Who (or what) created the creator?

[Tricky]

That's exactly what Nicolaus of Cusa does in his ruminations on the infinite, in "On Learned Ignorance" and elsewhere. The One, or Oneness, as "everything taken together as a single unified whole" is discussed as its own being, which is eternal. The Saturday Morning Cartoon version of God doesn't enter into it.

Perhaps it is not, as you say a 'cartoon' version of God. Yet is seems that it is still postulating some sort of God. Is this 'oneness' in any way distinguishable from a universe which is the same but without the "oneness"? If you're just talking about naturalism, then there is simply no need to call anything 'God'. God becomes a superfluous concept.

 

[Mercutio]

Perhaps it is not, as you say a 'cartoon' version of God. Yet is seems that it is still postulating some sort of God. Is this 'oneness' in any way distinguishable from a universe which is the same but without the "oneness"? If you're just talking about naturalism, then there is simply no need to call anything 'God'. God becomes a superfluous concept.

But Tricky, the "oneness" is but a subset (as everything is) of "the moment". How dare you call it superfluous!?!

Oh, wait, this was the cartoon version. Never mind.

 

[Tricky]

But Tricky, the "oneness" is but a subset (as everything is) of "the moment". How dare you call it superfluous!?!

Oh, wait, this was the cartoon version. Never mind.

Oh, you mean this one?

 

[Iacchus]

If you mean, if reality is eternal and has always been eternal, how could it avoid repetition, then I agree - an infinite past entails, necessarily, that all probabilities have and will repeat themselves in the same vast pattern.

No, I'm suggesting it is without cause, and there is nothing to refer to outside of it. Hence there is no need to postulate more than one Creator ... who, is without cause.

 

[Iacchus]

If you want to know where the "need" for atoms to structure is, ask whoever defined the fundamental constants of this particular universe. Then get back to ask. Bear in mind that tweaking Plank's constant a little or changing the speed of light wouldn't necessarily result in a non-ordering universe. Just a very different one. Ultimately, we don't know because this is the ONLY universe we have to work with.

In the meantime, have fun with your meaningless metaphors and baseless impressions of reality.

If it's strictly a matter of atomic weight that differentiates one element from another, then it sounds very much like a game of numbers to me. In which case I would like to know who's paint by numbers set we are using? Clearly if this is all it takes, and one had the means (a super computer and/or whatever), one could plot just about anything against this "atomic grid" and generate any kind of reality. So we could in fact be living in a type of Matrix in other words.

 

[Tricky]

No, I'm suggesting it is without cause, and there is nothing to refer to outside of it. Hence there is no need to postulate more than one Creator ... who, is without cause.

But using your same logic, you could postulate as many creators as you like. As long as you are postulating stuff without any evidence, why not postulate a whole Godly Corps of Engineers, sort of like the Greeks did?

If it's strictly a matter of atomic weight that differentiates one element from another, then it sounds very much like a game of numbers to me.

But it's not. Not by a very long shot. If you expound on chemistry without a basic knowledge of chemistry, you will look like a great fool. Not that it would bother you much.

In which case I would like to know who's paint by numbers set we are using?

There is no "ownership" of chemistry.

Clearly if this is all it takes, and one had the means (a super computer and/or whatever), one could plot just about anything against this "atomic grid" and generate any kind of reality.

But it isn't, one can't and it doesn't. Stick with this reality, Iacchus. It's the only one that works.

So we could in fact be living in a type of Matrix in other words.

If fantasy were real, I suppose that might be true, but it isn't. I'm sorry you have such a hard time dealing with reality.

 

[Iacchus]

But using your same logic, you could postulate as many creators as you like.

And when we speak of that which has always been, there is no need to.

As long as you are postulating stuff without any evidence, why not postulate a whole Godly Corps of Engineers, sort of like the Greeks did?

Yes, I love the Greeks too. And on their behalf I would like to say that an angel is an emissary of God. Meaning, there are many emissaries of God. This is what happens to us too when we die and become spirits. And so, is very much in accord with the Greek experience. As I believe they say their gods originated from the human race. And there is nothing wrong with this if, we understand that there is a godlike spirit in all of us.

