God: The Creation Paradox: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » God: The Creation Paradox » God: The Creation Paradox

God: The Creation Paradox

Corbono
Constant Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 17, 2008
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/19/08 - 06:18 PM: Subject: God: The Creation Paradox	#1
Creating Creation. The way I see creation isn't creating a new object or idea it is more of a rearrangement of information. More like legos or a puzzle, you can rearrange them all you want but pretty soon you will notice the basis at which all rearrangements contain. Its like the question can you create "New with the old", the answer is obviously no on a realistic stand point. I guess what I am trying to say is that Creating something new is impossible, its already been done before just to what extent it has been done gives it, at least to us, a degree of new or old. I guess this is the mystery of creation on the godly plane, but what about the all knowing all creator, the one who created everything? well I'm sure by everything most religious folk mean absolute everything, nothing goes missing in that statement, except for god because that would be a fallacy . But what about the idea of creation? you can not create if you have no idea what creation is! In my mind you can't have any idea of creation with out its idea to begin with. Well then maybe god is stuck in our situation, and he can only rearrange the ideas,information, and objects to "create". Well then god isn't any more supernatural then we are. Sort of makes the God godless.
Chaos: the only order in the universe

DarkBulzeeb
Logician

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 31, 2005
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 387

Posted 08/20/08 - 12:00 AM:	#2
Good point. On an intuitive level we experience change in the likes of "new" forms, but in reality every single "change" so to speak relies on a previous state, thus there's nothing that is perfectly or independently original. If "new" was possible, it wouldn't have to rely on the old in order to be formulated. It's like saying your ancestor's are completely different from you, despite the fact that their genes are the very genes that run through your body and have escentially helped to formulate you. That also kind of brings up the question of what change really is, if it is to rely on the former to establish the latter, but that would be veering off topic, so I won't go on a tangent. It reminds me of the "Who created God" question.
.....

Corbono
Constant Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 17, 2008
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/20/08 - 08:41 AM:	#3
Precisely, I have a hard time excepting that even on the supernatural level that God can create new ideas, information, ect.. Especially creating creation to begin with, I mean thats the corner stone on to which all creation can begin. It reminds me of the who created god question as well except according to the church we can't argue about that because its fallacy to begin with.
Chaos: the only order in the universe

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 692

Posted 08/20/08 - 11:10 AM: Subject: The concept of "Thing"	#4
Its a better question than "who created god", because it questions the nature of the word creation, and the concept of a thing. This is because the concept of creation requires a thing which is created. The law of identity says (in some formulations) that A=A - a thing is always identical to itself, at least as far as we are concerned. This means that if we are speaking about a man called Dave, and trying to either reason or convey meaning, we must continue to use the same phrases/symbols to refer to Dave. Why does this have a bearing on questions about god, you may quite justifiably and understandably ask? It has a bearing because the Dave you refer to now was a different person a few short years ago, no molecule of his body is the same now as it was then, he has gained many experiences, and he is therefore not truly identical with the Dave we are talking about. If we take it back further, the Dave we refer to was merely a few meals, his parent’s genetic material, and a string of events waiting to happen. If we are talking about creating a thing, we are always referring to a process of change between some things that already exist, never about something springing in to existence from nothing. We refer to each member of the collection of things that were combined and changed to form Dave with many different words. Genes, Beef burgers, Memories/history, water, iron, zinc etc. The fact is that we are imposing our concept of “thing” on each of these things in order to deal with them separately, and in actual fact they are all part of the one universe; and as it happens, part of Dave. The concept of a thing is obviously useful, but the fact that no new things really pop in to existence implies (in a roundabout way) that our application of the concept of thing is actually a fallacy. We have such a concept because it is useful, in reality nothing is ever simply a thing. This implies that creation is not only unnecessary, it has never been observed to happen except within our minds.

Corbono
Constant Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 17, 2008
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/20/08 - 06:59 PM:	#5
Nicely said Makarismos
Chaos: the only order in the universe

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.