who made god?

[codanblad]

seems a popular argument for christians to use, that god must exist because who made the universe? well who made god? if its possible for god to simply come into existence, why can't the universe do it?

i understand that god by definition is the entity which existed before everything else, but surely whatever power allows him to exist first, could be bestowed upon the universe. and perhaps the universe doesn't have the consciousness, or control of all things which god has. perhaps the force which created the universe has expired, or left our universe?

[synthesizer-patel]

Considering some of the hilariously whacky things some christians beleive, why are you expecting them to make any sense?

[cosmictraveler]

Humans made God and if they didn't they by now they would have.

[nietzschefan]

Who? It's a tossup. Egyptians and Sumerians. Mostly I blame Sumerians.

[Yorda]

everything has a beginning, except everything (the universe). and god is everything because god is in everything. the universe is all the matter and god is the spirit/consciousness that makes it alive. without god there would be no universe. god makes the universe come into being.

For something to always exists, it wouldnt have had a point of creation.

if god had a point of creation, he would be a creation, and not the creator.

[nietzschefan]

Yorda, you have conversed with this universal "consciousness"? Or tapped into a way of "feeling" it?

From my layman observations, the Universe is in fact 99.9999~% -> Dead.

[lightgigantic]

seems a popular argument for christians to use, that god must exist because who made the universe? well who made god? if its possible for god to simply come into existence, why can't the universe do it?

i understand that god by definition is the entity which existed before everything else, but surely whatever power allows him to exist first, could be bestowed upon the universe. and perhaps the universe doesn't have the consciousness, or control of all things which god has. perhaps the force which created the universe has expired, or left our universe?
I guess that just leaves you with the problem of how change and variety comes to exist in the universe.
What could cause an eternal non-conscious substance to react with itself?
:scratchin:

[codanblad]

he was so frustrated with playing 'i spy' and having nothing to say, that gosh darnit he just had to make the universe.

[lightgigantic]

I think in your haste to say something entertaining you missed the point

Change and variety would be eternal - provided that which it is contingent on is conscious of course

[John99]

Codanblad,

Just because you lack the intellect to understand something does not mean it does not exist in some form or another.

Look at it this way: Centuries ago people would have thought you were crazy if you told them that one day man would be able to hold a human heart in their hands while performing surgery.

In this way we can conclude that once you know how something is done it becomes easy or at least possible.


Edit:Not to be confused with fundamentalism

[EmmZ]

You should read my Copenhagen interpretation applied to original particle, that'll clear things up :D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80859

[Michael]

seems a popular argument for christians to use, that god must exist because who made the universe? well who made god? if its possible for god to simply come into existence, why can't the universe do it?Yup. And, there could have been 5 Gods that always existed. Or 3. Or it could be that a God (or Gods) made the Universe and then died and ceased to exist.

Ever notice how people are happy to say God blah blah blah and He did such and such... BUT they feel so uncomfortable saying She did such and such?

People wants their Sky-Daddy.

Michael

[Michael]

John99,

Just to make sure we do actually agree. which I think we do.
Do you agree with the following statements:

1) Yes God may exist.
2) Yes Gods may exist.
3) Yes God may not exist.
4) Yes Gods may not exist.
5) Yes the universe may be eternal.
6) Yes the universe may have been created in situ 1 minute ago.
7) Yes Xenu may exist.
8) Yes Xenu may not exist.

:)
Michael

[codanblad]

Codanblad,

Just because you lack the intellect to understand something does not mean it does not exist in some form or another.

Look at it this way: Centuries ago people would have thought you were crazy if you told them that one day man would be able to hold a human heart in their hands while performing surgery.

In this way we can conclude that once you know how something is done it becomes easy or at least possible.

Edit:Not to be confused with fundamentalism

my experience of god has only been through reading the bible, and i reckon its ridiculous. so why would i believe that god knows better than me, when only the bible tells me that. other than people who are just repeating whats written in the bible, though they're perhaps deluded enough to believe they've felt god's presence.

today if you tell someone you believe in the roman gods, they'll think you're crazy. and that was the main religion of an empire. how long til christianity crumbles? look at history, in this way we can conclude most religions are man made and full of it.


God is apparently the only entity not to have been created, but to have always existed. For something to always exists, it wouldnt have had a point of creation. You are stuck in the 4th dimension of time.

http://www.******************/Love.gif

i felt this best answered my question. it's purely a matter of faith, but its theologically sound, and that's all it needs to be part of a religion.

[Mr. G]

I'm an atheist.

I'm also am ardent consumer of heavy metal music.

What I wonder about is why so many non-believers -- fellow heavy metalists, and fellow atheists -- devote so much of their existence obsessing over the non-existant.

Non-belief isn't about brow beating believers into non-belief. That's not going to happen. Same as believers can't brow beat us into believing.

Atheism is about having no rational reason to believe in the unknowable.

Then again, so is belief.

Atheism isn't about negatively getting personal. It's about being skeptical.

Disrespect the idea, if you are of the inclination. Don't disrespect the persons.

You can not disprove what they can not prove.

You can't defend the rational by irrational means.

[skaught]

I made God!!!

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: "Who made god?" The question is moot, because there is no "god." However, a more plausible answer is that ancient humans (mostly male humans) created the idea of a supreme being god from observing the day skies (sun) and the night skies (moon, planets, stars) which they made-up stories about. Over the millenia, the myths remained the same. The names of the constellations were changed so they could to create new myths.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

[one_raven]

i understand that god by definition is the entity which existed before everything else

I'm curious where you read that definition.
I've never read it.


Change and variety would be eternal - provided that which it is contingent on is conscious of course

I don't see how change necessarily requires consciousness.

today if you tell someone you believe in the roman gods, they'll think you're crazy.
It depends on who you tell.
There are still quite a few people who believe in them.

From reading your posts, I get the impression you have a very limited knowledge of different religions and a very myopic worldview.

This is what you have heard about people a, so this is fact and since this fact makes no sense to you, people a must be deluded idiots.

Until you get out more and learn more and experience more first hand, perhaps you would do well to ask more questions and make less statements.

[codanblad]

I'm curious where you read that definition.
I've never read it.

From reading your posts, I get the impression you have a very limited knowledge of different religions and a very myopic worldview.

This is what you have heard about people a, so this is fact and since this fact makes no sense to you, people a must be deluded idiots.

Until you get out more and learn more and experience more first hand, perhaps you would do well to ask more questions and make less statements.

firstly, go fuck yourself.

i'm an atheist, i'm asking people to explain something to me. i understand all sources of information are biased and must be evaluated, i'm not that naive. i'm studying islam as an open elective at uni (doing bach. psych), i was raised a protestant. i can understand you mistaking the nature of my posts, and assuming i'm another blindly zealous christian, but you're wrong. i'm just trying to discuss an issue i had with god being created, which i got good answers to.

when was the last time you saw a roman god church, or congregation. i've never seen one. pretty sure they're a minority. although maybe everyone except me is secretly worshipping them, who knows.

ask more questions? what's the post called and who made it? i made a couple of assumptions, cos i wanted answers to a specific question.

when you have such a limited amount of information as a couple of posts, perhaps you would do well to be less presumptious and not try and stereotype me. if you didn't go and fuck yourself at the start of post, and read the whole thing instead, i still think you're a dickhead.

[codanblad]

am just wondering, would ne1 agree with me that god existed before everything else? assuming god exists and is creator of the universe etc. pretty much going with the christian god. else i would have called him allah or ra or something.

[one_raven]

firstly, go fuck yourself.
Not right now, thanks.
Maybe after I finish posting this.

i'm an atheist, i'm asking people to explain something to me. i understand all sources of information are biased and must be evaluated, i'm not that naive. i'm studying islam as an open elective at uni (doing bach. psych), i was raised a protestant. i can understand you mistaking the nature of my posts, and assuming i'm another blindly zealous christian, but you're wrong. i'm just trying to discuss an issue i had with god being created, which i got good answers to.
Actually, I didn't mistake you for a Christian at all.
It is quite clear from your posts that you consider yourself an atheist.
What about my post made you make that ridiculous assumption?
Awfully defensive.

My assumption, actually, was that you were a recovering Christian.
Seems I was right.

when was the last time you saw a roman god church, or congregation. i've never seen one. pretty sure they're a minority. although maybe everyone except me is secretly worshipping them, who knows.
The Roman Gods are the same as the earlier Greek Gods - just renamed to be co-opted by the Romans. Would you concede to that?
Were you aware that many still worship the ancient Greek Gods in Greece?
Or did you assume that those who worshipped the ancient Greek Gods are all gone, since it does not happen in your back yard?

You brought up the Roman Gods as evidence that religions are man-made because they crumble and fall by the wayside.
Meanwhile, the Greek Gods are still alive and kicking, the Hindu Gods are still around, there are still over 200,000 Zoroastrians around the world and believe it or not, there are still quite a few people (in the US even) who still worship the ancient Roman Gods. In fact the US probably has more people who worship the ancient Roman and Greek Gods than anywhere else right now - these people generally refer to themselves as "Pagans".


when you have such a limited amount of information as a couple of posts, perhaps you would do well to be less presumptious and not try and stereotype me. if you didn't go and fuck yourself at the start of post, and read the whole thing instead
I did read the whole thing.
I have read a number of your posts, actually.
This is what I based my assumptions on.
You take a very limited view and definition adhered to by a small group of people and condemn all religions on that limited view.
It is typical of recovering Christians.
They are running away from their former brand and understanding of Christianity with as much fervor and zeal as the bible thumpers push their own flavor of Christianity.

i still think you're a dickhead.
That is certainly your perogative.
Don't worry, you're not alone in that thought - you could probably start a club.

My opinion still stands, however, that you should learn and experience a little more and base less of your world view on second-hand information and your limited experience in your small world.

[Myles]

Codanblad,

Just because you lack the intellect to understand something does not mean it does not exist in some form or another.

Look at it this way: Centuries ago people would have thought you were crazy if you told them that one day man would be able to hold a human heart in their hands while performing surgery.

In this way we can conclude that once you know how something is done it becomes easy or at least possible.


Edit:Not to be confused with fundamentalism

And had we stuck with religion we would never had got to see heart surgery !

[superluminal]

God was made by frightened humans cowering around a fire as a coping mechanism for having the incredibly bad sense to have evolved a brain capable of percieving it's own mortality in the face of a cosmos it was (and is?) unprepared to understand.

[scorpius]

I made God!!!
oh yeah..
which one?:shrug:

www.godchecker.com

[lightgigantic]

God was made by frightened humans cowering around a fire as a coping mechanism for having the incredibly bad sense to have evolved a brain capable of percieving it's own mortality in the face of a cosmos it was (and is?) unprepared to understand.
I think you have "god" confused with "consumerist culture"

[PsychoticEpisode]

When the 5 year old boy emerged from that Austrian house of horrors and gazed upon the night sky for the first time he questioned as to whether the moon was in fact God. I found his thought quite interesting and I couldn't help but wonder if at sometime in the past the same question was being asked by our ancestors.

[nietzschefan]

I think you have "god" confused with "consumerist culture"

Nope that's Christmas.

He's got it about right. A real long time ago, perhaps independently or isolated from each other, "people" came up with at good method of crowd control, probably to counter some other "people" living, absolutely, wonderfully, free. Perhaps too wonderfully.

[lightgigantic]

When the 5 year old boy emerged from that Austrian house of horrors and gazed upon the night sky for the first time he questioned as to whether the moon was in fact God. I found his thought quite interesting and I couldn't help but wonder if at sometime in the past the same question was being asked by our ancestors.

Nope that's Christmas.

He's got it about right. A real long time ago, perhaps independently or isolated from each other, "people" came up with at good method of crowd control, probably to counter some other "people" living, absolutely, wonderfully, free. Perhaps too wonderfully.
so you guys don't have any serious problems working with the assumption "because some people are getting it wrong, everyone is"?

[codanblad]

Not right now, thanks.
Maybe after I finish posting this.

Actually, I didn't mistake you for a Christian at all.
It is quite clear from your posts that you consider yourself an atheist.
What about my post made you make that ridiculous assumption?
Awfully defensive.

My assumption, actually, was that you were a recovering Christian.
Seems I was right.

The Roman Gods are the same as the earlier Greek Gods - just renamed to be co-opted by the Romans. Would you concede to that?
Were you aware that many still worship the ancient Greek Gods in Greece?
Or did you assume that those who worshipped the ancient Greek Gods are all gone, since it does not happen in your back yard?

You brought up the Roman Gods as evidence that religions are man-made because they crumble and fall by the wayside.
Meanwhile, the Greek Gods are still alive and kicking, the Hindu Gods are still around, there are still over 200,000 Zoroastrians around the world and believe it or not, there are still quite a few people (in the US even) who still worship the ancient Roman Gods. In fact the US probably has more people who worship the ancient Roman and Greek Gods than anywhere else right now - these people generally refer to themselves as "Pagans".

I did read the whole thing.
I have read a number of your posts, actually.
This is what I based my assumptions on.
You take a very limited view and definition adhered to by a small group of people and condemn all religions on that limited view.
It is typical of recovering Christians.
They are running away from their former brand and understanding of Christianity with as much fervor and zeal as the bible thumpers push their own flavor of Christianity.

That is certainly your perogative.
Don't worry, you're not alone in that thought - you could probably start a club. My opinion still stands, however, that you should learn and experience a little more and base less of your world view on second-hand information and your limited experience in your small world.

fair enough. your argument is logical, and its your opinion, so yeah. i still think you're being presumptious, and you don't really have me pegged, but i doubt i'll be able to convince you otherwise by arguing with you in posts. my own shortcoming perhaps.

i disagree with your last sentence, what it says about me, but how can i know how much i don't know.

[PsychoticEpisode]

so you guys don't have any serious problems working with the assumption "because some people are getting it wrong, everyone is"?

I have a problem responding to nonsensical assumptions but I have no problem accepting man's propensity to make a god. In fact it is something we do very well.

[lightgigantic]

I have a problem responding to nonsensical assumptions but I have no problem accepting man's propensity to make a god. In fact it is something we do very well.
so why do you hold your assumption regarding the actions of a 5 year old as sufficient to delineate the entire length and breadth of religiousity as something other than nonsense?

[Aquaria89]

God is not embodied in anything. God Is a spirit. Since God does not dwell in anything concrete he was never made. He is just perceived like emotions.

[Aquaria89]

Yorda, you have conversed with this universal "consciousness"? Or tapped into a way of "feeling" it?

From my layman observations, the Universe is in fact 99.9999~% -> Dead.

If the universe is infinite couldn't it also be said that it is 99.9999~% living?
Doublethink.

[Prince_James]

If God is a necessary being, it is like asking which whole number comes before "1".

However, the argument "God is necessary" is different from "God is the cause of all things".

[Yorda]

If God is a necessary being, it is like asking which whole number comes before "1".

0 comes before 1 and god is 0 because 0 is the beginning and ending and the bible says that god is alpha and omega. but god is also the trinity which is 0, 1 and infinity which equal X (devil).

However, the argument "God is necessary" is different from "God is the cause of all things".

non-being certainly is a "necessary being" because it's the only thing that can exist without a creator, and thus it's also the only thing that can actually create or cause anything.

From my layman observations, the Universe is in fact 99.9999~% -> Dead.

the universe seems to be 99% dead because scientists have defined matter to be dead although it is alive.

[Prince_James]

Yorda:

0 comes before 1 and god is 0 because 0 is the beginning and ending and the bible says that god is alpha and omega. but god is also the trinity which is 0, 1 and infinity which equal X (devil).

Crom is displeased with your inane gibberish.

non-being certainly is a "necessary being" because it's the only thing that can exist without a creator, and thus it's also the only thing that can actually create or cause anything.

Non-being doesn't exist.

[OilIsMastery]

seems a popular argument for christians to use, that god must exist because who made the universe? well who made god? if its possible for god to simply come into existence, why can't the universe do it?

i understand that god by definition is the entity which existed before everything else, but surely whatever power allows him to exist first, could be bestowed upon the universe. and perhaps the universe doesn't have the consciousness, or control of all things which god has. perhaps the force which created the universe has expired, or left our universe?
That is an idiotic argument that comes from John Stuart Mill.

It stems from a misunderstanding of the First Cause argument.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-objections.html

Critics of the first cause argument often try to rebut it by asking a question: Who created God? This question is supposed to present the theist with a dilemma.

If the theist concedes that God does have a creator, then isn’t it God’s creator that we should should be worshipping rather than God? And who created God’s creator? The danger of an infinite regress of creators, each postulated in order to explain the existence of that subsequent to it, looms. If there is an infinite regress of creators, though, then there is no first creator, no ultimate cause of the universe, no God.

Perhaps, then, the theist should maintain that God doesn’t have a creator, that he is an uncaused cause. If uncaused existence is possible, though, then there is no need to postulate a God that created the universe; if uncaused existence is possible, then the universe could be uncaused.

However the theist answers the question Who created God?, then, what he says will undermine the first cause argument, and he will be forced to abandon it. So, at least, runs this common objection to first cause argument.

This objection is much less powerful than it first appears. In fact, it rests on a simple misunderstanding of the first cause argument.

If the first cause argument were the argument that everything has a cause, and that the universe therefore has a cause, and therefore that God exists, then the question Who created God? would indeed present the theist with a problem.

That, though, is not the argument. The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence. The theist can therefore confidently answer the question Who created God?, "No one created God", without fear of compromising the first cause argument.
:crazy:

[Prince_James]

OilIsMastery:

ONe has to prove that God did not have a beginning for the rebuttal to function. Especially as the argument entails the affirmation of universal contingency.

[OilIsMastery]

OilIsMastery:

ONe has to prove that God did not have a beginning for the rebuttal to function. Especially as the argument entails the affirmation of universal contingency.
One doesn't need to prove that. It's a tautological definition. First principles are matters of faith.

"There are some people who expect even this to be demonstrated, but on account of lack of education, for it is a lack of education not to know of what one ought to seek a demonstration and of what one ought not. For it is impossible that there be a demonstration of absolutely everything (since one would go on to infinity, so that not even so would there be a demonstration), and if there are certain things of which one ought not to seek a demonstration, these people are not able to say what they think would be of that kind more than would such a principle." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1006a

[Prince_James]

Oilismastery:

One doesn't need to prove that. It's a tautological definition. First principles are matters of faith.

"God does not have a beginning" is not a justified axiom. We have to deduce necessity from the nature of God. What makes God necessary? What aspects lead it to that conclusion?

Necessity can be proven by the absurdity of the opposite and the manifest truth of the affirmation. First principles are those principles which fit these criteria. They do not need justification because they are obviously so and could not otherwise be. Aristotle was wrong to dismiss inquiries into them out of hand, because they are absurdly easy to prove.

[OilIsMastery]

"God does not have a beginning" is not a justified axiom.
What on God's Earth is a "justified axiom"?

It's impossible to prove a first principle. First principles are assumed. In geometry we assume definitions, postulates, and common notions. We don't demonstrate them. How would you prove that "a point is that which has no part" or that "a line can be extended indefinitely"?

We have to deduce necessity from the nature of God. What makes God necessary? What aspects lead it to that conclusion?

Necessity can be proven by the absurdity of the opposite and the manifest truth of the affirmation.
What makes God necessary is the a priori principle of causality. If there is an infinite regression of causality we would never arrive at the present which is absurd.

We know the universe had a beginning. And all beginnings are caused.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.
The Big Bang had a necessary cause and we call it God. The opposite, that the first motion in the universe and the Big Bang happened without cause, is absurd. If Big Bangs and motion can happen without cause you might as well flush science down the toilet.

As Heisenberg writes in Physics and Philosophy:

In the discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory it has been emphasised that we use the classical concepts in describing our experimental equipment and more generally in describing that part of the world which does not belong to the object of the experiment. The use of these concepts, including space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'.

When we make an experiment we have to assume a causal chain of events that leads from the atomic event through the apparatus finally to the eye of the observer; if this causal chain was not assumed, nothing could be known about the atomic event.

[Prince_James]

OilisMastery:

What on God's Earth is a "justified axiom"?

It's impossible to prove a first principle. First principles are assumed. In geometry we assume definitions, postulates, and common notions. We don't demonstrate them. How would you prove that "a point is that which has no part" or that "a line can be extended indefinitely"?

There are some axioms which are incapable of proving outside a system. There are also some axioms which are simply definitions. "Point" is a definition. However, one could prove the existence and necessity of points. As one could prove the notion of line. It tends to be a bit more difficult than just affirming them, and for the sake of geometry (as opposed to philosophy), unneeded.

What makes God necessary is the a priori principle of causality. If there is an infinite regression of causality we would never arrive at the present which is absurd.

We know the universe had a beginning. And all beginnings are caused.

We do not know the universe had a beginning, if by "universe" we mean "existence". If by the physical universe of the Big Bang, then yes, we know it had a beginning - but a cause involving God begs the question "why God?". It is just as reasonable that existence (that is all that is) preceeds and generates the big bang and it is that which is the necessary cause. The Big Bang clearly needs a cause, but it needn't be divine.

For current scientific theories on this, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Model

I myself am not that interested in the science, as I am primarily a philosopher and this is a topic for metaphysics.

As to your affirmation that we'd never meet the present motion, I'll respond ala Aquinas:

Traversal is always understood to be from term to term. But whatever past day is designated, from that (day) to this there are finite days that can be traversed. But the objection proceeds from this, that, positing the extremes, there are infinite terms in between. [ST 1.46.2 ad 6] - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm

[OilIsMastery]

one could prove the existence and necessity of points.
How is that possible? Again, how do you prove that "a point is that which has no part?" I have never seen any such geometric demonstration.

As one could prove the notion of line.
How is it possible to prove that "a line can be extended indefinitely?" I have never seen any such geometric demonstration.

[Prince_James]

OilIsMastery:

How is that possible? Again, how do you prove that "a point is that which has no part?" I have never seen any such geometric demonstration.

Here's a some quick informal arguments. I would not consider them purely geometrical, as we're dealing more with ontology in these, even if geometry has a role in ontology.

1. Ultimately, there exists only somethingness and nothingness.
2. Somethingness and nothingness are mutually exclusive.
3. Were somethingness to cease, nothingness would exist.
4. Yet nothingness cannot exist, as to exist is to cease to be nothing.
5. Thus somethingness must exist and do so infinitely.

1. That which is infinite must be composed of an infinite amount of parts.
2. The smallest part imaginable is infinitesimally small.
3. A point is infintesimally small.
4. Therefore, a point is the smallest part imaginable in existence.

How is it possible to prove that "a line can be extended indefinitely?" I have never seen any such geometric demonstration.