But it's not. Not by a very long shot. If you expound on chemistry without a basic knowledge of chemistry, you will look like a great fool. Not that it would bother you much.

I am more concerned about this state that exists on the other side of matter, and mine is more an attempt to bridge this gap. So in that respect my position stands.

There is no "ownership" of chemistry.

If what I say is true, then yes, there is.

But it isn't, one can't and it doesn't. Stick with this reality, Iacchus. It's the only one that works.

There are in fact two realities that we are referring to here, the one which "flows" (by means of influx) into the other.

If fantasy were real, I suppose that might be true, but it isn't. I'm sorry you have such a hard time dealing with reality.

Yes, Monsters from the Id do exist.

 

[Tricky]

And when we speak of that which has always been, there is no need to.

But since you don't know what has "always been", there is a need to support your statements with evidence.

Yes, I love the Greeks too. And on their behalf I would like to say that an angel is an emissary of God. Meaning, there are many emissaries of God. This is what happens to us too when we die and become spirits. And so, is very much in accord with the Greek experience. As I believe they say their gods originated from the human race. And there is nothing wrong with this if, we understand that there is a godlike spirit in all of us.

LOL. I seriously doubt that the Greeks would want you as their spokesman, especially if you equate their pantheon with angels . Nor do I think you can speak with any kind of authority on what happens when we die. But I believe it is true that Gods originate from the human race. All of them.

I am more concerned about this state that exists on the other side of matter, and mine is more an attempt to bridge this gap. So in that respect my position stands.

First you have to show that matter has another side. You have been a spectacular failure at doing so. But I know that in spite of your lack of evidence or logic, your position will stand. I am quite aware of how impervious you are to knowledge.

If what I say is true, then yes, there is.

If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt.

There are in fact two realities that we are referring to here, the one which "flows" (by means of influx) into the other.

Is that a fact? Gosh! Where can I find some verifiable documentation of this fact?

Yes, Monsters from the Id do exist.

Only in your imagination, Iacchus. Once you turn on the light, the bad dreams go away. I don't know why you prefer shivering with fear in the dark.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think it is wandering rather than progressing. What has “need” got to do with my question?



If you believe in eternity, why can’t you believe everything might be eternal.



Exactly. That’s a problem I have with the BBT.

Don't forget though, the BBT does not say there was nothing prior to the BBT, only that we can not predict what it is was as our current understanding of physics breaks down at the BBT.

As an aside, why are creationist okay with the idea that God has no creation and has always been, but are often appalled at the idea that he universe may have no creation and may have always been?


Edit: Oh, and Iacchus re

Yet everything seems to thrive and procreate when the sun is around, does it not? And what was the very first commandment God gave to Adam and Eve? ... "Be fruitful and multiply!"

Or it could just be more evidence supporting the anthropic principle theory.

 

[Iacchus]

But since you don't know what has "always been", there is a need to support your statements with evidence.

You love to argue don't you? I just refuted the notion behind the orginal post. Do you care?

LOL. I seriously doubt that the Greeks would want you as their spokesman, especially if you equate their pantheon with angels . Nor do I think you can speak with any kind of authority on what happens when we die. But I believe it is true that Gods originate from the human race. All of them.

Much better than discounting the whole thing entirely, don't you think? Whereas if we all have spirits, we have to ask what that spirit owes its attributes to.

First you have to show that matter has another side. You have been a spectacular failure at doing so. But I know that in spite of your lack of evidence or logic, your position will stand. I am quite aware of how impervious you are to knowledge.

And with death comes the miraculous opportunity to find out.

If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt.

Butterflies have wings, and the caterpillar never really died.

Is that a fact? Gosh! Where can I find some verifiable documentation of this fact?

What, it's important that it be written in a book somewhere in order for it to be so?

Only in your imagination, Iacchus. Once you turn on the light, the bad dreams go away. I don't know why you prefer shivering with fear in the dark.

