Who designed the designer?

[Xelasnave.1947]

Humans are incapable of creating God.

And yet they have Jan.
All reference to God comes from humans.
And look how many they have created made up invented designed.

Thousands .
Various models each invented without recourse to reality.

Invented by humans for humans.

This time the dog didn't do it or the cat humans created God in their own image.

Humans invented God just like they invented Santa, peter pan, the easter bunny, goblins, dragons, fairies, big foot and the rest of the made up characters...all fictional, all invented, all designed to fill the hole in some folks existence.

Have you studied religion Jan, and looked at how it was invented and evolved.

Side step that question or answer it but my money is another side step coming up.
I ask simply to guide the discussion to something that could raise us out of the mud to discuss religion as how it evolved through history, its roll in society and conflict. The roll it played in justifying slavery in the early US.
You know meaty stuff, sensible analysis and well considered conclusions.

What is the evidence that supports your claim?

Given the enormity of the available evidence where should I start.
Hang on its you who bought your imaginary friend along why don't you show us all why he is nothing more than made up.
Anything, anything at all, a face on a potato chip and recent miracle.

I've learned not take your guess seriously.

You should realise Jan that I am always right and that all I say is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I've provided suitable evidence above.

Yes more imaginary stuff.
Why don't you boiler plate your evidence so you can cut and paste it each time you are put on the spot.

Which ones are those?

All of them.

Is this your crushing blow?

There goes Alex the crusher.

You do tend to focus on something and irrespective of any assurance simply stick with it.

I am not going to crush you or has your imaginary friend convinced you otherwise.

Are you currently teaching me a lesson?

Again you insist on thinking your imagination dictates reality even though I clearly rejected the earlier request to teach you a lesson.
You may not get it but the audience certainly gets it.
I even think your attempt to raise this non issue borders on not being truthful, with the forum and sadly with yourself.
Fortunately my words are on record for all to see.

Or is is this the calm before the storm.

You are showing your weakness ... Imaginative invention.

The anticipation is at fever pitch.

Sure it is Jan pity you are so imaginative.

All my discussions are sensible.

By your definition only.
In your view only.
I shall not drive home my point BT calling upon the readers to comment but say I did ask form all to put their hands up, yes or nay, to the assertion you make...let me frame the question.
"Do you think Jan offers sensible discussion" yes or nay.
My guess, which you have every reason to trust, is
The Nays have it.
Let's see if anyone quotes me and offers a nay.

So what do you think about a historical discussion on the evolution of religions, creation of Gods and generally raise the bar.

Exchemist is on the right track and I should be engaging in the stimulating discussing his observation but Jan I like you and sincerely would like to keep you entertained and provide you with a platform to perform.

So in closing I am not out to crush you, but I think I have said that, and not out to teach you a lesson and I have also covered that so its up to you to decide if you will dwell on your delusions and caller me crusher, teacher or your all time fall back favorite atheist which title I accept but know this its not important bordering on irrelevant.

I hope you are having fun and wish you a happy and interesting day.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Here is an interesting video

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Here is an interesting video

Alex

Does that mean god just IS and IS and IS and Is and IS.........?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Does that mean god just IS and IS and IS and Is and IS.........?

I think it is interesting because it is.

Should be viewed by anyone with an interest in religion, astronomy and astrology.
Real answers, real people but for me life changing because I found God.
Alex

 

[sideshowbob]

Why do you think God would need to have been designed?

It isn't my argument; it's the design proponent's argument. Or more broadly, it's the theist's argument: Everything must have a creator.

Ergo, the creator must have a creator and THAT creator must have a creator and THAT creator must have a creator and THAT creator.....

Of course it's a nonsensical argument. That's what I'm pointing out. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then neither does the "creation".

 

[exchemist]

It isn't my argument; it's the design proponent's argument. Or more broadly, it's the theist's argument: Everything must have a creator.

Ergo, the creator must have a creator and THAT creator must have a creator and THAT creator must have a creator and THAT creator.....

Of course it's a nonsensical argument. That's what I'm pointing out. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then neither does the "creation".

Hang on, I don't think that's right.

Surely the essence of the Cosmological Argument (for God or something equivalent) is that of the "uncaused cause", isn't it?

Although I argue in post 33 this is something of a truism.

 

[sideshowbob]

Surely the essence of the Cosmological Argument (for God or something equivalent) is that of the "uncaused cause", isn't it?