1. Infinity must encompass all dimensions.
2. THe second dimension is a dimension.
3. The second dimension encompasses only length, and to match infinity, must stretch infinitely.
4. Therefore, the ultimate expression of the second dimension is a single extension encompassing only length for infinity.
5. A second dimension extension is called a line.
6. Ergo, a line without a termination point is infinitely long.

[OilIsMastery]

You just took 2 first principles that cannot be demonstrated and multiplied them into 15 first principles that cannot be demonstrated.

[Prince_James]

OilIsMastery:

You just took 2 first principles that cannot be demonstrated and multiplied them into 15 first principles that cannot be demonstrated.

It is unprovable to affirm that something can most basically either exist or not exist? And as such, the prime categories to discuss are existence/non-existence and the rammifications of the inability for one to manifest (as it would cease to be non-existent)?

We have the hallmarks of the necessity I spoke of earlier. The opposite is absurd and the true is manifestly so.

[codanblad]

i agree with oilismastery. that god was never created fits in with the rest of the religion. i was only looking for something theologically sound, there only has to be possibility, not likelihood or reason. keep in mind we're discussing a matter of faith, it doesn't matter how unlikely something sounds.

"We have to deduce necessity from the nature of God. What makes God necessary? What aspects lead it to that conclusion?" - this is a logical way of viewing the issue, not a religious way. are you counting for the fact that theists can argue that they 'know' god exists and is creator of all things, as they have witnessed his presence etc. the religious perspective is only unprovable to those who have not witnessed his presence. 'those who do not believe will never understand'.

As for "If Big Bangs and motion can happen without cause you might as well flush science down the toilet" - we know there are problems with science, its constantly being revised and added to. what we know of science at the moment is our prototype, we're still perfecting it and figuring out what we can.

to sum up, i'm atheist, i'm just picking at religion. so don't have a go at me for being brain washed, i know how difficult to swallow religion is, there's so many good reasons to criticise and doubt it, but with the right interpretation of a religion it comes down to a matter of faith, not logic.

[Prince_James]

Codanblad:

"We have to deduce necessity from the nature of God. What makes God necessary? What aspects lead it to that conclusion?" - this is a logical way of viewing the issue, not a religious way. are you counting for the fact that theists can argue that they 'know' god exists and is creator of all things, as they have witnessed his presence etc. the religious perspective is only unprovable to those who have not witnessed his presence. 'those who do not believe will never understand'.

I was assuming we're talking from philosophical theology. Mysticism isn't involved here.

The cosmological argument is from Aristotle, who was certainly not a fideist.

[Captain Kremmen]

he was so frustrated with playing 'i spy' and having nothing to say, that gosh darnit he just had to make the universe.
He did have something to say:

I spy with my little eye
something beginning with G.

[Enmos]

When theists say 'God' they really mean 'Universe', only they don't know it.

[Myles]

It all logical. God was made by a succession of previous gods, all of whom stood on the backs of turtles standing on the backs of turtles. That's what I call proof and godless Richard Dawkins cannot disprove it.

[xvortexbladex]

The entire kalam argument have flaws because it makes too many presuppositional errors. One have to beg many questions in order to lend credence to this method of theistic apologetics (at least this one is much more crafty than the Pascal's Wager). If one supposes that everything that existed is created by a creator, then that means everything the existed (yes, even the creator) has to be created by another maker. If this is true, there has to be a super god to create the current god, and so on for eternity. Note: we also come into a snag on presupposition of primacy of existence vs. the primacy of consciousness. creation has to be an act of consciousness whether it embodies intelligent or unintelligent design. To say that creation occured before existence, you have to posit that there is some way for this act of creation to occur. Well, what is required for creation? You need time, you need a space, some brains to at least go through with the action, and a physical entity to "cause the action". Do you not see the problem with the primacy of consciousness already? To create everything also entitles creating time, but in the formula I have just presented, you cannot create time when "time" is an essential formula that comes before the act of creation. Also, we have problems with semantics as well. To say something existed when there was nothing simultaneously, we reach a logical contradiction and conundrum. In fact, this cannot be a paradox because a paradox requires for the seeming contradiction to actually be a possible fact. That means a paradox might look like a contradiction at first, but it is really possible (a boy and his father were driving, they get into a car accident and the father dies, but the boy is sent to the ER. The surgeon looks at the boy and says, I can't do this, this is my son! Apparently, some might instinctually think the surgeon is the father due to preconcieved notions, but in actuality, we did not consider the surgeon could be the mother instead). This near-contradiction becomes a paradox, however, this is not the case with the primacy of consciousness, it is a contradiction. Thus, we are left with the primacy of existence- existence has always existed.

How can we say that nothing existed before? Has there ever been a time when we experienced inexistence? How can anything exist simultaneously with the nonexistence? How can we attribute an amorphous being with human attributes? How can a just God also be merciful at the same time? All these circularities and contradictions appear to have been created to make sure that a person who is unversed in critical thinking might give up trying to sort out all the problems with the belief in a God. Looks like it's worked very well because a vast majority of the people in the world believes in at least 1 God.

[codanblad]

It all logical. God was made by a succession of previous gods, all of whom stood on the backs of turtles standing on the backs of turtles. That's what I call proof and godless Richard Dawkins cannot disprove it.

i thought there were four giant elephants in one version? and personally i like the atlas one the best. if you're strong enough to hold up the world, why are you letting people make you hold up the world. punch them. how'd he get himself into that situation even. 'oh yeah well i didn't want music and archery, which apollo was heaps keen for, so i took "holding up the world". i'm basically the god of single support columns. yes, i was drunk'

[draqon]

God made itself

[OilIsMastery]

Richard Dawkins is perhaps the biggest metaphysical retard who's ever walked tha face of the Earth.

[Prince_James]

OilIsMastery:

Richard Dawkins is perhaps the biggest metaphysical retard who's ever walked tha face of the Earth.

Exactly. A second rate hack who thinks he can go into philosophy without reading one book. He needs to stick to biology, where he is brilliant.

[Myles]

i thought there were four giant elephants in one version? and personally i like the atlas one the best. if you're strong enough to hold up the world, why are you letting people make you hold up the world. punch them. how'd he get himself into that situation even. 'oh yeah well i didn't want music and archery, which apollo was heaps keen for, so i took "holding up the world". i'm basically the god of single support columns. yes, i was drunk'

My god is more powerful than your god.; you can't prove otherwise, so I must be right. Science has yet to show there were no turtles involved !

[Myles]

Richard Dawkins is perhaps the biggest metaphysical retard who's ever walked tha face of the Earth.

Metaphysics is for the retarded posing as intellectuals. whether they walk the face of the Earth or not. In short, it's a load of bollocks. It's sole utility is keeping philosophy teachers in work and having their books and articles printed.

Now you have declared Dawkins a retard, I have great expectations of you. What an intellect ! Do tell us what you have published !

[Myles]

OilIsMastery:



Exactly. A second rate hack who thinks he can go into philosophy without reading one book. He needs to stick to biology, where he is brilliant.

I'm sure Dawkins will be delighted to know you regard him as a brilliant biologist...praise, indeed, coming from you. I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician. His arguments are clear, reasoned and based on objective evidence, hardly the stuff of metaphysics which is more appropriate for someone sitting on a cracker barrel and whittling a stick.

[Myles]

OilIsMastery:



Exactly. A second rate hack who thinks he can go into philosophy without reading one book. He needs to stick to biology, where he is brilliant.

I'm sure Dawkins will be delighted to know you regard him as a brilliant biologist. I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician. His arguments are clear, reasoned and based on objective evidence, hardly the stuff of metaphysics which is more appropriate for someone sitting on a cracker barrel and whittling a stick.

