Jump to content

who created god?


Jane6
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 6/2/2022 at 6:17 PM, Trurl said:

Why would he have to be created?

We talk about infinity in the forums all the time. How about always was.

Special pleading anyone? 

On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

 

I think an idea would be that God is the uniquely uncreated or self-created.

Again special pleading. 

On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

But which came first, the turtle or the egg?

The egg, amniotes appeared before there were turtles. 

On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

This and other discussion pointing out "people did" brings to my mind the concept of an egregore:

Which idea I think implies a certain materiality or existence of thought, the existence of "consciousness", which topic is a slippery eel...

I'm not sure what you are saying here, care to elaborate? 

On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

Also I think an aspect of theology to consider is immanent vs. remote. Judaism I think is largely concerned with making Yahweh immanent in the world. Christianity, or Pauline Christology, developed what I conceptualize as a semi-remote Tri-une God of "The Trinity": the mysterious aspect of which is that it can be self-creating through interaction of its constituent parts. May be the Absolute is further remote from the trinity, itself a unity. An eel egg, obviously.

Again I do not understand what you are saying, can you elaborate in manner that us hillbillies can understand? 

On 6/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, NTuft said:

 

I would like to know who created the bacterial flagellum, or the ATP-proton pump. I don't think Chuck D. can rap his way out of a paper bag. Although, there sure is a lot of work done on that line.

Asking who created the flagellum or the ATP-proton pump is a loaded question. Such things are clearly the result of evolution via natural selection over vast periods of time no creator needed. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Quote

There is good evidence that the bacterial flagellum has evolved from a Type III secretory and transport system, given the similarity of proteins in both systems.[6]

All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of exporting (injecting) toxin into eukaryotic cells. Similarly, flagella grow by exporting flagellin through the flagellar machinery. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[7] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system.

 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Again special pleading. 

I am not so sure. The implication is that the special exception is part and parcel of the definition.

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure what you are saying here, care to elaborate?

Only that if people created G-d/gods it is an "immaterial" creation.

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Again I do not understand what you are saying, can you elaborate in manner that us hillbillies can understand? 

No.

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Asking who created the flagellum or the ATP-proton pump is a loaded question. Such things are clearly the result of evolution via natural selection over vast periods of time no creator needed. 

If a clock-work universe were designed and then the guy (or possibly Descartes' demon) walked away it may be impossible to discern the hand which wrought it out.

"who created god?" is also a loaded question.

Edited by NTuft
Descartes' demon. "who created...".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I do not understand what you are saying, can you elaborate in manner that us hillbillies can understand?

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

No.

-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

I am not so sure. The implication is that the special exception is part and parcel of the definition.

Only that if people created G-d/gods it is an "immaterial" creation.

No.

If a clock-work universe were designed and then the guy (or possibly Descartes' demon) walked away it may be impossible to discern the hand which wrought it out.

"who created god?" is also a loaded question.

I didn't ask you who created god, the special exception is special pleading no matter if it is part and parcel of the definition. You seem to be good at answers that make little to no sense except in your own world, I would suggest you try to pull your head out and answer more clearly. No one here is fooled by vague attempts to sound philosophical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question relies on the assumption God exists in the first place. Ok, so lets assume this is the case (not my belief by the way) are we talking about an all powerful omnipotent being that lies outside of the all known existence? 

Because if so there is no reason to assume any laws, logic or causality applies, therefore the very question could be moot. God may not have been created, God is just is. 

Personally though I'd go with (like many others have said) God(s) is/are a figment of human imagination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, iNow said:

-1

Ookay. In indirect fashion at the end I elaborated on the ideas of immanent vs. remote. I don't feel it obligatory to elaborate on terms that are readily available to be defined by a search. And I don't accept the question as though he's asking on behalf of a group of hillbillies who have limited computer time or speed at the local library or something.

  

13 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I didn't ask you who created god, the special exception is special pleading no matter if it is part and parcel of the definition.

That is the question of the thread, and I have to disagree that since it is made explicit it is not a form of special pleading, being that the exception being declared defines the issue under argument. 

13 hours ago, Moontanman said:

You seem to be good at answers that make little to no sense except in your own world, I would suggest you try to pull your head out and answer more clearly. No one here is fooled by vague attempts to sound philosophical. 

As an exercise in abstraction, let's examine empiricism. I'd say results of empirical science follow from an initial measurement or observation, and deductions then made to explain those observations or measurements. There is a small leap of faith made in granting that the instrument of observation or measurement has been calibrated precisely against an objective standard. Here if our instrumennt is human perception or reasoning we take it that these are not fallible or that enough observations and deductions agreed upon as reasonable constitutes sufficient support.

By assuming that a result of epmiricism, like Darwin's theory of evolution, is based on precise or objective data is making a special plea for the results of a science that has not performed sufficient validation of it's base method -- being that it always relies on observation, human vision (which no doubt arose from random point mutations in the chemoreceptors of amniotes), or reason, which may be error prone. 

I'm not trying to fool anyone, nor evangelize to hillbillies. Although if there are any Mohammedans in the Hills, the 99 attributes or names of God also speaks to immanent vs. remote. Why you want to act aggrieved and insist that I elaborate on things such as that is beyond me.

 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The question relies on the assumption God exists in the first place. Ok, so lets assume this is the case (not my belief by the way) are we talking about an all powerful omnipotent being that lies outside of the all known existence? 

Because if so there is no reason to assume any laws, logic or causality applies, therefore the very question could be moot. God may not have been created, God is just is. 

Personally though I'd go with (like many others have said) God(s) is/are a figment of human imagination. 

Well reasoned I'd say, and important to delineate that it may be a conception for explanation that is being examined; wholly equally weighted conclusion based on evidence that the concept is a construct of the human mind, IMO.

Edited by NTuft
removed repeated quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, NTuft said:

In indirect fashion at the end I elaborated on the ideas of immanent vs. remote. I don't feel it obligatory to elaborate on terms that are readily available to be defined by a search.

Then think of it as an exercise to improve your social skills.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Then think of it as an exercise to improve your social skills.

I introduced two terms to the discussion, and then provided two or three commonly known examples from religions to try and illustrate the terms. If you think that question was earnest, why is it so unspecific? I have to bear a demand for burden of proof on what point, exactly?

This isn't Meta. I'm not here for the likes.

Edited by NTuft
add hominem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

Ookay. In indirect fashion at the end I elaborated on the ideas of immanent vs. remote. I don't feel it obligatory to elaborate on terms that are readily available to be defined by a search. And I don't accept the question as though he's asking on behalf of a group of hillbillies who have limited computer time or speed at the local library or something.

I am a hillbilly, I apologize for my attempt at humor to try and defuse the situation.

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

  

That is the question of the thread, and I have to disagree that since it is made explicit it is not a form of special pleading, being that the exception being declared defines the issue under argument.

So you are asserting that if special pleading is part of the answer then it isn't special pleading? An interesting way to get around that logical fallacy.  

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

 

As an exercise in abstraction, let's examine empiricism. I'd say results of empirical science follow from an initial measurement or observation, and deductions then made to explain those observations or measurements. There is a small leap of faith made in granting that the instrument of observation or measurement has been calibrated precisely against an objective standard. Here if our instrumennt is human perception or reasoning we take it that these are not fallible or that enough observations and deductions agreed upon as reasonable constitutes sufficient support.

If the same instrument/person was being used for every measurement then you would have a point, this is not the case. Once the "measurement" has been made it isn't automatically accepted as fact, it has to be measured by many people using many instruments who are doing their best to prove the initial person/measurement wrong. It's called the scientific method and has done a pretty good job of sorting chaff from the wheat so far. 

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

By assuming that a result of epmiricism, like Darwin's theory of evolution, is based on precise or objective data is making a special plea for the results of a science that has not performed sufficient validation of it's base method -- being that it always relies on observation, human vision (which no doubt arose from random point mutations in the chemoreceptors of amniotes), or reason, which may be error prone.

I disagree, you are using a tactic often used by science deniers to muddy the water of any scientific theory, in fact I think your argument qualifies as solipsism, which in my personal view is a somewhat less that honest argument.   

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

 

I'm not trying to fool anyone, nor evangelize to hillbillies. Although if there are any Mohammedans in the Hills, the 99 attributes or names of God also speaks to immanent vs. remote. Why you want to act aggrieved and insist that I elaborate on things such as that is beyond me.

I think you are certainly beyond an honest argument.  

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

 

Well reasoned I'd say, and important to delineate that it may be a conception for explanation that is being examined; wholly equally weighted conclusion based on evidence that the concept is a construct of the human mind, IMO.

Solipsism again?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2022 at 12:30 PM, Intoscience said:

Personally though I'd go with (like many others have said) God(s) is/are a figment of human imagination. 

It's not that simple, God is a teacher and teacher's have to be trusted, if one wants to learn their lesson's.

A good teacher tells believable lies, so that even the slowest among us can catch up; it's very imaginative and way more than a figment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not that simple, God is a teacher and teacher's have to be trusted, if one wants to learn their lesson's.

A good teacher tells believable lies, so that even the slowest among us can catch up; it's very imaginative and way more than a figment...

