Who made God?

[ManTimeForgot]

Just because we can hypothetically construct a model for cosmology in which creation is unnecessary (I have been well aware of the eternal internally consistent cosmology's possibility for some time, and even admit as such several times through my posting history).

The point is rather that I have nothing which points to this as being how things actually are.


Using "Time" as a 4th dimensional construct as an example is not a very good one. "Time" might not actually exist. The Wheeler De-witt equation fairly clearly indicates that time does not exist. Some of our best physicist minds posit that there is no time only extant self-consistent realities which we call "Now..."'

And in as much as I rather like cause an effect; Hume is correct we don't ever actually directly observe cause and effect. So even the whole notion of causation is suspect to an extent.


With that in mind, How am I supposed to judge whether or not a cause might or might not be responsible for creating the framework of existence? Whether or not the universe was created is irrelevant when you are considering "what factors allow for things to be real in the firstplace?" The universe needs to be allowed to be real, and we have no interaction or evidence with whatever level of reality is responsible for making determinations about what rules apply and which do not.

MTF

 

[Thief]

Just because we can hypothetically construct a model for cosmology in which creation is unnecessary (I have been well aware of the eternal internally consistent cosmology's possibility for some time, and even admit as such several times through my posting history).

The point is rather that I have nothing which points to this as being how things actually are.


Using "Time" as a 4th dimensional construct as an example is not a very good one. "Time" might not actually exist. The Wheeler De-witt equation fairly clearly indicates that time does not exist. Some of our best physicist minds posit that there is no time only extant self-consistent realities which we call "Now..."'

And in as much as I rather like cause an effect; Hume is correct we don't ever actually directly observe cause and effect. So even the whole notion of causation is suspect to an extent.


With that in mind, How am I supposed to judge whether or not a cause might or might not be responsible for creating the framework of existence? Whether or not the universe was created is irrelevant when you are considering "what factors allow for things to be real in the firstplace?" The universe needs to be allowed to be real, and we have no interaction or evidence with whatever level of reality is responsible for making determinations about what rules apply and which do not.

MTF

I think you went too far.

Let's see if this works for you....

Enter a room and find dust on the table...it's been awhile since someone has been there.

Enter a room and find a coin on a clean table.....someone has been there, recently.

Find the coin spinning...and someone is close by.

And would you abandon a basic notion for the sake of denial?
For every cause there is an effect.
For every effect there is a cause.

 

[outhouse]

For every cause there is an effect.
For every effect there is a cause.

yes and when one cannot figure out how or the why of the cause and effect, we dont install a magic sky daddy for either because we dont understand.

primitive man did this and we are beyond his primitive ways.

 

[Thief]

yes and when one cannot figure out how or the why of the cause and effect, we dont install a magic sky daddy for either because we dont understand.

primitive man did this and we are beyond his primitive ways.

But never beyond God.

 

[outhouse]

But never beyond God.

which all powerfull all knowing god?


is yours elohim or yahwey? or another?


we need to know, to figure out who created your god

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I think you went too far.

Let's see if this works for you....

Enter a room and find dust on the table...it's been awhile since someone has been there.

Enter a room and find a coin on a clean table.....someone has been there, recently.

Find the coin spinning...and someone is close by.

And would you abandon a basic notion for the sake of denial?
For every cause there is an effect.
For every effect there is a cause.

As I said: Cause and Effect is suspect to an extent. I don't reject cause and effect. I think that is part and parcel with identity which is inviolate inasmuch as you confine yourself to reality (which should be just about anything we can meaningfully speak about). If something has a value or doesn't have a value, then that is a part of its identity. You can't derive a value from something which lacks any part of that value and you can't cause something to gain a value it didn't have by introducing something which also lacks that value or any part of that value.

But since we don't actually interact with cause and effect directly we have to remain suspect of how cause and effect occurs or even when/if it is occurring when we think it is. It could be that the red raincoat rules renditions of rarefied rock because rock music is somehow associated with "The Red Raincoat" at some absurdly abstract level of existence we know nothing about. Since we can't actually compare cause and effect that we know with some other cause and effect that is outside our current frame of reference we cannot therefore assume that the cause and effect we think we see is indeed what is actually occurring.

Now with that said it is fairly likely that the cause and effect we observe is in fact true. What we observe is remarkably self-consistent. Our faculties of perception are consistent in their limitations and what information we gather. This tends to suggest a fidelity of information and sensory channel.

MTF

 

[Me Myself]

Natural causes need to be made be a supernatural cause, so God created everything

Supernaturals (like God) need to be created by Ubernaturals.

So obviously the answer to "Who created God?" can only be the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Can we stop pretending IPU Is not as obvious as it is? Because he knows you are denying it, and it hurts it

 

[Thief]

As I said: Cause and Effect is suspect to an extent. I don't reject cause and effect. I think that is part and parcel with identity which is inviolate inasmuch as you confine yourself to reality (which should be just about anything we can meaningfully speak about). If something has a value or doesn't have a value, then that is a part of its identity. You can't derive a value from something which lacks any part of that value and you can't cause something to gain a value it didn't have by introducing something which also lacks that value or any part of that value.

But since we don't actually interact with cause and effect directly we have to remain suspect of how cause and effect occurs or even when/if it is occurring when we think it is. It could be that the red raincoat rules renditions of rarefied rock because rock music is somehow associated with "The Red Raincoat" at some absurdly abstract level of existence we know nothing about. Since we can't actually compare cause and effect that we know with some other cause and effect that is outside our current frame of reference we cannot therefore assume that the cause and effect we think we see is indeed what is actually occurring.

Now with that said it is fairly likely that the cause and effect we observe is in fact true. What we observe is remarkably self-consistent. Our faculties of perception are consistent in their limitations and what information we gather. This tends to suggest a fidelity of information and sensory channel.

MTF

This speaks of the common inability to know all things.
So we are human....so what?

To then say we cannot be sure of what we cannot see....
is simply going to far with your senses...and not enough with your thoughts.

 

[PolyHedral]

For every cause there is an effect.
For every effect there is a cause.

And so, logically, there is no first cause.

Also, you're wrong, and have been for 50 years. Quantum events have no cause.

 

[idav]

Quantum events have no cause.

Maybe. Ex nihilo.

 

[PolyHedral]

Maybe. Ex nihilo.

[citation needed]

 

[idav]

[citation needed]

Well I'm not theoretical physisist but something interesting about not being able to find the proper boson to be a cause. Where are the fluctuations coming from? Thats why the something from nothing is a pretty good idea because it happens at the basic building blocks of matter.

I'm sure you've probably seen this 'something from nothing' video. He makes his point at 19:00. Einstein couldn't get rid of the upside down V from the equation. Which is what your saying about quantum mechanics where things are popping in and out of existence seemingly randomly.
[youtube]7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube

 

[PolyHedral]

. Where are the fluctuations coming from? .

The uncertainty principle.

 

[YmirGF]

So if someone asks you 'who made God', tell them to consider the scientific evidence as found in the first law of thermodynamics.

I don't know about that, but in answer to the OP, "Who made God?", the answer is, "You did!" (And every other person who mentions god is helping to create, flesh out and maintain the image of god - as if it was a bona fide reality.)

 

[Thief]

I don't know about that, but in answer to the OP, "Who made God?", the answer is, "You did!" (And every other person who mentions god is helping to create, flesh out and maintain the image of god - as if it was a bona fide reality.)

Nay....

At some 'point' or another...Someone had to be First.
First with thought and feeling.....first to be sentient.

From a conversation reported in scripture....
'....tell the people, "I Am!"....and they who understand will know Whose law this is...'

So then the question....which came first?....substance or spirit?

If you say substance... then your entire existence is dependent upon your next breath, and all that you are is terminal.

If you say spirit....then there is a Creator, and hope for continuing existence.... as spirit.

 

[Looncall]

Nay....

At some 'point' or another...Someone had to be First.
First with thought and feeling.....first to be sentient.

From a conversation reported in scripture....
'....tell the people, "I Am!"....and they who understand will know Whose law this is...'

So then the question....which came first?....substance or spirit?

If you say substance... then your entire existence is dependent upon your next breath, and all that you are is terminal.

If you say spirit....then there is a Creator, and hope for continuing existence.... as spirit.

The important thing, of course, is: how do you find out which is actually the case?

Wishful thinking doesn't do the job.

 

[averageJOE]

Nay....

At some 'point' or another...Someone had to be First.
First with thought and feeling.....first to be sentient.

From a conversation reported in scripture....
'....tell the people, "I Am!"....and they who understand will know Whose law this is...'

So then the question....which came first?....substance or spirit?

If you say substance... then your entire existence is dependent upon your next breath, and all that you are is terminal.

If you say spirit....then there is a Creator, and hope for continuing existence.... as spirit.

Enough with your "substance or spirit?" question. Everyone keeps telling you substance. And I'm ok with being "terminal".

 

[camanintx]

If you say substance... then your entire existence is dependent upon your next breath,

And yours is not?

and all that you are is terminal.

Not all. I have children.

 

[Thief]

And yours is not?

I believe in life after death.

Not all. I have children.

All that breathes will cease to do so.

You may have to reconsider what the breath of life really is.

(Your children are also terminal....breathing guarantees it.)

 

[Thief]

Enough with your "substance or spirit?" question. Everyone keeps telling you substance. And I'm ok with being "terminal".

It's never enough....it is forever.....and forever redundant.

That you are 'ok' with laying in your grave and rotting is not a blanket
acceptance.