemicals in the ink and paper on which it is written.

The same is true for the instructions for life. The atoms and molecules in DNA are not those instructions, they are building blocks used to form the chemical sequences that direct a host of cellular functions including data replication, repair, transmission, feedback looping and self-correction—all according to a “language,” blueprint and design originating elsewhere: the mind of God.

Answer 10

No. The universe is not God, and science is not for the purpose of trying to prove or justify any religion. In fact, the views of religion and the observations of science are incompatible.

.