2

Surely an omnipotent being could travel back in time and create the circumstances leading to His creation. This would solve the problem of endless regression. Is it really altogether impossible that the eventual conclusion of evolution is the creation of an omnipotent, eternal, all-knowing being?

  • 1
    Ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing can come out of nothing. Aristotle did have some considerations that led to this catchphrase. – Philip Klöcking May 19 '16 at 12:55
  • Why would an omnipotent being be beholden to such trivialities as time? Most theologians do not assume that God predates the universe temporally, eternal means timeless, not everlasting. Teilhard de Chardin argued that universe evolves towards the higher state of Omega Point, but not in the sense of creating the creator en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point – Conifold May 19 '16 at 20:04
  • Btw, a solution not altering the concept of God as eternal has been provided by the Kabbalah (the principles of en sof and zimzum) as well as Spinoza. Eternal would mean exactly not coming into being at a certain time, but being all time at once and therefore out of what we call time (especially not time traveling and still being in one particular time), as Conifold said. – Philip Klöcking May 19 '16 at 21:12
  • @Confold, why not? What is wrong with the idea of a universe evolving into a creator of sorts? All living beings create offspring. Perhaps the universe is part of the life cycle of a creator. Please note, I'm not saying it is. I'm merely seeking definitive proof to the contrary. Anyway, thanks for your comments. – Zane Scheepers May 20 '16 at 10:09
  • Time travel in the form you describe faces inconsistency problems, assuming your creator has free will en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox Even that aside, a being subject to time may well be very powerful, but it can hardly be called omnipotent, even if omnipotence is restricted by logical consistency. – Conifold May 20 '16 at 20:12
1

Because creating something is "causing" it to exist. If God is the creator of the universe, then he is the cause of the universe's existence. But a cause must always exist before its effect. Therefore God must exist before the universe if he is the cause of the universe.

The issue with the idea of the universe "evolving" a deity isn't that such a thing looks metaphysically impossible. But rather that whatever that deity might be, it couldn't be the creator of the universe, but rather than opposite.

  • Lol that's my point. Why not? – Zane Scheepers May 19 '16 at 14:33
  • because a cause can't precede it's effect. When you see the rain make the ground wet, you don't think the water on the ground caused the rain to fall, right? – shane May 19 '16 at 14:34
  • But it does. Water evaporates which results in rain. – Zane Scheepers May 19 '16 at 14:39
  • 2
    the water on the ground on tuesday didn't cause the rain to fall on monday. – shane May 19 '16 at 14:40
  • shane, time appears to be causal and one-directional to us. but it might not be, and if it is not, we might not know the difference. most physicists who accept the Big Bang believe that not only space and "stuff" was brought into existance 13.8 billion years ago, but that also time. i.e. there was no before the Big Bang. – robert bristow-johnson May 19 '16 at 23:17
1

It appears that the debate on God is rooted in theistic definitions of words. To have implicit belief in God, the language we speak has to be theistic; theism appears to dictate diction. theism itself appears to be a linguistical phenomena; atheists trying to disprove God fall into the trap of believing that something that doesn't exist needs to be disproven. There is a theist privilege in language and logic as well. That's why weak atheism appears to be an accommodationist view to keep theism in the privileged position of power.

Logic dictates semantics; logic bred theistic epistemic ideas into head just implicitly affirming God's existence. this appears to create theistic notions in our syntaxes. Our children are linguistically and logically bred to have theistic notions without ever having to explicitly state a theist position.

Atheists are just people unlearning epistemology of God. Their language, their logic has yet to unlearn semantic theism. When they debate, they accidentally affirm God's existence just making presuppositional theistic statements.

It's revealing to know that logic has theistic suppositions; our lenses that reason are theistic lenses; logic deduces God's existence. intersectionality speaking, logic and theism have been bedfellows. Logicians are predominantly theistic; it appears logical theism has developed quite nicely that atheists are havin, to literally change our logical axioms such as God, as if God is an axiom, as if axiom is God.

1

it might be that God transcends time just as God transcends space, "stuff", and everything else that is part of creation. perhaps God looks at spacetime in much the same way that physics describes it (where time is just another dimension or axis), but none of us, in our temporal and 3-dimensional existence, can visualize.

i wouldn't ascribe too many concrete attributes or properties to God.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.