who created god

Originally posted by Quark_666
Modern cosmology says matter didn't come in neat little atomic packages and it wasn't extended into the storm of galaxies that it is today. The universe has always existed, and theists didn't ask cosmology before they became theists.

EDIT: before they said the universe must have been created by intelligent design.

This is interesting. "Cosmology" makes no assertions, in any empirical fashion, about anything before "Planck Time." In fact, Cosmology still leads one back to some sort of Creator or Architect, regardless of the cosmologists willingness to admit so.

Even if we assume a self-contained, boundless, universe, that has infinite regression, there is still the major problem of rules and creation. In cosmology, time is not linear. Some instances, time is not even an appropriate bound with which to conceptualize. Regardless, there is still the problem of rules creation. Do the rules randomly create themselves? Sure!

But where did THAT rule come from? Is there a higher state that also randomizes the rules that create the rules? SURE! And we can do this up to 11 times in String Theory.

Regardless, there is a state...a portion...that has to have an architect. What people don't understand is that that architect does NOT have to be bound by our concept of time or even space. Not even close. In fact, there's no way that this architect could.

So when you hear or read about a cosmologist talking about no need for a God in our universe, they really are missing the point with bounded rationality. I actually cannot see any possible way that "this" can exist without a God. I am forever stuck being a theist because of this. It sucks, really, because I would really like to be an atheist.

Well theres no reason to think its a god. It could simply be something else.

"What?" you may ask. Well Im not gonna try and paint it to be anything, since I dont know.

But to say its definitely anything we might call a god, (certainly any God or Gods that we've made up so far) by default in absence of any hard answer for now strikes me as foolhardy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is interesting. "Cosmology" makes no assertions, in any empirical fashion, about anything before "Planck Time." In fact, Cosmology still leads one back to some sort of Creator or Architect, regardless of the cosmologists willingness to admit so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Even if we assume a self-contained, boundless, universe, that has infinite regression, there is still the major problem of rules and creation. In cosmology, time is not linear. Some instances, time is not even an appropriate bound with which to conceptualize. Regardless, there is still the problem of rules creation. Do the rules randomly create themselves? Sure!

But where did THAT rule come from? Is there a higher state that also randomizes the rules that create the rules? SURE! And we can do this up to 11 times in String Theory.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless, there is a state...a portion...that has to have an architect. What people don't understand is that that architect does NOT have to be bound by our concept of time or even space. Not even close. In fact, there's no way that this architect could.

But then: any transcendent, immaterial, spiritual creator could not be proven empirically anyway (again, by definition). If one wishes to find and experience a direct perception of 'God', then one needs to train one's attention and develop one's consciousness accordingly and methodically. This is the path of the meditative traditions, and to the extent that meditative phenomena can be verified empirically, it has (eg, the ego as a construct).

IMHO, looking for God via the physical universe will only yield his Platonic shadow, so to speak, not the reality casting it.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well theres no reason to think its a god. It could simply be something else.

"What?" you may ask. Well Im not gonna try and paint it to be anything, since I dont know.

But to say its definitely anything we might call a god, (certainly any God or Gods that we've made up so far) by default in absence of any hard answer for now strikes me as foolhardy.

By the primitive definition, the "what" WOULD be God.

Not necessarily the benevolent "in his image" God. But it would be a God or even gods.

It's just a bit absurd for us to try and conceptualize such entity/ies the way religions do, from a "science" perspective.

At the very worst, I'm a motivated agnostic because I really want to not believe in God and the almost seemingly arbitrary set of rules I have to follow in my religion.

Originally posted by Mindship
While no empirical evidence exists yet, I believe cosmologists / theoretical physicists have, for some time now, been strongly considering the existence of a multiverse or 'bulk' (ie, an existence before the Big Bang), since this higher platform (as I understand things) completes unification theories. As for empirical evidence: we may find it via LHC experiements (eg, 'missing energy/mass'😉, and we may have already found evidence in the cosmic microwave background (those circular 'bruise' patterns).

If there is an eternal multiverse with an infinite number of universes (eg, Linde's chaotic inflation), we just happen to exist in a Hubble volume where initial conditions following our Bang fostered the rules we observe, while in other universes different rules coalesced (if any at all). When you have infinity/eternity to play with, anything is possible, as long as the Hubble volume is internally consistent with regard to its own particular set of rules.

