Why would a creator god need a creator god?

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by tiltbillings »

manas wrote:The creator god does indeed have a creator. To see him/her, just go to the bathroom and take a look in the mirror. As was said by Voltaire,
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
Why?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

daverupa wrote:Why should we accept that definition? To be clear, we can accept it for purposes of conversation if we want to pursue the consequences of this claim's truth-value, but to take it as a piece of evidence for what we ought to believe is a step that does not yet have support.
Hold your horses!
but to take it as a piece of evidence for what we ought to believe is a step that does not yet have support.
Apart from some theists and their anti-theist counterparts, nobody is suggesting that.

Someone makes a claim, and you feel requested or even pressured to believe it or at least to seriously consider it?
??
It's moving from a specific argument about the existence of God to a broader discussion of the linguistic turn and what the consequences of that are for truth-claims generally (you reference pramana, but this topic is vast).
Not in my perspective, but from the perspective of a common-sense realist, it probably does ...
So, that's probably worth an OP. Discussing e.g. Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge and so on would be quite interesting.
Absolutely! Buddhism via Western common-sense realism. That ought to be interesting!
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

Jetavan wrote:...or from a Mormon perspective.
Since Mormons do believe in eternal damnation, I'm not sure how open they are to the idea of there being a more authoritative god than the one they currently consider authoritative - given that a god that is more authoritative could undo the eternal-hell judgments of those gods with less authority. It's not clear how well this would sit with Mormons.

Goofaholix wrote:No doubt that's one of the reasons you're not a theist.
Well, yes.
I see that many theists _and_ atheists tend to follow the same lines of reasoning when it comes to God (the only difference being that they take opposing sides), while those lines of reasoning don't even occur to me. This puzzles me.

beeblebrox wrote:Does that interpretation of what I said make sense to you?
No.
tiltbillings wrote:"Why would a creator god need a creator god?" In reading through this fly-paper thread, I have yet to see an explanation of why there needs to be a god to explain anything.
I think that's a miguided request (ie. requesting an explanation for why there needs to be a god to explain anything). It's a request to explain a basic existential question. It's in the nature of basic existential questions that people whom the requester does not have absolute trust in, cannot answer them satisfactorily.

manas wrote:The creator god does indeed have a creator. To see him/her, just go to the bathroom and take a look in the mirror. As was said by Voltaire,
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
Why??

You're quoting Voltaire - could you provide some context for that quote?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by tiltbillings »

binocular wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:"Why would a creator god need a creator god?" In reading through this fly-paper thread, I have yet to see an explanation of why there needs to be a god to explain anything.
I think that's a miguided request (ie. requesting an explanation for why there needs to be a god to explain anything). It's a request to explain a basic existential question. It's in the nature of basic existential questions that people whom the requester does not have absolute trust in, cannot answer them satisfactorily.
That is a non-answer.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

culaavuso wrote: So there seems to be three possible understandings:

1. The existence of a creator is an ontological proposition and the gratitude is a consequence of that, in which case it is worth investigating the grounds of the ontological claim. In this case, not thinking about the ontological proposition on its own does not help the validity of the claim, but rather constitutes willful ignorance.
2. The existence of a creator is a way to express gratitude in situations where a person to whom gratitude should be expressed is unknown. In this case, the idea of a "God" is a fiction invented to allow acting on a habit in circumstances where one of the necessary elements for the habitual action is not present. If this is the case, the idea of "God" is useful in allowing the habitual action to be acted out but it is not useful in terms of making decisions and predictions about cause and effect. In this case it is also a means for avoiding questioning the habitual behavior in the first place, since it is possible to feel appreciation without expressing gratitude to a person.
3. The expression of gratitude is taken as so fundamental to the nature of the universe that every feeling of appreciation must be followed by an expression of gratitude to a person, and that it is fundamentally impossible for a situation to arise where there is no person to whom gratitude can be expressed. In this situation, the existence of God is proven by feelings of appreciation which have no attributable personal source. In this case, the idea that gratitude is fundamental to the nature of the universe needs to be evaluated on its own if the conclusion is to be taken as a logically consistent truth.
binocular wrote:The idea of gratitude I'm working with just logically extends notions of gratitude back to what is regarded the first cause or the source, ie. God.
This seems to support the idea that #1 above is the case in discussion. If that's true, then it could be beneficial to investigate the question of why the universe itself can't be the first cause, which would eliminate the necessity of "God", or why there should be a first cause at all.
Are you able to feel gratitude to non-persons, to things?

If there is no concern about whether the concept of "God" is logically consistent or useful for understanding cause and effect, then there seems to be no purpose to the OP.
I'm trying to understand whence the notion of infinite regress in the issue of a creator god.

