My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)

Hi Peg, What type of answer are you seeking here?Scientifically speaking time begins at the Big Bang. Time is a means of measurement. It would be like asking, what is distance...? Now. Of course relative to whenever you read this.Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Abogot, The point is that no matter what one feels is out there, if all things require some form of origin, then so too does God.I'm going to assume that the God that is being spoken of is the one claimed to exist in scriptures, any other references to another type of God should not be included in this argument.Would you not agree that if all things which have a high degree of complexity require creating then that would include God as well? If you do not think so, why not? I would say that disbelieving in God DOES go with all measures of science, since science does not deal with the supernatural, science by definition seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. If one were ONLY looking at science, then proof for the Biblical God can not be found within it. Thus if one is seeking to "find God" then one should take the proper avenues that better explain these matters, science does not have one thing to say about God, and hopefully never will.I do agree with your over all point, man has not in any way reached the levels of intelligence that is required to fully grasp this reality in which we find ourselves in. That is not to say that there is some other reality that awaits us, but one never knows. So, yes, prematurely saying that "God absolutely does not exist" does not come with evidence to support it, but neither does "God does exist". However, with all of our current means of investigating such a possibility, no evidence for God can be found. Everything that we know to exist, with a few exceptions, has an explanation as to how it got there, there has not been any reason to invoke the supernatural.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The laws of physics are a theory, the fact that they exist to describe our reality is their only objective.Yet, I find interesting that the very primitive human logic, which you claim cannot fully comprehend reality, came up with these laws to describe reality. So by your own standards the laws of physics do not fully describe reality, because we cannot fully comprehend it, and so they are not really any "law" of anything other than what we, stupid humans, perceive to be reality. But they are the very same 5 senses that were used to invoke God in the first place. Humans questioned their existance and came up with the God concept, no other creature has ever shown signs of doing this, except for us. Determining that there is a God, if that is what you are saying, was done by using your 5 senses. If they are good enough to determine that there IS a God, then why are they now not good enough to determine there ISN"T a God...? Thats a double standard Abogot.We observed nature in our emergenced and invoked God, using our 5 senses. We know observe nature and, using the same 5 senses AND an advanced intelligence, say that no such God exist. Whatever side of the table you're on, God v.s. No God, the same 5 senses were used to determine both. I don't think that invoking a God prematurely gets us there any faster. In fact, if history shows us anything is that God can be used to slow progress down.OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This didn't deal with the question though. You are still implying the existance of God is a plausable scenario to the existance of everything, yet God was invoked by our 5 senses. So again, if these 5 senses can come up with the God hypothesis they are more than adequate to determine that God was nothing more than primitive human intuition.It's the same as determining that modern medicine is better than religious shaman.So, IMO, it is better to remove the primitive concept of God and allow the evidence to place the puzzle pieces together, rather than invoke the answer (i.e. God) before one even understands what one is asking.Plus, your answer just seems like you're searching for anything to satisfy certain curiosities. Careful with those far-out intuitions, you my decide to write a book and center a religion around it. Those laws do have a creator, us. The laws exist to define reality, in that sense they are meaningless to anything that doesn't experience reality the way we do. I do not think they were created anywhere. Thus no medium is required, no other set of laws are even considered. Human logic is great upto a certain point; spacetime, sub-atomic scales, quantum physics, etc, defy our logic and thus can only be understood by creating a means to understand them. Thus the "laws of physics". The laws are a means of understanding reality in a humanly logical way. So, no, I would not discard human logic, if anything I say endorse the use of this logic to further our understanding of our universe. But keep primitive beliefs out of it, as you would keep religious shaman out of modern medicine.There is no need to invoke the supernatural when one is trying to understand the natural.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Abogot, just want to address this particular comment, Atheism is a disbelief in religious Gods, not some unknowable unknown entity that you are creating via pure imgination. There is no term for a disbelief in that kind of imaginary entity. That you simply assert a being capable of creating everything does not in turn make anyone that disbelieves you an atheist towards your imagination.Athesim, as in the disbelief of scriptural, religious, tribal, supernatural, gods, is warrented when staring at the mountains of evidence that contradicts all religious texts. You are proposing some other type of entity and are calling it God for lack of a better word. So, disagreeing with you does not make one an atheist, disagreeing with religious, scriptural and tribal gods, does. Which, if I'm not mistaken, you disagree with also. So you are an atheist as well.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

First, the THREAD is titled "Who/What created God?".Also, YOUR particular brand of God is not the ONLY one out there, as you can see by Abogots description of what he is describing as God.This is just another example of your Christian arrogance to think that the God concept is solely a Christian idea.This debate between Abogot and DA has been very interesting and informative, and at least in Abogots perspetive, God and science can co-exist, so kindly leave your little unsupported mythology out of it.Austin 3:16 says...Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Abogot, great debate btw.Just a few points, Since there is no current theory that combines both the macro and micro world, should we NOT try to confuse both realities - macro/micro?In the classical sense, which is how we view the world, how does non-locality affect us or how we experience reality? Or perhaps adjust our understanding of it - like the happy agreement between Einsteinian/Newtonian physics.We are limited in our means to fully understand QM by our current technology, what the future brings in that field is still unknown. This implies that there is a controler of said universes. Why...?You seem to just be describing reality; even with all of it's mysteries, it's still reality. But Abogot, most situations require the use of either QM or GR, but never both.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I don't think I'm qualified in anyway to give that answer. From what I've read, a few seem to think it's not possible, a few seem to think that it is. I don't know what the general consensus amongs physicist is. I assume, like most people of science, to them nothing is impossible. You wil starve if you actually wait for that to occur - lol. I didn't say it is incomplete, I said it may need adjusting. Like take Newton and gravity. Newton explained how gravity functioned but did not know how it manifested. Einstein explains gravity to be the curvature of space, and now it is understood where it manifests from.And no, things that have proven themselves in experiments will stand. But, perhaps the means of measuring at sub-atomic scales will become more precise and a better understanding of whats going on at such small scales is rendered. Testing it is a great way to make sense of it, especially when predictions can be made. I never said QM would be overturned, nor would I say evolution will be overturned. But, I feel that both theories still have much to be discovered about them. I still don't see how a primitive belief in supernatural forces that work undetected in a different demention or "outside" the universe, or any other nook or cranny that people place him in, makes sense. As mysterious as sub-atomic scales are nothing about them is indicative of either a creator or the supernatural. It is obviously a wave in the micro world, when viewed in our macro world it is constrained by the finite speed of c. Then I will wait till they decide and write books about it, then I'll read it and try to understand it...I won't jump to philosophical conclusions about what any of this stuff signifies though. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

As I understand it though, there would still need to be a unifying theory of all the known forces, right?QFT does merge SR with quantum concepts, so they're almost there - lol. I think you meant SR, right?I make statements in the form of a question because I'm often not sure. Hope this doesn't bother. I just started class again so I'm trying to brush up on GR and SR, EvC is the place for that. Wasn't able to finish school for financial reasons, and of course my job. I'm bitting the bullet and staying off the road for a while to please my mother and finally get a degree, should take another 4 years, lol. I believe they are. I haven't stated otherwise. My point was that we experience the world, or rather, reality, on the macro scale. The mysteries(limited by our means of measuring) at quantum scales should not affect the way we perceive reality, nor do they require a creator or the supernatural.However, I would like to point out that you used the word forces at the micro level, as in plural. Wouldn't a unifying theory explain it down to 1 force? I am not saying that logic is not out the fuckin window when trying to understand QM, believe me, I can't wrap my head around this stuff anymore than Abogot, even though I believe he has a better understanding of QM than I do. But, and I believe you can agree with me here, just as when viewing the macro word, and noticing unexplainable phenomena should not require one to invoke God, neither should the mysteries of QM. That they are complex and hard to fully comprehend is not the problem of QM, it's the problem of humans and our limited understanding of it.What Abogot seems to be doing is looking at a solar eclipes and saying that God has to be the cause because it's too strange, only he's doing it with QM. We, as in us in our day to day lives, I don't see how we can. If you mean theoretical physicist, I believe thats what a unifying theory will do. In fact, I was talking to one of the post-grads in the physics dept. doing work on blackholes and he was explaining to me how they use QM and GR to properly understand them, so of course they're both used.In that nature I believe you are right, both are required, but in our day to day experiences I'd be curious as to how both can be used to percieve things...?But, again, my only point is that the mystries about QM doesn't require us to invoke the supernatural.Then again, I could be completely wrong. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Abogot, As I said, this is a very likely possibility - lol.I am not as familiar with QM as you are Abogot, I will make an effort to research this as much as I can, going as far as I can comprehend. Perhaps you can help me along. What do you mean by the future...?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

As I understand it, we do not fully know that. There is no way, currently, of knowing "where" virtual particles get their energy? Especially since there is no unifying theory yet.Again, from what I have read, virtual particles are still "real" so they are a property of our 4D spacetime. Since the geometry of spacetime is just another name for what we experience as the gravitational field(as per GR), I believe the origin of their energy will have something to do with that. Thats just MHO, but thats what I gathered from what I have read, if I am wrong please point it out. They're where I see them. Before that, of course there is the probability factor, but is that really the part that is freaking you out? That they are only technically "there" when you measure them? I can see it being puzzling, but I don't think it takes me mentally where it takes you. Certain things are weird like that, im ok with it though. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky