Who Created God?

[tarasan]

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.

Im not saying absolutes here man thats important Im saying Good arguements which can be the best explanation and btw perhaps it would be better to switch to good arguement because best explanation could be up to interpretation. "

if I can show that God is a good explanation from the evidence then i dont have to prove his explanation"

there.

i disagree with you about craig but im not going to derail the thread for this side debate.

 

[Tristesse]

Im not saying absolutes here man thats important Im saying Good arguements which can be the best explanation and btw perhaps it would be better to switch to good arguement because best explanation could be up to interpretation. "

if I can show that God is a good explanation from the evidence then i dont have to prove his explanation"

there.

i disagree with you about craig but im not going to derail the thread for this side debate.

I figured you'd disagree with me about craig, because well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't. And I understand that you're not talking about absolutes, I never said that you were. Ok, so, give me your best argument for the existence of god.

 

[tarasan]

I figured you'd disagree with me about craig, because well, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't. And I understand that you're not talking about absolutes, I never said that you were. Ok, so, give me your best argument for the existence of god.

no no I wasnt here to give arguements merely to try and refute what Dawkins said about you needing an explanation of an explanation.

I believe that I have shown that you do not, and God can be included as a good explanation so long as certian requirements are met which i have shown above, so long as everyone agrees with that, I figure ill bow out of this thread if you want however you can start up a thread asking for arguements for God thought .....

:angel2:

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I gave you a perfectly good explanation for God, so, by your description of Craig's argument, I need not explain it further. Why provide evidence when I don't need to? Of course, I could cite lots of evidence to support the claim--e.g. the facts that people are known to make gods up and that the Christian God is a logically impossible being.

The teleological argument fails on a number of grounds.

1. It contradicts its premise that everything must have a cause.
2. If the universe had a cause, that cause did not have to be a god.
3. Proponents of the argument tend to confuse the "universe" with "physical reality", which subsumes the visible universe. There is no reason to believe that physical reality began when the so-called Big Bang took place.
4. Quantum physics suggest that physical entities can pop into existence out of nothing, which contradicts the premise that one needs a god to explain the "ex nihilo" claim.

There are more objections that philosophers have come up with, but it isn't really necessary to bring these things up, as I have already adequately explained God. He is a figment of human imagination, just like all the lesser gods.

 

[Tristesse]

no no I wasnt here to give arguements merely to try and refute what Dawkins said about you needing an explanation of an explanation.

I believe that I have shown that you do not, and God can be included as a good explanation so long as certian requirements are met which i have shown above, so long as everyone agrees with that, I figure ill bow out of this thread if you want however you can start up a thread asking for arguements for God thought .....

:angel2:

Ok, you don't need an explanation for the explanation, if the explanation is sufficient as an answer, and can be demonstrated using reason and logic. However, What I began saying is that god is not an explanation, it has no explanatory power. So, therefore if you use god, you would need a further explanation, and you would also have to define god too. You haven't come close to meeting the requirements for a good explanation, you've simply asserted that the explanation is sufficient.

 

[tarasan]

I gave you a perfectly good explanation for God, so, by your description of Craig's argument, I need not explain it further. Why provide evidence when I don't need to? Of course, I could cite lots of evidence to support the claim--e.g. the facts that people are known to make gods up and that the Christian God is a logically impossible being.

The teleological argument fails on a number of grounds.

1. It contradicts its premise that everything must have a cause.
2. If the universe had a cause, that cause did not have to be a god.
3. Proponents of the argument tend to confuse the "universe" with "physical reality", which subsumes the visible universe. There is no reason to believe that physical reality began when the so-called Big Bang took place.
4. Quantum physics suggest that physical entities can pop into existence out of nothing, which contradicts the premise that one needs a god to explain the "ex nihilo" claim.

There are more objections that philosophers have come up with, but it isn't really necessary to bring these things up, as I have already adequately explained God. He is a figment of human imagination, just like all the lesser gods.

its the kalam cosmological craig uses

point one is wrong the first premise is that everything that begin to exist has a cause.
teh second point is mute now that i fixed the first premise
the third points a little vague, you could be talking about the mulitverse or or other things that infinitely regress out of time.
the fourth one only conferes with such things as tiny particles NOT LARGE THINGS and they arnt even sure those particles are there!!

this isnt the thread to be having this conversation I was trying to prove that a good explanation doesnt need an explanation and if you read the rest of the points and have a disagreement thats fine but me starting to defend certian arguements derails this thread.

 

[Tristesse]

its the kalam cosmological craig uses

point one is wrong the first premise is that everything that begin to exist has a cause.
teh second point is mute now that i fixed the first premise
the third points a little vague, you could be talking about the mulitverse or or other things that infinitely regress out of time.
the fourth one only conferes with such things as tiny particles NOT LARGE THINGS and they arnt even sure those particles are there!!

this isnt the thread to be having this conversation I was trying to prove that a good explanation doesnt need an explanation and if you read the rest of the points and have a disagreement thats fine but me starting to defend certian arguements derails this thread.

So, are you saying that god doesn't exist?

 

[tarasan]

Ok, you don't need an explanation for the explanation, if the explanation is sufficient as an answer, and can be demonstrated using reason and logic. However, What I began saying is that god is not an explanation, it has no explanatory power. So, therefore if you use god, you would need a further explanation, and you would also have to define god too. You haven't come close to meeting the requirements for a good explanation, you've simply asserted that the explanation is sufficient.

I does it explains that there was an entity that created said universe, it has extreme explanatory power you cant just pick and choose which explanation you like.

 

[tarasan]

So, are you saying that god doesn't exist?

No Im saying that he transcendes the universe as a timeless spaceless entity, which did not require a cause.

 

[Tristesse]

I does it explains that there was an entity that created said universe, it has extreme explanatory power you cant just pick and choose which explanation you like.

I'm not picking and choosing explanations. What I'm saying is that you're asserting a god as an explanation and not providing evidence or even an argument. You're just saying this is the way it is. And if you can assert a god as a creator for the universe, I can assert universe creating pixies as an answer, now we both have the equivalent amount of evidence for our claims.

 

[Tristesse]

No Im saying that he transcendes the universe as a timeless spaceless entity, which did not require a cause.

If god doesn't need a cause, what makes you think the universe needs a cause? And how do you know he transcends the universe as a timeless spaceless entity?

 

[tarasan]

I'm not picking and choosing explanations. What I'm saying is that you're asserting a god as an explanation and not providing evidence or even an argument. You're just saying this is the way it is. And if you can assert a god as a creator for the universe, I can assert universe creating pixies as an answer, now we both have the equivalent amount of evidence for our claims.

like I said this thread was merely used to say that we needed and explanation of an explanation. as is clear by the first message...

I have stated that so long as we have a good arguement for God and good evidence then we do not need an explanation of an explanation...... this is what the thread asked and i answered it, in order to answer it i do not need to give specific arguements merely the criteria that the arguements need, I beleive said arguements exist and if you want to talk about said arguements please create another thread.

 

[Tristesse]

like I said this thread was merely used to say that we needed and explanation of an explanation. as is clear by the first message...

I have stated that so long as we have a good arguement for God and good evidence then we do not need an explanation of an explanation...... this is what the thread asked and i answered it, in order to answer it i do not need to give specific arguements merely the criteria that the arguements need, I beleive said arguements exist and if you want to talk about said arguements please create another thread.

Yeah and when you get that argument, come back.

 

[tarasan]

If god doesn't need a cause, what makes you think the universe needs a cause? And how do you know he transcends the universe as a timeless spaceless entity?

because the universe had a beginning in the big bang, it has been shown mathmatically that a universe cannot expand out into infinity.

so with that said a thing that got the universe going must be a timeless spaceless entity because it must be appart from the universe in order to have created it.

should I start a new thread?

 

[tarasan]

Yeah and when you get that argument, come back.

like I said the thread wasnt asking for that Arguement so why should I derail the thread and give it here Im ok with giving you arguements just on this thread.

 

[Tristesse]

because the universe had a beginning in the big bang, it has been shown mathmatically that a universe cannot expand out into infinity.

so with that said a thing that got the universe going must be a timeless spaceless entity because it must be appart from the universe in order to have created it.

should I start a new thread?

Ok, the big bang does not assert that the universe as we know it had a beginning. It may be the case that the universe always existed in some form.

 

[Azakel]

This universe is so complex, how could it have arisen except from our imaginations?

I cite daytime soap operas as my proof.

Nothing is Real, Everything is Permitted? ^_^

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.

Being one who see Chaos as Creation this to me would makes sense as a start for the gods. And not just any and all gods(Yes even those one might consider fictional).

 

[Tristesse]

like I said the thread wasnt asking for that Arguement so why should I derail the thread and give it here Im ok with giving you arguements just on this thread.

Ok, but if you're going to say that god is a good explanation and then not explain how it's a good explanation, then dawkins was right, you can have an explanation for an explanation that is not sufficient to meet the requirements of what we know about the universe.

 

[Copernicus]

its the kalam cosmological craig uses

point one is wrong the first premise is that everything that begin to exist has a cause.

This is Craig's variant of the first premise, but he doesn't bother to mention that he also assumes that God did not begin to exist. He could just as well make the same assumption about physical reality. He does not escape the circularity with this little semantics game.

teh second point is mute now that i fixed the first premise

No, the second point had nothing to do with the first. It was just the argument that IF something did cause the universe to being, that thing did not have to have any of the characteristics that we usually attribute to a god.

the third points a little vague, you could be talking about the mulitverse or or other things that infinitely regress out of time.

The third point is not the slightest bit vague. People who talk about the "beginning of the universe" usually equivocate on the term "universe". There is no reason to believe that all we see of the universe is all there is to physical reality. And there is no reason to assume that what exists outside of our universe somehow did not itself "need to begin" within its own frame of reference.

the fourth one only conferes with such things as tiny particles NOT LARGE THINGS and they arnt even sure those particles are there!!

Actually, quantum effects have been detected above the classical threshold, but let me just point out that size doesn't matter here. Quantum observations completely undermine premise one, since they show us that "ex nihilo" phenomena occur spontaneously in nature. Craig has tried to get around this by claiming that quantum events are "caused" in a sense, but that just opens the door to the possibility that the universe itself could have been "caused" in the same way.

this isnt the thread to be having this conversation I was trying to prove that a good explanation doesnt need an explanation and if you read the rest of the points and have a disagreement thats fine but me starting to defend certian arguements derails this thread.

You failed to prove it, since all you did was cite Craig as an authority. Argument from Authority is a well-known fallacy.

 

[Riverwolf]

You cannot disprove all Gods. It is hard to disprove most possible Gods. All atheists can do is show that it is less likely that some Gods exist. There may very well be a God, I don't know. I am not the expert on the universe. However, I see no good evidence for the existence of God. Some Christians do not think they can prove God, but think that God is a good explanation for this universe. Dawkin's argument seems to destroy the explanatory power of God. Some religious people like to claim that they believe because of faith. There is no way to know whether faith will lead one to the truth. So, in my opinion, religious explanations are stuck right there. Without good proof, you cannot go anywhere.

I don't understand. I am religious, but when it comes to the physical universe, I defer to science, not mythology, in objective explanations.