[Prince_James]

Myles:

I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician. His arguments are clear, reasoned and based on objective evidence, hardly the stuff of metaphysics which is more appropriate for someone sitting on a cracker barrel and whittling a stick.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book oabout God. In it, he attempts (miserably failing) to take on philosophy. As such, he has claimed to be a metaphysician/philosopher. His arguments are neither clear, nor well reasoned, nor based on objective evidence. They are muddled, poorly thought out, and based on complete ignorance of philosophy rather than objective evidence.

I am sure that every philosopher "whittled on cracker barrels".

[OilIsMastery]

I wasn't aware that he claims to be a metaphysician.
You can say that again.

[Myles]

Myles:



Richard Dawkins wrote a book oabout God. In it, he attempts (miserably failing) to take on philosophy. As such, he has claimed to be a metaphysician/philosopher. His arguments are neither clear, nor well reasoned, nor based on objective evidence. They are muddled, poorly thought out, and based on complete ignorance of philosophy rather than objective evidence.

I am sure that every philosopher "whittled on cracker barrels".

So what evidence can metaphysics adduce to answer the big questions . Perhaps we can discuss the ontological status of my computer.


BTW , Wittgenstein, to mention but one, wouldn't have recognized a cracker barrel if he had tripped over one.

[Noone special]

I've thought over the first cause argument myself fellows. At first I would ask my friends the question "If everything has to be created, who created God?"

But I ran into a clever guy who told me something like this: We observe things in nature always change, and that every effect was based off a cause, this is the natural order of things. Then there is a neccesity for something (or someone) outside the realm of nature and outside the realm of cause and effect. How is this possible? That thing or person must be unchanging. One who does not change, or never has, would not be subject to a cause.

I thought this answer was clever, however there is still one hole in the argument that I am stuck on. If God had existed for eternity and even before time (however impossible to concieve), why would He create at the begining and not earlier? If no circumstance changed, and indeed God did not change, then why would He choose a certain time to create everything? There is no reason why He should not have created everything 3 trillion years earlier, or even to have waited, or to have never created anything at all.

[Myles]

The clever chap you mention failed to say that if everything has a cause then it follows that god must have a cause. Why make an exception ?

[Noone special]

Myles, the entire point was this: Only those things subject to change require a cause.

[Myles]

Myles, the entire point was this: Only those things subject to change require a cause.

I know the argument. Bring on the things not subject to change !

[Noone special]

The point is that the first cause argument is logically plausible given that God is not subject to change. I'm not merely asserting that God is not subject to change, just showing that it would be the answer to the problem of "Why doesn't God need a creator?"

[lightgigantic]

So what evidence can metaphysics adduce to answer the big questions . Perhaps we can discuss the ontological status of my computer.
metaphysics begins where empiricism finishes
ironically even when you insist on everything being classified in an empirical fashion (like evidence for metaphysics for example), that also becomes a metaphysical claim

[lightgigantic]

I know the argument. Bring on the things not subject to change !
well even you have one to offer, namely the validity of empirical investigation.
:o

[Prince_James]

Myles:

So what evidence can metaphysics adduce to answer the big questions . Perhaps we can discuss the ontological status of my computer.

Considering metaphysics is the science of "the big questions", quite a lot. Far better than science, which deals with the empirical questions individual things.


BTW , Wittgenstein, to mention but one, wouldn't have recognized a cracker barrel if he had tripped over one.

Yeah, he preferred sodomy in the Viennese park. That crazy Austrian son of a bitch!

[rjr6]

I've thought over the first cause argument myself fellows. At first I would ask my friends the question "If everything has to be created, who created God?"

But I ran into a clever guy who told me something like this: We observe things in nature always change, and that every effect was based off a cause, this is the natural order of things. Then there is a neccesity for something (or someone) outside the realm of nature and outside the realm of cause and effect. How is this possible? That thing or person must be unchanging. One who does not change, or never has, would not be subject to a cause.

I thought this answer was clever, however there is still one hole in the argument that I am stuck on. If God had existed for eternity and even before time (however impossible to concieve), why would He create at the begining and not earlier? If no circumstance changed, and indeed God did not change, then why would He choose a certain time to create everything? There is no reason why He should not have created everything 3 trillion years earlier, or even to have waited, or to have never created anything at all.

am just wondering, would ne1 agree with me that god existed before everything else? assuming god exists and is creator of the universe etc. pretty much going with the christian god. else i would have called him allah or ra or something.


In the Bible it is stated that God lives in eternity and in our universe we live in time. Trying to measure God's existence with the one He created for us would be very difficult. Not that we shouldn't unlock the mysteries of the universe, that is God's gift to us-intelligence, we should relish in it.
Maybe time is a circle in a divine view, no beginning or end so to speak and maybe God visits and travels in this circle with no awareness of cause and effect. Maybe it's not important to Him. Maybe a trillion years and a moment are very similar to Him.
I do not have experience in mathematics and dealing with infinity, but what is the measurable difference between infinity/1 trillion years and infinity/.01 seconds?

[Prince_James]

rjr6:

In the Bible it is stated that God lives in eternity and in our universe we live in time.

It is not stated in the Bible that God lives in eternity. Such sophisticated philosophy is completely absent from the book.

[Captain Kremmen]

I've thought over the first cause argument myself fellows. At first I would ask my friends the question "If everything has to be created, who created God?"

But I ran into a clever guy who told me something like this: We observe things in nature always change, and that every effect was based off a cause, this is the natural order of things. Then there is a neccesity for something (or someone) outside the realm of nature and outside the realm of cause and effect. How is this possible? That thing or person must be unchanging. One who does not change, or never has, would not be subject to a cause.

I thought this answer was clever, however there is still one hole in the argument that I am stuck on. If God had existed for eternity and even before time (however impossible to concieve), why would He create at the begining and not earlier? If no circumstance changed, and indeed God did not change, then why would He choose a certain time to create everything? There is no reason why He should not have created everything 3 trillion years earlier, or even to have waited, or to have never created anything at all.

There is exactly the same question to ask if there is no God.
If a world can appear out of nothing with no cause, then why would it wait until 12 billion years ago to do so?


The answer given by atheist cosmologists is that the question is meaningless because before the world came into being there was no time.
Theists could use the same argument for God's creation.

[Myles]

[QUOTE=Noone special;1889306]The point is that the first cause argument is logically plausible given that God is not subject to change. I'm not merely asserting that God is not subject to change, just showing that it would be the answer to the problem of "Why doesn't God need a creator?"[/QUOTE

What knowledge have we of something that doesn't change ? We are assuming that everything that changes must have an origin because we cannot imagine otherwise

To call that something god does nothing to further our understanding of the question we are addressing. We are simply labelling what we have inferred.We can say nothing about its attributes, nor that it exists. The argument amounts to no more than if this then that, which is no argument at all. It is conjecture because it is unsupported by objective evidence/

The wisest course of action is to answer such big questions by saying we don't know at present. We may know at some future time or we may not. Given that we can explain so much today which was inexplicable in the past, we may find the answer at some future time. That's the best we can hope for. We have no warrant to introduce theoretical entities to explain things.

[Myles]

[QUOTE=Prince_James;1889341]Myles:



Considering metaphysics is the science of "the big questions", quite a lot. Far better than science, which deals with the empirical questions individual things.

So what big answers has metaphysics produced ?



Yeah, he preferred sodomy in the Viennese park. That crazy Austrian son of a bitch

Spoken like a true scholar. It goes some way to explaining your predilection for metaphysics, perhaps.

Some more ammunition for you:

Hume played billiards a lot, therefore we can ignore anything he said.

Kant went for a walk at preciselythe same tine each morning. He was clearly an obsessive-compulsive who can safely be ignored.

