who made god?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's not the first time and I don't think "there must be a cause" I only question how we know for sure there is no cause. How is that verified? If we don't know something about the universe (that would give a cause) then we wouldn't know that we don't know it. Science is full of situations where we thought that we had got it only to find the curtain of ...[text shortened]... d uncaused uncertainty to think that's all there is to it? Sounds like faith to me (LOL)

I discussed this at some length in the other thread, so I won't deal with it at much length here. The interesting thing about the history of quantum physics is that it began with the assumption of a deterministic, orderly universe and then moved away from it as we learned more. The possibility of hidden variables has been argued and debated and pretty thorougly rejected by the best minds in physics over the last fifty years. That's the picture presented by the evidence. The reason we're having this debate now is because there's a strong bias in favor of clear causality, and that bias is not supported by the evidence.

Physics and science proves the big bang, so we can sleep now 🙂

==================================
There can't be a scientific theory about what happened before the Big Bang; there is no way to have information that precedes the BB. All such musings are in the real of metaphysics.
=====================================

If that is the case we have no good reason to assume that such metaphysical entitities or causes no longer exist.

Such metaphysical powers were not garanteed to go away after the Big Bang. They certainly may still be active and powerful. They are just not subject to scientific investigation.

Originally posted by jaywill
If that is the case we have no good reason to assume that such metaphysical entitities or causes no longer exist.

Such metaphysical powers were not garanteed to go away after the Big Bang. They certainly may still be active and powerful. They are just not subject to scientific investigation.

I think he talked about "the realm of metaphysics". He never said anything about the existence of "metaphysical entities" nor have you shown that they existed in the past nor is there any obvious reason to think that they did.
And what do you mean by "active and powerful"? If they have any effect whatsoever on the universe then that effect would be observable and would not be metaphysical and would be subject to scientific investigation.

It is my opinion that if something is not subject to scientific investigation then it is essentially not subject to any investigation of any kind and totally irrelevant to us as we can never know about it in any way.

Originally posted by darthmix
I discussed this at some length in the other thread, so I won't deal with it at much length here. The interesting thing about the history of quantum physics is that it began with the assumption of a deterministic, orderly universe and then moved away from it as we learned more. The possibility of hidden variables has been argued and debated and pretty thoro ...[text shortened]... s a strong bias in favor of clear causality, and that bias is not supported by the evidence.

The possibility of hidden variables has been argued and debated and pretty thorougly rejected by the best minds in physics over the last fifty years ---- darth----

As have many things over the decades that have now been shown to be true. Infact there is a precedent in science for the off the wall minority voice being shown to be right at the expense of the majority.

Originally posted by knightmeister
As have many things over the decades that have now been shown to be true. Infact there is a precedent in science for the off the wall minority voice being shown to be right at the expense of the majority.

I fully agree with you on that point, but you are yet to retract your statement in other threads that causality is a well known and logical fact. Do you admit now that it is not so and in fact there is no scientific reason to think that it is?

Originally posted by rwingett

Do you accept my challenge?

Sure. But whatever he says will not convince me in the slightest. I was a Catholic for yonks and I am certain that I understood my faith at the time. The Catholic page was also very clear.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The possibility of hidden variables has been argued and debated and pretty thorougly rejected by the best minds in physics over the last fifty years ---- darth----

As have many things over the decades that have now been shown to be true. Infact there is a precedent in science for the off the wall minority voice being shown to be right at the expense of the majority.

There is precedent for people winning the lottery. That doesn't mean you're justified in thinking you'll win the lottery. You only hear about the off the wall theories that end up being confirmed, you don't hear about the numerous off the wall theories that are simply wrong. Anyway, if you haven't read Bell's work, you're unqualified to discuss the likelihood that some hidden-variable version of QM will be confirmed. But I'm sure you don't actually care about that.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sure. But whatever he says will not convince me in the slightest. I was a Catholic for yonks and I am certain that I understood my faith at the time. The Catholic page was also very clear.

