Who designed the designer?

[Michael 345]

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.

Isn't the current thinking along the lines, vastly simplified
It impossible for a vacuum to exist so the low pressure state caused particles to flip in and out of existence
It happened that the particles flipping in and out interacted
Result was a rapid expansion where and the when of the Universe started

Least that's how my 2 year old explained it to me

 

[exchemist]

Isn't the current thinking along the lines, vastly simplified
It impossible for a vacuum to exist so the low pressure state caused particles to flip in and out of existence
It happened that the particles flipping in and out interacted
Result was a rapid expansion where and the when of the Universe started

Least that's how my 2 year old explained it to me

If that is right, then it was "caused" by a random, i.e. uncaused, event, wouldn't you say?

Whether this is right or not I do not know. My contention is simply that the statement that there was an initial, uncaused, cause of everything is not nonsensical.

(Though it is not a scientific statement of course, as it is untestable by observation.)

 

[Michael 345]

If that is right, then it was "caused" by a random, i.e. uncaused, event, wouldn't you say?

Yes I could go with RANDOM just happening without a cause

Mind you a tiny tiny tiny ittse bittsy micro mini period later you have a RANDOM EVENT

Get where that would go?

Nope I'll back you the RANDOM had no cause
The RANDOM became the RANDOM EVENT then blah blah blah

NOTHING caused the RANDOM

Put it to bed and kiss it goodnight

 

[exchemist]

Yes I could go with RANDOM just happening without a cause

Mind you a tiny tiny tiny ittse bittsy micro mini period later you have a RANDOM EVENT

Get where that would go?

Nope I'll back you the RANDOM had no cause
The RANDOM became the RANDOM EVENT then blah blah blah

NOTHING caused the RANDOM

Put it to bed and kiss it goodnight

Exactly. That is what I mean by it being a truism, i.e. true but so what?, rather than nonsense.

 

[Michael 345]

Exactly. That is what I mean by it being a truism, i.e. true but so what?, rather than nonsense.

Pity we can't test it but I'm happy to call it truly happening on the observed evidence because here we are

Now if we could only convince others - THIS is how it IS and the old man with the beard is NOT IS

Oh hum wishful thinking

 

[sideshowbob]

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

We don't know. Maybe we can never know. That's why it makes no sense to talk about something being "uncaused". Until we have a way of looking "beyond" a certain point - and we might never have that capability - the answer is undefined.

 

[Michael 345]

We don't know. Maybe we can never know. That's why it makes no sense to talk about something being "uncaused". Until we have a way of looking "beyond" a certain point - and we might never have that capability - the answer is undefined.

Me thinks you are taking the Tip Toe Through the Tulips approach

Since it is already well established that nothing in Science is ever truly known surely you can go with "OK we don't know, may never know, but our best scientific explanation going on our best observations 'RANDOM fluctuations, in the low density flip in flip out of existence of particles defines a non causality' "

Say goodnight Gracie

 

[exchemist]

We don't know. Maybe we can never know. That's why it makes no sense to talk about something being "uncaused". Until we have a way of looking "beyond" a certain point - and we might never have that capability - the answer is undefined.

That is obviously true from a scientific viewpoint, as I acknowledged earlier in answer to Seattle, I think it was. However not only scientific statements have meaning. It may be an unresolvable issue but that does not make the hypothesis ipso facto nonsensical. Unless one takes a highly reductionist view such that any metaphysical speculation is "nonsense". I don't think many philosophers would embrace such a view.

 

[sideshowbob]

It may be an unresolvable issue but that does not make the hypothesis ipso facto nonsensical.

The only point I'm making is that a single unsupported turtle is on the same "sensical" level as an infinite stack of turtles. You can't claim that one "makes more sense" than the other. The same principle applies to an uncaused God (un-designed designer) versus an infinite regression of gods (designers). I don't know why it's more acceptable to pretend that Gods are more sensible than giant turtles.

 

[exchemist]

The only point I'm making is that a single unsupported turtle is on the same "sensical" level as an infinite stack of turtles. You can't claim that one "makes more sense" than the other. The same principle applies to an uncaused God (un-designed designer) versus an infinite regression of gods (designers). I don't know why it's more acceptable to pretend that Gods are more sensible than giant turtles.

We seem to be slightly at cross-purposes. I also think the Cosmological Argument fails as evidence of God, but I think bringing turtles into it is an unhelpfully pejorative distraction from the logic. Leaving turtles out of it, as nobody is asserting anything about turtles, the logical point I am trying to make is that it is not "nonsensical" to think that the universe was not caused by anything. It is quite a sensible supposition.

If it was not caused by anything, then the first step of its existence (which then caused everything subsequently) was uncaused. So, to say (portentously) that there was an "uncaused first cause" is no more than saying it was not caused by anything. It is not "nonsense", it is merely self-evidently true. But so what? It is not evidence of a God, or of turtles, or of anything whatever.

 

[sideshowbob]

... I think bringing turtles into it is an unhelpfully pejorative distraction from the logic.

It's intentionally pejorative.

... the logical point I am trying to make is that it is not "nonsensical" to think that the universe was not caused by anything. It is quite a sensible supposition.

But that isn't the topic. The topic is "Who designed the designer?" That's exactly the same question as "What is the turtle standing on?"

 

[exchemist]

It's intentionally pejorative.


But that isn't the topic. The topic is "Who designed the designer?" That's exactly the same question as "What is the turtle standing on?"

Hang on, you said the Cosmological Argument was nonsensical and that is what I have been taking issue with.

 

[sideshowbob]

Hang on, you said the Cosmological Argument was nonsensical and that is what I have been taking issue with.

"Uncaused cause" is nonsensical. Turtles.

The phrase itself is nonsensical. It's an oxymoron. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the universe was not caused by anything, that would not be an uncaused cause. It would be an example of why it's wrong to assume that everything must have a cause. We can assume that all elephants are big until we discover a small one. That example is proof that our assumption was wrong.

 

[Seattle]

The point of the OP was that some say that there must be an intelligent designer (God). If everything needs an intelligent designer then the intelligent designer needs an intelligent designer...ad infinitum.

Therefore, adding God (or intelligent designer) adds nothing. The only satisfying answer with this logic would be (infinity) that the universe has always existed. If that's the case (not particularly satisfying either to have to resort to infinity) then a God (intelligent designer) isn't needed either.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

God created the designer and the designer designed God.
It would be speculative and therefore unscientific to say how that happened.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

God created the designer and the designer designed God.
It would be speculative and therefore unscientific to say how that happened.
Alex

How about wording it

god created a designer
the designer promptly undated the design of god

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

How about wording it

god created a designer
the designer promptly undated the design of god

We probably should be careful presenting ideas to help the ID camp as they will steal our science for their schools.

Still alive how about you, but if I die I will send you a PM

Rather shaken still but I seem to be OK

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Still alive how about you, but if I die I will send you a PM

Still around and trying to catch up with a few mutual friends to pass on the news
If I go first I'll get god to give you extra healthy years and to delay entry for one poster for being so annoying obtuse

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Still around and trying to catch up with a few mutual friends to pass on the news
If I go first I'll get god to give you extra healthy years and to delay entry for one poster for being so annoying obtuse

Thanks.
And ask about my big pigeon maybe get the designer to knock up the plans so God just has to OK them.
Obtuse? Annoying I don't find anyone annoying particularly when obtuse.
Maybe its all the talk of crushing bring back old memories.
Stay well.
And Happy Birthday Jesus.
Alex

 

[Seattle]

Like Elvis, I like Baby Jesus better.