vaxx:
might need to know? Remember we are dealing with the possibility why sufficient explanation must be enough unless we want to enter into problem of induction.

"Enough"? Newton was "enough". That didn't stop us searching however, and see how far we've come.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't bother, because we should fear induction?

budaatum:

Since you admit that
I must admit I don't quite get your point in relation to the topic of the thread since what you posted Agrippa said can also be invoked in an argument against gods.

An understanding of gods is however sufficient to make it possible to propel certain knowledge about gods, except by a tortoise who refuses to perform modus ponens of course, which it is permitted to do where conventionalism and the such like is concerned but not when considering what is observed i.e. simply determining when to cross a busy road. Though, I do recall you equivocating when defining a table.

I am not arguing for the proof of God in this thread Buda, I am invalidating the questions raised by atheist . What created God...

Of course the tortoise game too can be played on me.

vaxx:
Let's look at principle of sufficient reason as a way to justify the knowledge of trancedent order that the believer holds to be true.

Sufficient reason has a variety of expressions, all of which can be summarized as following.

For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.

For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.

For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason



This is one of the logical argument Spinoza push forward ... and it justify the knowledge of transcendent order that can not be demonsrated but hold enough explanation to be true.


To be continue........ Budaatum....this is an explanation to the question you raises concerning Newton.. ..

This is the response to the question you raises concerning Newton

budaatum:

"Enough"? Newton was "enough". That didn't stop us searching however, and see how far we've come.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't bother, because we should fear induction?

According to five agrippa troops

Numbers 3 of the troops answer your question too., (Relation) – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.

vaxx:
might need to know? Remember we are dealing with the possibility why sufficient explanation must be enough unless we want to enter into problem of induction.

Anytime a person attempts to incite doubt as to how we arrive at truth then they inadvertently demolish their own foundations for truth claims, even when they think they only undermine the other party or seek to make all truth claims equal.

vaxx:
According to five agrippa troops

Numbers 3 of the troops answer your question too., (Relation) – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.

So, you admit that we should look at things anew and from different perspectives, (and the fear of induction and infinite regressions should not bar one from doing so?)

If that is the case, why plug the gaps with gods?

LordReed:


Anytime a person attempts to incite doubt as to how we arrive at truth then they inadvertently demolish their own foundations for truth claims, even when they think they only undermine the other party or seek to make all truth claims equal.

The odd thing is that they only incite that doubt where another person's truth is concerned, but never to their own truth, which they tend to assert with absolute certitude.

LordReed:
The problem with this track is, it ends with "Why must we accept that God is uncreated or his origins are beyond comprehension but deny this for the universe itself?".

I think the problem is simple ....atheist simply lack the understanding of God. God is not an entity , a thing that can be measure or one old man with white bear sitting on the throne.. To me ....God trannceds that. I prefer to say he is A process that birth everything....everything has its elements.

A position where we accept that the universe is uncreated or its origins are beyond comprehension is even more logical (given our observations of our universe) than inserting a being with similar characteristics.

I think this position is illogical, If you can't probe the flow of matter to its origin, then you shouldn't pin the universe to any truths. Suffice to say, all things begins with a starting point. To be accurate in thesis, it requires a thorough understanding of process, and its origins as its indicative of how things come to be, without the holistic understanding of all these put together, whatever ideologies put forward would be like that of a young baby leaning on how to walk. just like how Albert Einstein put it.. ......

LordReed:


Anytime a person attempts to incite doubt as to how we arrive at truth then they inadvertently demolish their own foundations for truth claims, even when they think they only undermine the other party or seek to make all truth claims equal.

i think being in doubt is a good starting point to the truth. because being in doubt will forces you to analyze, strategize, and ultimately seek the truth. I think that having doubt is a natural byproduct of being an open-minded individual.

budaatum:

So, you admit that we should look at things anew and from different perspectives, (and the fear of induction and infinite regressions should not bar one from doing so?)

If that is the case, why plug the gaps with gods?

None of my post suggest this. I only ascertain that infinite regression is a stopping block to hold on to the truth. And if we try to probe further, we will encounter the problem of induction.....these are my arguments.

