In the definition that you use do you see no difference between creation and setting in motion?
It all depends on the definition of creation. As I use the term, setting in motion certainly is one type of creation. Again, we do it with social forms all the time.
Would the creator have to be a being?
Since I have no idea, I am open to any possibilities.
If so was the creator created?
See previous answer. I would add, though, that perhaps our notions of creation and creator are limited by our own experience of a tiny fraction of the cosmos. But then, since I cannot transcend that limit, I cannot even begin to put forth other answers.
To get this from faith to science there must be evidence. So far we have almost reached the beginning of this universe (there may be many others) without a hint of evidence of
a creator.
At least the kinds of evidence we know how to gather. But we have learned how to make all sorts of previously-unobservable things observable, from sub-atomic particles to love. Sometimes the evidence is even indirect--I'm charmed by the fact that we know certain things have existed only because of the trace they've left (I'm thinking of the kinds of things they learn with particle accelerators, but I'm too ignorant of that sort of science
Getting back to the classroom.
Should we be scientific or faith based? The Pope has declared war on the "dictatorship of relativism." Perhaps that is better than being the great satin.
Relativism is a code word for science and the questioning that comes with it. Yet some claim that science causes the departure from orthodoxy the mechanical adopting
of what is passed on for our forefathers.
The problem is made worse as both science and religion have attached industries.
I consider myself every bit the scientist, but I find that it requires me to say "I just don't know" more than any other single phrase. Perhaps it is because I come out of sociology, where observation and measurement are so poor, that I'm always open to the idea that the limitations of our own observations blind us to explanations that are literally inconceivable.
To be a religious person, a Christian for example must on believe that the universe was created by a supreme being?
That would make Buddhism, for one, not a religion. Am I wrong in thinking there is nothing like a supreme being in Buddhism?
If not perhaps there is a meeting ground.
Del
Well, under my feet there is only slippery mud.
