Who made God?

[camanintx]

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.)

I and my children may be terminal, but "life" always goes on. Until you can show how "spirit" existed before "substance", you will never convince me that it can continue afterwards.

 

[Thief]

I and my children may be terminal, but "life" always goes on. Until you can show how "spirit" existed before "substance", you will never convince me that it can continue afterwards.

And the singularity was 'self' creating?
The singularity was 'self' starting?

An object at rest will remain at rest until....Something moves it.

 

[McBell]

I and my children may be terminal, but "life" always goes on. Until you can show how "spirit" existed before "substance", you will never convince me that it can continue afterwards.

"existed before substance"?
How about definitively defining "spirit" and then showing it actually exists?

 

[Acim]

"existed before substance"?
How about definitively defining "spirit"

(extension of) divine thought

and then showing it actually exists?

Stop thinking and this will provide demonstration of it not existing. As long as thinking is occurring, spirit is active. Meditation, contemplation, and/or other introspection can bring acute awareness to the thinking of divine thought. All thought is creative, and spirit creates perfectly (via Love) and eternally, thus extending reality. If something is encountered as not permanent, it is an indication of miscreation and thinking based on unreal cause, or illusion.

 

[camanintx]

And the singularity was 'self' creating?
The singularity was 'self' starting?

An object at rest will remain at rest until....Something moves it.

While causality holds true for most of the world we experience around us, modern science is teaching us that this is not always the case. There is even a good article in the current issue of Astronomy explaining how the Big Bang could have been triggered very easily. From a metaphysical view, an uncaused universe is not only possible, but highly likely.

If quantum physics is correct, and reality is more a series of probabilities than actualities, then what you call "spirit" or "free will" could be nothing more than the "ghost in the machine", a emergent property of the quantum fluctuations of matter.

 

[outhouse]

its obvius man makes deitys and attributes the unknown to them. As we know more these deities have been pushed back all the way to the furthest gap in our knowledge, the big bang.


If we as a culture understood the big bang comepletely and knew how it naturally formed, theology and its creationist views would then claim the gap in our knowledge of before the big bang happened was formed by a deity that set what we know in motion. Just like the big bang is used today by the ID camp.


Where ever we lack knowledge a deity will be inserted and attributed to said gap, why people continue this primitive behaviour is beyond me.

 

[work in progress]

The uncertainty principle.

And in case the point gets lost, Lawrence Krauss's presentation illustrates how our intuitions of how nature works do not match what is really happening at the quantum level.

At best, our hardwired expectations of cause and effect, and the nature of matter and space are only rough maps that work in the world of middle dimensions, where we live and move about. Our hard-wired set of intuitions are of no value for attempting to answer how or what made our universe. So, I think anyone looking for evidence of God in scientific discoveries, is going to be disappointed - if they are making an honest approach.

But when it comes to questions of meaning, and why are we small conscious little islands of matter and forces in this expansive universe, that are able to analyze the universe -- those aren't questions that science will have answers for. That's where a lot of people are going to start asking "why" questions. People who are comfortable with large gaps in knowledge will just leave them blank, while many people who feel that being conscious must have larger meaning than just an accident of nature, will likely insist that there must be an over-arching purpose behind our existence and of the universe....and that's why belief in God will never disappear.

 

[Acim]

While causality holds true for most of the world we experience around us, modern science is teaching us that this is not always the case.

I find this link not helpful. I am glad that you do. If pertinent to the discussion, perhaps you could quote excerpts?

There is even a good article in the current issue of Astronomy explaining how the Big Bang could have been triggered very easily.

I find this link not helpful. I am glad that you do. If pertinent to the discussion, perhaps you could quote excerpts?

From a metaphysical view, an uncaused universe is not only possible, but highly likely.

Link is helpful for discussion, thanks. I did a search on "highly" and "likely" and found neither term in the piece. I made it through Part One, before I decided "TLDR" due to timing. But excerpt from that portion that seems pertinent is saying the following:

It is either senseless or logically self-contradictory to suppose that, even if all the parts of the whole have a causal explanation of their existence, there still needs to be (or even can be) a causal explanation of the existence of their whole. There cannot be an external or divine cause of the whole, since a cause is logically "too late" in the following sense. It is logically necessary that if there exist parts of a whole, the whole exists. Each part of the whole has a sufficient cause of its existence in earlier parts. Accordingly, the existence of each part has a causal explanation and the existence of the whole has a logical explanation. Regardless of whether or not some (purported) external causal act is directed upon the whole, the whole exists because it is logically required to exist by the existence of its parts. Since this (alleged) external causal relation or causal act has no affect whatsoever on the logically necessitated existence of the whole, it is ineffective and so is not a "causal relation" in any intelligible sense of this phrase. This is stated more clearly if we say there is no such purported causal relation; there is no external cause or divine cause of the universe.

Underline part mine. Seems like a leap to get to the bottom line statement. IMO, the argument is essentially attempting to isolate parts causation from whole causation, and then saying whole causation is not needed to explain and/or is ineffective with regards to the larger argument, therefore no external cause. IOW, it is the stuff that logical fallacies are made of.

If quantum physics is correct, and reality is more a series of probabilities than actualities, then what you call "spirit" or "free will" could be nothing more than the "ghost in the machine", a emergent property of the quantum fluctuations of matter.

Who is the "you" that is calling spirit or freewill?
Of course 'spirit' could be understood (and has) as 'ghost in the machine.'
For me, the emergent property aspect assumes outward-in understanding that is, logically, an assumption. A guess, really.

 

[outhouse]

A guess

and in the end, faith is all you have

 

[Acim]

Check that. I've stated numerous times. I know God exists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Check that. I've stated numerous times. I know God exists.

People are wrong about all sorts of things they think they know.

 

[Thief]

So some participants would throw cause and effect into the realm of uncertainty?

Particles just popping in and out, 'whenever or whatever'?

So much for being sure about anything.
How then to calculate?
How then to predict?
How then to prove?

In one breath it's okay to say there is dark matter everywhere.
but no proof to affirm it.

Breath again to say there is no God?
for lack of proof?

 

[PolyHedral]

(extension of) divine thought

Thought is just mathematical.

In one breath it's okay to say there is dark matter everywhere.
but no proof to affirm it.

There is plenty of evidence for dark matter. Why do you think it was invented in the first place?

 

[Thief]

Thought is just mathematical.


There is plenty of evidence for dark matter. Why do you think it was invented in the first place?

So you're ok with making up as we go?
Whatever, whenever, the discussion requires a new Entity?

 

[Protester]

So some participants would throw cause and effect into the realm of uncertainty?

Particles just popping in and out, 'whenever or whatever'?

So much for being sure about anything.
How then to calculate?
How then to predict?
How then to prove?

In one breath it's okay to say there is dark matter everywhere.
but no proof to affirm it.

Breath again to say there is no God?
for lack of proof?

I see there are 571 posts to this question, and as such someone had to point out---


Part of the Easton Dictionary of 1897 for the definition of God

... to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Ps. 14:1). The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are: (1.) The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason. (2.) The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are, (a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause. (b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature. (c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth." The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Ex. 34:6,7. (see also Deut. 6:4; 10:17; Num. 16:22; Ex. 15:11; 33:19; Isa. 44:6; Hab. 3:6; Ps. 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Rev. 5:12 and 7:12. God's attributes are spoken of by some as absolute, i.e., such as belong to his essence as Jehovah, Jah, etc.; and relative, i.e., such as are ascribed to him with relation to his creatures. Others distinguish them into communicable, i.e., those which can be imparted in degree to his creatures: goodness, holiness, wisdom, etc.; and incommunicable, which cannot be so imparted: independence, immutability, immensity, and eternity. They are by some also divided into natural attributes, eternity, immensity, etc.; and moral, holiness, goodness, etc

First Cause, What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?


"God is dead, signed Nietzsche," and somebody wrote under it "Nietzsche is dead, signed God."


Anyway, somewhere in the nearly 600 responses? I hope that was placed somewhere!

 

[Acim]

Thought is just mathematical.

Explain.

There is plenty of evidence for dark matter. Why do you think it was invented in the first place?

Cause there was a gap, and we needed something invisible to fill that gap.

 

[camanintx]

IMO, the argument is essentially attempting to isolate parts causation from whole causation, and then saying whole causation is not needed to explain and/or is ineffective with regards to the larger argument, therefore no external cause. IOW, it is the stuff that logical fallacies are made of.

Actually, he is arguing exactly the opposite, that the whole cannot be isolated from it's parts, and that existence of the whole universe is a logical consequent of the existence of its parts. The part you underlined is him explaining why cosmological arguments for a devine first cause are the logical fallacy. You need to read part two to understand how parts of the universe can still have a causal explanation of their existence even though there is no first cause.

 

[Protester]

and as First Cause, He is outside the study of the realm of Science.

But, it is reasonable and rational to say there is a First Cause.

This short monograph points out the logical ideas why there is a God.

Is there an argument for the existence of God?

This monograph is only just slightly over 2,000 words long, so it is easier for people to read it than for me to summarize it, but I'll take this snippet from the end of it.

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. . . .

Amen to that!

 

[PolyHedral]

Explain.

Thought can be modelled as a transition between states of a machine. It is therefore an entirely mathematical and abstract thing.

Cause there was a gap, and we needed something invisible to fill that gap.

Notice that dark matter isn't a theory yet.

and as First Cause, He is outside the study of the realm of Science.

But, it is reasonable and rational to say there is a First Cause.

Only if you want to abandon the entire field of quantum mechanics.

 

[camanintx]

This monograph is only just slightly over 2,000 words long, so it is easier for people to read it than for me to summarize it, but I'll take this snippet from the end of it.

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. . . .

Amen to that!

That the writer thinks atheists wish that there is no God to avoid judgement tells me that he really doesn't understand atheists.

Let's look at another key statement in his argument:

From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal.

Since science tells us that time and the universe had the same beginning, then it is also logical to say that the universe is eternal (existing through all time).