Creation vs Creator?

[Guest]

 

> Watching Guardians of the Galaxy, all three volumes i noticed one interesting phenomena (and in few other movies like Eternals): creation over-smarted its creator and overthrew him. Evolution made them more intelligent and powerful then their creator(s). So how that can be? Does it mean creators do not evolve and they are stuck at certain level of knowledge being unable to progress and advance unlike their creations? Can creation really master its creator and why creators are mostly evil toward their creation?

Spoiler

> Btw, I am not refereeing to any deity in the form we know them today from various religious books, but rather as some supernatural being(s) that, hypothetically saying, created us and other beings, like the being in the Prometheus movie.

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Evaloves4

[Miauzi]

1 hour ago, Evaloves4 said:

 

> Als ich „Guardians of the Galaxy“ in allen drei Bänden sah, bemerkte ich ein interessantes Phänomen (und in wenigen anderen Filmen wie „Eternals“): Die Schöpfung übertrieb ihren Schöpfer und stürzte ihn. Die Evolution hat sie intelligenter und mächtiger gemacht als ihre Schöpfer. Wie kann das also sein? Bedeutet das, dass sich Schöpfer nicht weiterentwickeln und auf einem bestimmten Wissensniveau feststecken, weil sie im Gegensatz zu ihren Schöpfungen nicht in der Lage sind, sich weiterzuentwickeln? Kann die Schöpfung ihren Schöpfer wirklich beherrschen und warum sind Schöpfer ihrer Schöpfung gegenüber meist böse?

  Verborgene Inhalte aufdecken

> Btw, I am not refereeing to any deity in the form we know them today from various religious books, but rather as some supernatural being(s) that, hypothetically saying, created us and other beings, like the being in the Prometheus movie.

 

 

Viele Fragen und Du wirst Du jeder zig verschiedene Antworten erhalten - je nach "Anschauung" der Person dir Dir antwortet ... also ist vieles "subjektiv".

 

Aber im Grundsatz hast Du zwei Fragen miteinander vermischt:

- Schöpfer versus seine eigene Schöpfung

- Schöpfung versus Evolution des Schöpfers selbst (und diese hast Du nicht formiliert - aber sie ist letztlich doch enthalten)

 

So wie Du "Schöpfung" verstehst (und es die meisten machen) -> sie erfolgt von Oben-nach-Unten

sprich ein Überwesen erschafft sich eine (niedere) "Kreatur" - wie also kann diese dann ihren Schöpfer übertreffen?

 

Kann sie nicht und soll sie auch nicht - weil es gegen fundamentale Daradigmen zahloser Religionen verstößt

Eine sich selbst entwickelnde Schöpfung muss also von vorn herein BÖSE sein - dass es ja ein absoluter Regelverstoß ist - dass sie besser sein möchte als ihr Schöpfer

(der Schöpfer rettet sich hier lediglich selbst - und muss nicht zugeben - dass er eben NICHT vollkommen ist)

 

Als mary Shelley ihren "Dr. Frankenstein" (Anfang des 19. jahrhunderts!) geschrieben hatte - galt der Mensch als höchste Schöpfung seines Gottes.

Ihm war aber auferlegt - nicht nach der Macht und Fähigkeit dieses Gottes zu streben ... ergo ist Dr. Frankenstein gescheitert mit seiner Schöpfung ... und seine Schöpfung hat ihn getötet.

 

Alles was dananch kam ... sind im wesentlichen "Kopien" dieser Grundgeschichte - so auch die von Dir erwähnten "was-auch-immer"

(ehrlich - ich lese seit 50 Jahren solche Geschichten - da ist nix mehr wirklich originelles für mich)

 

Nun zur Frage der Evolution:

Hier implodiert ja das Konzept von Schöpfung ... weil es dieser eine eigene Entwicklung gestattet.

 

So wie der Mensch das Ergebnis einer fast 1 Mrd Jahre andauernden (biologischen) Evolution ist - so unterliegt letztlich auch seine Schöpfung einer solchen.

Weil Evolution nicht nur auf einer biologischen Ebene im Kosmos stattfindet - sondern ein ffundamentales Prinzip des Kosmos selbst ist.

 

Und Evolution bedeutet neben dem ständigen Kampf gegen den "Verfall" (Entrophie) auch eine Entwicklung vom Niederen zum Höheren.

 

Da wir aber noch nicht am Ende aller Tage angekommen sind ... heisst das auch das die Entwicklung weiter geht. Wenn wir also uns selbst nicht mehr - auf welche Weise auch immer - weiter entwickeln ... machen das vielleicht unsere eigenen Schöpfungen oder etwas ganz anderes.

 

englische Übersetzung im Spoiler

Spoiler

Many questions and you will receive every tens of different answers - depending on the "view" of the person you answer you ... so a lot is "subjective".

But in principle you mixed two questions together:

- Creator versus his own creation

- Creation versus evolution of the creator himself (and you did not formilate this - but it is ultimately included)

Just as you understand "creation" (and most do it)-> it takes place from the top

Say an overwhelming creates a (lower) "creature" - so how can it exceed your creator?

It cannot and should not - because it violates fundamental daradigms of torture religions

A self -developing creation must therefore be angry from the outset - that it is an absolute violation of the rules - that it wants to be better than her creator

(The Creator only saves himself - and does not have to admit - that he is not perfect))

When Mary Shelley wrote her "Dr. Frankenstein" (early 19th century!) - man was considered the greatest creation of his God.

But he was imposed - not to strive for the power and ability of this God ... ergo is Dr. Frankenstein failed with his creation ... and his creation killed him.

Everything that came ... are essentially "copies" of this basic history-including the "what-, also" you mentioned

(honestly - I've been reading such stories for 50 years - there is nothing more original for me)

Now on the question of evolution:

Here the concept of creation implodes ... because it allows it to allow its own development.

Just as man is the result of an almost 1 billion (biological) evolution - so it is ultimately also subject to his creation.

Because evolution not only takes place on a biological level in the cosmos - but is a found principle of the cosmos itself.

And in addition to the constant struggle against "decay" (entrophie), evolution also means a development from the lower to the higher.

But since we have not yet arrived at the end of all day ... that also means that the development continues. So if we no longer develop ourselves - in whatever way - may do our own creations or something completely different.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

 

Viele Fragen und Du wirst Du jeder zig verschiedene Antworten erhalten - je nach "Anschauung" der Person dir Dir antwortet ... also ist vieles "subjektiv".

 

Aber im Grundsatz hast Du zwei Fragen miteinander vermischt:

- Schöpfer versus seine eigene Schöpfung

- Schöpfung versus Evolution des Schöpfers selbst (und diese hast Du nicht formiliert - aber sie ist letztlich doch enthalten)

 

So wie Du "Schöpfung" verstehst (und es die meisten machen) -> sie erfolgt von Oben-nach-Unten

sprich ein Überwesen erschafft sich eine (niedere) "Kreatur" - wie also kann diese dann ihren Schöpfer übertreffen?

 

Kann sie nicht und soll sie auch nicht - weil es gegen fundamentale Daradigmen zahloser Religionen verstößt

Eine sich selbst entwickelnde Schöpfung muss also von vorn herein BÖSE sein - dass es ja ein absoluter Regelverstoß ist - dass sie besser sein möchte als ihr Schöpfer

(der Schöpfer rettet sich hier lediglich selbst - und muss nicht zugeben - dass er eben NICHT vollkommen ist)

 

Als mary Shelley ihren "Dr. Frankenstein" (Anfang des 19. jahrhunderts!) geschrieben hatte - galt der Mensch als höchste Schöpfung seines Gottes.

Ihm war aber auferlegt - nicht nach der Macht und Fähigkeit dieses Gottes zu streben ... ergo ist Dr. Frankenstein gescheitert mit seiner Schöpfung ... und seine Schöpfung hat ihn getötet.

 

Alles was dananch kam ... sind im wesentlichen "Kopien" dieser Grundgeschichte - so auch die von Dir erwähnten "was-auch-immer"

(ehrlich - ich lese seit 50 Jahren solche Geschichten - da ist nix mehr wirklich originelles für mich)

 

Nun zur Frage der Evolution:

Hier implodiert ja das Konzept von Schöpfung ... weil es dieser eine eigene Entwicklung gestattet.

 

So wie der Mensch das Ergebnis einer fast 1 Mrd Jahre andauernden (biologischen) Evolution ist - so unterliegt letztlich auch seine Schöpfung einer solchen.

Weil Evolution nicht nur auf einer biologischen Ebene im Kosmos stattfindet - sondern ein ffundamentales Prinzip des Kosmos selbst ist.

 

Und Evolution bedeutet neben dem ständigen Kampf gegen den "Verfall" (Entrophie) auch eine Entwicklung vom Niederen zum Höheren.

 

Da wir aber noch nicht am Ende aller Tage angekommen sind ... heisst das auch das die Entwicklung weiter geht. Wenn wir also uns selbst nicht mehr - auf welche Weise auch immer - weiter entwickeln ... machen das vielleicht unsere eigenen Schöpfungen oder etwas ganz anderes.

 

englische Übersetzung im Spoiler

  Hide contents

Many questions and you will receive every tens of different answers - depending on the "view" of the person you answer you ... so a lot is "subjective".

