who made god - Page 3

jjramsey · 20th October 2005, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by jjramsey

The relevance is that bridges and books are different enough that it is questionable to say that their complexities are comparable. That in the example I gave one did not create the other is a red herring, since I was focusing on pointing out that it may not always be coherent to say that one thing is more complex than another.

Originally Posted by Robin

Not always, but when you are talking about design then this must be a factor.

No, it's still a red herring. The problem of comparing the complexities of God and creation has to to with God purportedly being an ever-present spirit that is supposedly largely unknowable and obeys no physical laws, while the universe is made out of interacting bits of matter, etc. This problem would be the same whether God created the universe or not.

Originally Posted by Robin

I could not design a watch, but I can design computer programs. A computer program and a watch are two such non-comparable complexities. Could I then design a computer program that would design a watch? I seriously doubt it unless I first knew how to design a watch (or was under instruction from some one who could). The complexity in the program would have to encompass the complexity in the watch and it would have to come from the designer.

And the reasons that there is a correlation between the complexity of the program and the complexity of yourself have to do with the way this particular universe works.

Originally Posted by Robin

Which ID'ers would that be? The whole point of Dembski's 'No Free Lunch', for example, is that the complexity in a closed system cannot increase. I doubt that he would agree that a complex thing could arise from a less complex thing.

The subtitle of his book is "Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence." The idea is that the blind, dumb processes of nature cannot make new complexity, and so an outside intelligent agent must create it. The complexity of the intelligent agent is not considered. A simple intelligent agent would work just as well.

Originally Posted by jjramsey

May I remind you that it is questionable to call Darwinian evolution simple, but it is certainly blind, and it's what gets the IDers in a lather.

Originally Posted by Robin

It is also questionable to call it blind.

It worked for Dawkins.

Seriously, "blind" here is simply used as a monosyllabic synonym for "non-teleological," that is, not having intention or an end in mind.

Lord Emsworth · 20th October 2005, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

Even if time per se (at least as we experience it) does not technically exist apart from the (hypothetically) created universe, couldn't an atemporal Creator's existence be ontologically (rather than chronologically) prior to the universe?

Maybe. Maybe. But a "could" is a far cry from a "must." And cosmological arguments of various stripes usually do not attempt to show that there "could" be something called "God."

ceo_esq · 20th October 2005, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

Maybe. Maybe. But a "could" is a far cry from a "must." And cosmological arguments of various stripes usually do not attempt to show that there "could" be something called "God."

Yet "could" is all it takes to defeat a logical (as opposed to an evidential or probabilistic) argument. Recall that I raised this possibility in response to the argument that unless God is temporal (or, if you like, unless time is not limited to the natural universe), then the idea of God creating the universe is logically contradictory.

Loki · 20th October 2005, 06:27 PM

ceo_esq,

Quote:

couldn't an atemporal Creator's existence be ontologically (rather than chronologically) prior to the universe?

Can you define "prior" without reference to time? My point here is that the entire human language is intrinsically filled with the concept of 'time'. I'm not sure I can accept that 'prior' (or 'before', or 'create', or even 'perhaps') are in anyway meaningful terms if you start from a premise of 'there is no time'.

What is the realtionship being expressed by the term ontologically prior if it's not a time based one?

Robin · 20th October 2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

The subtitle of his book is "Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence." The idea is that the blind, dumb processes of nature cannot make new complexity, and so an outside intelligent agent must create it. The complexity of the intelligent agent is not considered. A simple intelligent agent would work just as well.

Of course he has begged the question of whether or not intelligence is a natural process, but OK I was incorrect in my summary of Dembski's ideas.

But the very idea of intelligence implies a base level of complexity, I doubt that Dembski would consider Wolframs rule 1 as a candidate intelligent designer. Intentionality or the ability to enact an intention implies at least some level of functional complexity.

In the end it does not matter too much whether the designer is more, less or differently complex. It doesn't even matter whether the problem is 'art and skill', complexity, information, improbability or intentionality.

The base argument from design says that functional complexity implies a designer.

That makes the question 'who designed the designer?' legitimate since the designer must have functional complexity of its own.

And nobody likes a 'turtles all the way down' explanation so the obvious answer is that if there is a designer there is ultimately an undesigned designer.

But the argument was that functional complexity implies a designer and the undesigned designer is a counter example of functional complexity that exists without the benefit of the art and skill of a designer so the argument is refuted.

ceo_esq · 20th October 2005, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Loki

Can you define "prior" without reference to time?

Sure. The first OED definition of prior is "preceding in time or order" (boldface mine); obviously there are senses of "order" which are not chronological.

Perhaps, in common usage, the word priority has less of a chronological connotation than the word prior, but of course the one derives from the other.

Originally Posted by Loki

My point here is that the entire human language is intrinsically filled with the concept of 'time'. I'm not sure I can accept that 'prior' (or 'before', or 'create', or even 'perhaps') are in anyway meaningful terms if you start from a premise of 'there is no time'.

What is the realtionship being expressed by the term ontologically prior if it's not a time based one?

I'm still wrestling with the concept myself, but at this point I'd venture to suggest that between two things, the first having actual being and the second having either actual or potential being, where the first would exist without the second but not the other way around, the first is ontologically (though not necessarily chronologically) prior to the second. See what I'm getting at?

I daresay that one corollary would be that, if one thing has ontological priority over another, the second cannot have chronological priority over the first.

Loki · 20th October 2005, 08:48 PM

ceo_esq,

Quote:

obviously there are senses of "order" which are not chronological.

You know, I posted my reply and went to lunch. Was thinking about 'this and that', and I suddenly realised how completely daft my comment was. Of course we can talk about any ordered sequence in terms of the elements being 'prior'. Oops. Sorry about the temporary (ha!) lapse.

Still, the main point I was making is that I don't think the term "create" is a timeless one. Inherent in the meaning is the concept of "change over time". Talking about 'creating' something in a timeless existence seems .. well, incoherent.

If we simply said that God "Efnarkled" the universe, what precisely are we trying to say about the relationship between God and the Universe? Answer : No idea! That's pretty much what I hear when we discuss "atemporal creation".

Quote:

See what I'm getting at?

Well, sort of ... has a faint smell of epiphenomenalism about it.

If we posit two forms of 'existence' - 'the physical' and 'the spirtual' for example - you're suggesting they can perhaps be 'sequenced' in such a way as to allow us to apply the concept 'prior' to them. And that perhaps this sequence can be based upon (at least in part) the attribute : "has the attribute 'time'". So an ontological category having the attribute 'atemporal' is considered 'prior' in this proposed 'ontological ordering'. That about it? Or am I misreading this entirely?

Quote:

I daresay that one corollary would be that, if one thing has ontological priority over another, the second cannot have chronological priority over the first

Why? This would only be true if 'temporal' was at least one of the 'ordering criteria', wouldn't it? -

EDIT: Changed my mind on this last bit - why would it need to be true ever? - even in an ordering system that considers temporal and atemporal 'existences', how do we apply "Chronological priority" when at least one of the existences has no such concept?

ceo_esq · 20th October 2005, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Loki

Still, the main point I was making is that I don't think the term "create" is a timeless one. Inherent in the meaning is the concept of "change over time". Talking about 'creating' something in a timeless existence seems .. well, incoherent.

Well, I might suggest that "prior to" the Big Bang, neither time nor the universe existed. Yet here we are. Was the occurrence of the Big Bang a "change over time"?

Originally Posted by Loki

If we posit two forms of 'existence' - 'the physical' and 'the spirtual' for exmaple - you're suggesting they can perhaps be 'sequenced' in such a way as to allow us to apply the concept 'prior' to them. And that perhaps this sequence can be based upon (at least in part) the attribute : "has the attribute 'time'". So an ontological category having the attribute 'atemporal' is considered 'prior' in this proposed 'ontological ordering'. That about it? Or am I misreading this entirely?

This is such a mindbending topic that I haven't been able to figure out yet whether you are misreading me or not!

Originally Posted by Loki

Why? This would only be true if 'temporal' was at least one of the 'ordering criteria', wouldn't it?

I was thinking it was because of the ontological dependency criterion. If it were possible for the one thing to be chronologically prior to another thing that was ontologically prior to the former, it would violate the condition that the ontologically secondary one be incapable of existing without the ontologically prior one. (Whew!)

Loki · 20th October 2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Well, I might suggest that "prior to" the Big Bang, neither time nor the universe existed. Yet here we are. Was the occurrence of the Big Bang a "change over time"?

Well, prior to the Big Bang the non-existence of the universe seems a given. Non-existence of time is an assumption.

But given that assumption (no time without universe), then I'm arguing the Big Bang was not an example of 'change over time' (no time to change state over, obviously). Hence the debate about 'the creator' seems rather pointless when we haven't even established there was an act of creation.

Seems to me theists assume the act of creation, then proceed to fill in some answers to the questions that act raises. Whole thing rests on a dubious and totally assumed foundation - that time exists independant of the universe.

Quote:

I was thinking it was because of the ontological dependency criterion

So 'matter' cannot exist with out 'mind', and 'time' is an attribute of 'matter', and 'time' is not an attribute of 'mind'.

Therefore, 'matter' cannot exist chronologically before 'mind' - because to be able to discuss 'chronological' ordering we need 'time', which needs 'matter', which needs 'mind'.

Well, then, I agree.

Oh, and by the way - thanks for dumbing down your delivery a little - it's giving me a change to catch up...

ceo_esq · 20th October 2005, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Loki

Well, prior to the Big Bang the non-existence of the universe seems a given. Non-existence of time is an assumption.

But given that assumption (no time without universe), then I'm arguing the Big Bang was not an example of 'change over time' (no time to change state over, obviously). Hence the debate about 'the creator' seems rather pointless when we haven't even established there was an act of creation.

Okay. But let's just assume for a moment that creation does involve a "change over time". Even in such case, that's not the distinguishing feature of creation. Creation is a change over time provoked by an agent, who is the "creator" with respect to such change. Other changes over time are not acts of creation but simply occurrences, happenings, events, etc.

Let's say the universe was not created. Yet the Big Bang occurred or happened or took place; the (hypothetical) fact that it wasn't an act of creation simply relieves it from having a creator, not from being a change over time. Where does that leave us? It seems to me that any event that, if it constituted an act of creation, would be a "change over time" , must still be a change over time if it doesn't constitute an act of creation.

Loki · 20th October 2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

...if it constituted an act of creation, would be a "change over time" , must still be a change over time if it doesn't constitute an act of creation

Okay...now you're just being silly. er...aren't you?

Quote:

Creation is a change over time provoked by an agent

And there it is again - assuming the conclusion. Using the phrase 'created' brings into play 'the agent'. And off we go again...

The only real point in trying to focus down on 'time' is to try and expose the assumptions contained in the use of the terms like 'create'.

If the begining of the universe was an "Efnarklement", then why bring 'agent' into it?

jjramsey · 21st October 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

But the very idea of intelligence implies a base level of complexity

Certainly within our own physical universe it does. Whether intelligence implies a base level of complexity as a logical necessity rather than as a consequence of the contingent physical laws of this universe is much more of a dog of a question. What compounds the difficulty is that you are working on the theists' turf, and they can claim that the kind of intelligence that God has is a "degenerate" version of the intelligence that we are used to recognizing, which squeezes out the imperfections, complexities, etc., or claim that "intelligence" is an imperfect label for an otherwise unknowable capability of God, which can't be said to be simple or complex because it is, well, unknowable.

Say, however, that the premise "the designer must have functional complexity" is granted for the sake of argument. . . .

Originally Posted by Robin

But the argument was that functional complexity implies a designer and the undesigned designer is a counter example of functional complexity that exists without the benefit of the art and skill of a designer so the argument is refuted.

