Page 4 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,757
Location: Boulder CO

02 Apr 2015, 1:19 am

xenon13 wrote:
Metagod?


ts;dr

God is just the singularity we all live in. Or potentially a neighboring one.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

02 Apr 2015, 6:26 am

Lintar wrote:
People who ask the question, 'Who, or what, created God?', are asking a question that no philosopher or theologian would ever take seriously.


That’s nothing short of an ad verecundiam argument to suppress the question rather than answer it.

Lintar wrote:
You're basically asking, 'Who, or what, created that which is atemporal and therefore has no beginning in time, is what is known as a necessary entity and therefore was not created, and which provides the ultimate explanation (i.e. effectively short-circuits the infinite regress issue) for why there is something rather than nothing?'


Only if you accept the premise that God is atemporal and a necessary entity, and, declaring Him to be the ultimate explanation, refuse to inquire any further.

Lintar wrote:
I mean, seriously. A question like this is only ever asked by the philosophically naive.


Now you escalate to mildly insulting whoever questions the aforementioned beliefs, while avoiding the matter itself.

Lintar wrote:
Nothing 'created God'. That is the simple, straight and truthful answer, the only answer.


Why? Because you say so, I suppose, since there’s no other reason.

Lintar wrote:
(By the way, by 'nothing' I don't mean 'gravity', 'branes' or 'a quantum vacuum soup' - I mean 'a complete absence of all, no-thing as such' - i.e. the true meaning of the word).


It’s hard to tell what exactly “nothing at all” means in a profound sense. The problem is similar to the paradoxes which pop up if you want to have a “set of all sets” in mathematics. Intuitively, if your “nothing” excludes gravity, branes, etc., why should it not exclude spacetime itself? After all, according to general relativity, gravity is nothing but the curvature of spacetime, and branes are structures made of spacetime, too. But now that the concept of time has been thus engulfed by science, there’s no room anymore for philosophical speculation taking a Newtonian time for granted. An Abrahamic-like God existing outside spacetime might as well not exist at all as far as we are concerned, because there’s no way to interact with it, anywhere in space or at any point in time. You could just as easily postulate the existence of any other kind of metaphysical being.

When you consider the whole of spacetime, the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself, just like the North Pole is the beginning of geographical latitude on Earth. There’s nothing special about that point in spacetime to warrant a particular connection with a metaphysical entity that you don’t feel the need to ascribe to any other point.

This could be the beginning of an interesting discussion, but …

Lintar wrote:
No 'Spiderpig', the question itself is a profoundly stupid one, a question that demonstrates, like nothing else does, the ignorance of the one asking it.


… you shut it down by further escalating your insults. In real life, this usually means that you’re offended by the question we’re discussing and that you will react with force to suppress it if others keep annoying you by not letting the matter go, instead of accepting the view you defend.

So, as I said before, the ultimate argument is force. We’re living beings, adapted to fighting for survival. Our very ability to discuss complex things is an accident.


_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 7:57 am

Spiderpig :hail:


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

02 Apr 2015, 8:01 am

Lintar wrote:
People who ask the question, 'Who, or what, created God?', are asking a question that no philosopher or theologian would ever take seriously. You're basically asking, 'Who, or what, created that which is atemporal and therefore has no beginning in time, is what is known as a necessary entity and therefore was not created, and which provides the ultimate explanation (i.e. effectively short-circuits the infinite regress issue) for why there is something rather than nothing?'

I mean, seriously. A question like this is only ever asked by the philosophically naive. Nothing 'created God'. That is the simple, straight and truthful answer, the only answer.

(By the way, by 'nothing' I don't mean 'gravity', 'branes' or 'a quantum vacuum soup' - I mean 'a complete absence of all, no-thing as such' - i.e. the true meaning of the word).


You are taking this view as the only possible and self evident view. But it was not always so (as theologians and probably also philosophers are aware). A related and relevant question is 'when did the idea that there is only one God and that it(or he) is outside time and space come into being?' You are taking it as axiomatic that this must be so but it is only one of many creation myths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Quote:
Eliade and his colleague Charles H. Long developed a classification based on some common motifs that reappear in stories the world over. The classification identifies five basic types:[22]


Brahmā, the Hindu deva of creation, emerges from a lotus risen from the navel of Viṣņu, who lies with Lakshmi on the serpent Ananta Shesha
Creation ex nihilo in which the creation is through the thought, word, dream or bodily secretions of a divine being
Earth diver creation in which a diver, usually a bird or amphibian sent by a creator, plunges to the seabed through a primordial ocean to bring up sand or mud which develops into a terrestrial world
Emergence myths in which progenitors pass through a series of worlds and metamorphoses until reaching the present world
Creation by the dismemberment of a primordial being
Creation by the splitting or ordering of a primordial unity such as the cracking of a cosmic egg or a bringing order from chaos

In Maya religion, the dwarf was an embodiment of the Maize God's helpers at creation[23]
Marta Weigle further developed and refined this typology to highlight nine themes, adding elements such as deus faber, a creation crafted by a deity, creation from the work of two creators working together or against each other, creation from sacrifice and creation from division/conjugation, accretion/conjunction, or secretion.[22]

An alternative system based on six recurring narrative themes was designed by Raymond Van Over:[22]

a primeval abyss, an infinite expanse of waters or space
an originator deity which is awakened or an eternal entity within the abyss
an originator deity poised above the abyss
a cosmic egg or embryo
an originator deity creating life through sound or word
life generating from the corpse or dismembered parts of an originator deity


The closest that your narrative comes to one of the narrative categories in this set is 'an originator deity poised above the abyss'. That is reasonably close to your repeated narrative of an originator deity outside of time and space.

But it's just a narrative. You are taking it as axiomatic as though there is no other possibility.

To answer the question of the OP, you created the God you believe in. It's your own narrative that you made up. You didn't make it up out of whole cloth since it is based on monotheism (which is not the only possible narrative, as you know) and is an iteration of 'an originator deity poised above the abyss'. But it's still something you made up.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

02 Apr 2015, 8:39 am

I guessed I missed the edit window for my post so I'll have to make a new one. Consider this an addendum to above post.

Yes, I realize that science is full of narratives. But science as a whole (and sometimes individual scientists but sometimes not) are able to discard narratives that don't align with evidence as it is discovered. Science is also able to juggle various narratives as possibilities without declaring that a particular one is the only possibility and that no other could ever be possible. It will often be that one is held up as the one that must be true given the evidence currently known but there is always the possibility that future evidence may upend a current narrative or tweak it.

This is rather different from embracing anything you can think up as equally possible absent evidence. Science always requires evidence but allows that evidence is cumulative and we have not accumulated all there is and may never (the limit being what we can do as a species). This doesn't mean that everything is equally likely. Someday it may be discovered that people go to another dimension after death but some don't get there entirely. But absent that evidence, I don't believe in ghosts.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 8:19 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oh my the arrogance. "My version of philosophy proves God" Lintar your assumptions are something that most physicists and anyone seeking real understanding would never take seriously.


I'm not arrogant. It is, however, true that I am always right, but that's just a reality that people should simply accept.

Besides, false humility (and it's always false) is always engaged in by those who wish others to view them as being self-effacing and, therefore, 'better' in terms of their character than the majority who are seen as being relatively self-centred and egotistical.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 8:34 pm

Spiderpig wrote:
Lintar wrote:
People who ask the question, 'Who, or what, created God?', are asking a question that no philosopher or theologian would ever take seriously.


That’s nothing short of an ad verecundiam argument to suppress the question rather than answer it.

Lintar wrote:
You're basically asking, 'Who, or what, created that which is atemporal and therefore has no beginning in time, is what is known as a necessary entity and therefore was not created, and which provides the ultimate explanation (i.e. effectively short-circuits the infinite regress issue) for why there is something rather than nothing?'


Only if you accept the premise that God is atemporal and a necessary entity, and, declaring Him to be the ultimate explanation, refuse to inquire any further.

Lintar wrote:
I mean, seriously. A question like this is only ever asked by the philosophically naive.


Now you escalate to mildly insulting whoever questions the aforementioned beliefs, while avoiding the matter itself.

Lintar wrote:
Nothing 'created God'. That is the simple, straight and truthful answer, the only answer.


Why? Because you say so, I suppose, since there’s no other reason.

Lintar wrote:
(By the way, by 'nothing' I don't mean 'gravity', 'branes' or 'a quantum vacuum soup' - I mean 'a complete absence of all, no-thing as such' - i.e. the true meaning of the word).


It’s hard to tell what exactly “nothing at all” means in a profound sense. The problem is similar to the paradoxes which pop up if you want to have a “set of all sets” in mathematics. Intuitively, if your “nothing” excludes gravity, branes, etc., why should it not exclude spacetime itself? After all, according to general relativity, gravity is nothing but the curvature of spacetime, and branes are structures made of spacetime, too. But now that the concept of time has been thus engulfed by science, there’s no room anymore for philosophical speculation taking a Newtonian time for granted. An Abrahamic-like God existing outside spacetime might as well not exist at all as far as we are concerned, because there’s no way to interact with it, anywhere in space or at any point in time. You could just as easily postulate the existence of any other kind of metaphysical being.

When you consider the whole of spacetime, the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself, just like the North Pole is the beginning of geographical latitude on Earth. There’s nothing special about that point in spacetime to warrant a particular connection with a metaphysical entity that you don’t feel the need to ascribe to any other point.

This could be the beginning of an interesting discussion, but …

Lintar wrote:
No 'Spiderpig', the question itself is a profoundly stupid one, a question that demonstrates, like nothing else does, the ignorance of the one asking it.


… you shut it down by further escalating your insults. In real life, this usually means that you’re offended by the question we’re discussing and that you will react with force to suppress it if others keep annoying you by not letting the matter go, instead of accepting the view you defend.

So, as I said before, the ultimate argument is force. We’re living beings, adapted to fighting for survival. Our very ability to discuss complex things is an accident.


No, all you state here is completely wrong.

The question 'Who created God?' is the wrong type of question to ask, because (among other reasons) if God was created by something (or someone?), then one may as well abandon the idea entirely, because you would then have to ask, 'What created the creator of God?' and this inevitably leads to infinite regression of causes.
I understand that there are almost as many views of God's essential characteristics as there are theists and athiests, but progress in the fields of philosophy and theology have been made, and many of the ideas we thought were correct turned out not to be. The 'God' that I have in mind is not in any sense 'religious' (I wouldn't recommend that anyone worship it); it is, nothing more and nothing less, than the essential something that simply must underlie the purely contingent reality that so many - mistakenly - think is eternal and necessary.
Nothing is literally 'no-thing'; it isn't anything, because it is an absence of all there could be. That is the basic, dictionary definition of the term. I simply cannot understand how you could not see this, rather obvious, point. Maybe you were just joking (or something).



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 8:54 pm

Spiderpig wrote:
When you consider the whole of spacetime, the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself, just like the North Pole is the beginning of geographical latitude on Earth. There’s nothing special about that point in spacetime to warrant a particular connection with a metaphysical entity that you don’t feel the need to ascribe to any other point.

This could be the beginning of an interesting discussion, but …

Lintar wrote:
No 'Spiderpig', the question itself is a profoundly stupid one, a question that demonstrates, like nothing else does, the ignorance of the one asking it.


… you shut it down by further escalating your insults. In real life, this usually means that you’re offended by the question we’re discussing and that you will react with force to suppress it if others keep annoying you by not letting the matter go, instead of accepting the view you defend.

So, as I said before, the ultimate argument is force. We’re living beings, adapted to fighting for survival. Our very ability to discuss complex things is an accident.


Point 1 (about spacetime): How do you know that this particular view of reality is actually true? Unless you are a cosmologist yourself, then you are just repeating what someone told you in a book. We don't know if this analogy of yours is accurate, although it might be. Even if it is accurate, it will still not really answer the question of why this kind of universe had to be and not some other, or why there had to be a universe at all in the first place.

Point 2 (about it being an interesting discussion): Yes, it is interesting. No 'buts' about it :D

Point 3 (about insults and being offended by the question): No, I'm not offended by the question, I just think it's silly. No one who is a Muslim, Christian or Jew believes in a god that was created. They don't because they can immediately see that if they did then this 'god' they believed in would be a false one. It's obvious to them, and yet for some weird reason modern-day atheists seem to think that one can object to the reality of God by asking, 'Ok then... what created God?'
Insults? What insults? I just don't see any here. I mention that the question is 'stupid', but that's a reference to the question itself (and it is stupid). '...it demonstrates the ignorance of the one asking it', could, I suppose, be taken as an insult, but what I mean't was that people who are serious about seeking and finding answers to life's big questions (no, not atheistic cosmologists, but true seekers after truth - i.e. philosophers and theologians) would never make the mistake of going down such a blind alley.

Point 4 (our ability to discuss complex things is just 'an accident') Well, you can believe this if you want to, but I find such a notion to be impossible and preposterous. I simply cannot take such a claim seriously.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 8:59 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Spiderpig :hail:


I guess you're easily impressed (in this case by sophistry).



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,250

03 Apr 2015, 12:08 am

If you believe the Bible, no one created God. God has always existed and is quite mysterious. He has no name, he has no form, yet made everything and causes things to happen, both good and bad. God is just always there. God is a great power of some kind.



izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

03 Apr 2015, 6:28 am

Lintar wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
When you consider the whole of spacetime, the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself, just like the North Pole is the beginning of geographical latitude on Earth. There’s nothing special about that point in spacetime to warrant a particular connection with a metaphysical entity that you don’t feel the need to ascribe to any other point.

This could be the beginning of an interesting discussion, but …

Lintar wrote:
No 'Spiderpig', the question itself is a profoundly stupid one, a question that demonstrates, like nothing else does, the ignorance of the one asking it.


… you shut it down by further escalating your insults. In real life, this usually means that you’re offended by the question we’re discussing and that you will react with force to suppress it if others keep annoying you by not letting the matter go, instead of accepting the view you defend.

So, as I said before, the ultimate argument is force. We’re living beings, adapted to fighting for survival. Our very ability to discuss complex things is an accident.


Point 1 (about spacetime): How do you know that this particular view of reality is actually true? Unless you are a cosmologist yourself, then you are just repeating what someone told you in a book. We don't know if this analogy of yours is accurate, although it might be. Even if it is accurate, it will still not really answer the question of why this kind of universe had to be and not some other, or why there had to be a universe at all in the first place.

Point 2 (about it being an interesting discussion): Yes, it is interesting. No 'buts' about it :D

Point 3 (about insults and being offended by the question): No, I'm not offended by the question, I just think it's silly. No one who is a Muslim, Christian or Jew believes in a god that was created. They don't because they can immediately see that if they did then this 'god' they believed in would be a false one. It's obvious to them, and yet for some weird reason modern-day atheists seem to think that one can object to the reality of God by asking, 'Ok then... what created God?'
Insults? What insults? I just don't see any here. I mention that the question is 'stupid', but that's a reference to the question itself (and it is stupid). '...it demonstrates the ignorance of the one asking it', could, I suppose, be taken as an insult, but what I mean't was that people who are serious about seeking and finding answers to life's big questions (no, not atheistic cosmologists, but true seekers after truth - i.e. philosophers and theologians) would never make the mistake of going down such a blind alley.

Point 4 (our ability to discuss complex things is just 'an accident') Well, you can believe this if you want to, but I find such a notion to be impossible and preposterous. I simply cannot take such a claim seriously.


1) we don't, but it has evidence supporting the claim, so we assume it is true untill we get evidence telling us otherwise.
indeed, we are repeating what is written in a book, but so are you. at least ours is updated regularly and offers testable evidence.

and you are correct, this universe didn't *have* to be, yet it is.

2) your offhand mention of not taking scientific views seriously prevents a discussion, that is the"but"

3) isn't this what you are doing? asking "what sparked the big bang?" or "what happened before there was time?". also, if god were created, that didn't make him false, he would still have been able to create us...
a deist being able to "instantly see" that a super-god would invalidate their own believes, yet not even concidering the fact that the 'regular-god' might also be incorrect displays the blindfolding power of dogma; putting fingers in your ears yelling "lalalala i'm right, you're not lalalalala"

you did insult spiderpig, by stating the question displayed the ignorance of the one asking it, you called him ignorant, since he did ask the question.

4) and i find the idea of an alknowing being existing outside of time, that wrote a book full of internal inconsistencies and scientific mistakes (about his own creation) to be "impossible and preposterous. I simply cannot take such a claim seriously."

i mean, if i created the solar system and wrote a book, why would i write that the sun orbits the earth? that's just stupid to do and makes the reader doubt everything else in the book as well...



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,340
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

03 Apr 2015, 2:39 pm

The discussion in this thread was initially about whether it makes logical sense for something to be "all knowing" or whether this notion leads to logical contradiction rather than the argument from infinite regression which is what people are talking about now. Nonetheless, the current discussion is still interesting, so carry on.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 107
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,406
Location: Dystopia Planetia

03 Apr 2015, 6:01 pm

[quote="Jono"][/quote]

Answer: Man

God is the personification of all things, all mysteries, all knowledge, all abilities, etc...

Then we discovered that if we worked at it we could understand nature and not need the childish fantasy of a god.


_________________
Since the birth of civilization, small sets of dominant individuals have controlled the numerical majority. Even a cursory reading of world history will substantiate this claim. Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, Sultans, Czars, and Dictators have imposed their will upon their subjects. This pattern has not changed over the millennia and it remains so, today. Our Masters rule over every nation and no one can defy them. They will attain Absolute Power as we reach the Singularity. All those who oppose their will, will be destroyed. Given the obvious futility, I will not resist. 2+2=5.


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Apr 2015, 6:57 pm

izzeme wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
When you consider the whole of spacetime, the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself, just like the North Pole is the beginning of geographical latitude on Earth. There’s nothing special about that point in spacetime to warrant a particular connection with a metaphysical entity that you don’t feel the need to ascribe to any other point.

This could be the beginning of an interesting discussion, but …

Lintar wrote:
No 'Spiderpig', the question itself is a profoundly stupid one, a question that demonstrates, like nothing else does, the ignorance of the one asking it.


… you shut it down by further escalating your insults. In real life, this usually means that you’re offended by the question we’re discussing and that you will react with force to suppress it if others keep annoying you by not letting the matter go, instead of accepting the view you defend.

So, as I said before, the ultimate argument is force. We’re living beings, adapted to fighting for survival. Our very ability to discuss complex things is an accident.


Point 1 (about spacetime): How do you know that this particular view of reality is actually true? Unless you are a cosmologist yourself, then you are just repeating what someone told you in a book. We don't know if this analogy of yours is accurate, although it might be. Even if it is accurate, it will still not really answer the question of why this kind of universe had to be and not some other, or why there had to be a universe at all in the first place.

Point 2 (about it being an interesting discussion): Yes, it is interesting. No 'buts' about it :D

Point 3 (about insults and being offended by the question): No, I'm not offended by the question, I just think it's silly. No one who is a Muslim, Christian or Jew believes in a god that was created. They don't because they can immediately see that if they did then this 'god' they believed in would be a false one. It's obvious to them, and yet for some weird reason modern-day atheists seem to think that one can object to the reality of God by asking, 'Ok then... what created God?'
Insults? What insults? I just don't see any here. I mention that the question is 'stupid', but that's a reference to the question itself (and it is stupid). '...it demonstrates the ignorance of the one asking it', could, I suppose, be taken as an insult, but what I mean't was that people who are serious about seeking and finding answers to life's big questions (no, not atheistic cosmologists, but true seekers after truth - i.e. philosophers and theologians) would never make the mistake of going down such a blind alley.

Point 4 (our ability to discuss complex things is just 'an accident') Well, you can believe this if you want to, but I find such a notion to be impossible and preposterous. I simply cannot take such a claim seriously.


1) we don't, but it has evidence supporting the claim, so we assume it is true untill we get evidence telling us otherwise.
indeed, we are repeating what is written in a book, but so are you. at least ours is updated regularly and offers testable evidence.

and you are correct, this universe didn't *have* to be, yet it is.

2) your offhand mention of not taking scientific views seriously prevents a discussion, that is the"but"

3) isn't this what you are doing? asking "what sparked the big bang?" or "what happened before there was time?". also, if god were created, that didn't make him false, he would still have been able to create us...
a deist being able to "instantly see" that a super-god would invalidate their own believes, yet not even concidering the fact that the 'regular-god' might also be incorrect displays the blindfolding power of dogma; putting fingers in your ears yelling "lalalala i'm right, you're not lalalalala"

you did insult spiderpig, by stating the question displayed the ignorance of the one asking it, you called him ignorant, since he did ask the question.

4) and i find the idea of an alknowing being existing outside of time, that wrote a book full of internal inconsistencies and scientific mistakes (about his own creation) to be "impossible and preposterous. I simply cannot take such a claim seriously."

i mean, if i created the solar system and wrote a book, why would i write that the sun orbits the earth? that's just stupid to do and makes the reader doubt everything else in the book as well...


Point 1a: 'We don't, but it has evidence supporting the claim, so we assume it is true untill we get evidence telling us otherwise.'

Theists are constantly charged with making this mistake, of just assuming that God is real when, it is said, they have no reason to, even though they may have very good reasons to believe what they do. I thought the default option regarding any claim was always scepticism, until any evidence, such as there may be, can settle the issue? Why the double-standard? The 'evidence' you mention - where is it? Could you provide a link to anything reputable that deals with this specific claim: 'When you consider the whole of spacetime, the Big Bang is the beginning of time itself, just like the North Pole is the beginning of geographical latitude on Earth. There’s nothing special about that point in spacetime to warrant a particular connection with a metaphysical entity that you don’t feel the need to ascribe to any other point'.

Point 1b: 'indeed, we are repeating what is written in a book, but so are you. at least ours is updated regularly and offers testable evidence.'

I am? Which book would that be? (Hint: It's not 'The Bible', I can assure you).

Point 2: 'your offhand mention of not taking scientific views seriously prevents a discussion, that is the"but"'

I do take them seriously though. What I do NOT take seriously are scientists who make metaphysical claims in popular science books like, 'Science has shown us we no longer need God', or 'Philosophy is dead'. One notorious example: “Some would claim the answer to these questions is that there is a God who chose to create the universe that way. It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this view it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God. This is known as the first-cause argument for the existence of God. We claim, however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.” See - http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/07/ ... -creation/

Point 3a: 'isn't this what you are doing? asking "what sparked the big bang?" or "what happened before there was time?".'

Yes, and I do not believe it was just 'nothing' (i.e. not anything as such, an absence of all, non-being, no-thing).

Point 3b: 'also, if god were created, that didn't make him false, he would still have been able to create us...'

God was not, because it could not, have been created. I never said (nor 'implied') this. For 'God' to be the ultimate answer to why there is something rather than nothing, it could not have been, in its turn, created by something else, because then one would have to abandon the idea entirely because one would not have reached the ultimate source of all there is.

Point 4: 'you did insult spiderpig, by stating the question displayed the ignorance of the one asking it, you called him ignorant, since he did ask the question.'

Yes, I did insult 'spiderpig' and I wish I could take what I said back, because I was in a bad mood, impatient, and just typed away, pressed 'submit' and there is was for all to see. A stupid mistake. I am sorry :(
From now on I won't say things like, 'If you are the type of person who believes such-and-such, you must be...' That's personal, and just not necessary... especially when one is winning the debate anyway :mrgreen:



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Apr 2015, 7:04 pm

Clarification: Above I said:

'Theists are constantly charged with making this mistake, of just assuming that God is real when, it is said, they have no reason to, even though they may have very good reasons to believe what they do. I thought the default option regarding any claim was always scepticism, until any evidence, such as there may be, can settle the issue? Why the double-standard?'

I did this because much (though not all) evidence that I have thus far seen has been interpreted to point in this specific direction, the one that was mentioned (the North Pole analogy). It should not have to be pointed out that any conclusions regarding the true nature of the universe is, at this point in time, purely provisional and not at all set in stone, and that is why whenever anyone mentions the latest evidence for... whatever, I always reserve judgement. The evidence in question may substantiate a specific claim, but it's always prudent to keep one's mind open to the possibility they may be completely wrong in their interpretation of what it actually all means.
The truth of the matter is that so much of what we hear from cosmologists is based upon very little, if any, real evidence, and much speculation (ex. Where is the evidence for the Multiverse Hypothesis?).



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,340
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

04 Apr 2015, 8:21 am

Lintar wrote:
Clarification: Above I said:

'Theists are constantly charged with making this mistake, of just assuming that God is real when, it is said, they have no reason to, even though they may have very good reasons to believe what they do. I thought the default option regarding any claim was always scepticism, until any evidence, such as there may be, can settle the issue? Why the double-standard?'

I did this because much (though not all) evidence that I have thus far seen has been interpreted to point in this specific direction, the one that was mentioned (the North Pole analogy). It should not have to be pointed out that any conclusions regarding the true nature of the universe is, at this point in time, purely provisional and not at all set in stone, and that is why whenever anyone mentions the latest evidence for... whatever, I always reserve judgement. The evidence in question may substantiate a specific claim, but it's always prudent to keep one's mind open to the possibility they may be completely wrong in their interpretation of what it actually all means.
The truth of the matter is that so much of what we hear from cosmologists is based upon very little, if any, real evidence, and much speculation (ex. Where is the evidence for the Multiverse Hypothesis?).


What about the evidence for God? There's not even any evidence that God exists, so how can there be evidence that he exists outside space and time?