Who Created God?

[Rainbow Mage]

I don't view it this way per se, but the Egyptian myths concerning the birth of the gods say they were born from Nun. Nun is basically what the Egyptians called the primordial chaos of the infant universe.

 

[McBell]

think about it you couldnt accept anything, until you give an explanation of that thing, then the explanation of that and that and that until your approaching inifinity or you run out of explanations.

with that you never being able to say we have the best explanation, you would never to able to saying anything with certainty for example gravity, evolution etc.

This is merely wishful thinking on the part of those who want to just toss out any olld explanation and make it stick.

Tell me, did you fall for it?
Because you are essentially saying that the "god did it" explanation should suffice and should not be questioned.
If we followed this 'explanations need no explanations' idea you are touting, we would still believe that the earth was flat, that men deposit a seed into the incubator women, that the sun revolves around the earth, etc.
I mean, seeing as the explanations above (all of which are FALSE) would not need any explanations....

 

[tarasan]

This is merely wishful thinking on the part of those who want to just toss out any olld explanation and make it stick.

Tell me, did you fall for it?
Because you are essentially saying that the "god did it" explanation should suffice and should not be questioned.
If we followed this 'explanations need no explanations' idea you are touting, we would still believe that the earth was flat, that men deposit a seed into the incubator women, that the sun revolves around the earth, etc.
I mean, seeing as the explanations above (all of which are FALSE) would not need any explanations....

erm no in fact we believe in anything is because of this, ok ill try and write it out for you.

say that I found some arrow heads and axes in an excavation and said hey there must have been humans here at some point.

now from what Dawkins is saying it just isnt enough to make that statement, with that evidence, you must first prove the explanation that they are in fact arrow and Axe heads, then you must explain that explanation, and so on, to teh point were you would never be able to use the explanation that there were humans there in the first place.

The same is with such things as the Kalam Cosmilogical Arguements if God is the best explanation of Cosmilogical events then we can accept it without explaning it, until of course better evidence comes along that disproves God.

(im not arguing the kalam just using it as an example, this is the kind of arguement Dawkins was attacking when he made that statement)

 

[McBell]

erm no in fact we believe in anything is because of this, ok ill try and write it out for you.

say that I found some arrow heads and axes in an excavation and said hey there must have been humans here at some point.

now from what Dawkins is saying it just isnt enough to make that statement, with that evidence, you must first prove the explanation that they are in fact arrow and Axe heads, then you must explain that explanation, and so on, to teh point were you would never be able to use the explanation that there were humans there in the first place.

The same is with such things as the Kalam Cosmilogical Arguements if God is the best explanation of Cosmilogical events then we can accept it without explaning it, until of course better evidence comes along that disproves God.

(im not arguing the kalam just using it as an example, this is the kind of arguement Dawkins was attacking when he made that statement)

So there are no theories?
Bye bye theory of gravity?
Or are you looking for some sort of absolute?

 

[tarasan]

So there are no theories?
Bye bye theory of gravity?
Or are you looking for some sort of absolute?

no which is why ive been saying the best explanation.....

in order to have the best explanation of anything you need have an explanation of it merely better evidence, if what Dawkins says is true then we must ask why why why until nothing would be valid as the best explanation.

 

[Copernicus]

Dawkins made that statement about such arguements like the kalam cosmilogical arguement and what not, Craig said that with such arguements we didnt need to know what happened to God as so long as it is a good explanation you dont need an explanation.

But I have given you a good explanation of God. People just made him up. Nothing further need be said, according to Craig.

 

[tarasan]

But I have given you a good explanation of God. People just made him up. Nothing further need be said, according to Craig.

no.......

so long as the agruement is good you need no explanation, that is why Craig uses deductive arguements, with evidence backing them up, the Explanations are Good so long as the logic is sound, that is why you dont see people like hitchens trying that lovely little statement, because Craigs arguements are logical, so they have to be tested to see if they are sound.

 

[tarasan]

But I have given you a good explanation of God. People just made him up. Nothing further need be said, according to Craig.

and of course you would need Good evidence, as well as a sound rebuttle of Craigs competing theory.

or at least a good enough one to make it stand on his own.

 

[Tristesse]

I think William Lane Craig is right when he states that you dont need an explanation for an explanation, his reasoning that a good explanation doesnt require an explanation of itself, as it would destroy science, constantly demanding an explanation for another explanation to be acceptable, it would lead to an infinite regress where is would be impossible to affirm anything.

And if god was an explanation, you might be right. But god is actually a non explanation, it has no explanatory power. It makes no predictions. It's a way to stop further investigation, because if you can replace the word god with pixies and your understanding is still the same, than you haven't really explained anything. You've simply asserted what you believe the answer to be. And that's not very scientific.

 

[McBell]

no which is why ive been saying the best explanation.....

in order to have the best explanation of anything you need have an explanation of it merely better evidence, if what Dawkins says is true then we must ask why why why until nothing would be valid as the best explanation.

Better evidence does not make an explanation right.
It merely makes it more likely that it is the right explanation.

Now let us apply this idea to god...
What are the "explanations" for god?
Which "explanation" has the best evidence?

 

[tarasan]

And if god was an explanation, you might be right. But god is actually a non explanation, it has no explanatory power. It makes no predictions. It's a way to stop further investigation, because if you can replace the word god with pixies and your understanding is still the same, than you haven't really explained anything. You've simply asserted what you believe the answer to be. And that's not very scientific.

Dawkins was attack arguements like the kalam Cosmilogical arguement which is a deductive arguement which logically states that the universe needed a cause to exist which was God, if there are evidence based arguements and its logically sound then yes God is an explanation and should be treated as such.

so thanks for agreeing with me

 

[McBell]

And if god was an explanation, you might be right. But god is actually a non explanation, it has no explanatory power. It makes no predictions. It's a way to stop further investigation, because if you can replace the word god with pixies and your understanding is still the same, than you haven't really explained anything. You've simply asserted what you believe the answer to be. And that's not very scientific.

But god IS used as an explanation.
Though perhaps not so much these days, do to science...

 

[tarasan]

But god IS used as an explanation.
Though perhaps not so much these days, do to science...

indeed im glad we agree, of course this thread proves nothing other than Dawkins is wrong, it doesnt really affect athiesm in any way,

especially cause the really smart athiests dont make such silly claims as he does, one heck of a debater though cant fault him for that.

 

[Tristesse]

Dawkins was attack arguements like the kalam Cosmilogical arguement which is a deductive arguement which logically states that the universe needed a cause to exist which was God, if there are evidence based arguements and its logically sound then yes God is an explanation and should be treated as such.

so thanks for agreeing with me

The Kalam argument has flawed premises. So, the conclusion from the kalam argument is also flawed. It's simply an assertion that the universe needed a god to create it. And it ends up just being one big argument from ignorance. And using logic to "prove" that a god is needed for the universe to exist is just a way to get people to agree with you, but if you have nothing to examine or test, than you're saying god is nothing. And if you want to call a god nothing, that's your prerogative. But I suggest you do a deeper analysis of the kalam argument. And look into arguments that don't necessarily agree with your position.

 

[Tristesse]

indeed im glad we agree, of course this thread proves nothing other than Dawkins is wrong, it doesnt really affect athiesm in any way,

especially cause the really smart athiests dont make such silly claims as he does, one heck of a debater though cant fault him for that.

what does dawkins have to do with anything? And what is dawkins wrong about? He's a biologist.

 

[tarasan]

The Kalam argument has flawed premises. So, the conclusion from the kalam argument is also flawed. It's simply an assertion that the universe needed a god to create it. And it ends up just being one big argument from ignorance. And using logic to "prove" that a god is needed for the universe to exist is just a way to get people to agree with you, but if you have nothing to examine or test, than you're saying god is nothing. And if you want to call a god nothing, that's your prerogative. But I suggest you do a deeper analysis of the kalam argument. And look into arguments that don't necessarily agree with your position.

actually no he has alot of evidence to support his claim but my defence of the kalam cosmilogical arguement is mute i was merely using it as an example, my main statement is that so long as it is a good explanation of the evidence then you dont need to explain the explanation, that was all i was trying to prove here and i think i have done that.

if you want to start a debate on the cosmilogical arguement i suggest you start it else were.

ohhh and by the way i do look into arguements that dont agree with my position, hence i knew about and how to rebuke this one.

 

[tarasan]

what does dawkins have to do with anything? And what is dawkins wrong about? He's a biologist.

look at the start of the thread it was a point Dawkins made and yes i know he is a biologist which is why it flabergasts me that people take things he says which are outside philosphy as seriously as they do.

 

[Tristesse]

actually no he has alot of evidence to support his claim but my defence of the kalam cosmilogical arguement is mute i was merely using it as an example, my main statement is that so long as it is a good explanation of the evidence then you dont need to explain the explanation, that was all i was trying to prove here and i think i have done that.

if you want to start a debate on the cosmilogical arguement i suggest you start it else were.

ohhh and by the way i do look into arguements that dont agree with my position, hence i knew about and how to rebuke this one.

I guess my point was, that as mestemia pointed out, god is used as an explanation, but it isn't an explanation. There is a subtle difference. In science you tend to explain things in terms of things that are already known. It's a bottom up process. I never intended to start a debate about the Kalam argument, but since you brought it up I thought I would point out that it's premises are flawed.

 

[tarasan]

I guess my point was, that as mestemia pointed out, god is used as an explanation, but it isn't an explanation. There is a subtle difference. In science you tend to explain things in terms of things that are already known. It's a bottom up process. I never intended to start a debate about the Kalam argument, but since you brought it up I thought I would point out that it's premises are flawed.

your stacking the deck my friend, what your saying is even though God could be the best fitting explanation from teh evidence we have, and im still not allowed to use him? and how youd it be a dead end? it would be the discovery that would change the world. We do already know the term of what God is and the attributes he has, I really dont see your point man.

ohhh and the kalam is soooo flawed the guy has been able to use it for 20 years and no one publicly has been able to refute it? anyway thats something to think about lets not deroll the thread.

 

[Tristesse]

your stacking the deck my friend, what your saying is even though God could be the best fitting explanation from teh evidence we have, and im still not allowed to use him? and how youd it be a dead end? it would be the discovery that would change the world. We do already know the term of what God is and the attributes he has, I really dont see your point man.

ohhh and the kalam is soooo flawed the guy has been able to use it for 20 years and no one publicly has been able to refute it? anyway thats something to think about lets not deroll the thread.

How is god the best explanation from the evidence? What attributes does god have and how do you know about them? The guy has been using it for 20 years, and it's been debunked over and over, but he continues to use it because I'm sure they're core beliefs that he has. It's really hard for people to see the flaws in there own arguments.

Please, I want you to explain to me and the rest of the scientific community how god is the best explanation from all of the available evidence. Because if this were actually true, don't you think everybody would know about this, I mean there would be no atheists if this were actually true.