Home » Features » Did The Universe Have A Creator?

If there is an immovable prime mover of all things,
how can it move any one thing, including itself?
As such, the universe is an interdependent web [network]
of moving [changing] physical and psychical parts.

- Stonepeace

From “Why ‘Intelligent Design’ Lacks Intelligence (The Daily Enlightenment Book 3)” – “Ironically, if it is a rule that ‘there must be a creator’, it means that this uncreated rule precedes the ‘creator’. This rule, being a law of nature, implies that nature precedes the ‘creator’, that no ‘creator’ can precede nature. Since nature precedes the ‘creator’, the ‘creator’ is of course not the ‘creator’ of nature. This simple proof shows that no one can create nature, and that there can be no ‘creator’.” Nature thus naturally ‘is’, while it allows for natural and willed (d)evolution of its inhabitants and the universe itself.

A ‘creator’ by definition is not the created. But what if there is a ‘creator’ who is part of nature? If ‘he’ is part of nature, how can ‘he’ create it? For instance, a painted character in a painting cannot paint the whole painting, that includes ‘himself’. The painter cannot be (part of) that painted. The painter must precede the painting, just as the ‘creator’ before nature. Yet, there cannot be a ‘creator’ who precedes nature, as shown by the proof in the excerpt. And if a ‘creator’ is already part of nature, there will be no need (or ability) to create nature. This again proves there can be no ‘creator’.

Also, to say a ‘creator’ is part of nature means ‘his’ essence is (omnipresent) within nature. The immeasurable suffering due to countless natural disasters in history however implies that if such a ‘creator’ exists, ‘he’ is not omnipotent, omni-benevolent or omniscient, as ‘he’ fails (to know how) to prevent any disaster with ‘his’ power, compassion and wisdom. Are we, if we are the created, instead to blame for such suffering? Surely, the inherent faults or fallibility of a ‘creator’s creation’ arise from the ‘maker’, and not from the created. So it seems, as the Buddha suggested, such a ‘creator’ idea was created from the lack of enlightenment.

We (re)create ourselves and the universe
from moment to moment with our
individual and collective thoughts, words and deeds.

- Stonepeace

He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma [equivalent to creator God idea] set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limit can restrain [if he is omnipresent and omnipotent],
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are all his creatures condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail [if he is omni-benevolent]?
Why triumphs falsehood — truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one the unjust among
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.

- Bhuridatta Jataka, No. 453

If there exists some lord all-powerful to fulfill
In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill,
That lord is stained with sin.
The human being does but work his will.

– Mahabodhi Jataka, No. 528

Related Articles:

Should We Compare Religions?
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/12/should-we-compare-religions
Why ‘Intelligent Design’ Lacks Intelligence
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/221
How the Goldilocks Effect Affects You
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/305
Was the Buddha a Free-Thinker?
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/11/was-the-buddha-a-free-thinker
Coldness, Darkness & Poor Reasoning
http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/02/cold-darkness-poor-reasoning

11 Responses to “Did The Universe Have A Creator?”

  1. avatar

    My 2 cents worth..

    I think the article has a lot of play of words, logical and philosophical positioning..

    In the Kalama sutta the Buddha told us not to go by logical deduction, instead to use our own experience, what we can observe and reasons.

    Put it simply, I don’t believe the creator-god of popular religions exist because it would be hard to explain why there are so much suffering in the world. And Buddhist world view seems most adequate in explaining why suffering exist.

  2. avatar

    The last 2 Jataka quotes relay a similar message. They are also based on some logical deduction, that is aligned with the observable truth in the last paragraph of the article.

    ;-)

  3. avatar

    I feel that the Jataka quotes lean towards empirical observations and questioning. Not just logical deduction.

    The article on the other hand depends a lot on what/how we define “nature”, what can and can’t precede “nature” and if god is or is not part of nature.

    I will nt be convinced just by reading the article alone. But that’s just me.

