What if consciousness were an integral and unavoidable aspect to reality? Let’s say that consciousness cannot eternally find means to satisfy itself, and therefore must create a new consciousness in order to satisfy its desire (lest it be dissatisfied). And then the cycle continues. These two consciousnesses will satisfy each other, but it won’t work forever. Eventually, there will come a point where a new consciousness must be created in order for the two to be satisfied. Forever and ever.
Could this be the reason why God created new beings instead of remaining alone with Jesus and the Holy Spirit? And is there any merit or support for this theory?
Your theory is interesting, but you are assuming that God exists within a framework of time. God created all things, including time, therefore He must exist outside of time. Therefore your model of God’s consciousness needing to be satisfied over time through creating a new consciousness falls down. Your model also assumes that God is subject to some inherent laws in nature. This is also false as it is God who created the laws of nature, and is therefore not governed by them Himself.
Time isn’t a thing, it’s a measurement of distance. My brother is a Catholic, and he doesn’t believe that God created time, anymore than He created the law of identity (A=A). Where is written that “God created time”?
Well you’d better argue that with Stephen Hawking who says that time began 15 billion years ago, when the universe began. Before the beginning of the physical universe there was no time, since (even as a measurement) time measures the distance between the occurrence of two physical events. No matter, no physical events, no time. So, with the creation of the universe, time was created.
Who caused the ‘Big Bang’ that created, out of nothing, matter that would go on to form everything. As a Catholic, the answer to that would be God.Your brother may not believe that God created time, but the Church teaches that God created everything. And as scientific evidence indicates that time did indeed have a beginning (and I wouldn’t want to go head to head with the likes of Stephen Hawking on this issue) then it follows that God did indeed create time. It therefore follows that God exists out of time, and is not governed by time, or any of the other laws of the universe (which were created when the universe was created).
Incidentally, the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Msgr Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Jesuit Priest, astronomer and professor of physics.
I think that, if such a consciousness as the one you describe, did in fact exist then it would not be God. If it is not satisfied, then it lacks something in its nature and seeks to fulfill an end. God has fullness of Being since He is Being itself, so there is nothing that His nature lacks. Now, what is a proper object for the knowledge and love of infinite Being? This is where the Trinity comes in. The Second Person is God’s unrestricted and infinite knowledge of Himself which is not limited in anyway. The Third Person is the infinite pouring our or “spiration” of love between the First and Second Persons. So there’s nothing that is left unsatisfied through the nature of God. He doesn’t need to create finite consciousnesses that evolve towards the Second and Third Persons (because then He would be mutable which would suggest He has some kind of potency that needs to be actualized by a higher level of reality).
I’m not too familiar with Craig’s philosophy admittedly, but I think he disagrees with the Thomistic understanding of divine simplicity so I think he would allow for God to be changing. If you are saying that God is otherwise timeless but since He created the universe and interacts with it He can change, I don’t think that quite follows. If God is God, then He is pure actuality, which means He has no unrealized potencies and thus does not change. If He did have unrealized potencies, then there would have to exist a higher level of reality that could actualize them, which leads to recursion that eventually takes you to pure actuality which would be the real God.
Nor does that fact that change is part of creation imply that God’s will is changing IMO. He could be willing from eternity that the universe exist in a temporal and changing state even though this will has been constant and unchanging. Kind of like how Shakespeare could be willing Hamlet in its entirety even though the story of Hamlet involves changing.
However, it is possible for God to experience so-called “Cambridge changes.” What that means is that humans and the created universe in general are both changing but they both have relationships to God. So if we change, our relationship with God inevitably changes. This is a Cambridge change from God’s POV because He didn’t really change, we did, which changed His relationship with us. It’s the reason why we perceive God as having variable emotional states. We fall in and out of grace with God which causes our relationship to Him to change, even though He isn’t changing.