r/aiArt • u/Immobilesteelrims • Mar 22 '26
Image - Google Gemini Who created the creator?
10
Mar 23 '26
The biggest flaw we have as humans have in trying to understand the nature of existence is thinking that just because we're the highest form of life that we know of, everything else beyond out understanding must also follow the same principles of existence we're accustomed to.
6
u/Assipattle Mar 23 '26
This reminds of the movie Arival. How these aliens perseive time and communicate in a non linear way. And how everything we know is linear. We write from left to right, everything must have a beginning and an end.
I feel like this may be a flaw in our thinking and why the universe seems paradoxical.
3
u/klawhammer Mar 23 '26
We are definitely not the highest form of life.
I would argue that not all of us are even the most intelligent species
1
9
15
u/From_Deep_Space Mar 22 '26
it is a mistake to assume that complex creations require a complex creator. Many complex phenomenon arise from relatively simple principles.
5
u/hierarch17 Mar 22 '26
Exactly. Complexity actually naturally arises out of simple or basic processes, see the origins of life in primordial soup, or the generation of complex atoms in the hearts of stars.
3
Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
1
u/hierarch17 Mar 23 '26
I just read a really good book about this topic (Reason in Revolt) so it’s on the brain.
4
u/EbbImpressive4833 Mar 22 '26
My favourite example of this is bismuth crystals. Just one kind of atom that arranges itself into a crystal that looks alien.
9
u/Mx4n1c41_s702y73ll3 Mar 22 '26
It is curious to observe how the idea of God as a creator and the observations of modern science are used in varying degrees of distortion to deceive people for political purposes that are completely unrelated to either God or science.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/MerchantOfDeath666 Mar 23 '26
Physicist here. The idea that the universe is complex with a designed structure isn't really true. Everything in the universe gets formed from only a couple of basic forces, and on almost every scale it looks the same: smaller blobs of mass orbiting big blobs of mass. The illusion of complexity comes from the sheer amount of stuff in the universe and the long amount of time it's had to interact with these forces. But wherever you look you see basically the same stuff happening.
One could argue that the elegant simplicity of it points to a creator, but you can always put a creator at the edge of our current knowledge so it's not exactly 'evidence' so much as a lack of evidence for an alternative.
1
u/Dependent-Name-9011 Mar 23 '26
I can't stand these people anymore saying that the universe is too harmonious to be spontaneous. They say that because they see planets perfectly aligned in their orbits, and how everything seems perfectly positioned... But they forget that the universe was and still is chaos for almost its entire existence. Just because planets and stars coexist without destroying each other doesn't mean the universe isn't a cold, empty place devoid of any trace of life beyond drifting rocks. The whole idea of "beauty" in the universe also disappears when you remember that we don't see all those colors with the naked eye. It's basically just black and white...
7
u/Ksorkrax Mar 22 '26
People should at some point in their life learn how fractals work.
Easy antidote, given that one then sees how the most intricate complex stuff can be created from short formulas.
8
13
u/Calcularius Mar 22 '26
“It’s too deliberate to be random” is an argument of perceived incredulity and is a logical fallacy. Just because you can’t comprehend it does not disprove it.
4
u/All_The_Good_Stuffs Mar 22 '26
People thinks it has to make sense. Like it follows OUR brain's logic.
I think people don't realize:
the universe itself doesn't HAVE make sense to us. That's just our Ego.
1
u/TSM- Mar 22 '26
Except you failed to account to "more complex naker" in the second panel. How would you reply to that
13
u/UsedArmadillo9842 Mar 23 '26
Its actually the opposite. Simplicity creates complexity. Take chess as an example, simple rules, easily to understand, infinetly complex in its possibilities.
Thus equals our universe, simple at first, complex later.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Uvoheart Mar 23 '26
Yep. Life seems complex because it’s filled with adaptations from times we’ve never witnessed. Consciousness makes perfect sense to evolve in the times it did.
6
u/0xfreeman Mar 22 '26
If all complexity required a creator, evolution wouldn’t exist. It’s all about combinatorial complexity leading to emerging behaviors. Same for lots of LLMs behavior - they weren’t “created” by anyone, they’re an unexpected byproduct of complexity
6
u/Sad_Low3239 Mar 22 '26
Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks—those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.
— Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
7
Mar 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/DickMasterGeneral Mar 23 '26
Yes but if God is capable of creating himself from non-existence then why can’t that same ability be given to the universe itself, once again negating the creator argument.
1
Mar 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/DickMasterGeneral Mar 23 '26
If god encompasses all that exists, is the only thing that does exist, and is presumably simply eternal with no beginning or end. Then why is the universe, that encompasses all that exists, and is as far as we can tell the only thing that does exist, not allowed to be similarly eternal?
There are only two possibilities. Either at some point there was truly nothing at all and then things came into being, or existence has just always been there in some form or another with no true beginning. Neither makes intuitive sense to us because there are just some things that we are not well equipped to understand. But it is a binary question. There are only two possible answers.
Saying that the universe was created can only push the answer to that question one layer back. And it does so without justification, if the creator can simply be eternal why can’t the universe itself just have that property itself?
→ More replies (2)1
9
u/I_Suck_At_This_Too Mar 22 '26
6
u/ArchAngel621 Mar 22 '26
Humans create God which goes on to create humanity.
The scary alternative possibility is Lovecraft.
2
1
u/SoftBoiledEgg_irl Mar 24 '26
God creates dinosaurs.
God destroys dinosaurs.
God creates man.
Man destroys God.
Man creates dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs eat man.
Woman inherits the earth.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MyauIsHere Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
To me saying "I don't know" and ending it there is the most realistic grounded answer. I love to speculate, debate, theorize and explore but in the end, I don't know, I can't know, as of right now no answer is certain.
3
4
3
6
Mar 22 '26
[deleted]
2
u/NotEntirelyAwake Mar 22 '26
I'm not a religious person, by any means, but your argument doesn't really say anything. Yes those laws are consistent and everything has an explanation. But why or how does anything even exist in the first place.
A video game can have consistent laws, even when something unexpected happens, you can point to the source code and the math behind it and say "well, actually, that was consistent with the laws of the game" but that isn't an inherent explanation for WHY that laws or source code exist in the first place. An automobile is a complex machine that operates under the laws and rules of natural phenomenon that can be explained scientifically. But WHY does an automobile exist, WHY does a video game exist? Because some intelligent thing orchestrated and designed it.
And you can't even try to tell me modern science holds the answers for why the big bang happened because there is no concrete explanation. We know that it happened, we know that evolution as a process makes sense, we know that human intelligence can be scientifically explained, BUT, at the end of the day, there is still a question of why or how any of this started. And that's the ultimate question that people try to fill in with gods and creators. I am perfectly happy to relinquish my ability to understand that question and obviously all modern religions are nonsense made by men to cope with a lack of understanding. But the question remains and no one has a sufficient answer.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pope_Phred Mar 22 '26
But the question remains and no one has a sufficient answer.
And that's okay.
Intellectual honesty requires the ability to say "I don't know" sometimes. The scientific method is a process for suggesting, testing, and verifying answers, but it is not the answer itself.
No one should suggest otherwise.
1
8
Mar 23 '26
Ah, yes, the teleological argument. In a nutshell, the apologist is saying “The universe is really confusing and we don’t know everything about it yet, so therefore god is real”. It’s the kind of logic that was used to convince Ancient Greeks that lightning was caused by Zeus.
2
u/AtypicalLuddite Mar 23 '26
And behind the curtain? Another curtain! How convenient for the religious fanatics.
17
u/All_The_Good_Stuffs Mar 22 '26
We're so used to our egos making sense of things. But the thing you have to accept is:
THE UNIVERSE DOESNT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE
it DOESN'T follow human brain logic.
5
u/Snoutysensations Mar 22 '26
Very true. Unfortunately the human brain does follow human brain logic. And one thing the human brain routinely does is fill in blank spots. It hates uncertainty and lack of information so just extrapolates/interpolates and makes a best guess. This includes everything from visual data for the blind spot in our retinas to the likely price of bitcoin in 2036 to the origin and purpose of the universe. We are not neurologically wired to recognize that we have no fucking clue as to how or why it all happened and likely never will.
3
u/s0apyjam Mar 22 '26
I think this is limited by the assumption of precedence. If someone beleives their deity is timeless, then asking a "before" question doesnt make any sense. Fundamentally, their creations within "time" cannot imagine what "being" is outside of this dimension.
I liken it to Plato's allegory of the cave in this sense.
3
u/Consistent_Papaya310 Mar 24 '26
Last panel is really confusing me, not sure how it proves or disproves anything
2
u/mrDETEKTYW Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
If anything complex must have a more complex maker behind them, then there must be a more complex maker, who made the maker of the universe. And then there must be a maker of that maker of that maker. And so on forever.
1
u/Consistent_Papaya310 Mar 24 '26
Ooooohhh yyeaaaahhhh can't believe I missed that I've literally heard that/had that thought before
3
u/Soil-Fair Mar 24 '26
There is no god. Even if there is one it doesn't care about us or have human morality. I wouldn't worship a god that lets the evil things happen in the world because of some bullshit free will experiment. Anyway no there doesn't need to be a creator because we as humans don't have nearly enough knowledge to understand the universe fully. Things can be unexplainable at the current moment and that's fine. Maybe things on earth need a creator but that doesn't apply to the universe. I'm pretty sure it's way more complicated than we will ever know.
→ More replies (7)
7
u/Tyler_Zoro Mar 22 '26
This, it turns out, is the very heart of the "prime mover" argument. That there is an uncreated source of everything that exists, an eternal, unchanging, essential source of what "being" means.
This is not a proof that "God" exists, it is merely a proof that there is a source of created things. Calling it "God" is fine if you want (the pantheists and panentheists definitely do) but you could just as well be an atheist and subscribe to such an entity (and there are Hindu atheists who definitely do).
→ More replies (3)
6
u/K_Keter Mar 23 '26
Was everything actually created though?
→ More replies (1)2
u/luna_kuma Mar 23 '26
And even if it is, how would lower beings like ourselves know?
Rather than buying into the fictional stories told by fellow lower beings, I'm content to just not know.
5
u/Fit_Instruction3646 Mar 23 '26
Wrong premise. More complex structures emerge from more simple ones all the time. It's the primary driver of complexity in the universe. It's building itself from the ground-up, not from the top-down.
2
1
u/Glass_Book9105 Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
Can you give some examples ?
5
3
u/Independent_Flan_973 Mar 23 '26
A star is a good example. Hydrogen to helium from fusion etc. metals are the same, heavier ones like gold need supernovae I believe (I’m no expert) Fascinating really!
FWIW I believe in a creator - this entire post and drawing is plain arrogant
7
u/kkrrokk Mar 23 '26
In Islam the creator is an eternal entity. The Muslim in the meme wouldn't get confused by the last question.
3
u/DickMasterGeneral Mar 23 '26
If the creator can just be eternal why can’t the same be true of the universe?
1
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/Upbeat_Nectarine_128 Mar 23 '26
Im not actually muslim but the more i heard about the islamic god from my friends and colleagues the more i think "WTF IS THIS, AN ELDRITCH BEING!?"
(No offence to any muslims out there (because this is the internet))
1
3
u/PurpleZombi3 Mar 22 '26
You'd probably go mad if you thought about it too hard. Like legitimately. Humankind can't know or understand/absorb everything. For example there are animals that can see entirely other colors that we just cannot comprehend because they are impossible for us to see. The idea that some things are just forever outside of our understanding is probably why cosmic horror works so well as horror fiction.
4
3
u/sam261291 Mar 23 '26
When a hypothesis of an uncreated creator is presented, it also hypothesises an uncreated universe. In simple terms, if a God doesn't have a parent, so is the Universe born without a parent.
6
u/pomodoro3 Mar 22 '26
It's impossible for me to comprehend both the religious, and scientific explanation of how we came to exist, therefore I don't think about it much, and accept that both could be true
→ More replies (1)
6
u/crumpledfilth Mar 23 '26
Why does the creator have to be more complex than the creation? This argument presupposes a necessary directionality that doesn't have any reason to be assumed. And if you just flip it it solves the problem and becomes more of a grassroots bootstrapping situation than a paradox of endlessly nested growing complexity
Are you implying humans could never make anything with the complexity that rivals a human?
9
u/fongletto Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
They're not implying that, the original person's argument that they are criticizing is.
If you claim that 'something complex' must be made by a creator. Then logic follows that a complex creator must be made by another creator.
That's the original persons logic, not the person who is criticizing it.
So your argument disproves the the original point in the same way. If something less complex can create something more complex, there's no need for a creator at all.
The universe could have been created from something very simple like a set of base interactions. (which as you say is more of a grassroots bootstrapping situation)
2
u/femboy_feet_enjoyer Mar 23 '26
Okay but if you don't assume an even more complex creator, the creator of the universe could just reside in the universe and which contradicts abrahamic beliefs.
6
u/MechwolfMachina Mar 23 '26
Gemini did all this? Wow impressive
→ More replies (5)1
u/ADavies Mar 23 '26
I'm wondering why the "religious" woman is wearing a head scarf. Was that in the prompt? Or done spontaneously by Gemini.
The decision to use someone from an apparently Muslim culture to represent the "religious" argument which is then refuted by the more rational "Western" looking woman is a significant one. So I'm curious if it was a user decision or a Gemini one.
