Is anyone familiar with Trickle Down God theory? What do you THINK about it?

Question

For those unfamiliar it goes something like this...
If God, being Omnipotent and unable to experience limitation which by definition limits him, he decides to create a universe where He can learn what it is like to be frustrated and to learn what it feels like to triumph over adversity. Then, big bang, God explodes creating the universe as we see it today, composed of the matter and energy that was God. Therefore we are all a part of God. I haven't decided whether or not I subscribe to this line of thinking myself, but it seems to make sense on the surface. Let me know what you THINK.

I was trying to not write a novel, the jump from God's pondering to Big Bang was that he/she/it decides to create a universe and beings with limitations in an effort to experience frustration... etc I should probably state that I am an Atheist with occasional delusions of Gnosticism (that is a joke, so don't get pissed) I just appreciate the fact that the Concept of God can neither be proven or disproven.

Answer 1

I must admit, I find the "theory" not quite convincing. But before I tell you why, or why it at least would need to be extended to fully make sense, let me quickly say that "theology" might be the better term to use here. A "theory" is usually falsifiable. At least in scientific (here including theology) circles.

The main problem I have with this approach is that God would not learn from this experience, since we are not aware of he fact that we are parts of an omnipotent God who has to learn about limitations. It seems to me, that the Trickle Down God would thus accept human (and animal) suffering for the sole, selfish purpose of his own learning experience. That requires a very negative view of God. Not exactly the same as your preferred gnostic concepts, but equally negative.

if God is loving and benign, and if he is relational, then the relationship of self-conscious beings with God inevitably must imply that God (a) acts in a limited fashion, despite his omnipotence (or else there is no freeedom), and (b) that God is affected by the responses and choices of self-conscious organisms. Consequently, God would learn from our relationship with him. And we would from our relationship with him. It would be a mutually beneficial relationship.

Love, I believe, is at the center of it all, and it requires free will. if we were to simply love because God made us that way, the most essential trait of love would have been removed, namely the choice of two free agents to enter in a bond that is characterized by the affirmation of a mutual love. But for freedom to exist, God has to let go of his omnipotence. That means that moral evil is an inevitable possibility; if humans choose to not join the loving relationship and do harm to others, and thus to themselves, God cannot simply stop them. With such an act, he would make true love an impossibility. It is a big price to pay, and there must be something for us to be learned in that. We can, of course, live what we have learned from it in our relationships with each other. Natural evil likewise would be explainable by freedom and love. For self-cosciousness to evolve to freely receive the self-communication from God, evolution has to be a free process. It surely should be a process that has the innate tendency to evolve more complex life which eventually allows for the emergence of self-consciousness (as we see in nature), but whether this self-conscious life looks like us or not is not predestined bu the outcome of the free evolutionary process.

In such a world, God could learn, and evolution would most likely be an endless process in which both, God and creation would grow towards a bigger understanding.

May I ask, though, what it is that fascinates you with Gnosticism? I have often wondered why atheists find them appealing. Their anthropology is so negative, their rejection of the material universe so utterly complete, that I can hardly envision what it is that an atheist, perhaps even a materialist atheist, would find attractive about such a view...

Answer 2

The jump from God's mental pondering to "big bang" I don;t quite understand. Maybe it's an assumed model for the theory I suppose. Anyway, if the matter and energy is God, not 'was,' than sure, I guess it makes sense. Do I believe it? No. I believe in energy, but I don't think that energy has a conscience! That's what I think in regards to what i understand of your question.

Answer 3

I am reminded of the following:

"If God is only Omnipotence, Infinity, Purity, Knowledge, Infinite Freedom, if God is only Indescribable Reality, which is transcendental Unity with the magical power to manifest in the form of all boundless creation, – that means that God cannot experience limitedness, ignorance and weakness. And if there is something he cannot do, that means that in reality God is not omnipotent, not full and not all-embracing; thus, he is not God at all.

"See, it is bad to be Nara, enslaved by your limitations, but is it good to be God, enslaved by your great freedom and inability to go beyond? Are these omnipotence and freedom real omnipotence and freedom? Certainly not. What kind of God are you, if there is something you cannot do and do not include! Real Self-Realisation is the inseparable unity, the integration of the three great aspects – Shiva, Shakti and Nara. [...] [A]s the result of the integration of the three great aspects we clearly see true Absolute Perfection, which has no problems or limitations, not even the problem of limitations from the absence of the problem of limitations.

"This sounds rather strange, but for us the presence of imperfections and the absence of freedom are problems. For God, who is such a favourite topic of conversation, the problem is that he has only perfections and great Freedom. From this point of view, people are not only tiny and worthless creatures, but also really great, because, since God is the consciousness of all, they help him have the experiences of imperfect creatures and in this way go beyond the bars of the prison of his pure freedom."
http://bhairava.valuehost.ru/e-tantra-text-trika-selfrealise.html

Answer 4

Trickle down? Geez thats an economic concept not from philosophy or religion.

Your problem is a variation of the question can God create a rock so big that he cant lift it? Its word play nothing more.

Answer 5

Sweet Heart why must there be a God at the center of all of this. Earth is an anololy that prolly exists an infinite amount of times, you should focus more on the simple fact that we have a rational mind and fully acknowledge our existance and all that exists around us.

Answer 6

can replace or opt to is the superb question. they have had the prospect to make huge alterations previously, yet neither aspect needs to. THe mere reality we are contained in the quandary we are in proves neither aspect needs any alterations. they merely opt to inform the folk what the folk opt to hearken to. It peeves me off that a remark like that's made. IF someone needs to vote for Hillary in protecting with what she and her husband did even as he became president; fantastic.. then I provide them that proper. i'm no longer going to bash them merely because i do not accept as true with Hillary. once you're able to %. the lesser of both evils. I say %. the devil you realize. Who is popular with what Obama is able to. a minimum of all of us comprehend what Hillary is able to. i'm no longer keeping i'm balloting for her or Obama. i'm merely making an concern. I dislike both one among them and the Republican social gathering.

Answer 7

only problem i see right off havent studied this one but can think-for it to be true no guarantee that anything will triumph in long run all is dead-think this one needs to be rethought-keep the peace old hippie here

Answer 8

that sounds cool and interesting...but still, how did got come into creation? No matter what he/she/it is, it still must share with us that feeling of mystery in its own existence. If god created us, who created god?

Answer 9

Your 'question' commits the self-contradiction "omnipotent and unable" - therefore it makes no sense - it is a non-question.

Answer 10

It sounds nice. It's as valid as any other belief. I like it, but I like many and subscribe to none.