Is God dependent on us (creation) to be a creator?

[Ben_Sinner]

An assertion I have heard before by “there is no inherent existence” types. It goes like this.

"- God existed before we did, so he was not yet a creator.

• God didn’t become a creator until he created us.
• Thus the creator (God) is dependent on the creation.
• Thus the creator (God) is not absolutely independent from his creation."

Another layer to this assertion:

“Something caused God to have the desire to create something, since there was a time when creation didn’t exist…so something compelled God to create…thus he was God as the creator was dependent on some cause.”

Another layer to the assertion:

"If X can originate from something that is completely other than itself, then we could conclude that anything can originate from anything else. Example: Sprouts come from seeds (something different from itself) seeds are the cause and sprouts are the result. A stone is different from a sprout in the same way that a seed is different from a sprout. So why not say that a sprout could originate from a stone?

Asserting that X is caused by Y assumes that origination itself has been proven. However, origination itself hasn’t been established yet, so this argument fails because it’s underlying assumption fails."

So my questions are:

1. How can God NOT be dependent on creation, since a creator needs creation in order to be considered a creator?
2. How can we prove that there is inherent existence between at least two different things where one can cause the other?

 

[Vonsalza]

An assertion I have heard before by “there is no inherent existence” types. It goes like this.

"- God existed before we did, so he was not yet a creator.

• God didn’t become a creator until he created us.
• Thus the creator (God) is dependent on the creation.
• Thus the creator (God) is not absolutely independent from his creation."

Another layer to the assertion:

"If X can originate from something that is completely other than itself, then we could conclude that anything can originate from anything else. Example: Sprouts come from seeds (something different from itself) seeds are the cause and sprouts are the result. A stone is different from a sprout in the same way that a seed is different from a sprout. So why not say that a sprout could originate from a stone?

Asserting that X is caused by Y assumes that origination itself has been proven. However, origination itself hasn’t been established yet, so this argument fails because it’s underlying assumption fails."

So my questions are:

1. How can God NOT be dependent on creation, since a creator needs creation in order to be considered a creator?
2. How can we prove that there is inherent existence between at least two different things where one can cause the other?

1. Because “creator” is merely one facet of the deity just like “father” is only one facet of my person. I am other things as well; such as a son, a brother. He “was” before the creation. His “was-ness” is not dependent on the creation.
2. Several statistical models exist for relationships that can be mathematically defined. But you create a lot of assumptions when you take real events and try to express them mathematically. The details of which are beyond the scope of this setting.
   You can use logic and evaluate the truthfulness of your premises, but that really just delays the question you’re asking. Really, how can you prove your mom birthed you? DNA testing assumes that older people with a certain level of genetic similarity are your parents, but that’s an assumption, isn’t it? Moreover, how do you prove your mom’s your mom when no genetic material is available to test?

Number two is quite the philosophical question

 

[Wesrock]

There was no before God created, as there was no time or duration or moments before such things.

Still, God’s title as Creator is a relationship, not something He is intrinsically apart from creation or something He would be called if He didn’t create. But that doesn’t make Him causally dependent on creation.

 

[Vonsalza]

There was no before God created, as there was no time or duration or moments before such things.

Still, God’s title as Creator is a relationship, not something He is intrinsically apart from creation or something He would be called if He didn’t create. But that doesn’t make Him causally dependent on creation.

Are you referring to the existence of space-time being unobservable prior to the existence of the physical universe, and in THAT way there was no “before” creation

-or-

Are you saying God came into existence simultaneously with creation

-or-

Is there another option I’m not seeing?

 

[Wesrock]

Are you referring to the existence of space-time being unobservable prior to the existence of the physical universe, and in THAT way there was no “before” creation

-or-

Are you saying God came into existence simultaneously with creation

-or-

Is there another option I’m not seeing?

Space and time were themselves created by God and did not “pre-exist” Him. They are not uncreated. God never came into existence. He is eternal. But there was also no time prior to His act of creation.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

In addition to what Wesrock said, you’re ignoring the existence of angels.

 

[Usagi]

In addition to what Wesrock said, you’re ignoring the existence of angels.

They would be included in “creation,” would they not?

