Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 156 (463239)
04-13-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
04-13-2008 6:07 PM


Re: Has The Creator Ever Transcended Space And Time?
Straggler writes:
There is a key difference. Religious claims seem to assert that some things are inherently unknowable and untestable and that the questions are therefore unanswerable. Scientific theories instead have elements that are as yet unknown or for which there is currently insufficiant evidence available from which to draw reliable conclusions. These are areas for research and investigation.
There are presently as many inherently unknowables and untestables relative to the BB as there are relative to a realm of higher intelligence.
Many messianic related prophecies have been fulfilled. After these are consumated and the messianic kingdom becomes a reality the Biblical ID hypothesis will be confirmed in Jerusalem. This is why the forces of anti-christ/messiah, are so intent on occupying Jerusalem for their god Allah.
According to the track record of the Biblical prophetic scriptures our unknowns are, imo, a great deal more likely to become known than are yours. There's just no way science will know anything about before the BB which they claim does/did not exist. The Ot prophets foretell a time when Jehovah will be known by all nations which will make pilgrimages to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to honor him.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2008 6:07 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 17 of 156 (463352)
04-15-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Grizz
04-06-2008 12:05 PM


Grizz writes
For someone who holds to theism, I would not be trying to establish the Bible as a means of proving the existence of God. I would appeal to the argument above then try to explain why that extra level of causation would be neccesary when the nature of things themselves would suffice as a fundamental cause.
You use the word 'cause' as if it means and includes 'source', it does not.
This is the second time you have used the word NECESSARY to form an argument, in conjunction with the principle of causality. You miss the point. Its only needs to be demonstratable and therefore very probable that such a cause and effect principle is observable and then it is 'necessary' to move twords infinite regress. The nature of things would suffice for a sufficent and fundamental CAUSE as an explanation of themselves but not any reasonable explanation of thier source of materials. There is a very big difference. Therefore it is very unreasonable to stop with the principle of cause and effect.
One could certainly ask why is there a need to add another level of complexity by invoking God as an extra cause when 'nature' itself can be that final causal stop in the food chain.
You present the explanation of God as if it were simply a wonderment and not a natural logical conclusion derived from the observation of cause and effect. There is not only a need to add this level of complexity but a responsibility if we are going to discuss the possible origins of anything. Nature is not the FINAL casual stop in anything, especially in the question of origins.
Your "fine tuned argument" above asks individuals to really disregard most if not all of the observable evidence in favor of a causal stance that would blind people to the fact causes do have effects and the logical conclusion is that if material properties do not have within themselves sustainable, properties of eternality, then something must.
The principle of the unmoved mover cannot be explained away, no matter how eloquent the argument may appear. It is practicle, believable and demonstratable, from any REASONABLE standpoint. You may not agree with it or accept it, but it is a valid way to proceed. If one contemplates the material universe as eternal, then the explanation of God is set out with equal force.
You miss the point Grizz, its not the inital NECESSITY of anything. It is the reasoning and probability that are a part of the material universe and its make up and laws that invites the conclusion as a 'necessary' explanation of things.
While not absolutley provable, one should not adopt the casual stance that you are advocating. There is no REASON to do so.
Thanks
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 04-06-2008 12:05 PM Grizz has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 18 of 156 (463357)
04-15-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
04-07-2008 2:28 AM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Phat writes
quote:
I believe that it makes more sense for any type of creation....be it a thought, a word, a physical invention, or a math formula...to have had a Creator.
Phat, this is an argument that can very easily be turned back at into our faces.
The Universe / was created by God. God / just exists.
Use Occam's razor...
The Universe just exists.
Personally, I don't have an answer for this question. All I have to rely on is my faith, and I'll leave it at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 04-07-2008 2:28 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 04-24-2008 9:27 AM teen4christ has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18427
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 19 of 156 (464242)
04-24-2008 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by teen4christ
04-15-2008 2:59 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Basically it just boils down to the simple question:
Was there anything that has always existed?
If so, is it animal (unlikely
vegetable(also unlikely)
or mineral? Possibly....
But the Deity makes more sense
As a philosophical concept, God has only two basic options.
Either God created us, thus making the question of who created Him unanswerable
or we humans imagined God...in which case we can make the story turn out any way we so imagine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by teen4christ, posted 04-15-2008 2:59 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2008 9:26 PM Phat has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 156 (464332)
04-24-2008 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
04-24-2008 9:27 AM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Hi Phat. I was just thinking; you and I have been dialoging for a long time now. I believe it was either the Newsmax or NOPC forums which we first dialoged.
