Why a creative 'God' cannot Exist

[Ozymandias]

Some Hindus refuse to describe their God, Brahman (or is it Brahma?), in anything but negatives. ("Not this, no, not this,") This is because trying to explain him limits what he can do. I'm sure there are theists of this belief, too, that their God is beyond your logic and reasoning.

 

[spidergoat]

".., that their God is beyond your logic and reasoning."
...........................
If this is true, then even the best reasons for god's existence are only a matter of opinion.

 

[TimotheusBenj]

Well, it is impossible to explain God by the means known to man. If an all mighty force was shown in its fullness, everything would be blown away. For, we are all made of atoms, and we know that if a strong enough power is applied to them that they can separated or combined. Realizing that God is omnipotent, then you begin to see that states He has power beyond this universes limits. To try to explain it by means of which we can see, feel, taste, hear, or smell would have complete fallability. It would be easy for Him to create anything He wanted, because He is omnipotent (all powerful). If He is omnipotent, then in His pure form He couldn't have boundaries. Thus, He must be omnipresent. And if He is omnipotent and omnipresent, this would be a waste of power and copacity if He was purely brawns and no brains. Looking at us, which would be His creation, we see an intelligence and a desire for perfect intelligence that must have come from some sort of Originator. This Originator couldn't be limited to this universe, because He must have perfect knowlege, and we have seen none in this because we are sitting here debating about something easy explained away as unexplainable. Thus, the Originator would have to be omniscient. Stating this, He becomes omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. A Being such as this would realize His singularity and would want to have a companion to share such a power, insight, and presence, so He would set up a perfect place to house this creature of adoration. His first attempt would be to make powerful servants that would constantly praise Him, but He was saddenned that they would do this without the choice. so, He decided to make another place that would be one that housed a creature that resembled Him and had this quality to choose. He would first set it up so that the place would have a period of light and dark, so it could see how He could show His glory in two contrasts. Then, He'd create a place for this creature to be housed. Realizing this place was dull and without resources for the creature to exhibit any ability, He'd place some water to cover it. Seeing this wouldn't be enough, He placed some lesser creatures, such as fish and some birds that could inhabit without worry this water planet, but they didn't seem to be enough. He brought in some land so that this creature could roam and see not only one place of wonder but look out and the next, the water, and think on the awesomeness and infinite glory that must be his Creator. Seeing, that this land was barren, the Creator would then place plants and some other lesser animals that could make this surely a place of vivid diversity. Thus completing the preparations, He would set out to creature His masterpiece. First, He would look at Himself and see what He was like. Realizing He is powerful, He would take up some of the earth, which He had made with support and strength to hold all His other creations that were upon it, and mold it into a form of strength. He would look at His intelligence, and then place in it the knowlege He had. For, it is a truth we don't use all of our brains, which would follow the account in Gen. 3 about the fall os man losing this perfect image of God. Also, He would have to look at His omnipresence, and realizing there would be know way this creature could be this and dwell in this place in capacity that would have it search each place to see what it was like, instead He would make a creature that could walk and be seen as different and above the others. He would make one that was upright to show it stood for the powerful Creator that seemed to be loving in the fact that He wanted companionship. He would make one that was different from the others which had complete fur, scales, or feathers. This one would have hair that would make it seem like it was wearing a crown, signifying its importance. When you look at all these things, you infere that I'm talking about man. Seeing that man would be lonely, because man would be subjected to seeing other animals with others of its kind, He would make a creature that would be perfect for man. This one would also take time, because He would want it to be special. Thus, He created woman, which means "out of man" (not a hard concept to think on). Being Omniscient, He knew that some of the creatures that He had first made to praise Him would rebel at the fact He loved this new creature and honored it more than they. This would really get to the one that He had placed in charge of all the others (because an omniscient Being would know order is peaceful and chaos is frustrating.) So, naturally this creature would get others that would follow him and rebel. Well, it would be impossible for him to win against God, so he would instead target his object of affection. This being man, he would find what would separate man from God. Well, God had given man dominion of the earth. Man could do anything except eat of one tree. On this tree He had placed the only knowlege that He had kept from man. It was the knowlege of sin. He did this so that man wouldn't look at himself or try to see if there would have been any "corrections" he could do to himself, thus taking away from his time with God. This would be worship, because worship is defined as the spending of your time with something or someone. Man was created to worship God. Well, man Since God is omnipotent, He would realize this would come. So, He took and made Himself into three forms, which wouldn't be impossible for an omnipotent God. One would be His pure form, the other a form would be one that would pay the debt man would have because He knew man would be seduced into eating of this tree by the creature created first (which are angels), because they are highly intelligent creatures, and finally a being that would come down after man's debt was paid to be with him until God had set up another place for him that would be filled only with those things that honored God and glorified Him. So, when man ate of the tree, it made Him realize His nakeness, which had not been shone to him before, and he hid. God asked Him why he hid (not to see what had happened, but to see if man knew his own guilt), and man amitted he ate from the tree. Well, you know of this story, but it seems to hold great truth. I'm not the author of it, nor am I most knowlegeable of it, but God would know. You look at how we came from having a world with many natural wonders to one that is covered in the artificial wonders we have created. We always seem to be trying to become supreme, but something always seems to be holding us back. The second Being was Jesus, and there is no question it was Him. A sole reason to see this would be the fact that out of all the religious leaders in the world, He is the only one whose body is unaccounted for. Also, of all the religions, Christianity is the one that is targeted by the others. Some may say that they don't, but then you see where they attack it in one form or another. It's odd that Christianity is the religion that says give testimony by living a life that reflects God's in the fact that God is loving, but not in a love man would be comfortable to show. It's not sensual, not one that asks for return, rather it is one that gives without thought of return. Christians are odd, because when they are about to be killed for their faith they are full of love and peace that couldn't come from man. For, man has part of Lucifer, the angel who led the rebellion, in them. We had traded God's image for Lucifer's. But Christ came to give it back to us. We just have to accept that He really did it. We can't explain it, because, since we rebelled, we lost that part of us that could realize such a love. God allowed the fall to happen because He wanted us to fully appreciate His gift. May Christ's hope shine to you. God bless. Bye.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Well, it is impossible to explain God by the means known to man. If an all mighty force was shown in its fullness, everything would be blown away. For, we are all made of atoms, and we know that if a strong enough power is applied to them that they can separated or combined.

Tunneling the depths of non sequitur ...

May Christ's hope shine to you.

... we get to the Christ fairy-tail on the other side. It's moronic at worst, pathetic at best.

 

[Jenyar]

Authentic human freedom and God's creative will converge in the eternal and timeless mind of God, but will remain irreconcilable to our finite and time-bound human minds.

God can be creative because His will and knowledge is not limited to Himself. He could imagine more than there was, and could make His imagination a reality. Isn't that what an artist does?

 

[spidergoat]

Who created God?

 

[1Dude]

Who created God?

If God is eternal then he has no need for anyone to create Him.

Absolute Nothingness is the complete absence of the existence of all things whether in the form of matter, energy, space, or anything else known or unknown. It is the total absence of existence.

No real and actual thing can come from Absolute Nothingness for it has no existence, no energy, no matter, no space, or anything else known or unknown from which to create it. No real and actual thing can really and actually “spontaneously generate” or create itself from Absolute Nothingness. To do this it would have to either pre-exist itself or be created by something else. If it pre-exists itself then “it” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If something else created it then that “something else” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If a first cause of any kind exists then that “first cause” actually exists and again we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If there are fluctuations of space or energy, or the pre-existence of particles, or the pre-existence of anything of any kind whatsoever then it is not Absolute Nothingness.

Now, if Absolute Nothingness ever existed, then there would be Absolute Nothingness right now. For Something cannot come from Absolute Nothingness. However, Something does exist. In fact You exist. Therefore, the very fact that You exist is proof that Absolute Nothingness never existed. Now, if Absolute Nothingness never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.

If Something is truly eternal then it would have no beginning. If Something has no beginning then it has no need for any cause or creator because it has always been. It would possess everything necessary for its own existence within its own being, whatever that is. It would be Self-existent. It must also have the “potential” and “ability” to create “Something else” other than itself, for if it does not, it would still be the only thing that exists today. “Something else” does exist. In fact You exist. You have a beginning so You are not the “Eternal Something”. This “Eternal Something” then is the uncaused cause of You.

 

[Raithere]

If 'God' is omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere at once, then can he ever have had a creative thought, ie to create the universe and us?

By that definition God would have all thoughts, 'creative' and otherwise. But this does not create any prohibitions against God doing anything he likes. However, it does bring to mind the question of why he would bother. After all, he already knows what will happen down to the last detail, nothing could ever be new or interesting. Perhaps God deliberately created something that he does not know everything about so as not to be bored. Or perhaps God is only omniscient with respect to our Universe but not in regards to himself.

~Raithere

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

Umm... you said "he" couldn't be a creator because "he" can't know absolutely everything... why can't you know everything and not have created everything? I didn't invent the ThreeFold Law but i know everything about it... or lets just pretend i was an expert and did. Doesn't mean I created it.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

For, man has part of Lucifer, the angel who led the rebellion, in them. We had traded God's image for Lucifer's. But Christ came to give it back to us. We just have to accept that He really did it.

Ummm, Lucifer wasn't an angel... he was an ancient Middle-eastern king who was nicknamed "lucifer" meaning "evil one" because he was corrupt. Then the Christians/Jews come along and say "evil one? Oh! They're talking about Satan!" wrong, Lucifer=King, Satan=evil. See the difference? They have nothing to do with each other.

We can't explain it, because, since we rebelled, we lost that part of us that could realize such a love. God allowed the fall to happen because He wanted us to fully appreciate His gift. May Christ's hope shine to you. God bless. Bye.

With all that last part you do realise how much of an idiot you sound? He ain't got know hope! He's dead for crying out loud! And also I don't ever remember rebelling... did I get doped up and pass out for a while or something to miss that? And also, if God allowed us to suffer to make us appreciate him he didn't suceed very well did he?!

 

[Alaric]

By that definition God would have all thoughts, 'creative' and otherwise. But this does not create any prohibitions against God doing anything he likes. However, it does bring to mind the question of why he would bother. After all, he already knows what will happen down to the last detail, nothing could ever be new or interesting. Perhaps God deliberately created something that he does not know everything about so as not to be bored. Or perhaps God is only omniscient with respect to our Universe but not in regards to himself.

You miss the point, Raithere - you can't be omniscient only with respect to one part of the universe - say, the Earth. If you were able to manipulate the Earth and everything in it, but didn't know what you were going to do to Earth before you did it, you couldn't know what would happen on Earth. Omniscient really means OMNIscient.

The trouble is, if you already know what you are going to do, you can't have a creative thought, because that would require that you didn't know you would have it in advance. Omnipotence requires omniscience and also means that you are, quite literally, everything. Which means you can't think, feel etc. I.e. - the universe itself. God can only think, love, and create if He is less that omnipotent.

 

[spidergoat]

You have a beginning so You are not the “Eternal Something”.

Dude, I disagree, I had no beginning. "You" are the result of the common dictionary definition of a discrete entity, however your actual material nature can be traced back to the merging of egg and sperm, and further traced back to the beginnings of the universe itself. I agree nothing can come from nothing, and if there is something, that something must be eternal. Life is a temporary configuration of that which is eternal. But the eternal thing might just be the universe, not god. I suggest only inanimate forms can be eternal, not personalities. Where would god get his personality, where would this wish to create come from if god was an island in a sea of nothingness? What is the cause of god's supposed creativity? An eternal inanimate form is more likely, since complexity seems to build upon previous forms, rather than happening all at once.

 

[Raithere]

You miss the point, Raithere - you can't be omniscient only with respect to one part of the universe - say, the Earth. If you were able to manipulate the Earth and everything in it, but didn't know what you were going to do to Earth before you did it, you couldn't know what would happen on Earth. Omniscient really means OMNIscient.

Well, I didn't say that God was omniscience only in regards to one part of the Universe; I said that God might exist apart from the Universe. In other words God might be atemporal.

But your argument still depends upon what we mean by omniscience. Using the definition that omniscience means all knowledge without temporal or other modal constraints you are correct. Only I don't think the Bible and other such religious notions are quite that specific.

The trouble is, if you already know what you are going to do, you can't have a creative thought, because that would require that you didn't know you would have it in advance.

Do you mean a thought about a creative act or an original thought God has never had before. Omniscience (as per your definition) only negates the latter and they are not the same thing.

Omnipotence requires omniscience and also means that you are, quite literally, everything.

I disagree. How do you figure?

Which means you can't think, feel etc. I.e. - the universe itself. God can only think, love, and create if He is less that omnipotent.

The problem is that you're using all sorts of nebulous terms as if they have some static meaning. Define think and love in the context of omniscience and universality that makes them impossible. In short, all we have so far is your assertion without an argument.

~Raithere

 

[Alaric]

Well, I didn't say that God was omniscience only in regards to one part of the Universe; I said that God might exist apart from the Universe. In other words God might be atemporal.

But then the universe would be one part of Everything, and the part where God was would be another part. And its claimed that God's bit influences the other bit, so they are in effect part of the same Everything. So, its a contradiction in terms to say 'outside the universe'. The universe is literally everything.

But your argument still depends upon what we mean by omniscience. Using the definition that omniscience means all knowledge without temporal or other modal constraints you are correct. Only I don't think the Bible and other such religious notions are quite that specific.

They often can't seem to make up their minds - but I think God loses all authority if He is less than omniscient. Then He's just a very powerful being who wants us to do his bidding. Only if He knows all can he justify commanding us, and rewarding and punishing us. (But as I argue in 'the right of God to judge' thread, even that isn't good enough.)

Do you mean a thought about a creative act or an original thought God has never had before. Omniscience (as per your definition) only negates the latter and they are not the same thing.

True, but if you are omniscient, technically you would have all thoughts in your head at the same time. You couldn't suddenly think about creating something, because you should already have known that you would think that. I would even say that 'think' is the wrong word, because there is no need to think when you already know everything.

I disagree. How do you figure?

Omnipotence requires omniscience because if there was something you didn't know, you couldn't act on it. Omnipotence doesn't just mean that if you did know, you would be able to act; omnipotence means that you can do anything, no restrictions, and lack of knowledge would restrict your actions. Likewise, no restrictions means that you must be able to interact with anything, no matter the time or place. Having complete power means, in effect, that you are everything - as there isn't a single lepton that you don't have complete and utter knowledge of and control over. But since you also know everything, you cannot think, as I've said, and so you cannot act. You are just the dead universe. Making omnipotence meaningless - a logical impossibility, since potence requires that you are less than all powerful. Ergo, the omnipotent-yet-loving and perfectly just Abrahamic God cannot possibly exist. Sweet.

The problem is that you're using all sorts of nebulous terms as if they have some static meaning. Define think and love in the context of omniscience and universality that makes them impossible. In short, all we have so far is your assertion without an argument.

Hopefully I have now. Noone's actually ever challenged these ideas of mine before, so any critical analysis would be very welcome. If its correct, then we can compare God to invisible pink elephants or broke millionaires (things that don't make logical sense), instead of the same old Santa Claus and leprechauns (which are technically possible).

 

[Jenyar]

But since you also know everything, you cannot think, as I've said, and so you cannot act.

Unless, of course, knowing everything includes the ability to combine everything you know into different configurations, and choosing one - "freezing it" in thought, thereby... creating it. Just think for a moment: theoretically, all possible configurations of this universe could exist simultaneously, yet we are only aware of this one.

In that sense, "creation" is a limitation of what you know, not an expansion into what you didn't. And it confirms what we already knew: acting is choosing.

 

[1Dude]

Awesome Spidergoat,

"...traced back to the beginnings of the universe itself."

If the universe has a beginning as you stated above then there was a time when it was not. If there ever was a time when the universe was not then it is not eternal as you stated below. Please clarify what you intended to say here because I’m not sure which one you really believe. Thank you for your considerate response!

"...But the eternal thing might just be the universe…”

 

[spidergoat]

I don't believe anything firmly about the origins of the universe, it seems to be a mystery. I tend to agree with the big bang hypothesis, but that does leave alot of things unexplained. Perhaps the universe is both eternal from the point of view of matter and had a beginning. Like the symbol for infinity, there is a convergence point in the center. This is the sort of beginning I mean, the emergence of the known universe might have been preceded by the collapse of another universe into a singularity. Since no information can survive a singularity, we might never know how it occured. Time itself might not be eternal. If time emerged as a property of the universe, then there was never a time in which the universe did not exist.

 

[Raithere]

But then the universe would be one part of Everything, and the part where God was would be another part. And its claimed that God's bit influences the other bit, so they are in effect part of the same Everything. So, its a contradiction in terms to say 'outside the universe'. The universe is literally everything.

Okay, here's the problem. It's only possible to disprove God if you put certain constraints upon the argument. The problem is that we don't know enough to properly constrain the argument; all we can do is postulate various scenarios. The same problem exists in cosmology; there are any number of conflicting hypotheses because we do not know what the boundary conditions of our Universe are. So while you can build certain arguments to 'disprove' God they are based upon assumptions about these conditions which may or not be correct.

So while you insist on defining 'Universe' as everything, it's not necessarily so. We might say 'observable universe' or that we exist in a universe but God exists in a meta-universe. The point I'm making (and that Theists often use) is that God could exist independently of our ST continuum. Now this in itself poses some problems regarding interaction with the Universe but it does allow for God to exist.

They often can't seem to make up their minds - but I think God loses all authority if He is less than omniscient.

I tend to agree with you that he doesn't have the right to judge in the first place, but it's irrelevant to this argument.

Omnipotence requires omniscience because if there was something you didn't know, you couldn't act on it. Omnipotence doesn't just mean that if you did know, you would be able to act; omnipotence means that you can do anything, no restrictions, and lack of knowledge would restrict your actions.

Actually, I like that argument. Of course, it could be conditional. That is God might know everything all the time but could know anything that he wanted to.

Hopefully I have now. Noone's actually ever challenged these ideas of mine before, so any critical analysis would be very welcome.

Cool, I'm the same way.

If its correct, then we can compare God to invisible pink elephants or broke millionaires (things that don't make logical sense), instead of the same old Santa Claus and leprechauns (which are technically possible).

If the conditions are arbitrary though we can hypothesize anything. And there is the argument that God's existence is beyond man's logic. They're fun exercises though.

~Raithere

 

[Alaric]

Unless, of course, knowing everything includes the ability to combine everything you know into different configurations, and choosing one - "freezing it" in thought, thereby... creating it. Just think for a moment: theoretically, all possible configurations of this universe could exist simultaneously, yet we are only aware of this one.
In that sense, "creation" is a limitation of what you know, not an expansion into what you didn't. And it confirms what we already knew: acting is choosing.

But acting requires not acting at another time. Creation likewise means you are not creating... not creating... then you suddenly create. When you know that you will create, but are also able to speed through time, making time meaningless, then you have already acted. Of course, with power over everything, then there is no 'you' and 'the rest', because you are everything. Omnipotence is a real logical mess. To me, God doesn't make sense at all unless He and His powers are finite.

Okay, here's the problem. It's only possible to disprove God if you put certain constraints upon the argument. The problem is that we don't know enough to properly constrain the argument; all we can do is postulate various scenarios. The same problem exists in cosmology; there are any number of conflicting hypotheses because we do not know what the boundary conditions of our Universe are. So while you can build certain arguments to 'disprove' God they are based upon assumptions about these conditions which may or not be correct.

Yes, but the religious person has his own assumptions, and its these we can test. If omnipotence really is a logical fallacy, then God, whatever He his, is not omnipotent. We can cross that off the list.

So while you insist on defining 'Universe' as everything, it's not necessarily so. We might say 'observable universe' or that we exist in a universe but God exists in a meta-universe. The point I'm making (and that Theists often use) is that God could exist independently of our ST continuum. Now this in itself poses some problems regarding interaction with the Universe but it does allow for God to exist.

Yes, but not to be omniscient! To be omniscient about our universe, God needs to know every effect that He himself has on it, which means He also must be omniscient regarding Himself. If He knows that a meteor will hit Earth, and so decides to stop it, the meteor didn't hit Earth, and He was wrong.

If the conditions are arbitrary though we can hypothesize anything. And there is the argument that God's existence is beyond man's logic. They're fun exercises though.

God must be within our logic, or saying 'I believe in God' means nothing. If I said 'I believe in a floob, and so should you', and you asked 'what's a floob', and I said 'I don't know, its beyond my logic', then what reason is there for you to believe in it?

 

[Jenyar]

But acting requires not acting at another time. Creation likewise means you are not creating... not creating... then you suddenly create. When you know that you will create, but are also able to speed through time, making time meaningless, then you have already acted. Of course, with power over everything, then there is no 'you' and 'the rest', because you are everything. Omnipotence is a real logical mess. To me, God doesn't make sense at all unless He and His powers are finite.

How does having power over something make you part of it? You make many "logical" assertions that you don't seem to have thought through. Your omni-everything definitions included. Not because there's much wrong with your definition of omnipotence, but because your Omnipotence and my God aren't interchangable. To put it this way: you believe in Omnipotence (in order not to believe in God), I believe in God.

Creation means there is nothing... there is now... and now there is. I agree that if God decides He will do something it is as if He had already done it. We can have faith in it, even though we might not have experienced it yet.

For some reason you don't include "the ability to do something new" in your definition of omnipotence. Divine timelessness does not require that the future already exists. Therefore the objection to divine timelessness based on the future not already existing is unsound. Likewise, the definition of omnipotence (or omniscience or omnipresence)does not require that the object over which power/knowledge/presence is exerted already exists. Thus the objection that the act of creation is impossible based on the non-existence of something is unsound.