But in principle you mixed two questions together:

- Creator versus his own creation

- Creation versus evolution of the creator himself (and you did not formilate this - but it is ultimately included)

Just as you understand "creation" (and most do it)-> it takes place from the top

Say an overwhelming creates a (lower) "creature" - so how can it exceed your creator?

It cannot and should not - because it violates fundamental daradigms of torture religions

A self -developing creation must therefore be angry from the outset - that it is an absolute violation of the rules - that it wants to be better than her creator

(The Creator only saves himself - and does not have to admit - that he is not perfect))

When Mary Shelley wrote her "Dr. Frankenstein" (early 19th century!) - man was considered the greatest creation of his God.

But he was imposed - not to strive for the power and ability of this God ... ergo is Dr. Frankenstein failed with his creation ... and his creation killed him.

Everything that came ... are essentially "copies" of this basic history-including the "what-, also" you mentioned

(honestly - I've been reading such stories for 50 years - there is nothing more original for me)

Now on the question of evolution:

Here the concept of creation implodes ... because it allows it to allow its own development.

Just as man is the result of an almost 1 billion (biological) evolution - so it is ultimately also subject to his creation.

Because evolution not only takes place on a biological level in the cosmos - but is a found principle of the cosmos itself.

And in addition to the constant struggle against "decay" (entrophie), evolution also means a development from the lower to the higher.

But since we have not yet arrived at the end of all day ... that also means that the development continues. So if we no longer develop ourselves - in whatever way - may do our own creations or something completely different.

 

> Thanks for your answer. I don't have a time now to go through it and comment certain topics. Anyway, interesting view.

[Lyman the Lunatic]

Let me get this out of my brain while I can still remember the contents of my fever dream.

So I got sick & this topic pops up in my head. And right now, I see "creator" as "the parents", and the "creation" as "the children". And it makes me think back of the people I have known & met.

The parents will want their children to be greater than the parents. But the parents themselves aren't perfect, still plagued by the hopes & fears that may could fail to reach their ideal goal. The children are forced to live up to the standards set by the parents, guilt-shamed into obedience & obligation due to a debt of existence, an existence they didn't asked for. If the parent became too tyrannical, the children will either develop a Stockholm syndrome, or resentment (results may vary based on their environment). But as time passes, the mortality curses us all, those who came before, will wither and die, while those who comes later, gets to flourish & shine. The parents, still sees their dominion of the children as a birthright, becomes stagnant & decadent. The children becomes disillusioned & resentful of the parents & just rebel. But since this is scifi we are talking about, that kind of loyalty bound is not a concept explored by the American media, because Hollywood think their audiences are dumb & everything has to be a clear cut black & white (which is why I love to read history more. Do you like The Last Samurai? The real Last Samurai was betrayed & massacred, I'd love to be in an alternate reality where we get that version of the film instead, but I guess there may already be a Japanese period drama on it).

 

Does that makes the children perfect? Of course not, the children will be too dead set in their ways, unwilling to see from the parent's perspective. If anything, they might even build their entire identity on their defiance of their parents long after their parents' passing. At this point, just slap a certain amount of a passage of time, and you'll get a villain or an interesting support character for your story!

Alright, I'm gonna go back to sleep.

[Guest]

On 7/7/2023 at 2:50 AM, Evaloves4 said:

> Watching Guardians of the Galaxy, all three volumes i noticed one interesting phenomena (and in few other movies like Eternals): creation over-smarted its creator and overthrew him. Evolution made them more intelligent and powerful then their creator(s). So how that can be? Does it mean creators do not evolve and they are stuck at certain level of knowledge being unable to progress and advance unlike their creations? Can creation really master its creator and why creators are mostly evil toward their creation?

For me it is more like older races, people get stuck in their Ways. Whereas younger think outside the box, if that makes any sense.

Waiting for Guardians 3 to come to Disney+...........

[espguy]

Depends on the creator and creation. Those movies (and most media) present the creator as authoritative and arrogant which lead to their fall at the hands of a evolving creation, but that doesnt need to be the case. For example a creator that lets its creation be free and acts more as a mentor while interested in its prosperity wouldnt be overthrown and quite possible learn from its creation and grow. In fact I find the whole idea of a highly advanced race making servants kinda dumb, why bother giving servants sentience if a non sentient machine can do the job probably better? The only reason I can see for creating a sapient race would be to see it grow and interact between themselves and other species, servants dont need sapience and sentience. Still I find the idea of creating a new race and society fascinating and honestly if we ever get to make advanced enough simulation (thinking something on matrix level), I would definitely make a simulated world to observe and maybe have some fun. Would be more of a guide and teacher though.