Ask a Theologian IV

[Plotinus]

It would be consistent with God testing humans to prove something to satan.

It might be consistent with that, but it seems an odd idea. Why would God want or need to do such a thing?

The book of Job depicts God as behaving in this way, of course, but it seems simply absurd to me and unworthy of a good God. A God who tortures somebody just to prove something to someone else, and then doesn't even have the decency to tell the victim that this was the reason (instead hiding behind the "you can't understand my ways" excuse), doesn't seem to me a very good God.

If God does not exist, then there would be no created entity by the name of satan. There would be no need to understand good and evil, and there would be no need for forces at all. Things that happen are just naturally occurring events in the universe. Humans have very little if any choices to counteract these events. Doing something good or doing something evil is still just a construct to show the results of actions.

I don't see how our ability to control nature depends on the existence of God. We can, for example, inoculate ourselves against diseases; we have wiped out smallpox in this way. We did that whether or not God exists.

I don't understand your claim that "doing something good or evil is just a construct to show the results of actions". We can distinguish meaningfully between a good action and an evil one whether or not there is a God.

 

[Agent327]

It might be consistent with that, but it seems an odd idea. Why would God want or need to do such a thing?

The book of Job depicts God as behaving in this way, of course, but it seems simply absurd to me and unworthy of a good God.

Well, God works in mysterious ways. But I thought Job was an illustration of how Job's faith was tested. (Apart from that, I don't think the God depicted in the Tanakh/OT qualifies as a "good" God period.)

 

[Borachio]

Basically the number 4 is just a name given to the number 2+2 (it's possible to go into nitpicky details here, but let's not). The assumption is that when you say "two", you mean the natural number with the usual additionm multiplication etc. If you claim that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, you are either 1) really bad at arithmetics, or 2) speaking of another system where "2", "+", "=" or "4" have different meanings.

Borachio's bird is an example of the first one. I don't think that bird's poor maths skills give reason to doubt the basic arithmetics. People count things wrong all the time, it's just mistakes or poor reasoning.

The second case is a real possibility: There are some cases when people use 2 for a different thing, for example an element in Z₃, that has elements 0, 1 and 2, which are summed, subtracted and multiplied just llke ordinary numbers, except whenever you get something over 2 or under 0, you add or subtract 3s until the result is 0, 1 or 2. So for these things it would be 2 + 2 = 1.

This does not however undermine the usual arithmetics, as doesn't any other algebra either. Say, if you changed your name to Obama and christened your child Barack, that wouldn't make Barack Obama any less president of the USA. It could mean that you should be more cautious with your language though.

The disappearing potatoes and such, they don't challenge maths either. They challenge whether some particular system in maths is applicable to the real world, but not the maths itself. The ordinary arithemetics wouldn't describe that world, but it would be just as valid as maths as the above example of Z₃ is in our world.

Take some real examples: Is the geometry of the world we are living in Euclidian or non-Euclidian? Does it contain infinitesimal distances or not? These questions, they are for physicists and philosophers to decide. Mathematicians are concerned only on the internal consistency of what they're doing.

So, a mathematician wouldn't claim "Pythagorean theorem is true", he would say "If you assume Euclid's axioms, parallel axiom included, then Pythagorean theorem is true". Or: "You can deduce Pythagorean theorem from Euclid's axioms".

That is why maths is used as the example of something God can't have an influence on. It's (at least supposedly) only about logic. I think it's a bit unnecessary to speak about maths in this kind of cases though, since speaking of logic would suffice. You could equally well say "God can't create an universe where the law of excluded middle doesn't hold".

Could there be a world where logic doesn't hold? Maybe, but usually people who speak about that possibility don't mean actual logic, but have whole different things in mind: a world where unexpected or crazy things happened, like things came to in existence from nothing or disappeared just like that.

That kind of universe however wouldn't defy logic. It would be needed that the things came to existence from nothing, but they didn't come to existence from nothing. They were all the time there. They weren't there at all.

The thing is that if there is a world where logic doesn't apply, then there's no way I can make sense or speak of that world, so it is useless, and we can just limit ourselves to thinking of the worlds we can imagine.

This is all well and good, and I don't know any sensible human being who would dispute any of it.

The trouble is, though, it seems to me, that either logic exists as a thing in itself outside human conception or it doesn't. I suggest that logic, and mathematics generally, may be simply constructs of the human mind, and not discoveries about the natural world, as you seem to be suggesting. I'm not sure how any one could go about finding out which of these two points of view is correct. Are we able to step outside our own conceptions about the world? I don't think we can.

Of course, it's possible to say that the collective human mind is part of the world we inhabit, and therefore sitting, working out where our "logical" reasoning leads, could be said to be a valid way of apprehending the world at large.

Unfortunately, though, I think that's exactly the same process that the religious indulge in.

(I say "unfortunately" in the presumption that religious thinking is held, by the majority here, to be a rather dubious activity. I could naturally be wrong in this assumption.)

 

[timtofly]

It might be consistent with that, but it seems an odd idea. Why would God want or need to do such a thing?

The book of Job depicts God as behaving in this way, of course, but it seems simply absurd to me and unworthy of a good God. A God who tortures somebody just to prove something to someone else, and then doesn't even have the decency to tell the victim that this was the reason (instead hiding behind the "you can't understand my ways" excuse), doesn't seem to me a very good God...

Are we going with guilt by association?

God did not torture Job, nor did God force Adam and Eve to be tempted by a forbidden tree.

God allowed satan to torture Job. God did plant a tree that was forbidden to eat from.

I don't believe nor think that any one can explain why God does what God does.

I don't see how our ability to control nature depends on the existence of God. We can, for example, inoculate ourselves against diseases; we have wiped out smallpox in this way. We did that whether or not God exists...

I don't think that we can control nature. We have found workarounds to make life more comfortable and perhaps we have an illusion of eradicating certain biological entities. We can see the extinction of some entities, and perhaps it is the result of humans.

I don't understand your claim that "doing something good or evil is just a construct to show the results of actions". We can distinguish meaningfully between a good action and an evil one whether or not there is a God.

"There would be no need to understand good and evil" is a little vague. I think I meant as opposing forces.

I am not saying that we cannot distinguish between humans actions. That is not my claim. I would go with the Bible and claim that God gave us such knowledge. I don't think that the knowledge of good and evil is possible to evolve before the examination of the results of our actions. If there is no God, then that leaves me with the logic that good and evil is the construct we invented to describe the results of our actions. I for one, would never use morals or even the ability to choose between a good or evil action as proof there is a God. It does not make sense to me either that humans invented God, but there seem to be some who hold that belief.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, it does not make sense to me that good and evil are forces outside of epistemology. What would such forces be needed for?

 

[Plotinus]

The trouble is, though, it seems to me, that either logic exists as a thing in itself outside human conception or it doesn't. I suggest that logic, and mathematics generally, may be simply constructs of the human mind, and not discoveries about the natural world, as you seem to be suggesting. I'm not sure how any one could go about finding out which of these two points of view is correct. Are we able to step outside our own conceptions about the world? I don't think we can.

The problem, though, is that you're thinking of "logic" as a "thing" in the first place, which may or may not exist. You're creating a false dichotomy when you say that either it exists or it's a human construction. There's no such thing as "logic" floating around out there, but that doesn't mean that there aren't logical laws that constrain possibility. It makes sense to me to ask whether the apparent impossibility of something being both true and not true is a real impossibility or just our limited perception; it doesn't make sense to me to ask whether "logic" is real. "Logic" is just an abstraction which we use to refer to this topic.

So rather than ask whether logic is real or not, I think it's much more productive to consider particular logical laws, such as the law of excluded middle, and ask whether they necessarily hold or not. And, if we're talking about God, to ask whether or not God determines whether they hold. That's the issue, and reifying logic into a "thing" obscures it.

Are we going with guilt by association?

God did not torture Job, nor did God force Adam and Eve to be tempted by a forbidden tree.

God allowed satan to torture Job. God did plant a tree that was forbidden to eat from.

I don't believe nor think that any one can explain why God does what God does.

Sure, but according to the book of Job, God permitted Job to be tortured. That's not guilt "by association" - the book is clear that God was in charge and allowed Satan to do it. If a soldier asks his commander for permission to torture a prisoner and the commander gives that permission, then the commander is obviously guilty of an immoral act, even though he didn't do it himself and even though it wasn't his idea in the first place. This is not guilt by association.

I don't think that we can control nature. We have found workarounds to make life more comfortable and perhaps we have an illusion of eradicating certain biological entities. We can see the extinction of some entities, and perhaps it is the result of humans.

Right. My point was simply that this is the case whether or not God exists.

I am not saying that we cannot distinguish between humans actions. That is not my claim. I would go with the Bible and claim that God gave us such knowledge. I don't think that the knowledge of good and evil is possible to evolve before the examination of the results of our actions. If there is no God, then that leaves me with the logic that good and evil is the construct we invented to describe the results of our actions.

I agree with you that our best way of determining whether an act is right or wrong is by looking at its consequences (or intended consequences, or something like that). I don't agree that, in the absence of God, this is an "invented" "construct". I think it's inherent to our concept of both good and evil. I think that the word "evil" includes, as part of its definition, the notion of harming others, just as the word "good" includes, as part of its definition, the notion of not harming others. Someone who harms others is, to that extent, evil rather than good. And this is a matter of consequences of one's actions. If I perform an act that I intend will result in harm to others (and which I do not intend will bring about greater good) then that act is, prima facie, wrong - or, if you like, "evil".

We don't need God to know that. And it's not just an arbitrary invention. I don't believe in God, but it seems perfectly clear to me that some actions are right (or "good") and others are wrong (or "evil") on this basis. I'm not just deciding to see things this way. I couldn't, for example, simply decide to say that good actions are those that involve blancmange and evil actions are those that don't. That would be an arbitrary distinction without any basis in our moral intuitions.

It does not make sense to me either that humans invented God, but there seem to be some who hold that belief.

I don't know why such an idea makes no sense to you. What about it don't you understand? It makes perfect sense to me that some people believe that God exists, although I don't hold that view; it also makes perfect sense to me that some people believe he doesn't. Both beliefs are surely quite straightforward and easy to understand, no matter which one you hold.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, it does not make sense to me that good and evil are forces outside of epistemology. What would such forces be needed for?

I don't understand what you mean by calling them "forces" in the first place. Rightness and wrongness are properties of actions. People are good or evil to the extent that they perform right or wrong actions. Our recognition of the difference between right and wrong is probably quite explicable in evolutionary terms (e.g. societies that thought murder was morally acceptable probably tended not to last as long as those that didn't).

 

[timtofly]

Humans did not invent good and evil and in that same reasoning God. For all I know we only have the concept of good and evil because the Abrahamic followers drilled that "reasoning" into the human psyche.

I am pretty sure from an evolutionary standpoint humans figured out that harming others was a powerful "force". I doubt until modern times, they recognized that "force" as "evil". Unfortunately western thought has been wrapped up in "Christianity" to the extent it would be hard to prove my claim.

I realize that theologians from antiquity to the present hold that good and evil are opposing forces represented by God and satan. Even the Bible states there is a war going on. I acknowledge that despite this war, God allows satan to have great power even to harm others. God does control what we could consider both sides of good and evil. So, in God's case, we could never use the phrase indirectly as a qualifier, even though he directly did not do it? To an even greater insult he let the "enemy" directly do it.

 

[Borachio]

edit: I'd just posted some more rambling nonsense, here. I give up.

 

[Agent327]

Rightness and wrongness are properties of actions.

Not in an absolute sense. I would say right and wrong are properties that may be attributed to actions. (As they commonly are; the lack of absoluteness of right and wrong is illustrated by the fact that people have different opinions on whether certain actions are right and wrong. Which in itself would, correctly as it happens, suggest that right and wrong are not absolutes in themselves.)

The tale of Job is actually an illustration of something else: while Satan tortures - in accordance with his properties -, God condones. But in a wider sense God is ofcourse responsible for the sheer existence of Satan (as is illustrated by the story of how Satan came about) - in biblical terms: God created Satan, i.e. pure evil. An act which is ofcourse in accordance with the divine property of omnipotence, but at odds with the property of perfect goodness.

Humans did not invent good and evil and in that same reasoning God. For all I know we only have the concept of good and evil because the Abrahamic followers drilled that "reasoning" into the human psyche.

You are actually suggesting that humans did invent good and evil. (Which would be accurate as they are purely human concepts. In fact it is uncertain if any other species has developed a notion of concepts.) But apart from that, the concepts of good and evil are not exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. The concept of sin, however, rather is. (Unless, ofcourse, one expands it to the notion of taboo - that which is forbidden.)

 

[timtofly]

Not in an absolute sense. I would say right and wrong are properties that may be attributed to actions. (As they commonly are; the lack of absoluteness of right and wrong is illustrated by the fact that people have different opinions on whether certain actions are right and wrong. Which in itself would, correctly as it happens, suggest that right and wrong are not absolutes in themselves.)

The tale of Job is actually an illustration of something else: while Satan tortures - in accordance with his properties -, God condones. But in a wider sense God is ofcourse responsible for the sheer existence of Satan (as is illustrated by the story of how Satan came about) - in biblical terms: God created Satan, i.e. pure evil. An act which is ofcourse in accordance with the divine property of omnipotence, but at odds with the property of perfect goodness.

Satan as pure evil is a theological debate. One cannot conclude such a concept from reading the Bible. In the OT, satan was just an adversary that tempted the followers of God to stop following after God. To modern way of thinking, God is capable of both good and evil. That he was followed was a personal choice. Perhaps with Greek philosophical influence, God took on the mantel of pure good and satan of pure evil, may make sense, but does not follow from reading the Bible. If God does exist and one knew he was on the destructive end of God's manipulations, one would not consider God as good. That Job still claimed God as good at the end of the story is not rational.

Most people would view angels as having no free will. Seeing as how satan was supposedly the chief angel in charge of all the other angels, viewing him as evil does not follow. That satan and a third of the angels rebelled seems to indicate they had a choice between their original purpose and the way things are now. I could be accused of reading too much into the Bible, as there is inference and not exactly laid out in absolutes. In fact those who accuse the Bible as just being a human writing has less of a reason to use the Bible unless it backs up their point. One who accepts it as given by God has to take the good with the bad, no pun intended.

You are actually suggesting that humans did invent good and evil. (Which would be accurate as they are purely human concepts. In fact it is uncertain if any other species has developed a notion of concepts.) But apart from that, the concepts of good and evil are not exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. The concept of sin, however, rather is. (Unless, ofcourse, one expands it to the notion of taboo - that which is forbidden.)

No, I claim God gave humans the knowledge of good and evil. If there is no God, then humans can easily see the results of their actions and come up with definitions like good and evil. Neither points of view have anything to do with two forces of nature called good and evil. One can claim that because I hold the Bible as a point of reference as just using human invented concepts. I however do not accept the Bible as being a human invention. I am tempted to use the words "as far as I know" again that I may be wrong. But to me there is more to it than my mere opinion. There are some things that I can say I know. I do not claim to know everything, therefore, I could be wrong.

To be honest I am not even sure how the point of contention came about that some view good and evil as forces that exist. Perhaps if they did exist, they could be used to prove that there are champions of each perspective force. Am I wrong in reasoning that such "forces" like weather and famine as viewed by ancients, while easily explained using science today may have been viewed as "gods" in the past? I am not trying to say that good and evil are proofs of God's existence. I am only trying to claim, if I am accused of making claims, that one can only claim God exist if he has the knowledge to do so, not just a belief system.

 

[Plotinus]

Not in an absolute sense. I would say right and wrong are properties that may be attributed to actions. (As they commonly are; the lack of absoluteness of right and wrong is illustrated by the fact that people have different opinions on whether certain actions are right and wrong. Which in itself would, correctly as it happens, suggest that right and wrong are not absolutes in themselves.)

That doesn't follow. The mere fact that people disagree about something doesn't prove that there's no fact of the matter. It may be that in fact there is objective, absolute rightness and wrongness, but we just don't know precisely which actions are right and which are wrong.

 

[Agent327]

Illustration is not proof, so I'm not sure why you are saying 'that doesn't follow'. I don't conclude anything from example, except that it might exist (certainly not that it doesn't exist, as that would be disproved by example). Since good and evil are abstractions (let alone absolute good and evil), to prove their existence might be arduous. Yet we assume they do exist.

Satan as pure evil is a theological debate. One cannot conclude such a concept from reading the Bible. In the OT, satan was just an adversary that tempted the followers of God to stop following after God.

If God is the Creator of everything, it follows God also created Satan.

To modern way of thinking, God is capable of both good and evil. That he was followed was a personal choice. Perhaps with Greek philosophical influence, God took on the mantel of pure good and satan of pure evil, may make sense, but does not follow from reading the Bible. If God does exist and one knew he was on the destructive end of God's manipulations, one would not consider God as good. That Job still claimed God as good at the end of the story is not rational.

A plausible conclusion.

Most people would view angels as having no free will. Seeing as how satan was supposedly the chief angel in charge of all the other angels, viewing him as evil does not follow. That satan and a third of the angels rebelled seems to indicate they had a choice between their original purpose and the way things are now. I could be accused of reading too much into the Bible, as there is inference and not exactly laid out in absolutes. In fact those who accuse the Bible as just being a human writing has less of a reason to use the Bible unless it backs up their point. One who accepts it as given by God has to take the good with the bad, no pun intended.

None taken. If one accepts God as an Omniscient Being, the angel rebellion must have been a foreseen event. Again it follows God created Satan.

No, I claim God gave humans the knowledge of good and evil. If there is no God, then humans can easily see the results of their actions and come up with definitions like good and evil. Neither points of view have anything to do with two forces of nature called good and evil.

Forces of nature is just another way of saying God's creation. Evil could not exist without God a priori creating it.

 

[timtofly]

Forces of nature is just another way of saying God's creation. Evil could not exist without God a priori creating it.

That would be the same as saying God created every choice that is made by humans. Or no one has a choice to begin with.

 

[Agent327]

Not quite. If God created everything a priori, your choices have been pre-created, yes. And God's omniscience presupposes knowledge of which choices you will make - but you do not. Therefore, freedom of choice is unaffected.

 

[timtofly]

That is still saying all choices are created, and thus pre-determined. Just because I know all the choices does not mean that I have created them all. The choice not made never existed.

An entity outside of reality can know the unknown, or that which may never happen. To say that one can create things that do not exist does not follow.

Is will an entity outside of oneself? Or is will just carrying out ones desires? Are desires created things or just the way we react to things that are created?

 

[Agent327]

That is still saying all choices are created, and thus pre-determined. Just because I know all the choices does not mean that I have created them all. The choice not made never existed.

You are equating yourself with God.

An entity outside of reality can know the unknown, or that which may never happen. To say that one can create things that do not exist does not follow.

An entity outside of reality would be a non-existing entity, ergo not an entity. Things that do not exist can't be created, as creation means putting into existence.

Is will an entity outside of oneself? Or is will just carrying out ones desires? Are desires created things or just the way we react to things that are created?

An entity outside of oneself? Will is an abstraction, not an entity. Your will might just as well be living out your desires as the opposite (i.e. controlling a desire).

I'm curious as to Plotinus' reaction here.

 

[timtofly]

You are equating yourself with God.

That was not intentional. It is funny how the mind works. Does God still inspire? I was trying to say that when faced with choices, I did not create them, nor do I hold that God created them. I suppose the way the events "flow" God may have created them. Creating everything outside of time and watching it unfold in time, may work like that. The point being that the choices that were not chosen either ceased to exist or never existed in the first place. I would lean for the latter, unless one can convince me that concepts actually exist or have being.

An entity outside of reality would be a non-existing entity, ergo not an entity. Things that do not exist can't be created, as creation means putting into existence.

I use entity as a non descriptive term. There is something, but what, we do not know. That is the "problem" with the concept of God existing outside of existence. God did not create himself, but yet he had being to create everything in existence.

An entity outside of oneself? Will is an abstraction, not an entity. Your will might just as well be living out your desires as the opposite (i.e. controlling a desire).

I'm curious as to Plotinus' reaction here.

As I said, an entity as opposed to a concept. Entity, being an indescribable being as opposed to a concept, which mostly refers to something created in one's mind. That concepts exist before we put definitions to them may be a consideration? Most would probably hold that we create everything as we evolve?

Me too, seeing how this is the "ask a theologian" thread.

 

[Plotinus]

An entity outside of oneself? Will is an abstraction, not an entity. Your will might just as well be living out your desires as the opposite (i.e. controlling a desire).

I'm curious as to Plotinus' reaction here.

I'm afraid I'm finding it rather hard to understand precisely what you're both discussing. What is at issue between you?

On "will", it's a mistake to think it's an entity at all. It's just an abstraction that's used as linguistic short-hand to refer to certain abilities we have. Indeed the ancients had no concept of the "will" (which emerged in the light of Augustine's philosophy and also the christological controversies). To ask whether the will is free is therefore at best misleading and at worst meaningless. The real question is whether we have control over our actions, such that we can with justice be held responsible for them. And that leads to the question under what circumstances we could be said to have this control. I'm a compatibilist, so I see no problem with saying that we have such control even if determinism is true and even if God predetermines everything we do.

