(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Lol, noI meant the post in question seemed to be saying "I'm going to take a long time not to answer the question" Not me saying that... my bad I must have been tired

No prob

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: So you're really not wanting to talk about who created God, because that actually causes no glaring contradictions.

I illustrated the contradictions in my first post. Having a God who was created would present more questions than answers, and would mean he was necessarily finite, if in fact he was created at some point. This is in direct opposition to the claim that God is an infinitely powerful, all-knowing, and eternal being.

You can't have this if he was created. It also means that as a creation, he is subject to laws that were put in place before him in order for him to exist in the first place.

That's not even getting to the question of what created God.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: We worship God, his name could be Bob and he could be from universe XYDFGBSDHSDHGZ and have 3 little baby Gods starting other universes. We attribute him as the creator of his one, and from our perspective that's what's important to us.

So if you could have it completely wrong and you acknowledge that, you have to contend that either:

1. God did not send a clear enough message for humans to understand
2. God did not want to send a clear message for humans to understand, intentional obfuscation
3. God did not send a message for humans to understand
4. God does not exist objectively.

This is evidenced by the literally billions of versions of God's attributes, intentions, and commands by people the world over. You'd think an all-powerful being could make himself be known in some detail, to avoid the damnation of his creation, not to mention clear up thousands of years of religious strife and hardship.

Sorry for that digression. Back on topic.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Whether there's an infinite regress or not doesn't matter any farther than who caused this one. We might have it entirely wrong and Fred could have actually been the creator of this universe and then Bob maintains it. That's why it's so hard to dfine what God is.

If a version of God is literally indistinguishable from an infinite amount of other versions of God, including those that don't exist objectively, what good reason is there to believe in your particular version?

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Not everything, but the vast majority, of what we currently know is an effect from a cause. That's not to say everything couldn't have a cuase, it's just we can't see one for a very few things. It is the seeking of that cause that leads us to truth and belonging within this universe.

Making the assertion that everything, including universal origins necessarily needs a cause is intellectually dishonest, as there is no evidence to suggest that a cause was at all needed or not.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Does the universe need a cause, it follows because of what we know that we should at least look for one.

What we know is that our understanding of laws of physics and space-time don't go past the singularity - this includes causality, which is a function of space-time. It absolutely does not follow that causality needs to be addressed in an area that doesn't necessarily have it.

It's sort of a moot question. It's like asking "Who designed the space outside of our universe?" It makes no sense.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Is it hugely important? I don't think so. It's this reality, this life and today that we have, and life's about making the best of that, IMO. I think God betters that for me, and for a lot of others therefore I see value in pursuing that knowledge as best as possible.

So, given that you've asserted that there is no consensus on what "God" is, have demonstrated that such a being would be necessarily finite and not all-powerful, you now contend that the glaring contradictions of your own belief system are somehow irrelevant?

"Sure, none of this shit makes sense, but it's what I believe, and it makes me a better person for it."

If that's the case, you're not approaching this topic reasonably, and can't be swayed using reasoned logic. But as much as it seems, I don't want to be the turd in your punchbowl. I don't care what you believe, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't force it on others or proselytize.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm personally not that concerned with who created God and I don't see how if someone did that the regression from that would be so problematic as people make it out to be.

I actually outlined why it would be problematic, but I'm guessing that you'll glaze over it and it won't phase you a bit. Confirmation bias is tough to get rid of, especially when you feel that your convictions are just.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: It started reality. I can't see it coming from nothing, and I see prpose in it. Most of us actually just stop at a creator. I've never heard anyone say God couldn't have a creator in my learnings.

So because you can't see something coming from nothing, you propose a God who poofs things into existence from nothing. Makes perfect sense.


I appreciate your input.

(June 25, 2010 at 1:39 am)tavarish Wrote:

---

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: So you're really not wanting to talk about who created God, because that actually causes no glaring contradictions.

I illustrated the contradictions in my first post. Having a God who was created would present more questions than answers, and would mean he was necessarily finite, if in fact he was created at some point. This is in direct opposition to the claim that God is an infinitely powerful, all-knowing, and eternal being.

You can't have this if he was created. It also means that as a creation, he is subject to laws that were put in place before him in order for him to exist in the first place.

That's not even getting to the question of what created God.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: We worship God, his name could be Bob and he could be from universe XYDFGBSDHSDHGZ and have 3 little baby Gods starting other universes. We attribute him as the creator of his one, and from our perspective that's what's important to us.

So if you could have it completely wrong and you acknowledge that, you have to contend that either:

1. God did not send a clear enough message for humans to understand
2. God did not want to send a clear message for humans to understand, intentional obfuscation
3. God did not send a message for humans to understand
4. God does not exist objectively.

This is evidenced by the literally billions of versions of God's attributes, intentions, and commands by people the world over. You'd think an all-powerful being could make himself be known in some detail, to avoid the damnation of his creation, not to mention clear up thousands of years of religious strife and hardship.

Sorry for that digression. Back on topic.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Whether there's an infinite regress or not doesn't matter any farther than who caused this one. We might have it entirely wrong and Fred could have actually been the creator of this universe and then Bob maintains it. That's why it's so hard to dfine what God is.

If a version of God is literally indistinguishable from an infinite amount of other versions of God, including those that don't exist objectively, what good reason is there to believe in your particular version?

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Not everything, but the vast majority, of what we currently know is an effect from a cause. That's not to say everything couldn't have a cuase, it's just we can't see one for a very few things. It is the seeking of that cause that leads us to truth and belonging within this universe.

Making the assertion that everything, including universal origins necessarily needs a cause is intellectually dishonest, as there is no evidence to suggest that a cause was at all needed or not.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Does the universe need a cause, it follows because of what we know that we should at least look for one.

What we know is that our understanding of laws of physics and space-time don't go past the singularity - this includes causality, which is a function of space-time. It absolutely does not follow that causality needs to be addressed in an area that doesn't necessarily have it.

It's sort of a moot question. It's like asking "Who designed the space outside of our universe?" It makes no sense.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: Is it hugely important? I don't think so. It's this reality, this life and today that we have, and life's about making the best of that, IMO. I think God betters that for me, and for a lot of others therefore I see value in pursuing that knowledge as best as possible.

So, given that you've asserted that there is no consensus on what "God" is, have demonstrated that such a being would be necessarily finite and not all-powerful, you now contend that the glaring contradictions of your own belief system are somehow irrelevant?

"Sure, none of this shit makes sense, but it's what I believe, and it makes me a better person for it."

If that's the case, you're not approaching this topic reasonably, and can't be swayed using reasoned logic. But as much as it seems, I don't want to be the turd in your punchbowl. I don't care what you believe, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't force it on others or proselytize.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm personally not that concerned with who created God and I don't see how if someone did that the regression from that would be so problematic as people make it out to be.

I actually outlined why it would be problematic, but I'm guessing that you'll glaze over it and it won't phase you a bit. Confirmation bias is tough to get rid of, especially when you feel that your convictions are just.

(June 25, 2010 at 12:52 am)tackattack Wrote: It started reality. I can't see it coming from nothing, and I see prpose in it. Most of us actually just stop at a creator. I've never heard anyone say God couldn't have a creator in my learnings.

So because you can't see something coming from nothing, you propose a God who poofs things into existence from nothing. Makes perfect sense.


I appreciate your input.

---

I'm not intentionally trying to glaze over any topic or not address your points so allow me to structure this a bit. I assure you I can be assuaded by logi and I won't intentionally skim over your points. Answers in red, please respond by number.


1-Your original post included:
a-God does not operate under cause and effect, as he is timeless, but he willed something into existence,which is something that only works as a causal construct. It all sounds like a case of special pleading to me. I never said God doesn't operate under cause and effect when interacting within this universe. When someone can jump to anywhere on the space time "track" and go in either direction doesn't mean that while he's traveling on the track he isn't part of the space time.

and

b-I'd like to hear the best explanation of why an infinite regress is not possible, and preferably one that does not negate the qualities or necessity of the God in question at the same time. An infinite regress outside the universe is possible. Within this universe an infinite regress isn't possible because we know that the universe at some point started, then begs the question what started it (the big bang). That leads to the question, if there was nothing before the universe then what started the big bang, what was the initial cause to start the causal chain. If you see a design to teh universe then that answer is typically God, if not it typically stops at random chaos from the big bang.

let's add

c-You can't have this if he was created. It also means that as a creation, he is subject to laws that were put in place before him in order for him to exist in the first place. Laws of someplace outside this universe which we're not privy to. God being created still doesn't affect this universe at all from what I see.

2- If a version of God is literally indistinguishable from an infinite amount of other versions of God, including those that don't exist objectively, what good reason is there to believe in your particular version? through religious study the things I attribute to God are best described by Jesus's interpretation or what God is, as described in the Bible

3- You asked my contention of the following:
1. God did not send a clear enough message for humans to understand
2. God did not want to send a clear message for humans to understand, intentional obfuscation
3. God did not send a message for humans to understand
4. God does not exist objectively.

This is evidenced by the literally billions of versions of God's attributes, intentions, and commands by people the world over. You'd think an all-powerful being could make himself be known in some detail, to avoid the damnation of his creation, not to mention clear up thousands of years of religious strife and hardship. I would say I'm at none of the above. God did send a clear message, he can't be fit in a box (despite our best attempts), yet who I see as my personal concept of God is quite clear.

4- So, given that you've asserted that there is no consensus on what "God" is, have demonstrated that such a being would be necessarily finite and not all-powerful, you now contend that the glaring contradictions of your own belief system are somehow irrelevant? The eternalness of God (whether he grew up or just always was) has nothing to do with his power (powerfull enough to created everything in the universe). There is a concensus as to what God is. Let's just assume that God did grow up, he'd be "alive long enough" to be the closest thing to eternal that we know, and therefore from our perspective endless.

You'll have to forgive me I'm tired tonight I'll catch up later.