If you reject, in advance, the rulings of the judge, then there is no point in having the dispute judged. God must have hardened your heart.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you reject, in advance, the rulings of the judge, then there is no point in having the dispute judged. God must have hardened your heart.

You have to be kidding. You will defer your judgment to a single Catholic, who may or may not have any firm grasp of the theology that underpins his faith?

If you remember, I dispute your idea that "self-caused" and
"uncaused" are incompatible. In use, they both have the same meaning to Christians - as the Catholic encyclopedia was adamant about. If Ivanhoe agrees with you that God is "uncaused", that means little to me as I readily acknowledge this as the equivalent to "self-caused."

=================================

I think he talked about "the realm of metaphysics". He never said anything about the existence of "metaphysical entities" nor have you shown that they existed in the past nor is there any obvious reason to think that they did.

===================================

In the realm of metaphsics we assume would exist something, metaphysical entitites is one possibilty. I think that is a fair assumption.

What else do you propose to place in this metaphsical realm? Nothing? What comes out of nothing? Nothing, I think. Yet something is here, I think.

===================================
And what do you mean by "active and powerful"?
========================================

I mean having something to do with the cause of the so called Big Bang.

Out of nothing nothing comes. If there is something or somethings, albeit metaphysica, in this "metaphysical realm" what is wrong with assuming activity and power of them?

Do you think exploding or expanding some kind of microscopic singularity into the universe involves a little power or lots of power?

I think it probably involves lots of power, thus "powerful".

====================================
If they have any effect whatsoever on the universe then that effect would be observable and would not be metaphysical and would be subject to scientific investigation.
=======================

We may wish so. But suppose we don't get out wish? Suppose they are not observable and cannot be detected by any scientific instrumentation or method? What do we do then?

One alternative is to say "That just can't be. It cannot be that we are thwarted from observing and measuring everything. So let's say such metaphysical entitie/s don't exist."

That's one reaction. Another way may be to inquire if there is some other way of detection of such entitites. No need just yet to throw up your hands in dispair.

Maybe it might be as simple as asking. "You have not because you ask not."

Possible?


=======================================

It is my opinion that if something is not subject to scientific investigation then it is essentially not subject to any investigation of any kind and totally irrelevant to us as we can never know about it in any way.

==================================

There are, I think, other issues to be considered.

Detection may be possible to one person but not another.

One man who is blind cannot detect the color red or purple. His neighber can because he is not blind.

Is the color red or purple altogether irrelevant to the one blind?

Can the blind person trust that the non-blind one informs him that the colors do exist?

Other issues. Suppose the blind person can be healed so that his sight can be made to operate. Then the formerly blind person may see the colors blue and red even more clearly than his neighber who formerly informed him that those colors did exist.

Perhaps some facility of detection of these metaphsysical entities is impaired in one person and not in another?

Perhaps both started out with this facility of detection impaired and one simply historically obtained remedy before the other. So it is simply a matter of timing.

Anyway, a few other things are there to consider in this analogy.

Another issue is that perhaps this metaphysical entity has its own reasons to make itself known to one person and not to another (fair or unfair).

Perhaps its a matter of some kind of discrimination (fair or unfair).

Perhaps it is not a matter so much of discrimination but simply of timing, ie, it does not make itself known to all people at the same time.

Perhaps the detection of such metaphysical entity is initiated by the entity or entitites and not by our human endeavors to detect? Suppose it or they (metaphysical entitiy/s) must take the initiative (fairly or unfairly?)

Quite a few other possibilitites can be considered.

Originally posted by jaywill
In the realm of metaphsics we assume would exist something, metaphysical entitites is one possibilty. I think that is a fair assumption.
What else do you propose to place in this metaphsical realm? Nothing? What comes out of nothing? Nothing, I think. Yet something is here, I think.

