What or who created the universe?

[Andante]

I don't assume that.

Religious God is "stupid idea". Einsteinian God is different story.

It's difficult to explain how the universe popped into existence but it's even more difficult to explain a maker for it!

Well, both questions seem equally difficult to me. 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Well said, Daidalos.

Do you still believe that ignosticism is the best position ?

Definition:

The view that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. According to ignostics, "Does a god exist?" has the same logical status as "What color is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers. 

[Daidalos]

Well said, Daidalos.

Do you still believe that ignosticism is the best position ?

Definition:

The view that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. According to ignostics, "Does a god exist?" has the same logical status as "What color is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers. 

Insofar as I think that - in the absence of a comprehensible definition of God - discussions concerning the existence or non-existence of the aforementioned entity are meaningless, yes I still believe that ignosticism is the best position. I have explained my reasoning in the past, but it boils down to the insufficiency of our language, logic and science to encompass the idea of God (as commonly put forward by theists), therefore it becomes absurd to talk of God in any human-conceived context since He, by the theist's definition, transcends all such notions. This position would no longer be relevant if a proper definition could be supplied, in which case discussions and arguments about God's existence could be entertained.

Functionally, I'm still an atheist, since I lack a belief in God, however I'm less concerned with proving the nonexistence of God than I'm with confronting bad arguments for (or against) Him.

[drogulus]

Insofar as I think that - in the absence of a comprehensible definition of God - discussions concerning the existence or non-existence of the aforementioned entity are meaningless, yes I still believe that ignosticism is the best position. I have explained my reasoning in the past, but it boils down to the insufficiency of our language, logic and science to encompass the idea of God (as commonly put forward by theists), therefore it becomes absurd to talk of God in any human-conceived context since He, by the theist's definition, transcends all such notions. This position would no longer be relevant if a proper definition could be supplied, in which case discussions and arguments about God's existence could be entertained.

Functionally, I'm still an atheist, since I lack a belief in God, however I'm less concerned with proving the nonexistence of God than I'm with confronting bad arguments for (or against) Him.

     You state the case against the simplicity argument very well. I disagree about language, logic and science having any insufficiency related to discussions of these questions. It does make sense to discuss them just in order to point out that there are propositions so inadequate that it can be made to appear that there are no means to evaluate them. Nevertheless some judgment should be made on how these ideas should be treated, and the inability to find any information to support the existence of supernatural phenomena, as well as the incoherence of explanations for why that is, makes it necessary to engage in a form of defensive philosophizing. We have to explain that it isn't a weakness of logic or science that some entities can't be found, and that for the time being it's good enough to say that they aren't there. That's not a failure of understanding, it's a failure of the original proposition.

     We will never have an exhaustive list of all the propositions that aren't true along with detailed explanations of why. I can't imagine why that would be a weakness of science and logic. There would have to be another way of knowing things, and there isn't. The direct injection of truths without confirmation is a fantasy. All knowledge of the commonplace personal sort we get just by being alive and having minds all the way up to the most rigorous scientific variety is attained in the same way. We reason about what we experience. That's science and philosophy and everyday life. There's nothing inadequate about it.

     In discussion the meaninglessness of God propositions, we should therefore make this distinction: The meaninglessness of God propositions (or other similar types where the same general questions are raised) doesn't imply the meaninglessness of discussing why this is so.

[Daidalos]

     You state the case against the simplicity argument very well. I disagree about language, logic and science having any insufficiency related to discussions of these questions. It does make sense to discuss them just in order to point out that there are propositions so inadequate that it can be made to appear that there are no means to evaluate them. Nevertheless some judgment should be made on how these ideas should be treated, and the inability to find any information to support the existence of supernatural phenomena, as well as the incoherence of explanations for why that is, makes it necessary to engage in a form of defensive philosophizing. We have to explain that it isn't a weakness of logic or science that some entities can't be found, and that for the time being it's good enough to say that they aren't there. That's not a failure of understanding, it's a failure of the original proposition.

     We will never have an exhaustive list of all the propositions that aren't true along with detailed explanations of why. I can't imagine why that would be a weakness of science and logic. There would have to be another way of knowing things, and there isn't. The direct injection of truths without confirmation is a fantasy. All knowledge of the commonplace personal sort we get just by being alive and having minds all the way up to the most rigorous scientific variety is attained in the same way. We reason about what we experience. That's science and philosophy and everyday life. There's nothing inadequate about it.

     In discussion the meaninglessness of God propositions, we should therefore make this distinction: The meaninglessness of God propositions (or other similar types where the same general questions are raised) doesn't imply the meaninglessness of discussing why this is so.

There might be a slight misunderstanding going on here. I'm saying that language, logic and science are inadequate to investigate the God-hypothesis as presented by theists. Often in these discussions, God is portrayed as a being whose nature transcends all that is mundane, He is beyond human comprehension, and any attempt to grasp His essence with human methodologies are doomed to failure. In principle, I don't think it's inconceivable that there could be something hopelessly beyond our ken. This God would be immune to all arguments against Him, however it is my contention that this position is self-defeating for the theist.

By defining something as inherently incomprehensible - and I don't think I do the theists a disservice here - they make it meaningless as an argument in any rational discussion. For one thing, it's a conversation-stopper (I think this has been touched upon before), but more fundamentally, the argument undermines itself. A being who is unconstrained by "laws" of nature, logic, or whatever other system a human could imagine, cannot be given any qualitative or quantitative characteristics, for in the absence of our context (our universe, with its laws, and our language and logic) those characteristics are meaningless. How can a being be said to "exist", if the normal parameters of existence, upon which our methodologies rely, do not apply? There is no space, no time; logic doesn't apply, language most definitely does not either. If we cannot ascribe any characteristics to a being, not even "existence", what relevance could it have in any rational discussion?

Naturally, this doesn't disprove the possibility that God could "exist" (whatever that means) in some meta-reality, I only seek to show that God-as-commonly-portrayed is no solution to any problem conceived by humans, for the simple reason that solutions must make sense. It is the equivalent of this amusing cartoon:

The thing is it might've happened that way, but the nature of that pseudo-solution is such that we can never comprehend it. And here is another point, since we are dealing with subjects beyond human comprehension, God is not the only viable candidate to fill that hole. I could just as easily postulate that the solution to our problem (the universe's existence) is an inscrutable natural principle. We can't understand this principle, but I choose to define it as timeless and intrinsic to existence. Just as with God, this principle cannot be understood, but it is just as adequate (or, as I say, inadequate) to explain anything.

[arkiv]

He, by the theist's definition, transcends all such notions.
...confronting bad arguments for (or against) Him.

Why the use of masculine pronouns?

[greg]

Just saw this youtube video. Wanted to post it, just didn't know where, so I guess this thread will do.

God and DNA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY

[Daidalos]

Why the use of masculine pronouns?

I guess I write in the same idiom as those against whom I argue. It seems only polite.

[71 dB]

RE: percentages

It's a futile effort to assign probabilities to the likelihood of God's existence.

Futile??? Are you serious? For a person it is a fundamental issue whether he/she believes in God or not. We make lots of important choices in life. In order to make them we have to assign probabilities to very fuzzy, uncertain things. For example: "Which one of these two job offers do I accept?" There is no clear answer. You need to weight the pros and cons, assign probabilities and make up your mind. If you play right with the probabilities you should make right decisions more often than bad ones.


So, the effort is not futile but very important.

[71 dB]

Sorry, but I have to turn down your generous offer.

Pity, we could have had so much fun... ...wait, you are not Bullgod but Bulldog! The offer wasn't for you! Sorry!

Well, both questions seem equally difficult to me. 

Well, let them be difficult/unanswered and stop explaining things with God! Lazy people who don't bother to think hard can always be agnostics. I don't understand things fully either but at least I have some sort of idea what the universe is about (I believe it is about logic forcing itself to exist. You can remove energy and matter but how do you remove logic? How to wipe out the equation 2+2=4 ? To my understanding it is impossible and the result of this is the existence of universe(s)). If science someday finds God behind everything, I can always change my mind and say "so, I was completely wrong but for a good, intellectual reason. I am sure God forgives me the use of brain and intelligence since he is the one who gave them to me!"

[Daidalos]

Futile??? Are you serious? For a person it is a fundamental issue whether he/she believes in God or not. We make lots of important choices in life. In order to make them we have to assign probabilities to very fuzzy, uncertain things. For example: "Which one of these two job offers do I accept?" There is no clear answer. You need to weight the pros and cons, assign probabilities and make up your mind. If you play right with the probabilities you should make right decisions more often than bad ones.


So, the effort is not futile but very important.

If you believe you can assign a probability to the likelihood of God's existence, you're delusional. Probabilities are quantitative: if you think you can gauge the chance that God exists, please show me your calculations.

When I roll a die, I can assign a probability to the likelihood that I will roll a 4, likewise when I evaluate a scientific experiment statistically, I can estimate the probability that the the results are due to chance. This is not the case with God.

[DavidW]

Futile??? Are you serious? For a person it is a fundamental issue whether he/she believes in God or not. We make lots of important choices in life. In order to make them we have to assign probabilities to very fuzzy, uncertain things. For example: "Which one of these two job offers do I accept?" There is no clear answer. You need to weight the pros and cons, assign probabilities and make up your mind. If you play right with the probabilities you should make right decisions more often than bad ones.


So, the effort is not futile but very important.

Um what?  You actually think that decision making is about assigning probabilities!?!?!

[71 dB]

If you believe you can assign a probability to the likelihood of God's existence, you're delusional. Probabilities are quantitative: if you think you can gauge the chance that God exists, please show me your calculations.

When I roll a die, I can assign a probability to the likelihood that I will roll a 4, likewise when I evaluate a scientific experiment statistically, I can estimate the probability that the the results are due to chance. This is not the case with God.

I am talking about "fuzzy" probabilities. It's about some sort of estimates like most probably or unlikely. These are not exact numbers.

[71 dB]

Um what?  You actually think that decision making is about assigning probabilities!?!?!

What else is it ultimately?

Let's say you decide where you buy a certain CD. You have 2 or 3 option. You might not know it yourself but you are assigning probabilities for poor, decent, good and excellent service. Example:

SHOP 1: poor (~10 %) decent (~20 %) good (~30%) excellent (~40%)
SHOP 2: poor (~40 %) decent (~40 %) good (~20%) excellent (~0%)
SHOP 3: poor (~10 %) decent (~40 %) good (~40%) excellent (~10%)

You "get" these fuzzy numbers from the models you have in your head for these shops based on your experiencies and knowledge, even irrational reasons.

[arkiv]

I guess I write in the same idiom as those against whom I argue. It seems only polite.

But there are many believers who don't assign a gender...

[Daidalos]

But there are many believers who don't assign a gender...

I suppose I could call God a She, or It, but mostly that would only serve to confuse, alternatively I would be perceived as facetious. I could always refer to a Prime Mover, a Transcendent Being, but calling it God and Him is quicker and unambiguous, and therefore adequate for the purposes of this discussion. I don't care either way, since I don't believe in "s/he/it" (mild profanity unintended).

[DavidW]

What else is it ultimately?

Let's say you decide where you buy a certain CD. You have 2 or 3 option. You might not know it yourself but you are assigning probabilities for poor, decent, good and excellent service. Example:

SHOP 1: poor (~10 %) decent (~20 %) good (~30%) excellent (~40%)
SHOP 2: poor (~40 %) decent (~40 %) good (~20%) excellent (~0%)
SHOP 3: poor (~10 %) decent (~40 %) good (~40%) excellent (~10%)

You "get" these fuzzy numbers from the models you have in your head for these shops based on your experiencies and knowledge, even irrational reasons.

Nah I always just go with the cheapest price!  If a seller screws me over, I simply don't buy from then in the future.

[Florestan]

2+2=4

In what numerical base? 

[Andante]

Hello 71db in answer to your post

Well, let them be difficult/unanswered and stop explaining things with God! Lazy people who don't bother to think hard can always be agnostics.

I am not Lazy and I am not explaining things with "God", I note btw that you use a capital G?? and to the contrary it is people that have done a hell of a lot of thinking that come to the conclusion that we just do not know and more than likely never will, now if you want to stick a label [agnostic] onto this group, Fair enough your prerogative.

I don't understand things fully either but at least I have some sort of idea what the universe is about (I believe it is about logic forcing itself to exist. You can remove energy and matter

Really!! HOW??

but how do you remove logic? How to wipe out the equation 2+2=4 ?

Again you are falling into the trap that the laws that govern this bit of our UV will apply every where and for all time You are also attributing reason, and an identity to LOGIC???  [/quote]

To my understanding it is impossible and the result of this is the existence of universe(s)). If science someday finds God behind everything, I can always change my mind and say "so, I was completely wrong but for a good, intellectual reason. I am sure God forgives me the use of brain and intelligence since he is the one who gave them to me!"

Do not think of God as a entity,  You are only going so far, try and push a bit further and you will come to a brick wall, this is because IMHO our brains are limited to what we experience, I consider it is not possible for us to understand.....

[drogulus]

There might be a slight misunderstanding going on here. I'm saying that language, logic and science are inadequate to investigate the God-hypothesis as presented by theists. Often in these discussions, God is portrayed as a being whose nature transcends all that is mundane, He is beyond human comprehension, and any attempt to grasp His essence with human methodologies are doomed to failure. In principle, I don't think it's inconceivable that there could be something hopelessly beyond our ken. This God would be immune to all arguments against Him, however it is my contention that this position is self-defeating for the theist.

By defining something as inherently incomprehensible - and I don't think I do the theists a disservice here - they make it meaningless as an argument in any rational discussion. For one thing, it's a conversation-stopper (I think this has been touched upon before), but more fundamentally, the argument undermines itself. A being who is unconstrained by "laws" of nature, logic, or whatever other system a human could imagine, cannot be given any qualitative or quantitative characteristics, for in the absence of our context (our universe, with its laws, and our language and logic) those characteristics are meaningless. How can a being be said to "exist", if the normal parameters of existence, upon which our methodologies rely, do not apply? There is no space, no time; logic doesn't apply, language most definitely does not either. If we cannot ascribe any characteristics to a being, not even "existence", what relevance could it have in any rational discussion?

Naturally, this doesn't disprove the possibility that God could "exist" (whatever that means) in some meta-reality, I only seek to show that God-as-commonly-portrayed is no solution to any problem conceived by humans, for the simple reason that solutions must make sense. It is the equivalent of this amusing cartoon:

The thing is it might've happened that way, but the nature of that pseudo-solution is such that we can never comprehend it. And here is another point, since we are dealing with subjects beyond human comprehension, God is not the only viable candidate to fill that hole. I could just as easily postulate that the solution to our problem (the universe's existence) is an inscrutable natural principle. We can't understand this principle, but I choose to define it as timeless and intrinsic to existence. Just as with God, this principle cannot be understood, but it is just as adequate (or, as I say, inadequate) to explain anything.

     I see what you're saying and I agree. We each are pointing out that it isn't the fault of reason or science that some propositions can't be put into testable form. And you make a good point that you can apply the "you can't prove it's not there" reasoning to an infinite succession of wholly natural entities. It could get pretty crowded if they all had to exist just because they couldn't be disproved. All those teacups......

     The point about not being able to define the supposed characteristics of a being beyond reason has been made before by someone. I've tried to point out a few times that sterile concepts about things you can't know play no active role in knowledge. How does saying "you can't know" contribute? Shouldn't we try to build out from what we do know instead of leaping into the dark muttering "it's hopeless, a God did it"?

     So the answer to the question what or who created the universe ought to be that creation as it has been explained makes no sense. We don't know how to conceive of an origin for the universe that we observe that preserves the known laws and has a creation in it. That doesn't look like a good theory to me. So we have to go elsewhere. I vote that the answer will have something to do with a rethinking of time that sees it as borderless in the way that space is now seen. Is there a border between space and not-space? No, there isn't. So is there a border between time and not-time? I guess not. So there is a continuity that we don't understand.

Genesis 1:1 takes care of this question for me.  

     Pixel mapping? 

     I don't know what "takes care of" means in this context. I'm just glad you didn't say "answers".