How does god have no creator?

[Sarpedon]

Well, like I said in two of my posts ago. We have a very good means of interpreting reality, and that is through mathematics. We know what we are actually interacting with because we can mathematically measure it. Back to vision, we can measure the wavelength and frequency of light. We know that what we see is only a very tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum 380nm-700nm, while the entire spectrum ranges from .1 nanometer wavelength to more than 1000 meter wavelengths.

Mathematics is based on certain aspects of reality that we observe. For example, we can determine through our senses that 1+1 = 2. What assurance do we have that our senses are correctly interpreting reality in regards to this simple mathematical principal? What is 1+1 = 659 in reality, but we percieve it as equaling 2?

We know that the amount of reality that we can interpret correctly is limited because we have evolved to only be able to interpret what is needed to survive.

On what do you base this assumption?

But yes, we have come to points called singularities where so far we have not been able to get past yet. And at these points we have confirmed that how we as biological creatures interpret reality is not complete as there actually may be as many as 11 dimensions, two of which may be time.

Again, this assumes that we can interpret reality correctly. If we do not interpret reality correctly, we do not have any reason to believe what you write (about not fully understanding reality) is true.

But there have been interpretations of reality that religion has heavily depended on. For example 2 or 3 of Thomas Aquinas’s Five Proofs for the existence of God heavily depend on the reality of Cause and Effect. But the seemingly well established notion of Cause and Effect may not hold true for all cases. There has been an experiment called the Double Slit Experiment which has boggled everyone. The implications of the experiment almost practically turn our world upsidedown.

Proofs for religion depend upon them, but not religion itself. Even if the evidence for cause and effect was thrown into doubt, this would only weaken or nullify Aquinas’s argument, not religion itself. I don’t know enough about physics to be able to comment on the experiment, but the experiment itself assumes that what we observe to be true is true.

 

[MrWhy]

1. Instead of random, I should have put undirected. Natural selection chooses the individuals with the best traits, which then pass on their genes. I have never heard of “being able to interpret reality correctly” or “come to conclusions about the nature of reality through philosophy” as being beneficial to reproduction, and thus something that would be selected. The most successful animals in the history of evolution seem to have done fine without it.

The correct interpretation of reality is what much of this debate is about. The time span and quantity of this debate would indicate some, perhaps all, are not interpreting reality correctly.

Whether or not that ability benefits reproduction remains unanswered. There is evidence that conflict (war) over reality interpertaion can be bad for the health of a culture. Reality confusion, via global ideological conflicts, could at some point have dire consequence on reproduction success for the whole species. Success meaning the survival of one generation to the point of producing another.

There is another type of reality confusion that you may not consider philosophical. How do we interpret proposed global threats like climate change, water and energy shortage, or even meteors. These can be considered philosophical because many religious people may think they are predestined, and therefore a waste of time to struggle with. I have heard somone say that any concern about our effect on climate change is very arrogant because we could not have that much impact or control on gods creation.

Another possibility for the appearance of our ability to discuss reality interpretation is evolution artifact. Evolution can cause good and bad effects as companion artifacts of other abilities that are directly related to adaptation. The ability to discuss this may be nothing but the consequence of a brain capablie of building complex social and physical structures.

 

[MrWhy]

Complexity and level of assumption are not directly linked. If you found a watch on the beach, it would take a greater level of assumption to believe that it was assembled by undirected physical processess than by a human creator (a more complex process). (Just for the record, I do not believe that ID is a scientific theory, but rather a fairly obvious conclusion.)

The “watch on the beach” analogy is very weak, as are most religious analogies. The problem is not that they are comparing apples and oranges. It’s that they are comparing apples to a hypothetical orange. We know watches and many other structures are made by people because we have much clear evidence they are. We have personal friends that make complex things. Some of us have actually been present when something complex was made by a human. In this case the idea of an undirected physical process is nonsense and not very useful.

We have no comparable experiece with observing an intelligent entity making a universe.

The conclusion that complex things require a complex creator is faulty. Many assume intelligent design of life because its the only way they know for making a functional machine. Complexity does not require intelligence. We see that the complex things humans make require some intelligence. Based on this observation, we assume there is a universal rule where object construction requires intelligence. This may be the rule for things produced by intelligent agents (humans), but it is not the rule for all things. Very long running, simple processes can also produce complexity. This is an inversion of how we normally think complex things originate, but is easier to understand if you consider that evolution is not an intelligent process.

 

[Hubriss]

Mathematics is based on certain aspects of reality that we observe. For example, we can determine through our senses that 1+1 = 2. What assurance do we have that our senses are correctly interpreting reality in regards to this simple mathematical principal? What is 1+1 = 659 in reality, but we percieve it as equaling 2?

We do not determine through our senses that 1+1=2, we determine that by logic.

Quote:
We know that the amount of reality that we can interpret correctly is limited because we have evolved to only be able to interpret what is needed to survive.

On what do you base this assumption?

For example since birth we normally perceive the world in 4 dimensions. We have the normal 3 dimensions, plus time. In order to act and survive in nature, being able to visualize reality in those 4 dimensions has been all that we’ve needed. But as I mentioned before, the Quantum level may take into account as many as 11 dimensions. What do I base these assumptions? First off they’re not assumptions. We all view the world in these 4 dimensions or some may consider them just 3 dimensions by neglecting time. They are based on experience which is to us individually, evidence. With mathematics we can create scenarios with 1 or many dimensions. In traditional geometry and algebra, we calculate in 1 or 2 dimensions. In Calculus the 3rd dimension becomes calculable. However many variables we have, that’s how many dimensions we take into consideration. And so far there are 10 or 11 discovered variables in our quest to interpret reality.

Again, this assumes that we can interpret reality correctly. If we do not interpret reality correctly, we do not have any reason to believe what you write (about not fully understanding reality) is true.

Again, it is not totally an assumption because it is based on evidence. Like I’ve said before, the greater percentage and amount of tests that hold true to our interpretations of reality, the greater our confidence can be.

Proofs for religion depend upon them, but not religion itself. Even if the evidence for cause and effect was thrown into doubt, this would only weaken or nullify Aquinas’s argument, not religion itself. I don’t know enough about physics to be able to comment on the experiment, but the experiment itself assumes that what we observe to be true is true.

Well sure we can take the view that I’m not real or if I am real than the world we live in can merely be a Matrix world, but then is there any evidence for that? Is that not merely a pessimistic view which denies everything? Is there any practicality to a view such as that? Where would truly believing such things get you? Is there any evidence that in fact no, our interpretation of this world may not be nearly correct? Or that this world does not encompass all reality? I’d like to know your reasons for denying experience and knowledge. But I would say that the knowledge that we interpret our world correctly is likely not absolute knowledge, but referring back to my original definition of knowledge, “A belief for which the evidence confirms beyond all reasonable doubt.” Is your doubt reasonable?

 

[Steve40]

Why is it so simple to understand that god, a bieng so complex, intelligent, immense and powerful has always been.

Why can this same logic not apply to the universe?

Logic and math are a part of creation. The universe is governed by laws and physical mathimatical relationships. The math and logic that describe the universe are a language with syntax and meaning. All languages must be created and defined. I call it the conservation of information. It’s an extention of the second law of thermo dynamics which describes the relationship between energy and different physical states/orientations. Information can only be created and destroyed.

God being Three and One at the same time defies logic and is beyond our understanding but, it is logical that the Creator of logic would not be bound by logic.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well sure we can take the view that I’m not real or if I am real than the world we live in can merely be a Matrix world, but then is there any evidence for that? Is that not merely a pessimistic view which denies everything? Is there any practicality to a view such as that? Where would truly believing such things get you? Is there any evidence that in fact no, our interpretation of this world may not be nearly correct? Or that this world does not encompass all reality? I’d like to know your reasons for denying experience and knowledge. But I would say that the knowledge that we interpret our world correctly is likely not absolute knowledge, but referring back to my original definition of knowledge, “A belief for which the evidence confirms beyond all reasonable doubt.” Is your doubt reasonable?

Let me clarify my argument. I believe that we interpret reality correctly. What I’m not so sure is that I can prove my belief in the scientific or formal sense. This is not my actual argument agaisnt atheism, however, because the fact that it is an argument presumes that I am correct in my belief. This part about reality only deals with the probability aspects of parts of my argument.

Again, I’d just like to mention that the Church teaches that we interpret reality correctly, which I believe. I’m not sure if she teaches that this can be proved, or if we have to accept it on faith. If its the former, I’d rescind this idea until I’ve thought it out more and researched it.

Back to my basic argument:

If our minds interpret reality correctly, then

a. our minds were made this way by intelligence

b. our minds came to be this way through undirected (not necessarily random) physical processes.

So:

a. This seems to be a rationally consistent belief

b. This assumes that our minds came to be this way without direction. However, without direction there would be no reason to assume that an always-accurate mind would be formed. There are huge numbers of midway points between a fully accurate and fully inaccurate mind, and there is no reason to believe that one possibility would be favored out of all the others, because there is no direction. Therefore, it is not statistically logical to assume that this one possibility was the one that came to be.

Since this is an either-or situation, it seems logical to believe in an intelligence rather than no intelligence. While b. is possibile, it does not seem in accord with reason to assume that it is true when the other option is incrediblly more likely.

MrWhy, I’ll try to answer some of your assertations in a bit.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Ive read most of this, if I missed this sorry

but I wanted to comment on this post.

Interestingly, until Edwin Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding, the scientific consensus had long been that the universe was static, and thus that it was both infinite and eternal: that is, it had no beginning or end, and no edges, but had always been and would always be, and was limitless.

Made me think of something Christ said before all this was spoken about.

I am the First and the Last.

not sure but He may have had something there

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How do you know that? It’s a very profound idea, and would seem to require a great deal of verification.

How would you verify it ?​

I like those words “Whereof one cannot speak, of that one must be silent”. This is altogether true of God, because God is ineffable - “not able to be spoken”.

AFAICS, God makes Himself known - revelation, which is an act of sheer grace, has primacy over reason & the created order. God can come down to us - but we cannot climb up to God: not unless He comes down first.

I don’t think God is verifiable - in fact, I’d hate to think He could be. That’s because God (as Bultmann insisted) is not an object - He is God. ISTM that if God is verifiable, He is nothing more than a creature; and created gods cannot save. That’s why the transcendence & the sovereign freedom of God are so important - because creatures are limited (& so, not transcendent); & are free up to a point. God is unimaginably different from any & all creatures & creatureliness - if He were not, He would differ from creatures only in degree; which would yet again make Him no more than a mere idol, because He would be a no-god.

IOW, one cannot say of anything, “That there is God”; even the Incarnation is not an exception to this, because Who Christ is cannot be known by man except by the Father’s gift of faith. Without faith, one sees a prophet, a good man, a great teacher, a deceiver & liar, a maniac - anything & anyone but Christ the Lord. People cannot be argued or coerced into having faith - it is God’s alone to give, according to His good pleasure & not otherwise.

I believe that the works of God can be proclaimed - but not that God can be known from them, except in a very sketchy way: the God of the philosophers is not necessarily the God of Abraham Who is definitively made known in Christ: because one is a who-knows-what without an identity, whereas the Other has a very definite character & calls for a decision from us.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is not a flaw unless you have a high need for answers to those ultimate questions. If it’s unsettling to not know the source or foundation of certain things, then you may need a god.

Interpretations on important matters need to be validated. Any idea or theory should be considered provisional. It may be recognized as the best available until it is superseded by a better one, or is found false by new facts. Doubt, skepticism, and questioning is how knowledge advances.

That may be an appropriate model for scientific knowledge within the empirical sciences - but not for the knowledge of God. First we believe God - then we understand: not the other way about.​

You’re trying to do what Aristotle implied long ago was not appropriate - you’re trying to apply to God a method of knowing that is not appropriate to the enquiry. Reason is too weak - only faith has arms wide enough to embrace the Reality of God

We don’t see with our tongues, or hear with our eyes - we have senses for perceiving the world (to a limited degree), & organs for those senses. To know God, our senses are no use - not even when used as they should be; because God exceeds all mere created being. He is “past finding out”. God is not a theory - God is the only Reality: but for Him, nothing can really be said to exist at all.

 

[MrWhy]

That may be an appropriate model for scientific knowledge within the empirical sciences - but not for the knowledge of God. First we believe God - then we understand: not the other way about.​

It’s the “first we believe” part that’s hard to accept. It appears that people usually acquire this “belief” when they are taught it at a young age. Some become believers later in life, but the process looks like cultural indoctrination. And this indoctrination involves different gods depending on which culture the individual in born to. In other words, what you believe is what you are taught to believe. Are we just pawns to our culture?

You’re trying to do what Aristotle implied long ago was not appropriate - you’re trying to apply to God a method of knowing that is not appropriate to the enquiry. Reason is too weak - only faith has arms wide enough to embrace the Reality of God

The idea of faith as a power for understanding or knowledge is also hard to accept. In no other domain of knowledge is belief without evidence considered a desirable quality. We insist that engineers, financial advisors, physicians, etc. have reason and evidence for what they do, but religious leaders are not held to the same standard.

We don’t see with our tongues, or hear with our eyes - we have senses for perceiving the world (to a limited degree), & organs for those senses. To know God, our senses are no use - not even when used as they should be; because God exceeds all mere created being. He is “past finding out”. God is not a theory - God is the only Reality: but for Him, nothing can really be said to exist at all.

I’m sorry, but these statements make no sense to me. I think they would be considered assertions since each statement is worded as though it is a given. That is, stated as though no evidence is needed. For example: “God is the only reality”. This phrase alone could start an endless debate about what reality is.

 

[Sarpedon]

The correct interpretation of reality is what much of this debate is about. The time span and quantity of this debate would indicate some, perhaps all, are not interpreting reality correctly.

Whether or not that ability benefits reproduction remains unanswered. There is evidence that conflict (war) over reality interpertaion can be bad for the health of a culture. Reality confusion, via global ideological conflicts, could at some point have dire consequence on reproduction success for the whole species. Success meaning the survival of one generation to the point of producing another.

This skips over the question by assuming that we interpret reality correctly.

There is another type of reality confusion that you may not consider philosophical. How do we interpret proposed global threats like climate change, water and energy shortage, or even meteors. These can be considered philosophical because many religious people may think they are predestined, and therefore a waste of time to struggle with. I have heard somone say that any concern about our effect on climate change is very arrogant because we could not have that much impact or control on gods creation.

I’m talking about intelligence, not any specific deity or properties of that deity at all.

Another possibility for the appearance of our ability to discuss reality interpretation is evolution artifact. Evolution can cause good and bad effects as companion artifacts of other abilities that are directly related to adaptation. The ability to discuss this may be nothing but the consequence of a brain capablie of building complex social and physical structures.

Sure this is possible, but is it reasonable to assume that the ability to always, in every instance, interpret reality correctly came about as a side effect of something else?

I’ll mention my disclaimer again because I’m not sure if the Church teaches that her realism (interpreting correctly) can be proved.

 

[Sarpedon]

The “watch on the beach” analogy is very weak, as are most religious analogies. The problem is not that they are comparing apples and oranges. It’s that they are comparing apples to a hypothetical orange. We know watches and many other structures are made by people because we have much clear evidence they are. We have personal friends that make complex things. Some of us have actually been present when something complex was made by a human. In this case the idea of an undirected physical process is nonsense and not very useful.

We have no comparable experiece with observing an intelligent entity making a universe.

This does not say anything about whether the entity actually did so. We have not observed many things, like atoms, macroevolution, or the mechanism behind gravity. Is it reasonable to believe in these things?

The conclusion that complex things require a complex creator is faulty. Many assume intelligent design of life because its the only way they know for making a functional machine. Complexity does not require intelligence. We see that the complex things humans make require some intelligence. Based on this observation, we assume there is a universal rule where object construction requires intelligence. This may be the rule for things produced by intelligent agents (humans), but it is not the rule for all things. Very long running, simple processes can also produce complexity. This is an inversion of how we normally think complex things originate, but is easier to understand if you consider that evolution is not an intelligent process.

Complexity may not require a creator, but it strongly suggests one. The question is which is more reasonable to believe.

 

[Riley259]

Why is it so simple to understand that god, a bieng so complex, intelligent, immense and powerful has always been.

Why can this same logic not apply to the universe?

God possesses the fullness of existence all at once. He is existence itself and the source of everything that exists.

 

[MrWhy]

This does not say anything about whether the entity actually did so. We have not observed many things, like atoms, macroevolution, or the mechanism behind gravity. Is it reasonable to believe in these things?.

The effect of an atom bomb indicates we have some observed knowledge there. Thousands of experiments and practicle applications have predicted and observed effects. We can even indirectly observe the presence of distance planets because we do understand something about gravity and it’s effect on other bodies. Unlike a watch maker, we have no comparable observation of a supreme creator making a universe. What we have are some unexplained events and effects. The best theories that have been developed for various questions about complex universe dynamics did not arrise by looking for an intelligent complex creator entity.

Complexity may not require a creator, but it strongly suggests one. The question is which is more reasonable to believe.

That explains certain mysteries by proposing an even bigger, more complex mystery. Don’t know if that particular falacy has a name, but we could call it the bigger unknown fallacy. When confronted with a mystery we should admit ignorance. Nothing wrong with speculating, but without some way to test and verify an idea it is only speculation.

Complexity does not require intelligence. We see that the complex things humans make require some intelligence. Based on this observation and some pattern thinking, we assume there is a universal rule where object construction requires intelligence. This may be the rule for things produced by intelligent agents (humans), but it is not the rule for all things. Very long running, simple processes can also produce complexity. This is an inversion of normal thinking about how complex things originate.

 

[Sarpedon]

The effect of an atom bomb indicates we have some observed knowledge there. Thousands of experiments and practicle applications have predicted and observed effects. We can even indirectly observe the presence of distance planets because we do understand something about gravity and it’s effect on other bodies.

We can also indirectly observe God. For example, the first cause argument argues that God must exist in order for the chain of causes to exist. We can indirectly oberserve God by theorizing that He must exist for what we observe in reality to work. This is basically the same for atoms. Even though we have never seen an atom, it is usually theorized that they must exist for certain aspects of reality to work.

Unlike a watch maker, we have no comparable observation of a supreme creator making a universe. What we have are some unexplained events and effects. The best theories that have been developed for various questions about complex universe dynamics did not arrise by looking for an intelligent complex creator entity.

We have also never observed something come into being by itself, or existing without having come into being. We have never observed either the intelligence theory for creating the universe or the atheistic theory for creating the universe. One of these must be right, even though we haven’t observed it. In regards to your second question, many theories about the functioning of the universe do not need to refer to its creation, because they deal with what we observe, not how what we observe came into being.

explains certain mysteries by proposing an even bigger, more complex mystery. Don’t know if that particular falacy has a name, but we could call it the bigger unknown fallacy. When confronted with a mystery we should admit ignorance. Nothing wrong with speculating, but without some way to test and verify an idea it is only speculation.

What is a bigger mystery: that a transcendant intelligence created the world in ways not fully understood, or that the world either came into being or has always existed in ways not fully understood?