LastKing Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Have you every seen a painting with out a painter or a buidling with out a builder? These are classic arguments use to declare why there must be a creator but these have been debunked because we know these things have a creator becasue we seen people make these things. What I dont understand is why God dose not need a creator? If everything needs a creator then he needs a creator. Now the arugment for this is its becasue he is enternal. Well why cant reality it self be like this. Simply always here with no creator. Why dose it and everything els need a creator and not the Creator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I’ve had similar thoughts Last King. To assume that everything needs a creator is to assume that everything is an artifact. It doesn’t make much sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The question I like to pose is, "If something must be eternal, why must it be a conscious, personal being?". In other words, is why is the Christian trying to anthropomorphize the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Have you every seen a painting with out a painter or a buidling with out a builder? These are classic arguments use to declare why there must be a creator but these have been debunked because we know these things have a creator becasue we seen people make these things. What I dont understand is why God dose not need a creator? If everything needs a creator then he needs a creator. Now the arugment for this is its becasue he is enternal. Well why cant reality it self be like this. Simply always here with no creator. Why dose it and everything els need a creator and not the Creator? Everything that exists in our natural world has been created or formed into something. That is a fact, I would assume fact by most evolutionists, and creationist. Something happened to create, form something. Right? Big bang was something, that theoretically created, formed everything as we have it today, upon billions of years etc. But the key is theory. Scientists have theory's. Creationists also have theory's, yet they claim God created everything, where evolutionists claim whatever theory formed into, created everything. My point is that it is a talked about subject, and thought contended alot for the simple fact that nobody really knows how everything came to be from the start, as an absolute. It's a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I've always seen it as a cause and effect argument. Common sense says that every effect has a cause... unfortunately common sense is often wrong. It does appear at the quantum level that things can occur without apparent cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Everything that exists in our natural world has been created or formed into something. That is a fact, I would assume fact by most evolutionists, and creationist. Something happened to create, form something. Right? Big bang was something, that theoretically created, formed everything as we have it today, upon billions of years etc. The Big Bang is not a "something". It's an event that happened to the universe, which is everything. The reason I highlighted part of your statement was to draw attention to the condition of causality, namely that everything within the natural world has a cause. It does not follow, however, that the natural world itself must have a cause. There's a subtle composition fallacy that often creeps into these discussions. The fallacy of composition is one in which you take a property of part and apply it to the whole, or vice versa, when in fact, there's no reason to assume this. Here's an example. I can throw nuts and bolts. Cars are composed of nuts and bolts. Ergo, I can throw cars. The universe does not exist temporarily. It exists eternally. Temporality, as a property, exists within the universe. Not without. The universe is not subject to the laws that exist within itself. In a colloquial sense, you are correct in saying that the big bang is the event that began and created our universe, but in a far more literal sense, it's much weirder than that. The big bang is simply a starting point for the expansion of our universe, which continues to expand. In other words, the universe is still banging after all these billions of years. The term "big bang" was coined, because it alludes to a concept of expulsion and rapid expansion, but it's probably not the best term to describe what it actually is. This is why nobody on the atheist side really takes William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument seriously. It's a three-premise argument that need not even be completed to refute. Craig's argument: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. The universe has a cause. The second premise is wrong. Of course, Craig is pretty sneaky in that he hides the nature of causality as being a component of the universe itself, preying on the notion that nobody will catch it. Creationists also have theory's No. They... They really don't. Again, colloquially, we think of theories as conjecture, but in science, a theory is a workable model, like a blueprint of a phenomenon. That is to say, if we construct the blueprint of theory A, phenomenon B should follow. Creationism has nothing like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The question I like to pose is, "If something must be eternal, why must it be a conscious, personal being?". In other words, is why is the Christian trying to anthropomorphize the universe? EXACTLY! That's my point, over and over again. The First Cause argument is valid in the way that Big Bang did happen, and it happened somehow, and because of something. But why do that suddenly become a "Being" with thoughts, actions, ideas, etc? There's no reason to it, except the assumption that the Big Bang came from Nothing and it had to be "Created", which isn't true. All that we know as "something" today and here didn't exist just at the point of the badabingbadaboom, but it wasn't a nothingness. Our universe could exist, and have started in a higher-order universe. But then I usually hear the comment, "we don't know that, and we have no evidence for other universes, so the simplest explanation must be God," which is so retarded, because a non-temporal and non-corporeal consciousness existing outside of our universe doesn't have any resemblance to anything we know right now either! So if we have no experience