Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum who created 'god' then

no one has ever answered this question, they just avoided it. now you silly believers have no choice.

ALSO, answer the classic;

if god is omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?

Rob,

No one created God - you fall into the trap of thinking temporally about it. Even in the Bible God talks about himself specifically in atemporal terms - He simply states - 'I AM'.

And as for the second part of your question, I am surprised that someone with your obvious intelligence would ask it.

It is simply nonsense and far from 'The Classic'.

Can God build a wall he can't climb?
Can God speak and not speak?
Can God exist and not exist?

They are all nonsense and are questions more worthy of a child.

Omnipotence is surely understood to mean all-powerful within the realm of what is logically possible.

I do not actually believe that God can create sentient beings with free will that do not have the ability to do things contrary to his will - the two things are logically incompatible. But I still don't have a problem with him being omnipotent and having the ability to impose his will upon those beings at any particular moment - it would simply mean that in that instance he is over-riding their free will.

Regards,

Blacknad.

if god is omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?
He can make it but holds no promises.

Blacknad, so you admit that even your 'god' is limited by logic. So who invented this logic? You seem to believe that everything needed to be created in order to exist. What about the rules of maths, the rules of physics? They were always there, were they? Are we in agreement? Therefore I argue that we are a mere product of these rules. And if a god existed to create us He would be a product of these rules. So, you see ultimately we would still be a product of these rules. I have decided to skip the whole ?god? part because I believe it to be a very false method of making myself seem special or important in some unconditional way.

P.S. once again you haven't actually answered my question. Why couldn't nature JUST BE? (It is not conscious so it couldn't say I AM)

Rob said - 'Blacknad, so you admit that even your 'god' is limited by logic.'

REP: Logic is 'the relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events'

Therefore, it is not logic that limits God. Logic is simply the reasoning method that allows us to understand what is a reasonable proposition about God and what is nonsense. It remains that the question 'can he make a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it' is sheer nonsense. The two ideas are irreconcilable.

Or I could simply play along with the nonsense and say 'yes - of course God can create a rock he can't lift... and he can also lift it at the same time'. - and it is just our small feeble minds that can't comprehend how that can be so.

Also, it is not the word omnipotent that defines what God can and can't do. What God can and can't do defines the word omnipotent.

Rob said - 'You seem to believe that everything needed to be created in order to exist.'

REP: 'Everything'? I have said that God was not created.

Rob said - 'And if a god existed to create us He would be a product of these rules.'

REP: The one thing does not necessarily follow the other. I would check your application of logic here. It is quite possible to conceive that God is so 'other' that he just exists outside of all your rules and that in creating our universe created the laws at the same time.
So from our limited perspective everything must be framed by these laws, but why does it follow that God is?

Why couldn't nature JUST BE?

Whether nature could JUST BE or not has nothing to do with my reason for believing in God. Those who say 'nature cannot JUST BE - so there must be a God' are mistaken in their logic. You cannot argue from one thing to the other. Equally you can't say 'Nature could just be - so there must be no God'.

God?s existence is neither provable nor disprovable by human reasoning.

I believe because of a wealth of experience and because I find the reliable historical evidence for Christ and his actions and words compelling.

Regards,

Blacknad

If anyone created god we did, in our own image. We also created goddess, but that's another thread. People who need a magical reason for doing the right thing, being the right kind of person, acting in right ways, need a magical person to answer to. god exists as a mirror of the culture and the people who define it. I cannot take the god of the Hebrew people with its fire and brimstone very seriously. If there is a god, I am at peace with my conception of it, and need no one to tell me yeah or nay. I won't argue the attributes, but I concede the necessity for some people to have a "Big Brother" to answer to for their transgressions. I have no one to blame but me if I don't get kerosene for heat or don't light a candle in the darkness. No one will be cursing or forgiving if I curl up with a nice warm cat. I am the cause of my own predicaments. No god to blame. What a shame. I could have a field day with the blame and shame if I should choose to do that. I'll refrain and leave the airwaves for someone else to fill.

Sometimes it's not a question of weather or not one has the intelligence, but weather or not they're using it...

[Edited]

The creation of organised religion seems to me to have been to create a frame work to guide people to lead a good life. The problem is if someone doesn't want to lead a good life there are loop holes in every major religion. Christianity "thou shalt not kill" on to "an eye for an eye, a life for a life". Islam "Jihad" which can be interpreted in any number of ways. You can not force someone to be a good person, who isn't. That is why religion has some monumental failures, Osama bin laden, Richard the lion heart. Seems like a good man according to history but let take a step back. Didn?t he take a toddle across Europe and wage a war on a bunch of people who said "This Christianity thing seems nice but not really my cup of tea." You can give someone any book and they can infer from it what ever they see fit. Religion is not the answer, but it?s not really the problem either.

NOT THE PROBLEM?! People are living a lie! There's so much that people miss out on because they believe in life after death. That's my main issue with religion.

"There's so much that people miss out on because they believe in life after death."

WHAT?
I?ve never meet any body who doesn't live there live because there's a life after death.
Suicide bombers don't count as they are, I can't think of the right term so let?s just leave it as, ****ing nuts.
I admire most people who have faith, as long as they realise it has no bearing on this life, but if it helps them come to terms with death and tragedy, let them believe.
As Kryten said in Red Dwarf when told that silicone heaven doesn't exits "Then where do all the little calculators go?"
Most people just don't like the idea of oblivion after death.

Beaker said - Most people just don't like the idea of oblivion after death.

I think I could live with oblivion. In fact, I definitely don't have an issue with it. Accepting God's existence has many benefits but not one of them would be worth believing in such a collosal lie.

I believe because of the historical evidence for Christ's divinity - there was never anyone like him, amongst other things. This is backed up by my present day experience of him and the transformative effects of encountering him. None of this is unreasonable. Maybe unbelievable - to others, but real nonetheless.

And Rob, sorry to be confrontational, but your assertions about religious people not fully participating in life is patently untrue. It displays an ignorance about religion and where it leads people who approach it without an agenda.
You are painting us all with the same ill conceived brush.
Christianity is not essentially about obeying rules that stifle the living of life (as you would put it) - it is all about relationships. It is clear from the Bible, no one is found acceptable by keeping rules, and rapists, murderers, the selfish, the 'scum' of this earth, and even George Bush may be accepted.

You should understand Religion before you become so evangelical in trying to attack it. Your words remind me of the very worst of Christian Fundamentalists.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Fine, I suppose since there is most likely oblivion when you die (like before you were born), it seems reasonable that you should choose to simply ignore facts that cause you sadness and enjoy your short life as much as you possibly can.

But look at it from the point of view of people who don?t believe in life after death. They want to live longer so lets say they join the cryogenics club, in the future if it is possible to revive them and the cryogenics club is not one big scam, they get revived and enjoy a much more fulfilling, longer life. Heck, the secrets of science (the biggest mystery in existence) may have even been revealed by then. Now THAT?S what I call living.

Then again, these people will also die some day regardless, so (still assuming that death is oblivion) it really doesn?t matter.

Blacknad,
I already know what you're going to say; "we do not ignore facts that make us sad..." well I'll save you the trouble and answer you. If you believe that your dead loved ones are somewhere 'looking down on you' or whatever, then you are ignoring facts -that they are DEAD, gone, finito. And yes, it may not be a proved fact that there is no life after death, but take for example, the fact that you have already been dead, for infinity years before you were born. Have you got any memories to account for that time ?NO!

I don't think memory can be used to prove or disprove past consciousness or past lives. We all can forget dreams moments after waking. It doesn't mean that we never dreamt. Also, most of us can't remember life as an infant. I think memory has more to do with language in that situation. Something to do with our internal dialoges. But we know that we were all infants.

There is no death only a rearrangement of particles, right?? So maybe there's no death of conscience, just a rearrangement of some kind. Maybe DEAD realtives are just rearranged. There are mediums that have entered into experiments and have proven their communications have a higher probability to be right compared to average people who guess or make up a story about the same individuals.

Leaving chaos-theory aside, if, in the middle of no-where you shouted out "I'M VERY THIRSTY!" then forgot that you have done that and no living thing heared or saw you, then, as far as you are concerned, it never happened.

As for this statement; "Maybe DEAD realtives are just rearranged." This is just so improbable that I'm just going to go ahead and say it's impossible. You'r dead relatives particles are most likely skattered across the globe blowing in the wind or something. NOT in an iguana's brain that's on a mission to reassure you that they are alive and well.

I think we should look to George for the answer to this one.

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/carlin.html

VB

I don't like that guy.

Bellator,

There are better things you could have posted to support the No God idea, (even DA Morgan?s arguments come closer). Carlin?s article can be picked apart line by line to show misconception, misrepresentation, sweeping generalisation, lack of reasoning and quite everything that a scientific mind should decry. A rant starting with his inability to find God and concluding as a result that ?so therefore there is no God? is hardly reasonable and worthy of serious consideration. Whenever I talk to people who say they have tried the God thing and it didn?t work, I usually find that they approached God on their own terms and not his. He will not be what we want Him to be, but will remain what He is ? however unacceptable that may be to us. Funny, the article may be, but mockery doesn?t get at the truth.

If this is the sort of thing that bolsters your belief that God doesn?t exist, then you stand on shaky ground.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. Except of course for; "He will not be what we want Him to be, but will remain what He is " because there is no such thing as God. How can I prove this?? Grrr! This is annoying! Let me think...
I'll be back when I think of a way to PROVE that 'god' doesn't exist.

So "who created God then"
As a concept God was a creation of man. If you mean as an object of existence that is suggested as redundant in that like "Matter" God always was and always will be. I guess the argument is that God created us so we could create him. Nice.
jjw

Rob,

That's so interesting that you would use an uquana in your example as a medium.
Makes me wonder if you've watched Sonia Fitzpatrick the pet psychic on Animal Planet.

Personally, I would really love to see behind the scenes of that show because if the audience members can be trusted, it really looks like scientific evidence of the afterlife could be obtained.
I mean she talked to a bird for two minutes and the bird told her that the owner found her one day when she was rollerblading. I mean that's so improbable for someone to guess.

And no one says she's a blatant sham. And she's talked to so many people.
Now I dont' think anyone who claims to be psychic actually is. But Sonia looks like a real possiblity.
Maybe I'll try googling to see if she has any critics.

Lots of times the evidence we are presented with is quite convincing. The problem is that what is presented - what appears to us - is not what really is.

A common technique for these psychics for example is to have shills casing the audience before-hand - usually someone who just doesn't look like a plant. For example, Peter Popoff the famous faith-healer used to have his wife go out into the audience before the spectacles and case the crowd, getting loads of information just by listening unobtrusively and by innocently asking questions of the dupes who just really, REALLY wanted to believe. And I do mean dupes - the Popoffs referred to their victims as much worse.

What we see is not all there is. These shows are a lot like books. A writer doesn't have to lie. He can contrive a story that just tells you what he wants you to hear. He can also lie, exaggerate, or distort. Same for these miraculous shows. In the movies, we always root for the believer over the skeptic, because we see that from the reality of the story, the believer has sufficient evidence. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real reality.

Yes I know in most cases that is what happens. Any time that I've personally gone to a psychic, they made general guesses and then built off of my responses.
But that doesn't mean every psychic is a hoax. Just most of them.

I just googled Sonya. I gotta say that there is a possibility she does have this capability. I do think she falls back on old information she's learned in the past and applies it to other animal because she sounds redundant in many situations, but some of her communications are so unique. Especially, when she communicates with animals who have passed over and then she mentions there's a human family member there, too. And the audience member always immediately recognizes the person. They commonly say, "Sonya really hit the mark".
I ran into an interview where someone asked if she'd been scientifically tested and she said she wasn't interested. Go figure.
Pesonally, I would be alright if it turns out there's no afterlife, but what if there is?
I would really like to have certainty on this subject.
I don't know. And I do see your point about shows being a lot like books. I mean they could edit out all her "misses" which would make her "hits" less extraodinary.

"But that doesn't mean every psychic is a hoax. Just most of them."

The cases we study turn out to be hoaxes or self-delusion. The ones we don't study we don't know. But if I have to bet I know where I'm putting my money.

The problem is we've NEVER found a case where a psychic held up under scrutiny. You're right. That doesn't mean they're all fakes. OTOH, it seems to make sense to me that we would withhold acknowledging any of them are genuine until we can confirm a single case.

I just found an interesting site. The VERITAS Research Program. http://veritas.arizona.edu/TRUTH.htm#quackery

I'm going to read it and see if it's as interestiing as it looks.

Ok well not any proof found after reading that site and following leads to G Schwarz's book, The Truth about Medium.
(sounds like he's just cashing in on someone else's fame)
oh but I got some leads from reading the book reviews. other scientist's names who have done research and have come to believe in life after death. (I'll look into them tomorrow)
And a great quote by Victor Hugo, when asked Why does God not better reveal himself? "because doubt is the instrument which forges the human spirit".

Do you intend to look at any skeptical sources?

Check out the following exchange, for example:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-schwartz.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-05/follow-up-hyman.html

Just because someone has some letters after his name and uses some scientific jargon, doesn't mean he knows what he's doing.

