For scientific-minded believers, what is God the Creator of?

[Ella S.]

If the diversity of life is the product of evolution, life itself is the product of abiogenesis, the earth formed naturally from space dust, and matter traces its origins to the Big Bang, then what did God create?

Most creator deities that are now referred to in English as "God" are given as the explanation for the existence of the land and of living things, but this explanation no longer seems relevant in the light of scientific discovery to me.

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?

An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally? The two seem to go hand-in-hand to me.

 

[ChristineM]

As an atheist i believe there is no god to be responsible for anything.

However, as a hypothetical... If a god existed and as you imply, science has filled many of the gaps in knowledge of bronze age man. So what is said god responsible for?. Personally i would like to have a serious word about childhood leukemia and other such suffering.

 

[exchemist]

If the diversity of life is the product of evolution, life itself is the product of abiogenesis, the earth formed naturally from space dust, and matter traces its origins to the Big Bang, then what did God create?

Most creator deities that are now referred to in English as "God" are given as the explanation for the existence of the land and of living things, but this explanation no longer seems relevant in the light of scientific discovery to me.

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?

An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally? The two seem to go hand-in-hand to me.

The order that governs the universe, I suppose. What we sometimes call the "laws of nature". There is little* or nothing in science that explains why the laws are the way they are or why there should be any laws at all. Without those laws, the universe would not have evolved in the way it has.

*Though things like the conservation laws can be explained to a limited extent by Noether's Theorem.

Einstein, like Spinoza, seemed to view the laws of nature as what we mean when we speak of God.

 

[nPeace]

If the diversity of life is the product of evolution, life itself is the product of abiogenesis,

That idea has not been established.

the earth formed naturally from space dust, and matter traces its origins to the Big Bang, then what did God create?

Good question.

Most creator deities that are now referred to in English as "God" are given as the explanation for the existence of the land and of living things, but this explanation no longer seems relevant in the light of scientific discovery to me.

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?

Again... Good question.

An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally? The two seem to go hand-in-hand to me.

Another good question.

 

[Ella S.]

The order that governs the universe, I suppose. What we sometimes call the "laws of nature". There is little* or nothing in science that explains why the laws are the way they are or why there should be any laws at all. Without those laws, the universe would not have evolved in the way it has.

*Though things like the conservation laws can be explained to a limited extent by Noether's Theorem.

Einstein, like Spinoza, seemed to view the laws of nature as what we mean when we speak of God.

Is there a religious reason for why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, or why an object in motion must remain in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force?

 

[exchemist]

Is there a religious reason for why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, or why an object in motion must remain in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force?

Eh? Not in any religion I know of.

But there is no reason in science why the speed of light is an absolute speed limit. It's just what we observe to be the case - and the theory of relativity, which seems to work unfailingly, so far, follows from that empirical observation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...what did God create?

I'd say all exists within God, so 'Create' is a meaningless term except in allegorical terms. All times, all actions, all endings and beginnings are in God.

The discovery of the theory of relativity really helps me, here, with understanding that (the passage of) time can be illusory. What we perceive to be the passage of time is our small window into what is, but what we perceive as change is not. We are limited and can only perceive slices of time. We are in the past, just as what we think of the the future is actually past to some other future. All of everything is part of one thing and is a subset within God and is not (in my opinion) God.

A deist might disagree with me and would say that God is the universe. I would object that God transcends the universe and time.

Most creator deities that are now referred to in English as "God" are given as the explanation for the existence of the land and of living things, but this explanation no longer seems relevant in the light of scientific discovery to me.

This has been discussed for millennia. People in the past did not have certain advantages that you and I have. They didn't have giant telescopes, relativity, microscopes, quantum measurements, atomic clocks, and understanding of atoms, records of so many species of animals. In spite of having very few of the same tools they came up with many relevant ideas about time, about atoms, about the beginning of the universe. They posited that the universe must be some kind of form arisen out of chaos -- which is not far from what is being discovered in Physics. Its surprising, but the thing you're talking about has been upon the tongues of philosophers in many places.

Take a look at the tree of the family of the Greek gods and goddesses. What you will find there is that the gods are a philosophical system of rationalizing what comes from what. Just follow the family tree the offspring. Its an attempt at understanding the forces of nature and trying to harness some lessons out of those forces and the relationships between the natural forces. It similar to trying to find out the secret of making gold are trying to make an immortality pill by studying the power of seeds. People have always been interested not just believing in origins but in reasoning about them.

