5|Who created the Creator ? 🗿

“Evolution has capacitated our intellect to question the source of evolution itself.”

One of my classmates asked a thought-provoking question to our moral science teacher. Common people are often concerned about creator of the creation of this world and conceives the idea of godhood whereas atheists poses a witty question – “Who created God ?”. The teacher smiled. At this point, the theists are momentarily dumbfounded and finally provides an equally witty unfathomable unsatisfactory answer – “None created God as He has always existed !”

This article is written so as to contemplate and find my own answer. I request the reader, if is qualified in philosophy, to suggest variations so that I can refine my interpretations.

The incomprehensibility of any answer exists due to lack of any example or similitude witnessed by past experience. Hence, the analogy where creation is alike drawing on a canvas or writing on a blackboard. Consider writing the number of sides of a triangle on a piece of paper. One can write 3 in English, III in Roman. Note that both are correct, though different expressions of same implication. Interestingly, 3 is a single symbol while III constitutes a combination of symbols alike monotheism and polytheism both conceiving a trinity viz. son, father & holy spirit and Trimurti gods respectively. More specifically, even without writing 3 or III, it continues to imply that triangle has three sides. In short, the implication exists without/independent of the expression.

Whenever one confronts a new recognition beyond one’s old experiences, it follows 3 phases :

  1. Implication (I) that helps to make inference of the recognition through individual experience, so that it can exist irrespective of reference and can remain unaltered throughout.
  2. Expression (E) that helps to bring reference of individual recognition to a wider common audience so that it must be created initially as per creator’s choice and can fade eventually.
  3. Connotation (C) that helps to build conference on the common recognition for comparison with others’ recognitions and better comprehension so that it should be assimilated as per the audience’s capacity and can morph necessarily.

Thus, 3 or III is the mortal expression while the property of number of sides of triangle is the immortal implication. Such is the creation of God understood as ever-existing where God is the implication. This also leaves us with the analogical conclusion that His creation is thus, an expression whose implication is Himself. Thus Creation seems to be a part of God, whether or not an act of God.

Delving further, the third phase of recognition of a new concept spawns a fourth. Connotation being a multitude of Expressions has led to a common agreement of Religion whereas Connotation being grouping of similitude of Expressions has led to multiple Connotations (branches) of same Implication (trunk), dubbed as multiple Religions. Indeed, a radical new recognition of particle physics known as String Theory also has its multiple Religions (versions). As a recognition ripens to old from new, its Connotations become convergent from divergent Religions.

PLEASE : Comment to let me know how you liked (or disliked) the article. Thank you for reading.

Further Readings :

Creation Myth 2

https://andrewjoyce.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/creation-myth-2/

14 thoughts on “5|Who created the Creator ? 🗿

  1. So God is a concept of inevitability. Something one will always come to at some point? Or maybe I missed the point; this is pretty hefty stuff after all. A little over my head so to speak, no pun intended. Loved the post though, very thought-provoking.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Hi! God is not a concept nor an inevitability, but a very necessity of our existence. As Pythagoras once said”I believe in God, but not in the ones you think you know”. The question of GOD is answered when we answer the question of ourselves. Be it brain or soul or what ever, when we ask who am I or where am I, the questions pre assume that “I am” “is” “some thing” and “exists” “somewhere”. But, before knowing if “I am” as an entity or an object or an electric current of brain or a soul etc., How can we coin terms like who and where? Here in lies the clue to first contemplate on “I am -ness” before asking. Just because we ask and someone gives an answer does not mean we will understand. If We say “two burgers”, do we really understand two? Do you? Can you elaborate on “two” for me? If we are so helpless with just numbers that we use everyday, how can we simply answer by a statement on “I am”?

