Who designed the designer?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 In Aust : found it :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,652
    Which puts me in mind of a complaint posted on another forum I go to where the poster was complaining Christmas was loosing its religious connection with the holy birth of jc. I pointed out that the birthday of jc was unknown and early church leaders stole pagan celebrations held around late December and annexed the 25th as the birthday of jc. As is their want they did not produce any evidence

    I was wondering if the god bothers get to upertie we should take them to court for the return of the day (actually I think the pagan festival went for about 3 weeks)

    While us pagans had our own invisible gods we preferred to party with them, not treat them as special to be worshipped and follow any stupid rules they came up with

    Here is another thought bubble. It's a wonder I've never considered this before. Are there any other gods who have a listed birthday?

    If I can't interest god or the designer in your pigeon I might try to find the maker of the trainer wheels on this scooter I saw in Bali

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,598
    It must have something to do with all the discussion about crushing but I could not help thinking about man being in Gods image.

    And this is sinful but well JC took care of my sins so I will raise this hairy problem.
    Does God have well you know reproductive organs? Did Adam get them at first or was he retro fitted when eve came along?
    Was God working on another man for Adam and sortta run out of clay when he got to that bit, probably used too much on the breasts which the designer may have added to the new model.

    Running out of clay could explain why women are slightly smaller overall than men.
    But then he is God you would think he could round up more clay.
    You know what I think probably happened.
    The designer had a couple of sets of plans and the best plans, those for Eve got shuffled to the bottom and in the rush, there was a lot going on so I am not blaming anyone, Adams plans being on top God has grabbed them and created Adam...Not to seem in error and looking at how much better the Eve model was set about to knock one up in clay.
    It gets problematic cause that leaves open what was in the plans for Eve as to reproductive organs.
    It is a complex issue probably something best left to a priest.

    And at this point guilt has overtaken me, not enough to stop posting this thread, and so I must really apologise to the reasonable folk who don't take the Bible literally and have the good sense to use the Bible as something to find stuff that is useful and productive in their lives.
    I mean I for one have sorted thru and developed a means to handle emotions, by remembering to foster good emotions and be careful if I get negative.
    And I also am finding that looking into how religions started very interesting and maybe in time I may be able to raise my game to that which may meet approval of others who no doubt think I am far too casual in sensible discussion.
    Forgive spelling I have to go and won't get to do an edit.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,226
    I don't think that is right and I don't see how your animal analogies illuminate the question.

    If one accepts that:
    (i) everything came from an initial state of some kind, and
    (ii) that initial state arose by a random event,

    then surely that random event can quite reasonably be said to be the "uncaused cause" of everything that followed?

    If you think that is nonsense, can you explain to me why, without recourse to animal analogies or facetiousness?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,598
    But beyond the uncaused cause would there not be a process that limited or defined the boundaries of random ness.
    But you are correct but I simply ask what I ask.
    Alex
     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,598
    Is there a process that followed behind its presentation shows yet another layer of information exchange and on this basis I can not fathom to halt that seemingly endless collapse of information exchange as I can not escape the need of something to determine the random ness and of course something past that that determines how that instruction is to be performed.

    I hope that does not sound odd.
    Alex
     
  9. Michael 345 In Aust : found it :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,652
    The RANDOMNESS itself has always been RANDOMNESS with no constraint

    This time of day Huey Dewey and Louie are asking are they going into over time

    Try this

    Jigsaw puzzle
    Pieces are random particles
    Shaking the box flips some out and the low pressure state flips them back
    Randomly more flip out than flip back
    Suddenly we have a low pressure state inhabited by something
    And like my girlfriend in Jakarta in her new job in a new start up company the particles write their own instruction manual on what they do in this new environment

    Coffee time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,598
    Yes but randomness must obey some rules even if with no constraint.
    Simple example computer random generation as manifest and easily observed at a club and I speak of the pocket machine there is a program to generate random numbers which could select randomly without constraint but it would have to be told to generate without constraint and I doubt if they follow absolute randomness but laid in there is a directive to go in a certain direction to take away the randomness so as to pay the house and scatter a limited number of payouts.
    No matter how random there must be rules to determine how that randomness will work.

    So as we peel off the layers of each information exchange can we find a pattern from the randomness...

    I need to think this thru.
    Alex
     
  11. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,987
    Every thing that begins to exist, has a cause. Do you think that's reasonable? Or not?

    Why must God have a creator?

    Why do you think any creation, wouldn't have a creator.

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  12. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,987
    Any account of origins, by this logic, must also be made up.

    So do you think the heavens and the earth, just are? No beginning, therefore no end?

    It's not a fact that God is a made up character, Alex. Nobody was present at the time of the big bang, yet no talks in terms of it being made up. Despite whether or not people accept it.

    So your belief is based on the creation of pots, pans, and fairy tales.
    I believe in God.
    Atheist, and, theist.
    This is what it boils down to.

    The rest of your post is not only pointless, but silly.

    Jan.
     
  13. Michael 345 In Aust : found it :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,652
    Perhaps need coffee

    Surely the very definition of random includes the aspect of not following a pattern
    Following a pattern would indicate some underlying constraint (rule) and hence a cause
    No constraint = no rules = no causes

    After excape from randomness the particles found themselves constrained by their inability to flip out of existence

    Note I am not applying anthropomorphism to the particles just describing their actions

    Would a fly, fly around in an unbounded environment, in a random fashion?
    Would the fly, fly around in a restricted environment follow a pattern?
    Could it be in a unbounded environment it was just to hard, because of unbounded size, to detect any pattern?
    When the Universe came into existence (dispite looking pretty big to us puny minions) it really is small compared to unbounded

    This singularity scientists rabbit on about as I understand it was all confined to a small region, which I would have thought constrained matter in such a way there was no choice in the arrangement. Randomness gone, rules of physics born

    Huey Dewey and Louie want to go bed but will wait for me to get coffee first so I'll shut down now and hope to add more to this post later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,598
    Well I am not certain but the singularity, which ever way you may conceptualise it, and for some period at least until the end of inflation which ended after the first second had passed really was not matter which formed later.
    Alex
     
  15. Michael 345 In Aust : found it :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,652
    ???? Pretty sure it is still going on???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,598
    The big bang theory is an attempt to provide a model for how the universe evolved, not how it was created.
    It does not define a point or time of creation only how things developed starting a split second after the process started.
    That is the current model and it is made up in the context that a theory was developed and measurements observations taken and made to support what they have made up or concluded.
    So no account of origin.
    Well I look at what is available and we have big bang theory, God, but my favorite my own imagined unsupported glimpse of how it could be just before I really don't know.
    You can get a feeling that you should chose this or that but being entirely honest we really don't know.
    I can live with the realisation that can't know and not inclined to say this or that is undeniable fact.
    But as a gut feeling preference I like steady state which implies, in my approach a universe with no beginning, no ending, infinite no top, no sides, no bottom, endless.
    But I simply don't know.
    Our cosmology may change on some discovery that presents more clues.
    Consider this, If there was, is, a God our sole basis for belief, and read that as opinion, any religion will describe him or her, via the words written by men supposedly inspired.

    I say the claim to be inspired is not realistic.

    You will say otherwise, that is your opinion you may be right but looking at religions history how man has created God and Jesus and you get back to a custom of respect for the Sun like most things men keep trying to make things bigger better including stuff that should not be there..and a simple respect for the Sun and an excused to party and celebrate.. Well I understand. I can see how the idea developed.
    Its an interesting subject if you go deep and stand back all at once.
    Well no ones says the big bang is made up but on one level it is made up, conceived and presented by man, but to "make up" the big bang they use facts observations and enquiring method.
    The proposition I make is simple and reasonable.
    Yes but that's not a problem.
    I think the recognition of the Sun was good but it got outta hand.
    Yes your are probably right but you know me inclined to be silly its not a lack of respect you know Jan, see my attitude is short term cause I bank on only one term, no after life, so no need to be glum. Silly requires no depth of thought and I like to think silly is harmless.

    Alex
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,598
    Yes but the initial expansion was not of matter.
    Certainly observations suggest the Universe is still expanding.
    Alex
     
  18. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,987
    You believe this, Alex?

    Jan.
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,560
    I don't.
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,560
    No.

    The Big Bang may or may not have a "cause". It's impossible for us to know because we can't see beyond it.

    Why do you think it would?
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,226
    And that is absolutely fair enough. I myself am agnostic on the subject, not being someone who is turned on by metaphysical speculations of this sort. However your not accepting it does not ipso facto render it "nonsense", that's all. It is a possible scenario, I should have thought.
     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,560
    I said it was as nonsensical as turtles. Since nobody has shown the difference, I stand by the word.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,226
    OK I don't follow your reasoning at all but we won't get any further, evidently.
     

Share This Page