of non-body-minds, then God is just as implausible as any other explanation. Hence, all explanations are on equal footing, but it makes more sense to assume an infinite number of universes, and mega-universes, etc, than to assume a magical mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I've always seen it as a cause and effect argument. Common sense says that every effect has a cause... unfortunately common sense is often wrong. It does appear at the quantum level that things can occur without apparent cause. Very true. And also, if everything is caused, then is free will caused? If free will is caused, then we must assume it also have a "first cause." In other words, we are nothing but robots. So if First Cause argument even to begin to be true on the surface, we have to accept the idea that nothing that happens to us, or around us, can be self-caused (like free will would have to be). I see it as an either-or situation, either we have free will and Kalam is false, or Kalam is true and we have no free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Everything that exists in our natural world has been created or formed into something. That formulation doesn't match with Craig's Kalam, because if say "everything that exists" you would include God. So he formulates it this way: everything came into existence was caused. In other words, the formulation is already giving a loop-hole for allowing anything that exists, but un-caused, to exist without a cause. It's a tautology. It's like saying: Everything that is created was created. And then continue with: The Universe was Created. And conclude: God is the Creator. The argument is a setup from beginning to end. Also, what is really interesting with the Kalam argument is that Kalam was a school within Islam. That group came up with this argument based on Aristotle's Unmovable-Mover argument. Kalam was later destroyed because it was heretic. But its purpose was to prove that Allah is God, and that the Quran states this fact based on this argument. So Craig is doing himself a disservice in many ways by affirming Islam as the true religion. That is a fact, I would assume fact by most evolutionists, and creationist. Something happened to create, form something. Right? Big bang was something, that theoretically created, formed everything as we have it today, upon billions of years etc. When a stone starts rolling down the hill and hit another stone and some pebble fly and land in the water and you get some waves. The fish will ask: Who created the waves? But the key is theory. Scientists have theory's. Creationists also have theory's, yet they claim God created everything, where evolutionists claim whatever theory formed into, created everything. You must be able to prove a theory. How do you prove God's existence or that God created the world? My point is that it is a talked about subject, and thought contended alot for the simple fact that nobody really knows how everything came to be from the start, as an absolute. It's a theory. Yes, I agree that we don't know, hence trying to argue and prove each other wrong should always end with: well, that's my opinion, and we really don't know for sure. Which is a better state to be in, that the dogmatic and evangelical pseudo-philosophers or semi-scientists "proving" their ideas because they're afraid to be wrong. I could accept the existence of a God, but I won't give in easily because I require a really valid and strong evidence to this (supposed) fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 This is why nobody on the atheist side really takes William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument seriously. It's a three-premise argument that need not even be completed to refute. Craig's argument: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. The universe has a cause. The second premise is wrong. Of course, Craig is pretty sneaky in that he hides the nature of causality as being a component of the universe itself, preying on the notion that nobody will catch it. That formulation doesn't match with Craig's Kalam, because if say "everything that exists" you would include God. So he formulates it this way: everything came into existence was caused. In other words, the formulation is already giving a loop-hole for allowing anything that exists, but un-caused, to exist without a cause. It's a tautology. It's like saying: Everything that is created was created. And then continue with: The Universe was Created. And conclude: God is the Creator. The argument is a setup from beginning to end. Also, what is really interesting with the Kalam argument is that Kalam was a school within Islam. That group came up with this argument based on Aristotle's Unmovable-Mover argument. Kalam was later destroyed because it was heretic. But its purpose was to prove that Allah is God, and that the Quran states this fact based on this argument. So Craig is doing himself a disservice in many ways by affirming Islam as the true religion. You know you made good decisions in life by getting a library card, internet, instead of a huge loan for a college education......when you make a post, with your thoughts....and it ends up being a renowned argument involving William Lane Craig, .....of who which you have no idea who that is. Anyway, I could've played it off and acted like I know who this guy, and his argument is, for a sense of community academic approval....But, I am just stoked at the thought that my general thoughts are that of some renowned argument and philosopher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 You know you made good decisions in life by getting a library card, internet, instead of a huge loan for a college education......when you make a post, with your thoughts....and it ends up being a renowned argument involving William Lane Craig, .....of who which you have no idea who that is. Well, you kind of brought up something that parallels the mindset of Bill Craig, who is one of the leading Christian apologists of the day. In fact, he's probably the best. So, it's not entirely a bad thing that I cross-referenced your statement with something he commonly uses. You should probably be flattered by that. He's quite competent, even though he isn't without shenanigans. And yes, I call shenanigans on Bill Craig. He's certainly light years ahead of Ray Comfort, though. Anyway, I could've played it off and acted like I know who this guy, and his argument is, for