It's a fair question to ask how a perfect Being, Omni in every (Good) way, and has all the attributes Theists claim simply happened to exist. The odds of this happening must be staggering.
In fact, imagine how a God - let's say God A - is exactly like OmniGod, but with one ounce of difference in their - oh, let's say sense of beauty. It's 99.999999999% perfect in establishing the objective measure of beauty, but not quite perfect. Would we know? Would we care? What if it was only 60% perfect?
What if anyone of it's attributes were less than 100% - would we know?
Then there are an infinite number of Gods: GodB, GodC.... each with just a little difference. - Yet, Theists can't know which, or explain how they would know if, say, God is Perfect in every way (which is problematic), or just really nice in a few ways that make us Apes very impressed.
I think Theists simply claim God is Perfect, and they try to convince us with an argument that goes: If you can imagine it, it's true. (Ontological Argument)
So, a couple things for Theists to ponder:
1. How do you explain the simple happenstance that a Perfect Being simply exists in it's Perfect, Full Form just as a matter of fact?
2. How do you know God is perfect? (No, claiming the Bible says it doesn't count)
3. How do you know - since God is timeless - that we aren't in the beginning stages of a God being developed. 15 billion years would be a mere blip in time for God, so how do we know we aren't part of God's Evolution? (After all, we have evidence that Evolution exists - not that Beings simply always existed.)
4. How is the answer "God is eternal and doesn't need an explanation" sufficient, but not the same answer for the Big Bang under atheism?
Who Made God?
Moderator: Moderators
-
boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Who Made God?
Post #1“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Who Made God?
Post #31[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #30]
You want to believe that a "undifferentiated sea of energy" could be eternal but have problems with the coherency of it being mindful?
Another member recently asked me why a Universal Mind would bother to organize matter. You pointing out that such a mind would - by definition - be organized, has provided an idea for a possible logical answer to that question, so - sincerely - thanks!
If you would like to attempt to critique the Natural Philosophy under development, I - as always - remain open, otherwise it would appear by the tone and shortness of your reply post, that you do not wish to do so, or cannot do so.
Meantime, at least for me, the OP question is satisfactorily answered. Just as the undifferentiated sea of energy can be thought of as being eternal, there is no logical reason why mindfulness cannot also be thought of as eternal.
Go well.
W
I would call stalemate, only my philosophy solves the hard problem of consciousness, whereas the materialist philosophy does not.Yet, you seem to believe a Mind (which is, by definition, organized) could exist without any reason - and you also don't have evidence of this Mind.
You want to believe that a "undifferentiated sea of energy" could be eternal but have problems with the coherency of it being mindful?
Another member recently asked me why a Universal Mind would bother to organize matter. You pointing out that such a mind would - by definition - be organized, has provided an idea for a possible logical answer to that question, so - sincerely - thanks!
If you would like to attempt to critique the Natural Philosophy under development, I - as always - remain open, otherwise it would appear by the tone and shortness of your reply post, that you do not wish to do so, or cannot do so.
Meantime, at least for me, the OP question is satisfactorily answered. Just as the undifferentiated sea of energy can be thought of as being eternal, there is no logical reason why mindfulness cannot also be thought of as eternal.
Go well.
W
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5079
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #32[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]
1. I’d echo elijahpne’s comment that God creating the world has much better odds than the creation of the world from nothing with no cause. So, then we compare the odds of an eternal uncaused cause being anything in particular, and the odds would all be equal; nothing less likely than another. To believe in certain characteristics would be the result of other arguments.
2. My argument for God being perfect would rely on arguments for (a) the historicity of the resurrection, then (b) what follows from Jesus having resurrected, then (c) the reliability of the NT documents in giving us Jesus’ teachings, and (d) those including the teaching that God is perfect.
3. Your question is incoherent. A timeless God can’t be in the beginning stages.
4. First, which atheists claim the Big Bang is eternal? Do you mean something more like energy/matter? If so, and energy/matter is eternal, then it also wouldn’t need an explanation in this sense.
Second, I think theists would say that God is the cause rather than energy/matter because only personal causes of temporal effects (like the universe) could be eternal.
1. I’d echo elijahpne’s comment that God creating the world has much better odds than the creation of the world from nothing with no cause. So, then we compare the odds of an eternal uncaused cause being anything in particular, and the odds would all be equal; nothing less likely than another. To believe in certain characteristics would be the result of other arguments.
2. My argument for God being perfect would rely on arguments for (a) the historicity of the resurrection, then (b) what follows from Jesus having resurrected, then (c) the reliability of the NT documents in giving us Jesus’ teachings, and (d) those including the teaching that God is perfect.
3. Your question is incoherent. A timeless God can’t be in the beginning stages.
4. First, which atheists claim the Big Bang is eternal? Do you mean something more like energy/matter? If so, and energy/matter is eternal, then it also wouldn’t need an explanation in this sense.
Second, I think theists would say that God is the cause rather than energy/matter because only personal causes of temporal effects (like the universe) could be eternal.
-
boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #33How so? Didn't God come from Nothing? Or was simply "always there" - so why not the conditions to create the world? The Universe seems to be very good at making round balls, so one more seems highly likely.The Tanager wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 1:22 pm [Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]
1. I’d echo elijahpne’s comment that God creating the world has much better odds than the creation of the world from nothing with no cause.
And what did God make the world from, if not existing material? Nothing? Why a God improve the odds? We already have a highly unlikely case of some Perfect Being simply existing in perpetuity, then add the odds against that Being able to make Matter out of Nothing.
I think the odds are better that Matter (in the form of energy) always existed and then created the universe. It's parsimonious, and as evidence shows, there is no God.
I'd think the odds of a perfect Being, with all the Uber attributes of a God is highly unlikely. After all, don't you claim there is only One?So, then we compare the odds of an eternal uncaused cause being anything in particular, and the odds would all be equal; nothing less likely than another. To believe in certain characteristics would be the result of other arguments.
Meanwhile, it is suspected there are an infinite number of Universes. That clearly puts the odds in favor of Materialism.
If you don't like the idea that we suspect there are infinite Universes, then let's compare: Suspected God vs. one actual example of a universe with no sign of God. Still is in favor of Materialism.
Yeah, that's a horrible argument. Non sequiturs aren't arguments.2. My argument for God being perfect would rely on arguments for (a) the historicity of the resurrection, then (b) what follows from Jesus having resurrected, then (c) the reliability of the NT documents in giving us Jesus’ teachings, and (d) those including the teaching that God is perfect.
Sure it can, it can be continually changing and is in a baby phase right now, and changes from baby to old god, to fish, to rock, to oboe, etc.3. Your question is incoherent. A timeless God can’t be in the beginning stages.
Yes, the conditions for the BB would have to be eternal in a Materialist framework, which appears to be the case.4. First, which atheists claim the Big Bang is eternal? Do you mean something more like energy/matter? If so, and energy/matter is eternal, then it also wouldn’t need an explanation in this sense.
Materialism doesn't suffer from contradictions as Theism does.
Yes, they do. It's incoherent. How does something Supernatural make something natural? Why does giving it personhood make a difference?Second, I think theists would say that God is the cause rather than energy/matter because only personal causes of temporal effects (like the universe) could be eternal.
WLC always slips this in, as if it answers the problem. Personal or not, how does something say "Let there be Light" and suddenly Matter and Energy appear?
Theists are the ones claiming something came from nothing - by God saying a magic incantation, no less.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5079
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #34[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #33]
I’m going to try to organize what I see as the questions here and what my claims are.
Question 0: How do you know - since God is timeless - that we aren't in the beginning stages of a God being developed. 15 billion years would be a mere blip in time for God, so how do we know we aren't part of God's Evolution? (After all, we have evidence that Evolution exists - not that Beings simply always existed.)
Question 1. Does the spatio-temporal universe have a beginning?
I didn’t address this question in my last post, but this is the first question it seems to me. I think you agree with this, but we can explore it further if you don’t.
Question 2. If the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning, then would it exist uncaused, self-caused, have an ultimate uncaused cause for its existence, or have an infinite regression of causes for its existence?
My claim here is that if the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning, then the odds are in favor of it having an ultimate uncaused cause for its existence.
Why? Because self-causation and infinite regression of causes are logically impossible. That leaves the spatio-temporal universe having a beginning and being uncaused versus it having an ultimate uncaused cause for its existence. That means comparing (a) the universe popping into existence with no cause whatsoever and (b) the universe being caused to pop into existence by a (ultimately) an uncaused, eternal cause. To me (b) is obviously more probable. We have no evidence of things popping into existence uncaused.
Note that this doesn’t say what that eternal uncaused cause is. God, energy, whatever, is all equal as possible explanations at this point.
Question 3. Are any of the possible explanations above more likely than the other?
My claim is that there is nothing more likely than the other. There are no rules about what kinds of things can just always be there. If there were, then they aren’t ultimate reality; the rules (or what makes them) would be ultimate reality and the cause of the eternal thing we’d be looking at. The odds are equal.
Question 4. Are any of the possible explanations more reasonable than the others?
A. My claim is that God is the most reasonable explanation.
The first argument I’ve focused on here is that only personal causes of temporal effects can be eternal. I’ll share the support for that now.
Once impersonal conditions exist, the effect takes place. Think of water freezing. Simplifying that process, once the temperature of water drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, any water present under those conditions will be frozen. But now we are talking about the initial conditions of energy being eternally present. That means that its effect (the spatio-temporal universe) would also have been eternally present. That contradicts the previous answer that the spatio-temporal universe has a beginning. So, if you are getting to this question, you can’t say the uncaused cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal matter in the form of energy.
On the other hand, personal causes can have the conditions needed to create an effect, but doesn’t have to cause that effect. So, an eternal personal cause can create a temporal effect (i.e., one that has a beginning).
If your point here is that we need to know how X happened to believe it did happen, then that is simply wrong. We can know that vitamins work without knowing how they work. Those are clearly two different questions that don’t rely on each other.
B. Your claim is that eternal energy is the most reasonable explanation.
Second, you are making a very strong positive claim that there is evidence that God doesn’t exist. Show the evidence and reasoning that gets you there. Not shifting the claim or the burden, but supporting that evidence shows God doesn’t exist.
Question 5. Why think the eternal, uncaused cause is perfect?
My claim is that one should think He is perfect because of the historicity of the resurrection, what Jesus’ resurrection tells us about who Jesus is and what his teachings are, and the reliability of the NT documents in giving us Jesus’ teachings which include that God is perfect.
I’m going to try to organize what I see as the questions here and what my claims are.
Question 0: How do you know - since God is timeless - that we aren't in the beginning stages of a God being developed. 15 billion years would be a mere blip in time for God, so how do we know we aren't part of God's Evolution? (After all, we have evidence that Evolution exists - not that Beings simply always existed.)
What is your definition of ‘timeless’ here? I understand it to mean something like non-temporal, which would mean not going through any phases or stages by definition because one phase succeeds the previous phase. Those are all temporal thoughts. That would make calling this being “timeless” illogical.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:35 amSure it can, it can be continually changing and is in a baby phase right now, and changes from baby to old god, to fish, to rock, to oboe, etc.3. Your question is incoherent. A timeless God can’t be in the beginning stages.
Question 1. Does the spatio-temporal universe have a beginning?
I didn’t address this question in my last post, but this is the first question it seems to me. I think you agree with this, but we can explore it further if you don’t.
Question 2. If the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning, then would it exist uncaused, self-caused, have an ultimate uncaused cause for its existence, or have an infinite regression of causes for its existence?
My claim here is that if the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning, then the odds are in favor of it having an ultimate uncaused cause for its existence.
Why? Because self-causation and infinite regression of causes are logically impossible. That leaves the spatio-temporal universe having a beginning and being uncaused versus it having an ultimate uncaused cause for its existence. That means comparing (a) the universe popping into existence with no cause whatsoever and (b) the universe being caused to pop into existence by a (ultimately) an uncaused, eternal cause. To me (b) is obviously more probable. We have no evidence of things popping into existence uncaused.
Note that this doesn’t say what that eternal uncaused cause is. God, energy, whatever, is all equal as possible explanations at this point.
Question 3. Are any of the possible explanations above more likely than the other?
My claim is that there is nothing more likely than the other. There are no rules about what kinds of things can just always be there. If there were, then they aren’t ultimate reality; the rules (or what makes them) would be ultimate reality and the cause of the eternal thing we’d be looking at. The odds are equal.
Question 4. Are any of the possible explanations more reasonable than the others?
A. My claim is that God is the most reasonable explanation.
The first argument I’ve focused on here is that only personal causes of temporal effects can be eternal. I’ll share the support for that now.
Once impersonal conditions exist, the effect takes place. Think of water freezing. Simplifying that process, once the temperature of water drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, any water present under those conditions will be frozen. But now we are talking about the initial conditions of energy being eternally present. That means that its effect (the spatio-temporal universe) would also have been eternally present. That contradicts the previous answer that the spatio-temporal universe has a beginning. So, if you are getting to this question, you can’t say the uncaused cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal matter in the form of energy.
On the other hand, personal causes can have the conditions needed to create an effect, but doesn’t have to cause that effect. So, an eternal personal cause can create a temporal effect (i.e., one that has a beginning).
Where is your argument for this claim that the supernatural making something natural is incoherent? Right now this is an unsupported claim. Show the logical impossibility for the rational to analyze.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:35 amYes, they do. It's incoherent. How does something Supernatural make something natural? Why does giving it personhood make a difference?
WLC always slips this in, as if it answers the problem. Personal or not, how does something say "Let there be Light" and suddenly Matter and Energy appear?
Theists are the ones claiming something came from nothing - by God saying a magic incantation, no less.
If your point here is that we need to know how X happened to believe it did happen, then that is simply wrong. We can know that vitamins work without knowing how they work. Those are clearly two different questions that don’t rely on each other.
B. Your claim is that eternal energy is the most reasonable explanation.
First off, parsimony only matters for the reasonable person if all else is equal, which my thoughts above show I don’t think is the case. But I’m not even sure eternal energy is more parsimonious. Can you explain why you think it is?boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:35 amI think the odds are better that Matter (in the form of energy) always existed and then created the universe. It's parsimonious, and as evidence shows, there is no God.
Second, you are making a very strong positive claim that there is evidence that God doesn’t exist. Show the evidence and reasoning that gets you there. Not shifting the claim or the burden, but supporting that evidence shows God doesn’t exist.
Again, probability only matters for the reasonable person if all else is equal. But I’m not even sure your claims about the probabilities are true here. You need to support these claims with arguments that I can analyze.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:35 amI'd think the odds of a perfect Being, with all the Uber attributes of a God is highly unlikely. After all, don't you claim there is only One?
Meanwhile, it is suspected there are an infinite number of Universes. That clearly puts the odds in favor of Materialism.
If you don't like the idea that we suspect there are infinite Universes, then let's compare: Suspected God vs. one actual example of a universe with no sign of God. Still is in favor of Materialism.
Question 5. Why think the eternal, uncaused cause is perfect?
My claim is that one should think He is perfect because of the historicity of the resurrection, what Jesus’ resurrection tells us about who Jesus is and what his teachings are, and the reliability of the NT documents in giving us Jesus’ teachings which include that God is perfect.
What part is a non sequitur?boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:35 amYeah, that's a horrible argument. Non sequiturs aren't arguments.
-
boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #35How does something non-detectable get detected?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5079
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #36It logically couldn't. I'm talking about things non-physically-detectable getting 'detected' through other means: logical reasoning based off of physically detectable data and other knowledge.
-
boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #37you don't see your internal contradiction?The Tanager wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:36 amIt logically couldn't. I'm talking about things non-physically-detectable getting 'detected' through other means: logical reasoning based off of physically detectable data and other knowledge.
It logically couldn't. I'm talking about things non-physically-detectable getting 'detected' through other means: logical reasoning based off of physically detectable data and other knowledge.
I mean this seriously: your position is incoherent.
How would "physically detectable data" happen if the thing you are talking about is "non-physically-detectable"?
I think you mean by "other knowledge" = religious indoctrination (aka faith).
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5079
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #38The physically detectable data is physically detectable and it gives us A, B, and C. We also have various principles of truth J, K, and L. Then, through logical reasoning R, S, and T we make an inference to the best explanation Z that explains everything better than X and Y do.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 7:32 amyou don't see your internal contradiction?
It logically couldn't. I'm talking about things non-physically-detectable getting 'detected' through other means: logical reasoning based off of physically detectable data and other knowledge.
I mean this seriously: your position is incoherent.
How would "physically detectable data" happen if the thing you are talking about is "non-physically-detectable"?
I think you mean by "other knowledge" = religious indoctrination (aka faith).
In this schema Z isn’t physically detectable, but it does work on reasoning from physically detectable data (A, B, and C) and various principles and logical reasoning to give us what is most reasonable to believe about reality.
Where is the incoherence? Which letters?
-
boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #39Just give me one instance of verified evidence of the supernatural. Otherwise, you have no reason to posit it. Gremlins in my car isn't an explanation for it not starting. God isn't an explanation. The "supernatural" isn't an explanation.The Tanager wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 1:22 pmThe physically detectable data is physically detectable and it gives us A, B, and C. We also have various principles of truth J, K, and L. Then, through logical reasoning R, S, and T we make an inference to the best explanation Z that explains everything better than X and Y do.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 7:32 amyou don't see your internal contradiction?
It logically couldn't. I'm talking about things non-physically-detectable getting 'detected' through other means: logical reasoning based off of physically detectable data and other knowledge.
I mean this seriously: your position is incoherent.
How would "physically detectable data" happen if the thing you are talking about is "non-physically-detectable"?
I think you mean by "other knowledge" = religious indoctrination (aka faith).
In this schema Z isn’t physically detectable, but it does work on reasoning from physically detectable data (A, B, and C) and various principles and logical reasoning to give us what is most reasonable to believe about reality.
Where is the incoherence? Which letters?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5079
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Who Made God?
Post #40So you don't want to support your claim that what I said was incoherent? Okay, let's discuss the questions I gave in post 34. First, do you believe the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning?boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:59 amJust give me one instance of verified evidence of the supernatural. Otherwise, you have no reason to posit it. Gremlins in my car isn't an explanation for it not starting. God isn't an explanation. The "supernatural" isn't an explanation.
