who made god?

Originally posted by whodey
Yes.

You get no points for being cute. You must choose one of us, or explain why you presumably think we're both right.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your argument is ridiculous. Theists claim that god is eternal and that he was not 'caused.' To escape from the eternal causal regression they plug him in as the first cause, or the 'uncaused cause.' The atheists rightfully question what basis they have for making that claim. Since Big Bang theorists do not necessarily make any claims for what preceded the ...[text shortened]... do with the other. It's an open question as to what (or if anything) preceded the Big Bang.

However , even the big bang requires an uncaused cause at some point in the theory otherwise it just goes into infinite regress anyway. The real issue here is that there are 3 basic ideas...

1 an infinite regress of causes with no end in sight

2. an uncaused cause that is timeless in some way or existing without need for a cause.

3. existence popped into existence with no reason or cause out of zilch.

Those who go for 2. (like me) just find 1 and 3 unsatisfactory and at times illogical.

Originally posted by knightmeister
1 an infinite regress of causes with no end in sight
2. an uncaused cause that is timeless in some way or existing without need for a cause.
3. existence popped into existence with no reason or cause out of zilch.

I see nothing wrong with 1.
I believe 2 (uncaused cause) is common place and takes place all the time throughout the universe. I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it and science certainly hasn't ruled it out. In fact current popular theories are fully compatible with it. I take issue with: a) your timeless aspect of it. b) your claim that a 'cause' can and does 'exist'.
Your 3. goes back to the old "nothing" threads where you insist on including the "out of zilch" piece which is practically self-contradictory (I suspect intentionally so).

Those who go for 2. (like me) just find 1 and 3 unsatisfactory and at times illogical.
But you fail to satisfactorily argue your cause. And I suspect that most of those who go for 2. do so simply because it matches their theistic beliefs and not because of any logical reasoning.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see nothing wrong with 1.
I believe 2 (uncaused cause) is common place and takes place all the time throughout the universe. I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it and science certainly hasn't ruled it out. In fact current popular theories are fully compatible with it. I take issue with: a) your timeless aspect of it. b) your claim that a ' ...[text shortened]... ply because it matches their theistic beliefs and not because of any logical reasoning.

But you fail to satisfactorily argue your cause. And I suspect that most of those who go for 2. do so simply because it matches their theistic beliefs and not because of any logical reasoning. =---whitey--

Not me , I found 2 to be the most logical conclusion when I was an atheist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see nothing wrong with 1.
I believe 2 (uncaused cause) is common place and takes place all the time throughout the universe. I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it and science certainly hasn't ruled it out. In fact current popular theories are fully compatible with it. I take issue with: a) your timeless aspect of it. b) your claim that a ' ...[text shortened]... ply because it matches their theistic beliefs and not because of any logical reasoning.

I believe 2 (uncaused cause) is common place and takes place all the time throughout the universe. ---whitey ---

Where?

I've quoted this article before, but it's always incredibly relevant to this discussion:

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

The short version: The big bang was the beginning of time as well as space, so there was exactly nothing before the big bang. Uncaused causes are the rule, rather than the exception, of the universe when examined at the quantum level; what we think of as the rules of cause & effect may just be an illusion that occurs when the universe is seen from our scale. If the universe proceeded forth from a quantum singularity, or something approaching it in size, then for it to have no cause might be the most natural thing of all.

i hear joesphw did

Originally posted by darthmix
I've quoted this article before, but it's always incredibly relevant to this discussion:

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

The short version: The big bang was the beginning of time as well as space, so there was exactly nothing before the big bang. Uncaused causes are the rule, rather than the exception, of the universe when ex ...[text shortened]... g approaching it in size, then for it to have no cause might be the most natural thing of all.

What you forget is that all logic and rationality is based on cause and effect .If you have no cause and effect you have no why? how? or when? Rational enquiry itself then becomes a study of the illusionary , so why place so much faith in it. You have just sawn off the branch you are sitting on.

I think what you are trying to do is semantically magic the problem away as if it's just "one of those things" without appreciating how startling a thought this is. I also don't think that science has proven anything about uncaused causes at the quantum level except that quatum particles appear out of vaccuums for no apparent reason. There is no reason to think that a vaccuum is neccessarily a void of no matter. There is no reason to think that a reason for quantum particles emerging might not yet appear. The reason for this hypothesis in my opinion is the urgent desire to de-bunk God or mysticsm.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your obstinate idiocy begins to tire me. I have no interest in pursuing an interminable semantic struggle with a half-wit like yourself. So why don't we open the question to the theists themselves to answer? I mean, after all, it is their god.