But I think I'm operating here with one factor that people typically don't operate with when talking about the topic of "God"; that is, I'm focusing on the socio-psychological and ethical contexts of discussing this topic to begin with.
Like I wondered above - "Someone makes a claim, and you feel requested or even pressured to believe it or at least to seriously consider it?"

I find it odd that so much of the usual discourse on the topic of God takes place among strangers or people who are mere acquaintances, but generally in interpersonal interactions where there does not exist absolute trust. In fact, it seems to be a mark of being educated and civilized to be able and willing to discuss "God" with just about anyone, anytime.

Whether true or false, claims about God on principle address basic existential issues, issues that potentially touch every aspect of one's life, and as such, can only be meaningfully and without wasting time and other resources discussed between people who have absolute trust in one another. When such trust is not there, there's going to be some waste, some reactance, some ego defense mechanisms at work and then the consequences of that; ie. less or more suffering, bewilderment.

This seems like a no-brainer to me; but I'm puzzled since it doesn't seem like one to many other people.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

tiltbillings wrote:
binocular wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:"Why would a creator god need a creator god?" In reading through this fly-paper thread, I have yet to see an explanation of why there needs to be a god to explain anything.
I think that's a miguided request (ie. requesting an explanation for why there needs to be a god to explain anything). It's a request to explain a basic existential question. It's in the nature of basic existential questions that people whom the requester does not have absolute trust in, cannot answer them satisfactorily.
That is a non-answer.
Your reply is as expected, since you don't have absolute trust in me.

:shrug:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by tiltbillings »

binocular wrote:Your reply is as expected, since you don't have absolute trust in me.
I trust that you will play words games and not give straight forward answers to straight forward questions, but if "absolute trust" -- whatever that might mean -- is required for communication then no one person can reasonably talk with anyone else, and no one could possibly understand another. It -- absolute trust -- is a silly expecatation.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by binocular »

tiltbillings wrote:I trust that you will play words games and not give straight forward answers to straight forward questions
And I trust that you will continue to play power games and continue to place responsibility for your beliefs on other people ...
, but if "absolute trust" -- whatever that might mean -- is required for communication then no one person can reasonably talk with anyone else, and no one could possibly understand another. It -- absolute trust -- is a silly expecatation.
I was talking about absolute trust in regard to basic existential questions, not to any and all communication.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by tiltbillings »

binocular wrote:
, but if "absolute trust" -- whatever that might mean -- is required for communication then no one person can reasonably talk with anyone else, and no one could possibly understand another. It -- absolute trust -- is a silly expecatation.
I was talking about absolute trust in regard to basic existential questions, not to any and all communication.
And that was a rather poor way of not answering the question, but it -- absolute trust -- certainly seems to be a meaningless expectation, stopping any sort of objection to what you are claiming. Basically, it reads as a way of dodging actually engaging a discussuion.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Mindstar
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:44 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by Mindstar »

As far as i know according to the Buddhas statement at the end of a physical universe beeings move either to a second jhana level or hell realm until a new physical universe forms in an automatic process. (Dont have a sutta reference here but it would make more sense to me if they simply moved to another parallel universe if such one does exist)

The firstborn being that appears in the Brahma realm of a new universe however (the first inhabitable realm) usually thinks of itself as the maker/creator because other beings just appear (fall out of the 2nd Jhana realm) and he asumes that he is the creator of them simply because of his wish for not being alone.
According to that statement it wouldnt make much sense that a creator creates another creator.
From MN49:
There is, brahma, the body named Abhassara (Radiant/Luminous) from which you fell away & reappeared here.[4] From your having lived here so long, your memory of that has become muddled. That is why you don't know it, don't see it, but I know it, I see it. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.
It does however not answer the question on how much this "Baka Brahma" has created in terms of the content of the universe and if he is also able to create beeings within the universe.
According to the suttas it would be something the Buddha must have known but did never clearly talk about it or was not recorded?
From MN49:
"Then Mara, the Evil One, taking possession of an attendant of the Brahma assembly, said to me, 'Monk! Monk! Don't attack him! Don't attack him! For this Brahma, monk, is the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.
"'Well, monk, how do you discern my sphere, how do you discern my splendor: "Baka Brahma has this much great power. Baka Brahma has this much great might. Baka Brahma has this much great influence"?'
"'As far as suns & moons revolve, shining, illuminating the directions, over a thousand-fold world your control holds sway. There you know those above & below, those with lust & those without, the state of what is as it is, the state of what becomes otherwise, the coming & going of beings.