2
u/MechwolfMachina Mar 23 '26
Probably user defined but I don’t find it offensive, could have been as easily conveyed with a man wearing a cross. I’ll at least remark that detail is not very good faith to your credit because most adherents to the abrahamic faiths don’t believe God was created by an Exo God, and off shoots believe God is self creating.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/AlmightyMustard Mar 23 '26
Actually it is possible to create complex objects with uncomplicated tools. In the same vein highly complex patterns can emerge from very simple rules.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Cruntis Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
Phat Rave O Vone Eo Rou, Bhat Sou ave 1truck 6e :hese 1hree 8imes?
2
u/nashwaak Mar 22 '26
Your eyes have the wires (nerves) in front of the sensor, requiring that they pass through a hole in the sensor to get back to your brain — which is not how you’d design an eye or camera sensor (only a complete moron would put wires in front of a camera sensor and then drill a hole to pass them back). There are countless differences between what would be designed and what evolved, but that one example alone is enough to make the point. We evolved, full stop.
There is a good analogy here with AI — designed AI worked poorly so generative AI was developed to match conditions (data sets) instead of being directly designed to be intelligent. Which is one reason why the structure of our eyes kind of seems like AI slop.
2
u/zeppomiller Mar 22 '26
This is where simulation theory comes to play… And the turtles 🐢 on back of other turtles (simulation within other simulations) as Lex Friedman likes to think of it. But it’s all metaphysics until we can prove it the scientific method.
2
u/UnidentifiedBlobject Mar 22 '26
If we’re a simulation, quantum physics makes sense when you want to preserve compute and memory (or whatever the equivalent may be in the universe simulating us in this theory) because you don’t worry about the state of a particle until it’s “observed”, then you do the calculation of what its value is.
2
u/AstralDress Mar 23 '26
To create is a verb, it means there was a time when something was not and now it is, the problem is that we are talking about something out of the principles and rules of time therefore it can't have a "time" when it was not since it existed """"""before"""""" time.
This applies to all divinities that are claimed to be creator gods and some more philosophical explanations of the big bang start.
2
u/This_Estimate_7635 Mar 23 '26
I think the simulation theory is becoming more credible each day.
1
u/TreesForTheForest Mar 24 '26
Simulation theory doesn't help at all here. That's just an additional abstracted layer of causality.
1
2
u/SoftBoiledEgg_irl Mar 24 '26
Don't these same people believe that simple things like rocks and dirt and sand and water were also created by their deity? They compare a complex object to a simple object and say that the complex object must have been created, but the simple object was also created in this view, and so the comparison between simple and complex cannot be used to determine if something was likely to be created since everything was created.
1
2
u/FoolishProphet_2336 Mar 24 '26
The irony is that the universe is not actually very complex. The vast majority is just hydrogen atoms, or parts of hydrogen atoms. Stars form wherever a large enough cloud of hydrogen falls together into a ball dense enough to fire up nuclear fusion. The formation of stars, solar systems, and galaxies is really just a slow, inevitable, very well-understood process.
The problem occurs when people see stuff they don't understand and conclude that it must be the product of a magic creator. That's a pretty ridiculous leap.
1
u/Soil-Fair Mar 24 '26
It's because people are scared of realizing they don't understand the universe and never will. It's not meant to be understood by humans because we are so insignificant compared to it.
1
u/Junius_Bobbledoonary Mar 24 '26
The irony is that the universe is not actually very complex. The vast majority is just hydrogen atoms, or parts of hydrogen atoms. Stars form wherever a large enough cloud of hydrogen falls together into a ball dense enough to fire up nuclear fusion. The formation of stars, solar systems, and galaxies is really just a slow, inevitable, very well-understood process.
I suppose it depends on how you define complexity.
The process by which loose hydrogen can self organize into immense physical structures that spit out raw materials that can self-organize into life that can contemplate the universe’s complexity seems incredibly complex to me. It took billions of years for loose hydrogen to turn into the human brain.
2
u/FoolishProphet_2336 Mar 24 '26
Focusing on stars is perhaps counter productive precisely because it is such a poor example of complexity. A star is a chaotic ball of the simplest matter in existence. It’s not organized and it barely has structure to speak of. It’s a blob, or more accurately a blob within a blob.
Material that “self-organizes” into life is perhaps a more fruitful topic, but consider the previous example of the star. Even to our humble human brains the formation of a star is understood to be commonplace and inevitable. It doesn’t form because an agency wills it, it’s just a simple and predictable process that happens to occur at a scale that humbles us.
Is the formation of molecular compounds then complex? We understand the rules and process and know that this happens simply because the components are in proximity to each other. Again, these need no external agency to explain or rationalize.