The changes here is an example of that , since the basics of knowledge can itself change overtime . It is an evidence to prove no absolute truth exists ..snd likewise infinite regression itself will be impossible.

And likewise none of my writing indicate God is filling in the gap......

Let me see if I understand you.

vaxx:
I think the problem is simple ....atheost simply lack the understanding of God is not an entity. a thing that can be measure or one old man with white bear sitting on the throne..

God is not an entity that can be measured, right? Nor is it an old man with a beard sitting on a throne?

vaxx:
To me ....God trannceds that. I prefer to say he is A process that birth everything....everything has its elements

Yet "he" is a process? Okay, I'm willing to let the "he" slip, though it implies a male entity. I shall assume you mean "it".

Like the process of evolution, perhaps? (Though it has nothing to do with birth per se)

vaxx:
I think this position is illogical, If you can't probe the flow of matter to its origin, then you shouldn't pin the universe to any truths.

Does that include not pinning anything to gods too?

vaxx:
Suffice to say, all things begins with a starting point.

Really? "Suffice to say", according to whom?

Does the universe have a starting point apart from the starting point of its current state? What about any previous states, do they also have beginnings? And do gods also have starting points and beginnings?

vaxx:
To be accurate in thesis, it requires a thorough understanding of process, and its origins as its indicative of how things come to be, without the holistic understanding of all these put together, whatever ideologies put forward would be like an young baby leaning on how to walk. just like how Albert Einstein put it.. ......

"Thorough understanding"! "Holistic understanding"! About the probable infinite universe from our armchairs with our puny brains and minds?

Human we are, with our narrow views, "young babies", as you say, "learning how to walk". So, how, or why, does anyone assert ideologies and "pin the universe to any truths about gods", I ask?

P.s. I know you say you are "not arguing for the proof of God in this thread" but since the title of your thread is "What created God" , and is in response to "atheists", who's concern is God, I'm afraid I can't see how you can possibly not expect God to be mentioned in response. I am willing to assume you are not arguing, yet, though, which is rather uncharacteristic of you, and hence, commendable.

Now, my questions above please.

vaxx:
I think the problem is simple ....atheist simply lack the understanding of God. God is not an entity , a thing that can be measure or one old man with white bear sitting on the throne.. To me ....God trannceds that. I prefer to say he is A process that birth everything....everything has its elements.

If he is untestable then he is not exerting any influence on the universe and is therefore irrelevant.

I think this position is illogical, If you can't probe the flow of matter to its origin, then you shouldn't pin the universe to any truths. Suffice to say, all things begins with a starting point. To be accurate in thesis, it requires a thorough understanding of process, and its origins as its indicative of how things come to be, without the holistic understanding of all these put together, whatever ideologies put forward would be like that of a young baby leaning on how to walk. just like how Albert Einstein put it.. ......

You cannot make an assertion like all things begin then leave God out of it. If all things have a begin then God has a begin and is therefore not the origin of all.

vaxx:
i think being in doubt is a good starting point to the truth. because being in doubt will forces you to analyze, strategize, and ultimately seek the truth. I think that having doubt is a natural byproduct of being an open-minded individual.

Then it's a misnomer to say it strengthens your position.

vaxx:
None of my post suggest this. I only ascertain that infinite regression is a stopping block to hold on to the truth. And if we try to probe further, we will encounter the problem of induction.....these are my arguments.

The changes here is an example of that , since the basics of knowledge can itself change overtime . It is an evidence to prove no absolute truth exists ..snd likewise infinite regression itself will be impossible.

And likewise none of my writing indicate God is filling in the gap......

You do say "if we try to probe further, we will encounter the problem of induction".

Are you suggestion therefore that we shouldn't probe further to avoid the "problem of induction"?

Infinite regression is possible. The question is simply whether one wishes to entertain it or not!

LordReed:


If he is untestable then he is not exerting any influence on the universe and is therefore irrelevant.

This opinion is flawed for two main reason.1..not all knowledge are demosratable..

2 ....Not all knowledge has being justify.....

You cannot make an assertion like all things begin then leave God out of it. If all things have a begin then God has a begin and is therefore not the origin of all.