I agree with everyone else so far, Ben. Sure, God isn’t “the Creator” without a creation, but that doesn’t mean His existence or His deity are dependent on outside things, just one particular title. God would be God, sufficient unto Himself, even if nothing had ever been created.

The second argument places God within Time and presumes that He changes, which is not true according to classical theology. Creation, from God’s perspective, is a singular act that He is doing from all eternity. It’s not as though the Trinity floated along for gazillions of years and THEN decided to do something He/They had never thought of before. There is no “and then” with God. He is all act, no potential.

 

[STT]

There was no before God created, as there was no time or duration or moments before such things.

Still, God’s title as Creator is a relationship, not something He is intrinsically apart from creation or something He would be called if He didn’t create. But that doesn’t make Him causally dependent on creation.

Then what act of creation from nothing means if there was no time that there was nothing and then there was something.

 

[rinnie]

Then what act of creation from nothing means if there was no time that there was nothing and then there was something.

God works outside of time. God depends on no man.

 

[STT]

God works outside of time. God depends on no man.

You didn’t get my point. Can you define the act of creation?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

They would be included in “creation,” would they not?

Their creation is distinct from out creation, which is the focus of the topic.

 

[o_mlly]

An assertion I have heard before by “there is no inherent existence” types. It goes like this.

"- God existed before we did, so he was not yet a creator.

• God didn’t become a creator until he created us.
• Thus the creator (God) is dependent on the creation.
• Thus the creator (God) is not absolutely independent from his creation."
  …
  So my questions are:

1. How can God NOT be dependent on creation, since a creator needs creation in order to be considered a creator?
2. How can we prove that there is inherent existence between at least two different things where one can cause the other?

1. The cause always precedes its effects and its existence is independent of its effects.
2. The cause is always present to its effects.

 

[Vonsalza]

Space and time were themselves created by God and did not “pre-exist” Him. They are not uncreated. God never came into existence. He is eternal. But there was also no time prior to His act of creation.

Well, in fairness, the “void” existed prior to creation. I assume that means the empty, inky blackness of empty space we see between the stars. Assuming that these two things are the same is a jump I’ll admit to making, but I think it’s a reasonable one - if not absolutely proven.

And the existence of space-time isn’t necessarily dependent on the things within it. It’s just totally 100% unobservable without created objects to mark it with. One could reasonably conclude that space-time was part of the “void”. Violating the void with creation just enabled part of the creation (us) to “see” it.

And for a functioning definition for “creation” (in reference to STT) I suggest the Oxford dictionaries - the most authoritative in our language.

Indeed, the atheist must believe in “something from nothing”. They are then bound to defend/explain the apparent contradiction. The Christian, on the other hand, believes in “something from the mind of God”.

To quote Stephen King, “It’s turtles all the way down”.

 

[Wesrock]

Well, in fairness, the “void” existed prior to creation. I assume that means the empty, inky blackness of empty space we see between the stars. Assuming that these two things are the same is a jump I’ll admit to making, but I think it’s a reasonable one - if not absolutely proven.

And the existence of space-time isn’t necessarily dependent on the things within it. It’s just totally 100% unobservable without created objects to mark it with. One could reasonably conclude that space-time was part of the “void”. Violating the void with creation just enabled part of the creation (us) to “see” it.

To this I’d bring up two points. It space-time isn’t dependent on the things in it (and I don’t claim it is) then it is a thing in itself, which God must be the cause of. The only thing that is itself unbegotten and uncreated is God. Second, space-time is itself expanding, as our understanding of physics illustrates, like the surface of a balloon being stretched out. The space between things is growing, and not just because objects are by physical motion drifting apart. Our best scientific hypothesis is that space-time itself was once contracted to a singularity.

By void, our understanding must be “no-thingness”, not simply empty space, and there were no moments prior to creation.

 

[Vonsalza]

To this I’d bring up two points. It space-time isn’t dependent on the things in it (and I don’t claim it is) then it is a thing in itself, which God must be the cause of. The only thing that is itself unbegotten and uncreated is God. Second, space-time is itself expanding, as our understanding of physics illustrates, like the surface of a balloon being stretched out. The space between things is growing, and not just because objects are by physical motion drifting apart. Our best scientific hypothesis is that space-time itself was once contracted to a singularity.

By void, our understanding must be “no-thingness”, not simply empty space, and there were no moments prior to creation.

I think we’re missing each other on this one.

Space-time isn’t necessarily a thing, it’s only observable through things. It’s sorta like a mile. A mile isn’t a material thing, it’s a word used to describe a distance between two points.

So space-time isn’t necessarily expanding outward; the matter and energy of the universe is; which is expanding observable space-time with it. The void that the material universe is moving into obviously “exists” for the universe to move into it. But as such, it only “exists” as an “object” embodying the idea of “no-thing-ness” which might be filled with “some-thing-ness”.

Ergo it is conceivable to reference a point at some arbitrary distance outside the edge of the material universe, with respect to the material universe, even if that point is only hypothetical.

To be sure, the void of that empty space is simply nothing. No frame of reference of any kind exists in it. It is the “no-thing” in which God created “some-thing”. It is infinite, empty, nothingness.

As an aside, how wild it would be if we could magically pop just beyond the universe and watch the burst of creation fly by. :hypno:

 

[Wesrock]

I think we’re missing each other on this one.

Perhaps, but one point.

So space-time isn’t necessarily expanding outward; the matter and energy of the universe is; which is expanding observable space-time with it. The void that the material universe is moving into obviously “exists” for the universe to move into it. But as such, it only “exists” as an “object” embodying the idea of “no-thing-ness” which might be filled with “some-thing-ness”.

No, the space between things is intrinsically expanding (at least according to our best models). Space itself is actually stretching. The expansion of the universe is not simply matter and energy spreading apart. It’s more like the surface of an expanding balloon (where the rubber surface of the balloon is the universe, not the interior space). This does not mean there is an edge to the universe, though.

 

[Vonsalza]

Perhaps, but one point.

No, the space between things is intrinsically expanding (at least according to our best models). Space itself is actually stretching. The expansion of the universe is not simply matter and energy spreading apart. It’s more like the surface of an expanding balloon (where the rubber surface of the balloon is the universe, not the interior space). This does not mean there is an edge to the universe, though.

Sure there is. The edge of the “balloon” would be expanding sphere of photons released in the explosion of the singularity. All energy and matter within that balloon are achieving a lower density as a result of the further inflation of that balloon.

We could never get to the edge - that’s a given. The fastest we can “fly” is the at least the same speed at which the point you’re moving toward is moving away from your origin.

I guess we mean something different when we say “universe”. I mean everything within the particle horizon; which is observably finite and expanding into, as far as we know, literal nothing.
I’m guessing you mean everything and the space it’s expanding into, which would be infinite, and probably curved along a dimension we’re unaware of. It doesn’t help either of us that the universe is measured to be flat, but not without infinitesimal uncertainty.

Finite vs. Infinite. Perhaps there’s our difference? I guess the next question would be “did the big-bang release a finite amount of stuff, or an infinite amount of stuff?”

I must note, I’ve admitted that the existence of space-time beyond the edge of a finite universe is hypothetical and unknowable. If you wish to rebut further, keep that in mind.

Fun!

 

[Wesrock]

But I’m not talking about an edge to the universe or approaching an edge or speaking of the universe as if it’s an expanding area within a balloon. The space itself is stretching like a rubber sheet being pulled at all corners. Eliminate all local motion and inertia of all matter and energy of the universe, and the universe would still be expanding because the space itself is expanding as if it’s some type of stretchable fabric. Draw two points on a balloon’s surface. Now blow more air into the balloon. The two points are now further apart because space itself actually expanded between them.

When scientists say that space is expanding, they do not mean that objects are moving apart because of their initial inertia at the big bang. They mean that actual space-time itself is expanding as its own thing.

Objects are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. Not because any matter is moving faster than the speed of light, but because space itself is expanding between them like a stretchable material, and this combined with their less than light speed motion results in faster than light distance growing between them.

I’m not speaking of any area outside of the universe. Nor is there necessarily an edge to the universe. It might very well be closed. Travel in a straight line around the surface of the earth and you’ll get back to where you started; you’ll never find an edge. The universe might very well be closed in the same way, as some type of surface (while still maintaining a flat curvature, as far as manifolds go).

 

[Vonsalza]

But I’m not talking about an edge to the universe or approaching an edge or speaking of the universe as if it’s an expanding area within a balloon. The space itself is stretching like a rubber sheet being pulled at all corners. Eliminate all local motion and inertia of all matter and energy of the universe, and the universe would still be expanding because the space itself is expanding as if it’s some type of stretchable fabric. Draw two points on a balloon’s surface. Now blow more air into the balloon. The two points are now further apart because space itself actually expanded between them.

I agree totally. When two bodies move further apart, there’s more space time between them. However, you can’t remove the inertia. Its a fact of being. When I (the big bang) throw a ball to the east and then a ball to the west, their inertia carries them further apart unless some other force stops it. You can look at it the other way around and say that the space time is increasing between the two, which causes them to move further apart, but that’s really saying the same thing, just with respect to the space between instead of the origin. Don’t see what the problem is, here.

When scientists say that space is expanding, they do not mean that objects are moving apart because of their initial inertia at the big bang. They mean that actual space-time itself is expanding as its own thing.

The space time “push” is used to explain the expansion of the universe beyond the initial pop of the big bang, but that by no means requires the universe lacks an edge - did your professors never cover the cosmic horizon and the particle horizon?

There’s even a few PhD-ed madmen I’ve read that speculate the push of space time is really a pull from the void beyond the universe. :whacky:

Objects are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. Not because any matter is moving faster than the speed of light, but because space itself is expanding between them like a stretchable material, and this combined with their less than light speed motion results in faster than light distance growing between them.

By definition, nothing moves from its origin faster than the speed of light. Now if I toss my ball to the east and another to the west, both at the speed of light, they are faster than the speed of light with respect to one another, but not their origin. The only exception I’ve ever heard was in the opening seconds of the big bang, but physicists generally agree that particular environment was quintessentially unique with respect to the laws of Newtonian and quantum physics. It is debated whether that “faster than light” stuff even qualified as “existing” at that point.

I still don’t see how this shows the universe can’t have an edge and there be nothing beyond it.

I’m not speaking of any area outside of the universe. Nor is there necessarily an edge to the universe. It might very well be closed. Travel in a straight line around the surface of the earth and you’ll get back to where you started; you’ll never find an edge. The universe might very well be closed in the same way, as some type of surface (while still maintaining a flat curvature, as far as manifolds go).

Sure. And it may be open or flat. It may be an expanding bubble alone in the void. Or one of many, or infinite bubbles in the void - a la multiverse. We can’t get beyond the frontier so we’ll never know. Finite vs. Infinite universe.

I’m genuinely not sure what you’re trying to say or how you think I was wrong about whatever you think I was wrong about. :slapfight:

 

[Wesrock]

I agree totally. When two bodies move further apart, there’s more space time between them. However, you can’t remove the inertia. Its a fact of being. When I (the big bang) throw a ball to the east and then a ball to the west, their inertia carries them further apart unless some other force stops it. You can look at it the other way around and say that the space time is increasing between the two, which causes them to move further apart, but that’s really saying the same thing, just with respect to the space between instead of the origin. Don’t see what the problem is, here.

The space time “push” is used to explain the expansion of the universe beyond the initial pop of the big bang, but that by no means requires the universe lacks an edge - did your professors never cover the cosmic horizon and the particle horizon?

There’s even a few PhD-ed madmen I’ve read that speculate the push of space time is really a pull from the void beyond the universe. :whacky:

By definition, nothing moves from its origin faster than the speed of light. Now if I toss my ball to the east and another to the west, both at the speed of light, they are faster than the speed of light with respect to one another, but not their origin. The only exception I’ve ever heard was in the opening seconds of the big bang, but physicists generally agree that particular environment was quintessentially unique with respect to the laws of Newtonian and quantum physics. It is debated whether that “faster than light” stuff even qualified as “existing” at that point.

I still don’t see how this shows the universe can’t have an edge and there be nothing beyond it.

Sure. And it may be open or flat. It may be an expanding bubble alone in the void. Or one of many, or infinite bubbles in the void - a la multiverse. We can’t get beyond the frontier so we’ll never know. Finite vs. Infinite universe.

I’m genuinely not sure what you’re trying to say or how you think I was wrong about whatever you think I was wrong about. :slapfight:

lol

Space-time isn’t nothing. It isn’t the void. It’s a thing in itself that had a distinct beginning and is part of creation, and there was no such thing as time or duration prior to it, this last phrase being my original point.