Who (or what) created the creator?

[SuperCoolGuy]

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.

Ah, it sounds like a "game of numbers". Making a metaphor based on your feelings.

And, its really atomic NUMBER, not WEIGHT, that differentiates elements. Unless you're thinking isotopes, which I doubt.

And the NUMBER is a direct consequence of the number of protons in the nucleus. To maintain charge balance within the atom, an equal number of electrons will surround the nucleus. It was mainly the electrons (atomic bonding) that gave us the way to differentiate between elements (before Rutherford scattering) by seeing how certain elements bonded to similar and different elements and noting the characteristics of the compounds formed.

The reason gold (Au) and silver (Ag) look different in color is because of the electronic states in the metals. Those states are ultimately the result of the number of protons of each atom. But that doesn't mean every Au atom in a piece of gold is identical. We realize that the number of neutrons from nucleus to nucleus can vary, and with our better understanding of the components within the nucleus (quarks, leptons), the nuclear structure isn't so cut and dry.

How we can quantify/model/predict/understand these phenomena ultimately relies on the use of numbers.

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

So would we, if somebody predetermined those numbers. In other words, if someone created this universe. I appreciate your idea of using the Periodic Table as evidence of an intelligent designer.

But "impressions" just aren't adequate.

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.

It would require location of electrons, and other sub-atomic particles. An atomic grid wouldn't cut it. You'd need a finer, more precise grid, as well as a mechanism to control the position of all the pieces of matter in attosecond timescales.

The universe itself, while not predetermining necessarily the location of all particles at any given time, has a system that governs the interaction between those particles in various size and time scales.

What we know of that system is called science. Who created science? Continue with this thread then.

 

[Iacchus]

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

Obviously I don't think like you do. So yes, you are correct in that sense.

 

[Genesius]

Obviously I don't think like you do. So yes, you are correct in that sense.

You could have stopped your reply after four words, and you would finally have come up with a post with which no one would have argued.

 

[Iacchus]

You could have stopped your reply after four words, and you would finally have come up with a post with which no one would have argued.

And perhaps you should desist with the ad hominem attacks?

 

[Genesius]

And perhaps you should desist with the ad hominem attacks?

[SIZE=-1]Description of Ad Hominem[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I have listed my reasons for rejecting your arguments, i.e. that you offer no evidence for any of them, preferring instead to engage in wordplay and mystical mumbo-jumbo.

My opinion of you as a vacuous twit is based on your arguments, but I have not used it as my sole basis for rejecting your arguments. Therefore, your pathetic plea of "ad hominem" is rejected.

Nice try, though. We have some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.
[/SIZE]

 

[Iacchus]

I have listed my reasons for rejecting your arguments, i.e. that you offer no evidence for any of them, preferring instead to engage in wordplay and mystical mumbo-jumbo.

My opinion of you as a vacuous twit is based on your arguments, but I have not used it as my sole basis for rejecting your arguments. Therefore, your pathetic plea of "ad hominem" is rejected.

Nice try, though. We have some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.

You're not a fascist are you?

 

[Genesius]

You're not a fascist are you?

No. Why do you ask?

 

[Tricky]

No. Why do you ask?

It is his simple-minded retort to being shown that what we say about him are not ad hominems.

Iacchus, here is the difference. We can provide you a long list of posts, in your own words, that show that you are willfully ignorant, as well as vacuous. (In fact, you have just demonstrated your ignorance of the term "ad hominem".) Can you provide any posts of Genesius' that indicate that he is a fascist?

 

[Genesius]

It is his simple-minded retort to being shown that what we say about him are not ad hominems.

Iacchus, here is the difference. We can provide you a long list of posts, in your own words, that show that you are willfully ignorant, as well as vacuous. (In fact, you have just demonstrated your ignorance of the term "ad hominem".) Can you provide any posts of Genesius' that indicate that he is a fascist?

Yoo hoo, Iacchus?

Ally ally oxen free!

 

[Iacchus]

It is his simple-minded retort to being shown that what we say about him are not ad hominems.

Iacchus, here is the difference. We can provide you a long list of posts, in your own words, that show that you are willfully ignorant, as well as vacuous. (In fact, you have just demonstrated your ignorance of the term "ad hominem".) Can you provide any posts of Genesius' that indicate that he is a fascist?

What, aside from the fact that he/she seems even more "immature" than I do? No.

 

[Genesius]

What, aside from the fact that he/she seems even less "immature" than I do? No.

Tricky, do you think Iacchus realizes he's complimented me?

Less immature = more mature.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Oh, and I'm a he.

 

[Iacchus]

Tricky, do you think Iacchus realizes he's complimented me?

Less immature = more mature.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Oh, and I'm a he.

See what you've done to derail this thread? Oh, here's an interesting thread that the moderators did step in on. It's too bad you still can't post there. I'm sure you would feel right at home.

 

[Genesius]

See what you've done to derail this thread?

OK, so I'll put it right and bring the thread back on track.

Who (or what) created the creator? IMHO, nothing. There is no creator, threrfore nothing to create.

Happy now?

 

[Starrman]

Far less

Estimated biomass of the earth (all cellular material) is on the order of 10^15 kg.
Estimated mass of the earth is on the order of 6X10^24 kg.
So far less than .0000001 % of the earth is any kind of living or once living material, conscious or otherwise. And we're a small planet in a small solar system.

To be fair, that doesn't account for anything that may be alive or concious outside of Earth. Although it would still have an extremely large amount of empty space to overcome.

In fact, since emptiness is by far what is the most abundant in the known Universe - Iachuss' analogy works perfectly in this case!

 

[stamenflicker]

If you're just talking about naturalism, then there is simply no need to call anything 'God'. God becomes a superfluous concept.

Well unless of course you're god, in which case the concept is anything but superfluous. If you take the issue seriously, then a more geniune concept is that our thinking about god is superfluous.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

We humans do, but why would God need anything?

In order to be supreme "god" or God capital "G," there would be some logical necessities, or needs. One of them would be demonstrating whatever qualities of GOD-ness occupy space/time, otherwise he would just be God wherever "there" is and be of no relevance in all the potential "here's."

Flick

 

[Iacchus]

OK, so I'll put it right and bring the thread back on track.

Who (or what) created the creator? IMHO, nothing. There is no creator, threrfore nothing to create.

Happy now?

Do you believe in Eternity? ... Then who or, whatever it is that put us here has no need for a cause.

 

[Genesius]

Do you believe in Eternity? ... Then who or, whatever it is that put us here has no need for cause.

Define "Eternity"

I don't think anyone or anything "put" us here. Natural processes, evolution, heard of 'em?

 

[Iacchus]

Define "Eternity"

That which is without a beginning or an end, in reference to time.

I don't think anyone or anything "put" us here. Natural processes, evolution, heard of 'em?

Time and space dictates the nature of cause-and-effect. But, what about that which exists outside of time and space. Or, don't you believe in that? Do you believe that anything existed before the Big Bang?

 

[TJ]

Man created the creators. There wasn't enough misery in the world, apparently, so we created something to blame it on and to justify it with.

It's funny to me that as we evolve both technologically and as a society the focus has been more and more towards monotheism. We've just been dropping gods like hot potatoes over the last few millenia, but now all of these staunch religious types feel so self-righteous and holier-than-thou with the 5 or 6 gods that are left.

What you believe, Iacchus is completely irrelevant to the facts that we know.

You presume to speak for a god that has never talked to you, never shown his face, is directly (if you believe in him) responsible for millions of deaths, unimaginable suffering, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, infant cancers, etc., but for some reason the support of him is still unwavering to most.

Can you really believe that some entity that created the universe, as big as it is, just so that these pathetic little human ants could supply him a reality show to watch?

Have you never questioned why he's so sadistic in the acts that he performs and the creatures he created? Stop making excuses for this thing that you so desperately want to believe in.

I realize that you want to feel like you have a purpose in this world; we all do. The fact remains though, that you are the product of science and technology that countless generations before you have thought through, tested, and even been persecuted for. Science is real, and it's wonderful. No matter how many people you are able to sway with this creator fairy tale, every one will turn to science when they need help. Why? Because it actually exists.

I appreciate your conviction, I really do, but you just. don't. know. The age old attempt to answer this thread's question with 'god just is', or 'god created god' is not only fallacious, it's pathetic.

Before you counter, saying that 'science doesn't konw everything' isn't going to work either, so don't bring it up. We're simple biological creatures trying to exist, and your religion is killing us. For every person that is aided by this benificent god of yours hundreds die from war, famine, or disease that is directly contributable to religious policy, zeal, or oppression.

Be religious if you want to, but try looking for the answers instead of attributing everything you can't explain to the divine; truth is an awe-inspiring, beautiful, and wonderful thing. You might be surprised at what you find out. Please try.