...but it was well before my time.

  
> ...but it was well before my time.


Or so you'd like us to believe.  One wonders regarding the truth of this matter!

I think Soft Machine is God. He's just trying to cover his tracks.

At least you didn't zap me with a bolt of lightning, which in addition to letting me continue contributing to global warming also suggests that you are not Zeus.

Did you realize you were giving us that clue to your divine identity?

Hey, I'm British. Our weapon of choice is... rain.

Isn't that the truth!

But at least there are always a few consecutive days of sunshine in May/June to keep the tourists coming.

This is the question that brings many of us to atheism.
If God created the world (universe), who created God?

There is no reasonable, comprehensible answer. Everyone is on their own to try to imagine.

There is no clear answer either to: how did the universe come about? That is the real existential question worthy of contemplation.

This is the question that brings many of us to atheism.
If God created the world (universe), who created God?

COMMENT: How so? Why, logically, would puzzlement about the fundamental (causal) source of an intelligent Being lead you to assume that such a Being cannot exist? In other words, what is it about existence itself that demands a causal explanation? Many cosmologists believe that our Universe is a bubble product of a larger multiverse. (A universe of universes) Does the lack of knowledge as to the cause or source of such a Multiverse undermine in any way such beliefs? No. Same with God. Both have to do with evidence (very loosely) for their existence or non-existence, not their own causal origins.
_______________________________________

There is no reasonable, comprehensible answer. Everyone is on their own to try to imagine.

COMMENT: What is the 'reasonable, comprehensive answer' to the causal source of our current Universe? Here too, "everyone is on their own to try to imagine."
________________________________________

"There is no clear answer either to: how did the universe come about? That is the real existential question worthy of contemplation."

COMMENT: Yes, you finally (inadvertently is seems) nailed it. First causes are inherently illusive, whether you are talking about universes or a proposed intelligent Being (God). Until you figure out a distinction between the fundamental cause of the Universe or Multiverse, as distinguished from the fundamental cause of God, the question "Who Created God?" has no force against theism in favor of atheism.

(Note: Richard Dawkins tries to make such a distinction in his argument against Intelligent Design, arguing that under ID theory God, as the proposed creator of the universe, would have to be more complex than His creation. That does not work either, because for all we know, God--if not fundamental and uncaused--arose by some process of evolution out of an expanded Multiverse. Then, as a Being outside of our Universe, created our Universe. Once you get into the level of metaphysical speculation where you demand answers about first causes, everything falls apart, whatever side of the argument you are on.)

HB

Allow me to repeat myself.

Who created God? is the question that brings MANY of us to atheism.

If it didn't cause YOU to be an atheist, it's fine with me.

Wondering about the universe is a much more interesting issue to me than wondering about God in whom I do not believe.

If you wish to argue the possibility of a Master Creator I have no interest in countering your pin-dancing-angels point of view.

Allow me to repeat myself.

Who created God? is the question that brings MANY of us to atheism.

If it didn't cause YOU to be an atheist, it's fine with me.

COMMENT: I do not care one way or another what led you or anyone else to atheism. All I pointed out was that questioning God's origin as the creator of the Universe is not logically distinguishable from questioning the origin of any other proposed metaphysical cause of the Universe, assuming such a cause exists.

The origin of the Universe is unknown and a deep mystery. Whatever you posit as the origin, there will always be the question as to the origin of that cause. So, there is no advantage. That said, believe what you want for whatever reason you want--whether such reason is rational or not.
____________________________________________

Wondering about the universe is a much more interesting issue to me than wondering about God in whom I do not believe.

COMMENT: Fair enough! So, leave God out of it, and stop trying to convince yourself that such wondering is somehow more rational than wondering about a creator God.
____________________________________________

If you wish to argue the possibility of a Master Creator I have no interest in countering your pin-dancing-angels point of view.

COMMENT: I never argued for a Master Creator. I only noted that an inference that God does not exist from the metaphysical problem of the origins of the Universe is a non-starter.

I will ignore the stupid "pin-dancing-angels" comment.

Of course, there is a part of you that wishes I had just ignored your whole post. For the same reason that your TBM family members wish you would just ignore the doctrines and tenets of Mormonism that they hold so dear; and stop pointing out facts and logic that undermine *their* faith. They have a choice to ignore you, and you have a choice to ignore me.

In the meantime, whenever you post something of interest, I will assume you are open to other points of view, however unsettling and annoying such responses might be, and realizing from personal experience how frustrating such openness can be. I have deep respect for such an attitude and hope you will continue to roll with the 'punches' while pausing from time to time to consider the validity of what I say.