Edgar Cayce might possibly be the exception.
I read all of his reading reports due to my interest in some occult issues.

http://www.edgarcayce.org/
jw

I was impressed with the critique by Ray Hyman.
Very thourough. Seems Gary Schwarz isn't neutral enough of an observer to really trust his research. Not to mention the protocal he followed had too many problems. Worthless really. And it's too bad because I doubt these same psychics are going to put themselves through any more lab tests.
Well I suppose you're right that after so many years of studing psychics if it hasn't been proven yet that they truly speak to the DEAD then most likely they don't.
One part of the Hyman's article that I really appreciated was his own story of thinking he could accurately read palms until one day he started giving readings with purposefull incorrect information and people still thought he was accurate.
So it's understandable that many psychics are not only duping their audience but duping themselves at the same time. It's no wonder they seem so honest.

Edgar Cayce's material is intersting, but from what I read it wasn't the kind of information that could be tested and proved. I haven't checked on any skeptic's reviews of him, yet.

Subtle distinction: I think it's not justified to assume that people can speak to the dead AND that it's justifiable to be skeptical when someone claims they can.

"uping themselves at the same time. It's no wonder they seem so honest."

Many people who claim to perform miraculous things like faith-healing, talking to the dead, predict the future, remotely view - many of these people - are frauds and profiteers. But some of them really do believe in what they're doing and are absolutely stunned when they subject themselves to truly objective tests that fail to support their beliefs.

Edgar Cayce is an interesting case. http://skepdic.com/cayce.html for starters.
He had little to no formal education, but read a lot. Probably he read well, but had poor reasoning ability. When I read the stuff he writes, it sounds like long strings of scientific sounding jargon strung into meaningless phrases. (I get the same feeling of dysphoria when I read Cayce, et. al., that I do when I read deconstructionist "essays.")

-Sounds like long strings of scientific sounding jargon strung into meaningless phrases-

Remindes me of when I found the same affect in Black Elk's narratives. He's a Native American Medicine Man. He talks exactly that way, incorrporating bits of scientifc jargon with his own wisdom gained from personal experience.
He's had many experiences with spirits or he believes he's had these experiences.

I read his book a while ago and I don't have it with me, but I remember him describing a group of scientists wanting to study his spiritual ways. But when they studied his sweat lodge, they didn't have the same reverence and wanted to make substitutions to materials that his people had always used. In the interest of time and convienance almost every bit of material was substituted and the whole sweat tent was done half-assed. He was such a peaceful man and describing this experience he didn't seem angry, just aware of the disrespect to the spirits, almost like he understood the people couldn't help thier ignorance. Culture clash I guess. I think the scientists were pleasent and curious people, but it seemed to me they disrespected Black Elk and his people more than the spirits.

Hi:
Edgar Cayce is unique when it comes to psychic matters. I was reading stuff about him many years ago. Some people confuse the junk written by his followers that they feel they extracted from his readings. They will write an entire book providing their interpretation of what they think Cayce was saying in a few readings. To judge the work of Cayce it is necessary to read the readings themselves. These are like reporters notes transcribed during one of Cayce?s readings, while Cayce was asleep, being provided for some visitor that made the request. In some readings his mind travels to other cities where he will describe for those present the makeup of a bedroom he has never seen and proceed to answer their question. The question may be something like the health of a family member that lives there and he will then proceed to discuss what he finds. There has never been a psychic that left this detail of specific documentation of what they were doing available for later corroboration. It is one of my life?s regrets that I never got to meet him. He died before I was convinced of his abilities.

Edgar Cayce was the exception to the phony psychics that con the world.
jjw

It's all about trust isn't it. If we could only trust in the authenticity of each other in the case of psychics and faith healers and thier subjects.

It's unfortunate that there are so many cons that have proven that there's good reason to be skeptical of one another.

I'd love to know if Edgar Cayce and Sonya Fitzgerald are authentic because of the detail specific information you describe.
And then there's the question of the authenticity of the sitters or audience members or if theya are too eager to make the reading "fit". So subjective in most cases.

Well, until I have a disposable 300.00 to spend on a reading by Sonya, Sylvia Brown, or John Edwards, I guess it's something to just let go of as difficult as that is for me.

And after I pass away I'll keep in mind to pass on concrete, verifiable, provable information on to any medium instead of just telling my family how much I love them.

I'm such a spoilsport. I don't think Edgar Cayce was genuine. People are very easily fooled. It doesn't make us stupid to be fooled. Many brilliant people get fooled. Many brilliant people have fooled themselves.

Cayce's seems like a garden variety delusion.

TFF:

I feel as I do and it requires no confirmation.
Some person complained about critics of evolution being poorly informed and this could be applied to many discarded concepts. When I read the documented readings I see much of note. It would be amazing if all agreed.
jjw

This is a science site.

The site www.freewebs.com/biblicalcreation has no discernable relation to science.