  4. avatar

    Sorry.. to be more specific, when I say I am not convinced or that the article has a lot of philosophical positioning and play on words, I was referring to the first 2 paragraphs.

    The last paragraph is fine with me.

  5. avatar

    Er… it was not mentioned that the quotes are about ‘just logical deduction’. As mentioned, ‘They [Jataka quotes] are also based on some logical deduction, that is aligned with the observable [empirical] truth…’ (Likewise, the article has a measure of the above elements.)

    The article does not ‘play on words’. It looks at the definitions of key terms and proceeds to see if they make sense when put together. You can see how the last paragraph connects to the second, which connects to the first as a whole.

    :cheerful:

  6. avatar

    Well.. then we’ll have to agree to disagree then :-[

    :))

  7. avatar

    The article overlooks the possibility that some form of nature, empty but with laws, preceded a creator, who then formed existence as we know it. From a scientific standpoint we can see that reasoning logically about anything preceding the beginning of the universe (if there was one) is impossible, as there is no way to form a relationship between anything now in the universe as it is and anything before it began in order to carry out such reasoning. Furthermore, the article assumes a linear structure of time, which as we presently understand it does not exist; time is relative and so-called ‘paradoxes’ exist all over the place. The point is, time as we experience it is relative to our human perception and so we cannot conceive of anything other than the passing of time as we see it; in fact, it is quite plausible given our most prevalent (and limited) theories concerning space-time that nature preceded a creator, and yet this creator created nature.

    It’s easy to overlook the fact that the universe exists and functions beyond the scope of our capability to comprehend it. We are, after all, only human. :-)

  8. avatar

    The definition of a creator is one who creates everything – including a blank canvas. To say there is a blank canvas before the creator begs the question of who created the canvas.

    The idea of a blank canvas with some laws already there means laws of nature are already there, which means the so-called creator didn’t create them. And if so, and since a creator is supposed to create everything, this isn’t a creator.

    Modern science is open to the idea that the universe undergoes cycles of expansion and contraction. This is in line with what the Buddha taught in the sutras too.

  9. avatar

    An infinity of big bangs, all feeding each other in infinity.

    Don’t hurt, teach, pass on knowledge, take care of the weak.

    Say- thank you

  10. avatar

    According to Hinduism, the creator of our world system is the god Brahman. This might be true since Buddhas themselves can create their own Purelands.

  11. avatar

    Buddhism is not Hinduism. According to Buddhism, there is no creator god. The Buddha’s account of how Maha Brahma mistaken himself to be a creator can be seen at:

    http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/03/can-a-%E2%80%98creator-god%E2%80%99-be-created

Leave a Reply

Name (required please)

Email (required, will not be published)

Website (optional)



4 − = 1

(B) (^) (P) (@) (O) (D) (C) (&) (E) (~) (K) (I) (L) (8) (T) (G) (U) (W) (F) (N) (Y) :-[ :-S ;-( :-$ :-O :-( (H) :-) (*) :-D :-P ;-) :bloody: :cool: :choler: :love: :oups: :aie: :beurk: :canny: :go: :miam: :neo: :ueue: :nose: :oh: :oups2: :prud: :yo: :sadd: :bloody2: :cache: :rose: :spd: :dream: :sure: :yes: :sweat: :kiss: :creve: :what: :pff: :hm: :bobo: :aie2: :aie3: :ciao: :dribble: :gene: :pp 88) :loll: =(( :88 ;)) ::(( :oo: :[[ :)) :DD :-|| :-[)) :alien: :angel: :angry: :blink: :blush: :cheerful: :getlost: :cry: :dizzy: :ermm: :face: :biggrin: :happy: :kissing: :lol: :pinch: :sad: :shocked: :sick: :sideways: :silly: :sleeping: :smile: :tongue: :unsure: :w00t: :wassat: :whistle: :wink: :wub: :lovey: :pouty: :bandit: :sb: :ninja: :ninjaa: :666: :devil: :heart: