Who made God? One Big Circle.

[Parmenides]

Strictly speaking, if God were an immaterial being, then she would not need any material to start with. Also classical theism regard's God's Being as eternal and changeless, and also not compounded (made of individual elements or parts).

However, the objection you raise is a valid one, though more so along these lines:

1) The idea or concept of existence, when predicated on God, does not add existence to God, nor does it prove she exists (Hume and Kant pointed out the flaws in this argument, as did Guanlino, Anselm's opponent)

2) The idea of a first cause does not need to end necessarily with God. The world could have been made by several intelligent beings as an experiment or even a cruel joke (as Hume points out in Dialogues on Natural Religion) or simply have come into being on its own accord (as several modern cosmological theories suggest).

Occam's razor is also useful to consider as well.

 

[lightgigantic]

:bugeye:
I'm not even going to start with you, I've been convinced by your discussions with me and others that talking to you is pointless.

ok

but feel free to drop in the odd ad hom, such as this, when you get attacked by moments of weakness in the future

 

[lightgigantic]

Then we should give all deep sea lobsters watches. Nice ones, too.

make sure they are water proof

 

[Gondolin]

make sure they are water proof

Of course.

 

[lightgigantic]

Until he reads up on things, it is rather pointless.
I mean.. "how the hell can you assume that the actual sun was created by chance elements bereft of consciousness" :roflmao:

if you want to talk of the fact of how the sun was formed from chance material combinations, it seems you are more into science fiction than science

If I am wrong, feel free to point me in the direction of peer reviewed journals that state otherwise ....

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
erm - why not?
”
So you know where "God" came from? - Oh no - that's right - "he always existed".

but you don't know where time came from, so its not clear why you are teh one who gets to wear the smarty pants ...

“
why are atheists apparently happy to assume that their view of god's non-existence has always existed ? (and do so without explanation via sophistry)
”
You're arguing against "strong atheists" here, LG -

without the foundation of direct perception (of god's non-existence) how can they be strong?
And if they claim such a foundation, how can they be sane?

and you probably know it.
The atheist view of "non-belief in existence" HAS always existed - well before man turned up.

so which atheists (preferably one's that are not in mental institutions) claim direct perception of this truth about the history of human knowledge and before?
(or is it merely another tentative claim we can add to the dung pile?)

“
I guess we might accept that if there was a shred of evidence of matter being self directed .... (if you can't accept that a crayon picture of the sun was manifested by chance elements bereft of consciousness, how the hell can you assume that the actual sun was created by chance elements bereft of consciousness)
”
No assumptions - just lack of evidence for the latter.

evidence to who?

“
perhaps now would be a good opportunity for you to elaborate on essential differences between the descriptions of god in say Christianity and the vedas
”
Why - of what use will it be in your understanding of the statement made?

you said "their god", indicating that there are essential differences between the different references to omnimax descriptions of god - so shoot ....

“
the next question is whether or not you believe that evidence is inextricably linked to qualification
”
Nope.

hmmm - certainly doesn't explain why forensic detectives are called to investigate a murder scene as opposed to orchard farmers ....

“
rational view point?
even science operates with one or two unknowns
”
Did I say it didn't?
Strawman - logical fallacy.

so one or two unknowns in theism makes it automatically mean or nasty or something?

You don't seem to understand what rationality is, LG - or you wouldn't have made such a statement.

and what actually is this "additional complexity"

It is anything (such as "God") that adds an additional unknown yet adds nothing to the understanding of the thing in question.

what gives the status of "unknowns" in science as "non-additional"?

If there are two theories and one uses variable/unknown X, and the other uses X and Y - with both fitting the evidence equally -

according to who?

"God did it" does not answer any questions - it merely pushes it back a level - and thus is an additional level of unnecessary complexity.

same with "nature did it"

who will decide these things?

 

[lightgigantic]

So.. one must be a qualified leprechaunist to have evidence that leprechauns exist? Bizarre worldview you have.

certainly if you could advocate a process that would somehow separate you from the legions of children with scissors and glue sticks on St patricks day, it would help your cause

 

[Celpha Fiael]

ok

but feel free to drop in the odd ad hom, such as this, when you get attacked by moments of weakness in the future

Never have I discussed with a more confusing individual. You should aim to be clearer in your sentences, it's a stretch to try and understand your points, even the good ones, which are few and far between.

 

[Yorda]

God is a point, nothing, that expands (spiral) and becomes a circle, everything.

picture of god

 

[Hapsburg]

Who made god? A human in what is now Africa, probably near modern Kenya or Uganda, some 200 thousand to 250 thousand years ago.

This man peered into the night sky and probably said, in his native tongue, something along the lines of, "I wonder what all those glowing things are? Maybe it's some form of higher being or something. There's certainly a lot of them..."

And thus began the first experiment of humans into the realm of philosophy. But, seeing as how this was some 200,000 years ago, people did not understand the world around them, and thought of stories to explain it. Wild stories. Crazy tales, to occupy the time between hunting, eating, sleeping, and migrating. Eventually, they took these thoughts a bit too literally, and tribal chieftains seized upon this as a way to enclose their political power. Thus was borne organized religious theism. And humanity has had to grapple with the mistakes of old doddering philosophers, and the greed of nomadic warlords, ever since.

 

[lightgigantic]

Who made god? A human in what is now Africa, probably near modern Kenya or Uganda, some 200 thousand to 250 thousand years ago.

This man peered into the night sky and probably said, in his native tongue, something along the lines of, "I wonder what all those glowing things are? Maybe it's some form of higher being or something. There's certainly a lot of them..."

And thus began the first experiment of humans into the realm of philosophy. But, seeing as how this was some 200,000 years ago, people did not understand the world around them, and thought of stories to explain it. Wild stories. Crazy tales, to occupy the time between hunting, eating, sleeping, and migrating. Eventually, they took these thoughts a bit too literally, and tribal chieftains seized upon this as a way to enclose their political power. Thus was borne organized religious theism. And humanity has had to grapple with the mistakes of old doddering philosophers, and the greed of nomadic warlords, ever since.

200 thousand years later, what have we learned?

 

[SnakeLord]

certainly if you could advocate a process that would somehow separate you from the legions of children with scissors and glue sticks on St patricks day, it would help your cause

I did that ages ago.. several times. You dismissed it out of hand even while refusing to engage in the process.

Oops. :bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

I did that ages ago.. several times. You dismissed it out of hand even while refusing to engage in the process.

Oops. :bugeye:

nope -its all about color the numbers I'm afraid

 

[Sarkus]

but you don't know where time came from, so its not clear why you are teh one who gets to wear the smarty pants ...

Then I guess you should re-read what has gone before.

without the foundation of direct perception (of god's non-existence) how can they be strong?

By definition they are "strong atheists" - i.e. they believe in the non-existence of God.
"Weak atheists" - by definition - have no position on God's existence or non-existence other than a non-belief in God's existence.
Your statement ("why are atheists apparently happy to assume that their view of god's non-existence has always existed ?") is specifically against STRONG atheists, since WEAK atheists have no view of god's non-existence.

Understand?

And if they claim such a foundation, how can they be sane?

I suggest you ask them.

so which atheists (preferably one's that are not in mental institutions) claim direct perception of this truth about the history of human knowledge and before?

Please tell me you're not claiming that rocks are theist? Is your chair a theist?

(or is it merely another tentative claim we can add to the dung pile?)

No - you have filled the pile enough for one day.

evidence to who?

Everyone. Or are you claiming there is evidence that there was a consciousness behind the creation of the sun - and not a mere impartial, objective, unconscious obeyance of the laws of this universe? And no appeals to authority, please.

you said "their god", indicating that there are essential differences between the different references to omnimax descriptions of god - so shoot ....

Please feel free to explain how "their god" indicates the essential differences you are seeking details of? "Their" as in "not my".

hmmm - certainly doesn't explain why forensic detectives are called to investigate a murder scene as opposed to orchard farmers ....

Evidence is evidence, LG - utterly independent of qualification.

so one or two unknowns in theism makes it automatically mean or nasty or something?

Is that really your interpretation of what I have said?
How on earth do you get "mean or nasty" from what I have said? I'm intrigued to know just how your mind works.
How people choose to manifest and practice their theism can be "mean or nasty", sure, but theism isn't "mean or nasty" per se - just irrational.

what gives the status of "unknowns" in science as "non-additional"?

Logic.
If I have a straight line on a graph, and need to generate a formula to relate the X and Y coordinates, and I have X = 2Y + C, or X = 2Y + C + D, it is logic that dictates that in the latter the "D" is a "non-additional" (as you refer to it). The former is thus preferred to the latter - through rationality.

according to who?

According to those seeking to use the theories.

same with "nature did it"

Not quite. By stating that "nature did it" it is at least claiming that the cause is natural and not supernatural, and thus should be measurable.

who will decide these things?

Which things? Whether God is an unnecessary? I'm guessing you have already decided on that. But for science it will be logic / rationality.

 

[SnakeLord]

nope -its all about color the numbers I'm afraid

You can't say that, you're not qualified. If you disagree with this... argue with yourself.

Lol, you're such a hypocrite. I pity you.

 

[Enmos]

if you want to talk of the fact of how the sun was formed from chance material combinations, it seems you are more into science fiction than science

If I am wrong, feel free to point me in the direction of peer reviewed journals that state otherwise ....

No LG, you are suggesting that something that came into existence by itself came into existence by chance alone. :bugeye:
Chance is not the only alternative to God. It is called the laws of physics.

 

[srikar]

who made love, compassion.

 

[Enmos]

who made love, compassion.

Nobody.. ?

 

[Sarkus]

who made love, compassion.

Define them and we might be able to provide you with an answer.

 

[Hapsburg]

200 thousand years later, what have we learned?

We should have stayed in Africa?