Question:
In a timeless environment, how is it possible for God to ''create'' if he does not have a Creator?
Devilishly Sexy MasterMinD
2010-01-30 04:08:29 UTC
Shouldn't timeless existence render God unable to create anything, because otherwise it would lead to the ''turtles all the way down'' blunder ?

Think about it:

- God created (insert name of thing) in a timeless environment
- Mega-God created God in a timeless environment
- Sega-God created Mega-God in a timeless environment etc.

So if you say God can create, he must have a Creator, which also must have a Creator, and so on. It doesn't matter that God is eternal. Only if he can't create anything could it be that he doesn't have any Creator.

This paradox is actually giving me a headache. Opinions? Solutions?
Ten answers:
Mr McKenzie- Tears of Joy
2010-01-30 08:33:48 UTC
The fallacy lies in the presumption that the causal Agent who brought about the universe must be subject to the same materialist limitations as the universe. Remember, not 'everything' has a creator, or cause, but that everything 'that begins to exist' has a cause. If God is eternal, as many theist believe, then he had no beginning and thus neither a creator nor a cause. This sounds suspiciously like making a special exception for God. However, atheist themselves used to be very comfortable in maintaining that the universe is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that they can no longer hold that position because of modern evidence that the universe started with the Big Bang. So they can't legitimately object when I make the same claim about God, he is eternal and he is uncaused.



Another interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.



@Arch-human Mitchell, x cannot equal the Cosmic Rebound Theory. The problems with this theory are numerous, and for those reasons it has fallen out of favor. First, and most obviously, there's no evidence for an infinite number of bangs, after all, its not the big bang, bang, bang, bang, bang theory! The universe appears to have exploded from nothing, not repeatedly for existing material.



Second, there's not enough matter in the universe to pull everything back together. The universe seems poised to continue expanding indefinitely. This was confirmed in 2003 by Charles Bennett of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. After looking at readings from NASA's latest space probe, he said, "The universe will expand forever. It will not turn back on itself and collapse in a great crunch." In fact, astronomers are now finding that the universe's expansion speed is actually accelerating, making a collapse even more improbable.



Third, even if there were enough matter to cause the universe to contract and 'bang' again, the Cosmic Rebound Theory contradictions the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the theory falsely assumes that no energy would be lost in each contraction and explosion. A universe 'banging' repeatedly would eventually fizzles out. So if the universe has been expanding and contracting forever, it would have fizzled out already.



Finally, there's no way that today would have gotten here if the universe had been expanding and contracting forever. An infinite number of big bangs is an actual impossibility. And even if there were a finite number of bangs, the theory cannot explain what caused the first one. There was nothing to 'bang' before the first bang!
ApologySmologie
2010-01-30 04:43:49 UTC
It is a paradox. For example those who are of a Judeo-Christian faith admit that it is extremely difficult, if not beyond current human capacity, to comprehend a Creator that has no beginning. We know nothing in our experience that exists that did not "come into" existence, and we base all we logically know on what we can understand from what we experience, don't we?



Yet perhaps, and just perhaps--not objectively speaking, because at this point we are speaking highly theoretically and, as understood in academic terms, in reference to a religious "revelation," meaning developing theories based on the premise that such revelation is true (i.e., if what God says is true, then based on that how is such-and-such possible, etc.)--we answer our own question when we ask it.



We end up with this "headache" because we admittedly cannot wrap our minds around it. It is contrary to how we use logic. We start bumping into very hard corners in our minds that we never knew we were there, and we become overwhelmed. To me when that happens I see myself as one of those cartoon robots that someone gives a suggestion to that goes beyond his program, and that this somehow causes him to self-destruct over the paradox such a suggestion makes.



I get the same headache. Everyone does, regardless if it is true or not. It does not compute. Period.



Part of the reason this happens is that in order to function we can't sit around all day thinking about being on a small speckle of rock hurling around the void with the possibility that today is the day the equation proves true and we get stuck by an even bigger rock and go BOOM! It's gonna happen, sooner or later. Even if it doesn't happen to the entire planet, something big enough can still fall out of the sky and that "pretty falling star" some kid is making a wish on is landing on our head and snuffing us out. "Thanks for the wish, kid. I hope you're happy!"



We can't do that. Otherwise we won't live our lives. We have to settle on some things always being at constant otherwise we won't get into cars (because sooner or later there might be an accident and we might die) or into planes (because sooner or later there might be a crash and we might die) or even eat food (because sooner or later we might eat something poisoned and we might die). No, we trust in the constants.



Same thing with this. It's hard to grasp this mainly because we generally base our logic on what we can experience. To go against experience is illogical. To then realize that our experience is relative (for example by accepting this theory) we can go bonkers.



Of course, this theory also exists in science. It's called the "theory of relativity." You know the one that if you could travel the speed of light that your wrist watch would stop? It would, really, and you would witness it. How?



It will give you another headache, but this one you can blame on science and not religion, how is that? Read up on the hard version (from Wikipedia) and the easy one (For Dummies) below.



Then go about living your life, realizing that what we learn about God is not based on experience but on reliance that his self-revelation is true...that is if it really came from HIm as He says it does.



And take a couple of aspirin, mindful to write me back if you ever do totally comprehend any of these time relativity things from either science or religion. I'm so dizzy now I need to lie down.
Mitchincredible
2010-01-30 04:14:38 UTC
Maybe his eternity is the eternal line of God creating God.



Edit:

1. x is eternal

2. x is supposedly created

3. x creates itself

4. x is therefore eternal and created



However x can also be the universe expanding and regressing.
SUNDAS
2010-02-01 04:50:38 UTC
no no no GOD is only and that ALLAH after before there here nothing first of all TRUST is the big thing don't thing about all the blunders if he made the who made y made...blah blah .......it is made my GOD so know better then us right we cant say like this the way u said keep ur trust in him that's it after that its all his not Ur's right i hope u understand what i m trying to say if i said some thing wrong then i m sorry for that.i said what i know thats it after that u r wish
The CAt in the Tin Foil HAt v21
2010-01-30 04:24:36 UTC
My theory is that the Universe was excreted from the squeezed pimple on the face of some multi dimensional pan Universal spotty teen with self esteem issues.





Yes, that's right folks.



God is an Emo.
?
2010-01-30 04:16:21 UTC
God needs a creator indeed.

But Chuck Norris does not.

And, Mr Norris' roundhouse kicking started the big bang.
Meshuggah Yam-Gazlen
2010-01-30 09:37:07 UTC
"god" is defined as the "first cause", "that which exists without a creator"



problem solved by definition!



oy!
craig b
2010-01-30 04:31:43 UTC
God is eternal.

Can't quite get that through your simple mind - huh?
Dizzymo
2010-01-30 06:18:31 UTC
GOD is all powerful.

He can break the rules.

He was always there[infinate]

He is the 1st and the last, Alpha and Omega
aced
2010-01-30 04:29:23 UTC
what nonsense r u babbling , why would god need a creator.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...