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?

[boatsnguitars]

Just 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.

So 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?

I don't have a belief about whether the "spatio-temporal universe had a beginning". Do you?

And if I did, so what?

Do you have a belief in the supernatural: Why?

[The Tanager]

I don't have a belief about whether the "spatio-temporal universe had a beginning". Do you?

And if I did, so what?

Do you have a belief in the supernatural: Why?

Yes, I do. Why? Once again, the first step requires the spatio-temporal universe to have had a beginning. Thank you for sharing your agnosticism on that front. Let me ask you two other questions that may help us get to an answer here.

First, do you believe that a collection formed by successive addition can become an actual infinite? In other words, do you think one can count to infinity?

Second, do you believe in the flow of time, where only the present moment of time exists or do you think all past/present/future moments of time exist altogether for its entirety?

[boatsnguitars]

I don't have a belief about whether the "spatio-temporal universe had a beginning". Do you?

And if I did, so what?

Do you have a belief in the supernatural: Why?

Yes, I do. Why? Once again, the first step requires the spatio-temporal universe to have had a beginning. Thank you for sharing your agnosticism on that front. Let me ask you two other questions that may help us get to an answer here.

First, do you believe that a collection formed by successive addition can become an actual infinite? In other words, do you think one can count to infinity?

Second, do you believe in the flow of time, where only the present moment of time exists or do you think all past/present/future moments of time exist altogether for its entirety?

I see. So, if I form a belief, express it in a convincing manner, I have found the truth? Interesting...

I believe the universe has no, and needs no, God. All other things are interesting details that people smarter than I are investigating.

[The Tanager]

I see. So, if I form a belief, express it in a convincing manner, I have found the truth? Interesting...

I believe the universe has no, and needs no, God. All other things are interesting details that people smarter than I are investigating.

No, a belief expressed in a convincing manner isn’t necessarily the truth. But we should seek to hold the most rational beliefs, while always being open to new evidence. Do you want to have this discussion, where I give the reasons for my belief or not? If so, then answer the questions so that we don’t waste our time talking about things we don’t need to talk about.

One, do you think one can count to infinity? (a) Yes, (b) no, or (c) don’t know?

Two, do you believe (a) only the present moment of time exists, (b) past, present, and future all actually exist together or (c) don’t know?

[boatsnguitars]

I see. So, if I form a belief, express it in a convincing manner, I have found the truth? Interesting...

I believe the universe has no, and needs no, God. All other things are interesting details that people smarter than I are investigating.

No, a belief expressed in a convincing manner isn’t necessarily the truth. But we should seek to hold the most rational beliefs, while always being open to new evidence. Do you want to have this discussion, where I give the reasons for my belief or not? If so, then answer the questions so that we don’t waste our time talking about things we don’t need to talk about.

One, do you think one can count to infinity? (a) Yes, (b) no, or (c) don’t know?

Two, do you believe (a) only the present moment of time exists, (b) past, present, and future all actually exist together or (c) don’t know?

I'll tell you what I believe:

I believe this is the conversation surrounding Infinity:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinity/

I believe this is the conversation about Time:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

Let me guess, you've decided to choose a position on these debated subjects and wish to declare you know things based on your chosen of beliefs?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #45]

Okay, so it seems like we need to answer a prior question first. Can we have reasonable beliefs about anything? You probably believe we can trust scientific findings.

Here is a conversation around the metaphysics of science: https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/

Here is a conversation around scientific realism and antirealism: https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/

Let me guess, you’ve decided to choose a position on these debated subjects and wish to declare you know things based on your chosen beliefs?

If you are going to go the extreme skeptical route, then you are going to have to remain consistent and talk about science in the same way you are talking about infinity and time here.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #45]

Okay, so it seems like we need to answer a prior question first. Can we have reasonable beliefs about anything? You probably believe we can trust scientific findings.

Here is a conversation around the metaphysics of science: https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/

Here is a conversation around scientific realism and antirealism: https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/

Let me guess, you’ve decided to choose a position on these debated subjects and wish to declare you know things based on your chosen beliefs?

If you are going to go the extreme skeptical route, then you are going to have to remain consistent and talk about science in the same way you are talking about infinity and time here.

Says the dude who believes in his heart that Jesus is Lord, Savior of the World, Died and Rose to cleanse humanity of its sins because a Man and Woman ate an apple that gave them knowledge of good and evil, as part of a divine plan...

Please. Don't pretend you are suddenly impassionate and rational about your beliefs, and somehow believe you hold a higher ground because of it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meta ... /#MetaPoss


Also, from your link:

Clearly, scientists do not need metaphysicians to tell them about causation or dispositions in order to perform their research. Nevertheless, metaphysicians of science believe that questions regarding the existence and nature of causation, natural kinds, and necessity are valuable in their own right.

Metaphysics unmoored from Science is worse than useless. Metaphysics is a hiding place for ignorant people to skulk off to and to pretend they are 'investigating' reality. If a Metaphysician ever discovered anything, it would be purely accidental and would have been discovered by science eventually.

No one even knows what Metaphysics is:

...some metaphysicians have maintained that there are no objects with proper parts. This entails that composite objects—tables, chairs, cats, and so on—do not exist, a somewhat startling view. .... But no matter how we classify it, the surprising nature of many contemporary metaphysical claims puts additional pressure on practioners to explain just what they are up to.

They're idiots, IMO.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #34]

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 is "Perfect"?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #47]

...some metaphysicians have maintained that there are no objects with proper parts. This entails that composite objects—tables, chairs, cats, and so on—do not exist, a somewhat startling view. .... But no matter how we classify it, the surprising nature of many contemporary metaphysical claims puts additional pressure on practioners to explain just what they are up to.
They're idiots, IMO.

Search: "When did quantum physicists first discover the unreal quality of objects?"

Rethinking Reality

“A particle may have an exact place or an exact speed, but it can not have both,” as Science News Letter, the predecessor of Science News, reported in 1929. “Crudely stated, the new theory holds that chance rules the physical world.” Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle “is destined to revolutionize the ideas of the universe held by scientists and laymen to an even greater extent than Einstein’s relativity.”

Heisenberg’s breakthrough was the culmination of a series of quantum surprises. First came German physicist Max Planck’s discovery, in 1900, that light and other forms of radiation could be absorbed or emitted only in discrete packets, which Planck called quanta. A few years later Albert Einstein argued that light also traveled through space as packets, or particles, later called photons. Many physicists dismissed such early quantum clues as inconsequential. But in 1913, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr used quantum theory to explain the structure of the atom. Soon the world realized that reality needed reexamining.

For decades now, the quest for a quantum theory of gravity has fallen short of success, despite many promising ideas. Most recently a new approach suggests that the geometry of spacetime, the source of gravity in Einstein’s theory, may in some way be built from the entanglement of quantum entities. If so, the mysterious behavior of the quantum world defies understanding in terms of ordinary events in space and time because quantum reality creates spacetime, rather than occupying it. If so, human observers witness an artificial, emergent reality that gives the impression of events happening in space and time while the true, inaccessible reality doesn’t have to play by the spacetime rules.

In a crude way this view echoes that of Parmenides, the ancient Greek philosopher who taught that all change is an illusion. Our senses show us the “way of seeming,” Parmenides declared; only logic and reason can reveal “the way of truth.” Parmenides didn’t reach that insight by doing the math, of course (he said it was explained to him by a goddess). But he was a crucial figure in the history of science, initiating the use of rigorous deductive reasoning and relying on it even when it led to conclusions that defied sensory experience.

Yet as some of the other ancient Greeks realized, the world of the senses does offer clues about the reality we can’t see. “Phenomena are a sight of the unseen,” Anaxagoras said. As physicist Sean Carroll puts it, in modern terms, “the world as we experience it” is certainly related to “the world as it really is.”

“But the relationship is complicated,” he says, “and it’s real work to figure it out.”

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #47]

...some metaphysicians have maintained that there are no objects with proper parts. This entails that composite objects—tables, chairs, cats, and so on—do not exist, a somewhat startling view. .... But no matter how we classify it, the surprising nature of many contemporary metaphysical claims puts additional pressure on practioners to explain just what they are up to.
They're idiots, IMO.

Search: "When did quantum physicists first discover the unreal quality of objects?"

Rethinking Reality

“A particle may have an exact place or an exact speed, but it can not have both,” as Science News Letter, the predecessor of Science News, reported in 1929. “Crudely stated, the new theory holds that chance rules the physical world.” Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle “is destined to revolutionize the ideas of the universe held by scientists and laymen to an even greater extent than Einstein’s relativity.”

Heisenberg’s breakthrough was the culmination of a series of quantum surprises. First came German physicist Max Planck’s discovery, in 1900, that light and other forms of radiation could be absorbed or emitted only in discrete packets, which Planck called quanta. A few years later Albert Einstein argued that light also traveled through space as packets, or particles, later called photons. Many physicists dismissed such early quantum clues as inconsequential. But in 1913, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr used quantum theory to explain the structure of the atom. Soon the world realized that reality needed reexamining.

For decades now, the quest for a quantum theory of gravity has fallen short of success, despite many promising ideas. Most recently a new approach suggests that the geometry of spacetime, the source of gravity in Einstein’s theory, may in some way be built from the entanglement of quantum entities. If so, the mysterious behavior of the quantum world defies understanding in terms of ordinary events in space and time because quantum reality creates spacetime, rather than occupying it. If so, human observers witness an artificial, emergent reality that gives the impression of events happening in space and time while the true, inaccessible reality doesn’t have to play by the spacetime rules.

In a crude way this view echoes that of Parmenides, the ancient Greek philosopher who taught that all change is an illusion. Our senses show us the “way of seeming,” Parmenides declared; only logic and reason can reveal “the way of truth.” Parmenides didn’t reach that insight by doing the math, of course (he said it was explained to him by a goddess). But he was a crucial figure in the history of science, initiating the use of rigorous deductive reasoning and relying on it even when it led to conclusions that defied sensory experience.

Yet as some of the other ancient Greeks realized, the world of the senses does offer clues about the reality we can’t see. “Phenomena are a sight of the unseen,” Anaxagoras said. As physicist Sean Carroll puts it, in modern terms, “the world as we experience it” is certainly related to “the world as it really is.”

“But the relationship is complicated,” he says, “and it’s real work to figure it out.”

If a Metaphysician ever discovered anything, it would be purely accidental and would have been discovered by science eventually.

Boatsnguitars

And, guess what, science did discover it. If science hadn't, they would have joined the dustbin of other metaphysicians.

Anyone can posit something. The genius is in proving it.