The Augustinian Paradox observes if God is all-powerful then what made God. One answer is that God always existed. Perhaps it's correct but we don't know and the question doesn't have a whole lot of point anyway.
In reviewing Augustine of Hippo, I find no clear reference to 'who made God' but he reviews in great depth what made evil. This became the Augustinian Theodicy and Thomas Aquinas took inspiration from that. (WIKI: Augustinian Theodicy)
This may amuse you as George Carlin did a bit when he talked of his irascible self in a Catholic schoolroom and asked the priest teaching the class, "Hey, Faddah, can God make a rock that (cough) he ... himself ... cannot lift it?"
It sounds like he makes a joke but he sneaks the Paradox into comedy as that's precisely the question: how does omnipotence work. For me it's simple as I see the stars and conclude omnipotence works. I have no idea how it works but we see it does. (WIKI: Omnipotence Paradox)
None of the above will conflict with religious belief as Augustine was born in Year 354 so you know he was deeply religious and his seems the seminal work in this theological context.
The irony is the one asking the question in modern times will typically be an atheist trying to make a case God does not exist. However atheism has the same dilemma as the general thinking is the Big Bang started it all and even Time did not exist prior to that point. Lots of physics theory elegantly demonstrates the truth of that but none of it gives a 'why' as atheists are satisfied, seemingly, it is ... because it is. What it is, what it is.
The Augustinian Paradox applies insofar as the fact of the Big Bang tells us nothing of what creates an environment such that a Big Bang is even possible. Thus who made God looks to me exactly the same question with a slight variation that it's not so much what made the Big Bang but rather what made it possible.
The question is germane as science and scientific method require a cause and effect for any observation whatsoever ... except the Big Bang. There is endless study of the effect but not so much about the cause and thus I submit the research is not as scientific as it might be. That the cause probably can never be identified makes, in my view, atheism just as much of a religion as Christianity and Richard Dawkin has been hustling a whole lot of books because ... well ... they sell a lot better than his science even though that aspect of his life was highly fruitful; now he serves no more purpose than a Christmas-bashing fruitcake ... without Christmas, a fruitcake serves no purpose.
For me it's not a philosophical dilemma as existentialism covers the situation nicely. It's just as in "Roots" when Kunta Kinte held Izzy up to the stars and said, "Behold the only thing greater than yourself."
Whatever made that happen is way, way more powerful than we may ever understand but I don't need that understanding as the stars say it all to me. If you want to throw in some poetry, ask about the light in a two-year-old's eyes as she plays with a dandelion and tries to blow off the seeds.
This doesn't preclude evolution or any of the science as we have a fairly good understanding of those processes but we look up to the stars and we don't know much at all. That's the fascination of them and that will never wither away for lack of interest.
Note: every other planetary moon has a name ... but not our beloved Moon which has fascinated us for millennia. Luna seems the most common alternative but it's not official. I couldn't imagine calling it anything else.
Yevette is the only one I've heard observe one can see Bugs Bunny in the Moon. For a long time, I couldn't see him but then I realized you need to rotate the Moon about forty-five degrees anti-clockwise ...
"What's up, doc?"
In reviewing Augustine of Hippo, I find no clear reference to 'who made God' but he reviews in great depth what made evil. This became the Augustinian Theodicy and Thomas Aquinas took inspiration from that. (WIKI: Augustinian Theodicy)
This may amuse you as George Carlin did a bit when he talked of his irascible self in a Catholic schoolroom and asked the priest teaching the class, "Hey, Faddah, can God make a rock that (cough) he ... himself ... cannot lift it?"
It sounds like he makes a joke but he sneaks the Paradox into comedy as that's precisely the question: how does omnipotence work. For me it's simple as I see the stars and conclude omnipotence works. I have no idea how it works but we see it does. (WIKI: Omnipotence Paradox)
None of the above will conflict with religious belief as Augustine was born in Year 354 so you know he was deeply religious and his seems the seminal work in this theological context.
The irony is the one asking the question in modern times will typically be an atheist trying to make a case God does not exist. However atheism has the same dilemma as the general thinking is the Big Bang started it all and even Time did not exist prior to that point. Lots of physics theory elegantly demonstrates the truth of that but none of it gives a 'why' as atheists are satisfied, seemingly, it is ... because it is. What it is, what it is.
The Augustinian Paradox applies insofar as the fact of the Big Bang tells us nothing of what creates an environment such that a Big Bang is even possible. Thus who made God looks to me exactly the same question with a slight variation that it's not so much what made the Big Bang but rather what made it possible.
The question is germane as science and scientific method require a cause and effect for any observation whatsoever ... except the Big Bang. There is endless study of the effect but not so much about the cause and thus I submit the research is not as scientific as it might be. That the cause probably can never be identified makes, in my view, atheism just as much of a religion as Christianity and Richard Dawkin has been hustling a whole lot of books because ... well ... they sell a lot better than his science even though that aspect of his life was highly fruitful; now he serves no more purpose than a Christmas-bashing fruitcake ... without Christmas, a fruitcake serves no purpose.
For me it's not a philosophical dilemma as existentialism covers the situation nicely. It's just as in "Roots" when Kunta Kinte held Izzy up to the stars and said, "Behold the only thing greater than yourself."
Whatever made that happen is way, way more powerful than we may ever understand but I don't need that understanding as the stars say it all to me. If you want to throw in some poetry, ask about the light in a two-year-old's eyes as she plays with a dandelion and tries to blow off the seeds.
This doesn't preclude evolution or any of the science as we have a fairly good understanding of those processes but we look up to the stars and we don't know much at all. That's the fascination of them and that will never wither away for lack of interest.
Note: every other planetary moon has a name ... but not our beloved Moon which has fascinated us for millennia. Luna seems the most common alternative but it's not official. I couldn't imagine calling it anything else.
Yevette is the only one I've heard observe one can see Bugs Bunny in the Moon. For a long time, I couldn't see him but then I realized you need to rotate the Moon about forty-five degrees anti-clockwise ...
"What's up, doc?"
2 comments:
http://www.putlocker.ms/watch-all-is-by-my-side-online-free-2013-putlocker-v1.html
Thought you might enjoy!!
Rats ... I can't play Flash videos on these systems because of all the trouble Flash has caused.
I saw it was talking about Hendrix asking 'are you experienced' and people usually think that's only in terms of dope but that shows little understanding of Hendrix.
Post a Comment