Evolution of God Logical/Necessary? Initial Environment/Processes.

[Etritonakin]

(response to post about what causes DNA to form)

I saw a documentary about manufacturing parts which then self-assemble into the desired product, simply by throwing all the parts into a bin and shaking it.
Reminded me of that.

I have been considering the possibility that "God" evolved.
That would essentially mean self-assembly in the early stages -until increasing levels decision could be applied.
After sufficient understanding, it would become purposeful self-evolution by altering the otherwise-inevitable course of purely natural events.

Such a God would self-assemble similar to the way we do, but from most basic components and forces rather than already-complex components -then self-determine.

It would seem logical that decision needed to be applied very early on (increasing capability by increasing complexity).
In other words, a processOR necessarily self-assembled before more complex processES were possible.
It stands to reason, as ANY and EVERY process must be accomplished by a sufficient processor.
Any most-simple interaction could be viewed as a sort of logic gate (and/or transistor -if behavior was/was also analog).
Various arrangements and increased complexity of such would make more things possible.

Humans self-assembled within a very complex environment -after our environment self-assembled.

So... the question is....

From greatest possible simplicity, would it be logical to deduce that a universe and all therein necessarily preceded true, conscious decision -or that true, conscious decision necessarily preceded a universe?
If the initial "environment" was greatest possible simplicity, there would be no complex environment or "self"/inhabitant within it.
(Yet -it is now obviously many selves/inhabitants within the one environment.)
Inhabitants are basically know-ers and decision-makers.

What would cause/allow for greatest possible simplicity to become an increasingly complex environment if not an increasingly-complex processor?
Would they not initially increase in complexity together -interdependently -in tandem?
Would there not be equally-increased distinction between processor and result of process -environment and inhabitant?
Would not a processor developing to the point of understanding -that is, early/simple memory/comprehension/awareness/self-awareness -necessarily precede any further progress?

 

[Sirona]

God is usually defined as omnipotent, all-knowing and eternal. If you agree to such a definition, then IMHO an evolving God wouldn't meet the criteria for being God.

On a side note, in the mid-1990's there was a book "God: A Biography" by Jack Miles. The author read the Old Testament as a fictional book and described God as you would describe fictional character. He describes a God who at first proceeds unconcernedly according to the principle of "trial and error", then learns from his mistakes and finally withdraws from his creatures, feeling depressed because they have not developed at all as he had originally imagined.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

He describes a God who at first proceeds unconcernedly according to the principle of "trial and error", then learns from his mistakes and finally withdraws from his creatures, feeling depressed because they have not developed at all as he had originally imagined.

As a creative artist, God therefore failed in mastering his medium...although who knows, maybe in the later chapters of the story he got inspired and figured it out...

 

[metis]

(response to post about what causes DNA to form)

I saw a documentary about manufacturing parts which then self-assemble into the desired product, simply by throwing all the parts into a bin and shaking it.
Reminded me of that.

I have been considering the possibility that "God" evolved.
That would essentially mean self-assembly in the early stages -until increasing levels decision could be applied.
After sufficient understanding, it would become purposeful self-evolution by altering the otherwise-inevitable course of purely natural events.

Such a God would self-assemble similar to the way we do, but from most basic components and forces rather than already-complex components -then self-determine.

It would seem logical that decision needed to be applied very early on (increasing capability by increasing complexity).
In other words, a processOR necessarily self-assembled before more complex processES were possible.
It stands to reason, as ANY and EVERY process must be accomplished by a sufficient processor.
Any most-simple interaction could be viewed as a sort of logic gate (and/or transistor -if behavior was/was also analog).
Various arrangements and increased complexity of such would make more things possible.

Humans self-assembled within a very complex environment -after our environment self-assembled.

So... the question is....

From greatest possible simplicity, would it be logical to deduce that a universe and all therein necessarily preceded true, conscious decision -or that true, conscious decision necessarily preceded a universe?
If the initial "environment" was greatest possible simplicity, there would be no complex environment or "self"/inhabitant within it.
(Yet -it is now obviously many selves/inhabitants within the one environment.)
Inhabitants are basically know-ers and decision-makers.

What would cause/allow for greatest possible simplicity to become an increasingly complex environment if not an increasingly-complex processor?
Would they not initially increase in complexity together -interdependently -in tandem?
Would there not be equally-increased distinction between processor and result of process -environment and inhabitant?
Would not a processor developing to the point of understanding -that is, early/simple memory/comprehension/awareness/self-awareness -necessarily precede any further progress?

Logically, a creator cannot create without the creator changing as well.

If I use a painter as an example, before (s)he begins to paint, they have to have an idea, gather the materials, and then begin to paint. Thus, from the idea to painting on, the painter is changing. Thus, at least using conventional logic, a creator-god much also change in order to create.

Either way, we have to accept the logical notion that infinity may be more logical that some entity supposedly creating all, and going back into infinity is only slightly older than I am.

However, ...

 

[Etritonakin]

God is usually defined as omnipotent, all-knowing and eternal. If you agree to such a definition, then IMHO an evolving God wouldn't meet the criteria for being God.

I see that an evolving God would account for all those things.
(An eternal God even in the popular sense could not have been responsible for his own existence. An evolving God could not be possible for his own basic existence -but increasingly responsible for all else.)

There never could have been absolute nothing -and time would not apply to simplicity in the same way -as it is essentially a measure of relative interaction.
It is only assumed that God could always say "I AM" -rather than "always" having been -and only later being able to say "I AM" -and I WAS.
That satisfies the eternal part -though not in the way some assume.

The position of original from simplicity would mean that what could be known increased -beginning with knowledge/understanding of the very basics and continuing to that which was increasingly subject to decision. (Early self-awareness would not have much of which to be aware.)
That satisfies omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence.

 

[George-ananda]

So... the question is....

From greatest possible simplicity, would it be logical to deduce that a universe and all therein necessarily preceded true, conscious decision -or that true, conscious decision necessarily preceded a universe?

I'll answer with the latter choice. In Advaita philosophy Consciousness/God/Brahman creates the play/drama of the universe. The development of life and DNA are parts of this cosmic play/drama.

 

[Etritonakin]

As a creative artist, God therefore failed in mastering his medium...although who knows, maybe in the later chapters of the story he got inspired and figured it out...

That story line is not too far from what is written in the bible -with it repenting God that he had made man on the Earth (then deciding to flood it) -but it only seems that God did not foresee.

As he gave power of independent decision, mastery of the medium was no longer his individual responsibility past that point -though he is still responsible overall.
It is not as if God could not have known that the imaginations of men would consider evil continually, as it says -though they did technically have a choice -even if things were presently weighted against the right choice (inexperience, enjoyment of unrighteousness until it becomes clear it is not a good idea in the long run, etc.).
The most important aspect of creating creators rather than destroyers is psychology.
Part of that is thinking ahead and considering what individuals require to cease from evil.
In order to teach, certain things must be shown to be true before they can be accepted.

Presently we are learning that without righteousness, God's knowledge and government, we will only destroy all life on Earth -after which everything may be repaired.
Allowing an example to play out for psychological effect and proof -then nullifying it except for the psychological effect ("I make all things new") -is not illogical.
Allowing humans to decide for themselves -to the point that a flood was better than the alternative -is excellent for the purpose of Q:"Why didn't you just give us complete freedom to do as we will?" A:"See... we tried it and it didn't work -let's move on".
His audience would have been angels/spirits at the time -along with the humans who were personally experiencing it -but if there is any undeniable record/witnesses, all may eventually benefit from the fact that it definitely happened and did not work. We demand proof -and it is often understandable. We may doubt what appear to be fanciful stories now, but we'd rethink it if in the presence of a bunch of angels telling us they were there -and resurrected humans -and there being a sort of chain of custody with the knowledge.

In order to bring us to the point of correct decisions, God makes decisions which show the error of what we would choose -causing focus on that as soon as possible, and actually minimizing adverse effects/duration thereof.

Whether one believes it or not, that is the general overview of the subject in scripture.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

maybe if God granted humans the ability to see the ends of what they might choose, along with the ability to choose...

 

[Shakeel]

Logically, a creator cannot create without the creator changing as well.

If I use a painter as an example, before (s)he begins to paint, they have to have an idea, gather the materials, and then begin to paint. Thus, from the idea to painting on, the painter is changing. Thus, at least using conventional logic, a creator-god much also change in order to create.

Except God is beyond time. You assume he's tied by time like you are.

 

[Shakeel]

Then it wouldn't have been a perfect, all-knowing God beyond time. So not God. But I'm often surprised by the insignificant things that people make their gods - like monkeys, energy, universe, objects, themselves.

 

[shunyadragon]

(response to post about what causes DNA to form)

I saw a documentary about manufacturing parts which then self-assemble into the desired product, simply by throwing all the parts into a bin and shaking it.
Reminded me of that.

I have been considering the possibility that "God" evolved.
That would essentially mean self-assembly in the early stages -until increasing levels decision could be applied.
After sufficient understanding, it would become purposeful self-evolution by altering the otherwise-inevitable course of purely natural events.

Such a God would self-assemble similar to the way we do, but from most basic components and forces rather than already-complex components -then self-determine.

It would seem logical that decision needed to be applied very early on (increasing capability by increasing complexity).
In other words, a processOR necessarily self-assembled before more complex processES were possible.
It stands to reason, as ANY and EVERY process must be accomplished by a sufficient processor.
Any most-simple interaction could be viewed as a sort of logic gate (and/or transistor -if behavior was/was also analog).
Various arrangements and increased complexity of such would make more things possible.

Humans self-assembled within a very complex environment -after our environment self-assembled.

So... the question is....

From greatest possible simplicity, would it be logical to deduce that a universe and all therein necessarily preceded true, conscious decision -or that true, conscious decision necessarily preceded a universe?
If the initial "environment" was greatest possible simplicity, there would be no complex environment or "self"/inhabitant within it.
(Yet -it is now obviously many selves/inhabitants within the one environment.)
Inhabitants are basically know-ers and decision-makers.

What would cause/allow for greatest possible simplicity to become an increasingly complex environment if not an increasingly-complex processor?
Would they not initially increase in complexity together -interdependently -in tandem?
Would there not be equally-increased distinction between processor and result of process -environment and inhabitant?
Would not a processor developing to the point of understanding -that is, early/simple memory/comprehension/awareness/self-awareness -necessarily precede any further progress?

It is the human view of God that evolves and not God evolving.

 

[Etritonakin]

maybe if God granted humans the ability to see the ends of what they might choose, along with the ability to choose...

From my experience... Perhaps some are exceptions, but you can explain everything -and it may even be acknowledged and accepted -but it is not acted upon or does not become a permanent default setting until it means one's butt and they have no other choice due to circumstances. "I know I have to do it... but I don't really haaaaaaaave to do it yet." sort of a thing.
Experience really brings it home.

 

[metis]

Except God is beyond time. You assume he's tied by time like you are.

And how could you possibly know this with any certitude?

I admit I don't know God's "parameters", and that's largely because this is an area of uncertainty whereas "beliefs" and "evidence" are not synonymous terms. To say "I believe God is ..." is acceptable as far as that goes, but to say "God is..." simply is going too far, imo.

 

[Shakeel]

And how could you possibly know this with any certitude?

I admit I don't know God's "parameters", and that's largely because this is an area of uncertainty whereas "beliefs" and "evidence" are not synonymous terms. To say "I believe God is ..." is acceptable as far as that goes, but to say "God is..." simply is going too far, imo.

You made your previous post with the opposite assumption.

 

[metis]

You made your previous post with the opposite assumption.

Post #___ ?

 

[Shakeel]

Post #___ ?

I don't know, the one I replied to. I mean, you made a claim (with seeming certainty) with the assumption that God is limited by time. So why can't I make the opposite assumption?

 

[metis]

I don't know, the one I replied to. I mean, you made a claim (with seeming certainty) with the assumption that God is limited by time.

That is not what I said, so maybe check back. What I have repeatedly said here is that most religious beliefs cannot be confirmed through objectively-derived evince, and I've been consistent on this for many years now here at RF as I'm certain many here can attest to.

 

[Etritonakin]

Just realized how confusing my initial post was.

In summary...

Humans evolved into creators -but based on a present nature which is extremely complex and -at the very least -now purposeful.
Present nature is different than previous nature inasmuch as previous nature was arranged into present nature.
DNA -and the elements -did not exist in previous nature -but previous nature did exist -and could somehow become the elements and other things.
Evolution, in its broadest sense, would be the logical root cause of greatest simplicity becoming nature at every stage, but creativity can cause a new nature which nature alone could not.
Nature/evolution produces -naturally assembles into -creativity.
Only afterward do certain things become possible -which are in turn indicative of creativity as opposed to nature/evolution alone.
Creativity must be produced first -and is that which is required to transform previous nature into a new nature which is indicative of creativity.
Nature/evolution alone is limited by the absence of imagination -the ability to model reality in memory -make changes -then apply those changes to reality -thereby altering the otherwise-inevitable -and limited -course of nature/evolution.

We reference present nature to determine if something was created by man -but the base of reference for creativity overall would be greatest simplicity.

That which is created also has inherent qualities which are indicative thereof -which differentiate it from nature/evolution alone.
That which is created (and not simply a recreation/mimic of a natural process) has levels of purpose and complexity -purposeful complexity -not otherwise possible.
Extreme purposeful complexity requires creativity -and that which only a psychology could produce requires a psychology first be produced.

So... was it necessary that greatest simplicity evolved into creativity before being able to initiate the universe and its capability?
Does the universe exhibit sufficient levels of purposeful complexity -and is it indicative of/did it require the presence of a psychology?
Does it satisfy psychological needs to a degree which requires the existence of a psychology to cause those states?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From greatest possible simplicity, would it be logical to deduce that a universe and all therein necessarily preceded true, conscious decision -or that true, conscious decision necessarily preceded a universe?

Since decision making is something that occurs in rather complex biological machinery (brains), it is rather obvious that it came last.

What would cause/allow for greatest possible simplicity to become an increasingly complex environment if not an increasingly-complex processor?

Physics, then chemistry and eventually biology.

Would not a processor developing to the point of understanding -that is, early/simple memory/comprehension/awareness/self-awareness -necessarily precede any further progress?

Why would that have to be the case?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except God is beyond time.

What does that even mean?

You assume he's tied by time like you are.

Because he's constantly spoken of in such context.
He is said to exist, think, reason, make decisions, make plans, produce things, carries out plans,...


All these things are temporal processes. If you say god is not "in time", then that god by definition couldn't do any of those things.