# Ask the Creationist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555 "2005-05-12T13:18:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/81 "2005-05-13T11:19:56Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > Whether the Creator is physical or meta-physical, or somehow bridges those two realms in a way you don’t care to explain, you still have the baffling problem of why the Creator should exist in the first place. Not really. In fact, that’s a question I’ve dealt with several times in the past. The problem you describe is baffling only for an existentitalist. An essentialist understands that if God did not exist, then His essence — goodness — would compel Him to emerge. Existence is a trivial state. The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution. Existentialism is becoming passe. What identifies a thing is not its existence, but its essence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/82 "2005-05-13T11:21:35Z")
Matt, I think my post to Bytegeist answered your points, or at least gave you my reasoning by which I would answer them. If not, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/83 "2005-05-13T11:35:49Z")
> [@Stone Girl](#): > > Welll, yes, I think it does. Because not everyone agrees with that belief. Stone Girl, How do you answer the following questions? Where was God before He had a place to be? Who created that? Is God then Being and Place? If you believe God is everywhere then is He every thing? Monavis ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/84 "2005-05-13T11:53:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Not really. In fact, that’s a question I’ve dealt with several times in the past. The problem you describe is baffling only for an existentitalist. An essentialist understands that if God did not exist, then His essence — goodness — would compel Him to emerge. Existence is a trivial state. The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution. Existentialism is becoming passe. What identifies a thing is not its existence, but its essence. I’m in no position to criticise your argument. For a start, I don’t understand it. Looks like I’ve missed some debates. I suspect your definition of “existence” differs from mine, (“trivial”?!!!) and I don’t recognise your use of “essence” at all. Could you link to a previous discussion? “The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution.” You’ve stated this before. Are you not equating a map with the territory? ---
**Author:** ![Stone\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Stone\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stone_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/85 "2005-05-13T12:46:44Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > why bother taking the “created” part literally? Isn’t that just a metaphore for “Well it’s here, isn’t it?” > > Or even the “God” part? After all, isn’t “God” just a metaphore for “that which I can’t otherwise explain?” Not to me. ---
**Author:** ![Stone\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Stone\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stone_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/86 "2005-05-13T12:49:35Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > IMHO, this is more about the nature of belief and upbringing than the actual subject of God/No God. I submit that you believe what you believe about this (and many other not explored here subjects) because you were taught to by your parents and the predominant culture you were raised in. The power of those messages imparted to you at an early age by your care-givers are very very powerful and do not readily change even through reason. Actually, Icarus, neither of my parents believed in God. ---
**Author:** ![Stone\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Stone\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stone_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/87 "2005-05-13T12:54:51Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Where was God before He had a place to be? Who created that? > > Is God then Being and Place? > > If you believe God is everywhere then is He every thing? **Monavis** Your question assumes that God is a physical being. Maybe God is energy, or a force. ---
**Author:** ![Stone\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Stone\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stone_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/88 "2005-05-13T13:00:12Z")
> [@matt](#): > > There are two big questions that are sometimes conflated in these discussions: > > 1. Why is there Something, as opposed to Nothing? > > 2. Is the Universe purposeful, or purposeless? 1. I think you’re right, this question is unanswerable. 2. Maybe we give the Universe purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/89 "2005-05-13T13:22:09Z")
> [@matt](#): > > I’m in no position to criticise your argument. For a start, I don’t understand it. Looks like I’ve missed some debates. > > I suspect your definition of “existence” differs from mine, (“trivial”?!!!) and I don’t recognise your use of “essence” at all. Could you link to a previous discussion? I don’t think there’s been a particular discussion or big debate on Existentialism versus Essentialism (although that would be very interesting). Rather, it’s just been a part of whatever discussion was taking place, typically over the nature of reality (metaphysics) and the nature of existence (ontology). Simply put, existentialism holds that existence preceeds essence, while essentialism holds that essence preceeds existence. It is my opinion that the essence of purpose is aestheticism. Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies, and the aesthetic that is most valued by God. As a free moral agent, She exists to facilitate goodness. That is why, if She did not exist, then Her essence would compel Her to emerge. > [@](#): > > “The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution.” You’ve stated this before. Are you not equating a map with the territory? Well, the territory is in our brains in the form of perception. We see — with and without the help of instruments (themselves physical) — trees and stars and microorganisms. But all that’s really there is an electromagnetic spasm discharging in a suspension of gravity. The universe, in essence, is just a map. ---
**Author:** ![Stone\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Stone\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stone_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/90 "2005-05-13T13:28:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The universe, in essence, is just a map. Now, _that’s_ an interesting idea. Maybe we’re supposed to be the map-readers? And where would the map take us if we followed it? ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/91 "2005-05-13T13:59:36Z")
Hmm. Our perceptions (i.e. our subjective reality?) are the territory, and the universe is the map? Going to have to think about that one. **"Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies, and the aesthetic that is most valued by God. As a free moral agent, She exists to facilitate goodness. That is why, if She did not exist, then Her essence would compel Her to emerge."** [Sir Bedevere]And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.[/Sir Bedevere] ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/92 "2005-05-13T14:41:56Z")
> [@Stone Girl](#): > > 1. Maybe we give the Universe purpose. Maybe. And then again, maybe we’re in a purposeless universe, or we’re an entirely unintended tangential side effect in a universe with a purpose we can never comprehend. Are you familar with cellular automata? They provide beautiful examples of unintended consequences arising in very simple systems. For example, suppose you take a big piece of white squared paper. In the top row, you colour in the middle square black. Now, consider the squares in the row as groups of three “neighbours” - for each square, the two either side of it and itself. Also, the squares on the ends of the row are neighbours of each other. Apply the following very simple rules to each square in the top row - if three neighbours are white, the middle neighbour becomes white. If three neighbours are black, the middle neighbour becomes white. All other cases, the middle neighbour becomes black. Use the results of these rules to fill in the second row. Then apply them to the second row and use the results to fill in the third row, and keep going… What arises can be seen here. Watch it for a couple of minutes. [http://math.hws.edu/xJava/CA/index.html](http://math.hws.edu/xJava/CA/index.html) I kind of like the idea of a Creator that basically set up a bunch of simple rules (the laws of physics) and a simple initial state (the first femtosecond of the Big Bang) and then sat back, _not really knowing what was going to happen_. I don’t believe in such an entity, but I like the idea of it. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/93 "2005-05-13T15:51:29Z")
> [@Stone Girl](#): > > I can’t imagine NOT believing in God. The thought of not believing in God literally boggles my mind. After all the last few hundred years of scientific progress has taught us – after reason is no longer dominated by fanciful philosophy – the thought of _believing_ in a supernatural being boggles MY mind. I can see no need for that hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Bytegeist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/94 "2005-05-13T16:23:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The problem you describe [(first causes)] is baffling only for an existentitalist. An essentialist understands that if God did not exist, then His essence — goodness — would compel Him to emerge. Hmmmm. Does the essence of Satan — unmitigated evil — compel him to exist? How about the essence of Athena, goddess of learning? Her essence is pretty well nailed down, I think. Is she out there somewhere, as a real being? Making plans, giving blessings, taking lovers, smiting her enemies? Does the essence of Fiddle Faddle™ — buttery toffee goodness — compel it to exist? Does the essence of perpetual motion machines — machines that run with zero energy loss — compel them to exist? Not so far as we understand the physical world, no. Of course we might be in for a shock someday, but it’s a pretty solid bet now that neither you nor I nor anyone who ever lives will encounter a perpetual motion machine. Their essence, their defining property, is simply forbidden by the laws of physical nature (as we’ve come to understand them so far). My point: It’s often easy to describe the “essence” of something, in as little or as much detail as you like, but that never obliges the world to cough up an actual instance of it. This applies to the proposed Creator of the universe as much as it does to Athena, or Fiddle Faddle™. > [@](#): > > Existentialism is becoming passe. Yeah, I noticed that headline on _Oprah_ magazine yesterday at the checkout counter. Guess I’m out of it — a real “square”, as you kids say these days. 😃 The _essence_ of my retort is that essentialists have not begun to explain what they think they’ve explained. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/95 "2005-05-13T16:33:57Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Maybe. And then again, maybe we’re in a purposeless universe, or we’re an entirely unintended tangential side effect in a universe with a purpose we can never comprehend. Purpose? What’s all this about purpose? I must be just an empty shell because I have never felt that I am here for any reason or to fill any higher purpose. I agree with _Los Angeles Times_ columnist, the late Jack Smith, who opined that as far as he was concerned his purpose was to stay alive so he could see what happened next. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/96 "2005-05-13T17:14:37Z")
> [@Stone Girl](#): > > Now, _that’s_ an interesting idea. Maybe we’re supposed to be the map-readers? And where would the map take us if we followed it? To energy incapable of doing work. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/97 "2005-05-13T17:18:46Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Hmm. Our perceptions (i.e. our subjective reality?) are the territory, and the universe is the map? > > Going to have to think about that one. Consider whether the universe qua universe is perceivable without us. > [@](#): > > **"Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies, and the aesthetic that is most valued by God. As a free moral agent, She exists to facilitate goodness. That is why, if She did not exist, then Her essence would compel Her to emerge."** > > [Sir Bedevere]And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.[/Sir Bedevere] The sentences were pithy, I admit; however, I think the implications are clear: an aesthetic which edifies must of necessity, given its essential nature, emerge existentially, assuming that existence is an improvement — however slight — over nonexistence. Therefore, an Entity Whose essence is goodness must emerge into existence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/98 "2005-05-13T17:22:35Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > Hmmmm. Does the essence of Satan — unmitigated evil — compel him to exist? > > How about the essence of Athena, goddess of learning? Her essence is pretty well nailed down, I think. Is she out there somewhere, as a real being? Making plans, giving blessings, taking lovers, smiting her enemies? > > Does the essence of Fiddle Faddle™ — buttery toffee goodness — compel it to exist? > > Does the essence of perpetual motion machines — machines that run with zero energy loss — compel them to exist? Not so far as we understand the physical world, no. Of course we might be in for a shock someday, but it’s a pretty solid bet now that neither you nor I nor anyone who ever lives will encounter a perpetual motion machine. Their essence, their defining property, is simply forbidden by the laws of physical nature (as we’ve come to understand them so far). > > My point: It’s often easy to describe the “essence” of something, in as little or as much detail as you like, but that never obliges the world to cough up an actual instance of it. This applies to the proposed Creator of the universe as much as it does to Athena, or Fiddle Faddle™. Again, I define goodness as that aesthetic which edifies. As such, it is only logical that if there is a state of existence, then its Agent should emerge into that state. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I noticed that headline on _Oprah_ magazine yesterday at the checkout counter. Guess I’m out of it — a real “square”, as you kids say these days. 😃 > > The _essence_ of my retort is that essentialists have not begun to explain what they think they’ve explained. What exactly do you imagine has not been explained? ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/99 "2005-05-13T17:50:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Again, I define goodness as that aesthetic which edifies. As such, it is only logical that if there is a state of existence, then its Agent should emerge into that state. Are you saying that if there is a state of existence then the agent of goodness should emerge into existence? Am I parsing your statement correctly? Why should this be God? Are we about to get another dose of MOP? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555/100 "2005-05-13T17:57:52Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > Are you saying that if there is a state of existence then the agent of goodness should emerge into existence? Am I parsing your statement correctly? Yes. Perfectly. In fact, It is likely the primary (first) existent Entity. > [@](#): > > Why should this be God? You may call It any name you please, whatever name you might call the free moral Agent that facilitates goodness. Here’s how I put the pieces together: Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies; love is the faciliation of goodness; God is love. > [@](#): > > Are we about to get another dose of MOP? No. That is not pertinent here. This is not a question of the nature of God’s existence, but of Its essence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-creationist/303555.md?page=6)