Then you are not reading my post.....i have answer this with sufficient explanation approach.....take your time and read it bro.

But to make it more interesting, we all agreed that physical universe must have been a product of some energy transformation...which means the transformation itself is a process..

The question here is what causes the process of the transformation of the energy into the big bang that created the process...,?


with this acceptance. Nothing comes from nothing.. Therefore the process that spark the transformations of the energy must have been spark by another process...with this we could enter into long chain of infinite process.

So what if i say God is this process and it is this process that birth everything but known and unknown elements ...

It seems you want to hold a physical grip of God.

LordReed:


Then it's a misnomer to say it strengthens your position.

I don't think so.

budaatum:

You do say "if we try to probe further, we will encounter the problem of induction".

Are you suggestion therefore that we shouldn't probe further to avoid the "problem of induction"?

Infinite regression is possible. The question is simply whether one wishes to entertain it or not!

The op and evidence from contemporary philosophers disagree with that..

Rather they advocate for sufficient explanation.

Yes we will encounter the problem of induction since we will abandoned the technicality of how logical reasoning and scientific research should operate.

budaatum:

You do say "if we try to probe further, we will encounter the problem of induction".

Are you suggestion therefore that we shouldn't probe further to avoid the "problem of induction"?

Infinite regression is possible. The question is simply whether one wishes to entertain it or not!

Vaxx has a way of typing a lot and saying little. The question 'what created god' still hasn't been addressed. It's a poor attempt at perhaps dismissing the question as illogical.

vaxx:
This opinion is flawed for two main reason.1..not all knowledge are demosratable..

2 ....Not all knowledge has being justify.....



Then you are not reading my post.....i have answer this with sufficient explanation approach.....take your time and read it bro.

But to make it more interesting, we all agreed that physical universe must have been a product of some energy transformation...which means the transformation itself is a process..

The question here is what causes the process of the transformation of the energy into the big bang that created the process...,?


with this acceptance. Nothing comes from nothing.. Therefore the process that spark the transformations of the energy must have been spark by another process...with this we could enter into long chain of infinite process.

So what if i say God is this process and it is this process that birth everything but known and unknown elements ...

It seems you want to hold a physical grip of God.

Finally, a concrete statement in your last two paragraphs which I agree with to an extent

DeSepiero:


Vaxx has a way of typing a lot and saying little. The question 'what created god' still hasn't been addressed. It's a poor attempt at perhaps dismissing the question as illogical.

The whole of this thread is about that. And I shall answer you specifically as I said.....sincerly speaking ....the op is dismissing the questions as illogical and flawed.

DeSepiero:


Vaxx has a way of typing a lot and saying little. The question 'what created god' still hasn't been addressed. It's a poor attempt at perhaps dismissing the question as illogical.

Oh, I'm assuming we are doing the preliminary work and that he'd get to it eventually.

vaxx:
The op and evidence from contemporary philosophers disagree with that..

Rather they advocate for sufficient explanation.

I can't say I have come across any contemporary philosophers who say infinite regression is an impossibility! Some may decide to fill the gap and stop, but the search for knowledge cannot avoid someone coming up with one more regression.

budaatum:

I can't say I have come across any contemporary philosophers who say infinite regression is an impossibility! Some may decide to fill the gap and stop, but the search for knowledge cannot avoid someone coming up with one more regression.

Actually they are philosopher who justify sufficient explanation as best position ever rather than infinite regression.. I know of Gottfried Leibniz and philosophers who are there before him like Aristotle, Spinoza , aveccena and the rest.....

Infinite regress has its own problem like I said. when people ask for justification for accepting something as true, they are asking for an answer which terminates in some compelling fashion. But answers which result in an infinite regress by definition never terminate, and as such aren't found to be rationally compelling.


Infinite regression has two outcomes, it is either it is endless or you posit that there must be an original cause. The latter is the justification many rationalist philosophers used to justify the existence of God. The former is used to negate the latter, after all there is no real basis upon which to claim an original cause, to do so Is a logical leap. To negate the very concept of an infinite regression, well, you cannot because a person is in fact able to trace regressions almost infinitely. You could spend your entire life doing just that and you would still end up unfinished. Evolution is a perfect example.

vaxx:
The latter is the justification many rationalist philosophers used to justify the existence of God. The former is used to negate the latter, after all there is no real basis upon which to claim an original cause, to do so Is a logical leap. To negate the very concept of an infinite regression, well, you cannot because a person is in fact able to trace regressions almost infinitely. You could spend your entire life doing just that and you would still end up unfinished. Evolution is a perfect example.

You are simply pointing out the difficulty it poses. The fact some people want to insert a god into the gap in order to avoid an infinite regression does not mean it does not exist. Nor does the fact that one has limited time make it disappear. It simply means some wish to avoid it!

The presumptions in op's question alone should point this out. It is after all based on what you might probably refer to as the axiomatic "original cause", and, "all things are created", which are not valid axioms to begin with. But if one were to go along with that premise, then the universe was created, or caused, and what created or caused the universe was created or caused and so. And if you can't accept that regression, you could just have not stated that "all things are created or caused" to start with, since your uncreated or uncaused god itself falsifies that premise. Or you would have to move on to the conclusion from the premise which is an infinite regression of creators or causators and go wherever it leads to. The fact that a person wishes to cover one's eyes in order to avoid it does not in anyway make it disappear, even if some have managed to do so for their own biased reasons or the limitations of their knowledge, as the case was for most scientists pre-18th century or thereabouts. Only the intellectually dishonesty or ignorant would fly such kites in this modern age.

If, as you seem to be implying, evolution is an example of an infinite regression, that, provided you accept evolution is a valid idea, means infinite regressions do exist.

budaatum:

The odd thing is that they only incite that doubt where another person's truth is concerned, but never to their own truth, which they tend to assert with absolute certitude.

Exactly, a very strange position to attempt.

vaxx:
This opinion is flawed for two main reason.1..not all knowledge are demosratable..

2 ....Not all knowledge has being justify.....

For a physical universe, an undemonstrable God is no different from one that doesn't exist so therefore remains irrelevant to explaining the universe.

Then you are not reading my post.....i have answer this with sufficient explanation approach.....take your time and read it bro.

But to make it more interesting, we all agreed that physical universe must have been a product of some energy transformation...which means the transformation itself is a process..

The question here is what causes the process of the transformation of the energy into the big bang that created the process...,?


with this acceptance. Nothing comes from nothing.. Therefore the process that spark the transformations of the energy must have been spark by another process...with this we could enter into long chain of infinite process.

So what if i say God is this process and it is this process that birth everything but known and unknown elements ...

It seems you want to hold a physical grip of God.

Yes I do. Again if you want to use a God to explain the physical universe and then say he is undemonstrable then he remains irrelevant. It is almost like saying God expended himself in creating the universe that is why we can't detect him anymore.

vaxx:
I don't think so.

Well then explain how inciting doubt about how we arrive at truth strengthens your position.

LordReed:


For a physical universe, an undemonstrable God is no different from one that doesn't exist so therefore remains irrelevant to explaining the universe.

Have You ever traveled to the wall part of the universe where certainity is established?

What we have is parsimony of assumptions( at least using the occam razor which makes lot of sense)for example, Quantum mechanical world (waves) showed that equations are insufficient naturally observed phenomena at the level of atoms and bellow. It employed Schrodinger's equation and wave functions. Which will means This world is inaccessible to our common senses..though many cosmologists had attempted to demonstrate it but mostly due end up in borrowing idea from eastern cosmologists which is not entirely science.


Parsimony assumptions does not mean that we know this for sure. In fact, there really is no way of knowing. What is beyond the limits of the observable universe is, what We can logically assumed is there is a reasons why the universe behave as he does since it is not under any obligation to behave in such.

Yes I do. Again if you want to use a God to explain the physical universe and then say he is undemonstrable then he remains irrelevant. It is almost like saying God expended

Like i said nature is under no obligation, after all, to behave in a manner that we humans call reasonable.

But in our experience, Nature by and large does behave reasonably, and we might expect it to continue behaving reasonably even beyond the boundaries of the observable universe. That expectation, combined with the observation that the universe appears to have some mathematical principle made us logically assumed that indeed an undemonstrable knowledge exist ....



