(December 7, 2015 at 1:33 am)Quantum Wrote: 4. The notion of time and space coming from *** is semantic nonsense.
4b. Our naive notion of a linear continuous time probably breaks down here, and with them naive intuitions about causality.

I am not saying anything definite about where it came from, because I cannot say anything secure about it.

Classical logic tells us that an event in our future can be the causative agent for an event in our past.  Its one of the most fantastic results of gaming the system that can be offered, after a single standard transposition.  Our language can barely describe time and cause as we currently experience it, I wouldn't trust it to adequately describe either as they could be or may have once been. As ever, we'll need more adequate terms with specific meanings limited to their fields of inquiry. Time and cause in technical, not vernacular.

christians arguing for creation need to understand that even god needs a creator.

But only if they want to argue that everything needs a creator.

(December 7, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: But only if they want to argue that everything needs a creator.

Pretty much yes

(November 30, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Your argument doesn't really matter to us God believers because part of believing in God is believing that He is a super natural being who, unlike us, has always existed.

Why do you think that's true?

(December 1, 2015 at 8:26 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Who created the creator? I don't know why the ignorant keep bringing that up. No serious theologian ever proposed an argument that did not take that objection into account, bozo.

But if the line of reasoning the believer is using is 'everything must have a creator', it's a reasonable question. If the creator is exempt from the need for a creator, why, and why can't other things also be exempt? If they then say that everything in the universe requires a creator and God isn't in the universe, I'd ask why it had to be their god that was the creator. I believe the big bang created the universe and whatever caused the big bang must have also been outside of the universe. By their logic, the big bang doesn't need to have a cause (though, I believe it did), and therefore they can't use the argument, 'But what caused the big bang?'

---

(December 1, 2015 at 11:08 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 11:05 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't think many of us would argue that there is probably more going on (and has been going on) then we are able to perceive. It's when people to claim to know details about this stuff, without saying how they could possibly know it, that we tend to object. It doesn't seem any different from just making things up because you want them to be that way.

As long as they state it as being their beliefs and not try to make you believe it too, I don't see why it should matter.

I partially agree with that. The only issue is that people's beliefs affect their behaviour and they often use them to justify some pretty abdominal things. This applies both to religious and non-religious beliefs. I don't think anybody's views and positions should be above scrutiny, and it's often the case that a person's religious beliefs are treated as being exempt from any kind of scrutiny purely because they're religious beliefs.

Some people have pretty innocuous beliefs. They don't set out to convert people, and they believe that they should be good to people. I don't have any issue with those people.

---

(December 1, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Quantum Wrote: The problem is imho that these proposals, insofar they are concrete enough to even be addressed, only shift the problem. Creating something is a uniquely temporal concept which we have formed based on various observations in our universe. To be able to say that this universe itself is created in its entirety, including our time itself, one needs another concept of time to which this creation refers. One can then ask the same thing of that 'divine' time, where did it come from. Most answers though are vague and merely repeat the question with more words. None I've seen scrolling through really address the issue what it could possibly mean to say that a creator god exists outside time - and precise clarification is needed or otherwise the statement is meaningless.

Agreed. And if there is a whole other level of reality that we're unaware of, such as an 'outside of the universe', it's fair for us to ask questions about it to try to understanding it. Stating that there's a level of reality that we're unaware of just raises more questions rather than answering anything.

---

(December 3, 2015 at 1:39 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(November 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm)jcvamp Wrote: If we follow this line of reasoning, my parents created me, and this extends back to a point where something came about without the need for a creator. Why can't that be the formation of organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab?'

Claiming that "life can be reverse engineered in a lab by intelligent beings" is not proof that these processes took place in exactly the same way without intelligent interference millions of years ago.  I would argue the contrary.  Given that we have not observed these processes taking place apart from human reproduction in a lab, if it takes intelligence now, why not conclude it took intelligence then?  This would be a more consistent conclusion.

I understand your objection, and yes, there is difference between a laboratory experiment and something occurring naturally. My point is that we know that these chemicals can give rise to organic material. I was trying to ask why he think it's more likely that a creator who isn't proven to exist is more likely than a chemical process that we know exists.

---

(December 5, 2015 at 6:15 pm)athrock Wrote: The theist might respond this way:

Your parents created you, and your grandparents created them. Your great-grandparents created your grandparents, and so on. Keep going back in time. What created the "organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab"?

They were created by a naturally occurring chemical reaction.

Quote:The Big Bang Theory states that time, space, matter, etc. all began to exist at a single point in the distant past...approximately 13 billion years ago. Why? What caused or created the big bang? Did everything suddenly come into being out of nothing? If so, why don't we observe this phenomenon happening all the time? If you were to find a watch on the sidewalk, would you assume that is simply appeared there out of nothing, or would you assume that someone dropped it there? And would you further assume that there was a watchmaker who made it to begin with?

I am willing to be honest and say that I don't know what caused the big bang. I think it's perfectly fine to admit that there are some things we don't currently understand.

Quote:You have asked, "Who created god?", but the question reveals your misunderstanding of the theist Cosmological Argument which goes something like:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Theists call this cause "God". And since God is eternal, He did not BEGIN to exist; therefore, He has no creator or cause.

He didn't state that everything that begins must have a cause, he simply said that everything has a cause. I followed his line of reasoning in my response.

In response to the idea God is eternal, that raises a lot of questions. My first is, how is that possible? Is it possible to answer that without saying, 'Because he's God?' If their answer is, 'I don't know', then we're at a stalemate, and I'd refer back to my question of 'Why does it have to be God and not another cause?'

---

(December 6, 2015 at 3:11 am)orangebox21 Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 7:38 pm)Kitan Wrote: What was the cause for the existence of god, or did you miss that logical step?

Addressed and answered by athrock in post #80.

Saying that God doesn't need a creator doesn't answer the question, it creates an exception to the rule. There still has to be a reason for the exception.

(December 7, 2015 at 5:57 pm)dyresand Wrote: christians arguing for creation need to understand that  even god needs a creator.

(December 7, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: But only if they want to argue that everything needs a creator.

Which is NOT what they argue.

Everything which begins to exist has a creator.

Now if god never began to exist, then he does not need a creator. But if the universe never began to exist, then it does not need a creator, either.

(December 12, 2015 at 6:42 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 7, 2015 at 5:57 pm)dyresand Wrote: christians arguing for creation need to understand that  even god needs a creator.

(December 7, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: But only if they want to argue that everything needs a creator.

Which is NOT what they argue.

Everything which begins to exist has a creator.

Now if god never began to exist, then he does not need a creator. But if the universe never began to exist, then it does not need a creator, either.

The guy I was debating with was a Christian, and he argued simply that everything requires a creator except God. He didn't give any reason for this exception, so the question of who created God is relevant. Whether or not he argued that God didn't begin and therefore doesn't require a creator, it still leads to further questions about why this is the case.

There are many forms of that argument, the one to which you are referring is called Kalam, and is more appropriately an argument for the existence of Allah, not Yahweh, Ath.  Christians do argue both your variant and many others which do not share that provision.

(December 12, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There are many forms of that argument, the one to which you are referring is called Kalam, and is more appropriately an argument for the existence of Allah, not Yahweh, Ath.  Christians do argue both your variant and many others which do not share that provision.

You're right, Rhythm. I did have the kalam in mind, but there are other variants.

The response to the believer would vary somewhat depending on which version he chose to argue.