Who Made God?

[boatsnguitars]

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?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #60]

Does the question "Who Made God" qualify as a metaphysic one?

It's a scientific question.

If "God" exists, then I would agree that it is a scientific question.

How does something simply exist, perfectly for all eternity, and then decide and infinity into that "time" to do something, but then uses time-based methods (Evolution) or time-based reality to express it's thoughts, or how does non-life make life? How does supernatural make natural?

I agree. Those questions are aimed at a specific type of religious theist and from what I observe, cannot be answered and therefore are not answered by said believers. They are strangely quiet and crickets are chirping...

I want scientific answers, not dreamland, story-time fairy tales: aka, metaphysics.

Well it certainly appears that you do not want religious metaphysics answers to what you claim is a scientific question. If you want scientific answers to those questions, you will have to ask scientists/do the science yourself.

I know it can't be answered scientifically

Then you contradict your claim that it is a "Scientific" question.

(because God doesn't exist),

According to what?

so instead theists will hem and haw, using metaphysics as smoke screen.

A "smoke screen" to what?

An interesting parallel to this "proving claims" is in the claim that the human brain creates consciousness. Crickets can be heard chirping re answering that as well.

Is the human brain the creator of human consciousness?

Perhaps the question isn't able to be answered by science and is more of a metaphysical one?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #60]

Does the question "Who Made God" qualify as a metaphysic one?

It's a scientific question.

If "God" exists, then I would agree that it is a scientific question.

How does something simply exist, perfectly for all eternity, and then decide and infinity into that "time" to do something, but then uses time-based methods (Evolution) or time-based reality to express it's thoughts, or how does non-life make life? How does supernatural make natural?

I agree. Those questions are aimed at a specific type of religious theist and from what I observe, cannot be answered and therefore are not answered by said believers. They are strangely quiet and crickets are chirping...

I want scientific answers, not dreamland, story-time fairy tales: aka, metaphysics.

Well it certainly appears that you do not want religious metaphysics answers to what you claim is a scientific question. If you want scientific answers to those questions, you will have to ask scientists/do the science yourself.

I know it can't be answered scientifically

Then you contradict your claim that it is a "Scientific" question.

(because God doesn't exist),

According to what?

so instead theists will hem and haw, using metaphysics as smoke screen.

A "smoke screen" to what?

An interesting parallel to this "proving claims" is in the claim that the human brain creates consciousness. Crickets can be heard chirping re answering that as well.

Is the human brain the creator of human consciousness?

Perhaps the question isn't able to be answered by science and is more of a metaphysical one?

If God exists, as Theists claim, then it is a Scientific question.
Since God does not exist, it is not.
Therefore, Theists use Metaphysics to continually find new ways to ask how a non-existent entity could exist (as a smokescreen to obscure the fact that there is no "there" there). They instead, create inane questions such as "What kind of Being would create a universe like this? We only know this Being is undetectable, that the ONE thing we KNOW about it, so, we'll start with that...."

[boatsnguitars]

I don't see why odds would have anything to do with the existence of such an entity.

Because there are an infinite number of possible Gods. When considering the Ontological Argument, which attempts to define God as the greatest conceivable being, it's essential to acknowledge that the variations in the characteristics and attributes that a God could possess are practically endless. These variations could range from the most subtle distinctions, such as one version of God finding pink more beautiful than another version, to variations in attributes, like one God being slightly more forgiving and less just compared to another.

Moreover, let's consider the Teleological Argument, which posits that the complexity and order in the natural world suggest a purpose or design. This argument, often used in discussions about God, implies that the universe exhibits fine-tuning that supports the existence of life. However, this fine-tuning can also be seen in the context of the Ontological Argument.

Now, let's approach this from a different angle. Consider that we have the concept of a "Perfect Universe" today, which aligns with the Teleological Argument in suggesting that the universe's intricacies support life.

However, does this imply that every single atom, quark, event, and aspect of the universe is perfect? Does it mean every mountain, lake, and tree is also perfect?

We can still envision an infinite amount of variation, each of which could be described as "perfect" from the perspective of different observers. In this context, if Theists want to argue that the Universe is perfectly balanced to support life, they must accept that there are an infinite number of variations that could result in life-forms pondering that very question, as the Teleological Argument suggests. This implies an infinite number of chances for the Universe to be Life Permitting, aligned with the fine-tuning aspect of the Teleological Argument.

Similarly, we must apply the same reasoning to a God. A God could still be the "Greatest Thing We Could Ever Imagine," but with infinite variety in how different people may conceive of this greatness, echoing the Ontological Argument. This connection between the Teleological and Ontological Arguments demonstrates the complexity of the concept of a perfect God and the universe.

The challenge lies in recognizing that, at some point, variations in the concept of God may render it non-God-like, even if it still appears God-like to human beings. These variations can be so nuanced that it questions the very definition of God. Additionally, natural processes could be misconstrued as acts by God, tipping the scale to favor a non-God, despite a singular, all-perfect, all-X God.

So, when we talk about odds, we are left with the odds of each option being infinitely small. However, one can reasonably argue that the existence of a "Perfect Uncaused Cause" would be more infinitely rare than a "Goldilocks Universe" based on the Ontological and Teleological Arguments. The odds of such a God's existence would be astronomical, considering the infinite range of possibilities and the potential for variations that challenge the concept of God.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #62]

They instead, create inane questions such as "What kind of Being would create a universe like this? We only know this Being is undetectable, that the ONE thing we KNOW about it, so, we'll start with that...."

IF "The Being" is defined as "that which is creating the universe" THEN the Being should be able to be detected (understood) through examining said universe.

IF "The Being" is defined as "undetectable" THEN no amount of examining the universe will accomplish detection of said Being.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #62]

They instead, create inane questions such as "What kind of Being would create a universe like this? We only know this Being is undetectable, that the ONE thing we KNOW about it, so, we'll start with that...."

IF "The Being" is defined as "that which is creating the universe" THEN the Being should be able to be detected (understood) through examining said universe.

IF "The Being" is defined as "undetectable" THEN no amount of examining the universe will accomplish detection of said Being.

One would have to have a reason to claim "The Being" is undetectable, no? In order to define something, you have to know the definition actually maps to that thing, correct? (I think you agree - do others?)

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #65]

One would have to have a reason to claim "The Being" is undetectable, no? In order to define something, you have to know the definition actually maps to that thing, correct?

We only know this Being is undetectable, that the ONE thing we KNOW about it, so, we'll start with that....

Yes. One would have to have/provide a reason as to why they believe this being is "undetectable".

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #65]

One would have to have a reason to claim "The Being" is undetectable, no? In order to define something, you have to know the definition actually maps to that thing, correct?

We only know this Being is undetectable, that the ONE thing we KNOW about it, so, we'll start with that....

Yes. One would have to have/provide a reason as to why they believe this being is "undetectable".

Agreed. I wonder why, if that is how they define it, they have not provided an answer?


BTW, just to provide the whole quote:

If God exists, as Theists claim, then it is a Scientific question.
Since God does not exist, it is not.
Therefore, Theists use Metaphysics to continually find new ways to ask how a non-existent entity could exist (as a smokescreen to obscure the fact that there is no "there" there). They instead, create inane questions such as "What kind of Being would create a universe like this? We only know this Being is undetectable, that the ONE thing we KNOW about it, so, we'll start with that...."

Just to make sure you weren't trying to make it appear I was inconsistent, since I was paraphrasing Theists.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #67]

The point of the phrased question "What kind of Being would create a universe like this? " is that one could at least get some glimpse at what such a being might well be like, by examining and working out the creation, as best as we possibly are able to.

[alexxcJRO]

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?

1. Its ok to wonder why the universe->reality exists rather then not but one cannot do the same for God because special pleading is a thing. Because religious want to pretend they have solved the imagined issues when they in reality they pushed it further back.
2. Everybody wants to worship the top dog.
If the being is not maximally omnipotent(logically possible) why worship it when it could be a lower being and the real top dog is out there.
3. They don't. They just wanna pretend that from their ignorant position they have figured out ultimate reality. Beings with just 2 digit IQ while rejecting basic reality facts like Evolution of species, Old universe and Old Earth and so on. Hilarious indeed.
4. Again special pleading. The omniverse does need explanation but the omnibeing does not.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #67]

The point of the phrased question "What kind of Being would create a universe like this? " is that one could at least get some glimpse at what such a being might well be like, by examining and working out the creation, as best as we possibly are able to.

That is not a question I would think to ask, if I were being a serious person.

It literally sound like asking, "What kind of Pixie would cause me to get a C on that test? What kind of unicorn would create that mountain?