I am not the least bit afraid of the dark ... not to say that I didn't used to be!

 

[Tricky]

You love to argue don't you? I just refuted the notion behind the original post. Do you care?

You did? How come nobody noticed? Why don't you do it again with direct statements free of metaphor and assumption?

Much better than discounting the whole thing entirely, don't you think? Whereas if we all have spirits, we have to ask what that spirit owes its attributes to.

I discount that for which there is no evidence. Show me some evidence that we all have spirits, and then we can discuss what to ask.

And with death comes the miraculous opportunity to find out.

Death also comes with the miraculous opportunity to be dead, totally and completely. Based on overwhelming evidence, this is what happens.

Butterflies have wings, and the caterpillar never really died.

Actually, you are scientifically wrong there, apart from that being a completely irrelevant metaphor.

What, it's important that it be written in a book somewhere in order for it to be so?

It doesn't have to be written in a book. Alternatively, you could demonstrate it for us. Simply claiming something is a "fact" is totally worthless, wouldn't you say?

I am not the least bit afraid of the dark ... not to say that I didn't used to be!

It was a metaphor, Iacchus. You see, dark = ignorance. The "dark ages" weren't called that because the sun was dimmer then. You seem to have this compelling need to dwell in ignorance and superstition (a.k.a. "darkness"). I wonder why.

 

[Iacchus]

How come nobody noticed?

Yes, that is a very good question.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, that is a very good question.

Here's a very plausible scenario. The reason nobody noticed you refuted the OP is because you only imagined that you refuted it. That would be consistant with so many of your other claims of what is true.

 

[Iacchus]

Here's a very plausible scenario. The reason nobody noticed you refuted the OP is because you only imagined that you refuted it. That would be consistant with so many of your other claims of what is true.

If something is without a beginning, there can be no cause. And if you propose infinite regression, as the original post suggests, how does that change things?

 

[Tricky]

If something is without a beginning, there can be no cause. And if you propose infinite regression, as the original post suggests, how does that change things?

Perhaps you have forgotton the OP. Here. I'll reprint it for you.

Who (or what) created the creator?

Until this question is answered, all other debate on God and ID is pointless.
Anyone care to have a go?

As you can see, your post in no way addresses the question of what created the creator, or indeed the existence of a creator. The OP also suggests absolutely nothing about infinite regression. That is your imagination again.

All you are saying is that at least one thing can exist without a cause. In this, you are violating the logic of your very own stated beliefs in cause and effect by creating an exception, which you kindly grant to your imaginary friend.

No, Iacchus, you have in no way "refuted" the OP. You only repeated your own unsubstantiated and illogical beliefs.

 

[Iacchus]

If something is without a beginning, there can be no cause. And if you propose infinite regression, as the original post suggests, how does that change things?

And, if you don't believe in Eternity? Then you are in fact conceding that the whole shebang stems from nothing, correct? So, which is it? Am I in fact holding up a stawman here, as Mercutio wastes no time in pointing out? Or, could it be that you folks don't really believe in Eternity?

 

[Iacchus]

Perhaps you have forgotton the OP. Here. I'll reprint it for you.

If you believe in Eternity, then there is no original cause. Eternity would merely be an aspect of a Creator who creates things within those parameters.

 

[Genesius]

If you believe in Eternity, then there is no original cause. Eternity would merely be an aspect of a Creator who creates things within those parameters.

I believe in Eternity:

I'll take the philosophy of Stan Lee over Iacchus' drivel any day!

 

[Iacchus]

I believe in Eternity:

I'll take the philosophy of Stan Lee over Iacchus' drivel any day!

And of course we all know that there was "no time" before the Big Bang. Hmm ... Does that make the Creator timeless? ... Yep, I thought so.

 

[Genesius]

And of course we all know that there was "no time" before the Big Bang.

We do?

Hmm ... Does that make the Creator timeless?

No, it doesn't

... Yep, I thought so.

I have yet to see any evidence on this forum that you do, in fact, think.