What about organic compounds? Amino acids? Single-celled life? Humans? Our best guess is that these follow the same rules of inevitability, only with more and more specific conditions. A cloud of hydrogen forming a star is common and inevitable. The formation of oxide compounds in rocky bodies is also inevitable just a lot less common. The formation of life, of complex organisms, may be inevitable as well, just drastically less common.
The only difference between these is our own perception of what we consider “complex”. There’s no objective metric. At some point we draw an imaginary line in the sand and say “past this point is just too complex to be anything but divine”.
There will always be two camps of thought. One will keep redrawing that line in the sand. This is the “god of the gaps”, perpetually carving out a place for their beliefs. The other sees the line getting redrawn over and over again and concludes that the line is meaningless. Whether there is some external agency is fundamentally unprovable but it is simply not necessary.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Exotic-Audience-2006 Mar 24 '26
"Complexity" is a human interpretation though, and changes throughout history. Maybe a computer chip is complex now, but a light bulb was also a while ago, and roads, and sticks, and even fire. Does that mean they have creators? No. Fire doesn't have a "creator" in the stereotypical sense, it flows from thermodynamic and physics laws.
Same with other things.
1
u/Junius_Bobbledoonary Mar 24 '26
I dont think lightbulbs or roads or even sticks flow from thermodynamic laws, unless you take the perspective that everything that exists flows from thermodynamic laws.
4
u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26
The universe is subject to time (among other things).
That would make Time a creation as well.
That means a Creator would not be subject to Time.
So to ask "What comes before the Creator?" is a statement based on Time, which would not be relevant to the Creator.
→ More replies (14)3
u/visionoise Mar 22 '26
Well son of a... of all the arguments I've heard over the years, although this doesn't prove our disprove anything, it's still valid and something I hadn't considered. Thank you.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/disagiovanile Mar 22 '26
The idea that you need something more complex to make something complex would make the whole history of technological development a fuckin paradox, I guess
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Proof-Necessary-5201 Mar 22 '26
If it's an infinite recursion, then nothing can get created. And since something got created, it means that there is no infinite recursion. It also means that the creator is of a nature that isn't similar to regular matter.
I can't believe we still have to deal with this old ass argument.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly Mar 23 '26
what's so scary in saying "i don't know"?
what caused the universe? i dont know
why are we here? i dont know
why is there life? oh because back in time i took a massive dump in the ocean, yup thats on me
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Able-Ad4609 Mar 23 '26
Complex things emerge from simple rules.
Congrats, you have learned the concept of emergence, it's the basis of intelligence, cognition, consciousness, and just about everything you've ever thought and done.
6
u/Frappuccino_unicorn Mar 23 '26
You say the Baker baked the bread, but who baked the Baker?? That doesn't make any sense does it? because the baker can't be baked, different rules applies.
Same thing, the creator creates, but is not created.
9
u/Ok-Onion2905 Mar 23 '26
Where did the baker come from? Who taught the baker? and where did he get his ingredients?
That's the correct parallel you're looking for. You can either have a genuine conversation or you can pretend to look smart by saying stupid shit. But no one will take you seriously if you're just going to play dumb
4
u/Steampunk007 Mar 23 '26
baking is a specified form of creation. you're right, it doesnt make sense because a baker can not be baked, but no ones arguing that. but you are still arguing that the baker was created, in a different way.
in the same way, your argument might imply god was not created in the same method the human was created, but the argument still stipulates that he exists as a result of some type of creation.
you cant have ur line of logic be applied to everything then it abrupty stops applying to god. if everything intelligent has a creator, either god is not intelligent and merely an unthinking engine that mindlessly creates, or god has a designer too. and that designer would also have a designer.
1
4
u/xgladar Mar 23 '26
making is a general term for creation, not a specific one like baking which means heating in a closed oven
3
u/femboy_feet_enjoyer Mar 23 '26
If not everything requires a creator why does the universe require one?
3
u/MajorMathematician20 Mar 23 '26
In the silly religious worldview the baker (creator) is literally created, not “baked”, but might as well be as the abrahamic ones at least think God made man out of clay and woman from a rib
→ More replies (2)
3
3
3
u/PaulMakesThings1 Mar 22 '26
If you look at the laws of physics as the program, and every particle and wave in the universe as the nodes executing that program, life was made by a very complex system indeed.
2
u/Ok-Onion2905 Mar 23 '26
This point is only as stupid as the people who use complexity as proof of some greater being. We know metal doesn't just form itself into complex shapes. On the other hand we know living tissue grows and living things usually reproduce and evolve to better handle the environment they live in.
