There is nothing wrong with saying “Nobody created God; he was always there”, as long as you are willing to accept “Nobody created the universe, it was always there” as an equally plausible assertion.
Is this stone-related form of communication now a hate crime in Scotland? What is the modern world coming to? It is only a matter of time until a ‘Glasgow kiss’ is construed as a form of sexual molestation.
This is an instance of the Paradox of Origin. Namely: what caused the first cause? This has 3 solutions that I know of, all unsatisfactory.
1. The Line. The sequence of causation goes back forever, so there is no first cause.
2. The Ray. There is a first cause, itself uncaused.
3. The Loop. The first cause itself has a cause, which it caused, so causation flows in a loop.
The first is infinite, and therefore is incomprehensible. The second derives from chaos, and is therefore irrational. The third is paradoxical, and therefore is absurd. If you can figure out a fourth theory lacking these flaws, then please let me and the world know.
In political terms, the Line is ‘traditionalist’. We’ve always done it this way. Its flaw is weakness in the face of change and dissent. The Ray is ‘monarchist’. Hail the King! Its flaw is unfairness. The Loop is ‘democratic’. We the People rule. Its flaw is self-contradiction.
I lean towards the Loop, if the Loop contains all of causation, from First Cause to Final Effect, which causes the First Cause.
P.S.: the Argument from Stoning proves the stone thrower’s military strength and moral weakness.
I’ve always been partial to Douglas Adams’ (or was it Terry Jones’?) concept, from The Starship Titanic, of SMEF: Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure. The randomness of SMEF appeals, and it also isn’t much of a conceptual stretch to SMES: Spontaneous Massive Existence Success, to explain the non-causative beginning of the uni/multiverse.
Don’t really need to invoke Lines, Rays, or Loops. Shit happens, excrement occurs.
Tebirkes:
SMES, Spontaneous Massive Existence Success, _is_ the Ray. It’s an uncaused first cause. But if SMES is possible, then so is SMEF, Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure; an ineffectual Final Effect. All for nothing! No thank you.
Paradoctor, since ‘causality’ is only a valid explanation for consecutive events in the limited field of Newtonian physics, I’d go for the The Ray. Anywhere else it’s a ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ fallacy that may may be true or false.
If I take the Big Boom for granted, it originated in a single non-dimensional point, i.e. at a quantum level where there is no causality involved. Only chance and probability.
Phinda: Here’s another loop: mind created matter, matter created mind.
The philosopher Spinoza called the first cause “Substantia”, meaning both stuff and understanding. Substantia is what ‘stands under’ appearances. To Spinoza, substantia caused itself, so he’s a loopist. He said that what you see in substantia depends on how you look at it. If you investigate substantia in terms of thought, then it resembles the mind of a god; but if you investigate substantia in terms of extension, then it resembles a physical universe. To this I add: an impersonal mind, and a weird universe.
I prefer the loop, especially a loop that encompasses all causation, because it’s democratic. No King Cause, instead we’re all in this together.
The question boils down to ‘Why is there something not nothing?’ which is logically unanswerable since whatever answer you give is part of what you sought to explain. Existence is a brute fact. All we can seek to do with science and philosophy is investigate any relationships or structures within it.
Alastair James — I’ve posted about this here before, but you might want to check out Max Tegmark’s mathematical universe hypothesis. It contends that allmathematical structures are equally “real” in a physical sense, and that the only thing that distinguishes our universe from simple structures like the integers or permutation groups is that the mathematics that describes our universe is sufficiently complicated that it allows self-aware substructures. There are objections to the hypothesis, but to me it looks like the first proposed answer to “Why is there something rather than nothing?” that even conceivably gets around the objection that “whatever answer you give is part of what you sought to explain”. I think that in itself is a huge step forward!
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is surely just an extension of the standard model, is it not. The problem being any given particles trajectory in Hilbert Space, where is it’s trajectory being evaluated against, whence is it’s origin…
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
July 10, 2019
There is nothing wrong with saying “Nobody created God; he was always there”, as long as you are willing to accept “Nobody created the universe, it was always there” as an equally plausible assertion.
Is this stone-related form of communication now a hate crime in Scotland? What is the modern world coming to? It is only a matter of time until a ‘Glasgow kiss’ is construed as a form of sexual molestation.
“…..as long as you are willing to accept ‘Nobody created the universe, it was always there’ as an equally plausible assertion.”
That is actually MORE plausible, since the universe is something we observe.
This is an instance of the Paradox of Origin. Namely: what caused the first cause? This has 3 solutions that I know of, all unsatisfactory.