Yes, and "uncaused cause" is a nonsensical concept.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and "uncaused cause" is a nonsensical concept.

Is it? The reason I thought it was a truism is that I thought it was a statement of the logically obvious, rather than nonsensical. I mean, given that the Big Bang started, and there was nothing before it, that start had to be an uncaused cause, didn't it? Or do some people think the Big Bang had a cause?

 

[Seattle]

Is it? The reason I thought it was a truism is that I thought it was a statement of the logically obvious, rather than nonsensical. I mean, given that the Big Bang started, and there was nothing before it, that start had to be an uncaused cause, didn't it? Or do some people think the Big Bang had a cause?

The Big Bang wasn't the beginning. The beginning hasn't been explained. That's why the Big Bang starts some fraction of a second later.

It's a "cop out" of sorts but it's an honest statement of what we know or have an explanation for and what we don't know. With a multi-verse explanation (for example) one universe could have just ended setting up the conditions for another to begin.

 

[sideshowbob]

Is it? The reason I thought it was a truism is that I thought it was a statement of the logically obvious, rather than nonsensical.

We consider it nonsensical when it's expressed as "turtles all the way down", don't we?

 

[Michael 345]

I think I pointed out somewhere about going down the path of Infinite Regression
You finish up like early cartographers
When they came to the edges of the maps they were drawing, and did not know what lay beyond they would put "Here there be Monsters"
You might as well do the same when trying to map out anything beyond the Big Bang
Or applicable to both "Unknown" and go and have coffee
I would but it's close to 3am and I am to lazy to go downstairs to make it

 

[exchemist]

We consider it nonsensical when it's expressed as "turtles all the way down", don't we?

Yes and rightly so, but "turtles all the way down" is exactly what the Cosmological Argument is not, surely? The idea of an uncaused first cause suggests the first something -whatever it may have been - just arose without cause, i.e. without another turtle to give rise to it.

 

[exchemist]

The Big Bang wasn't the beginning. The beginning hasn't been explained. That's why the Big Bang starts some fraction of a second later.

It's a "cop out" of sorts but it's an honest statement of what we know or have an explanation for and what we don't know. With a multi-verse explanation (for example) one universe could have just ended setting up the conditions for another to begin.

Yes that's obviously true from the strict evidence-based perspective of science. I don't see it as a cop-out, but merely a recognition of the limits to scientific enquiry. But self-evidently the Cosmological Argument does not purport to be a scientific argument.

I had thought there was a speculation of a zero energy state that was initially disturbed randomly, giving rise to a balancing amount of +ve mass-energy and a corresponding -ve amount of gravitational potential energy (adopting the common convention that gravitational potential is zero when objects are at infinite separation and any lesser separation is -ve relative to that zero level). But I may have got this wrong: I don't generally go in much for speculations of this nature. Hence my comment about a random - i.e. uncaused - first cause.

 

[spidergoat]

Is it? The reason I thought it was a truism is that I thought it was a statement of the logically obvious, rather than nonsensical. I mean, given that the Big Bang started, and there was nothing before it, that start had to be an uncaused cause, didn't it? Or do some people think the Big Bang had a cause?

Some people do. The cause could be another universe collapsing, or quantum tunneling, or uncaused.

 

[exchemist]

Some people do. The cause could be another universe collapsing, or quantum tunneling, or uncaused.

Yes that's right of course. There is the Big Bounce hypothesis, though I understand it is not particularly fashionable.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Alex's Big Crusher arguments.

Failure no1

And yet they have Jan.
All reference to God comes from humans.
And look how many they have created made up invented designed.

No s**t Sherlock!
All reference of gravity comes from humans.
All reference of atomic particles, and quantum mechanics come from humans.
How to make, and drive motor cars come from humans.
The term 'all references comes from humans' comes from humans.

Humans invented God just like they invented Santa, peter pan, the easter bunny, goblins, dragons, fairies, big foot and the rest of the made up characters...all fictional, all invented, all designed to fill the hole in some folks existence.

So far we have...

All references of God come from humans (let's pretend no other references come from humans, to give you a chance). Humans created the easter bunny, goblins, dragons, fairies, big foot etc.

When did humans make these characters up? I assume you know, or wouldn't make such a claim. Note I've missed out Peter Pan, because we have evidence of who made up this character, and when. So I will give you that one.

I think I'm a bit psychic, because I just get an overwhelming feeling you're not going to be able to come up with an answer. So, are simply stating these character as being made up, because they don't exist for you, or do you just think because you say it, it must be right?

Have you studied religion Jan, and looked at how it was invented and evolved.

Somehow, I think we have a different understanding of religion.
Does you understanding of the evolution of religion, go along these lines?..

The emergence of religious behavior by the Neolithic period has been discussed in terms of evolutionary psychology, the origin of language and mythology, cross-cultural comparison of the anthropology of religion, as well as evidence for spirituality or cultic behavior in the Upper Paleolithic, and similarities in great ape behavior.

Just for future reference.

Side step that question or answer it but my money is another side step coming up.

I'm not an atheist, Alex. I can only imagine what you term as God, even religion.
Explain yourself, if you want me to go down that road. Otherwise, it is simply a futile exercise, given the point of the thread.

I ask simply to guide the discussion to something that could raise us out of the mud to discuss religion as how it evolved through history, its roll in society and conflict. The roll it played in justifying slavery in the early US.
You know meaty stuff, sensible analysis and well considered conclusions.

I don't mind, as long as you take it somewhere.
Start the ball rolling if you can.

Given the enormity of the available evidence where should I start.

Start with the evidence that supports your claim. Do you have a problem with that?

You should realise Jan that I am always right and that all I say is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Yes, I am aware of narcissism.

Yes more imaginary stuff.
Why don't you boiler plate your evidence so you can cut and paste it each time you are put on the spot.

You asked for evidence of my imaginary friend, I provide, and you throw it back in my face? And here's me thinking you're a nice guy.

There goes Alex the crusher.

So you'd like to think.

I am not going to crush you or has your imaginary friend convinced you otherwise.

Ahhh! I was counting on it.

Seriously though, this is you trying to crush.
I know this tactic. Of course you will deny it, until you think you have it in the bag.

Again you insist on thinking your imagination dictates reality even though I clearly rejected the earlier request to teach you a lesson.

Not only are you always right, you only speak the truth. Hey Alex.
I hear you man.

You may not get it but the audience certainly gets it.

A narcissist who plays up to his audience. Nothing new there.

Imagine a black human being, wandering into a gang of really pissed of, red-necked, explicit, racists. Do you think his audience will get the fact that he is a human being, as much as any white person?

Fortunately my words are on record for all to see.

You're words are thus far, worthless. You're simply skirting round the sides, trying to find a way in, to crush, teach a lesson, blah blah blah.

You are showing your weakness ... Imaginative invention.

Like you'd know.
Stop evading, and come with the goods.
I'm not going to offer this opportunity again.

I shall not drive home my point BT calling upon the readers to comment but say I did ask form all to put their hands up, yes or nay, to the assertion you make...let me frame the question.

And here we reach rock bottom. An appeal to a rigged audience, to determine truth, or falsity. Pathetic!

So what do you think about a historical discussion on the evolution of religions, creation of Gods and generally raise the bar.

Personally, I don't think you're capable of discussing anything, to do with God, religion, theism, in any meaningful way. So far you just come across as an ignorant atheist. More ignorant than normal.

I hope you are having fun and wish you a happy and interesting day.

I'm having loads of fun Alex.
Can't wait for 'Failure no2'

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

... but "turtles all the way down" is exactly what the Cosmological Argument is not, surely?

The Cosmological Argument is the "one unsupported turtle" argument. How is one unsupported turtle less nonsensical than an infinite stack of turtles?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex's Big Crusher arguments.

You are not losing your cool Jan shouting like that.
Your focus on crushing on crushing is starting to worry me.
Maybe I should assure you that I have no intention to crush you...oh wait I already have.
How do visualise me crushing you Jan not physically I hope you know me on top you under.
That would be sinful Jan.

No s**t Sherlock!

You seem to be preoccupied with fictional characters Jan can't you do something about your condition?

All reference of gravity comes from humans.
All reference of atomic particles, and quantum mechanics come from humans.
How to make, and drive motor cars come from humans.
The term 'all references comes from humans' comes from humans.

Funny about that and you still can't see the difference between fiction and fact. Interesting.
How did you arrived at the obvious Jan?
Hang on you are joking.
Very cute you are really nice trying to cheer me up.
My grand mother died I guess you knew somehow.

I think I'm a bit psychic,

I do to but you have spelt it wrong Jan.

All references of God come from humans

That's great Jan you have taken a big step to enlightenment.

do you just think because you say it, it must be right?

Jan that is such a nice trap I am compelled to jump in and let you catch me , so yes it must be right because I say so.
Now don't dislike me just because I am always right.

The emergence of religious behavior by the Neolithic period has been discussed in terms of evolutionary psychology, the origin of language and mythology, cross-cultural comparison of the anthropology of religion, as well as evidence for spirituality or cultic behavior in the Upper Paleolithic, and similarities in great ape behavior.

Wiki is our friend, perhaps not as good as the bible because it mainly deals in fact.

I'm not an atheist

Your not??? Jan I already knew that..something you said earlier gave it away.

Explain yourself, if you want me to go down that road. Otherwise, it is simply a futile exe

I don't know how to put it without it coming as a shock Jan but I will try to sum up my position. God is made up. Religion is a machinery to refine Sun worship and exploit the gullibility of poor folk who think the Sun places a variety of sons on the planet that have mystical but unused powers.

Start the ball rolling if you can.

I did try Jan by posting a utube video that sort to explain the delusions about Sun worship.
You could do some astronomy and see if "the three kings" in Orion line up with where the Sun "dies" and is reborn in after three days...I hope you looked at the video it gives you an idea of what to observe.
It would be fun to see if there is anything in the claim made in the video rather than just accept that the presenter is right and not making stuff up.
Folk make a lot of stuff up Jan so you always have to be on the lookout for being told lies.

Start with the evidence that supports your claim.

Again?
First couple of lines in the bible, no witness could be present at creation so it's made up.
But you make no comment when I present that fact and so I feel there is little point in going on as sometimes I get the impression you have closed your mind to anything I present in support of the proposition that it is all made up.
Who was there to observe God creating the Universe is all I want to know but without that witness I can only believe it was made up just like all the other fairy tales.

Yes, I am aware of narcissism.

Good but what does narcissism mean..is it sortta like wise and infallible.. Thanks Jan you are going to make me blush. You are real nice to me that is real cute.

You asked for evidence of my imaginary friend, I provide, and you throw it back in my face?

Damn I missed it Jan, oh well my loss. How will I tell my friends...it was before me evidence of God and I missed it...yes that's what I will tell them.

here's me thinking you are a nice guy

When you are right you are right Jan.

So you'd like to think.

I am going to put it on a t shirt.

Ahhh! I was counting on it.

Sorry to disappoint you Jan I don't even know your star sign. Let's just be friends.

Seriously though, this is you trying to crush.

I don't crush on the first date Jan.

Of course you will deny it, until you think you have it in the bag.

I have given up on trying to deny anything Jan if you day it then it must be true in your mind.

Not only are you always right, you only speak the truth.

The way you state the obvious is well very nice.

Imagine a black human being, wandering into a gang of really pissed of, red-necked, explicit, racists. Do you think his audience will get the fact that he is a human being, as much as any white person?

I have no idea Jan.
You can quote me on that.

You're simply skirting round the sides, trying to find a way in, to crush, teach a lesson

Are you getting focused on crushing Jan ..no its me just imaging things.

Stop evading, and come with the goods.

I did not touch the goods they were gone when I got here.

I'm not going to offer this opportunity again.

Is that a promise?

And here we reach rock bottom

We never left it.

An appeal to a rigged audience, to determine truth, or falsity. Pathetic!

Well in your favour no one came forward with a nay so that's nice.

Personally, I don't think you're capable of discussing anything, to do with God, religion, theism, in any meaningful way. So far you just come across as an ignorant atheist. More ignorant than normal.

I think you are holding back to protect my feelings, that is nice Jan.

I'm having loads of fun Alex.

I am to Jan and I mean that sincerely.
You are very very nice.

Can't wait for 'Failure no2'

Be patient Jan although it is probably not nice to look forward to failure and I do hope that you have more to look forward to in life than failure.
You are an intelligent person, witty, well read, great conversationalist there is no reason to think you will fail. Think positive you to can be a winner.

Now no more talk about crushing and try and think wholesome thoughts.

Have a great day Jan.

Alex

 

[Seattle]

Jan Ardena said:
I think I'm a bit psychic,

I do to but you have spelt it wrong Jan.

Priceless.

 

[exchemist]

The Cosmological Argument is the "one unsupported turtle" argument. How is one unsupported turtle less nonsensical than an infinite stack of turtles?

Well, let me ask you, do you think the Big Bang was caused or uncaused? If caused, then caused by what?

If it, or whatever caused it, arose randomly, that would be uncaused.