The word irrelevant here is optional.....if theologians found it sensible to acknowledge such a phenomenon, there shouldn't be any objection...

budaatum:

You are simply pointing out the difficulty it poses. The fact some people want to insert a god into the gap in order to avoid an infinite regression does not mean it does not exist. Nor does the fact that one has limited time make it disappear. It simply means some wish to avoid it!

The presumptions in op's question alone should point this out. It is after all based on what you might probably refer to as the axiomatic "original cause", and, "all things are created", which are not valid axioms to begin with. But if one were to go along with that premise, then the universe was created, or caused, and what created or caused the universe was created or caused and so. And if you can't accept that regression, you could just have not stated that "all things are created or caused" to start with, since your uncreated or uncaused god itself falsifies that premise. Or you would have to move on to the conclusion from the premise which is an infinite regression of creators or causators and go wherever it leads to. The fact that a person wishes to cover one's eyes in order to avoid it does not in anyway make it disappear, even if some have managed to do so for their own biased reasons or the limitations of their knowledge, as the case was for most scientists pre-18th century or thereabouts. Only the intellectually dishonesty or ignorant would fly such kites in this modern age.

If, as you seem to be implying, evolution is an example of an infinite regression, that, provided you accept evolution is a valid idea, means infinite regressions do exist.

i think this is a bad logic....every existing information we know or debate about today has their rich foundation from time memorial among this Greek philosophers. In fact some of them were even smarter than their time.

The Greek philosophers are influential today because they were curious about the permanent conditions of human nature. Such questions have existed and will continue to exist as long as human civilization exists. This is why they are relevant regardless of what age people examine them in.


So saying discarding them is like saying discarding western education which has its root from these phiolopshers.



Well, my first post on this page aready answer your response .you may need to go give it a read.

Ensure you read this as well.. .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#First_cause

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


I Am giving you two links so that you can rationalize your own findings and come to your own conclusion on infinite regress....

LordReed:


Well then explain how inciting doubt about how we arrive at truth strengthens your position.

Arriving at the truth starts when you doubt everything and think critically and rationally stripping off all cognitive biases and prejudices and build up hypotheses only from the essential naked facts..

You may think theologians are biased to themselves by not doing this to their own existing conclusion.. i will honestly say you are wrong if you have such opinion.

self-identified theists (much like self-identified atheists) are free-thinkers, and they question their faith pretty deeply because, although they may participate in an organized religion, they don't identify with it very strongly, ideologically speaking, at least.


For example the Islamic prophet advice his members to seek knowledge even if it will take them to China. ( mecca is in South Asia while China is in east Asia. You can imagine how far it is.) Yet muhammed says they should seek knowledge which is to show how much knowledge is emphasized in Islam.

There was a bible verse which state that we should seek for every evidence and hold on to the truth.

And in case of ifa(pagan), there is so much information regarding the seeking and acqusation of knowledge.


In honesty some theologians do question their faith and are ready to adjust as new evidence suffice.

There is a particular Muslim hadith which says, search for my knowledge before you worshiped me.

Now back to why infinite regress is impossible or not pratical.. .

""If there is not to be any (system of human knowledge dependent upon an absolute first principle) two cases are only possible. Either there is no immediate certainty at all, and then our knowledge forms many series or one infinite series, wherein each theorem is derived from a higher one, and this again from a higher one, et., etc. We build our houses on the earth, the earth rests on an elephant, the elephant on a tortoise, the tortoise again--who knows on what?-- and so on ad infinitum. True, if our knowledge is thus constituted, we can not alter it; but neither have we, then, any firm knowledge. We may have gone back to a certain link of our series, and have found every thing firm up to this link; but who can guarantee us that, if we go further back, we may not find it ungrounded, and shall thus have to abandon it? Our certainty is only assumed, and we can never be sure of it for a single following day.""" Johann gottlieb .

DeSepiero:
In essence, what created God?

As promised.....i think it's improper to lump God with his creation. God has revealed himself to us as a process. Hence this question is paradoxical.

It can even be argued that this question is irrelevant if the Universe is presumed to have circular time instead of linear time.