Anyhow, relative to topic:
Phat writes:
Either God created us, thus making the question of who created Him unanswerable
IMO it is a scientific given, according to the 1LOT, that something had to have been eternal, either cold calculatable uncreated energy or an omnipotent supreme potentate in whom all things exist and from whom all things came.
Edited by Buzsaw, : remove a letter in NOPC

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 04-24-2008 9:27 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 9:50 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2008 9:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 156 (464336)
04-24-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
04-24-2008 9:26 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Buzsaw writes:
or an omnipotent supreme potentate in whom all things exist and from whom all things came.
That underlined portion is completely against christian doctrin. One of the most striking differences between western and eastern theology (generally speaking that is) is that western theology generally believes that the deity is a seperate being from the universe whereas eastern theology pride itself in believing that there is a possibility of deity and everything else coexisting in the same state.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2008 9:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2008 10:37 PM Taz has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 156 (464347)
04-24-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
04-24-2008 9:50 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Taz writes:
That underlined portion is completely against christian doctrin. One of the most striking differences between western and eastern theology (generally speaking that is) is that western theology generally believes that the deity is a seperate being from the universe whereas eastern theology pride itself in believing that there is a possibility of deity and everything else coexisting in the same state.
Hi Taz. I looked up the texts for this which are I Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 2:10.
I was going by memory and got the wording wrong. The text wording has it as existing of the Father (Jehovah, god) and through Jesus the son of God. This is from the ASE version which I believe to be the most literal of the translations.
Imo the Biblical position is that God exists in a physical environ within his own universe. In past threads I've cited texts which state that God exists in the heavens (somewhere in a certain place out in the cosmos) among angels, celestial thrones, expensive lavish golden streets, gates of pearl, a sapphire throne, etc, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 9:50 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 04-25-2008 4:02 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 156 (464366)
04-25-2008 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
04-24-2008 10:37 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Well, at least I got something right for once

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2008 10:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 156 (465587)
05-08-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
04-24-2008 9:26 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Hi Buz and Phat.
I would like to add that information is not part of matter, and information only MATTERS to someone rather than some thing.
I think DNA is proof of an information within a matter.
Ultimately, asking who/what created God would already make God NOT God, as it becomes a contradiction. This is where atheists suffer from a lack of understanding of Jehovah/Yahweh, perhaps, in that they will not spend time considering a sovereign God as a genuine answer to the problem.
From a neutral standpoint, God makes a lot of sense, which begs the question; then why question God? Which allows us to conclude = because the person dislikes God being an answer to the problem. So ultimately it comes down to the person's disbelief being a problem, rather than the creation, which declares the glory of God.
If I don't get back to you, it was good to talk. Keep fighting the good fight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2008 9:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 05-08-2008 10:38 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 28 by obvious Child, posted 05-10-2008 3:12 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 25 of 156 (465589)
05-08-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
05-08-2008 9:52 AM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Ultimately, asking who/what created God would already make God NOT God, as it becomes a contradiction. This is where atheists suffer from a lack of understanding of Jehovah/Yahweh, perhaps, in that they will not spend time considering a sovereign God as a genuine answer to the problem.
Becasue it's not an answer to the problem. When discussing "uncaused first causes," for some reason theists give "god" a free pass.
WHY, specifically, does the Unvierse need to have a Creator due to its complexity, and "god," and infinitely more complex entity, does NOT?
It's quite literally a double-standard, where the "complexity requires a creator" test is applied to the Universe, and not to your deity.
From a neutral standpoint, God makes a lot of sense, which begs the question; then why question God?
Bullshit. "God" only makes a lot of sense if you accept non-rational, non-objective solutions to problems. If you ask "why is the Earth round?" and answer "God made it that way," your answer doesn't make sense, it's intellectually lazy. You're confusing "It's easier for me to believe this becasue I don't need to think about anything or do any math or objective research, and I don't have to worry about being wrong becasue I have all the answers: God did it," for "This explanation has more objective supporting evidence and is more logically sound." The two statements could not be more different, and you are using the former and not the latter.
Which allows us to conclude = because the person dislikes God being an answer to the problem.
Bullshit. Atheists are not atheists becasue we do not like god. Some, maybe. But I'm an Atheist becasue you can provide no objective evidence suggesting a deity exists. There's an awfully large difference between your statement and reality.
So ultimately it comes down to the person's disbelief being a problem, rather than the creation, which declares the glory of God.
You can provide no objective evidence suggesting the existence of your deity. This puts your invisible man in the sky right up there next to fairies and Zeus. You can't very well say "creation declares the glory of god" when nothing in the Universe comprises objective evidence suggesting the evidence of a deity.