1. The Line. The sequence of causation goes back forever, so there is no first cause.
2. The Ray. There is a first cause, itself uncaused.
3. The Loop. The first cause itself has a cause, which it caused, so causation flows in a loop.
The first is infinite, and therefore is incomprehensible. The second derives from chaos, and is therefore irrational. The third is paradoxical, and therefore is absurd. If you can figure out a fourth theory lacking these flaws, then please let me and the world know.
In political terms, the Line is ‘traditionalist’. We’ve always done it this way. Its flaw is weakness in the face of change and dissent. The Ray is ‘monarchist’. Hail the King! Its flaw is unfairness. The Loop is ‘democratic’. We the People rule. Its flaw is self-contradiction.
I lean towards the Loop, if the Loop contains all of causation, from First Cause to Final Effect, which causes the First Cause.
P.S.: the Argument from Stoning proves the stone thrower’s military strength and moral weakness.
Any question flummoxes the faith-head, like why does god not want you to eat bacon butties? Or why does god not like young ladies in Ra-Ra skirts?
M27, I have difficulty picturing a sun-god Amon Ra who does not. (Except maybe in profile, where appreciation is more apparent.)
I’ve always been partial to Douglas Adams’ (or was it Terry Jones’?) concept, from The Starship Titanic, of SMEF: Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure. The randomness of SMEF appeals, and it also isn’t much of a conceptual stretch to SMES: Spontaneous Massive Existence Success, to explain the non-causative beginning of the uni/multiverse.
Don’t really need to invoke Lines, Rays, or Loops. Shit happens, excrement occurs.
Tebirkes:
SMES, Spontaneous Massive Existence Success, _is_ the Ray. It’s an uncaused first cause. But if SMES is possible, then so is SMEF, Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure; an ineffectual Final Effect. All for nothing! No thank you.
Paradoctor, since ‘causality’ is only a valid explanation for consecutive events in the limited field of Newtonian physics, I’d go for the The Ray. Anywhere else it’s a ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ fallacy that may may be true or false.
If I take the Big Boom for granted, it originated in a single non-dimensional point, i.e. at a quantum level where there is no causality involved. Only chance and probability.
I’ve been a bit sloppy. ‘It’ in the second sentence refers to ‘causality’ of course.
Here’s a loop: God created man, man created god.
Phinda: Here’s another loop: mind created matter, matter created mind.
The philosopher Spinoza called the first cause “Substantia”, meaning both stuff and understanding. Substantia is what ‘stands under’ appearances. To Spinoza, substantia caused itself, so he’s a loopist. He said that what you see in substantia depends on how you look at it. If you investigate substantia in terms of thought, then it resembles the mind of a god; but if you investigate substantia in terms of extension, then it resembles a physical universe. To this I add: an impersonal mind, and a weird universe.
I prefer the loop, especially a loop that encompasses all causation, because it’s democratic. No King Cause, instead we’re all in this together.
The question boils down to ‘Why is there something not nothing?’ which is logically unanswerable since whatever answer you give is part of what you sought to explain. Existence is a brute fact. All we can seek to do with science and philosophy is investigate any relationships or structures within it.
Aye. We could be in a computer matrix, which itself is in a computer matrix…and yes it’s computers all the way down…
Alastair James — I’ve posted about this here before, but you might want to check out Max Tegmark’s mathematical universe hypothesis. It contends that all mathematical structures are equally “real” in a physical sense, and that the only thing that distinguishes our universe from simple structures like the integers or permutation groups is that the mathematics that describes our universe is sufficiently complicated that it allows self-aware substructures. There are objections to the hypothesis, but to me it looks like the first proposed answer to “Why is there something rather than nothing?” that even conceivably gets around the objection that “whatever answer you give is part of what you sought to explain”. I think that in itself is a huge step forward!
M27, that may be true.
Do-loops stacking, more than a few.
A slew that swerves beyond the bend,
You’d think that it must surely end
Tullamore dew.
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is surely just an extension of the standard model, is it not. The problem being any given particles trajectory in Hilbert Space, where is it’s trajectory being evaluated against, whence is it’s origin…
_Is_ there something rather than nothing? The universe is 99.99999999+% cold dark irradiated vacuum, so that’s not much as evidence for ‘yes’.
paractor, but then if everything but radiation vanishes then what? what remnant of mass can make the symmetry hold?
Is is Empty space at subatomic scale? Or is it a matrix of dark matter particles?
German Blutwurst or the Spanish morcilla.
In short, M27, blood sausage.
Bury Black Pudding…best in the world…
But is Haram obviously, made with the blood of virgin pigs…