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 #50]

science did discover it

Science is a process. Correctly "scientists" do the discovering.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #50]

science did discover it

Science is a process. Correctly "scientists" do the discovering.

Yes, and they haven't discovered much of anything metaphysicians have proposed. The fact that you cherry pick a few examples (poor ones, too) is drawing the target after you shot the arrow.

Let's not, for a moment, think that metaphysicians are an important, critical, robust, etc. part of the scientific process. The questions they raise are not unavailable to scientists. and in most respects they are trying to figure out things like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #52]

Yes, and they haven't discovered much of anything metaphysicians have proposed. The fact that you cherry pick a few examples (poor ones, too) is drawing the target after you shot the arrow.

On the contrary.

It was your initial comment which created the "target" as it immediately reminded me of Quantum Mechanics and the mysteries that scientific process has unveiled.

It is incorrect use of Materialist Philosophy which "cherry-picks" and decidedly groups whatever is considered to be "non-scientific" as the ramblings of "idiots".

Let's not, for a moment, think that metaphysicians are an important, critical, robust, etc. part of the scientific process.

What is the job of a Metaphysician?
A metaphysician attempts to characterize causation itself. A physicist may investigate the origins of the universe and theorize about its fundamental laws; a metaphysician asks why the universe exists — and why its laws obtain the way they do.

Yep nothing therein suggesting the use of scientific process, although if your argument is that Metaphysicians do not consider whatever such process has revealed, you may be conflating religious believers and Metaphysicians as being one and the same.

I consider what Quantum Mechanics has revealed and interpret said findings as aligning with what Metaphysicians have hypothesized.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #52]

Yes, and they haven't discovered much of anything metaphysicians have proposed. The fact that you cherry pick a few examples (poor ones, too) is drawing the target after you shot the arrow.

On the contrary.

It was your initial comment which created the "target" as it immediately reminded me of Quantum Mechanics and the mysteries that scientific process has unveiled.

It is incorrect use of Materialist Philosophy which "cherry-picks" and decidedly groups whatever is considered to be "non-scientific" as the ramblings of "idiots".

Let's not, for a moment, think that metaphysicians are an important, critical, robust, etc. part of the scientific process.

What is the job of a Metaphysician?
A metaphysician attempts to characterize causation itself. A physicist may investigate the origins of the universe and theorize about its fundamental laws; a metaphysician asks why the universe exists — and why its laws obtain the way they do.

Yep nothing therein suggesting the use of scientific process, although if your argument is that Metaphysicians do not consider whatever such process has revealed, you may be conflating religious believers and Metaphysicians as being one and the same.

I consider what Quantum Mechanics has revealed and interpret said findings as aligning with what Metaphysicians have hypothesized.

5. Is Metaphysics Possible?
It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are. At least since the time of Hume, there have been philosophers who have proposed that metaphysics is “impossible”—either because its questions are meaningless or because they are impossible to answer. The remainder of this entry will be a discussion of some recent arguments for the impossibility of metaphysics.

Not really much of a study if you don't even know what it is. And, I'll find the quote about how science really doesn't care what metaphysicians think about causation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #47]

So, you’ve chosen and shared your position on these debated subjects, declaring such things need not be talked about. Even though you previously spoke against doing that kind of philosophy. Looks like you are in a fix. When you get out of it, I’ll be here waiting to have a rational conversation.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #47]

So, you’ve chosen and shared your position on these debated subjects, declaring such things need not be talked about. Even though you previously spoke against doing that kind of philosophy. Looks like you are in a fix. When you get out of it, I’ll be here waiting to have a rational conversation.

You are claiming that God became human, died, rose, will return with swords flying from his mouth to judge the quick and dead.... and you want to have a rational conversation? I think not.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #54]

5. Is Metaphysics Possible?

Who are you quoting here?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #54]

5. Is Metaphysics Possible?

Who are you quoting here?

Stanford Plato site

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #54]

5. Is Metaphysics Possible?

Who are you quoting here?

Stanford Plato site

And what do you to say about it? (what was the purpose of you quoting it?)
________-
Re this Bandwagon Fallacy;

I'll find the quote about how science really doesn't care what metaphysicians think about causation.

Scientists. (Science itself is non-sentient and cannot "care" or not about anything.)

Because a large number of scientists are outwardly materialists, it is no wonder most findings are explained through the materialist philosophy and popular consensus formed.
So what?

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

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #54]

5. Is Metaphysics Possible?

Who are you quoting here?

Stanford Plato site

And what do you to say about it? (what was the purpose of you quoting it?)
________-
Re this Bandwagon Fallacy;

I'll find the quote about how science really doesn't care what metaphysicians think about causation.

Scientists. (Science itself is non-sentient and cannot "care" or not about anything.)

Because a large number of scientists are outwardly materialists, it is no wonder most findings are explained through the materialist philosophy and popular consensus formed.
So what?

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

It's 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 want scientific answers, not dreamland, story-time fairy tales: aka, metaphysics.

I know it can't be answered scientifically (because God doesn't exist), so instead theists will hem and haw, using metaphysics as smoke screen.