If you are talking about some creator of the universe, which could be intelligent, that set the sequence in motion which is our universe, then your argument for that unknowable thing (God if you like) is as credible as any other hypothesis until the reality is proven.

And if God's reality were proven, what is the surety of it supposed to accomplish, I've always wondered. Instead of wondering about the origin and ontology of our universe, we replace that with wondering about the origin and ontology of our universe's creator (whose ontology presumably subsumes ours). And so we start down the road of infinite regress. So again I ask, what is knowledge of a creator supposed to accomplish, philosophically speaking?

(note: I'm aware that the Abrahamic religions deny any origin for God and his ontology is ineffable, but to me that is no answer unless you consider theology to be philosophy, which I don't.)

I'm addressing your conclusion that the "argument for that unknowable thing (God if you like) is as credible as any other hypothesis until the reality is proven."

I have stated my belief that the argument for God leads to infinite regress. Do you find credibility in infinite regress?

PaulNZ,

The OP asks "How did the universe come to exist?" which I did not address. It also asks "is the idea that 'God' created the universe any less credible than any other explanation." In my opinion, it is less credible than any other explanation. I leveraged your original response to demonstrate how the idea leads to infinite regress, making it less credible.

If I'm understanding your complaint about my post correctly, you find infinite regression a distraction from the post's topic. In that case, I'm sorry but I simply disagree.

If we had the knowledge that God created the universe already it would change the need to enquire as to an answer to the question, as the question would be redunadant.

I also disagree with this statement of yours. It is my position that such knowledge would exacerbate the question, not make the question redundant. That exacerbation comes from the introduction of infinite regression.

Philosophy, being the love and pursuit of wisdom, must surely encompass all subjects across the spectrum, including those regarding God. A concept which has had such a profound impact on our thinking for thousands of years is worthy of inclusion isn't it?

Isn't that we're doing? Including it in our discussion? If my assigning less credibility to a God-created universe implies to you that I am dismissing it out-of-hand, then that is your projection upon my statement. I am happy to continue to discuss less credible options so long as they continue to factor into a discussion.

The question here is best asked, was the universe created, or, did it create itself? It's an absurd question, because self-creation is an absurdity.

I think we assume self-creation to be an absurdity mostly because it fundamentally violates causal reasoning which governs our understanding of macroscopic phenomena. The current state of physics does not demonstrate cause-and-effect as governing quantum mechanical phenomena. The current cosmological theory of the Universe's origin (viz., the Big Bang theory) implies that the physics governing the "moment" of origin was entirely quantum mechanical. Quantum mechanics (specifically quantum electrodynamics, a.k.a. QED) allows for quanta to be generated ex nihilo with very specific caveats.

Don't get me wrong: I do not agree with any physicist who would deny out-of-hand causal explanations for quantum mechanical phenomena (this is the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics). Scientific knowledge is so obviously progressive in nature that science should never be interpreted as having the last word on anything.

Really, my only point is that it isn't very philosophically responsible to dismiss self-creation as an absurdity when:

(1) the self-consistent mathematics, namely QED, describing self-creation of quanta doesn't imply any causal explanation for this self-creation, and QED happens to be the most successful scientific theory in history (admittedly in purely practical terms);

(2) our entire experience of causal phenomena is confined to macroscopic experience, but the creation of the universe--according to the current state of science--was a quantum mechanical event where our experience is more likely to mislead us than anything else.

Wow! Makes me wonder if heterosexual scientists are aware of what they're really involved in...

For these reasons I believe that "God" whatever that might be, has as much right by way of credibility, to be considered as any other explanation for existence of the universe.

Very well, I'll concede on the credibility debate. But my question remains unanswered, and I will consider anybody's responsible answer: What is knowledge of a creator for the universe supposed to accomplish? To my mind, it doesn't answer anything while also making the origin of existence harder to explain.

If one accepts materialism the conscious mind is essentially in denial of the reality that it is, ie mind. In other words it would be an unreality confirming reality, which is essentially self-refuting.

I'm always disappointed how often I see materialism so misunderstood by people who uphold a priori consciousness or other forms of Platonic thinking. To me, the statement above so blatantly begs the question about a priori consciousness that it ends up saying nothing at all of value.

I know quite a few materialists like myself. Contrary to the above statment's claim, we definitely are not "in denial of the reality that it [the conscious mind] is, i.e., mind" (although I question what value such a simplistic tautology has). We just deny that it has a priori existence prior to matter/energy. To us, the conscious mind is an emergent phenomenon of material complexity. Given an understanding of complexity theory, and the available physical evidence presented to us by the universe, it is a more reasonable philosophical position than positing a priori consciousness.

This seems to mean that if one accepts materialism, the conscious mind is completely deterministic and therefore a our consciousness is an illusion?

The participants to this discussion seriously need to read a primer on complexity theory which hopefully will suggest how mind per se, emergent from material reality, cannot be deterministic, even in principle. I recommend "The Cosmic Blueprint" by Paul Davies for its brevity and ease of reading.

Cronos988,

In the heat & enthusiasm of the moment I used the word "deterministic" in my last post but really should have said "unpredictable." I appologize.

The workings of material components may well be deterministic (I have no opinion on the matter because I find the whole determinism/freedom debate irrelevant). But the net effect at the emergent level is unpredictable even in principle, if we are to believe complexity theory. That's a good enough basis for free will as any, to me.