While I do agree that an eternal, 'transcendent' creator would be outside our notions of space and time (by definition), I don't think a Something That Always Was And Always Will Be has to necessarily be transcendent in that sense (at least, this is my thinking at the moment). The hardware of reality itself could be eternal and infinite w/o need for a transcendent creator.

But then: any transcendent, immaterial, spiritual creator could not be proven empirically anyway (again, by definition). If one wishes to find and experience a direct perception of 'God', then one needs to train one's attention and develop one's consciousness accordingly and methodically. This is the path of the meditative traditions, and to the extent that meditative phenomena can be verified empirically, it has (eg, the ego as a construct).

IMHO, looking for God via the physical universe will only yield his Platonic shadow, so to speak, not the reality casting it.

I should let it be known that I subscribe to the S3 model. Which should slightly explain where I'm coming from. And the multi-verse theory is still a theory: yet unproven. And the multi-verse theory only posits a near infinite number of universes, not infinite.

But, lastly, my main point was...there is some sort of rule maker. Regardless of SOME cosmologists claiming that these rule sets are randomly chosen, they are failing to even realize that "chosen" implies some sort of sentience. I know I'm taking their words out of context, but taking a step back and then saying "well, who or what setup the frame-work for this random generation of rules?" That's where my God is: on the fringe. Or in your words, in the platonic shadows.

Also, I like you more after reading your post. 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
I should let it be known that I subscribe to the S3 model. Which should slightly explain where I'm coming from. And the multi-verse theory is still a theory: yet unproven. And the multi-verse theory only posits a near infinite number of universes, not infinite.

But, lastly, my main point was...there is some sort of rule maker. Regardless of SOME cosmologists claiming that these rule sets are randomly chosen, they are failing to even realize that "chosen" implies some sort of sentience. I know I'm taking their words out of context, but taking a step back and then saying "well, who or what setup the frame-work for this random generation of rules?" That's where my God is: on the fringe. Or in your words, in the platonic shadows.

Also, I like you more after reading your post. 😐

Originally posted by Quark_666
Modern cosmology says matter didn't come in neat little atomic packages and it wasn't extended into the storm of galaxies that it is today. The universe has always existed, and theists didn't ask cosmology before they became theists.

EDIT: before they said the universe must have been created by intelligent design.

You are mistaken. Cosmology has found that matter, space, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang. The universe is not eternal. Not according to modern cosmology.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You are mistaken. Cosmology has found that matter, space, and time itself had a [B]beginning at the Big Bang. The universe is not eternal. Not according to modern cosmology. [/B]

Originally posted by Quark_666
Since I'm not a cosmologist and I think it's a moot point to the argument, I'll agree with you. Let me emphasize the moot point part though - you can't say there must be a god because the universe has a beginning.

On the contrary. That's exactly what you can, and would, have to say. How familiar are you with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Originally posted by Mindship
Some multiverse theories do posit a finite number (I believe for some string theories, it's something like 10^500 universes, and for a Level II multiverse, 10^10^10000000 universes). But others, like a Level I multiverse, do allow for an infinitude.

I have never read about the infinite universes in the multi-verse theory. I was only aware of the level II and III models (odd that I didn't know about the I model yet knew about the other two, isn't it?)

Originally posted by Mindship
I would prefer to say in the metaconscious depths, but platonic shadow struck me as more familiar, less esoteric phrasing.

I prefer the latter, as well.

Originally posted by Mindship
Then I have accomplished something worthwhile this day. 😎

I'm not often impressed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
On the contrary. That's exactly what you can, and would, have to say. How familiar are you with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Originally posted by Quark_666
This better be good.

Eh, it's a long argument and I'm going to be gone for a few days and unable to reply, so I'll lay it out when I get back if that's alright with you.

Enjoy your vacation!

Alright then. First part of the kalam cosmological argument.

p1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause
p2: The universe began to exist
c: The universe had a cause.

p1

Pretty straight forward. If something doesn't exist and then it does there must a reason for the change. Otherwise you would be basically saying that something came into existence from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. And nothing can't make something.

p2

As I said. Modern cosmology has already determined this point.

c

The argument is such that, if both premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.

This is the first part. Before moving on, are there any questions/problems with the argument so far?

p1-what makes you think this? after all we dont see anything BEGIN to exist in this world{things in this universe are only different assemblies/synthesis, of already existing things. nothin barring the contreversial quantum realm is created ex nihilo in this universe and in the entirety of human history and experience}

p2- did, it, or is it merely a coming together of already existing things/form from an already existing medium, namely the multiverse/higher dimensional space?

c- probably, but was the cause itself uncaused? if thats true than it contradicts p1.

p.s. kalam's argument is EXTREMELY weak and effectively discredited/disproven in modern times and thinking. actually it has been discredited and disproven since the middle ages and likely, even before. the problem of contradictory assumptions destroys the argument before any conclusion could be reached.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Enjoy your vacation!

It's a simple argument: "The universe came from somewhere. Thus God."

The only weaker argument that can possibly be formed is Augustine's which goes: "Everything is caused by something else. Thus God must exist because he wasn't caused by something else." Which is so nonsensical I can't believe anyone ever thought of it.

even though i am no great proponent of hitchen's ideas, this is a debate between him and william lane craig, one of the chief{and vanishingly few} contemporary proponents of Kalam's argument.

YouTube video

Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright then. First part of the kalam cosmological argument.

p1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause
p2: The universe began to exist
c: The universe had a cause.

[B]p1

Pretty straight forward. If something doesn't exist and then it does there must a reason for the change. Otherwise you would be basically saying that something came into existence from nothing, by nothing and for nothing. And nothing can't make something.

p2

As I said. Modern cosmology has already determined this point.

c

The argument is such that, if both premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.

This is the first part. Before moving on, are there any questions/problems with the argument so far? [/B]

Originally posted by leonheartmm
p1-what makes you think this? after all we dont see anything BEGIN to exist in this world{things in this universe are only different assemblies/synthesis, of already existing things. nothin barring the contreversial quantum realm is created ex nihilo in this universe and in the entirety of human history and experience}

I explained in my post why this premise makes sense. And, I might point out, that cosmology does, in fact, state that the universe came into existence ex nihilo.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
p2- did, it, or is it merely a coming together of already existing things/form from an already existing medium, namely the multiverse/higher dimensional space?

No, it's a beginning. Modern Cosmology has found that matter, space, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
c- probably, but was the cause itself uncaused? if thats true than it contradicts p1.

It does not. p1 states that anything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The cause of the universe, since it's outside of time, does not have a beginning, and thus needs no cause.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's a simple argument: "The universe came from somewhere. Thus God."

The only weaker argument that can possibly be formed is Augustine's which goes: "Everything is caused by something else. Thus God must exist because he wasn't caused by something else." Which is so nonsensical I can't believe anyone ever thought of it.

It's a little more advanced than that. If it's so illogical, you should be able to refute it.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I'm so lucky that's the first I've heard of this. It's insane. I'll let Leon and Sym take it from here. I think they're doing a beautiful job pointing out what's wrong with this argument.

Hey, don't call it insane until I've had a chance to defend it...

Originally posted by TacDavey
I explained in my post why this premise makes sense. And, I might point out, that cosmology does, in fact, state that the universe came into existence ex nihilo.

No, it's a beginning. Modern Cosmology has found that matter, space, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang.

It does not. p1 states that anything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The cause of the universe, since it's outside of time, does not have a beginning, and thus needs no cause.

It's a little more advanced than that. If it's so illogical, you should be able to refute it.

Hey, don't call it insane until I've had a chance to defend it...

no you didnt. modern cosmology does NOT say that the universe came to existance ex nihilo. the "nothing" that cosmologists refer to is not the same "nothing" that philosophers refer to. the cosmological "nothing" has basic axiomatic properties and identity properties that make it NECESSARY for the dimensions and concepts we know to be our universe, to come out of it spontaneously. this is not an UNCAUSED universe. the kind of nothing"absense of everything" that you are referring to has no justification for being a real phenomenon. nothing we have experienced or scientifically measured has ever show it to be the case

yes but modern cosmolog has also found that matter space and time are not ALL there is to existance even though our human intuitions can not grasp much else. infact, in modern cosmology, there are higher dimension and causality outside our current universe

yes but that is an error based in the arrow of time, which again is based in the way our memory works based on entropy. it would be more accurate to talk about finiteness in dimensions of events or structures{things} and then see which variable caused it rather than use TIME as a perfect frame of reference{which it is NOT in modern physics}.simply put, simply because things are outside time does not mean than they are UNCAUSED.

and it actually isnt any more advanced than that at all. it is the most simplistic, and most weak arguments for god's existance on the face of the earth. infact, the only step down would be a "god exists because he has to" or "fish!".