 

[nPeace]

Is there a religious reason for why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, or why an object in motion must remain in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force?

I know this is not directed to me, but...
Man's current belief is that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
Five years from now, man may believe differently.
Five years from now, man may learn that there are other forms of energy and matter, besides what he currently knows.
There is always a religious reason for why man's knowledge will always be limited.
Man is not the biggest thing in the universe. God is.

@Ella S. correction. God is not in the universe. Sorry.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If the diversity of life is the product of evolution, life itself is the product of abiogenesis, the earth formed naturally from space dust, and matter traces its origins to the Big Bang, then what did God create?

Pizza...

...and chocolate.​

 

[SalixIncendium]

An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally? The two seem to go hand-in-hand to me.

Which creation myths?

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you believe in evolution and the Big Bang, then what is God responsible for?

An additional question. If you no longer take your creation myths literally, then why do you take God's existence and role as a creator literally? The two seem to go hand-in-hand to me.

The Big Bang is a theory, but evolution is established truth. We may find out the the big bang is based upon a misunderstanding, but its a useful model for now. Evolution is no longer merely theory, though in Scientific terms it is a theory. In human terms it is a fact.

God is invisible and has only been just barely detected by humanity through our ability to think. Creation myths are for gods not for God. God is only perceived through people, has no face, has no image and is more akin to contemplation and to principles than to physical things. People choose God for moral reasons. Anything else is confusing, such as choosing God because one believes that the universe has been created. No, you choose God for reasons such as liking beauty. "I like oranges, so I believe in God."

Belief in God is not a scientific process, but it is a moral choice. I choose to see God in you.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The Big Bang is a theory, but evolution is established truth. We may find out the the big bang is based upon a misunderstanding, but its a useful model for now. Evolution happens, is happening, is.

Not exactly. Both are scientific theories. Both have been tested, measured, evaluated, and are supported with evidence. Both offer the most plausible explanation of who/where/what we are today.

 

[metis]

Man's current belief is that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

Which actually has been shown to be wrong based on the movement of some sub-atomic particles that they've witnessed actually go faster than light.

 

[nPeace]

The Big Bang is a theory, but evolution is established truth. We may find out the the big bang is based upon a misunderstanding, but its a useful model for now. Evolution is no longer merely theory, though in Scientific terms it is a theory. In human terms it is a fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is to some - not all scientists, a scientific fact.
Evolution is not a fact in human terms.

Fact in general, is not the same as fact in science. In the same way theory in general, is not the same as theory in science.

 

[sun rise]

What science names as the "big bang" is creation. Creation's "OM point" is the same as the initial most tiny universe.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is to some - not all scientists, a scientific fact.
Evolution is not a fact in human terms.

Fact in general, is not the same as fact in science. In the same way theory in general, is not the same as theory in science.

It is fact that leads us to scientific theory. Please see post #12.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not exactly. Both are scientific theories. Both have been tested, measured, evaluated, and are supported by evidence. Both offer the most plausible explanation of where/what we are today.

The evidence for evolution is far stronger to me. It here with us and is not debated anymore. The Big Bang is still under debate, and its questioned when new discoveries are made about cosmological constants. Everything in the universe may not come from a single point, but evolution is ongoing and is strongly evidenced in a way that is not going to change. Big Bang is not merely a hypothesis and is a strong but assailable theory. At this point evolution has become unassailable.

 

[nPeace]

It is fact that leads us to scientific theory. Please see post #12.

A body of facts lead to hypotheses and theories. The theory may be termed a scientific fact by some, but still different to a fact.
Do you need the definitions?

 

[Ella S.]

Which creation myths?

This is a good question. I was primarily thinking about Canaanite, Orphic, Platonic, and Mayan creation myths.

Platonic myths and Canaanite myths in particular have shaped much of Western notions of a Creator God, and I suppose this thread is fairly West-centric given that many Eastern conceptions of God do not view God as a creator.

 

[sun rise]

many Eastern conceptions of God do not view God as a creator.

The creator in Hinduism is Brahma. I'm not sure what the "many Eastern" religions you are referring to that don't have a creator.