It remains an assumption - not a logical or even obvious conclusion. Your logic is as stupid as imaging the existence of fairy-land, then concluding there have to be fairies in fairy-land, then concluding that fairies exist. Do you believe in fairies? If not, your argument is null and void.

I mean having something to do with the cause of the so called Big Bang.
Out of nothing nothing comes. If there is something or somethings, albeit metaphysica, in this "metaphysical realm" what is wrong with assuming activity and power of them?
What is 'wrong' is that it is just that - an assumption. There is no reason to assume it.

Do you think exploding or expanding some kind of microscopic singularity into the universe involves a little power or lots of power?
No, I think that exploding or expanding requires the laws of physics and nothing more. In fact, if it didn't we would throw out the Big Bang Theory in the first place.

I think it probably involves lots of power, thus "powerful".
What is this 'power'? Energy? Authority?

We may wish so. But suppose we don't get out wish? Suppose they are not observable and cannot be detected by any scientific instrumentation or method? What do we do then?
Well then I suppose there are two possibilities:
1. The cannot affect us anyway.
2. We can never know about them anyway.

Detection may be possible to one person but not another.
One man who is blind cannot detect the color red or purple. His neighber can because he is not blind.
But it should still be possible to investigate scientifically. Surely, even the Blind can scientifically investigate the color red?
Even if it is truly a case of some can detect it and some cant, we should still be able to investigate it an identify those who can detect it etc.
If you are talking about God, then either only 1. person can accurately detect him and everyone else is wrong, or nobody can, because everyone seems to make different claims about him.

==========================
It remains an assumption - not a logical or even obvious conclusion. Your logic is as stupid as imaging the existence of fairy-land, then concluding there have to be fairies in fairy-land, then concluding that fairies exist. Do you believe in fairies? If not, your argument is null and void.
======================

I usually regard ridicule like this as a reaction of some kind of fear.

The goal is to diminish the opponant as childish. Thus the mention of fairies and fairyland, etc.

================================
I mean having something to do with the cause of the so called Big Bang.
==========================

We're musing here over the what came "before" it.

Somone said, whatever it was was had to do with the metaphysical realm.


========================

What is 'wrong' is that it is just that - an assumption. There is no reason to assume it.

======================

There is no reason for you to assume it. There is reason for other who don't think like you to assume it.

An ultimate cause is a reason for some of us to include this assumption among our musings on what is pre-Big Bang or what could be its cause if it was truly the beginning of the universe as we know it.

There is no reason for you to assume any cause perhaps because it fits comfortably in your philosophy. So you're up in arms stressing:

"But there is no reason to assume it! All such assuming is fairyland you know?"

Yea, you have no reason. That's true. That something comes out of nothing is okay with you.

===========================
Do you think exploding or expanding some kind of microscopic singularity into the universe involves a little power or lots of power?
No, I think that exploding or expanding requires the laws of physics and nothing more. In fact, if it didn't we would throw out the Big Bang Theory in the first place.
=================================

The problem I have heard with this is that the "laws of physics" kind of breakdown the more and more you get nanoseconds to the beginning of the "Big Bang".

And another thing, "laws of physics?" How did these laws of physics come to be?

Or are such questions also like assuming fairies and fairyland?

Tell us a little bit about the origin of the laws of physics. Where did these laws come from?


==========================
Well then I suppose there are two possibilities:
1. The cannot affect us anyway.
==================

Maybe. Maybe not.

============================
2. We can never know about them anyway.
==============================

Maybe. Maybe not.


=====================================
But it should still be possible to investigate scientifically. Surely, even the Blind can scientifically investigate the color red?
============================

Investigate yes. Scientifically? Maybe not.

Maybe the scientific method doesn't work in the detection of mystical and/or divine metaphysical realities.


============================

If you are talking about God, then either only 1. person can accurately detect him and everyone else is wrong, or nobody can, because everyone seems to make different claims about him.
===================================

Varied claims are made about the Big Bang and many things in science also. It doesn't mean there's not something to it.