 

[Agent327]

As eloquent as ever.

That was not intentional. It is funny how the mind works. Does God still inspire? I was trying to say that when faced with choices, I did not create them, nor do I hold that God created them. I suppose the way the events "flow" God may have created them. Creating everything outside of time and watching it unfold in time, may work like that. The point being that the choices that were not chosen either ceased to exist or never existed in the first place. I would lean for the latter, unless one can convince me that concepts actually exist or have being.

It seems to me you are forgetting that choices not taken by you may very well be (or have been) taken by someone else.

I use entity as a non descriptive term. There is something, but what, we do not know. That is the "problem" with the concept of God existing outside of existence. God did not create himself, but yet he had being to create everything in existence.

Entity is basically another word for being. ("Something", as you say.) And I'm not sure how God could both be outside of existence (meaning non-existent) and have being (i.e. be). That seems rather contradictory. (As, seems to me, using "entity as a non-descriptive term"; any term is descriptive, as that is to a large extent its purpose.)

As I said, an entity as opposed to a concept. Entity, being an indescribable being as opposed to a concept, which mostly refers to something created in one's mind. That concepts exist before we put definitions to them may be a consideration? Most would probably hold that we create everything as we evolve?

I like that latter thought.

Me too, seeing how this is the "ask a theologian" thread.

Luckily, Plotinus doesn't discourage discussion - unlike some Ask a-threaders.

 

[timtofly]

It seems to me you are forgetting that choices not taken by you may very well be (or have been) taken by someone else.

You are sidestepping the issue. Only one choice exist after it is chosen. If someone else "takes" a choice it is no longer mine, but theirs. Probably the most famous example is the "Road not taken". That is not reality since you are the only one on the road. Vary rarely is every one on the same road. It does give a concrete form to explain it though. It is assumed that the road not taken dissolves, never to be seen again.

Entity is basically another word for being. ("Something", as you say.) And I'm not sure how God could both be outside of existence (meaning non-existent) and have being (i.e. be). That seems rather contradictory. (As, seems to me, using "entity as a non-descriptive term"; any term is descriptive, as that is to a large extent its purpose.)

Can existence exist since technically it is not inside itself? Saying God is outside of himself probably does not make sense, so you may have a point there. Separating God from creation, may have been a ploy by theologians to distant God from believers. The whole point being humans do just fine existing, but such an existence is miserable. I still say though that existence seems fractured and only existence can heal itself, or only God can allow himself to be whole again.

I like that latter thought.

God created everything within himself and observed existence as it encompassed it's entire history. That would be another form of self-replication. It just depends on if you are looking at it from the inside (limited knowledge) or the outside (complete knowledge).

Luckily, Plotinus doesn't discourage discussion - unlike some Ask a-threaders.

 

[Agent327]

You are sidestepping the issue. Only one choice exist after it is chosen. If someone else "takes" a choice it is no longer mine, but theirs. Probably the most famous example is the "Road not taken". That is not reality since you are the only one on the road. Vary rarely is every one on the same road. It does give a concrete form to explain it though. It is assumed that the road not taken dissolves, never to be seen again.

Well, either that or the road is simply take by another individual. It depends on how "individual" you view human choices to be.

Can existence exist since technically it is not inside itself? Saying God is outside of himself probably does not make sense, so you may have a point there. Separating God from creation, may have been a ploy by theologians to distant God from believers. The whole point being humans do just fine existing, but such an existence is miserable. I still say though that existence seems fractured and only existence can heal itself, or only God can allow himself to be whole again.

I would say that "existence" implies that it exists (a bit of a tautology there) by definition. If God is omnipotent, that also implies God can be "outside himself" if God wanted to be, although I must say I'm beginning to wonder what we are talking about then. Your last sentence is a bit beyond me: are you saying God is not whole?

God created everything within himself and observed existence as it encompassed it's entire history. That would be another form of self-replication. It just depends on if you are looking at it from the inside (limited knowledge) or the outside (complete knowledge).

Self-replication? One might also say that by creating God is procreating - if not for the fact that creation might be finite, while God is held to be eternal.