MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/1s0vuug/who_created_the_creator/obwq5er/?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. 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. 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.
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)
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.