Who Created God?

[Riverwolf]

Great idea. My explanation of God is that people just made him up. No need to elaborate further.

What is the explanation for that? You'll find many possibilities. But what is the explanation for them?

 

[McBell]

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:

What is it exactly you think you have refuted?

You have not shown that one does not need to explain god if god is being used as an explanation.

For I could just as simply say it was {insert ANYTHING here} and be just as "right" as claiming it was "god".

 

[tarasan]

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.

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 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.

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.

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

no in big bang cosmology we know the physical universe didnt exist

It most certianly shows that something created the universe which you could give hte God status, merely because it mightnt have the characteristics we associate with it means nothing, why argue specifics?

The third one is also wrong, in big bang cosmology time started out with the big bang, so anything else that was outside of the time could no have began it must have "been" as there was no time for there to be a start.

yes size does matter those particles, phase in and out of existence incredibly fast, it is incredible to conclude that somehow the entire universe came into being and stayed here for this long. we have seen nothing other than tiny particles in those test, there has been no evidence of anything bigger than that.

and finally no i was using him as an example of certian arguements that could be used, i wasnt saying he was right, so no I wasnt making an arguement from authority.

 

[tarasan]

What is it exactly you think you have refuted?

You have not shown that one does not need to explain god if god is being used as an explanation.

For I could just as simply say it was {insert ANYTHING here} and be just as "right" as claiming it was "god".

ok lets use evolution as an example.

lets ignore every agruement for evolution and say that you ahve to prove to me that al those bones arnt actually Rocks and Prove to me that they are actually from animals, and so on and so on.

an explanation of the explanation aviods looks at the arguements and the evidence as you are constantly having to answer the why why question.

you clearly have not been reading my posts up until now, I said that if we have an arguement that is supported by good reasoning and evidence then we do not need an explanation of the explanation. because if so things like evolution would not be counted as a good theory.

 

[tarasan]

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.

Im accepting that!!!! but thiests due have arguements that you cant jsut explain away by constantly using hte why why question on God.

 

[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?

I dont need an explanation of the explanation attack teh arguement.

 

[tarasan]

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.

its impossible for something that is affected by time to infinitatly regress back, it has been mathmatically proven, infinity does not actually exist.

 

[McBell]

ok lets use evolution as an example.

lets ignore every agruement for evolution and say that you ahve to prove to me that al those bones arnt actually Rocks and Prove to me that they are actually from animals, and so on and so on.

an explanation of the explanation aviods looks at the arguements and the evidence as you are constantly having to answer the why why question.

you clearly have not been reading my posts up until now, I said that if we have an arguement that is supported by good reasoning and evidence then we do not need an explanation of the explanation. because if so things like evolution would not be counted as a good theory.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Part of the evidence would be that they are bones and not rocks.
For if they were actually rocks, you would not have presented the idea in the first place.

 

[McBell]

I dont need an explanation of the explanation attack teh arguement.

His questions are an attack of the argument.
You seem to want to be able to give god some special treatment.
In science, it does not work that way.
Now in pseudoscience...

 

[tarasan]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Part of the evidence would be that they are bones and not rocks.
For if they were actually rocks, you would not have presented the idea in the first place.

I was using it as an example.

the fact is that what Dawkins is suggesting is that you should always need an explanation of an explanation of something before it becomes a good arguement.

so say for evolution you would have to explain how the Bones are say, not random Rocks, or that they actually belonged to animals etc. in fact not only would you need that explanation, but in order to make that explanation a good one you must give it an explanation, then that one, and so on and so on.

therefore you would never be able to justify the first explanation as a good one because you would forever be giving explanations for explanations.

 

[McBell]

you clearly have not been reading my posts up until now, I said that if we have an arguement that is supported by good reasoning and evidence then we do not need an explanation of the explanation. because if so things like evolution would not be counted as a good theory.

Until such time as you can define god, god is not an explanation.
Period.
Until such time as you define god, god is merely a cop out.
period.

I can just as easily say that it was not god, it was krifnd.
You ask what is krifnd.
I say that I need not explain the explanation.
You assume the krifnd is another name for god.
I say that god does not exist outside the imagination of those who believe in god.
And we are right back to square one.

You talk about evidence, but there is no empirical evidence for god.
So god is pretty much a "free for all" term.

So are you going to finally present a usable definition for god or are you just going to keep up spouting your non-sense?

 

[tarasan]

Until such time as you can define god, god is not an explanation.
Period.
Until such time as you define god, god is merely a cop out.
period.