I said nothing about numbers or statistics on this. But as much as it may bother us some people get to know something before I do. And I get to know something sometimes before others do.

Why should I assume that what I know is all what anyone else knows?

I think there are at least two kinds of agnostics:

1.) The agnostic who says "I don't know if there is a God. Perhaps someone else knows if there is a God."

2.) The agnostic who says "I don't know if there is a God. And no one else knows either."


I think agnostic kind number one is the better position. I also think it is the stronger form of agnosticism.

I am not suggesting you're an agnostic. But if you are an athiest I think that an agnostic of type #1 is a more believable position.

The athiest who insists that there is no God has a weak position. He has not been everywhere and experienced everything. There is always the possibility that there is God where he has not been or where he has no experience. IF he would admit that realistic possibility he would immediately graduate into an agnostic.

Have you been everywhere in the entire universe and seen everything?

Is it possible that there could be God somewhere you haven't been or seen?

Originally posted by jaywill
I usually regard ridicule like this as a reaction of some kind of fear.
The goal is to diminish the opponant as childish. Thus the mention of fairies and fairyland, etc.

You would be wrong on both counts. I have nothing to fear and it was your argument I was presenting as childish not your person. If you feel the analogy is biased then present an argument as to why it does not apply. The analogy was along the same lines as the FSM which is considered a good and valid argument by some of the greatest minds on earth.

The problem I have heard with this is that the "laws of physics" kind of breakdown the more and more you get nanoseconds to the beginning of the "Big Bang".
And another thing, "laws of physics?" How did these laws of physics come to be?
But you were not talking that were you? You were claiming that something that is hypothesized as having happened, must have been assisted by a metaphysical entity because you cannot see how else it could have happened. But you overlooked the obvious: that if it didn't happen by the known laws of physics then we would not have hypothesized it in the first place! Do you admit that you were wrong before moving on to other arguments?


The athiest who insists that there is no God has a weak position. He has not been everywhere and experienced everything. There is always the possibility that there is God where he has not been or where he has no experience. IF he would admit that realistic possibility he would immediately graduate into an agnostic.
Have you been everywhere in the entire universe and seen everything?
Is it possible that there could be God somewhere you haven't been or seen?
I have addressed that particular argument in other threads multiple times and I suspect you have seen my comments. Your whole argument there rests on the rather ridiculous definition of God as being an unknown, undefined entity who could be hiding out anywhere in the universe. It is a strawman and you know it because that is not the definition of God being used when somebody talks about being an atheist or an agnostic.
I am atheist because I am absolutely certain that I have sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of every single God entity that has ever been rigorously defined to me and that a the theist defining it claims to believe in. If you claim to believe in a God who hides on one of the craters of the far side of the moon then you will be the first exception to the above claim. If you do not, then admit that your argument is a strawman.

=====================

am atheist because I am absolutely certain that I have sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of every single God entity that has ever been rigorously defined to me and that a the theist defining it claims to believe in. If you claim to believe in a God who hides on one of the craters of the far side of the moon then you will be the first exception to the above claim. If you do not, then admit that your argument is a strawman.

=================================

You are twisting my argument.

My question to the athiest is simple. Have you been everywhere in all time and all eternity in the universe?

Is it possible that there is God somewhere where you have not been then?

This is not a claim that God is hiding in a crater. It is inquiring whether it is possible that the athiest missed God somewhere somehow.

Do you say to that "Impossible. It is IMPOSSIBLE that I missed substantianting the existence of God."

Is that your answer?

Could or could not there be the substantiating of God beyond you finite ability? I did not ask is it right or is it fair that you would not be able to do so.

I ask is it possible? Is it possible that for human limitation's sake you could have missed the existence of God?

I think the agnostic's position is the better answer.

I am half expecting you to come back and say something like "I may have missed the Invisible Pink Unicorn too."