Who created God?

Post Reply New Topic

The argument I made doesn't apply there, since humans are not even close to omniscient, and God isn't trying to deliberately hide even the possibility of his existence, unlike the posited meta-thing.

Then that first sentence doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say there?


Wasn't your argument against omniscience based on the opposite of this? If not, what exactly was it based on?


Are you trying to argue that whether unknown unknowns exist is an unknown unknown?


Clearly.

As Charles Darwin once said "God was created from the image of man, not man from the image of god”.

No, the argument was not initially concerned at all with whether or not there are things unknown to God, rather it was only concerned with whether God would be aware of such things if there were. That was the whole point of introducing the concept of unknown unknowns, it was never relevant at all whether they really exist with respect to an omniscient being, it was only relevant whether or not they can be known to exist.

This is supposed to be similar to the argument for Godel's incompleteness theorem when one discusses statements that can neither be proven true or false within a consistent system of axioms. One is not concerned with whether such statements are true or false, only their provability or whether they can be proven to be true or false.



I am arguing that that is unknowable, yes. One could argue that it's actually a known unknown because at least you could deduce that it's unknowable but that doesn't change anything because it still can never be known.

P.S. This argument against omniscience was first used by the guy in the video below. Maybe his explanation is better than mine:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vauFcJAnnTY[/youtube]

This is not as bad as some philosophical discourse I have read or listened to, but it is still (in the end) word salad.

This fellow, at least, sounds reasonable.

ruveyn

Who created God?
Some rich bloke with a large milling machine.

I know that I posted this thread about 2 years ago but I've actually found the source of this argument against omniscience as paradoxical. Apparently it was first thought up by Patrick Grimm and is based on Cantor's theorem in set theory, except talking about whether it's possible to have a "set of all truths" and finds a logical contradiction regarding whether such a set exists. Though doesn't explicitly mention unknown unknowns like I did previously but the argument is logically equivalent.:

http://www.pgrim.org/articles/omniscience9.pdf

Look at the parts 5 and 6, "the Cantorian argument".

God in all theologies is exempt from causality since *he* exists outside of space and time which resolves that particular contradiction. But what makes an omnipotent being a logical contradiction is the question can God make a stone so big that he couldn't lift it? If God is omnipotent, then God could create a SuperGod that could dominate him and he'd have no control over!

Well, the solution is simple: declare questions such as “who created God?” to be blasphemies and burn all the heretics. Never forget the only truly valid argument in any discussion is force.

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).

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.

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.

ts;dr

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

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



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.



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



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



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 …



… 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.

Spiderpig

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



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.