Humans created god(s) in their imaginations. Gods are a reflection of mans: needs to explain nature-and, innate frustration with not knowing/understanding. Imaginary gods have been a temporary way to resolve the discomfort created by this cognitive dissonance.

Unfortunately for many god-botherer's, as mankind learns more via science (and the space for gods to have explanatory power decreases) the more entrenched the explanatory fiction becomes, and irrationality and emotionality surrounding protecting that concept increases. When backed into the corner of justifying god beliefs the inevitable defense is, "It is faith and beyond facts and knowledge." I defy anyone to provide an assertion which can NOT be accepted on faith. The god-botherer eventually re-enters the positive feedback bubble by interacting only with those to entertain the same fantasy, and avoiding those who trigger the unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
The poor believers aren't just wrong, there is a shade of psychological dysfunction in the form of mental anxiety and depression which needs relief. Essentially people enter a church for the same reason they enter a pub. to stupefy themselves and numb things for a while.

HH =)

"Essentially people enter a church for the same reason they enter a pub. to stupefy themselves and numb things for a while."

That's brilliant, HH !

Hehe and so true!

In addition they pay money to both to stupefy theirselves.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2022 10:43AM by evergreen.

Wow. It is brilliant.

Humans created god(s) in their imaginations. Gods are a reflection of mans: needs to explain nature-and, innate frustration with not knowing/understanding. Imaginary gods have been a temporary way to resolve the discomfort created by this cognitive dissonance.

Unfortunately for many god-botherer's, as mankind learns more via science (and the space for gods to have explanatory power decreases) the more entrenched the explanatory fiction becomes, and irrationality and emotionality surrounding protecting that concept increases. When backed into the corner of justifying god beliefs the inevitable defense is, "It is faith and beyond facts and knowledge." I defy anyone to provide an assertion which can NOT be accepted on faith. The god-botherer eventually re-enters the positive feedback bubble by interacting only with those to entertain the same fantasy, and avoiding those who trigger the unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
The poor believers aren't just wrong, there is a shade of psychological dysfunction in the form of mental anxiety and depression which needs relief. Essentially people enter a church for the same reason they enter a pub. to stupefy themselves and numb things for a while.

COMMENT: Is this atheistic flight of fantasy meant to be merely rhetorical, or are you suggesting that this nonsense is actually established truth? If the latter, you need to provide something more logically potent than the arm-chair fantasies of psychologists and philosophers. You might at least have the courtesy to throw in a bit of evolutionary psychology. After all, we all know that evolution explains everything. :)

God is just short for “God Particle”
Nature created it.

Two short sentences, two untrue statements. Yer battin' a thousand.

“Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the Goddamn Particle, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one. . . .” The Higgs was a concept of almost Biblical proportions.

Higgs bosons could be described as making up an invisible field of energy through which other particles fly, slowed by it as it imbues them with mass. Some writers have likened a field of Higgs particles to molasses—except that molasses can be seen with the naked eye and doesn’t decay in a tiny fraction of a second.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/10/09/the-higgs-boson-wins-the-nobel-why-we-call-it-the-god-particle/?sh=4e6c9d693cbf

Leon Lederman, an atheist, named it the God Particle for a reason, because it is a concept of Biblical Proportions. It even meets some of the criteria of god,

Omnipresent
Omnipotent
Creates matter out of energy
Holds everything together to create matter, atoms, molecules, you and me.

And it was created naturally, by nature.
The Cosmological Constant, Lambda, determined it.
Like it determines everything else in this 4 dimensional universe.

Four of many dimensions and
Countless universes

https://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2009/04/Colin-Wells-how-did-God-get-started.pdf

This explains a lot.

The god before our god created him!

Mormons at least tried to address this question using the turtle on top of a turtle thinking. All it does is create more gods to explain. It dodges the issue and kicks the can down the road.

Creating a complicated god would require a lot of explaining beyond a god creating the universe.

God always hides in the newest areas of physics that people can use to explain anything. Apparently God has a condo in some hidden quantum mechanic dimension.

Humans are not very good at accepting that we don't get to have answers to some big questions. We are very good at making up some creative explanations though.

"Creating a complicated god would require a lot of explaining beyond a god creating the universe."

COMMENT: Finally, there it is: The famous Dawkin's argument against God from complexity. I addressed this briefly above. But perhaps you can articulate this argument more fully, and convincingly? It would make for an interesting discussion.

On the other hand, we can all just go with it. After all, Dawkins has the same 'prophetic' status to atheists as Nelson has with Mormons.

"After all, Dawkins has the same 'prophetic' status to atheists as Nelson has with Mormons."

That's a ridiculous strawman, HB. There are many more atheists than Dawkins readers.

"After all, Dawkins has the same 'prophetic' status to atheists as Nelson has with Mormons."

That's a ridiculous strawman, HB. There are many more atheists than Dawkins readers.

COMMENT: The comment was tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be taken literally, which I thought would be obvious. The word
'prophetic' was in quotes to indicate a status of unquestioned authority (again, tongue-in-cheek).

However, on second thought, I can see how this might have been misinterpreted. So, I accept your criticism. Obviously, I know that atheists do not regard any individuals as 'prophets' in the same way as a religious prophet. Notwithstanding, some atheists seem to refer to such people (like Dawkins) with similar authoritative 'reverence.' I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, thanks for calling me out on this!

Unfortunately imagination is not always a wonderful thing.

We've invented Dracula, and King Kong, and Sigourney Weaver's Alien, but the most evil of all is Heavenly Father, who, unlike the others that will rip you to shreds, will stunt your life and then expect to be thanked for doing so.

This seems like an appropriate time to repost the Great List of Arguments for the Existence of God. The funny thing is that many of these arguments have actually been made by people. It is kind of fun to read the list and see how many of those arguments you have heard.

https://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Seems like there used to be multiple specialized gods who weren't necessarily very nice beings. Monotheism is a fairly recent innovation, which still hasn't caught on with Hindus, and Buddhists and Shinto and Confucius are off in their own corners of the religious universe.


IMO religion is just tribalism writ large. It is a way to create cohesion in groups that are not all blood relatives. Monotheism is just one way of approaching that goal. There are others.

I forgot how funny some of those are.

26 is my favorite:

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

That is timely argument, relevant to several posts in this thread.

Step One: Assert something undefined.

Step Two: Note the failure of science to disprove the undefined assertion.

Step Three: Interpret that failure as proof that the undefined assertion is true.

We see that logic employed her at least weekly.

Indubitably!

(You read me.)

And LW nails nails the landing! "9.9" (The russian judge was paying attention to war in Urkraine).


HH =)

This list is, of course, mostly intended to be comical and cynical, which means it cannot be taken seriously except by the most entrenched atheist. That's O.K., there is much about religion that is funny and ridiculous. Notwithstanding, if an atheist is serious about undermining religion--as I certainly am--perhaps it would be best to address the most potent and serious arguments for theism, rather than engage in belittling religious beliefs. Same with Mormonism. We can harangue, belittle, and wallow in our own amusement, or we can ask, "what is there about theism (or Mormonism) that should be taken seriously?" If you don't believe there is any argument for theism that should be taken seriously, you don't know much about theism, or its arguments.

I will provide just one example especially for you:

It is widely known by scientists that the Universe is governed by universal, mathematical laws of nature. As you yourself have acknowledged, many, if not most, mathematicians believe (yourself included, however reluctantly) that there is a "Platonic realm" of 'abstract mathematical objects', where the mathematical laws of nature actually reside. (Mathematical realism) Obviously, this is a very ordered realm, which is governed by logic and 'intelligent' inferences as related to such mathematical objects. Now, how does this logic and intelligence in this Platonic realm find its way into the physical world, i.e. into the Universe? Luck? Happenstance? or some intelligent agency? Which of these is the best explanation, given the fact that the Platonic realm is itself governed by logic and intelligence?

Unless and until you can provide an answer to this question, perhaps making fun of religion should be more tempered.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is widely known by scientists that the Universe
> is governed by universal, mathematical laws of
> nature.

False. In armchair discussion with and for average people these kinds of phrases are used. Which often leads to schrödinger's cat making nonsense claims. But science does not claim absolute congruence as your statement indicates. Science is only a model of how we perceive the universe operating and we model that in mathematics.

Remember that mathematics is a language about patterns. If the universe did not also behave to our perceptions in a patterned way, mathematics wouldn't model it any useful way.

Gettier, for one, gets in the way of claiming the universe runs on math. Within the functional limits of our perception mathematical models are useful for predicting the way the universe appears to work such that we can build statistically safe buildings and bridges and roads and medicine. And crash subatomic particles together.

> It is widely known by scientists that the Universe
> is governed by universal, mathematical laws of
> nature.

False. In armchair discussion with and for average people these kinds of phrases are used. Which often leads to schrödinger's cat making nonsense claims. But science does not claim absolute congruence as your statement indicates. Science is only a model of how we perceive the universe operating and we model that in mathematics.

COMMENT: That's just not so. Such statements are found throughout the literature of science, and most certainly not just to placate "average people." Even if scientific theory is viewed as a 'model,' such a model is assumed to be based upon real world facts and data. Moreover, the underlying mathematics of the model is viewed as related to the real world of particles, waves, fields, black holes, etc., not just to the world of human perceptions, which do not even reach to fundamental reality. (Bohr Notwithstanding) And the question as to why the physical world--as theoretically modeled--is so closely described in mathematical terms remains a real mystery.

____________________________________________-

Remember that mathematics is a language about patterns. If the universe did not also behave to our perceptions in a patterned way, mathematics wouldn't model it any useful way.

COMMENT: Most mathematicians and physicists view mathematics as more than a language that is invented by human beings to identify patterns in nature. They view mathematics as something discovered. Moreover, they are realists, believing that the orderliness of the universe is external to our perceptions of it, and that our perceptions reveal such order, even if imperfectly.
_______________________________________

Gettier, for one, gets in the way of claiming the universe runs on math. Within the functional limits of our perception mathematical models are useful for predicting the way the universe appears to work such that we can build statistically safe buildings and bridges and roads and medicine. And crash subatomic particles together.

COMMENT: The Gettier problem is about epistemology, that is about human knowledge. It is not about the realism-anti-realism debate. In any event, you need to specify more clearly how this applies to scientists who believe for good empirical reasons that there is an external world out there independent of human psychology that they are trying to understand, and who believe that mathematics is not just a human invention that describes that world--or human perceptions--but is part of that external world in some Platonic sense.

Gettier applies to science when claims are made about what we know.

I don't have to show anything about platonic realism being wrong when it hasn't been demonstrated as correct. That it has adherents is a matter of faith until otherwise demonstrated. I await the demonstration.

"Gettier applies to science when claims are made about what we know."

"I don't have to show anything about platonic realism being wrong when it hasn't been demonstrated as correct. That it has adherents is a matter of faith until otherwise demonstrated. I await the demonstration."

COMMENT: The question as to the metaphysical foundations of science, the universe, and/or mathematics is not a matter of knowledge, and nobody claims to know such things, one way or another. As such, the Gettier problem has no relevance here. It is also incorrect to look for a proof or "demonstration" of truth in this context. Science and mathematics often involve philosophical and metaphysical questions that are interesting and worthy of discussion, including their implications, without asserting a knowledge claim, or demanding a 'proof.'

>This list is, of course, mostly intended to be comical and cynical, which means it cannot be taken seriously except by the most entrenched atheist.

Nice attempt at dismissal.

It is comical and cynical, and it gets pretty repetitive after the first several hundred "proofs". It does show real understanding of the typical arguments that are made. The big baffle-gab words from philosophy are used correctly.

And much of humor is about stating what is true but unnoticed.

Nice attempt at dismissal.

COMMENT: As a serious exposition of the theistic arguments for God, it deserved to be dismissed. As a comical bit of nonsense by someone who has no clue about such matters . . . well, that is another matter, enjoy!

______________________________________________

"It is comical and cynical, and it gets pretty repetitive after the first several hundred "proofs". It does show real understanding of the typical arguments that are made. The big baffle-gab words from philosophy are used correctly."

COMMENT: Nonsense. It shows very little understanding, and this is obvious on its face. There is not the slightest depth or attempt at understanding. It is clear that the author was more interested in being clever and funny than in being truthful and fair. And I admit he somewhat succeeded in this regard.

Finally, the fact that you did not respond to my example, is telling: Here it is again:

"It is widely known by scientists that the Universe is governed by universal, mathematical laws of nature. As you yourself have acknowledged, many, if not most, mathematicians believe (yourself included, however reluctantly) that there is a "Platonic realm" of 'abstract mathematical objects', where the mathematical laws of nature actually reside. (Mathematical realism) Obviously, this is a very ordered realm, which is governed by logic and 'intelligent' inferences as related to such mathematical objects. Now, how does this logic and intelligence in this Platonic realm find its way into the physical world, i.e. into the Universe? Luck? Happenstance? or some intelligent agency? Which of these is the best explanation, given the fact that the Platonic realm is itself governed by logic and intelligence?"

Now, was this on your list?

Marjorie Taylor Green?

I want to know what her existence proves...

That some people actually were given the black apron instead of the green one.

The turtle at the top of the stack.

A man who couldn't hunt.

Bingo. He found a much easier way to get fed.

How come god is an old white guy with a long beard ?

Which one? Not Ganesh, for example, or Kali ;-)

Morgan Freeman and Alanis Morissette are also counterexamples.

On the other hand, there is Santa Claus and Gandalf.