Who Created God?

[uruk]

Or, how about a third theory, that energy.....

First define energy and what kind of energy.

 

[CWL]

Yea! Define, define, define!

 

[Iacchus]

When you state that there has always been an intelligent structure what do you mean by intelligent? Please define.

Indeed, how can you have structure, without any structure to begin with? Not unless you have the teeniest, tiniest little seed (of intelligence) implanted into what which otherwise appears to be nothing. And yet come to find out we have an Eternal Father -- our Mother here being the Eternal vacuum -- and voila! We have the birth of the Material Universe.

Hey, ever wonder why it used to be considered a miracle when a woman gave birth? Perhaps because it reflected the birth of a new Universe? Indeed, and you know doubt can take this in more ways the one!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Indeed, how can you have structure, without any structure to begin with? Not unless you have the teeniest, tiniest little seed (of intelligence) implanted into what which otherwise appears to be nothing. And yet come to find out we have an Eternal Father -- our Mother here being the Eternal vacuum -- and voila! We have the birth of the Material Universe.

Hey, ever wonder why it used to be considered a miracle when a woman gave birth? Perhaps because it reflected the birth of a new Universe? Indeed, and you know doubt take this in more ways the one!

I didn't see a definition in there. Did I miss something?

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

I didn't see a definition in there. Did I miss something?

Maybe if you run the post through one of those computer Bible Code algorithimy thingies?

 

[Iacchus]

Energy conveys information? Or energy is used in the conveyance of information?

Is meat -- i.e., meat of the brain -- intelligent? No.

I didn't see a definition in there. Did I miss something?

Or, perhaps you should just learn how to bear with me, until you can explain to me how you can get something from nothing.

Hey, ever wonder why it used to be considered a miracle when a woman gave birth? Perhaps because it reflected the birth of a new Universe? Indeed, and you know doubt can take this in more ways the one!

While speaking of giving birth, how about the Advent of the New Church as described below ...

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. ~ Revelation 12:1-5

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Is meat -- i.e., meat of the brain -- intelligent? No.

Is your argument: Meat is not intelligent; therefore energy is? If so, let me just say...huh? If not, what is your argument that energy is intelligent?

Or, perhaps you should just learn how to bear with me, until you can explain to me how you can get something from nothing.

At the risk of seeing you avoid another definition, define "nothing."

 

[CWL]

I didn't see a definition in there. Did I miss something?

Nope. There was no definition in there.

Please have another go Iacchus. What do you mean when you use the word "intelligence"?

 

[CFLarsen]

Who Created God?

Ed, of course.

Dr. Ian Malcolm : God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs...
Dr. Ellie Sattler : Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth...

(From "Jurassic Park")

 

[Iacchus]

Again, all this sounds spiffing, but without you defining what you mean when you say "intelligence" it sounds to me like you're just throwing words around that sound good.

Thus, please define "intelligence". Thanks in advance.

First define energy and what kind of energy.

How about the type of energy dreams are made of? It's both intelligent (meaning us) and directly interacts with the energy of the Universe which, is part of the Collective Unconscious.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

How about the type of energy dreams are made of? It's both intelligent (meaning us) and directly interacts with the energy of the Universe which, is part of the Collective Unconscious.

So your definition of energy is something "intelligent that directly interacts with the energy of the Universe"? What does the "energy" inside your definition of this energy refer to?

 

[CWL]

How about the type of energy dreams are made of? It's both intelligent (meaning us) and directly interacts with the energy of the Universe which, is part of the Collective Unconscious.

Again, not a definition (at least not of "intelligence"), sorry. Please try again.

Here, I'll exemplify:

def·i·ni·tion the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear.

 

[frisian]

I'm not sure about most of the opening post, but in answer to the question in the thread title: Man created god(s) in his first attempts to explain the world around him.

Well that is certainly the Greek manner of attaining truth, what is the Judaic?

 

[Upchurch]

Well that is certainly the Greek manner of attaining truth, what is the Judaic?

As far as I'm aware, it's really no different, only with different emphesis on what each group was trying to understand about the world (or rather, their perspectice of the world).

 

[frisian]

As far as I'm aware, it's really no different, only with different emphesis on what each group was trying to understand about the world (or rather, their perspectice of the world).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mohammad_gill/pitfalls.shtml

 

[Upchurch]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mohammad_gill/pitfalls.shtml

uh-huh. what's your point?

edited to add: the deeper I read into this, the more it proves my point. Both the greeks and jews were trying to understand their worlds. The form those understandings took were different, but they were also different people. Different forms, same end purpose.

 

[jan]

I think we have to deal with two questions. The first, and far more serious question, is: why is there something and not just nothing?

That is the second question to be asked, conditional on the first question: Is there a reason why there is something rather than nothing?

At the risk of being tediously pedantic, and brining up the Descartes thread, the first question would be "Is there something? Define it, and how do you know it's there?"

I admit, dealing with life requires to handle a number of questions that is rather indistinguishable from infinite.

What I was trying to say, but obviously didn't say, was something like this:

if we, for whatever strange reason, assume that there is some kind of unmoved mover, first principle or cause, then we may ask why this very first something exists and where it came from – or we may not ask, if this question doesn't interests us at all. If we furthermore assume that this first something should be labeled "god", we can restate our question as "who the hell ordered god?".

We may, of course, instead choose to assume that nothing exists at all, so there is no riddle at all (could be explanation number4, if we want to count Iacchus' explanation Nr.3, although nobody seemed to be able to figure out what it means; Nr.4 would be the TragicMonkey-explanation, or perhaps the Zen-explanation (by the way, did I kill the Descartes thread? I didn't intend to do so)).

Or we may assume that there is something, but no first something, and construct a fifth explanation. For example, explanation 5a runs like this: everything has a cause, but there is no first cause, just an infinite chain of causes. And what caused this infinite chain? Well, of course the ω-cause. And that was caused by cause number ω+1. And so on through all the ordinal numbers.

Explanation 5b simply claims that some things don't have a cause. This would be the Anagnostopoulos-explanation. It seems to be the favourite explanation of little children ("It just happened! I didn't do anything!") and of Quantum Physics.

 

[jan]

Or, how about a third theory, that energy -- which, by the way is the conveyor of intelligence (and/or information) -- has always existed, except that without the existence of matter, it would appear immaterial. Hence we have our relative sense of nothing -- albeit, highly intelligent -- that is until the Big Bang occurred which, was the conversion of energy into matter.

Thus we have a God which is pure energy, and a God who permeates throughout the whole Universe. Albeit we can only sense that He's there, through the energy aspect in ourselves ... our soul in other words. So, would energy -- again, which is the conveyor of intellingence -- in fact be timeless if it can't be destroyed?

Trying to understand this, it seems to me as if Iacchus' explanation3 and Anagnostopoulos' explanation5b are essentially the same: some things just don't need an explanation why they are around.

I guess it has to do with the naming sheme — if something has a really impressive name, it is unnecessairy to explain the appearance of this thing. For example: “Who created god?” – “Why, he doesn't have to be created, he is just energy, you know.”

 

[frisian]

uh-huh. what's your point?

edited to add: the deeper I read into this, the more it proves my point. Both the greeks and jews were trying to understand their worlds. The form those understandings took were different, but they were also different people. Different forms, same end purpose.

You stated such...
"Man created god(s) in his first attempts to explain the world around him."

Then above you stated...
"Both the greeks and jews were trying to understand their worlds"

Different forms, different conclusions.

 

[Upchurch]

You stated such...
"Man created god(s) in his first attempts to explain the world around him."

Then above you stated...
"Both the greeks and jews were trying to understand their worlds"

Different forms, different conclusions.

Yep. I never said they reached the same conclusions. I said they were trying to explain the world around them. That they reached different conclusions only indicates that one or both of their methodologies were wrong. It says nothing of the reason why they created their system of beliefs in the first place, does it?