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

24 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

  12. avatar
    Karmic Wind January 19, 2015

    The problem with creationism is that mankind never did explain how a creator came to exist becos he is too perfect to be made by an imperfect us. But can an imperfect being put a perfect being there. We can because existence has two sides. Outside our heads and inside our heads.

    Built upon a backdrop of a seemingly existing creator yet absent creator…there are alot of questions which can only be answered with no answer. 

    If the principles of existence is that nothing can exist without being created. Everything or everyone that existed is the outcome of something or someone failing that it cannot exist. How then does a creator exist wo a creator? The absence of a creator of a creator simply implies the creator does not exist becos nothing created him. Nobody created him. The only possible answer is that if he ever exist…its becos we put him there with our heads. Hence creationism defies the very logic it is built upon. I think pink ponies exist. I insist it exists. Poof….suddenly out of nowhere it is existing.

  13. avatar
    Godzilla January 19, 2015

    Solve the equation:

    ?->Man
    ?->Universe->Man
    ?->Creator->Universe->Man

  14. avatar
    humanzilla January 20, 2015

    … Universe (includes humans and all other beings, including gods who mistaken themselves as creators) >

    Universe (includes humans and all other beings, including gods who mistaken themselves as creators) >

    Universe (includes humans and all other beings, including gods who mistaken themselves as creators) …

  15. avatar
    Godzilla January 20, 2015

    The ans is…if u loop the man with creator in a circular cycle. What you get is creator is created by man which is quite true because creationism is perpetuated by man.

  16. avatar

    So if indeed a creator exists…he created millions and billions of lives. Why then does he not make a public appearance to all and address them at one go but he loves to choose specific people? But when he unleashed his wrath…he has no qualms about addressing all at one go? The idea of a perfect creator cannot sync with an imperfect creation for if a creation is imperfect…no matter how perfect a creator is…in the hands of the imperfect….it will end up imperfect hence the chaos of this world.

  17. avatar

    In the entire history of mankind…we have seen the idea so much that it has become a mantra that “politics is dirty”.

    Politics and belief since the early days of mankind have always been an influence to each other for some so are the perpetuation of ideologies for control.

    Up till today…the effects are still lingering for some nations. So if u mix the two together…what will you get? Maybe this the reason why the Buddha gave up his kingdom.

  18. avatar
    Godilocks January 20, 2015

    If a perfect creation would make an imperfect choice…is he/she perfect to begin with?

    Simply because it is a perfect creation…regardless how one tries to sway its will….it should be able to make a perfect choice or choose a perfect answer.

  19. avatar

    The idea of a creator only serves as a placeholder for answers we cannot possibly answer. It merely serves as a distraction to answer how the universe came about. It is natural for humans to want fast, quick and simple answers to complex things yet they marvel at the complexity of it. I like to think that thinking is afterall a tedious process and not everyone loves the work it involves.

  20. avatar
    Masked Rider January 20, 2015

    The answer to how does a creator exist is very simple. BECOS SOMEONE SAID SO. And so it is said to be.

  21. avatar
    Grimm Reaper January 20, 2015

    If it is unacceptable that the universe simply pop out of nowhere and no one without a creator. How is it acceptable that a creator can simply pop out of nowhere and no one without a creator of creator? Why the double standards? Are we missing something here?

  22. avatar
    blackhorse January 20, 2015

    Those lazy to think conceive of an arbitrary pink pony to have created it all. Poof! And the pony instantly ‘appears’, not that he even shows his tail.

    A pony so almighty yet mysterious that he must never be questioned, even if he is a constant no-show!

    Those diligent to think realise how this pink pony cannot exist at all. Poof! And the pony instantly ‘disappears’, not that he was even there in the first place.

  23. avatar
    nanowhirlx January 24, 2015

    From the Vajrasamadhi Sutra (diamond absorption sutra):

    “All the conceptions and mentations do not augment the principles of the path.

    They instead agitate [the mind,] so that one loses (forgets) the basic mind-king [of the One-Mind].

    With neither conception nor mentation, there will be no creation or extinction [of the mind].

    The mind will not arise and be in Reality. All [eight] consciousnesses will be peaceful and calm.

    The currents [of desire, existence, and ignorance] will not arise.

    [One then] accesses the purity of the five dharmas [relating to the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, formation and consciousness]. This is called the Mahayana.

    “By accessing the purity (void nature) of the five dharmas [of the five aggregates], the mind is free from delusions.

    When delusions vanish, one immediately accesses the base of the tathagata’s self-enlightened, noble-wisdom.

    One who accesses this wisdom fully knows that everything is uncreated originally. ”

    Knowing that everything is uncreated originally, one is free from [all] illusory conceptions.”

  24. avatar
    nanowhirlx January 24, 2015

    See the truth with your wisdom that everything is uncreated originally and free from illusory conceptions.

    How to develop the wisdom?
    – meditate and realise for yourself the empty nature of the five aggregates and eradicate the illusory conception that everything is created or uncreated.

    This wisdom is not developed via reasoning, debating or thinking but by realising and cultivating via the eight fold noble path in this life.

    Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

Leave a Reply

Name (required please)

Email (required, will not be published)

Website (optional)



3 × = 6

(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: