What or who created the universe?

[71 dB]

Relax. We can meet and have a good time. I will bring my Elgar discs!

You must hate Elgar if you think his music is suitable for hell. 

Perhaps Elgar is forbidden for me in hell and obligatory for Elgar haters?

[71 dB]

I do not believe I stated you were wrong.  I simply stated what works for me.  We obviously disagree, but "wrong" was never entered into the conversation at my end.  I even believe I was careful enough in my previous posts to use pronouns like "I" and "me".  In fact I even underlined "my" in one of the sentences.  However, if you are trying to be confrontational for a reaction from me, please do not take this post as a rebuttal, but rather a clarification on my part.  However, in regard to being wrong, are you absolutely sure that I am? 

This is not about right or wrong. This is about not thinking something simple and naivistic "takes care of the issue."

[drogulus]

This is not about right or wrong. This is about not thinking something simple and naivistic "takes care of the issue."

     An appeal to virtue sayings doesn't decide the subject of the thread, that's true. Bogey is being pragmatic, though not in a way I would endorse, since I'm rather priggish about the proper uses of pragmatic reasoning. I don't think that what "works for me" is true unless something confirms my belief beyond my desire to believe it. The radical pragmatist Richard Rorty, on the other hand, thinks that if the relevant community declares themselves in agreement that some ancient bit of scripture has decided something then there's nothing more to say. The "truth" is what some community says it is, particularly if you're a member of said community. So if you're a NAZI Naziism is true. Rorty, incidentally, never could properly answer this objection. All he could come up with is that the truth is just a way of getting what you want, and you should want progressive things like him and therefore belong to the same liberal community he does. Ughh! Why this isn't seen as relativism at its worst beats me.

[arkiv]

All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analyzed by the human being with the parameters of science.

[Daidalos]

All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analized by the human being with the parameters of science.

If I were so inclined, I'd make a dirty joke right about now.

[Gurn Blanston]

If I was so inclined, I'd make a dirty joke right about now.

What, are WE being analized?

[drogulus]

All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analized by the human being with the parameters of science.

    What leads you to believe that "all that is present outside of the material complexity" describes something? If something can't be analyzed within the parameters it doesn't mean it can be analyzed without the parameters. And there is no requirement to believe everything unanalyzable exists, so why is there a requirements to believe any specific unanalyzable? How can you be specific about such a "thing"?

    That's the problem with positing creation as a solution for a Universe. Answers, where there are any, must be framed in terms of causality. You can't ask who/what caused the Universe without presupposing a causal relation which can no more be "outside the material complexity" than anything else. To causally connect would mean putting all of what is connected inside the explanatory system which means inside everything. Concepts of everything will have everything in them.

    It doesn't look like everything is the sort of thing that can be created, does it?* Not if you're serious about explanations. Otherwise you have to split everything into what you know about and what you don't and then make knowledge claims about the don't part, and while you can move concepts around like that the Universe won't budge. Just because you can divide the world that way is no reason to believe the world divides itself like that.

    _{* Everything that can be created is made by recombining things, so there have to be things.}

     

If I was so inclined, I'd make a dirty joke right about now.

    Not if it's outside the material complexity.  

[Elgarian]

Everything that can be created is made by recombining things, so there have to be things.

But what are 'things'?

[drogulus]

But what are 'things'?

     I don't know. Am I allowed to make something up? If so, they are a mystery that Bog created to test us. That's good enough for theologians and a dwindling pool of philosophers. If it isn't good enough (it isn't for me) then I have to say that a request for knowledge like "what are things?" can only be properly answered from the knowledge available about them. I consider it an illicit move to do like the believer and answer a request for knowledge with a belief supported by the desire to hold it. What the materialist doesn't know about things is not known otherwise.

     If there is knowledge about things it can't be non-material without being nonknowledge. Because knowledge is invariably about material things (up to and including thoughts), it's sometimes suggested that there are nonmaterial "things" we can't have knowledge about (which explains (?) why we don't). Do you see the mistake? Not only is this wrong as a supposition (there is exactly no reason to suppose such a thing), it is treated by those who hold it as though it was confirmed somehow and certain!

     To answer your question more directly, things are persistent patterns (technically, that's how we know, but epistemology and ontology are fused at the limit). But I take it that your question is more like "what are they really?" or "what are they at bottom?", something like that. You can't be prevented from asking what lies beyond the knowledge barrier, and that's good, because we get new knowledge from explorations inspired by such questions. Still, it's good to remember that when we make up an answer about Bog and his plans, that what we've done is tell a story.

[drogulus]

All that is present in the material complexity can be studied by science.
All that is present out of the material complexity could not be analized by the human being with the parameters of science.

          If there is knowledge about things it can't be non-material without being nonknowledge. Because knowledge is invariably about material things (up to and including thoughts), it's sometimes suggested that there are nonmaterial "things" we can't have knowledge about (which explains (?) why we don't).

   You see, believers and materialists do agree on this point. The materialist simply accepts the consequences of this and draws the conservative conclusion that no reason exists to claim knowledge where there is none to be had. If the situation changes and knowledge is acquired then we will do what we've always done and incorporate the new understanding. Materialism, which might once have been a fixed group of theories, is now an all-encompassing category for everything we know enough about to fit with everything else. All the action is within materialism, where various forms of realism or instrumentalism are deployed to clarify what is meant by a theory being true, and how to usefully define just what is meant by the distinction, where it's made, between what there is and what is known.

[DavidRoss]

What or who created the universe?

God, by definition.

[drogulus]

    New Species Of Lobster May Have Come From Outer Space

   Sure, why not? By definition, even, if you can't get it any other way. Let's not let mere material knowledge of lobsters interfere with a good story.  

[Andante]

What or who created the universe?

God, by definition.

Of course you then get the question that a lot of children come back with, who made God.

[Iconito]

Of course you then get the question that a lot of children come back with, who made God.

Well, those children need to be educated! (sorry for the video’s title. I certainly didn’t choose it)

http://www.youtube.com/v/9D8AeiAamjY

[Elgarian]

To answer your question more directly, things are persistent patterns (technically, that's how we know, but epistemology and ontology are fused at the limit). But I take it that your question is more like "what are they really?" or "what are they at bottom?", something like that.

The purpose of my question was to highlight the fact that one's picture of the universe will inevitably be limited by how one defines 'things'. If you define a 'thing' as X, and then construct a self-consistent model of the world in those terms (that is, which excludes the possibility that a 'thing' might be Y), then at the end of the process it will inevitably be true that within that model, X has been a satisfactory and sufficient definition of a 'thing'. It can't be otherwise. Since the outcome was inevitable (the result was fixed at the outset), we've shed no light at all on the possibility that a 'thing' might be Y.

If there is knowledge about things it can't be non-material without being nonknowledge.

Here it is again. The statement sounds reasonable because it's operating on such a big philosophical scale, but its purpose is to restrict the meaning of 'knowledge' in order to exclude anything that won't fit the self-consistent model - as if we already knew the validity of the self-consistent model.

I'm not proposing a philosophy of 'anything goes'; I'm just pointing out that all these kinds of arguments are constructed so that they can't fail, within their own terms. It's then a simple matter to slip in the subtext 'these are the only terms acceptable', and you've got the whole thing sewn up. It sounds persuasive because it's so interlocked with itself, but really it boils down to: 'I'll accept any answer that agrees with mine.'

[Daidalos]

Well, those children need to be educated! (sorry for the video's title. I certainly didn't choose it)

http://www.youtube.com/v/9D8AeiAamjY

Actually, having suffered through all nine minutes of that video, I think the title is perfectly fair; the Creationists in that video DO pollute young minds at that museum. It's shameless, what they do.

[Iconito]

Actually, having suffered through all nine minutes of that video, I think the title is perfectly fair; the Creationists in that video DO pollute young minds at that museum. It's shameless, what they do.

I know... I would have titled it “Horrifying Child Abuse” or something along those lines. I think I lost two or three years of my life expectancy watching that crap. 

[Daidalos]

I know... I would have titled it "Horrifying Child Abuse" or something along those lines. I think I lost two or three years of my life expectancy watching that crap.  

Yeah, I think you're right. If anything, the title is too mild. It's astonishing to me how they can be so slimy, having the children parrot their proud, willful ignorance. I'm quite convinced, as far as the leaders of the various Creationist persuasions are concerned, that they know that the evidence speaks against them, but they just don't care. It's despicable. While I suppose it would be going too far to call their behavior "criminal" (although sometimes I'm tempted), it galls me that they can spout their dishonest nonsense and still lay claim to the moral high ground.

[Harpo]

What or who created the universe?

God, by definition.

Only the definition concocted by one group of people.

Since humans weren't here when the universe began, my answer  to "Who or what created the universe" is "I don't know."   I am not uncomfortable with ambiguity or mystery....

Since evolution started at some point (we don't know when) and that can be seen and touched, I do strongly support the teaching of evolution in biology classes. Don't me started on "intelligent design."

[Andante]

Well, those children need to be educated! (sorry for the video's title. I certainly didn't choose it)

I also sat through the whole thing, what amazes me is that they are allowed to teach this in to days schools, or is it special schools operated by the Creationists?  a question that will never go away IMO is,  was the UV/UVs created purposely or did it just pop into existence,  if I try to expand that further I stumble