Socrates was ugly, Plato was in favour of eugenics and so on. Can I take it you ignore the Greek philosophers because sodomy was acceptable to them.

I could extend the list but I have said enough to show you haven't got a lot going for you. You dismiss Wittgenstein with an ad homo. Yours must be a towering intellect.

I am not interested in hearing anyrhing else you have to say.

BTW it is laughable to call metaphysics a scxience, as you did.

[Myles]

In the Bible it is stated that God lives in eternity and in our universe we live in time. Trying to measure God's existence with the one He created for us would be very difficult. Not that we shouldn't unlock the mysteries of the universe, that is God's gift to us-intelligence, we should relish in it.
Maybe time is a circle in a divine view, no beginning or end so to speak and maybe God visits and travels in this circle with no awareness of cause and effect. Maybe it's not important to Him. Maybe a trillion years and a moment are very similar to Him.
I do not have experience in mathematics and dealing with infinity, but what is the measurable difference between infinity/1 trillion years and infinity/.01 seconds?

Maybe, maybe and another maybe. Maybe there is no god.

[Prince_James]

Myles:

So what big answers has metaphysics produced ?

The Laws of Thought, the Cogito and identity in general, the concept of universals and particulars, the notion of infinity, the idea of space and time, the conception of causality, et cetera, et cetera.

Hume played billiards a lot, therefore we can ignore anything he said.

He preferred backgammon.

Also, he was fat as fuck. Hume's fork? FOR EATING PIE.

Kant went for a walk at preciselythe same tine each morning. He was clearly an obsessive-compulsive who can safely be ignored.

He also had a small head.

Socrates was ugly, Plato was in favour of eugenics and so on. Can I take it you ignore the Greek philosophers because sodomy was acceptable to them.

Actually, Plato was against sodomy. He preferred spiritual love. But yeah, fuck those faggots! Clearly. Clearly I have no respect for Greek philosophy.

I could extend the list but I have said enough to show you haven't got a lot going for you. You dismiss Wittgenstein with an ad homo. Yours must be a towering intellect.

I was joking. I have a good deal of respect for Wittgenstein, you ninny. :P He's not my favourite modern philosopher. I prefer Chalmers and Searle for the last century.

BTW it is laughable to call metaphysics a scxience, as you did.

It is. It is the science of being qua being. That is the classical definition.

[pharaohmoan]

In my mind if you move up the hierchy of consciousness you will find God.
I think the idea that God has always existed is a fallacy. There must have been a start point. Intuatively I think God created himself and at the very least was the first spark of 'organised' consciousness that existed. Through trial and error I believe he sparked consciousness into the energy around him (yes the potential energy has always existed)or possibly fragmented his own energy. From then on he built up life.

I believe all this happened pre big bang and I suspect this could be as much as our third attempt/big bang at getting the formula for nature and life right.

[Myles]

Myles:



The Laws of Thought, the Cogito and identity in general, the concept of universals and particulars, the notion of infinity, the idea of space and time, the conception of causality, et cetera, et cetera.



He preferred backgammon.

Also, he was fat as fuck. Hume's fork? FOR EATING PIE.



He also had a small head.



Actually, Plato was against sodomy. He preferred spiritual love. But yeah, fuck those faggots! Clearly. Clearly I have no respect for Greek philosophy.



I was joking. I have a good deal of respect for Wittgenstein, you ninny. :P He's not my favourite modern philosopher. I prefer Chalmers and Searle for the last century.



It is. It is the science of being qua being. That is the classical definition.

Sorry but it is not science by the standard definition of that subject. What is metaphysics' latest addition to our knowledge ? Can't you see that philosophy has been overtaken by science. Neurophilosophy rides on the back of science and not vice versa. Philosophy has had its day.

Give neuroscience a try and you may find that homosexuality has a physical basis. I have no involvement with the gay community but I will defend their right to live their lives as the do because that is all that is open to them. Your reference to faggots is reminiscent of Phelps, that well known champion of reason.


Metaphysics refers to the later part of Aristotle's work onwards. literally "beyond physics". It has nothing to do with science as currently practised.

[Myles]

So what and where was god before he created himself ? This is a rhetorical question; I require no answer.

[rjr6]

Threw the collective consciousness and belief of God, humanity will manifest the God that creates us. Maybe.

[Reiku]

A Closed-Timelike Path, is when a particle travels in a path which leads them to the starting point... so the end is essentially the beginning, as much as vice versa.

It can also been that the beginning of everything, was also the end, so there is an infinite loophole, and essentially removes the paradox of where everything came from.

God is what made this loophole, and much as the loophole created God.

[Prince_James]

Myles:

Sorry but it is not science by the standard definition of that subject. What is metaphysics' latest addition to our knowledge ? Can't you see that philosophy has been overtaken by science. Neurophilosophy rides on the back of science and not vice versa. Philosophy has had its day.

LOL. Philosophy has not been overtaken by science even in the least. Science requires philosophy to even function. See: Philosophy of Science. The paradigm under which science functions is metaphysical.

I don't know what you're talking about. Neurophilosophy (the proper term is Philosophy of Mind) does not ape neuroscience. The most important concepts in Philosophy of Mind hav ecome from Dualists (Searle and Chalmers).

Give neuroscience a try and you may find that homosexuality has a physical basis. I have no involvement with the gay community but I will defend their right to live their lives as the do because that is all that is open to them. Your reference to faggots is reminiscent of Phelps, that well known champion of reason.

LOL AGain. Stop being so sensitive and go look for the neuroscientific foundations of a sense of fucking humour, you twit.

Also, neuroscience has found no foundation for homosexuality being innate. For one, the evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality is tremendous. Secondly, exclusive homosexuality is a myth of the 20th century, refuted by the history of hetero or bisexuality throughout history.

Metaphysics refers to the later part of Aristotle's work onwards. literally "beyond physics". It has nothing to do with science as currently practised.

Your ignorance is hilarious on this matter. Science is premised on metaphysical assumptions of empiricism premised on the principle of sufficient reason.

[Myles]

Myles:



LOL. Philosophy has not been overtaken by science even in the least. Science requires philosophy to even function. See: Philosophy of Science. The paradigm under which science functions is metaphysical.

I don't know what you're talking about. Neurophilosophy (the proper term is Philosophy of Mind) does not ape neuroscience. The most important concepts in Philosophy of Mind hav ecome from Dualists (Searle and Chalmers).



LOL AGain. Stop being so sensitive and go look for the neuroscientific foundations of a sense of fucking humour, you twit.

Also, neuroscience has found no foundation for homosexuality being innate. For one, the evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality is tremendous. Secondly, exclusive homosexuality is a myth of the 20th century, refuted by the history of hetero or bisexuality throughout history.



Your ignorance is hilarious on this matter. Science is premised on metaphysical assumptions of empiricism premised on the principle of sufficient reason.

Philosophy of science is for those who want to talk impressively without producing any resuts other than more topics to discuss ad nauseam. You are putting the cart before the horse. No science, no philosophy of science, which is an analysis of and commentary on science.

I suggest you tell Patricia Churchland , who describes herself as a neurophilosopher, that she must re-define herself.

If you regard innate homosexuality as a myth, you are beginning to sound like Phelps and his ilk. No doubt metaphysics and Bible studyu has a cure for this condition. I notice on another post of your where you refer to lesbianism as being a sign of our degenerate society, or wordfs to that effect. You have all the judgmental certainty of the ignorant.


I can see that your background is in philosophy, except you never got as far as the bit that would have told you that resorting to ad homs. is a sign of someone who has nothing left to offer. Try finishing part one of the course !