Hello, theists! Do you believe that god created himself or that he has always existed and is uncaused? If the e ...[text shortened]... en be so kind as to re-read the discussion between us and give us your verdict on who is right.

See, my response is very simple here.

Who is Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

I think the theist has spoken. A reputable Catholic encycopedia agrees with me. But then, of course, you can just subvert the entire meaning of each word to suit your own argument.

Originally posted by rwingett

Hello, theists! Do you believe that god created himself or that he has always existed and is uncaused?

I do disagree with the phrasing. I do not recall saying God created himself. I said he was his own creator, in effect, his own cause for being and explanation for being. To say, he created himself, is misleading because it implies that there was a process by which God came to be, which contradicts the idea that God is immutable.

And as I pointed out, to be self-caused unvolves negligible difference to be uncaused. A self-caused agent is one in which one's own being is explained in itself, and is caused by nothing else. They are essentially the same.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What you forget is that all logic and rationality is based on cause and effect .

Is it?

Originally posted by Conrau K
See, my response is very simple here.

Who is Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.

I think the theist has spoken. A reputable Catholic encycopedia agrees with me. But then, of course, you can just subvert the entire meaning of each word to suit your own argument.

Answer me this - how do you respond to the unambiguous Wikipedia entry that clearly says you are wrong?

Originally posted by rwingett
Answer me this - how do you respond to the unambiguous Wikipedia entry that clearly says you are wrong?

Very simple. I look at the Catholic counterpart which affirms that I am right. The Catholic page is just a tad more qualified than the wikipedia rival: you will find at the bottom of the page a nihi obstat and imprimatur which declare that the page is free of doctrinal errors.

Of course, the wikipedia page is unlikely to be steeped in the same theological nomenclature as the Catholic one, so no wonder you blundered in with your half-wit interpretation.

And does the wikipedia entry unequivocally state that I am wrong?

Originally posted by knightmeister
What you forget is that all logic and rationality is based on cause and effect .If you have no cause and effect you have no why? how? or when? Rational enquiry itself then becomes a study of the illusionary , so why place so much faith in it. You have just sawn off the branch you are sitting on.

Not at all; we just may have to recalibrate our undestanding of cause & effect in a way that reflects the universe as it actually is. As long as we do that, we're studying the real, and not the illusory; it's only when we assign the universe fundamental principles it doesn't actually have that we cross over into studying an illusion. If it's true that the universe at the quantum level consists of particles and wave forms behaving randomly and unpredictably, then the scale of the universe we inhabit - where we experience the world, and where cause & effect appear to be solid - becomes the product of a probability curve.

Imagine you toss a coin a million times. You never know whether the coin will come up heads or tails, but if you repeat the experiment that many times a trend will emerge; and it'll become clearer, more defined, more solid as you do it. It might be that the universe we observe consists of trends that emerge from trillions and trillions quantum particles behaving randomly and uncertainly a hundred million times a second.

I think what you are trying to do is semantically magic the problem away as if it's just "one of those things" without appreciating how startling a thought this is.

I guess you have to think that's what I'm doing, because if you thought otherwise you'd actually have to re-evaluate your position. What I'm telling you has nothing to do with semantics. I'm suggesting that what you imagine are the solid rules of cause and effect might not be so solid; you've developed them based on your subjective experience, but they may not be fundamental aspects of the universe. I don't think you're being fair by dismissing that as a semantic quibble.

I also don't think that science has proven anything about uncaused causes at the quantum level except that quatum particles appear out of vaccuums for no apparent reason. There is no reason to think that a vaccuum is neccessarily a void of no matter. There is no reason to think that a reason for quantum particles emerging might not yet appear.

You lose me a little there, but if you're trying to dismiss quantum uncertainty as a result of our failure to correctly understand the situation - if you're trying to argue there are hidden causes for the particle's appearance or the waiveform's behavior we haven't discovered yet - then you're not really understanding the theory. That's a mistake a lot of people make when they grapple with quantum physics for the first time. You're also trying to apply your own assumptions about cause & effect, even though you don't have any basis for doing so. You're thinking "there must be a cause... because... that's just how things work!" Except, when we're talking about quantum reality, it isn't. You have to re-examine your assumptions.

The reason for this hypothesis in my opinion is the urgent desire to de-bunk God or mysticsm.

The irony being that your insistence that everything must have a cause effectively debunks God; if anything that lacks a cause becomes illusory, then God must surely be illusory too. Nothing about what I've suggested here is incompatible with God; most quantum scientists are deists, just as most evolutionary biologists are.