      Given, one day we understand “I am”, then we will understand that many “I am”s of many atoms of this universe (just like of our body made us, the “us”) make one BIG I AM and this may be then called GOD

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Yes, IEC refers to a “concept” (I of IEC) that has its own standalone existence as it underlies all of “reality” (E of IEC), thus it cannot be conceived, though perceived, by anyone inside the same “reality”, thereby bearing no question of its mortality or creation, since a concept is timeless. Imagine, an inconceivable true concept !

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I would put it this way. Let us say, you had a spoonful of sugar. Can you describe me so that I can taste it? Similar is the question of GOD. When our analytical mind is limited in its vocabulary, how can it understand it’s creator, who forms a superset? Can you hand know you or you the hand? Though you are in hand, through you hand works, still hand does not know you.

    The problem of the question your friend asked is the question has a preconceived bias in it. Does it not define GOD/creator as a person/entity and then assumes it was created by another entity/person? This pre assumption caused huge problems to atheists and theists. Humans imagine Universe in terms of humans. Let’s say, we take paramecium as example. It divides I to two and each into two etc. But have we ever thought of birth of universe this way? NO. We always think birth of universe or God etc in human terms i.e linear. Unless we first train to go beyond this, we are helpless.

    To explain this mystery to layman, Veda gives a beautiful example. Take the vast ocean (Samudra). See the waves occuring in it. Just like waves are the ocean and yet are not at same time, is the case with us. We are the GOd and yet we are not. Take another example. If you consider humanity, though human entities of this set humanity are often born and die, still the set humanity changes not according to individual mortality. Just because 1000s cease to exist exist, we can’t say humanity died. We still say humanity exists. How? This subtle association should help us link all Universe as one OmnIness. Then, GOD will be inevitably ever existing, not as personality but as diversified unity.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “Presume God is a person” leads to “assume God is created by another person.” Yes, that is the flaw to gauge an immortal being with mortal things like measuring lightyears distance with a centimetre length scale instead of using speed of light. As noted here, large distance is scaled by speed rather another distance type. So the realm has to change for a limited to fathom the unlimited.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Why do you think we are limited and God unlimited? As long as you think so, you will be so. As Decartes once said “I think therefore I am”. When a glass of water exists separately from an ocean, it is limited. Once you submerge it inside the ocean, there is no distinction between water in glass or the water outside. This process of submerging is the aim of any wisdom path and the result of that is breaking this limitation.

        You said measure. It’s interesting. Bible says that God measured everything with measured and numbered everything with numbers. Do you know what it means? It means, the process of measure or number happens in created world for us to contemplate, meditate on what it means to measure or number. Have you ever questioned what is a distance? Or Number? The seeming limitation is of analytical mind. Limit breaking is of Intuitive self. If former predominates, we will be left with empty hands.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Hey, another example for understanding everexisting nature of GOD:

    Let me ask you/your friend to imagine the vast empty space. But, the condition is that no one should be in that empty space including the observer. Is this imagination possible??

    No. The moment you imagine to observe, you are observing it. Also, can you imagine a 4pi staradian sphere? We only imagine as much as our eyevision supports of there were something. Why are we unable to imagine a situation where we r completely absent? With that same brain and mind we are doubting a question of everexistence. Our imagination is the most powerful tool of our perception. But it is suggesting us that we are ever existing. Can we imagine ourselves to sleep? If we did, we are not asleep in our imagination! ….so the nature of GOD, ever existing, is imbibed by us as we are parts of the same GOD. 😉

    Like

  4. Are you aware that you seem to guess my future posts – this one is about observability, though on a completely different context ?! This difference ensures that the logical reason behind ‘guess’ is not a concurrent consequence of reading/writing the same present post.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I didn’t follow your last paragraph (maybe because I have to reread when I can focus for more than a minute or two).

    Asides for the connotations of the word God, I definitely agree that the world has to be an expression of this source, for otherwise you still need a source. Observation of the world gives us insight into what this source is.

    Evolution could have happened- some aspects- yet that doesnt explain what the source is.

    It’s funny, when you commented I thought you were someone else.

    Love, light and glitter

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s