One idea I've been vaguely toying with is that of God evolving. What if he started out as a child, kind of like us? He angrily destroyed his creation during outbursts of emotion and reached out to us in various ways through the ages, attempting to bridge some sort of gap...?

I don't know. Just a thought.

Deepak Chopra explored this concept in his book, "How to Know God." Even if it doesn't touch you spiritually, it's something to think about and consider if you still believe in a god.

That is the Mormon way of thinking. God was once a man as we are now and was exalted to Godhood. The Mormon God is like a superman who had a to worship another God before him much like how our parents had to listen to our grandparents before we were born.

The classical monotheistic view of God is that God is, always has been, and always will be all powerful , all knowing, and morally good therefore the idea of God evolving is not possible.

Well, of course, you can imagine anything you want about a "god..."

Whatever floats yer boat. Me, making things up about imagined god-things doesn't do it. :)

Yes, this meme is evolving.

What is evolving is the concept of the god. People make this concept whatever it needs to be to match their cultural ideals.

This is a really old "meme" except we didn't have the internet then. In the early 1970's members were talking about God continuing to grow/evolve. Whetherit was directions from SLC or from the local leadereship in Pocatello, it came down--God does not change.

It's weird how ghawd has matured over the years, isn't it?

If there is a god, something that seems unlikely. God would be as much of an accident as humanity. God evolving into god seems to be the most logical way to become god. To me at least, god starting out as god seems to be the least likely way to become god.

Think of it this way, even hydrogen didn't start out that way. It is a combinations of composite particles which are also composites. Change seems to be more than just a universal law of philosophy. So you tell me, why wouldn't god evolve?

Or, its like this...

God is perfect and can't make a mistake.

This earth is a perfect growth medium for us. Which means it was designed to suck, so we could grow, experience, endure... If everything was easy, we would be spoiled, egocentric, narcissistic, selfish, heartless, proud, arrogant...

It was designed perfectly to accomplish growth by going through stuff. We agreed to it. We have to endure, and try to connect to our Creator. To live in the presence of our Creator, is the best thing ever, so it is available to those that seek him out, endure, get refined, seasoned, tempered...

He lives in such a high spiritual plane, sin, victimization, pride, arrogance...deeply offends him. He lives in a realm of love, so anything base, not about love, is the opposite of him. If you don't have love and empathy, you can't, and wouldn't want to live in his presence. They can't coexist.

Your god is offended by its creation, nope no mistakes.

Under the classical monotheistic view of an Eternal God it would be impossible for God to be evolving or had evolved. The idea of Eternally God is that God has always been God and will always be God.

IN B4 the next His next

"angrily destroyed his creation during outbursts of emotion"

In the beginning was man. And man created God. And man beheld that it was not good.

Just thought I should point out that "evolving," in the biological sense, doesn't happen to individuals. It happens to populations of organisms over time.

So if you're trying to like this to biological evolution, it doesn't fly. There would have had to have been hundreds (thousands? millions?) of generations of "gods," each being slightly different from the previous ones, and natural selection picking out the most successful traits, for evolution to have occurred.

When one individual changes, it's called "learning." Not evolution. When an imagined individual ("god") is SAID to have "changed," it's called making things up. Not evolution.

Well, I hate to disagree with you, something which rarely happens, but I can't see any reason to limit the use of the word to the biological sense. Nothing in the discussion seems to imply that usage, rather it looks to me that the usage is one of the other legitimate uses of the word.

It also means gradual development or unfolding and can be applied to almost anything, a person, a language, a system, or an idea, for example. Although it may not necessarily be required, the development is usually considered to work from a simpler, or worse state to more complex or better state.

There are other specific meanings, for instance, in math it refers to "the extraction of a root from a given quantity." In chemistry it refers to "the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat."

Here are a few references

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/evolution

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

peculiargifts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I hate to disagree with you, something which
> rarely happens, but I can't see any reason to
> limit the use of the word to the biological sense.

I agree. Notice I said IF you're trying to liken this to biological evolution then...
Not you HAVE to liken it to biological evolution.

Still, when an individual changes based on experience, that's still learning. Not evolution. :)