That depends on the details of the argument from design being made. Say that the argument claims that blind, natural processes are insufficient to create the functional complexity we see in nature, and that therefore something non-blind and supernatural must have made them. Note that this is not saying that all functional complexity implies a designer, only the functional complexity that gets manifested as plants, animals, etc. This is pretty much ID in a nutshell, and it is quite compatible with the notion of an undesigned designer that has functional complexity. The undesigned designer in question then simply would not be producible by blind, natural processes, and most IDers already have a candidate in mind for such an undesigned designer. In short, the claim that the functional complexity seen in nature requires a designer does not imply the claim that supernatural functional complexity requires a designer.

Of course, one can here propose multiple undesigned designers, but that is a separate problem from the "who made god" question.

ruach1 · 24th October 2005, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Certainly within our own physical universe it does. Whether intelligence implies a base level of complexity as a logical necessity rather than as a consequence of the contingent physical laws of this universe is much more of a dog of a question. What compounds the difficulty is that you are working on the theists' turf, and they can claim that the kind of intelligence that God has is a "degenerate" version of the intelligence that we are used to recognizing, which squeezes out the imperfections, complexities, etc., or claim that "intelligence" is an imperfect label for an otherwise unknowable capability of God, which can't be said to be simple or complex because it is, well, unknowable.

Say, however, that the premise "the designer must have functional complexity" is granted for the sake of argument. . . .

That depends on the details of the argument from design being made. Say that the argument claims that blind, natural processes are insufficient to create the functional complexity we see in nature, and that therefore something non-blind and supernatural must have made them. Note that this is not saying that all functional complexity implies a designer, only the functional complexity that gets manifested as plants, animals, etc. This is pretty much ID in a nutshell, and it is quite compatible with the notion of an undesigned designer that has functional complexity. The undesigned designer in question then simply would not be producible by blind, natural processes, and most IDers already have a candidate in mind for such an undesigned designer. In short, the claim that the functional complexity seen in nature requires a designer does not imply the claim that supernatural functional complexity requires a designer.

Of course, one can here propose multiple undesigned designers, but that is a separate problem from the "who made god" question.

No wonder people are asking, "I wonder what JJRamsey would say."

hodgy · 29th October 2005, 03:39 PM

JJ - irrespective of the material (and you know the sense in which I use that word) composition of your creator - how can he be credited with designing a (for example) square if he is is not at least as complex as a square?

ceo_esq · 29th October 2005, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by hodgy

JJ - irrespective of the material (and you know the sense in which I use that word) composition of your creator - how can he be credited with designing a (for example) square if he is is not at least as complex as a square?

So may questions. Are squares the sort of thing susceptible to being designed? Do squares even exist in a sense comparable to that in which the natural universe exists? How do we assess the complexity of a square (number of sides? type of angles?), and can we apply the same criteria to something that is not another abstract geometrical figure?

hodgy · 31st October 2005, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

So may questions. Are squares the sort of thing susceptible to being designed? Do squares even exist in a sense comparable to that in which the natural universe exists? How do we assess the complexity of a square (number of sides? type of angles?), and can we apply the same criteria to something that is not another abstract geometrical figure?

My comment was actually a bit of a tongue-in-cheek nod to JJ Ramsey as we have already argued about this interminably.

The reason I picked a square is because it is quite a simple thing. My point is that if you design a square you must have a mental model of it and that model must be at least as complex as a square or else it would be something other (simpler) than a square. If your model was simpler than a square it would not be able to contain sufficient information to define one and therefore you could not be credited with designing one. At best it could be said you accidentally created a square whilst (for example) trying to design a triangle.

From this simple basis extraploate the argument up to say that a 'simple' God could not have designed complex things like people.

Dorian Gray · 31st October 2005, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Posting this here from another board, mostly because the argument frustrates the hell out of me. Just curious how an atheist would respond to this:

"Who made god"

My response is simple: Man made God.

Iacchus · 31st October 2005, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

My response is simple: Man made God.

Yes, but who -- unless of course there is no other instance in the Universe that it refers to itself by "who" -- made man? ... Who or, "what" exactly is consciousness then?

FreeChile · 1st November 2005, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Could God create an even MORE POWERFUL God ? If not, he's not omnipotent.

This is OK.

Quote:

If yes, he's not omnipotent.

I have a logical problem with this conditional. The entity called God is capable of creating a more powerful God, yet not choose to do so, in which case God would remain omnipotent.

FreeChile · 1st November 2005, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yes, but who -- unless of course there is no other instance in the Universe that it refers to itself by "who" -- made man? ... Who or, "what" exactly is consciousness then?

At the atomic level man is no different from a rock and man has conceptualized the atomic level, the mind-matter level, the individual-social level, the human-non-human level. So I would say that man made man.

.13. · 1st November 2005, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Yes, and the Universe would require another "medium" (God) to interact with. The Universe of its own accord could not stand.

That may be true. However there are countless possibilities. Even if your hypothesis (that the universe cannot stand on its own) is correct, it is quite a leap to conclude that God, or a god, is needed.

Belz...

In a way it is correct to say that universe can't stand alone. And by observation we can say it isn't standing on its own. Universe is cooling down, energy is dissipating. Eventually stars will use up all the matter required for fusion and universe will become a cold and desolate place. I know that is not proof that some god/gods don't exist. But it seems that atleast universe isn't being sustained by it/them.

Maybe you guys were talking about something more profound. Like matter and energy being here at all. But for purposes of life universe ceases to exist when it it is sufficiently cooled and no sources of energy remain.

