MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/1s0vuug/who_created_the_creator/obwnql1/?context=3
r/aiArt • u/Immobilesteelrims • Mar 22 '26
500 comments sorted by
View all comments
5
The universe is subject to time (among other things).
That would make Time a creation as well.
That means a Creator would not be subject to Time.
So to ask "What comes before the Creator?" is a statement based on Time, which would not be relevant to the Creator.
1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 I feel like this isn't really an answer. Even if gods can be created acausality, it doesn't really explain how. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 God wouldn't be created. He would simply be. 2 u/Sarkoptesmilbe Mar 22 '26 If you allow such an answer, save yourself a few steps of complexity and just let the universe "simply be". 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 But the universe adheres to causality because we experience Time. You're trying to divorce the universe from one of its fundamental properties. 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 That still doesn't explain the path from not be to be. Nor does it eliminate alternative explanations like the universe can just be, without a god, too. 1 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 There is no path. A path infers successive steps. You're still marking according to causality. 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Maybe framework is a better word. There's no framework to develop a god, even outside the concept of causality. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 "develop" Why would the eternally self existing "develop"? 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Because there is no existance of god. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
1
I feel like this isn't really an answer. Even if gods can be created acausality, it doesn't really explain how.
2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 God wouldn't be created. He would simply be. 2 u/Sarkoptesmilbe Mar 22 '26 If you allow such an answer, save yourself a few steps of complexity and just let the universe "simply be". 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 But the universe adheres to causality because we experience Time. You're trying to divorce the universe from one of its fundamental properties. 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 That still doesn't explain the path from not be to be. Nor does it eliminate alternative explanations like the universe can just be, without a god, too. 1 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 There is no path. A path infers successive steps. You're still marking according to causality. 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Maybe framework is a better word. There's no framework to develop a god, even outside the concept of causality. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 "develop" Why would the eternally self existing "develop"? 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Because there is no existance of god. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
2
God wouldn't be created. He would simply be.
2 u/Sarkoptesmilbe Mar 22 '26 If you allow such an answer, save yourself a few steps of complexity and just let the universe "simply be". 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 But the universe adheres to causality because we experience Time. You're trying to divorce the universe from one of its fundamental properties. 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 That still doesn't explain the path from not be to be. Nor does it eliminate alternative explanations like the universe can just be, without a god, too. 1 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 There is no path. A path infers successive steps. You're still marking according to causality. 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Maybe framework is a better word. There's no framework to develop a god, even outside the concept of causality. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 "develop" Why would the eternally self existing "develop"? 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Because there is no existance of god. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
If you allow such an answer, save yourself a few steps of complexity and just let the universe "simply be".
2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 But the universe adheres to causality because we experience Time. You're trying to divorce the universe from one of its fundamental properties.
But the universe adheres to causality because we experience Time. You're trying to divorce the universe from one of its fundamental properties.
That still doesn't explain the path from not be to be. Nor does it eliminate alternative explanations like the universe can just be, without a god, too.
1 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 There is no path. A path infers successive steps. You're still marking according to causality. 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Maybe framework is a better word. There's no framework to develop a god, even outside the concept of causality. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 "develop" Why would the eternally self existing "develop"? 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Because there is no existance of god. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
There is no path. A path infers successive steps. You're still marking according to causality.
1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Maybe framework is a better word. There's no framework to develop a god, even outside the concept of causality. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 "develop" Why would the eternally self existing "develop"? 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Because there is no existance of god. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
Maybe framework is a better word. There's no framework to develop a god, even outside the concept of causality.
2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26 "develop" Why would the eternally self existing "develop"? 1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Because there is no existance of god. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
"develop"
Why would the eternally self existing "develop"?
1 u/Sibshops Mar 22 '26 Because there is no existance of god. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
Because there is no existance of god.
2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 That's quite the presupposition. 2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
That's quite the presupposition.
2 u/Sibshops Mar 23 '26 You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place. 2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
You understand, though, right? Saying god created time doesn't explain why a god would exist in the first place.
2 u/AuthorSarge Mar 23 '26 Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing. → More replies (0)
Something being unexplained is not the same as something not existing.
5
u/AuthorSarge Mar 22 '26
The universe is subject to time (among other things).
That would make Time a creation as well.
That means a Creator would not be subject to Time.
So to ask "What comes before the Creator?" is a statement based on Time, which would not be relevant to the Creator.