As far as metaphysics is concerned you clearly have no Greek. Meta = beyond and as I said it originally referred to Aristotle's later work.

Sorry about my lack of humour. I enjoy a bit of banter but I draw the line when it come to dealing with bigots.

I shall not reply to any further posts of yours on this topic, so feel free to give full rein to your penchant for ad homs. and wild statements about homosexuals.

[Prince_James]

Myles:

Philosophy of science is for those who want to talk impressively without producing any resuts other than more topics to discuss ad nauseam. You are putting the cart before the horse. No science, no philosophy of science, which is an analysis of and commentary on science.

The scientific method is itself philosophy of science. Science depends upon the scientific method, ergo, science depends upon the philosophy of science.

I suggest you tell Patricia Churchland , who describes herself as a neurophilosopher, that she must re-define herself.

Gladly. Do you have her academic e-mail?

If you regard innate homosexuality as a myth, you are beginning to sound like Phelps and his ilk. No doubt metaphysics and Bible studyu has a cure for this condition. I notice on another post of your where you refer to lesbianism as being a sign of our degenerate society, or wordfs to that effect. You have all the judgmental certainty of the ignorant.

I was referencing the absurdity of claiming a relationship with a transwoman consitutes "lesbianism". That we are now beginning to accept the ludicrous claims to being "female" by people who have an inverted penis butchered by doctors of loose ethics is a sign of our degenerate society. We live in a time of decadent decay, where we cannot even laugh at the insane.

Also, I am not a Christian. Do you even know what metaphysics means? Because I am getting the impression that you do not.

I can see that your background is in philosophy, except you never got as far as the bit that would have told you that resorting to ad homs. is a sign of someone who has nothing left to offer. Try finishing part one of the course !

Actually, I am pursuing my Ph.D. in the subject.

As far as metaphysics is concerned you clearly have no Greek. Meta = beyond and as I said it originally referred to Aristotle's later work.

I am fully aware of the etymology of the word. It comes from the Library of Alexandria's cataloguing of Aristotle's works to be sudied "after physics".

[Noone special]

Myles, since you have been so generous as to test the logical hypothesis of my posts, I think I will return the favor.

Every scientific endeavor is based off of a philosophy. In fact, our leaps and bounds in science can be linked to a result of philosophy of science; that is scientific positivism, sound familiar? It's the belief that we can actually know anything.
Unfortunately with the rise of post-modernism, positivism is fading out. Now our science is slowly evolving according to practical uses and not discovering overarching principles. Granted this is an overgeneralization but it is an example of a philisophical undercurrent affecting the way we do science.

And in fact, if you want to find how all science is based off some philosophy, look up philosophy of science on wikipedia, as was suggested by the noble Prince James, defender of all things good ;]

[Prince_James]

Noone Special:

And in fact, if you want to find how all science is based off some philosophy, look up philosophy of science on wikipedia, as was suggested by the noble Prince James, defender of all things good ;]

For your recognition of my greatness, I give you a boon. Speak and it shall be given to you.

[Noone special]

A boon? Well if you have a cream puff I should thoroughly enjoy a cream puff. A twinky would also do, or one of those lemon flavored things that resembles a twinky.

[Prince_James]

You are rewarded with a host of delectable confectionaries with a shelf life of a century.

[Myles]

[QUOTE=Prince_James;1890565]Myles:



The scientific method is itself philosophy of science. Science depends upon the scientific method, ergo, science depends upon the philosophy of science.

My original point was and still is that philosophy produces little or nothing of practical value. Most philosophers end up teaching or moving to an unrelated field. At the point in history where metaphysics became what was called natural philosophy, a seperation took place. The scientific method adopted practical experiments as opposed to philosophical conjecture.

I originally questioned the current value of metaphysics and, in response, you referred to what had happened in the past. BTW you mentioned Descarte's Cogito but not the Cartesian circle. For the purpose of this exchange, I am not interested in the past.

I have never denied that science has its roots in philosophy; I have simply said that science has overtaken philosophy. If you disagree, please name a few of the fields in which philosophy is making a positive contribution.


Gladly. Do you have her academic e-mail?

Patricia will be very upset that someone doing a PhD has never heard of her. Her book, Neurophilosophy, towards a Unified Science of the Brain-Mind may be of interest to you.

If you wish to correct her terminology, then I suggest you contact her.

Patricia Churchland, Professor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego


I was referencing the absurdity of claiming a relationship with a transwoman consitutes "lesbianism". That we are now beginning to accept the ludicrous claims to being "female" by people who have an inverted penis butchered by doctors of loose ethics is a sign of our degenerate society. We live in a time of decadent decay, where we cannot even laugh at the insane.

You are expressing an opinion , which is fine. But look at your language ! Why not bring back laughing at the insane and putting deformed bodies and " freaks" on display for the amusement of the masses ? Those were the days ! Society was not degenerate then.


Also, I am not a Christian. Do you even know what metaphysics means? Because I am getting the impression that you do not.

I never suggested that you were a Christian, just a character like Phelps ,who is certainly no Christian

Actually, I am pursuing my Ph.D. in the subject.

When I have some spare time I will sit at your feet and take notes. In the meantime try not to get carried away by your own self-importance.



I am fully aware of the etymology of the word. It comes from the Library of Alexandria's cataloguing of Aristotle's works to be sudied "after physics"

Well done !

[iceaura]

My original point was and still is that philosophy produces little or nothing of practical value. It systemizes and makes humanly intelligible the findings of scientific research.

Properly employed, it blocks certain tendencies to error.

Without its proper employment, people like B F Skinner or T D Lysenko or Edward Teller take over scientific endeavor.

The current global warming controversy, for example, is a philosophical discussion with notably practical consequences, regardless of its conclusions.

[Prince_James]

Myles:

My original point was and still is that philosophy produces little or nothing of practical value. Most philosophers end up teaching or moving to an unrelated field. At the point in history where metaphysics became what was called natural philosophy, a seperation took place. The scientific method adopted practical experiments as opposed to philosophical conjecture.

I originally questioned the current value of metaphysics and, in response, you referred to what had happened in the past. BTW you mentioned Descarte's Cogito but not the Cartesian circle. For the purpose of this exchange, I am not interested in the past.

I have never denied that science has its roots in philosophy; I have simply said that science has overtaken philosophy. If you disagree, please name a few of the fields in which philosophy is making a positive contribution.

Mathematics
Politics
Language
Logic (in fact logic is a sub-division of philosophy)
Computer science
Ethics both in general and in specialized contexts
Law
Science (as established and specifically in the study of the mind)

Furthermore, "practical" is not a prerequisite for philosophy.

Patricia will be very upset that someone doing a PhD has never heard of her. Her book, Neurophilosophy, towards a Unified Science of the Brain-Mind may be of interest to you.

If you wish to correct her terminology, then I suggest you contact her.

Patricia Churchland, Professor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego

I'm not a physicalist, so I tend to avoid too much of her type of literature when I don't have a need to see it. But I'll send her off an e-mail, perhaps.

You are expressing an opinion , which is fine. But look at your language ! Why not bring back laughing at the insane and putting deformed bodies and " freaks" on display for the amusement of the masses ? Those were the days ! Society was not degenerate then.

A culture and civilization must have the ability to make a line of delineation between acceptable behaviour and beliefs and non-acceptable behaviour and beliefs. Letting people butcher themselves and then pretend to be the opposite sex is one of those things that ought to be construed as laughably unacceptable and any doctor which performs these butcherings should not be allowed to practice medicine. Better that we put these people in freak shows, as you suggest, than sanction their behaviour.

I never suggested that you were a Christian, just a character like Phelps ,who is certainly no Christian

Phelps is Christian, just also insane.

[Myles]

Myles:



Mathematics
Politics
Language
Logic (in fact logic is a sub-division of philosophy)
Computer science
Ethics both in general and in specialized contexts
Law
Science (as established and specifically in the study of the mind)

Furthermore, "practical" is not a prerequisite for philosophy.



I'm not a physicalist, so I tend to avoid too much of her type of literature when I don't have a need to see it. But I'll send her off an e-mail, perhaps.



A culture and civilization must have the ability to make a line of delineation between acceptable behaviour and beliefs and non-acceptable behaviour and beliefs. Letting people butcher themselves and then pretend to be the opposite sex is one of those things that ought to be construed as laughably unacceptable and any doctor which performs these butcherings should not be allowed to practice medicine. Better that we put these people in freak shows, as you suggest, than sanction their behaviour.



Phelps is Christian, just also insane.

You are not a physicalist. Maybe yoy should have taken account of that before rushing to dismiss "neurophiloophy". You are too full of your own self-importance to recognize that you may be mistaken. An ideal mindset for a philosopher !

In another post of yours you expressed doubt about the existence of free-will. On the balance of current evidence, I am unclined to regard free-will as an illusion. However, unlike you, I do not rush to judge others because I live by what I believe in. You do not. Otherwise why not accept that what you call degenerate people are the way they are because they have no choice in the matter.

So it seems that you have a long way to go to sort yourself out. With a bit of luck, you may succeed.

I know all too well that practical is not a pre-requisite of philosophy. Neither is it a pre-requisite of doing crossword puzzles. I'll go with hard science which does some good in the world. If I have a disease. I go to a doctor, not a metaphysician.

Please mention my name if you contact Patricia Churchland. I have met both her and her husband, Paul and they seemed to understand where I was coming from.

Over and out

[Prince_James]

Myles:

You are not a physicalist. Maybe yoy should have taken account of that before rushing to dismiss "neurophiloophy". You are too full of your own self-importance to recognize that you may be mistaken. An ideal mindset for a philosopher !

Regardless of whether I am a physicalist or not, the right term for philosophy of mind is...philosophy of mind.

In another post of yours you expressed doubt about the existence of free-will. On the balance of current evidence, I am unclined to regard free-will as an illusion. However, unlike you, I do not rush to judge others because I live by what I believe in. You do not. Otherwise why not accept that what you call degenerate people are the way they are because they have no choice in the matter.

In that same thread I pointed out that I am a compatibilist. In every meaningful sense, people are free. As such, they are open to judgement. Their activities result from themselves and from their mindset, nature, upbringing, genes, inclinations, et cetera. As such, they are both praise worthy and blame worthy in every normal sense.

I'll go with hard science which does some good in the world. If I have a disease. I go to a doctor, not a metaphysician.

Doctors are closer to being engineers than scientists. Their efforts are not to determine generla principles for the sake of knowledge (science), but to cure problems of the body (technology/engineering). As such, they are sort of human mechanics.

Please mention my name if you contact Patricia Churchland. I have met both her and her husband, Paul and they seemed to understand where I was coming from.

What's your name?

[xvortexbladex]

Threw the collective consciousness and belief of God, humanity will manifest the God that creates us. Maybe.

Would that be a good thing though, a collective consciousness in the belief of God? Isn't that when a religious leader usually steps up and gets people to kill the other just because they believe in a God with a different name? Or get some gullible people to drink from the "Kool-Aid" of the collective?

[Myles]

Myles:



Regardless of whether I am a physicalist or not, the right term for philosophy of mind is...philosophy of mind.



In that same thread I pointed out that I am a compatibilist. In every meaningful sense, people are free. As such, they are open to judgement. Their activities result from themselves and from their mindset, nature, upbringing, genes, inclinations, et cetera. As such, they are both praise worthy and blame worthy in every normal sense.



Doctors are closer to being engineers than scientists. Their efforts are not to determine generla principles for the sake of knowledge (science), but to cure problems of the body (technology/engineering). As such, they are sort of human mechanics.



What's your name?

The easy bit first: My name is Myles, just like it says on the can. They will r4member me.

And now to the main event. Having read a number of your posts you come across as an obnoxious twit into hanging, regarding Africans as inferior. intolerance of homosexuality to name a few. You are prime material for the KKK or some other white supremecist group. In civilized company you would be regarded as an asshole and that is my perception of you.

Your posts are a testament to your character.

Like all vain twits, you justified yourself by telling us you were working towards a Ph D. What response did you expect ? Pray silence for Prince James who is about to impress us with his unique insights.It never occured to you to ask about my background because you were pre-occupied with preening your feathers. You even went as far as to doubt whether I knew what metaphysics meant, ha ha.

Well, my obnoxious friend, you have had your chain well and truly pulled. So who is the twit now ?

Next time you mouth off about degenerates, sub-human Africans and so on, please adduce some evidence to support your views. Explain why we should see things your way, or accept that you are expressing an opinion with which others are at liberty to disagree.

I shall now put you on ignore. Go peddle your shit elsewhere.

[Reiku]

Myles, as in sonics counterpart :)

[Prince_James]

Myles:

And now to the main event. Having read a number of your posts you come across as an obnoxious twit into hanging, regarding Africans as inferior. intolerance of homosexuality to name a few. You are prime material for the KKK or some other white supremecist group. In civilized company you would be regarded as an asshole and that is my perception of you.

I am vaguely impressed by your ability to to weave a complex sentence around. Did they teach you this at the day care?

Next time you mouth off about degenerates, sub-human Africans and so on, please adduce some evidence to support your views. Explain why we should see things your way, or accept that you are expressing an opinion with which others are at liberty to disagree.

Blahblahblah. Whinewhineshine. Go learn the neurophilosophical foundation for a clever wit for once, won't you?

Your posts are a testament to your character.

Yes. They are of steriling quality and I am of sterling character.

Like all vain twits, you justified yourself by telling us you were working towards a Ph D. What response did you expect ? Pray silence for Prince James who is about to impress us with his unique insights.It never occured to you to ask about my background because you were pre-occupied with preening your feathers. You even went as far as to doubt whether I knew what metaphysics meant, ha ha.

I'm quite the grand peacock, aren't I? Also, you quite apparently do not, as you seemingly were up a philosophical creek without a paddle when you attempted to show that philosophy was useless, metaphysics in particular.

[Noone special]

I am vaguely impressed by your ability to to weave a complex sentence around. Did they teach you this at the day care?

Hahahahahaha!

Ad Hominem 101 with Prince James.

[Prince_James]

Noone Special:

Hahahahahaha!

Ad Hominem 101 with Prince James.

The best part of teaching that class? The easy road to tenure!

[Quigly]

I didn't read the thread, so this may have already been stated.

Who made God? The question brings God to our level wear we as humans use the created thing to repackage the already created product. Consider Trees, We make lumber---houses out of wood. We don't create wood, it is already created. So to assume that something had to pull Godlike dust together to create God so that God could create the universe, ect.. is to really just make God an equal to man. If you could say, well this create God, than the "this" would have needed to be created. It is logical procession or whatever, but to Say God has always been, first blows our logical reasoning, and two, places a distinctness about God and about man, which I think is necessary for God to be God. So like the age old question of "who created the first Atom of the universe prior to the big bang" will always leave a lacking feeling/conclusion if you are looking at straight empirical data, so will the question of who created God, because we can't understand or scientifical be definite about anything but process.

[siledre]

I figure if there is a god then he is beyond the controls of a physical universe or the manifestations of limits that we are subject to or can even think of. The possibility that the seeming passing of time did not exist before a god or gods created it is very possible along with the universe, maybe it wasn't just the universe he created but linear existence as well. not an arguement for or against the subject, just a thought.