Tricky · 1st November 2005, 07:31 PM

Oopsie.

joshuamclaren · 14th October 2007, 05:25 PM

this a chicken and egg question so ill use that as a metephore
a religous preson would say god created the chicken like adam and even so the chicken was first
an atheist or would say the chicken was evolved from a series of other chickens so that
the egg birthed the modern chicken
if god is the sole one true sentient being then thier has to be a combined aserw of the two
gods the universe itself and/or the laws that it follows
if we know the that the big bang had to happen becuase of universe with a cosomological constant would implode on its self.
but yet the constant can change and we CANT mesure it hmm i would bet the bottom element of are loosley held grand unnifeid field theory is god

Beerina · 15th October 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by c4ts

In total disregard for all logic, God created himself.

An argument that has existed for a long time, by the way. Terry Gilliam even made fun of it in "Time Bandits", where one of the devi'ls assistants asked the Devil, well then, did God create you? "No. (winces slightly) I created myself."

In my wilder imaginings, I can imagine that, in true nothingness, not even the rule about things not popping into existence exists, hence such a "create yourself" might occur, but it would seem to be much more evolutionary than glorious momentous.

Beerina · 15th October 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

I'll go with what Tricky said. When we ask, "Why does anything exist?" We get, "God made it." So we ask, "Why does God exist?" We get, "Because it is God." So God->Exist and Exist->God, then Exist->Exist and God->God. So God simply "is" and therefore existance simply "is".

"I am that I am" is so much more poetic, though.

Beerina · 15th October 2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning?

Stuff exists. Therefore the stuff must have always existed, at least in one form or another, perhaps as an infinitely compressed singularity, or a previous, cycling universe, or vibrations in the dimension of Qaard, or who knows what.

We still have the issue of why in the larger sense, but no God is required.

Addrionn · 15th October 2007, 09:04 AM

Honestly, the only proof or fact we can assume is that God is an Human creation. We created Him because science still can´t explain X or Y. We can´t prove his existence and also we can´t prove His non exeistence. It´s a matter of faith, you do or you don´t believe he exists.

And if you ask Who created God, you have to ask yourself who created the creator of God and so on...

I believe God does exist as an trasncendent consciousness and as an none physical entity.

Acleron · 15th October 2007, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Addrionn

I believe God does exist as an trasncendent consciousness and as an none physical entity.

So this is a god whose thought processes are outside of the universe and who does not physically exist. I like this type of god, it cannot affect anything within the universe and is therefore totally irrelevant.

wolfgirl · 15th October 2007, 11:23 AM

This is, I believe, a valid argument against IDers who insist that "anything as complex as the world must have been designed."

To those IDers: Surely anyone/anything that could design the world would have to be almost immeasurably more complex than the world itself, so how do you explain that designer's origin? It either had to be designed, also, in which case the question becomes "who designed the designer's designer" and so on ad nauseum, or it didn't, in which case you are willing to make an exception to your own rule about complex things needing a designer, which pretty much makes your rule irrelevant. I don't think this is a lazy argument at all.

Irony · 15th October 2007, 12:25 PM

"Who made God?" doesn't seem like that bad of a question. After all, if someone asked me "Who made Tom Sawyer" I would say Mark Twain, with no illusions whatsoever that Tom Sawyer actually existed.

To answer the question, however, I would have to ask the person to specify which God they meant. Even limiting it to just YHWH, you have the old testament God, the new testament God, the moderate-Christian God, the moderate-Islamic God, the fundamentalist Christian God, the fundamentalist Islamic God, and probably a few I've forgotten, all of whom have their own distinctive and often incompatible traits.

Addrionn · 15th October 2007, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Acleron

So this is a god whose thought processes are outside of the universe and who does not physically exist. I like this type of god, it cannot affect anything within the universe and is therefore totally irrelevant.

I ask you, does your imagination and your argumentative processes have physical existence, for what you have just said?

krazyKemist · 15th October 2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by c4ts

In total disregard for all logic, God created himself.

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

the Kemist

Acleron · 15th October 2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Addrionn

I ask you, does your imagination and your argumentative processes have physical existence, for what you have just said?

Yes it does. First of all it uses energy. Second, thought processes can detected using MRI. Third, I can communicate the results of my thought processes by either typing at this keyboard or indeed using a laser and burning the words into a wall.

All these are non transcendental and definitely material. I have yet to see any evidence of something that does not exist in this universe being able to do the same.

Addrionn · 15th October 2007, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Acleron

Yes it does. First of all it uses energy. Second, thought processes can detected using MRI. Third, I can communicate the results of my thought processes by either typing at this keyboard or indeed using a laser and burning the words into a wall.

All these are non transcendental and definitely material. I have yet to see any evidence of something that does not exist in this universe being able to do the same.

I would call that the way you express that. And also how the brain processes the biochemical procedures so that you first think and then express it with a laser in the wall, but, before that, where did it came from? Ok, i have stimulated
your brain to make an interpretation of my question and then it triggered itself so that you could aswer me. But just one more question, why have your brain acted like that? And also, why is mine doing exactly the same thing?

Acleron · 15th October 2007, 05:51 PM

If you are asking 'why do we think', it is presumably an evolved asset. Social interactions in other animals appear to be more complex with higher intelligence. OK, I know I can be shot in the details of that last sentence but generally it follows. Our social interactions are so complex we can be having this conversation.

20th October 2005, 07:53 AM	#81
jjramsey Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,436	Originally Posted by jjramsey The relevance is that bridges and books are different enough that it is questionable to say that their complexities are comparable. That in the example I gave one did not create the other is a red herring, since I was focusing on pointing out that it may not always be coherent to say that one thing is more complex than another. Originally Posted by Robin Not always, but when you are talking about design then this must be a factor. No, it's still a red herring. The problem of comparing the complexities of God and creation has to to with God purportedly being an ever-present spirit that is supposedly largely unknowable and obeys no physical laws, while the universe is made out of interacting bits of matter, etc. This problem would be the same whether God created the universe or not. Originally Posted by Robin I could not design a watch, but I can design computer programs. A computer program and a watch are two such non-comparable complexities. Could I then design a computer program that would design a watch? I seriously doubt it unless I first knew how to design a watch (or was under instruction from some one who could). The complexity in the program would have to encompass the complexity in the watch and it would have to come from the designer. And the reasons that there is a correlation between the complexity of the program and the complexity of yourself have to do with the way this particular universe works. Originally Posted by Robin Which ID'ers would that be? The whole point of Dembski's 'No Free Lunch', for example, is that the complexity in a closed system cannot increase. I doubt that he would agree that a complex thing could arise from a less complex thing. The subtitle of his book is "Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence." The idea is that the blind, dumb processes of nature cannot make new complexity, and so an outside intelligent agent must create it. The complexity of the intelligent agent is not considered. A simple intelligent agent would work just as well. Originally Posted by jjramsey May I remind you that it is questionable to call Darwinian evolution simple, but it is certainly blind, and it's what gets the IDers in a lather. Originally Posted by Robin It is also questionable to call it blind. It worked for Dawkins. Seriously, "blind" here is simply used as a monosyllabic synonym for "non-teleological," that is, not having intention or an end in mind.
	__________________ "One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims." -- Gerald LaRue, Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Orlando, Florida

20th October 2005, 03:11 PM	#83
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth Maybe. Maybe. But a "could" is a far cry from a "must." And cosmological arguments of various stripes usually do not attempt to show that there "could" be something called "God." Yet "could" is all it takes to defeat a logical (as opposed to an evidential or probabilistic) argument. Recall that I raised this possibility in response to the argument that unless God is temporal (or, if you like, unless time is not limited to the natural universe), then the idea of God creating the universe is logically contradictory.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Last edited by ceo_esq; 20th October 2005 at 04:02 PM.

20th October 2005, 06:27 PM	#84
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	ceo_esq, Quote: couldn't an atemporal Creator's existence be ontologically (rather than chronologically) prior to the universe? Can you define "prior" without reference to time? My point here is that the entire human language is intrinsically filled with the concept of 'time'. I'm not sure I can accept that 'prior' (or 'before', or 'create', or even 'perhaps') are in anyway meaningful terms if you start from a premise of 'there is no time'. What is the realtionship being expressed by the term ontologically prior if it's not a time based one?
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. .

20th October 2005, 06:51 PM	#85
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541	Quote: The subtitle of his book is "Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence." The idea is that the blind, dumb processes of nature cannot make new complexity, and so an outside intelligent agent must create it. The complexity of the intelligent agent is not considered. A simple intelligent agent would work just as well. Of course he has begged the question of whether or not intelligence is a natural process, but OK I was incorrect in my summary of Dembski's ideas. But the very idea of intelligence implies a base level of complexity, I doubt that Dembski would consider Wolframs rule 1 as a candidate intelligent designer. Intentionality or the ability to enact an intention implies at least some level of functional complexity. In the end it does not matter too much whether the designer is more, less or differently complex. It doesn't even matter whether the problem is 'art and skill', complexity, information, improbability or intentionality. The base argument from design says that functional complexity implies a designer. That makes the question 'who designed the designer?' legitimate since the designer must have functional complexity of its own. And nobody likes a 'turtles all the way down' explanation so the obvious answer is that if there is a designer there is ultimately an undesigned designer. But the argument was that functional complexity implies a designer and the undesigned designer is a counter example of functional complexity that exists without the benefit of the art and skill of a designer so the argument is refuted.
Robin Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,541

20th October 2005, 07:51 PM	#86
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by Loki Can you define "prior" without reference to time? Sure. The first OED definition of prior is "preceding in time or order" (boldface mine); obviously there are senses of "order" which are not chronological. Perhaps, in common usage, the word priority has less of a chronological connotation than the word prior, but of course the one derives from the other. Originally Posted by Loki My point here is that the entire human language is intrinsically filled with the concept of 'time'. I'm not sure I can accept that 'prior' (or 'before', or 'create', or even 'perhaps') are in anyway meaningful terms if you start from a premise of 'there is no time'. What is the realtionship being expressed by the term ontologically prior if it's not a time based one? I'm still wrestling with the concept myself, but at this point I'd venture to suggest that between two things, the first having actual being and the second having either actual or potential being, where the first would exist without the second but not the other way around, the first is ontologically (though not necessarily chronologically) prior to the second. See what I'm getting at? I daresay that one corollary would be that, if one thing has ontological priority over another, the second cannot have chronological priority over the first.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

20th October 2005, 10:43 AM	#82
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,827	Originally Posted by ceo_esq Even if time per se (at least as we experience it) does not technically exist apart from the (hypothetically) created universe, couldn't an atemporal Creator's existence be ontologically (rather than chronologically) prior to the universe? Maybe. Maybe. But a "could" is a far cry from a "must." And cosmological arguments of various stripes usually do not attempt to show that there "could" be something called "God."

20th October 2005, 08:48 PM	#87
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	ceo_esq, Quote: obviously there are senses of "order" which are not chronological. You know, I posted my reply and went to lunch. Was thinking about 'this and that', and I suddenly realised how completely daft my comment was. Of course we can talk about any ordered sequence in terms of the elements being 'prior'. Oops. Sorry about the temporary (ha!) lapse. Still, the main point I was making is that I don't think the term "create" is a timeless one. Inherent in the meaning is the concept of "change over time". Talking about 'creating' something in a timeless existence seems .. well, incoherent. If we simply said that God "Efnarkled" the universe, what precisely are we trying to say about the relationship between God and the Universe? Answer : No idea! That's pretty much what I hear when we discuss "atemporal creation". Quote: See what I'm getting at? Well, sort of ... has a faint smell of epiphenomenalism about it. If we posit two forms of 'existence' - 'the physical' and 'the spirtual' for example - you're suggesting they can perhaps be 'sequenced' in such a way as to allow us to apply the concept 'prior' to them. And that perhaps this sequence can be based upon (at least in part) the attribute : "has the attribute 'time'". So an ontological category having the attribute 'atemporal' is considered 'prior' in this proposed 'ontological ordering'. That about it? Or am I misreading this entirely? Quote: I daresay that one corollary would be that, if one thing has ontological priority over another, the second cannot have chronological priority over the first Why? This would only be true if 'temporal' was at least one of the 'ordering criteria', wouldn't it? - EDIT: Changed my mind on this last bit - why would it need to be true ever? - even in an ordering system that considers temporal and atemporal 'existences', how do we apply "Chronological priority" when at least one of the existences has no such concept?
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. . Last edited by Loki; 20th October 2005 at 08:55 PM.

20th October 2005, 09:20 PM	#88
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by Loki Still, the main point I was making is that I don't think the term "create" is a timeless one. Inherent in the meaning is the concept of "change over time". Talking about 'creating' something in a timeless existence seems .. well, incoherent. Well, I might suggest that "prior to" the Big Bang, neither time nor the universe existed. Yet here we are. Was the occurrence of the Big Bang a "change over time"? Originally Posted by Loki If we posit two forms of 'existence' - 'the physical' and 'the spirtual' for exmaple - you're suggesting they can perhaps be 'sequenced' in such a way as to allow us to apply the concept 'prior' to them. And that perhaps this sequence can be based upon (at least in part) the attribute : "has the attribute 'time'". So an ontological category having the attribute 'atemporal' is considered 'prior' in this proposed 'ontological ordering'. That about it? Or am I misreading this entirely? This is such a mindbending topic that I haven't been able to figure out yet whether you are misreading me or not! Originally Posted by Loki Why? This would only be true if 'temporal' was at least one of the 'ordering criteria', wouldn't it? I was thinking it was because of the ontological dependency criterion. If it were possible for the one thing to be chronologically prior to another thing that was ontologically prior to the former, it would violate the condition that the ontologically secondary one be incapable of existing without the ontologically prior one. (Whew!)
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Last edited by ceo_esq; 20th October 2005 at 09:38 PM.

20th October 2005, 09:34 PM	#89
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	Quote: Well, I might suggest that "prior to" the Big Bang, neither time nor the universe existed. Yet here we are. Was the occurrence of the Big Bang a "change over time"? Well, prior to the Big Bang the non-existence of the universe seems a given. Non-existence of time is an assumption. But given that assumption (no time without universe), then I'm arguing the Big Bang was not an example of 'change over time' (no time to change state over, obviously). Hence the debate about 'the creator' seems rather pointless when we haven't even established there was an act of creation. Seems to me theists assume the act of creation, then proceed to fill in some answers to the questions that act raises. Whole thing rests on a dubious and totally assumed foundation - that time exists independant of the universe. Quote: I was thinking it was because of the ontological dependency criterion So 'matter' cannot exist with out 'mind', and 'time' is an attribute of 'matter', and 'time' is not an attribute of 'mind'. Therefore, 'matter' cannot exist chronologically before 'mind' - because to be able to discuss 'chronological' ordering we need 'time', which needs 'matter', which needs 'mind'. Well, then, I agree. Oh, and by the way - thanks for dumbing down your delivery a little - it's giving me a change to catch up...
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. .

20th October 2005, 10:44 PM	#90
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by Loki Well, prior to the Big Bang the non-existence of the universe seems a given. Non-existence of time is an assumption. But given that assumption (no time without universe), then I'm arguing the Big Bang was not an example of 'change over time' (no time to change state over, obviously). Hence the debate about 'the creator' seems rather pointless when we haven't even established there was an act of creation. Okay. But let's just assume for a moment that creation does involve a "change over time". Even in such case, that's not the distinguishing feature of creation. Creation is a change over time provoked by an agent, who is the "creator" with respect to such change. Other changes over time are not acts of creation but simply occurrences, happenings, events, etc. Let's say the universe was not created. Yet the Big Bang occurred or happened or took place; the (hypothetical) fact that it wasn't an act of creation simply relieves it from having a creator, not from being a change over time. Where does that leave us? It seems to me that any event that, if it constituted an act of creation, would be a "change over time" , must still be a change over time if it doesn't constitute an act of creation.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

20th October 2005, 11:15 PM	#91
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	Quote: ...if it constituted an act of creation, would be a "change over time" , must still be a change over time if it doesn't constitute an act of creation Okay...now you're just being silly. er...aren't you? Quote: Creation is a change over time provoked by an agent And there it is again - assuming the conclusion. Using the phrase 'created' brings into play 'the agent'. And off we go again... The only real point in trying to focus down on 'time' is to try and expose the assumptions contained in the use of the terms like 'create'. If the begining of the universe was an "Efnarklement", then why bring 'agent' into it?
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. .

21st October 2005, 08:01 AM	#92
jjramsey Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,436	Originally Posted by Robin But the very idea of intelligence implies a base level of complexity Certainly within our own physical universe it does. Whether intelligence implies a base level of complexity as a logical necessity rather than as a consequence of the contingent physical laws of this universe is much more of a dog of a question. What compounds the difficulty is that you are working on the theists' turf, and they can claim that the kind of intelligence that God has is a "degenerate" version of the intelligence that we are used to recognizing, which squeezes out the imperfections, complexities, etc., or claim that "intelligence" is an imperfect label for an otherwise unknowable capability of God, which can't be said to be simple or complex because it is, well, unknowable. Say, however, that the premise "the designer must have functional complexity" is granted for the sake of argument. . . . Originally Posted by Robin But the argument was that functional complexity implies a designer and the undesigned designer is a counter example of functional complexity that exists without the benefit of the art and skill of a designer so the argument is refuted. That depends on the details of the argument from design being made. Say that the argument claims that blind, natural processes are insufficient to create the functional complexity we see in nature, and that therefore something non-blind and supernatural must have made them. Note that this is not saying that all functional complexity implies a designer, only the functional complexity that gets manifested as plants, animals, etc. This is pretty much ID in a nutshell, and it is quite compatible with the notion of an undesigned designer that has functional complexity. The undesigned designer in question then simply would not be producible by blind, natural processes, and most IDers already have a candidate in mind for such an undesigned designer. In short, the claim that the functional complexity seen in nature requires a designer does not imply the claim that supernatural functional complexity requires a designer. Of course, one can here propose multiple undesigned designers, but that is a separate problem from the "who made god" question.
	__________________ "One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims." -- Gerald LaRue, Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Orlando, Florida

