Welcome to a question-answering node of the Pandeism index!!
often comes up in the course of theological debate
, whenever it is proposed that there are two possibilities as to the origin of our Universe -- either
it arose through some spontaneous process which did not require a Creator
it was intentionally created. Ah, but if so, who created the Creator? In theological discourse, this is a question commonly raised by Atheists, as if debating theology is a parlor game. If a Creator is to be posited, it follows that this Creator must have itself either come into existence through some spontaneous process which did not require a Creator, or was itself intentionally created (perhaps by an UrGod
). If it came about spontaneously, the argument goes, then why can't a Universe (which is itself contended to be perhaps less complex even than the proposed Creator) simply come about in exactly the same way? Worse yet, such a Creator can't even know if it was created, because it might have been manufactured complete with memories of an interminably long existence
From a standpoint of criticising Theism
, this is legitimate gripe, because Theism generally proposes no especially rational basis for Creation
itself. Oh, theists will tell you that their gods created our Universe out of love (because it loved us even before it brought us into our inevitably suffering
-laden existence). But such a basis for our specific experience of Creation is as arbitrary as any other -- including Creation by a being arbitrarily created by a greater being created by a still greater being. (Or even a being which believes itself to be the "one true God" actually having been created "out of love" by a hidden greater being waiting to be discovered by its Creation's free will
.) And so this proposition does not excuse the god so described from needing a Creator of its own.
But for the Pandeist, the objection is overcome by the pandeistic proposition of a rational motivation for Creation. Pandeism
proposes a Creator which has become the Creation itself so as to learn from the experience of existing in lives arising therein. From this pandeistic perspective, there is simply no logic by which one Creator would create another
Creator -- already being a Creator (or potential Creator), it could learn nothing thereby which it could not better learn by becoming the Universe which such Creator could create. The proposition forwarded by Atheists cuts both ways when the theological model is Pandeism. If a Universe can spontaneously arise, why not the simplest model of Universe-generating consciousness
It must be pointed out as well that the "who created" question, assuming a one-foot-in-front-of-the-other sequence
of creation, inherently assumes that time
is linear. This is itself a questionable presumption -- many models of physics
support the possibility of nonlinear time
, in which a true paradox
is possible: that of a Creator travelling backwards in time to the "beginning" of time to create itself!! (But let's not go quite so far as to propose that the "Who" who created was The Doctor
".) Our own small, brief, localized experience of linear time can be compared to the experience of the flatness of the world from the viewpoint
of an ant
at the center of a basketball court
. While the possibility is not the same as an argument of that being so, it is one of many intriguing models by which there can indeed be a Creator preceding anything else, including itself.
lizardinlaw adds: my daughter's big question after thought was "Who thought up the idea of God?" .....
Azul-din adds: For my part, I think the attempt to envision a Being as separate from everything that exists, while it may be interesting mental gymnastics, is in the end no more than that. I fail to see the necessity for an active force- A is A, existence exists, in all its ordered complexity. We are a part of the most tremendous mystery conceivable- surely that is enough, and to be gifted with the ability to solve a portion of that mystery is challenge and glory enough for a lifetime.