Well we have been learning for a long time and seem not yet to have learned our lesson, so go figure. 

A good teacher teaches you to view from all perspectives, leaving you to make up your own mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Well we have been learning for a long time and seem not yet to have learned our lesson, so go figure. 

A good teacher teaches you to view from all perspectives, leaving you to make up your own mind. 

If you want to know what's outside the box, you have to know what's inside it; a good teacher knows that not all his student's are capable of thinking beyond their teachings, so they make sure that all are content with what they've learned; make up your own mind reminds me of the trope, fighting cancer is heroic; like we have a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, Moontanman said:

I am a hillbilly, I apologize for my attempt at humor to try and defuse the situation.

No need to apologize, and that is funnier now... I apologize for getting defensive, but given some time I think I was being somewhat irrational, and I ascribe that to 1) being told what to do, with a negative connotation and 2) making claims about what I was trying to do. I clarify that what I was trying to do was argue in support of a position that takes issues with part of the premise of the question, which was the first thing I brought up.

On 6/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, Moontanman said:

So you are asserting that if special pleading is part of the answer then it isn't special pleading? An interesting way to get around that logical fallacy.

I don't think I'm making a special plea to get anywhere in the argument, to get to the answer. Rather, the question of the thread is "who created god?". I am re-formulating the logic as "A=A, god is that which is uncreated". So, in effect what I'm trying to get around is the premise of the question. This is to bring about the possible answer that "no-one did"... to paraphrase a blinded cyclops. It may not even be necessary. Given the premise, I'd say no-one did, or religionists did; so I'm not sure I'm getting us towards an answer, but I was trying to raise points that I thought had been overlooked by my reading.

On 6/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, Moontanman said:

If the same instrument/person was being used for every measurement then you would have a point, this is not the case. Once the "measurement" has been made it isn't automatically accepted as fact, it has to be measured by many people using many instruments who are doing their best to prove the initial person/measurement wrong. It's called the scientific method and has done a pretty good job of sorting chaff from the wheat so far. 

I'd grant you that this is what we're trying to do with the scientific method. If the instruments were all blinded cyclopses, however, there is an inherent reading error which cannot be removed by accumulating data from different instruments. I do not necessary think that myself, it is just again to try and illustrate. I also agree that is has done a great job, the method par excellence.

On 6/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, Moontanman said:

I disagree, you are using a tactic often used by science deniers to muddy the water of any scientific theory, in fact I think your argument qualifies as solipsism, which in my personal view is a somewhat less that honest argument.

On 6/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, Moontanman said:

I think you are certainly beyond an honest argument.

On 6/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, Moontanman said:

Solipsism again?

 

I do not think I am resorting to an argument that I or one's self can be the only thing knowable, but rather that if humans are fallible (a la the blind cyclops analogy), or if we are being deceived (a la Descartes demon), then there is likely some inherent error in our sciences.

Please, do not be so certain on the middle point, retain some doubt.

I really can't see how the last point is solipsism either. I may be Polyphemus, tricked by Odysseus; I do not necessarily trust myself or mode of thinking, and I think that is the opposite of solipsism. I am not contributing to a definitive answer, but rather saying I entertain both answers, which could be a form of stonewalling or useless philosophizing.

Also I may have set up a straw-man (named Chuck D.) regarding evolution (or the evaluation of empiricism), but it is often brought up as some body of proven fact when there are arguments from biochemical complexity that muddy the waters with regards to the likelihood of random processes having sufficient explanatory power. There were some allusions along the lines of, "evolution can explain..", in my prior reading of the thread, and I wanted to point out a problem with that.

 

On 6/7/2022 at 5:37 AM, dimreepr said:

It's not that simple, God is a teacher and teacher's have to be trusted, if one wants to learn their lesson's.

A good teacher tells believable lies, so that even the slowest among us can catch up; it's very imaginative and way more than a figment...

I doubt the existence of God. Why is he playing hide-and-seek, or peekaboo? Telling (believable) lies, and yet having to be trusted?? Childish things. I don't want to believe, I want to know: any ideas for a testable hypothesis? I will grant it is hard to fathom something that would be beyond our level.

 

On 6/7/2022 at 5:52 AM, Intoscience said:

[...]
A good teacher teaches you to view from all perspectives, leaving you to make up your own mind.

A difficult task to view from all perspectives! I think we should seek to verify everything for ourselves ("make up your own mind"), and to do that we must try to entertain different possibilities or perspectives.

 

On 6/7/2022 at 6:10 AM, dimreepr said:

If you want to know what's outside the box, you have to know what's inside it; a good teacher knows that not all his student's are capable of thinking beyond their teachings, so they make sure that all are content with what they've learned; make up your own mind reminds me of the trope, fighting cancer is heroic; like we have a choice.

I do applaud your two posts, also... Now we're getting sort-of Meta.

Edited by NTuft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NTuft said:

I doubt the existence of God. Why is he playing hide-and-seek, or peekaboo? Telling (believable) lies, and yet having to be trusted?? Childish things. I don't want to believe, I want to know: any ideas for a testable hypothesis? I will grant it is hard to fathom something that would be beyond our level.

What about my posts makes you think that I think 'it' exists? 

When I said god is a teacher, more acurately would read, god is a teaching aid.

Of course you have to trust/believe your human teacher, until such time as you understand the lesson he/she is teaching and why; then you'll be qualified to judge his/her method's.

Just a final FYI learning is never childish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NTuft said:

A difficult task to view from all perspectives! I think we should seek to verify everything for ourselves ("make up your own mind"), and to do that we must try to entertain different possibilities or perspectives

True, it would be better if I'd said - Teaches you to consider as many perspectives as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NTuft said:

Also I may have set up a straw-man (named Chuck D.) regarding evolution (or the evaluation of empiricism), but it is often brought up as some body of proven fact when there are arguments from biochemical complexity that muddy the waters with regards to the likelihood of random processes having sufficient explanatory power. There were some allusions along the lines of, "evolution can explain..", in my prior reading of the thread, and I wanted to point out a problem with that.

I would suggest you have little to no knowledge about evolution or the forces that drive it. Evolution is a fact, it happens, irreducible complexity is a creationist fallacy that was proved wrong in court in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trail. While random mutations do occur they do not drive evolution. Since this is off topic i will not give a detailed defense of the science behind evolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any cultures that have no concept  (or approximate concept) of god as we  might loosely understand it?

 

It might be relevant either way.

 

If the "concept" was everywhere in every culture it would mean it was part of our shared psychological inheritance.

If not  then that might tell us something very different

 

Does anyone  know the answer?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, geordief said:

Are there any cultures that have no concept  (or approximate concept) of god as we  might loosely understand it?

The North American natives didn't. They had mythology, folklore, origin stories featuring spirits and other supernatural entities, but nothing like the Big Omni of Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. From the little I know of African mythology, the concepts appear to be similar: there might be a human-like supernatural spirit in overall charge of things, but that spirit usually doesn't demand worshipful obedience. Most of the people who practice Christianity and Islam today have had it imposed upon them by foreign dominions, and their traditional religions obliterated or subsumed by the new, organized one.

Quote

The reality is that indigenous religions, rather than being formal institutions, tend to be an undefined part of everyday life. Many indigenous cultures do not even have a word for "religion." Many of these religious systems do not have a name other than the name attached to the tribal group itself.  https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/indigenous-religions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2022 at 7:58 AM, Moontanman said:

I would suggest you have little to no knowledge about evolution or the forces that drive it. Evolution is a fact, it happens, irreducible complexity is a creationist fallacy that was proved wrong in court in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trail. While random mutations do occur they do not drive evolution. Since this is off topic i will not give a detailed defense of the science behind evolution. 

Mr. Anthrobalanus has filed a counter-suit, and hired one B.B.M. as his attorney. Various famous Ascidiae spp. are expected to give testimony. I will perhaps have to examine this precident in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. These cases could be on par with the Scopes Monkey Trial.

 

Q:"who created god?"

A:"The Anglican trinity, of course: Mrs. Spencer, Mrs. Darwin, and Mrs. Galton."

Here's to your English mother. 
Mine is Welsh. 

 

On 6/9/2022 at 4:27 AM, dimreepr said:

What about my posts makes you think that I think 'it' exists? 

When I said god is a teacher, more acurately would read, god is a teaching aid.

Of course you have to trust/believe your human teacher, until such time as you understand the lesson he/she is teaching and why; then you'll be qualified to judge his/her method's.

Just a final FYI learning is never childish.

Well, my best attempt at a testable hypothesis is to possibly insult the reepr's Stonehouse mother. So I apologize now.  Best TA ever, lessons on hand, no doubt.

 

--
 

@Moontanman I don't mean any offense... "/You can't get a suntan on the moon /They say, you can't get a suntan on the moon /Thank you, Mister President, for my holiday, Sir". YouTube: Puscifer - Holiday on the Moon And Howdy out to you in South Carolina. Don't know if you're English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2022 at 4:27 AM, dimreepr said:

Just a final FYI learning is never childish.

"They can never take away your education."
"...you're going to end up digging a ditch somewhere."
-Ggma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.