24th October 2005, 03:07 PM	#93
ruach1 Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 561	Originally Posted by jjramsey Certainly within our own physical universe it does. Whether intelligence implies a base level of complexity as a logical necessity rather than as a consequence of the contingent physical laws of this universe is much more of a dog of a question. What compounds the difficulty is that you are working on the theists' turf, and they can claim that the kind of intelligence that God has is a "degenerate" version of the intelligence that we are used to recognizing, which squeezes out the imperfections, complexities, etc., or claim that "intelligence" is an imperfect label for an otherwise unknowable capability of God, which can't be said to be simple or complex because it is, well, unknowable. Say, however, that the premise "the designer must have functional complexity" is granted for the sake of argument. . . . That depends on the details of the argument from design being made. Say that the argument claims that blind, natural processes are insufficient to create the functional complexity we see in nature, and that therefore something non-blind and supernatural must have made them. Note that this is not saying that all functional complexity implies a designer, only the functional complexity that gets manifested as plants, animals, etc. This is pretty much ID in a nutshell, and it is quite compatible with the notion of an undesigned designer that has functional complexity. The undesigned designer in question then simply would not be producible by blind, natural processes, and most IDers already have a candidate in mind for such an undesigned designer. In short, the claim that the functional complexity seen in nature requires a designer does not imply the claim that supernatural functional complexity requires a designer. Of course, one can here propose multiple undesigned designers, but that is a separate problem from the "who made god" question. No wonder people are asking, "I wonder what JJRamsey would say."
	__________________ "I am an empiricist and as such I can demonstrate empirically the existence of a totality supraordinate to consciousness." C.G. Jung, Collected Works, X, p.463

29th October 2005, 03:39 PM	#94
hodgy Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 945	JJ - irrespective of the material (and you know the sense in which I use that word) composition of your creator - how can he be credited with designing a (for example) square if he is is not at least as complex as a square?
hodgy Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 945	__________________ Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum

29th October 2005, 05:39 PM	#95
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by hodgy JJ - irrespective of the material (and you know the sense in which I use that word) composition of your creator - how can he be credited with designing a (for example) square if he is is not at least as complex as a square? So may questions. Are squares the sort of thing susceptible to being designed? Do squares even exist in a sense comparable to that in which the natural universe exists? How do we assess the complexity of a square (number of sides? type of angles?), and can we apply the same criteria to something that is not another abstract geometrical figure?
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

31st October 2005, 10:36 AM	#96
hodgy Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 945	Originally Posted by ceo_esq So may questions. Are squares the sort of thing susceptible to being designed? Do squares even exist in a sense comparable to that in which the natural universe exists? How do we assess the complexity of a square (number of sides? type of angles?), and can we apply the same criteria to something that is not another abstract geometrical figure? My comment was actually a bit of a tongue-in-cheek nod to JJ Ramsey as we have already argued about this interminably. The reason I picked a square is because it is quite a simple thing. My point is that if you design a square you must have a mental model of it and that model must be at least as complex as a square or else it would be something other (simpler) than a square. If your model was simpler than a square it would not be able to contain sufficient information to define one and therefore you could not be credited with designing one. At best it could be said you accidentally created a square whilst (for example) trying to design a triangle. From this simple basis extraploate the argument up to say that a 'simple' God could not have designed complex things like people.
hodgy Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 945	__________________ Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum

31st October 2005, 06:51 PM	#97
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,195	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Posting this here from another board, mostly because the argument frustrates the hell out of me. Just curious how an atheist would respond to this: "Who made god" My response is simple: Man made God.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

31st October 2005, 06:57 PM	#98
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Dorian Gray My response is simple: Man made God. Yes, but who -- unless of course there is no other instance in the Universe that it refers to itself by "who" -- made man? ... Who or, "what" exactly is consciousness then?
	Last edited by Iacchus; 31st October 2005 at 07:06 PM.

1st November 2005, 03:15 PM	#99
FreeChile Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,039	Originally Posted by Belz... Could God create an even MORE POWERFUL God ? If not, he's not omnipotent. This is OK. Quote: If yes, he's not omnipotent. I have a logical problem with this conditional. The entity called God is capable of creating a more powerful God, yet not choose to do so, in which case God would remain omnipotent.

1st November 2005, 04:40 PM	#100
FreeChile Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,039	Originally Posted by Iacchus Yes, but who -- unless of course there is no other instance in the Universe that it refers to itself by "who" -- made man? ... Who or, "what" exactly is consciousness then? At the atomic level man is no different from a rock and man has conceptualized the atomic level, the mind-matter level, the individual-social level, the human-non-human level. So I would say that man made man.

1st November 2005, 04:43 PM	#101
.13. Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 570	Originally Posted by Belz... Originally Posted by Iacchus Yes, and the Universe would require another "medium" (God) to interact with. The Universe of its own accord could not stand. That may be true. However there are countless possibilities. Even if your hypothesis (that the universe cannot stand on its own) is correct, it is quite a leap to conclude that God, or a god, is needed. Belz... In a way it is correct to say that universe can't stand alone. And by observation we can say it isn't standing on its own. Universe is cooling down, energy is dissipating. Eventually stars will use up all the matter required for fusion and universe will become a cold and desolate place. I know that is not proof that some god/gods don't exist. But it seems that atleast universe isn't being sustained by it/them. Maybe you guys were talking about something more profound. Like matter and energy being here at all. But for purposes of life universe ceases to exist when it it is sufficiently cooled and no sources of energy remain.
.13. Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 570

1st November 2005, 07:31 PM	#102
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,363	Oopsie.