Your entire argument consists of a double standard (the Universe needs a cause and God doesn't), followed by an appeal to motive (they don't believe in god because they don't like him, even though it's rather difficult to not like something you don't think exists), and finally a non sequitur (you claim the Universe is evidence of god, when you have not demonstrated a logical connection between the two).
Now my mind is in a knot as well - it's difficult to follow thought processes so far removed from logic and rationality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2008 9:52 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 05-09-2008 7:36 AM Rahvin has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 156 (465685)
05-09-2008 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rahvin
05-08-2008 10:38 AM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
I apologise if my personal opinions and thoughts offend you. It's not my intention. I merely believe that having experienced all sides of the debate, I conclude that a rational answer is an intelligent creator, especially if we look at information.
Your entire argument consists of a double standard (the Universe needs a cause and God doesn't),
It would be a double standard if and only if I had no prior knowledge of the bible, which tells me about an eternal creator.
I can't be accused of a DS if I am not able to apply any other standard.
You can provide no objective evidence suggesting the existence of your deity. This puts your invisible man in the sky right up there next to fairies and Zeus.
Well, no - that's a genuine non sequitur. Logically this can put my deity right up there with [insert anything], as a lack of evidence doesn't = absurd falsity.
Perhaps you're not as logical as you thought you were. And this is what ultimately dissapoints me about many atheists, their wild jump to conclusions.
Bullshit. Atheists are not atheists becasue we do not like god
But you see, I never said they were! You're speaking not rationally, but belidgerently, by assuming I am out to get you. This is what I genuinely believe, whether you object or not. I can't change genuine conviction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 05-08-2008 10:38 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2008 2:10 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 27 of 156 (465714)
05-09-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
05-09-2008 7:36 AM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
I apologise if my personal opinions and thoughts offend you. It's not my intention.
Offense is irrelevant. Argument is everything. If I appear to be hostile to your position, it is because I see your argument as seriously flawed.
I merely believe that having experienced all sides of the debate, I conclude that a rational answer is an intelligent creator, especially if we look at information.
Mmmm hmmm. Describe, specifically, your argument in favor of an intelligent creator. What evidence leads you to conclude that everything must have been created?
quote:
Your entire argument consists of a double standard (the Universe needs a cause and God doesn't),
It would be a double standard if and only if I had no prior knowledge of the bible, which tells me about an eternal creator.
Bullshit. Reading a book does not justify an insistence that the Universe requires a creator due to its complexity, and the creator does not despite being even more complex. If you beleive it does, you might want to watch out becasue I hear Lord Voldemort is out to rule the world.
You are applying a double standard. Your arguemnt rests entirely on the premise that complexity requires a creator. You observe the compelxity of life and the Universe and conclude that this complexity requires a creator. However, you observe that the creator would need to be at least as complex as his creation, but then conclude that your creator does not need to have been created, despite complexity.
You apply your premise to one argument and not the other. It is a double standard. Your knowledge of the Bible is irrelevant to the fact that you are applying your premise to one argument and not to the other.
I can't be accused of a DS if I am not able to apply any other standard.
This does not make sense. The very problem is that you are applying another standard. For some reason the Universe requires a creator due to its complexity, but the creator does not. You are applying a different standard.
quote:
You can provide no objective evidence suggesting the existence of your deity. This puts your invisible man in the sky right up there next to fairies and Zeus.
Well, no - that's a genuine non sequitur. Logically this can put my deity right up there with [insert anything], as a lack of evidence doesn't = absurd falsity.
Incorrect. A lack of any evidence puts your deity right up there with all thing sfor which there is no evidence. Any of these, including fiaires and Zeus, may exist. None have been falsified.
It's interesting that you apparently believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence for Zeus and fairies. I never claimed that fairies and Zeus were "absurd falisties," you did. Another double standard?
It is true that absence of evidence is evidence of a likeilihood of absence.
To once again use the old Athiest argument, when you understand why you are an Atheist regarding Zeus and Thor, you will understand why I do not believe in your deity.
There is no evidence for your deity. There is also no evidence for Zeus or fairies. This means that objectively your deity has the same chance of existing as Zeus or fairies.
There is however evidence of the Universe existing - we're part of it, after all.
What can we conclude?
If compelxity implies a designer, then we reach the infinite-regression problem where every creator requires his own creator.
With no evidence suggesting the existence of a deity, there is no reason to assume a deity exists, despite what an old book and tradition may say, since neither of those amount to objective evidence.
We know the Universe exists, but we do not know that a deity exists.
It is reasonable to conclude that the Unvierse did not require a "cause," as there is no evidence suggesting it does require a "cause" outside of preconceived subjective religious beliefs.
quote:
Perhaps you're not as logical as you thought you were. And this is what ultimately dissapoints me about many atheists, their wild jump to conclusions.
Bullshit. Atheists are not atheists becasue we do not like god
quote:
But you see, I never said they were! You're speaking not rationally, but belidgerently, by assuming I am out to get you. This is what I genuinely believe, whether you object or not. I can't change genuine conviction.
Liar. From you immediately preceding post, relevant portion bolded:
quote:
From a neutral standpoint, God makes a lot of sense, which begs the question; then why question God? Which allows us to conclude = because the person dislikes God being an answer to the problem. So ultimately it comes down to the person's disbelief being a problem, rather than the creation, which declares the glory of God.
You said, very specifically, that (those who do not believe in god base their disbelief on "disliking god being an answer to the problem.") You then insist that you did not claim that (those who do not believe in god base their disbelief on "disliking god being an answer to the problem.") You have directly contradicted yourself.
I am speaking compeltely rationally. You are the one appealing to motive (god is unacceptable as a solution because of a dislike of god as opposed to a lack of evidence). You are the one applying double standards (the Unvierse requires a creator becasue it is complex, but the complex creator does not reuire a creator). You are the one making baseless asumptions (god, zeus and fairies are "absurd falsities," when the statement was clearly one noting the equivalence in evidence for all three entities).
You are the one lying.
I may come across as hostile...but again, this is not because I dislike your conclusion. My vehemence is directly correlated to the weakness and illogic of your arguments. Make a well-reasoned argument, stop claiming to be logical when fallacies plague your every paragraph, and I will stop being hostile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 05-09-2008 7:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2008 7:01 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 46 by Agobot, posted 01-06-2009 7:48 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4223 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 28 of 156 (465794)
05-10-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
05-08-2008 9:52 AM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
quote:
Ultimately, asking who/what created God would already make God NOT God, as it becomes a contradiction. This is where atheists suffer from a lack of understanding of Jehovah/Yahweh, perhaps, in that they will not spend time considering a sovereign God as a genuine answer to the problem.
Your argument is fundamentally insane. Your question in no way creates a contradiction. In polytheistic religions Gods were created all of the time. Merely asking how one new God was created didn't make that God a contradiction. The thing about this question is that it completely shows how weak the "everything must have an origin, therefore God" argument really is. If God does not need an origin, then nothing else does. Users of that asinine argument either have to logically abandon it or use fallacies such as special pleading. There is no logical or rational way of using the origin argument for God's existence.
quote:
From a neutral standpoint, God makes a lot of sense, which begs the question; then why question God? Which allows us to conclude = because the person dislikes God being an answer to the problem. So ultimately it comes down to the person's disbelief being a problem, rather than the creation, which declares the glory of God.
Again, insane. God doesn't make a lot of sense. Omnipotence makes God not only illogical but completely nonsensical. God could make the flavor Purple triangle despite purple being a color and triangle being a shape. Nonsensical is by definition the opposite of sensical. And merely because things make sense does not mean we don't question them. Under your logic, the entire branch of organizational efficiency should be tossed out since a lot of things 'make sense' even if they aren't working as efficiently as they could. People question God for the same reason they question everything else.
And you can't hate or dislike God if you don't believe in it. I don't hate or dislike Goblins because they aren't real.
Your argument is truly nuts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 05-08-2008 9:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jenifer, posted 05-10-2008 6:34 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Jenifer
Junior Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 5
From: Texas
Joined: 05-10-2008


Message 29 of 156 (465804)
05-10-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by obvious Child
05-10-2008 3:12 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
God created time because time is a necessary condition of nature. God is the creator of nature, not a being of nature. He exists outside of it. It's like a giant Venn diagram. Set A=Nature. A={time, heavens, earth, creatures} But set A is in a box labeled U, or Universe. Inside U but outside A is Eternity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by obvious Child, posted 05-10-2008 3:12 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 05-11-2008 3:46 PM Jenifer has not replied
 Message 31 by obvious Child, posted 05-13-2008 4:01 AM Jenifer has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 156 (465912)
05-11-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jenifer
05-10-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Uncaused First Causes
Whether God created time or not - This does not really answer the question of what 'caused' God.
Either things need a cause or they do not. On what grounds do you claim that God is uncaused whilst at the same time concluding that a complex universe must be caused by something else?
The loic is self defeating.
Would not the whole thing be simpler if we take that which we know to exist (i.e. the universe) and accept that this is uncaused? Rather than try and find an ever regressive cause for things that we have no objective reason to believe to exist at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jenifer, posted 05-10-2008 6:34 PM Jenifer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024