Who (or what) created the creator?

[Iacchus]

That constitutes less than one percent of one percent of the universe... truly, a simple aberration.

So, then, what are we holding this discussion for? It really must not be that important then, eh?

 

[Iacchus]

And yet the sun is sexless. Really, Iacchus. Make up your mind. How are you ever to convince anyone of the correctness of what you say when you can't even agree with yourself?

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!"

 

[Iacchus]

Suggestion considered... and rejected. No sign that spacetime is in any way 'created'.

So, what is it that tells atoms how to hold their atomic structure? Isn't this basically all the difference that exists between one thing and the next? So, how do atoms get their cue then? Surley not on this side of matter don't you think?

 

[Tricky]

Yet everything seems to thrive and procreate when the sun is around, does it not?

Even if that were true, which it is not, it still has nothing to do with the sexuality of God. You say God is sexual. You say God is the sun. The sun is not sexual. You are contradicting yourself with your various descriptions of God.

And what was the very first commandment God gave to Adam and Eve? ... "Be fruitful and multiply!"

Are you now going with the biblical version of God? That contradicts your other two versions. It is hard to keep up with your "God-du-jour".

 

[Tricky]

So, what is it that tells atoms how to hold their atomic structure? Isn't this basically all the difference that exists between one thing and the next? So, how do atoms get their cue then? Surley not on this side of matter don't you think?

Nothing tells them. They are not sentient. You are ascribing human characteristics to inanimate things. "The other side of matter" is a meaningless phrase.

You are making a fool of yourself. Not that we aren't all entertained by your antics, but don't you ever get tired of being the fool?

 

[Iacchus]

Nothing tells them. They are not sentient. You are ascribing human characteristics to inanimate things. "The other side of matter" is a meaningless phrase.

You are making a fool of yourself. Not that we aren't all entertained by your antics, but don't you ever get tired of being the fool?

Then there is no need for them to maintain their structure?

 

[Z]

So, then, what are we holding this discussion for? It really must not be that important then, eh?

Not really, no.

 

[Tricky]

Then there is no need for them to maintain their structure?

Inanimate objects don't have needs, Iacchus. You may need them to maintain their structure in order for you to stay alive or some such thing, but they don't need anything. Once again, you are investing other things with human qualities.

 

[CplFerro]

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

Dear ynot,

God (aka the Trinity) is Oneness, Equality, and Unity, consubstantial, and perfection. He is perfect, and he acts, thus he is perfection made actual. Perfection is a process, so God perfects himself perfectly, or instantaneously. God creates himself perfectly with perfect efficiency.

Since he is outside time and space, he exists as an eternal "snap of the fingers" God doing everything that needs doing in record time. We in our imperfect perceptions are bound by space and time and so think of this "divine instant" as being a long time, when from a higher perpective it is not.

In summary, God created himself, which he can do because he's outside of time in the same way that the idea "the colour red" is outside of time. He is an idea, not a bodily entity that will come and go in time. This idea is self-generating and irreducible.

That's my best defense of God's origin given how late it is and my general fatigue.

Cpl Ferro

 

[ynot]

Dear ynot,

God (aka the Trinity) is Oneness, Equality, and Unity, consubstantial, and perfection. He is perfect, and he acts, thus he is perfection made actual. Perfection is a process, so God perfects himself perfectly, or instantaneously. God creates himself perfectly with perfect efficiency.

Since he is outside time and space, he exists as an eternal "snap of the fingers" God doing everything that needs doing in record time. We in our imperfect perceptions are bound by space and time and so think of this "divine instant" as being a long time, when from a higher perpective it is not.

In summary, God created himself, which he can do because he's outside of time in the same way that the idea "the colour red" is outside of time. He is an idea, not a bodily entity that will come and go in time. This idea is self-generating and irreducible.

That's my best defense of God's origin given how late it is and my general fatigue.

Cpl Ferro

Hi Cpl Ferro - Thanks for your reply.

OK, strip away the flowery stuff and you are saying - God created God.

I won’t comment on your belief as it is far too removed from what I believe to be rational to debate. I respect your right to have this belief and hope you have a nice rest.