a sense of community academic approval....But, I am just stoked at the thought that my general thoughts are that of some renowned argument and philosopher. Good. That you should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trike Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 But the key is theory. Scientists have theory's. Creationists also have theory's, yet they claim God created everything, where evolutionists claim whatever theory formed into, created everything. My point is that it is a talked about subject, and thought contended alot for the simple fact that nobody really knows how everything came to be from the start, as an absolute. It's a theory. Wrongo, but excellent use of creationist talking points . A scientific theory is different from the word "theory" that is used in casual contexts. The two "theories" (see how I made that plural there?) are not on equal footing, one is more a scientific law, whereas the other is dogma dressed in drag (non testifiable, no evidence, non-predictive, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazycatlady Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Not to mention that throwing in an eternal creator instead of allowing the universe to be eternal violates Ockham's razor... (simplest explanation is preferred). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Everything that exists in our natural world has been created or formed into something. That is a fact, I would assume fact by most evolutionists, and creationist. Something happened to create, form something. Right? Big bang was something, that theoretically created, formed everything as we have it today, upon billions of years etc. The assumption here (and one which Legion touched on) is that the universe is a finished thing. For all we know it is a process rather than a complete creation that can be traced back to a beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Everything that exists in our natural world has been created or formed into something. That is a fact, I would assume fact by most evolutionists, and creationist. Something happened to create, form something. Right? Big bang was something, that theoretically created, formed everything as we have it today, upon billions of years etc. The assumption here (and one which Legion touched on) is that the universe is a finished thing. For all we know it is a process rather than a complete creation that can be traced back to a beginning. What about rock? How did rocks evolve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 They don't "evolve". Rocks are simply fragmented mineral and silicate deposits. The elements that make up the composition of rocks are formed via supernovae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 What about rock? How did rocks evolve? Ever seen a dust ball? That's your first clue. What does gravity do? It attracts things, matter, to itself. Now what happens when you have a lot of matter all balled up in a great mass, compressing tightly together? Friction? Heat in the center of it? Say... we just described the planet Earth! What happens when you have a great hot furnace burning all manner of elements in it? Do lighter elements rise up to the top? Say! Again, we just described this planet! Carbon floating up to the surface where... you got it, life evolved! So anyway, rocks come through a process attributable to physics, not deities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 What about rock? How did rocks evolve? Ever seen a dust ball? That's your first clue. What does gravity do? It attracts things, matter, to itself. Now what happens when you have a lot of matter all balled up in a great mass, compressing tightly together? Friction? Heat in the center of it? Say... we just described the planet Earth! What happens when you have a great hot furnace burning all manner of elements in it? Do lighter elements rise up to the top? Say! Again, we just described this planet! Carbon floating up to the surface where... you got it, life evolved! So anyway, rocks come through a process attributable to physics, not deities. Thanks Antlerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Maybe the universe is an unusually large dustball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Maybe the universe is an unusually large dustball? Well, it's more like your room that you never dust. Eventually as currents within the room blow the dust around you soon have little solar systems of dust balls, then galaxies, then over in corner... entire galaxy clusters of dust all inhabited by dust mites marveling in the odds of their universe coming together this way, imaging the god that made it all so, just for them! Little do they know it was due to your being lazy. Now go clean your room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Well, it's more like your room that you never dust. Eventually as currents within the room blow the dust around you soon have little solar systems of dust balls, then galaxies, then over in corner... entire galaxy clusters of dust all inhabited by dust mites marveling in the odds of their universe coming together this way, imaging the god that made it all so, just for them! Little do they know it was due to your being lazy. Now go clean your room. We have established that rocks are evolved through dust. What about the sun? How did it evolve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 We have established that rocks are evolved through dust. What about the sun? How did it evolve? From a super-giant, magical star with consciousness, and from a different universe. And only if you believe in the True Magical Star will you be saved from being thrown into The Black Hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 We have established that rocks are evolved through dust. What about the sun? How did it evolve? Evolved isn't really the right word. But how the sun came to be was again through the forces of gravity, pulling gasses together, when under intense pressures ignited into a nuclear reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 We have established that rocks are evolved through dust. What about the sun? How did it evolve? From a super-giant, magical star with consciousness, and from a different universe. And only if you believe in the True Magical Star will you be saved from being thrown into The Black Hole. All things restored through......the Milky Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts