God as the creator..or not!
Offline One of my many arguments against god is the creation paradox I stumpled upon my self. Most have heard the argument "who created god" but I think, like most christians do, this argument is null and void of a point because god, considered by most to be the all creator, couldn't have created himself. My argument requires us to first discuss what creation is. Ok lets say we are making a new creature (in our minds atleast) , how would we first attempt to conceptualize our new creature? Well I am going to start with color first, lets say you want purple (big purple people eaters =p ), Now shape, lets say egg shaped. At this point you begin to see that we are using items that we see in everyday life. But lets say we want to use colors we have never seen before, or shapes athat do not rely on most common shapes. Thats were it gets hard, because we can not conceptualize beyond what we know. My basic point here is that creating new things is impossible, creation is a reargement of ideas to make a new form of something. You can not even have an idea with out some sort of know information involed, the building blocks of thoughts so to speak. Without the Information you can not think or even "create" or rearange information. But if god is the all creator were did he get said information the first place to create ideas, things, and so on.
Further more if god didn't have the information to create most things, ideas, and what not, how did he create creation! And that is my argument, Creating Creation. First of the argument is a paradox because creating an idea that implies creation's nature without having prior Knowledge of the nature of creation leads to no creation.
The Creation of Creation theory*
if any of you have heard of this argument let me know because i thought it was pretty original and i would like dub it my own and use it in my book i am planning on writing.
- Login to post comments
No beginning, no creator.
INDEED , my friend
No beginning, no creator, I say. This rather meaningless debate is as old as written history, but still unfortunately needs re-writing.
As a whole, all existence, does "god", the "force", the whole ball of wax, have conscious purpose and emotion? Why presume yes? Sure I understand that desire to wish so.
Believe in god? Geezz, what a silly question. What isn't god? Do I believe in gods of traditional religions? This is an idiotic question in my opinion. Of course not.
To define god, as in religion is sadly lame and a waste of time, when reaching for truth. Making claims and inventing dogma is retarded and god clueless. Yeah god is everything. To even say god done it presumes intention, a beginning, a first cause. How the heck could anyone know such and make silly religious claims? The reasons are obvious. Innate fear, ignorance, etc. All the enemy of ourselves, so clearly shown in the religions of humanity.
Geezz. Yeah the force is why, and science studies how. To make religious dogmatic god definitions of idol worship and suggesting separatism is worse than just loony. It is sick, dangerous, harmful madness when you add it up.
Elvithrarr, a new poster here, suggested making science your religion, and in the ironic sense I agree.
LOL
Atheism Books.
not really sure what all of that was geared toward. seemed a little to all over the place for me to grasp your main idea. is that the common sense of god, the ones of all the religions, is a stupid argument and a waste of time? well unfortunitly that is the common understanding of god, and see i get more then just wow god couldn't exist out of that argument i got the concept of creation or lack of so to speak. I dont see how science could possibly be a religion because of pure perspective and speculation that goes into everything we do. read a couple books on quantum mechanics and that will pretty much destroy what you thought was real and not real.
Yeah , communication breakdown.
I write alot of ironic satire, I am not all that good at it. My pen name is a clue, and btw, I am hard core atheist, and was raised that way.
When ever that g-o-d word is mentioned I most always crack a smile, an giigle when I write.
What definition of god is the speaker using, is my first question, and does it include presumptions? I basically love the western dictionary, but when it comes to defining g-o-d, the traditional ones of the west, I never even considered as of much use, except to represent how silly the definitions are. Like I asked, what the heck, isn't gawed???
Atheism Books.
The response that "this argument is null and void of a point because god, considered by most to be the all creator, couldn't have created himself."
The point that "god, considered by most to be the all creator, couldn't have created himself" is a reasonable statement, and represents in itself the demonstration that any assertion that God is the ultimate creator of everything is "null and void". The rest is just word-games trying to avoid this irrefutable logic.
The creation 'argument' relies on the un-warranted but natural intuition that complex and/or conscious entities can only be brought into existence by more complex/greater conscious entities.
Actual observation and study of the world tells us that this is not true.
Even the growth of a mighty tree from a tiny seed via a sequence of entirely natural chemical processes is a refutation of this. Or our own growth from a single unconscious fertilized cell, which is not remotely as complex as a adult homo sapiens demonstrates this.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Right O friend.
To just add. I like and enjoy imagination, sci fi, and mystery, but when it is presented as dogma, which is authoritarian invention of rules and rituals demanding we follow such, I do get bothered.
Atheism Books.
The question of "who created God?" relies on our understanding of time. In our understanding, there is a beginning, past, presence, future and end, and we move through it in one way. Thus, God must have a beginning, must be created by something.
It is a very well known information, that anyone who is involved in transcendental* activities, like deep meditation, communication with what they think is God(s), and so on, reports that this idea of time is something only we have. The further from our physical realm of existence, the less compulsory the time is. After some degree of detachment, the time is just another dimension, which can be overviewed as a landscape, when we stand on a hill. And this is still relatively low degree of detachment from matter, about a half of as much as it's known to be possible.
Transcendental sources says, that for them, everything is happening at once. They have a problem to adjust their understanding of time to our own, our time doesn't give a sense to them.
This is why it's a nonsense to judge an idea of God according to a concept of time, when the time itself as we know it, is basically a local illusion in the material dimension of the universe. This is also why this area of knowledge is esoteric, most basic concepts starts to break down.
* I mean a colloquial use of this word.
As for the creation and creativity, I'd define it as a performing of non-algorithmically solvable tasks. Use of resources and information available around isn't a problem, as long as they're creatively rearranged.
To define what is a creation, we'd have to understand where the matter, energy and information comes from, and how. And this is quite complicated theory. Generally, things like beauty, art, unexpected inventions, and so on, are transcendental, and the best thing we can do, is to express these qualities in physical world. This is a general conclusion from a theory of the sense of life. I know, it sounds like "goddidit", but the conclusion is clear, if a beautiful picture comes to your mind, paint it.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Luminon, you paint some real pretty pictures good friend. Yeah wow, time and us ! How the heck did all this happen ?!?! .... sheezz, what a ride !
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendental
That word is a painting in itself .... musical too ! Artsy ! Crafty.
Atheism Books.
Ah, the "God is outside time/space/logic so he/she/it isn't governed by/can't be judged using time/space/logic" argument.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
This question is really out of our reach right now. It's like hoping that an illiterate Mexican immigrant could on his first day in USA read documents on president's desk.
There are other questions and answers which suggests a deep, multi-layered dimensions of transcendental worlds, filled with free energy, benevolent physical restrictions, and a hierarchically connected life forms. This suggests, that there is a common top of this hierarchy, which has all life forms as it's appendages.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
It's easier than you think.
As your God is no more or less than a human construct, he can't create,destroy, bend or grasp spacetime. Also, as a human construct, your God can't exist outside of spacetime.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The more people tests this knowledge, the more it seems to work. Of course, it is no faster than any other serious research, it depends on what tool you have. And the tool and object of study here is own body, mind and consciousness, because science didn't yet made effort to give a transcendental phenomena a technical form. There are however already known possible ways for it. So, if you're succesful in research or not, if you see it work sooner or later, it depends on how sensitive is your body, how aware is your mind, and how resistant to emotional illusions you are.
Scientific research requires an evidence, which can be succesfully repeated or observed by any person. But here, the person him/herself is the object of research. "Wow, a back door, escape clause, lame excuse for a bullshittery," you probably think. As for my practice, people are more susceptible to transcendental experience than they think, and completely "wooden" people are rather rare. We're on the verge of great changes in all areas of life, and thus it's quite easy to tune people up to their transcendentality. It's quite a common way of people around spending their vacations.
I think this metaphoric quote by Terrence McKenna illustrates quite well what I mean.
It's the flying saucer. It's the philosopher's stone. It's tantric union. It's good LSD. It's all of these things and more. It transcends language and understanding but the closer we get to it, the more it will be revealed and the reason the 20th century is so peculiar is because we're so close to the zero point. We're so close to the transcendental object that, y'know. Take a hit, there it is. Close your eyes and day dream, there it is. Have an orgasm, there it is. It's trying to break through. It's almost upon us. We've been sailing towards this thing for seventy-two-billion years and we are now twenty-two years from impact. The walls are so steep. The acceleration is so great. We are there for all practical purposes. And then what? Spritual life and Heddom and all that means is realize that we are there so anxiety drains from your life, body and world view and then you just ride the wave..."
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
This is OT, but I always like space-time discussions because they remind me of my favourite quote from a scientist. Sir Harry Kroto, visiting my University, informed us that a friend had simultaneously given solid definition of energy and belittled the science behind it during a lecture. When asked what his definition of energy was during the lecture the gentleman in question apparently said "It's quite simple really... Energy is merely curved space-time". Oh well that's alright then. There was me thinking it would be something complex
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Space can certainly be bent - every mass does that.
Time can be stretched and compressed - by relative velocity and also gravity.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
And since an imagined god-concept has no mass, velocity or gravity...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Actually, it's a pretty well-known construct, but I haven't seen it applied to God before. It's even the topic of a thread a bit farther down; the issue of whether or not someone can conceive of something that doesn't exist.
I think, if you attempt to use this on theists, they'll tend to respond with 'well of course God can conceive of things that don't exist, after all, He's omniscient and omnipotent. He knows all things that could exist already.'
Which is really just another way of saying 'God can do it! He's GOD!'
But yeah... the argument's been phrased before, ironically usually by theists to show that we couldn't conceive of God if He didn't exist... but I don't think it's been applied to what God can conceive of before.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid