Who (or what) created the creator?

[Iacchus]

Oh geeze, not anohter one. Sorry, I've got to get ready for work.

 

[Iacchus]

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.

Agreed. There would be no point to religion, if it wasn't based upon some-thing.

 

[Tricky]

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

But if you think you're god, then that is not naturalism, which is what that post specifically addressed. In naturalism, God = nature, so you need give God no characteristics other than what you already give nature, making Him superfluous. I think what you are talking about is related to solipsism.

 

[Tricky]

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."

There would be no need to demonstrate His God-ness. Who does He need to demonstrate it to? Other Gods? If He wanted humans to recognize him, He could have created them with the recognition of Him hardwired.

Same for relevance. To whom need anything be relevant, and why couldn't He create things recognizing that relevance?

God cannot have any needs that he himself cannot satisfy, or else, He is not God. Something else has control over him.

"What God wants, God gets."
----Roger Waters

 

[stamenflicker]

But if you think you're god, then that is not naturalism, which is what that post specifically addressed. In naturalism, God = nature, so you need give God no characteristics other than what you already give nature, making Him superfluous. I think what you are talking about is related to solipsism.

Sorry, I wasn't really clear. I think to say the concept of god is superfluous is really saying "superfluous to us." The concept of god is probably not superfluous to god, no matter our definitions, which were I a god of this nature (pun intended) would likely be cause for a chuckle.

Logically to reject deism with regards to naturalism, we are basically setting the parameters via definition, which to borrow from your earlier post is a bit "arrogant."

I understand however that someone need offer more than a mere naturalistic definition however to be meaningful-- again, meaningful to us. Even so, I (perhaps foolishly) hold to the belief that nature will be righted, be it divine intervention, or human intervention (which is still divine intervention to me, only a divine intervention "once removed" to borrow from a term from a family trees).

In either case, I believe time to be fluid and the majority of the what we consider to be our human historical story to be either unwritten, or at best unfinished-- or maybe even a very small chapter of the whole sh'bang.

Flick

 

[TJ]

Agreed. There would be no point to religion, if it wasn't based upon some-thing.

That's all you have to say, huh?

Religion is based on something it's based on control, money, fear of the unknown, human credulity, and fantasy.

 

[stamenflicker]

There would be no need to demonstrate His God-ness. Who does He need to demonstrate it to? Other Gods? If He wanted humans to recognize him, He could have created them with the recognition of Him hardwired.

It's not a matter of demonstration, but again of logical necessity. God to be capital "G" would by definition have to be God of all possible worlds, including one a screwed as ours.

God cannot have any needs that he himself cannot satisfy, or else, He is not God. Something else has control over him.

Logic included? If not, then it is meaningless to discuss him.

Flick

 

[Z]

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.

Ah, I see.. I was trying to translate what you said into a sensible language, like English. Clearly, you were using Iacchibabble.

 

[Krandal2]

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

Taking Gods omnipotence into account, there must be a sense in which He or She is not bound by time and space, exists eternally, and therefore requires no "Creator" external to himself. (unlike say, our physical universe, which has yet to be shown to contain anything that neccessitates its own existence and therefore requires an explanation)

 

[Tricky]

Sorry, I wasn't really clear. I think to say the concept of god is superfluous is really saying "superfluous to us." The concept of god is probably not superfluous to god, no matter our definitions, which were I a god of this nature (pun intended) would likely be cause for a chuckle.

LOL. Yeah, but it's a bit circular, don't you think?
If God exists, his existence is important to Him. If He doesn't, it isn't. But since all we have are human concepts of God, so trying to declare what God finds superfluous is a bit pointless.

Logically to reject deism with regards to naturalism, we are basically setting the parameters via definition, which to borrow from your earlier post is a bit "arrogant."

Again, what other way is there to set the parameters of God other than definition? He's sure not saying anything that can be objectively verified.

I understand however that someone need offer more than a mere naturalistic definition however to be meaningful-- again, meaningful to us. Even so, I (perhaps foolishly) hold to the belief that nature will be righted, be it divine intervention, or human intervention (which is still divine intervention to me, only a divine intervention "once removed" to borrow from a term from a family trees).

But you see, humans are part of nature. If humans intervene, it is still nature intervening. There is no need to invoke God. The only way divine intervention can be recognized is if it is something apart from nature, i.e. supernatural. (Though I've often wondered why everybody talks about "supernatural" but nobody ever talks about "subnatural". )

In either case, I believe time to be fluid...

In what sense? Does it obey Boyle's laws? Does it have no internal structure? Sorry, Flick,I hate to go pedantic on you, but I think "fluid" is a nice catchphrase, but time doesn't have many if any of the properties of fluids.

...and the majority of the what we consider to be our human historical story to be either unwritten, or at best unfinished-- or maybe even a very small chapter of the whole sh'bang.

Flick

Maybe. A whole lot of human history is unwritten (because we couldn't write). I certainly hope we stay around for a longer time than we've been around, but I wouldn't place any bets on it. We'll need to take better care of this blue marble.

