Clete

OK, I know this is a goofy subject but I still think it's kind of interesting.

What if I were to declare that there was a Supergod who created God? This being would be superinfinite (that is, infinitely beyond infinite), superomnipotent, superomniscient, etc., etc.

None of this is to say that God is no longer what his adherents believe him to be (except for the uncreated part of course). None of this dismisses the existence of the supernatural. I am simply suggesting the existence of the super-supernatural, that which is outside the bounds of the supernatural. Can we simply dismiss the possibility that there is such a thing as the super-supernatural out of hand?

Personally I think the answer to this question is: in theory no, in practice yes. But then again I'm not a believer. So my question is would a believer automatically reject this idea or would they explore the possiblity? Why or why not? Is this idea any harder to believe in than the existence of God? Why or why not?

I look forward to hearing your responses to this.

Philosoft

I'd say you have this backwards. One can formulate a coherent theory (hypothesis, really) that contains a "first cause," but I don't see a practical way to test it.

Zadok001

The question is, I believe, so what? If there were to be a Superdeity which created a 'normal' deity, what would this change about the world as we know it?

(Actually, this gives the Xian deity a reason other than ego for wanting worshippers - The Superdeity told him to make worshippers!)

emotional

No. God is defined to be the Single Principial Being above all else - the bottommost foundation for all structures. Once you've introduced a "Supergod" (ie "above God") you've essentially emptied the term "God" of its meaning.

This is akin to the reason why I decided to reject the term "pantheist" as a description for myself: if you don't let God be God, if you don't see God as the Supreme Sovereign, then what basis have you for calling it God? What word in the dictionary would then be suitable for the Supreme Sovereign?

It would be more useful (?) to say this present God is an Undergod (cf the gnostic term "Demiurge" for the Biblegod), above whom is a real God (cf again gnosticism - the true God who created that Demiurge). But then you never know when the succession of Infragods and Overgods should end. Best then stick with the material universe and close it there (that's why I'm a materialist).

sandlewood

I think the reason that the regular God is accepted as the furthest back you need to go is because God is ill-defined. So you are free to say anything you want about it, such as it not needing a cause, or being its own cause, or whatever. The things we see in the material universe are better-defined and so seem to need a cause. I think that if the regular God were better-defined, people would start thinking in terms of it needing a cause and might entertain the idea of a SuperGod.

Jobar

And above SuperGod is HyperGod; then MegaGod; then... GigaGod!

And truly, we can no more disprove any of these than we can plain ol' God. But our good friend William takes care of all of them with one elegant slash.

Philosoft

Jobar, those would make some great usernames. Now that I think about it, I don't have a sockpuppet...

Infidelettante

You don't really need an Ubergod. What you need is a Demiurge. That would be the god below God. Kind of a god-in-training. An apprentice deity. So no, you can't have a SuperGod but you can have a Sidekickgod for comic relief.

Unas

Jobar,

I have to say that I was thoroughly delighted with the Occam's Razor animation. Epistemological enlightenment and attractive entertainment skilfully fused...

The Universe is a sublime place and we have a sacred spiritual duty to protect it against the pseudo-spiritual excesses of neurotics.

diana

Interesting perspective.

No we can't. If something can be "beyond natural" so that it may be classified as "supernatural," then why can't there be something beyond supernatural? It makes just as much nonsense.

Thanks for that angle!

d