14th October 2007, 05:25 PM	#103
joshuamclaren New Blood Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3	this a chicken and egg question so ill use that as a metephore a religous preson would say god created the chicken like adam and even so the chicken was first an atheist or would say the chicken was evolved from a series of other chickens so that the egg birthed the modern chicken if god is the sole one true sentient being then thier has to be a combined aserw of the two gods the universe itself and/or the laws that it follows if we know the that the big bang had to happen becuase of universe with a cosomological constant would implode on its self. but yet the constant can change and we CANT mesure it hmm i would bet the bottom element of are loosley held grand unnifeid field theory is god
joshuamclaren New Blood Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3

15th October 2007, 08:46 AM	#104
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by c4ts In total disregard for all logic, God created himself. An argument that has existed for a long time, by the way. Terry Gilliam even made fun of it in "Time Bandits", where one of the devi'ls assistants asked the Devil, well then, did God create you? "No. (winces slightly) I created myself." In my wilder imaginings, I can imagine that, in true nothingness, not even the rule about things not popping into existence exists, hence such a "create yourself" might occur, but it would seem to be much more evolutionary than glorious momentous.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

15th October 2007, 08:49 AM	#105
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate I'll go with what Tricky said. When we ask, "Why does anything exist?" We get, "God made it." So we ask, "Why does God exist?" We get, "Because it is God." So God->Exist and Exist->God, then Exist->Exist and God->God. So God simply "is" and therefore existance simply "is". "I am that I am" is so much more poetic, though.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

15th October 2007, 08:52 AM	#106
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Iacchus Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning? Stuff exists. Therefore the stuff must have always existed, at least in one form or another, perhaps as an infinitely compressed singularity, or a previous, cycling universe, or vibrations in the dimension of Qaard, or who knows what. We still have the issue of why in the larger sense, but no God is required.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

15th October 2007, 09:04 AM	#107
Addrionn New Blood Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 11	Honestly, the only proof or fact we can assume is that God is an Human creation. We created Him because science still can´t explain X or Y. We can´t prove his existence and also we can´t prove His non exeistence. It´s a matter of faith, you do or you don´t believe he exists. And if you ask Who created God, you have to ask yourself who created the creator of God and so on... I believe God does exist as an trasncendent consciousness and as an none physical entity.
Addrionn New Blood Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 11

15th October 2007, 10:56 AM	#108
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,932	Originally Posted by Addrionn I believe God does exist as an trasncendent consciousness and as an none physical entity. So this is a god whose thought processes are outside of the universe and who does not physically exist. I like this type of god, it cannot affect anything within the universe and is therefore totally irrelevant.

15th October 2007, 11:23 AM	#109
wolfgirl Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kearney, MO Posts: 1,361	This is, I believe, a valid argument against IDers who insist that "anything as complex as the world must have been designed." To those IDers: Surely anyone/anything that could design the world would have to be almost immeasurably more complex than the world itself, so how do you explain that designer's origin? It either had to be designed, also, in which case the question becomes "who designed the designer's designer" and so on ad nauseum, or it didn't, in which case you are willing to make an exception to your own rule about complex things needing a designer, which pretty much makes your rule irrelevant. I don't think this is a lazy argument at all.
	__________________ My moral compass was within myself, not in the pages of a sacred book. - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

15th October 2007, 12:25 PM	#110
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	"Who made God?" doesn't seem like that bad of a question. After all, if someone asked me "Who made Tom Sawyer" I would say Mark Twain, with no illusions whatsoever that Tom Sawyer actually existed. To answer the question, however, I would have to ask the person to specify which God they meant. Even limiting it to just YHWH, you have the old testament God, the new testament God, the moderate-Christian God, the moderate-Islamic God, the fundamentalist Christian God, the fundamentalist Islamic God, and probably a few I've forgotten, all of whom have their own distinctive and often incompatible traits.
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872

15th October 2007, 03:41 PM	#111
Addrionn New Blood Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 11	Originally Posted by Acleron So this is a god whose thought processes are outside of the universe and who does not physically exist. I like this type of god, it cannot affect anything within the universe and is therefore totally irrelevant. I ask you, does your imagination and your argumentative processes have physical existence, for what you have just said?
Addrionn New Blood Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 11

15th October 2007, 03:59 PM	#112
krazyKemist Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Deep inside an extinct volcano Posts: 432	Originally Posted by c4ts In total disregard for all logic, God created himself. Originally Posted by Douglas Adams "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. the Kemist
	__________________ But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake. And the Science gets done. -- GLaDOS

15th October 2007, 04:19 PM	#113
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,932	Originally Posted by Addrionn I ask you, does your imagination and your argumentative processes have physical existence, for what you have just said? Yes it does. First of all it uses energy. Second, thought processes can detected using MRI. Third, I can communicate the results of my thought processes by either typing at this keyboard or indeed using a laser and burning the words into a wall. All these are non transcendental and definitely material. I have yet to see any evidence of something that does not exist in this universe being able to do the same.

15th October 2007, 04:29 PM	#114
Addrionn New Blood Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 11	Originally Posted by Acleron Yes it does. First of all it uses energy. Second, thought processes can detected using MRI. Third, I can communicate the results of my thought processes by either typing at this keyboard or indeed using a laser and burning the words into a wall. All these are non transcendental and definitely material. I have yet to see any evidence of something that does not exist in this universe being able to do the same. I would call that the way you express that. And also how the brain processes the biochemical procedures so that you first think and then express it with a laser in the wall, but, before that, where did it came from? Ok, i have stimulated your brain to make an interpretation of my question and then it triggered itself so that you could aswer me. But just one more question, why have your brain acted like that? And also, why is mine doing exactly the same thing?
Addrionn New Blood Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 11

15th October 2007, 05:51 PM	#115
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,932	If you are asking 'why do we think', it is presumably an evolved asset. Social interactions in other animals appear to be more complex with higher intelligence. OK, I know I can be shot in the details of that last sentence but generally it follows. Our social interactions are so complex we can be having this conversation.