Abiogenisis Creation Of a Deity

[nabiscothejerd]

We always say that non-literalist christianity is compatible with evolution, but i've been thinking lately about how is abiogenisis not compatible with a deity. After all everything according to a creationist (YEC and OEC) God had to have been created, so how was the deity created?

I haven't thought about this for awhile, (so I don't have many thoughts on this idea yet), and i'm on my lunch break right now about to go back to work. Enjoy till my return.

Edited for two grammer mistakes

 

[Hydra009]

Well, it is believed that the deity has always existed, and thus was not created.

 

[Opethian]

I would say the only way a religion would be compatible with science in general today would be a religion that states that "god" was the cause of the big bang. This, because everything after the big bang is pretty explainable, except for some holes that we need to do some more discoveries and technological advancements for to be able to explain them once. But we will!
So get Bigbangism on the way already!

 

[nabiscothejerd]

No i'm saying that what if god was created out of nothingingness. Their argument is that Everything must have a designer, so who designed him. I think that abiogenisis is a good logical answer.

 

[Hydra009]

Either way, the common theistic answer is that God has always existed. Both creation from another entity and coming into being through abiogenesis requires that there was a time when God didn't exist.

 

[chaoschristian]

No i'm saying that what if god was created out of nothingingness. Their argument is that Everything must have a designer, so who designed him. I think that abiogenisis is a good logical answer.

I don't know of any Christian Creationist who holds this view.

I know of no Theistic Evolutionist Christian on CF who would hold this view.

Do you have a citation on any Creationist who has stated that God is created?

While I don't agree with it, I believe the Creationist/ID line of reasoning is that God designed all life as we know it. I don't think there is anything in Creationist Theology that states that the Creator was created. Not in Christian Creationist Theology at least.

 

[nabiscothejerd]

No Chao's Christian, I said that just about ( didn't really get this technical) every christian will say that everything is designed by their God. I was not attacking Christians, just asking a question as to see whether they could believe it or couldn't, as well to make a inquiry of my own.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll also say that after thinking more, it seems like a deist would be able to hold this belief, but most theists would say that God is omnipotent. My hypothesis depends on a non-omnipotent Deity.

 

[chaoschristian]

No Chao's Christian, I said that just about ( didn't really get this technical) every christian will say that everything is designed by their God. I was not attacking Christians, just asking a question as to see whether they could believe it or couldn't, as well to make a inquiry of my own.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll also say that after thinking more, it seems like a deist would be able to hold this belief, but most theists would say that God is omnipotent. My hypothesis depends on a non-omnipotent Deity.

My apologies if I came across as thinking you were attacking anyone at all, Christians or otherwise. I was just attempting to clarify a point.

You question is interesting. I don't understand why an omnipotent god couldn't also be a created god. Does the characteristic of omnipotence exclude being created? Is it valid to always assume that the creator is greater than his creation?

Well, those questions would certainly be outside the realm of orthodox Christianity, and perhaps any kind of Christianity which assumes an eternal God without end or beginning.

 

[nabiscothejerd]

Really I see it as a non-onmipotent deity could arise from abiogenesis (aka the Greek Gods). Honestly i'm just trying to think more openly and this was the best idea that came to mind recently. I would love for more people to join this conversation though, because I don't know enough of christianity besides the omnipotent God of the baptists and evangelicists (don't know how to spell it).

Also I wanna make sure this is a intellectual discussion, and didn't think of how it could bring in fundamentals (atheists and theists), and had to apologize and clarify. I think we should focus more on that, especially if you have that ADD/OCD brain that I have.

 

[Phred]

I suppose we could come up with any sort do deity we wanted. Perhaps the universe gained some sort of intelligence as a natural outcropping of its very existence.

(Perhaps they know that I can do them irrepairable harm and so they've erased my memory and planted me here, on this planet, surrounded by beings who's only true reason for being it to distract me so I don't ever remember how to harm them. That's why it takes so long to travel anyplace. They have to have time to disassemble the city I live in and rebuild it to look like the city I'm going to.)

See? We can imagine anything. But until we have evidence or even just a firm definition of what a god is, we can't begin to study how it came to be or if it came to be. I would suggest that, if the deity is omnipotent, we simply ask it.

.
​

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

the real point of this thread, i think, shows the inherent dishonesty and logical bankruptcy of ID- if complexity requires a designer, then whatever designer postulated (unless it is a natural force like natural selection, and, therefore, not intelligent) must itself be complex enough to require a designer. without some kind of special pleading for a complex designer who was itself not designed (which would demolish all the claims of complexity requiring a designer) ID falls completely on its face (at least as a scientific proposition)

 

[Code-Monkey]

the real point of this thread, i think, shows the inherent dishonesty and logical bankruptcy of ID- if complexity requires a designer, then whatever designer postulated (unless it is a natural force like natural selection, and, therefore, not intelligent) must itself be complex enough to require a designer. without some kind of special pleading for a complex designer who was itself not designed (which would demolish all the claims of complexity requiring a designer) ID falls completely on its face (at least as a scientific proposition)

I suspect it's not simply that "complexity requires a designer", rather it acknowledges that something did come about, that something was not eternal. The kalam argument I think didn't start becoming popular until the notion that the universe began started becoming more popular. And that's simply because if the universe doesn't appear to have begun, then it's difficult to suggest that it would have a creator. But if it did begin, then it's very easy to suggest that there was some cause for it's beginning.

It is for the reason that we believe that human life is not infinite that we believe it to have come about (by some evolutionary process or creation act). Because we believe that human life is not infinite, and then in addition to seeing it's complexity, we postulate that an intelligent designer was behind it. But the reason this wouldn't extend to the intelligent designer itself is because there is no evidence or no reason as to it being created or coming into existence from non-existence. There is no evidence of God beginning, so there would be no reason to postulate any sort of designer/creator for God.

 

[Clarity]

This is another example of the clear link between Athiesm and evolution which i was debating in another thread. Evolution is a central pillar of athiesm saying that we live in a causeless universe without god and that our origins can be explained without reference to God which is the assumption behind both athiesm and evolution.It is used to convert many to athiesm and most of its leading advocates are athiests eg Dawkings, Gould, Darwin etc and it is in the best interests of athiests that it is taught in our classrooms. Evolution clearly has a religious underpinning and effects religious beliefs just as much as creationism being taught would.

 

[Code-Monkey]

This is another example of the clear link between Athiesm and evolution which i was debating in another thread. Evolution is a central pillar of athiesm saying that we live in a causeless universe without god and that our origins can be explained without reference to God which is the assumption behind both athiesm and evolution.It is used to convert many to athiesm and most of its leading advocates are athiests eg Dawkings, Gould, Darwin etc and it is in the best interests of athiests that it is taught in our classrooms. Evolution clearly has a religious underpinning and effects religious beliefs just as much as creationism being taught would.

I partially disagree with you. The science of evolution really says nothing for or against God. Rather it's just a descriptive model of what many believe happened. In simpler terms it's like looking at an apple fall and describing how fast it falls and then projecting that other apples will fall at similar speeds. There isn't anything about an apple falling at so many meters per second that says anything for or against a god.

But I do partially agree with you that a lot of people do believe that evolution does say that there isn't a god. Back to the apple falling analogy. For whatever reason, and it's really quite funny when you think about it, as soon as someone measures how fast the apple is falling, notice other apples falling, and call it gravity, then they somehow think they've just shoved any room for god out of the picture. They celebrate, dance, claim victory and start chanting something about "god of the gaps" being done away with. Why would the speed of an apple mean there isn't a god? The fact is that many people think evolution is the same as atheistic evolution. That idea does get promoted quite a bit. I doubt too many teachers will come out and say that (none of mine ever did). But there are enough other people that suggest it to make those who believe in God to feel as if they are being attacked. There are too many people who have mixed the philosophy with the science.

The fact that philosophy is largely ignored in schools I think just allows this misunderstanding to run rampant. My suspicion is that if christians (for example) had a better grounding in philosophy then they would see the foolishness of their peer who says a red apple means there is no god. And of course many non-christians would also see the foolishness of the claim and would be less likely to use it.