What Created God

[Telephone]

If it can be assumed that there indeed is something which is uncaused, it is only logical to deduce that it never produced an effect.

It is less than useless to apply commonsensical logic to the most profound questions. Simple everyday logic simply is too weak a tool to deal with the issues, it tends to break down on both the quantum scale and the very large scale. This 'logic' is also of little use during the first moment of the inflation of the post big bang universe, our commonsensical laws simply do not apply here.

Why is it logical to 'deduce' that an uncaused event 'never produced an effect'. We see uncaused events producing effects every day in particle physics.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

It is less than useless to apply commonsensical logic to the most profound questions. Simple everyday logic simply is too weak a tool to deal with the issues, it tends to break down on both the quantum scale and the very large scale. This 'logic' is also of little use during the first moment of the inflation of the post big bang universe, our commonsensical laws simply do not apply here.

I need to learn more about the big bang 'theory' obviously

Why is it logical to 'deduce' that an uncaused event 'never produced an effect'. We see uncaused events producing effects every day in particle physics.

What do you exactly mean by an uncaused event?
Is the said event outside of realm of change that we call space-time?

Nothing within the space-time(change) dimension is uncaused, in my humble opinion.

Change is continuous. No nook and corner can ecape change. Cause-effect is a part and parcel of change.

If there is an uncaused something, it cannot be in the realm of change. Hence it has to be changeless, hence no effects.

 

[quatona]

[Are you suggesting that the universe contains components that are non-material *supernatural*?

No.
Firstly I have no idea what "supernatural" might mean.
Secondly, it was you who introduced the description "all natural" (obviously as something opposed to some obscure "non-natural", super-natural", "meta-natural" or whatever).
I am working from the assumption that the universe is the entirety of all there is. Once we start assuming the existence of non- (super-, meta-,...)natural things, I see no reason to not consider them part of the universe.
If you want a meaningful discussion under use of concepts like "natural vs. non- (super-, meta-,...)natural", it would be helpful if you defined these terms first.

 

[quatona]

quatona

I think you missed my point in my original post.I was merely stating the difference between the God concept and the universe, therfore not making the mistake of asking for a cause for God in the cosmological argument.​

Ok.

IMO both the theistic and atheistic versions of the cosmological argument are question begging.

I wasn´t aware that there even was an "atheistic version of the cosmological argument". Has it been approved of by the EAC?
This atheist´s response to the cosmological question is "I have no friggin´ clue", and I doubt that this falls under "question begging".

If, however, you meant to say: "All hypotheses concerning the origin (or non-origin) of "What is" come with severe logical problems, I agree.

Regardless the christian theistic version of the God concept is that of necessary being,so IF God does exist then God does not need a (cause,reason,or origin) for his being.

Yes, by virtue of an illogical definition.
We define God as needing no cause. Therefore it´s not illogical to assume that God needs no cause.
If a bird of lead without wings exists, this bird of lead can fly without having wings.
That way we can define any illogical thing into being.

The necessity of the Universe has never or probably never will be established although it's ASSUMED the existence of the universe is a brute fact.IMO opinion thats an arbitrary necessity.

I´m afraid I don´t understand this sentence. Care to reword it for me (non-native speaker on this end, sorry )?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Nothing within the space-time(change) dimension is uncaused, in my humble opinion.

Cause-and-effect is a macro-scale phenomenon by which we mean an observable change brought about by matter and/or energy. We do not easily perceive quantum events - in fact, quantum events seem to take steps to ensure that we do not perceive them - thus it is incorrect to map our classical notions onto the quantum realm.

 

[Telephone]

Nothing within the space-time(change) dimension is uncaused, in my humble opinion.

You need to report your knowledge to the people working within the field of quantum mechanics, specifically quantum fluctuation.

I am sure they will be glad to share your wisdom, they may even get to go home early.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

You need to report your knowledge to the people working within the field of quantum mechanics, specifically quantum fluctuation.

I am sure they will be glad to share your wisdom, they may even get to go home early.

The quantum physicists are not trying to prove the existence of uncaused 'events' to win any philosophical battle.

They make scientific assumptions and in that scope come to a consensus that vaccum fluctuations are uncaused events.

But I am still waiting for someone to come and prove to me that it is an absolute vaccum where these fluctuations suddenly start.

Or is it almost empty that it is conveniently assumed to be a vaccum?

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Cause-and-effect is a macro-scale phenomenon by which we mean an observable change brought about by matter and/or energy. We do not easily perceive quantum events - in fact, quantum events seem to take steps to ensure that we do not perceive them - thus it is incorrect to map our classical notions onto the quantum realm.

Change is a continuous flux. This second is the cause of the next second and so on.

But it may be divided infinitely which will give rise to an interesting concept called changelessness.

 

[Telephone]

Or is it almost empty that it is conveniently assumed to be a vaccum?

To what end would a particle physicist 'conveniently' assume any part of an experiment ?

Would would this physicists agenda be ?

What do you intend to infer by the inclusion of 'conveniently' in your sentence ?


Puzzled !

 

[TeddyKGB]

Change is a continuous flux. This second is the cause of the next second and so on.

But it may be divided infinitely which will give rise to an interesting concept called changelessness.

I don't think this has anything to do with my argument.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

To what end would a particle physicist 'conveniently' assume any part of an experiment ?

Would would this physicists agenda be ?

What do you intend to infer by the inclusion of 'conveniently' in your sentence ?


Puzzled !

Science makes some assumptions and conducts an experiment.

According to science, there can be an uncaused event because it perfectly falls under the criteria of what science postulates as the definition of an uncaused event.

Science will say that an event was caused by nothing and this 'nothing' satisfies some definitions set by science.

Science's 'nothing' is not akin to 'nothingness' where no assumptions approximations are made about what nothingness is.

Science doesn't say quantum fluctuations appear out of 'nothingness'.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Science doesn't say quantum fluctuations appear out of 'nothingness'.

Of course not. Science says they are uncaused.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Of course not. Science says they are uncaused.

Right. Because they conform to science's definition of what is a cause.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Of course not. Science says they are uncaused.

Right. Because they conform to science's definition of what is a cause.
Space-time cannot be brought into the picture as an essential cause for a scientifically uncaused thing to happen.

 

[Telephone]

Science makes some assumptions and conducts an experiment.

Science makes no assumptions, religion makes assumptions, science makes presumptions.

According to science, there can be an uncaused event because it perfectly falls under the criteria of what science postulates as the definition of an uncaused event.

This is correct.

Science will say that an event was caused by nothing and this 'nothing' satisfies some definitions set by science.

What do you mean by "this 'nothing' satisfies some definitions set by science" ?

Science's 'nothing' is not akin to 'nothingness' where no assumptions approximations are made about what nothingness is.

You are begining to lose me by employing religion's greatest justifier - semantics ! LOL!

Could you expand or explain what "Science's 'nothing' is not akin to 'nothingness' means ??

What is "Science's 'nothing'" what is "nothingness", how to they differ and what has all this to do with uncaused events ?

What are "assumptions approximations" (sic) ?

Science doesn't say quantum fluctuations appear out of 'nothingness'.

This is correct, it is you who have said this!

In response to the original question about un-caused events, we 'know' (through observable evidence) that the commonsensical everday physics of the observable world around us fail at the quantum level, particles pop in and out of existence and matter can temporarily borrow energy from its own future state (to be later paid back), these and many other complex ideas in quantum mechanics reveal ambiguities in commonsense and offer up new insights into the world around us.

Recent discoveries in quantum theory, along with research conducted by Stephen Hawking and his team in the UK, has shown that matter (particles) can and does arise spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of empty space (they live for only tiny fraction of time and spontaneously disappear). When I use the word 'spontaneously ' here, I mean it in the sense that these particles are not prompted into existence but appear for no reason, these are real effects, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

If you wish to close yourself off from the profound insights these discoveries raise with recourse to semantics and suspicion, (your wholly unjustified use of the word 'conveniently') which is most likely driven by an agenda that seeks to justify your religious beliefs in all circumstances, regardless of what is happening in the world around you, then do so. There is nothing I can show you that will sway you from the 100% absolute, guaranteed, inerrant certainty that your views are fully correct and 'true'.

Another finished mind, another mind lost to religion.

Still at least you get to go to heaven , enjoy yourself there, I am sure you will be very happy.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Science makes no assumptions, religion makes assumptions, science makes presumptions.

Assumptions are part of a scientific experiment. I have never heard the word presumption being associated with a scientific experiment.

What do you mean by "this 'nothing' satisfies some definitions set by science" ?

Given that there is a lowest level of energy below which nature cannot go, one filled with a kind of undifferentiated wave-function which is fluctuating very rapidly, the spontaneous production of particles and energy takes place all the time. The vacuum is not a vacuum, in other words, but there isn't anything quite there either,
except occasionally. Are these events "caused"? Well, there's no simple and direct cause we know of.


There I rest my case. And science makes assumptions. Say it with me again.

Why use science to discuss philosophy. Science doesn't talk about absolute.
Philosophy has not closed its mind to the concept of absolute.

Let's keep it as philosophy in a philosophy board.

You are begining to lose me by employing religion's greatest justifier - semantics ! LOL!

Could you expand or explain what "Science's 'nothing' is not akin to 'nothingness' means ??

Science's 'nothing' is is not an absolute vaccum. The probability of something to be there is almost zero.

'Nothingness' is absolute. For any event to be uncaused in philosophical terms, it should pop out of absolute nothingness. Space-time is an essential cause of whatever there is.

What are "assumptions approximations" (sic) ?

assumptions and approximations.

Perfectly acceptable activities allowed in science.

In response to the original question about un-caused events, we 'know' (through observable evidence) that the commonsensical everday physics of the observable world around us fail at the quantum level, particles pop in and out of existence and matter can temporarily borrow energy from its own future state (to be later paid back), these and many other complex ideas in quantum mechanics reveal ambiguities in commonsense and offer up new insights into the world around us.

Recent discoveries in quantum theory, along with research conducted by Stephen Hawking and his team in the UK, has shown that matter (particles) can and does arise spontaneously from the vacuum fluctuation energy of empty space (they live for only tiny fraction of time and spontaneously disappear). When I use the word 'spontaneously ' here, I mean it in the sense that these particles are not prompted into existence but appear for no reason, these are real effects, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

If you wish to close yourself off from the profound insights these discoveries raise with recourse to semantics and suspicion, (your wholly unjustified use of the word 'conveniently') which is most likely driven by an agenda that seeks to justify your religious beliefs in all circumstances, regardless of what is happening in the world around you, then do so. There is nothing I can show you that will sway you from the 100% absolute, guaranteed, inerrant certainty that your views are fully correct and 'true'.

Another finished mind, another mind lost to religion.

I certainly have not closed my mind to the profound insights raised by the discoveries in quantum physics.

I wanted to discuss philosophy. I didn't realize philosophy means scientific philosophy in the western world. My bad, now I know.

Do the western philosophers have no guts to think? why do they hide behind science?

And thank you very much for your insightful info about me.

Tell me did I talk about religion anywhere?
Did I talk about God anywhere?
And what is an heaven?
Do you know me?

Still at least you get to go to heaven , enjoy yourself there, I am sure you will be very happy.

It is not my problem that Christianity has nothing intellectual to offer that people have to become atheistic.

I come from a different part of the world. There free thinking is allowed and people don't have to give too much importance to God and such.

 

[CalUWxBill]

What does philosophy mean? You can try very hard to separate observation from reason, but I think it is impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_philosophy

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

What does philosophy mean? You can try very hard to separate observation from reason, but I think it is impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_philosophy

Please forgive me for picking and choosing, but this is my point of view....until it gets to the Oxford dictionary part(LOL)

Intrinsic Character:

• Philosophy can be distinguished from empirical science and religion. The Penguin Encyclopedia ([7]) says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e. by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation. MTP says philosophy does not try to answer questions by appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but uses reason, "without reference to sensible observation and experiments". By contrast, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy states that "the late 20th-century... prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry."
• the purpose of philosophy is to unify and transcend the insights given by science and religion.

 

[CalUWxBill]

Please forgive me for picking and choosing, but this is my point of view....

Intrinsic Character:

• Philosophy can be distinguished from empirical science and religion. The Penguin Encyclopedia ([7]) says that philosophy differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, i.e. by observation or experiment, and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation. MTP says philosophy does not try to answer questions by appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but uses reason, "without reference to sensible observation and experiments". By contrast, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy states that "the late 20th-century... prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry."

Yeah that is the closest I would have thought to your view of philosophy as well. Although, I just view philosophy as an attempt to isolate thinking from reality. We also cordone off ourselves into different disciplines: theology, science, philosophy, creativity, psychology, etc. But, those boundaries are never absolute in their attempted distinctions. I'm a meteorology major, I cannot separate meteorology from chemistry or physics. I may say that quantum physics has nothing to do with meteorology but in reality anything that effects the outcome of the universe can effect the weather patterns on earth. Heck, one could easily make the case that sociology plays a role in our meteorology. How human society develops results in land use changes, hydrologic cycle changes, greenhouse gas emissions, etc., leading to some level of response to our weather. So separation of disciplines only helps our mind rationalize problems concurrent to the discipline that helps us solve them the most. But we can't hold on to disciplines so strong that it causes us to ignore help when help can be provided by another discipline in solving our problems.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Yeah that is the closest I would have thought to your view of philosophy as well. Although, I just view philosophy as an attempt to isolate thinking from reality. We also cordone off ourselves into different disciplines: theology, science, philosophy, creativity, psychology, etc. But, those boundaries are never absolute in their attempted distinctions. I'm a meteorology major, I cannot separate meteorology from chemistry or physics. I may say that quantum physics has nothing to do with meteorology but in reality anything that effects the outcome of the universe can effect the weather patterns on earth. Heck, one could easily make the case that sociology plays a role in our meteorology. How human society develops results in land use changes, hydrologic cycle changes, greenhouse gas emissions, etc., leading to some level of response to our weather. So separation of disciplines only helps our mind rationalize problems concurrent to the discipline that helps us solve them the most. But we can't hold on to disciplines so strong that it causes us to ignore help when help can be provided by another discipline in solving our problems.

I agree with your point of view for the most part.

I know I will be the subject of ridicule among atheisits if I say this, but I will say it anyways....

Reality is not only what is observed, or even thought of.
Relativity masks the absolute and at the same time hints at it.