 

[stamenflicker]

LOL. Yeah, but it's a bit circular, don't you think?
If God exists, his existence is important to Him. If He doesn't, it isn't. But since all we have are human concepts of God, so trying to declare what God finds superfluous is a bit pointless.

Again, I'm speaking in terms of a distinguishing mark between naturalism and and theistic naturalism. You say the concept is meaningless, and given the parameter of our point of view, then sure. But the concept wouldn't be meaningless to god. Whether or not that's circular, I don't know, but what I do know is that you can't logically blend the two to say theistic naturalism is redundant, since you are assuming a "theo" in the definition.

Again, what other way is there to set the parameters of God other than definition? He's sure not saying anything that can be objectively verified.

If god exists then who are we to set parameters? Once the door is open, it seems to me that we automatically have to enter a somewhat humble intellectual position. In the case of naturalism he is either saying nothing that can be verified (as you suggest), or he is saying everything that has ever been verified (which I might be open to such a suggestion.)

But you see, humans are part of nature. If humans intervene, it is still nature intervening. There is no need to invoke God.

Unless god is the ideology that brings humans to whatever it is they do. If this is true, then our distinguishing marks between naturalism and theistic naturalism (I don't know if that's even a term???) are much more important than you give them credit for. Negate this ideology, or replace it with something else, and humans could be doing something very different 10,000 years from now.

In what sense? Does it obey Boyle's laws? Does it have no internal structure? Sorry, Flick,I hate to go pedantic on you, but I think "fluid" is a nice catchphrase, but time doesn't have many if any of the properties of fluids.

Well feel free to supply a word of your chosing. I do believe however that it is within the realm of possibility that "time" as we understand it is not constant. I believe we would be utterly unaware of any major changes in an altered time event. I also don't see it outside of the realm of possiblility that human beings may one day understand time in such a way as to play with it-- as to what the implications of such tinkering may or may not be is largely determined by our ideologies, which again forces me to draw a distinguishing mark between us.

Nuclear science is only one of many current day examples of how ideology can effect outcome.

Flick

 

[Genesius]

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?

I like the cosmic foam hypothesis - that there is an eternal "metauniverse" outside our universe, in which random quantum vacuum fluctuations occasionally generate universes. The analogy likens our universe to one bubble in the foam of a cosmic ocean. I don't know if there's any observational evidence on it - any astronomers or astrophysicists lurking who would care to weigh in?

So, to answer your question, I don't "believe" in eternity but I like the idea I listed. No need for god or gods, everything we can see is just the product of blind chance.

 

[Genesius]

Oh geeze, not anohter one.

We are everywhere.

We will assimilate you.

Resistance is futile.

 

[Genesius]

Agreed. There would be no point to religion, if it wasn't based upon some-thing.

Agreed. Since there is nothing on which to base it, there is no point to religion.

Well done, we can close down this section of the forums now.

 

[CplFerro]

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.

Dear Tricky,

The Oneness Cusa fails to describe (for he admits as much its indescribability), can nevertheless be circumscribed as being the absolute oneness of the universe itself, taken as an indivisible, rather than taken as something else. That is, the quality of Oneness, of absoluteness, of Maximality, and so on, as distinct from the universe as a collection of Many's, this planet here, that sun there, and so on.

Cusa singles out the One as uniquely the source of religion, because it is from that One as One, that he claims we derive everything, that it is the source of all number, goodness, truth, beauty, and so forth, not from any particular source in the created universe, nor all those created things taken together, but from the transcendent, and Maximally good, beautiful, and true Oneness itself, which if it has all of those qualities, can't be insulted if we stoop to give it the name "God."

Cpl Ferro

 

[Iacchus]

That's all you have to say, huh?

Religion is based on something it's based on control, money, fear of the unknown, human credulity, and fantasy.

Then what does that have to do with religion?

 

[Tricky]

Again, I'm speaking in terms of a distinguishing mark between naturalism and and theistic naturalism. You say the concept is meaningless, and given the parameter of our point of view, then sure. But the concept wouldn't be meaningless to god. Whether or not that's circular, I don't know, but what I do know is that you can't logically blend the two to say theistic naturalism is redundant, since you are assuming a "theo" in the definition.

It would seem to me then that the concept of theistic naturalism is a self contradiction. Naturalism assumes that God is nature, while theistic naturalism seems to be saying (if I interpret you correctly) that God is an entity which has wants and needs, such as "meaning" and "reason". This seems to be imposing human qualities on nature which would contradict the premises of naturalism.

If god exists then who are we to set parameters? Once the door is open, it seems to me that we automatically have to enter a somewhat humble intellectual position. In the case of naturalism he is either saying nothing that can be verified (as you suggest), or he is saying everything that has ever been verified (which I might be open to such a suggestion.)

I fail to see any working difference between parameters that you can never, in any way, understand, versus no parameters at all. It becomes a philosophical exercises that cannot have any evidence one way or another. What does it tell us about our reality? Nothing.

Unless god is the ideology that brings humans to whatever it is they do. If this is true, then our distinguishing marks between naturalism and theistic naturalism (I don't know if that's even a term???) are much more important than you give them credit for. Negate this ideology, or replace it with something else, and humans could be doing something very different 10,000 years from now.

It sounds very much like what you are calling "theistic naturalism" is quite anthropocentric. Your phrase "the ideology that brings humans to whatever it is they do", seems to suggest that God is somehow primarily concerned with humans. I don't regard such an entity as a naturalistic God, because a truly naturalistic God wouldn't care about one species more than another. You are talking about a totally different concept of God than naturalism suggests.

Well feel free to supply a word of your choosing.

I can't, because I don't know what you mean.

I do believe however that it is within the realm of possibility that "time" as we understand it is not constant.

The special theory of relativity suggests that it may be perceived differently depending on your frame of reference. However, its characteristics seem to be quite constant within our universe. Certainly it creates a total violation of logic to speak of going backwards in time. It might be possible that time is not consistent, but there is, as far as I know, no evidence for it.

I believe we would be utterly unaware of any major changes in an altered time event.

I'm not even sure what an "altered time event" might be. Can you give me an example?

I also don't see it outside of the realm of possibility that human beings may one day understand time in such a way as to play with it-- as to what the implications of such tinkering may or may not be is largely determined by our ideologies, which again forces me to draw a distinguishing mark between us.

Yes, I can see our ideologies are quite different. I admit your positions have interesting propositions which are outstanding material for science fiction, but I fail to see anything other than "blue sky" suppositions. Perhaps I will be proved wrong by future study, but until evidence is produced, I think it is wiser to stick with what can be shown. I'm open to evidence, but I'm not going to chase unfounded suppositions all over the universe.

For every Galileo, there are thousands of Iacchuses.

 

[Tricky]

Dear Tricky,

The Oneness Cusa fails to describe (for he admits as much its indescribability), can nevertheless be circumscribed as being the absolute oneness of the universe itself, taken as an indivisible, rather than taken as something else.

Um... I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. There is only one universe (that we are aware of) but it is extremely divisible. Nebula, galaxies, solar systems, planets, rocks, molecules, atoms, quarks... I don't see much that could be called "indivisible" about our universe.

That is, the quality of Oneness, of absoluteness, of Maximality, and so on, as distinct from the universe as a collection of Many's, this planet here, that sun there, and so on.

Could you perhaps give me a few qualities of Oneness, Absoluteness and Maximality so that we can discuss them? They just sound like new age babble that could have any meaning which you wish to ascribe to them. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Cusa singles out the One as uniquely the source of religion, because it is from that One as One, that he claims we derive everything, that it is the source of all number, goodness, truth, beauty, and so forth, not from any particular source in the created universe, nor all those created things taken together, but from the transcendent, and Maximally good, beautiful, and true Oneness itself, which if it has all of those qualities, can't be insulted if we stoop to give it the name "God."

Uh huh. Source of all goodness? Can you give me an example of goodness? How about of beauty? These things are human constructs which vary widely from person to person. It gets very confusing. So is the One also the source of all confusion, evil, lies, ugliness and so forth? If not, where do those things come from? The Twoness?

 

[CplFerro]

Um... I'm not sure I understand what you are saying...

Dear Tricky,

There is indeed only one universe, and it contains a Many, i.e. many different things. But taken together as a whole, we have that which cannot be divided – the “universe as a whole.” Relationships between things in the universe may change, but their fundamental quality of being in “The Universe” does not change.

If you genuinely want to understand this matter better than I can explain it, you will have to consult the “De Docta Ignorantia” (On Learned Ignorance) yourself. It is freely available online from several sources. That should give you a better sense of what you’re dealing with with regards to the Maximum.

Goodness, beauty, and truth are for Cusa, in the Platonic heritage, unified, and are not human constructs so much as discoveries. Confusion, evil, lies, and ugliness are not sovereign things (principles of nature) in of themselves, but are rather a result of discordant relationships between people and other created things. In the human sphere, evils result from the ignorant human will flailing about in discordant directions and thus generating a rotten cornucopia of strife. The ultimate source of this is, as you suggest, Twoness or Manyness, the created world which, in contrast to the Oneness, Equality, and Unity of the One, is characterised by Manyness, Inequality, and Disunity.

Incidentally, this implies a war going on in creation that will decide what the directly ruling principle will be: the Perfection of the One, bringing everything together in greater and greater harmony, or the Imperfection implicit in creation’s secondary status that tends to bring everything toward greater and greater disharmony.

Cpl Ferro

 

[10001]

this is THE ANSWER you were looking for

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

we (humans) created the God and The gods.

We are the creator.

animals and plants sure dont worship a God.
only Humans do. Because we created God and alike.

If we didnt we would not know of it.
we would not have any idea about it.
therefore it is only logical to say, we created it. since if we didnt creat it?, we would not know about it.
only because we(humans) created the idea that there is a God, we(some of us) worship it.

Simply, if there was no word or idea about such being or existance, we would not know about it. therefore it is only logical that we created God.

we created god for various reasons over the decades. but mostly for our selves.