 

[Huh-What?]

Can't be that simple - can it?

Yep. Did someone mention Occam's Razor yet?

 

[ynot]

Yep. Did someone mention Occam's Razor yet?

No, but I just Googled it . . .

Occam's Razor - One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

 

[Godmode]

I think it's a human failing to think that "nothing" is a possiblity. We always want to know "How did this start" "What was here before?" When I think about it too much I admit the idea overwhelms me. My brain is limited, I am not capable of understanding the infinite, or even existance at all. But I don't find the idea of an eternal god any easier to understand, so I figure we don't need that idea. It's just added luggage.

 

[Tricky]

Dear ynot,

God (aka the Trinity) is Oneness, Equality, and Unity, consubstantial, and perfection. He is perfect, and he acts, thus he is perfection made actual. Perfection is a process, so God perfects himself perfectly, or instantaneously. God creates himself perfectly with perfect efficiency.

Since he is outside time and space, he exists as an eternal "snap of the fingers" God doing everything that needs doing in record time. We in our imperfect perceptions are bound by space and time and so think of this "divine instant" as being a long time, when from a higher perpective it is not.

In summary, God created himself, which he can do because he's outside of time in the same way that the idea "the colour red" is outside of time. He is an idea, not a bodily entity that will come and go in time. This idea is self-generating and irreducible.

That's my best defense of God's origin given how late it is and my general fatigue.

Cpl Ferro

If this is a parody, it's brilliant. If it is serious, then we need to have a little talk about circular logic and temporal paradox.

 

[Iacchus]

If existence has always been, how could it not be circular?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

So, what is it that tells atoms how to hold their atomic structure? Isn't this basically all the difference that exists between one thing and the next? So, how do atoms get their cue then? Surley not on this side of matter don't you think?

You don't get it, do you.

Atoms bond to each other through electromagnetic forces, specifically through the charge of the electrons.

Sub-atomic particles in the nucleus bond due to strong/weak nuclear forces.

Electrons are bound to a nucleus through electromagnetic forces.

The "thing" that tells atoms how to hold their atomic structure are those very forces and the specific environment the atom is located. Try asking an atom to hold on to its electrons in the core of a star, quite difficult for the atom to accomplish. Now, ask a carbon atom to hold on to it's 4 valence electrons in single-crystal diamond at absolute zero. No problem.

You refer to a "cue" regarding how atoms "know" how to organize without expressing any understanding of the types of electropotentials atoms experience in the various states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma). You don't seem to appreciate the quantum mechanics involved in the structuring of electron energy states within an atom. And you don't seem to want to give any credit to our understanding of quark-hadron-quark binding.

Then there is no need for them to maintain their structure?

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.

 

[Z]

If existence has always been, how could it not be circular?

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.

Granted, such a pattern would necessarily be so vast, that repetition remains and always will remain utterly irrelevant to us.

In other words.. who cares?

 

[CplFerro]

If this is a parody, it's brilliant. If it is serious, then we need to have a little talk about circular logic and temporal paradox.

Dear Tricky et al,

No no, I don't "believe" anything. We'd have to dig into Plato and the idea of Being itself as always having existed as an idea, in the timeless eternity (not "been around a long time" eternity, the timeless eternity). Saying "God created himself" here is not implying time, it is implying that the finite observer has to phrase it such as a metaphor for the eternal nature of Being.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Tricky]

Dear Tricky et al,

No no, I don't "believe" anything. We'd have to dig into Plato and the idea of Being itself as always having existed as an idea, in the timeless eternity (not "been around a long time" eternity, the timeless eternity). Saying "God created himself" here is not implying time, it is implying that the finite observer has to phrase it such as a metaphor for the eternal nature of Being.

Then why not simply postulate the universe (if we are assuming eternity exists) as eternal? Why bring any sort of "God" into the picture to add additional complexity?

 

[CplFerro]

Then why not simply postulate the universe (if we are assuming eternity exists) as eternal? Why bring any sort of "God" into the picture to add additional complexity?

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.