Existence

I don't know if this a philosophical question or scientific question, So this is my question, If A create all things, is it logically safe to say that A is uncreated?

Comments

It's a philosophical question

It's a philosophical question. No scientist, as such, will have any particular expertise for answering it.

If A created all things, then it follows that A created itself, since presumably only a thing (rather than literally nothing) can do any creating. But the notion that A created itself seems to me to be logically inconsistent: in order for A to do any creating, A must exist, and in order for A to be created (i.e., to be brought into existence) A can't yet exist. So I conclude that it's impossible for A to create all things.

However, if A created everything else, i.e., everything distinct from A, then I think it does follow that A is uncreated. Otherwise, A would have to create A's own creator(s), which seems to me to be logically impossible.

I myself think it's impossible for anything to create everything else, because I think that there are abstract objects (such as numbers, or the laws of logic) that exist necessarily and that are necessarily uncreated. So those things, at least, aren't created by anything.

Interestingly, the Bible (at least in the New Testament Gospel of John) seems torn about this: "All things were made by [God]; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3, KJV). As I've said, the first clause in that verse can't possibly be true. The second clause is at least possibly true, because it restricts itself to only those things that were made.

I'm not sure Stephen is quite

I'm not sure Prof. Maitzen is quite right about this. My answer to the original question is, 'Certainly not.' First there is the contradiction that exists if I say God created all things but did not create God, unless of course we put a heavy, suggestive emphasis on things. If I create everything except myself, then of course it follows that I do not create myself, and there is a contradiction in saying that I do, given the premise. But contra Stephen does it follow that I am uncreated? I can't see how it does. For one thing, there could be someone else who created me, Stephen for example.

I think Prof. Maitzen's reading of the John passage is a bit stretched. After all, the "and" between the two sentences might suggest an amplification in the conjunction. We could then read 'All things were made by [God] . . . ' as 'All things that were made were made by God', giving the second sentence as evidence. Just a thought.

Professor Westphal wrote: "If

Professor Westphal wrote: "If I create everything except myself, then of course it follows that I do not create myself. But...does it follow that I am uncreated? I can't see how it does. For one thing, there could be someone else who created me...."

If I am created, then I have one or more creators, each distinct from me. If I am created and I create everything except myself, then I must create my own creator(s), which is no more coherent than self-creation. Hence I must be uncreated. See my original reply.

Professor Westphal's interpretation of John 1:3 makes the verse at least possibly true, but at the cost of making it oddly redundant: "All made things were made by God; and no made things were made without God." The second clause comes so close to simply restating the first clause that it could hardly count as "evidence" in favor of the first.

If I print all the money

If I print all the money in the world, except the money in my wallet, does it follow that the money in my pocket is unprinted? Well, it doesn't. Maybe there is another press somewhere that prints money in spite of my near monopoly. Does it make any difference if I built that press, for example if I made it over to someone else after its construction?

I think on reflection that Prof. Maitzen is right about the two sentences in John. I retract the point that the second sentence is a premise for the first. I should say instead that it is a restriction and a clarification, a sort of 'Oh, and by the way, what I said means . . . " sort of amplification.

The analogy to printing money

The analogy to printing money fails. There's an obvious difference between (a) "I create everything except myself" and (b) "I print all the money except what's in my wallet." Given the impossibility of creating my own creator, (a) implies that I am uncreated. By contrast, (b) doesn't imply that the money in my wallet is unprinted.

Maybe Professor Westphal assumes that it's possible for someone to create his/her own creator. Maybe he imagines a time-travel loop in which, say, X creates Y in 1900 and then Y goes back in time to create X in 1800. I think such a scenario is conceptually incoherent, because I think that "X creates Y in 1900" implies "Y doesn't exist prior to 1900." But I suppose others might interpret "creates" differently.

Read another response by Stephen Maitzen, Jonathan Westphal

Read another response about Existence