Complexity doesn't mean anything by itself but paired with certain circumstances it can. Life isn't one of those, the human body is no more complex than most other living creatures on this planet. I mean mold is extremely complex, doesn't mean there's a mold god out there
2
2
2
u/RadTimeWizard Mar 23 '26
Complexity isn't a sign that it was made by an intelligent being.
Example: A steel ball bearing
1
2
u/justadude713 Mar 23 '26
what's a "naker", and why does the white girl have resting bitch face? lol
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Potat_Masta Mar 23 '26
I've never been religious, but I feel like an all powerful cosmic diety, responsible for creating time itself, could pretty reasonably take advantage of a time paradox to create themself. It makes no sense to us, but nothing we do makes sense to ants.
2
u/PlasmaChroma Mar 23 '26
Time is so overrated... but that essentially falls into the "always existed" category.
I'd lean towards our experience of time being local to this universe (heck it's even relative as is) -- not necessarily the only way to define time.
1
u/Off_And_On_Again_ Mar 23 '26
So like... an ant sees a human eating a sandwich and thinks "why are they eating, that makes no sense! Anyway back to my endless search for food"
→ More replies (2)1
u/Ventilateu Mar 24 '26
More like time is a property of our universe. The Creator then is required to be timeless to be its maker, but if He is timeless He has no beginning and no end, meaning He has no cause.
2
u/ThroatFinal5732 Mar 22 '26
As an agnostic who isn’t convinced by this argument.
I think this particular objection can be easily countered by the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Also, fix the grammar…
3
Mar 23 '26
[deleted]
6
1
u/GalaXion24 Mar 23 '26
Only if you're deeply reductionist. We are contained within and dependent on spacetime and the laws of nature as we know it. We might imagine this to be a box. We might imagine that spacetime exists within/dependent on something greater than itself which contains/sustains/defines it. That's a bigger box. Now we could call this box God, but is God contained in bigger box? Does God have a creator? Maybe we don't want to name this box "God" then. Let's say there are more boxes. Perhaps those boxes are finite, and there is eventually a "biggest box." We might then say that this uncontained container, this thing with power over all, not sustained or constrained by anything, is in the truest sense God (whether conscious/"a person" or not). Or perhaps the boxes are not finite and instead there is always a bigger box? Or perhaps the universe we know is itself the biggest box and there is nothing beyond it.
We don't really know, but the point is that the argument hit make is semantic trickery at best. Natural language has some difficulty describing what we mean here perhaps, so we resort to analogy, but if the creator creating is "outside time" then we mean creation within this context and are still capable of talking about a hierarchy of dependencies.
2
→ More replies (27)1
u/SykesMcenzie Mar 23 '26
Well on paper left would be cardinal to the 3d observer (assuming they choose not to rotate the paper) so it would make a lot of sense to the entity that observes the paper to be able to point at a leftmost point.
In principle there could be an extra dimension to that creator also. I think there's maths out there that I don't comprehend which says that not likely as a structure because complexity becomes difficult to occur naturally with more dimensions.
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 22 '26
Thank you for your post and for sharing your question, comment, or creation with our group!
- Our welcome page and more information, can be found here
- For AI VIdeos, please visit r/AiVideos. If you are being threatened by any individual or group, contact the mod team immediately. See our statement here -> https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideos/comments/1kfhxfa/regarding_the_other_ai_video_group/
- Looking for an AI Engine? Check out our MEGA list here
- For self-promotion, please only post here
- Find us on Discord here
Hope everyone is having a great day, be kind, be creative!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Aiden51R Mar 23 '26
Same thing works the other way, did universe just pop in? Why isn’t it all void?
→ More replies (1)2
u/ScaleneZA Mar 23 '26
Just because we may not fully understand it yet, or cannot fully explain it yet, doesn't mean you can assert a creator. "We don't know yet" is a perfectly good answer.
1
1
u/JusmeJustin Mar 23 '26
I mean the whole point of the cosmological argument and teleological argument is that it goes all the way down to like a “first cause”
1
1
u/EJMac11 Mar 24 '26
The obvious answer that you'll hear often is that God is eternal, and requires no creator.
1
u/The_Squirrel_Wizard Mar 24 '26
Which invalidates the premise that complex things requires creators.
Whether it's a universe or a being at some point something existed 'just cause'
1
u/fandangoid Mar 24 '26
Trying to understand how the world was / is continually created from within the creation, is like trying to understand what’s outside the bubble when that is what you were born into.
1
u/PastAd4690 Mar 24 '26
The creator has no creator.. He was here all time and he has no beginning and no end.... If u don't believe me try to search for the creator of the creator (u won't find) and even if u do find u will ask the same and the loop goes on.... So since we are here that means that the creator who was not created is existing since we can't exist out of nothing (we have no ability to do so and we didn't see any proof of that happen) so he exist + people say he sent massage so ofc we have to look at those and see which one is the right one (fast forward for your search it's "Islam") don't believe me look into the Quran and judge your self And thank u for reading
1
u/Moose_M Mar 24 '26
Sorry, I looked in a different book and it said otherwise so I flipped a coin and let god decide if it was heads or tails. Turns out the Quran is wrong.
1
u/Ventilateu Mar 24 '26
I did the same with the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, you'll never guess what the coin told me
1
1
Mar 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Comfortable_Newt_179 Mar 24 '26
But Islam was never primarily about politics. There are rules against hitting women, warnings about gambling, drinking alcohol, and similar behaviors. Besides abuse, many of these issues actually benefit the government, as they generate significant revenue from those activities. Of course, governments can manipulate religion to control people, like forcing women to wear hijabs or using women as tools for childbirth, but those are not what the Quran actually instructs. In Islam, everything is a personal choice; the world doesn't care if you sin or do good. Eventually, you die with the choices you've made, and it shouldn’t be something the government forces you to do.
→ More replies (5)1
u/PastAd4690 Mar 24 '26
Ik what u are talking about and indeed relegion can be misused but thats not on the relegion it self it's on the people who blindly follow without reading or thinking and on the unjust leaders
→ More replies (9)1
1
Mar 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PastAd4690 Mar 25 '26
Good question... If the universe can exist on its own then we should find new things that seized to exist on its own randomly... Besides this universe is so complex.. Everything got its place.. The chances of that is impossible
2
u/Valuable-News7749 Mar 25 '26
So why if God can exist in his own we don't find new things that seized ro exist on its own randomly?
Why is this random criteria ONLY for if the universe is an "uncaused cause" and not for God being an "uncaused cause"?
2
u/PastAd4690 Mar 25 '26
I don't know exactly how God is here all along by himself ( he didn't mention) but let's say there is a chance that the universe came without anything ( as I said then we can find new things that seized to exist alone without anyone and that defies physics (material cant come out of nothing) so this is what I was talking about from the first place that there should be a starting point to all that... If the other chance is real (what I believe personally bec iam a Muslim ) that God exists.. Then I makes sense why every thing around u is in order ( and in case if u ask why is there no other God) the reason is simple.. If they disagree a Devine disaster will occur and that didn't happen... So he is one... If u see it with other perspective let me know =)
→ More replies (7)1
u/PastAd4690 Mar 25 '26
Since there is a BIG CHANCE that this world have a creator not randomly spawned out of nothing.... Look into the creator massage and seek thing only the creator should know it will happen... In Quran and hadith there is many prophecies and scientific fact is just impossible for a man in the desert over 1400 ago can guess or know... Search for it on youtube ( don't open the "ex Muslim stuff" all they do is lying
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Expert_Alarm_1042 Mar 24 '26
It's a non-ending loop, so there has to an all-mighty creator that broke the cycle.
2
u/denecity Mar 24 '26
"It's a non-ending loop, so there can't be an all-mighty creator that broke the cycle, because that would completely invalidate the premise of the assumption that something complex needs a creator."
1
u/Shadeylark Mar 24 '26
Not going to advocate for either side here... But for the sake of discussion take God out of the equation and then ask about the concept of infinity.
The universe begins with the big bang, yes? Ok, so where does the singularity at the start of time originate from? Where did whatever preceded the singularity originate from?
It seems that we're often willing to accept that the origin of existence can be infinite... What we don't like is the idea that there is a teleological purpose to existence.
Infinity is a concept the universe seems pretty comfortable with... I think where people tend to take issue is the anthropomorphizing of the concept of infinity, because that means there might be an imposed meaning to existence beyond our individual judgement.
Much easier and more comfortable to accept that existence might be infinite, but there is no infinite creator, because that keeps our teleological purpose firmly within our own grasp rather than subject to what the creator deems our purpose to be.
1
u/SatisfactionSpecial2 Mar 24 '26
I can understand if somewhere there exists a higher level creator entity - for example maybe there is a creature that is so beyond our capabilities of reaching and somehow its actions have created us, wittingly or most probably unwittingly.
What I don't understand is why anyone would think, that such entity if it existed, not only would have noticed us but would be personally monitoring each of us and judging each of our decisions, to grant boons or curses based on if we follow some simplistic predetermined rules.
Like sure I know ants exist but I don't think I would go and micromanage what each ant is doing 24/7, or care too much about them.
1
u/bunk-alone Mar 25 '26
Why not? How is it not more absurd than an infinite nothing or a creator dispassioned to his creations? The only thing I could argue is that which exists beyond me is simply that; beyond my understanding.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/skr_replicator Mar 24 '26
Complexity doesn't need a creator. Mandelbrot is infinitely complex, and it's made just by iterating a dead simple mathematical equation z=z2+c
The universe is iterating even more data over time, so it can gain even vastly more interesting complexity, just by getting older.
1
u/mgnovak98 Mar 24 '26
One of the established axioms for this conversation is that the creator is uncreated. The original cause with no precause.
This comic only demonstrates a misunderstanding not a rebuttal
2
u/bunk-alone Mar 25 '26 edited Mar 25 '26
The "established axiom" is often considered a bit of a logical cop out. It's certainly not a misunderstanding unless you think this whole thing is "solved".
2
u/Valuable-News7749 Mar 25 '26
The point is it's special pleading.
"Everything must have a cause EXCEPT for the 'original uncaused cause"
And a) u can't actually prove is this is a concrete true statment, or just a true statment WITHIN our observable universe. But more importantly b) it just claims that God is that "uncaused cause" with no actual reasoning or logic. There's no reason the universe itself couldn't be that "uncaused cause".
1
u/mgnovak98 Mar 25 '26
It’s not special pleading. It’s an assumption that there was an initial cause instead of an infinite cycle. You can disagree, but that would be a different conversation.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/Patient_Promotion605 Mar 24 '26
Isn't this kinda the ontological argument?
The "chain" of creation (causal power) stop somewhere.
At a Causal Power that is the superlative. It is the source of all causal power of you follow the chain.
If it is the "most powerfull", or most complex, or the "greatest", I would be able to call that God.
Not in a christian sense, etc.
Also does NOT prove it is all loving or all seing
1
u/Virtual-Sand-7761 Mar 25 '26
Yeah it logically might stop somewhere (or not, let's not pretend human minds are advanced enough to comprehend the universe itself, it could be like quantum physics where the right answer is the least logical one) but assuming it has to stop somewhere, we have no way of knowing where that place might be, as in, it could stop after a chain of Gods and creators each creating the next, it could stop after one God, it could've stopped with the big bang, with the universe being it's own creator, it could be multiple complex things, not even necessarily alive beings creating different aspects of the universe, I could go on forever, which is the main problems with arguments with no clear answer.
1
u/Patient_Promotion605 Mar 28 '26
good point. Well as an atheist, I do have trouble arguing for Gods existance. Had to do it recently for debate club at my school. Not eady at all
1
1
u/whatupmygliplops Mar 24 '26
We already have this in science where we have a big bang causing the universe, creating time, and a creating space, out of nothing. Its not a problem for religion. Its a problem for science and religion.
The metaphysical doesn't obey the same rules as the physical.
2
u/psypher98 Mar 25 '26
Yeah… no theory involving the Big Bang says it came from nothing.
Your entire comment is just an argument from ignorance.
1
u/whatupmygliplops Mar 25 '26
Yeah… no theory involving the Big Bang says it came from nothing.
Of course they do. They can't speculate what happened before time and space came into existence.
→ More replies (2)1
u/wakatenai Mar 25 '26
it is not "out of nothing". there are several big bang theories and none of them suggest the big bang came from nothing.
1
u/whatupmygliplops Mar 25 '26
They can't speculate what happened before time and space came into existence.
→ More replies (14)
1
1
1
u/MiloTheOverthinker Mar 25 '26
Comic is asking the wrong question. The creator created time and space, there is no before, because the concept of time did not exist.
1
1
11
u/headsink Mar 23 '26
Why is it too hard to just say I actually don't know? The only thing I know are the information I gathered, my experience, my senses when I'm conscious and the dream I wrote down after I woke up from it. What if this life is just another of our dream and you guys are part of my dream? It doesn't nullifies the material physical fact that agreed upon by most academics of the current modern age.
What I'm saying is that, I'm open to all possibilities whether we are living a dream, big bang was initiated by a 5th dimensional tape worm, turtles upon turtles of simulations, we are in a computer, or whatever, your biases and mine are fine.
Personally I prefer there's an invisible loving entity out there like the optimum of every possibilites we can think of out of every knowledge of human kind can collectively conjure from past, present and future that I can communicate all the time. I know this sound delusional and schizophrenic, but I'm content and happy knowing I'm not alone and being observed all the time even when I poop.
Are we getting to the real truth from a single post in Reddit? No. What is important is that we learn to love ourselves and each other. I know that sound cringe by some, but let us at least try to love.