Higher than lordship over all earth,
Higher than sojourning in heavens supreme,
Higher than empire over all the worlds,
Is Fruit of Entrance to the Dhamma Stream.
—Dhammapada
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by manas »

tiltbillings wrote:
manas wrote:The creator god does indeed have a creator. To see him/her, just go to the bathroom and take a look in the mirror. As was said by Voltaire,
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
Why?
I always interpreted that witticism as really meaning something like, "most human beings seem to have a need to believe in a Higher Power, and it is this need that led to them projecting this infantile wish onto reality; and thus the belief in God, and thus God as a concept (and by extension, actuality), is a human invention". I think that if we 'read between the lines' and try to see what Voltaire was really getting at, that we will see, he means something other than what the literal meaning appears to say. That's my take on it, anyway.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
dhammafriend
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:19 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by dhammafriend »

Why would the Creator need to have a creator and so ad infinitum?
Why the assumption that there is a creator? Gratitude, humility etc call be experienced & cultivated without a creator deity. Theists of course, will try and convince you differently. Don't believe the hype.

It doesn't take a stream enterer to see through these arguments.
Metta
Dhammafriend

Natthi me saranam annam buddho me saranam varam
For me there is no other refuge, the Buddha is my excellent refuge.
Etena saccavajjena vaddheyyam satthu-sasane
By the utterance of this truth, may I grow in the Master’s Way.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by tiltbillings »

manas wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
manas wrote:The creator god does indeed have a creator. To see him/her, just go to the bathroom and take a look in the mirror. As was said by Voltaire,
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
Why?
I always interpreted that witticism as really meaning something like, "most human beings seem to have a need to believe in a Higher Power, and it is this need that led to them projecting this infantile wish onto reality; and thus the belief in God, and thus God as a concept (and by extension, actuality), is a human invention". I think that if we 'read between the lines' and try to see what Voltaire was really getting at, that we will see, he means something other than what the literal meaning appears to say. That's my take on it, anyway.
Sounds good.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by beeblebrox »

binocular wrote: I'm trying to understand whence the notion of infinite regress in the issue of a creator god.
Hi Binocular,

I saw your point that this notion of infinite regress doesn't necessarily have a part to play with the concept of a creator god... but that doesn't negate the fact that there are still many people who think it does.

It also doesn't negate the fact that you'll have to find a way to relate with that. (Preferably in a way which is harmonious... i.e., away from creating unnecessary dukkha. That is a part of our practice.)

Such is the fact of life. The Buddha pointed that out for us in the Kaccayanagotta sutta, where he said that there is a polarity where people would typically gravitate to, in regard to the existence and non-existence of something.

I don't think there's really much to understand, here... it's already enough to recognize the problem.
But I think I'm operating here with one factor that people typically don't operate with when talking about the topic of "God"; that is, I'm focusing on the socio-psychological and ethical contexts of discussing this topic to begin with.
Like I wondered above - "Someone makes a claim, and you feel requested or even pressured to believe it or at least to seriously consider it?"
I think typically everyone is operating on something which turns out to be different. That isn't surprising.
Whether true or false, claims about God on principle address basic existential issues, issues that potentially touch every aspect of one's life, and as such, can only be meaningfully and without wasting time and other resources discussed between people who have absolute trust in one another. When such trust is not there, there's going to be some waste, some reactance, some ego defense mechanisms at work and then the consequences of that; ie. less or more suffering, bewilderment.

This seems like a no-brainer to me; but I'm puzzled since it doesn't seem like one to many other people.
If that seems to be a no-brainer... the fact that there isn't an absolute trust that is being developed in here, and that this can only lead to nothing else except to the problems which you describe, then why are you continuing to participate?

That seems like it could be a Mahayanist behavior to me... where the practitioner would avoid in going ahead to gain his liberation, instead continuing to entrap himself within this battle, just so that he could make an attempt to point out the way for others who are still stuck in it.

That is the behavior of a bodhisattva... so maybe I shouldn't be criticizing you for it!

:anjali:
User avatar
Jetavan
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why would a creator god need a creator god?

Post by Jetavan »

binocular wrote:
Jetavan wrote:...or from a Mormon perspective.
Since Mormons do believe in eternal damnation, I'm not sure how open they are to the idea of there being a more authoritative god than the one they currently consider authoritative - given that a god that is more authoritative could undo the eternal-hell judgments of those gods with less authority. It's not clear how well this would sit with Mormons.
A Mormon would argue that all the Deities would agree with the judgements (regarding damnation or paradise) of any other Deity. There is no conflict among the Deities.
Post Reply