The Properties of Self-existence: Is it necessary for the universe to have a creator?
I was having a discussion with some friends about the existence of God, and there was one point that kept coming up; it starts by the atheist asking: If we assume that every creature needs a creator, then who created God? The theist answers that God was not created by anyone, God is self-existent. But here, the atheist answers that if this is the case, then why are we adding one more level, and saying that God created the universe, but no one created God? Why don't we just say that no one created the universe; that the universe, by itself, is self-existent. That is, as long as we are saying that every creature has a creator except for one self-existent entity, why is it that we are adding one more unobservable entity to fill in that role, why don't we just take the universe to be that self-existent entity?
I can't provide an answer for this, but I think that a plausible method could go as follows:
The problem with this solution, however, is that nothing in it says that if an entity has properties S, then it is self-existent. It only says that if it does NOT have them, then it is not self-existent. This means that you cannot use this argument to say: the universe has S, then the universe is self-existent. I intentionally made the argument that way, in order to make S less restricting and thus easier to find. However, another, stronger version of the argument would go both ways; it would attempt to find a set of properties S' where there is an equivalence between having S' and being self-existent, but these properties might be harder to reach and verify.
Another problem with that solution is that it does not solve the case of infinite regression, where there is no self-existent being, and everything was created by another. In fact, the set S could actually be used to prove infinite regression, if you can prove that it is not possible for a being to have S, then no being is self-existent, and we have an infinite regression.
In all cases, I do believe that searching for properties S and finding them would be a great step ahead in the discussion, while finding a set S' would be very close to almost finding a final solution, but is much harder to achieve.
I can't provide an answer for this, but I think that a plausible method could go as follows:
- Find a set of properties, let's call it S, such that if a certain entity lacks S, then it is not capable of self-existence.
- Evaluate whether the universe has S.
- If the universe does not have S, then there is a creator for the universe.
The problem with this solution, however, is that nothing in it says that if an entity has properties S, then it is self-existent. It only says that if it does NOT have them, then it is not self-existent. This means that you cannot use this argument to say: the universe has S, then the universe is self-existent. I intentionally made the argument that way, in order to make S less restricting and thus easier to find. However, another, stronger version of the argument would go both ways; it would attempt to find a set of properties S' where there is an equivalence between having S' and being self-existent, but these properties might be harder to reach and verify.
Another problem with that solution is that it does not solve the case of infinite regression, where there is no self-existent being, and everything was created by another. In fact, the set S could actually be used to prove infinite regression, if you can prove that it is not possible for a being to have S, then no being is self-existent, and we have an infinite regression.
In all cases, I do believe that searching for properties S and finding them would be a great step ahead in the discussion, while finding a set S' would be very close to almost finding a final solution, but is much harder to achieve.
the sun, the moon, day, night, the planets, fruits, vegetables, animals with thousands of species....
ReplyDeletepeople have eyes, ears, mind, heart, legs, hands, digestive system, respiratory system... that all work in sync, for example if you decide to move your hand to the right, you just need to think and then your brain sends a message and tells your hand to move your hand to the right; it's that simple. Now go check the recent A.I. tech with all the advances in technology, the best engineers around the world are trying to make some intelligent robots, yet they can't even reach 1% of a human being. That human being created himself? Or the universe created the human? Or nature created that human? what is nature? a tree or plant that can create? let them show us new creation then. Again, wake up!
logically speaking, can something create itself? or can something be created out of nothing? or can something simple evolve into something more complex just by itself?
Delete(أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ * أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ ۚ بَلْ لَا يُوقِنُونَ)
ReplyDelete[سورة الطور 35 - 36]
بواسطة @QuranAndroid
Arabic Muyassar Tafseer
أخُلِق هؤلاء المشركون من غير خالق لهم وموجد، أم هم الخالقون لأنفسهم؟ وكلا الأمرين باطل ومستحيل. وبهذا يتعيَّن أن الله سبحانه هو الذي خلقهم، وهو وحده الذي لا تنبغي العبادة ولا تصلح إلا له.
DeleteArabic Waseet Tafseer
ثم وبخهم - سبحانه - على عدم تفكرهم فى خلق أنفسهم فقال : ( أَمْ خُلِقُواْ مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الخالقون أَمْ خَلَقُواْ السماوات والأرض بَل لاَّ يُوقِنُونَ ) .أى : بل أَخُلِقُوا على هذه الكيفية البديعة ، والهيئة القويمة ، من غير أن يكون هناك خالق لهم؟ أم هم الذين خلقوا أنفسهم بدون احتياج لخالق؟ أم هم الذين قاموا بخلق السموات والأرض؟لا ، إن شيئا من ذلك لم يحدث ، فإنهم لم يُخْلَقُوا من غير شىء ، وإنما الذى خلقهم بقدرته - تعالى - هو الله وحده ، كما خلق - سبحانه - السموات والأرض بقدرته - أيضا - وهم يعترفون بذلك ، كما فى قوله - تعالى - : ( وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ الله ) ( وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُمْ مَّنْ خَلَقَ السماوات والأرض لَيَقُولُنَّ الله . . )
Thank you for your comments Hani.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned, I did not take the atheist stand in this article. This article means to be a motivation to find a set of properties that, if assigned to anything, proves that this thing cannot exist by itself. Your comment is saying: well, yes, one of these properties is being very large and complex. So, if a thing is large and complex, it cannot be self-existent. That is very good, but you need to do two things: You need to show that this implication really holds, and you most necessarily need to show that this implication does not also imply to God, because otherwise, you would be saying that God, too, is not self-existent.