I can just as easily say that it was not god, it was krifnd.
You ask what is krifnd.
I say that I need not explain the explanation.
You assume the krifnd is another name for god.
I say that god does not exist outside the imagination of those who believe in god.
And we are right back to square one.

You talk about evidence, but there is no empirical evidence for god.
So god is pretty much a "free for all" term.

So are you going to finally present a usable definition for god or are you just going to keep up spouting your non-sense?

im sorry there was a misunderstanding, a fair thiestic definition of God is an entity that created the universe and everything in it, I can give evidence for such a God by showing that the universe needed an explanation outside of itself etc.

I didnt want to define God to any one religion, I assumed you would be aware of a general definition of God clearly I was wrong.

 

[McBell]

I was using it as an example.

It failed.

the fact is that what Dawkins is suggesting is that you should always need an explanation of an explanation of something before it becomes a good arguement.

I agree with this assessment.

so say for evolution you would have to explain how the Bones are say, not random Rocks, or that they actually belonged to animals etc. in fact not only would you need that explanation, but in order to make that explanation a good one you must give it an explanation, then that one, and so on and so on.

Would this not be a part of the evidence?
Or are you not worried about potential fraud?
If the bones do not need to be verified as bone, why bother having them in the forst place?

therefore you would never be able to justify the first explanation as a good one because you would forever be giving explanations for explanations.

Seems you are far to fond of the slippery slope.

 

[McBell]

im sorry there was a misunderstanding, a fair thiestic definition of God is an entity that created the universe and everything in it, I can give evidence for such a God by showing that the universe needed an explanation outside of itself etc.

Yet you believe that an explanation of god is not needed?
Then why did you offer up a definition for the word god?
You are most inconsistent.

I didnt want to define God to any one religion, I assumed you would be aware of a general definition of God clearly I was wrong.

And thus the main problem with your 'argument'.
There is not a solid, usable definition for the word you want to use as the explanation.

 

[tarasan]

It failed.


I agree with this assessment.


Would this not be a part of the evidence?
Or are you not worried about potential fraud?
If the bones do not need to be verified as bone, why bother having them in the forst place?



Seems you are far to fond of the slippery slope.

firstly if you knew anything about fossils you would know that they are essentially Rocks, then of course you would have to explain the explanation that you would give, then you would have to give another, then another, Im not sure what you mean by a slippery slope this is what you would have to do if you kept dawkins at his word.

 

[tarasan]

Yet you believe that an explanation of god is not needed?
Then why did you offer up a definition for the word god?
You are most inconsistent.



And thus the main problem with your 'argument'.
There is not a solid, usable definition for the word you want to use as the explanation.

sigh its like talking to a wall...........

you have been refering to arguements this entire talk........ say for example the cosmological arguement, or evolution or anything, a good arguement/ explanation would never be able to be justified.....plenty of other people have gotten it, and are attacking other things why is it so hard for you?

 

[McBell]

sigh its like talking to a wall...........

you have been refering to arguements this entire talk........ say for example the cosmological arguement, or evolution or anything, a good arguement/ explanation would never be able to be justified.....plenty of other people have gotten it, and are attacking other things why is it so hard for you?

I have to agree.
I definitely feel like I am talking to a wall.

Or perhaps a record player stuck on the same loop.

Why is it that you assume that the reason I disagree is because I do not understand?

 

[tarasan]

I have to agree.
I definitely feel like I am talking to a wall.

Or perhaps a record player stuck on the same loop.

Why is it that you assume that the reason I disagree is because I do not understand?

well others seem to understand and have come up a good sugesstion that I give a good arguement that meets the requirements that i have laid out, considering that you have listed the same objection they have yet still seem to want to argue the point shows that you dont understand, although I feel that now I should give an arguement for the existence of God....... so i shall bow out of this thread, im just repeating myself to someone who clearly just wants to argue.

 

[andys]

I can't believe anybody is taking such a stupid question seriously.
Even if there was some guy out there who created a god, the question still remains, who created that guy.

Who created god? Here's the answer in case you are interested:
The same creature who created the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Now let's move on to a more interesting question: What possible difference would it make if there were some "god" floating around in outer space? How would that affect the human race?

 

[tarasan]

I can't believe anybody is taking such a stupid question seriously.
Even if there was some guy out there who created a god, the question still remains, who created that guy.

Who created god? Here's the answer in case you are interested:
The same creature who created the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Now let's move on to a more interesting question: What possible difference would it make if there were some "god" floating around in outer space? How would that affect the human race?

thats immpossible to say, I would say that it would affect it just the way we are being affected.