who made god?

[Prince_James]

Myles:

I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician. His arguments are clear, reasoned and based on objective evidence, hardly the stuff of metaphysics which is more appropriate for someone sitting on a cracker barrel and whittling a stick.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book oabout God. In it, he attempts (miserably failing) to take on philosophy. As such, he has claimed to be a metaphysician/philosopher. His arguments are neither clear, nor well reasoned, nor based on objective evidence. They are muddled, poorly thought out, and based on complete ignorance of philosophy rather than objective evidence.

I am sure that every philosopher "whittled on cracker barrels".

 

[OilIsMastery]

I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician.

You can say that again.

 

[Myles]

Myles:



Richard Dawkins wrote a book oabout God. In it, he attempts (miserably failing) to take on philosophy. As such, he has claimed to be a metaphysician/philosopher. His arguments are neither clear, nor well reasoned, nor based on objective evidence. They are muddled, poorly thought out, and based on complete ignorance of philosophy rather than objective evidence.

I am sure that every philosopher "whittled on cracker barrels".

So what evidence can metaphysics adduce to answer the big questions . Perhaps we can discuss the ontological status of my computer.


BTW , Wittgenstein, to mention but one, wouldn't have recognized a cracker barrel if he had tripped over one.

 

[Noone special]

I've thought over the first cause argument myself fellows. At first I would ask my friends the question "If everything has to be created, who created God?"

But I ran into a clever guy who told me something like this: We observe things in nature always change, and that every effect was based off a cause, this is the natural order of things. Then there is a neccesity for something (or someone) outside the realm of nature and outside the realm of cause and effect. How is this possible? That thing or person must be unchanging. One who does not change, or never has, would not be subject to a cause.

I thought this answer was clever, however there is still one hole in the argument that I am stuck on. If God had existed for eternity and even before time (however impossible to concieve), why would He create at the begining and not earlier? If no circumstance changed, and indeed God did not change, then why would He choose a certain time to create everything? There is no reason why He should not have created everything 3 trillion years earlier, or even to have waited, or to have never created anything at all.

 

[Myles]

The clever chap you mention failed to say that if everything has a cause then it follows that god must have a cause. Why make an exception ?

 

[Noone special]

Myles, the entire point was this: Only those things subject to change require a cause.

 

[Myles]

Myles, the entire point was this: Only those things subject to change require a cause.

I know the argument. Bring on the things not subject to change !

 

[Noone special]

The point is that the first cause argument is logically plausible given that God is not subject to change. I'm not merely asserting that God is not subject to change, just showing that it would be the answer to the problem of "Why doesn't God need a creator?"

 

[lightgigantic]

So what evidence can metaphysics adduce to answer the big questions . Perhaps we can discuss the ontological status of my computer.

metaphysics begins where empiricism finishes
ironically even when you insist on everything being classified in an empirical fashion (like evidence for metaphysics for example), that also becomes a metaphysical claim

 

[lightgigantic]

I know the argument. Bring on the things not subject to change !

well even you have one to offer, namely the validity of empirical investigation.

 

[Prince_James]

Myles:

So what evidence can metaphysics adduce to answer the big questions . Perhaps we can discuss the ontological status of my computer.

Considering metaphysics is the science of "the big questions", quite a lot. Far better than science, which deals with the empirical questions individual things.

BTW , Wittgenstein, to mention but one, wouldn't have recognized a cracker barrel if he had tripped over one.

Yeah, he preferred sodomy in the Viennese park. That crazy Austrian son of a bitch!

 

[rjr6]

I've thought over the first cause argument myself fellows. At first I would ask my friends the question "If everything has to be created, who created God?"

But I ran into a clever guy who told me something like this: We observe things in nature always change, and that every effect was based off a cause, this is the natural order of things. Then there is a neccesity for something (or someone) outside the realm of nature and outside the realm of cause and effect. How is this possible? That thing or person must be unchanging. One who does not change, or never has, would not be subject to a cause.

I thought this answer was clever, however there is still one hole in the argument that I am stuck on. If God had existed for eternity and even before time (however impossible to concieve), why would He create at the begining and not earlier? If no circumstance changed, and indeed God did not change, then why would He choose a certain time to create everything? There is no reason why He should not have created everything 3 trillion years earlier, or even to have waited, or to have never created anything at all.

am just wondering, would ne1 agree with me that god existed before everything else? assuming god exists and is creator of the universe etc. pretty much going with the christian god. else i would have called him allah or ra or something.

In the Bible it is stated that God lives in eternity and in our universe we live in time. Trying to measure God's existence with the one He created for us would be very difficult. Not that we shouldn't unlock the mysteries of the universe, that is God's gift to us-intelligence, we should relish in it.
Maybe time is a circle in a divine view, no beginning or end so to speak and maybe God visits and travels in this circle with no awareness of cause and effect. Maybe it's not important to Him. Maybe a trillion years and a moment are very similar to Him.
I do not have experience in mathematics and dealing with infinity, but what is the measurable difference between infinity/1 trillion years and infinity/.01 seconds?

 

[Prince_James]

rjr6:

In the Bible it is stated that God lives in eternity and in our universe we live in time.

It is not stated in the Bible that God lives in eternity. Such sophisticated philosophy is completely absent from the book.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I've thought over the first cause argument myself fellows. At first I would ask my friends the question "If everything has to be created, who created God?"

But I ran into a clever guy who told me something like this: We observe things in nature always change, and that every effect was based off a cause, this is the natural order of things. Then there is a neccesity for something (or someone) outside the realm of nature and outside the realm of cause and effect. How is this possible? That thing or person must be unchanging. One who does not change, or never has, would not be subject to a cause.

I thought this answer was clever, however there is still one hole in the argument that I am stuck on. If God had existed for eternity and even before time (however impossible to concieve), why would He create at the begining and not earlier? If no circumstance changed, and indeed God did not change, then why would He choose a certain time to create everything? There is no reason why He should not have created everything 3 trillion years earlier, or even to have waited, or to have never created anything at all.

There is exactly the same question to ask if there is no God.
If a world can appear out of nothing with no cause, then why would it wait until 12 billion years ago to do so?


The answer given by atheist cosmologists is that the question is meaningless because before the world came into being there was no time.
Theists could use the same argument for God's creation.

 

[Myles]

The point is that the first cause argument is logically plausible given that God is not subject to change. I'm not merely asserting that God is not subject to change, just showing that it would be the answer to the problem of "Why doesn't God need a creator?"[/QUOTE

What knowledge have we of something that doesn't change ? We are assuming that everything that changes must have an origin because we cannot imagine otherwise

To call that something god does nothing to further our understanding of the question we are addressing. We are simply labelling what we have inferred.We can say nothing about its attributes, nor that it exists. The argument amounts to no more than if this then that, which is no argument at all. It is conjecture because it is unsupported by objective evidence/

The wisest course of action is to answer such big questions by saying we don't know at present. We may know at some future time or we may not. Given that we can explain so much today which was inexplicable in the past, we may find the answer at some future time. That's the best we can hope for. We have no warrant to introduce theoretical entities to explain things.

 

[Myles]

Myles:



Considering metaphysics is the science of "the big questions", quite a lot. Far better than science, which deals with the empirical questions individual things.

So what big answers has metaphysics produced ?



Yeah, he preferred sodomy in the Viennese park. That crazy Austrian son of a bitch

Spoken like a true scholar. It goes some way to explaining your predilection for metaphysics, perhaps.

Some more ammunition for you:

Hume played billiards a lot, therefore we can ignore anything he said.

Kant went for a walk at preciselythe same tine each morning. He was clearly an obsessive-compulsive who can safely be ignored.

Socrates was ugly, Plato was in favour of eugenics and so on. Can I take it you ignore the Greek philosophers because sodomy was acceptable to them.

I could extend the list but I have said enough to show you haven't got a lot going for you. You dismiss Wittgenstein with an ad homo. Yours must be a towering intellect.

I am not interested in hearing anyrhing else you have to say.

BTW it is laughable to call metaphysics a scxience, as you did.

 

[Myles]

In the Bible it is stated that God lives in eternity and in our universe we live in time. Trying to measure God's existence with the one He created for us would be very difficult. Not that we shouldn't unlock the mysteries of the universe, that is God's gift to us-intelligence, we should relish in it.
Maybe time is a circle in a divine view, no beginning or end so to speak and maybe God visits and travels in this circle with no awareness of cause and effect. Maybe it's not important to Him. Maybe a trillion years and a moment are very similar to Him.
I do not have experience in mathematics and dealing with infinity, but what is the measurable difference between infinity/1 trillion years and infinity/.01 seconds?

Maybe, maybe and another maybe. Maybe there is no god.

 

[Prince_James]

Myles:

So what big answers has metaphysics produced ?

The Laws of Thought, the Cogito and identity in general, the concept of universals and particulars, the notion of infinity, the idea of space and time, the conception of causality, et cetera, et cetera.

Hume played billiards a lot, therefore we can ignore anything he said.

He preferred backgammon.

Also, he was fat as fuck. Hume's fork? FOR EATING PIE.

Kant went for a walk at preciselythe same tine each morning. He was clearly an obsessive-compulsive who can safely be ignored.

He also had a small head.

Socrates was ugly, Plato was in favour of eugenics and so on. Can I take it you ignore the Greek philosophers because sodomy was acceptable to them.

Actually, Plato was against sodomy. He preferred spiritual love. But yeah, fuck those faggots! Clearly. Clearly I have no respect for Greek philosophy.

I could extend the list but I have said enough to show you haven't got a lot going for you. You dismiss Wittgenstein with an ad homo. Yours must be a towering intellect.

I was joking. I have a good deal of respect for Wittgenstein, you ninny. He's not my favourite modern philosopher. I prefer Chalmers and Searle for the last century.

BTW it is laughable to call metaphysics a scxience, as you did.

It is. It is the science of being qua being. That is the classical definition.

 

[pharaohmoan]

In my mind if you move up the hierchy of consciousness you will find God.
I think the idea that God has always existed is a fallacy. There must have been a start point. Intuatively I think God created himself and at the very least was the first spark of 'organised' consciousness that existed. Through trial and error I believe he sparked consciousness into the energy around him (yes the potential energy has always existed)or possibly fragmented his own energy. From then on he built up life.

I believe all this happened pre big bang and I suspect this could be as much as our third attempt/big bang at getting the formula for nature and life right.

 

[Myles]

Myles:



The Laws of Thought, the Cogito and identity in general, the concept of universals and particulars, the notion of infinity, the idea of space and time, the conception of causality, et cetera, et cetera.



He preferred backgammon.

Also, he was fat as fuck. Hume's fork? FOR EATING PIE.



He also had a small head.



Actually, Plato was against sodomy. He preferred spiritual love. But yeah, fuck those faggots! Clearly. Clearly I have no respect for Greek philosophy.



I was joking. I have a good deal of respect for Wittgenstein, you ninny. He's not my favourite modern philosopher. I prefer Chalmers and Searle for the last century.



It is. It is the science of being qua being. That is the classical definition.

Sorry but it is not science by the standard definition of that subject. What is metaphysics' latest addition to our knowledge ? Can't you see that philosophy has been overtaken by science. Neurophilosophy rides on the back of science and not vice versa. Philosophy has had its day.

Give neuroscience a try and you may find that homosexuality has a physical basis. I have no involvement with the gay community but I will defend their right to live their lives as the do because that is all that is open to them. Your reference to faggots is reminiscent of Phelps, that well known champion of reason.


Metaphysics refers to the later part of Aristotle's work onwards. literally "beyond physics". It has nothing to do with science as currently practised.