(June 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm)Pandas United Wrote: No, but nice try. You said to point to one of his logical absurdities- I just outlined one. If he had established a well thought out rebuttal to the cosmological arguments like the establishment of B-Theory then I would respect his attempt. Instead it's these childish arguments that have no logical coherence. He is literally saying "who created the uncreated creator?" what an absurd question. My issue with Dawkins is he obviously has no idea what he's talking about when he steps into the field of philosophy, and more specifically, metaphysics. Stick to evolutionary biology, Rich, that's what you're good at.

Why do you think you get to get out of explaining why the creator doesn't need a creator just by defining the creator as uncreated? 'Everything needs a creator but the creator' is special pleading. Either everything needs a creator or not everything needs a creator. If there are things that don't need a creator, why can't the universe be one of them?

Can I start calling the universe the 'uncreated universe' and make you out to be deficient for talking about someone creating the uncreated universe?

You're coming at the position as if apologists have ever said "everything needs a creator but the creator" which is begging the question. If you actually knew the correct premises of the arguments (i.e. everything that begins to exist, or all contingent things need a prior cause) then you'd see that there is no problem in saying God does not need a creator since He is eternal. Thus destroying your "special pleading" argument.

I cannot believe people actually think this is a legitimate objection.

All you've done is arbitrarily given your chosen creator attributes specifically designed with the sole purpose of enabling you to make an exception to the rule for your chosen creator. It's still special pleading.

(June 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote: then you'd see that there is no problem in saying God does not need a creator since He is eternal.

From what I can understand of the universe, it is also considered eternal. Why then, is it so hard for theists to accept that there is no creator to the universe, claiming that something had to have created it? If theists can believe that God is eternal and without a creator, then the theists should be able to easily accept that the universe is eternal and without a creator.

Theists cannot logically claim that God is eternal and without a creator while claiming that the universe needs to have a creator.

(June 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote: You're coming at the position as if apologists have ever said "everything needs a creator but the creator" which is begging the question. If you actually knew the correct premises of the arguments (i.e. everything that begins to exist, or all contingent things need a prior cause) then you'd see that there is no problem in saying God does not need a creator since He is eternal. Thus destroying your "special pleading" argument.

I cannot believe people actually think this is a legitimate objection.

Your argument requires validation of two premises:

1. How do you know the God of the Bible isn't a contingent being?

2. How do you know God is eternal?

Pretty funny. After the Banana disaster, I reckoned this was a joke from the get-go.

(June 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote: You're coming at the position as if apologists have ever said "everything needs a creator but the creator" which is begging the question. If you actually knew the correct premises of the arguments (i.e. everything that begins to exist, or all contingent things need a prior cause) then you'd see that there is no problem in saying God does not need a creator since He is eternal. Thus destroying your "special pleading" argument.

I cannot believe people actually think this is a legitimate objection.

Well, it is a plot device that has you guys all hung up by your balls.

http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-God.html

Quote:Question: "What does it mean that God is eternal?"

Answer: The word eternal means "everlasting, having no beginning and no end." Psalm 90:2 tells us about God’s eternality: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Since humans measure everything in time, it is very hard for us to conceive of something that had no beginning, but has always been, and will continue forever. However, the Bible does not try to prove God’s existence or His eternality, but simply begins with the statement “In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1), indicating that at the beginning of recorded time, God was already in existence. From duration stretching backward without limit to duration stretching forward without limit, from eternal ages to eternal ages, God was and is forever.

The problem is for you to work out. I won't speak for anyone else. I think your bible is nothing but bullshit just like every other religion.

(June 12, 2013 at 6:41 pm)Ryantology Wrote: All you've done is arbitrarily given your chosen creator attributes specifically designed with the sole purpose of enabling you to make an exception to the rule for your chosen creator. It's still special pleading.

No, special pleading would be if we redefined God's nature to fit the cosmological arguments. Instead, God being an uncaused, necessary and eternal being has been established since the Old Testament writings. It just so happens science has caught up and realized the need for that type of being.

---

(June 12, 2013 at 6:45 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: From what I can understand of the universe, it is also considered eternal. Why then, is it so hard for theists to accept that there is no creator to the universe, claiming that something had to have created it? If theists can believe that God is eternal and without a creator, then the theists should be able to easily accept that the universe is eternal and without a creator.

No, i'm sorry but you are plainly wrong about the universe. What about the borde guth vilenkin theorem? Theory of General Relativity? Second law of thermodynamics? Big Bang theory? These all point to an initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists. Models of the universe that try to avoid an initial singularity like the oscillating model, steady state models, vacuum fluctuation models, chaotic inflationary models and quantum gravity models have been properly refuted. So no, the universe is not eternal.

Quote:Theists cannot logically claim that God is eternal and without a creator while claiming that the universe needs to have a creator.

Why? We know the universe is contingent, hence needing some sort of creator. We also know just about every theistic God throughout history has been portrayed as uncaused and eternal.

---

(June 12, 2013 at 7:54 pm)cato123 Wrote: Your argument requires validation of two premises:

1. How do you know the God of the Bible isn't a contingent being?

2. How do you know God is eternal?

An eternal being would be non-contingent would it not? So I think these questions blend.

If God is a maximally great being, which is the common definition of God, that entitles the trait of necessity and eternity. A contingent being would not be as maximally great as a non-contingent being. Hence, God's non-contingency.

Not to mention the several mentions to God's eternal attribute in the Bible-
Deuteronomy 33:27
Psalm 90:1-4
Ephesians 3:10-11
Revelation 1:8
1 Timothy 1:17
Isaiah 57:15

I'm sure there are more, but you get the point.

(June 13, 2013 at 12:52 am)Pandas United Wrote: No, special pleading would be if we redefined God's nature to fit the cosmological arguments. Instead, God being an uncaused, necessary and eternal being has been established since the Old Testament writings. It just so happens science has caught up and realized the need for that type of being.

Oh, it's still special pleading, you've just employed some linguistic tricks to swerve around approaching the plea directly. Since you haven't justified or demonstrated the eternal or contingent natures of god beyond simply quoting scripture (which is, in itself, circular reasoning) you're still employing special pleading.

Also, science makes no suggestions as to a god. That's... that's you just making shit up.

Quote:No, i'm sorry but you are plainly wrong about the universe. What about the borde guth vilenkin theorem? Theory of General Relativity? Second law of thermodynamics? Big Bang theory? These all point to an initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists. Models of the universe that try to avoid an initial singularity like the oscillating model, steady state models, vacuum fluctuation models, chaotic inflationary models and quantum gravity models have been properly refuted. So no, the universe is not eternal.

The universe as it is now is not eternal, but since we can't measure anything beyond the singularity, we can't say for sure what lies beyond. But even if we were to accept that there was nothing beyond and something caused the universe to exist, you haven't gone even one inch toward demonstrating that that cause is a being, let alone a conscious one, let alone a god, let alone your god.

Quote:Why? We know the universe is contingent, hence needing some sort of creator. We also know just about every theistic God throughout history has been portrayed as uncaused and eternal.

Asserting the former point baselessly doesn't make it true. And retrofitting the latter to match with what we now know about the universe isn't actually providing evidence, it's just showing off how general the writing of the scriptures are, and how willing theists are to bend their minds to justify their faith

Quote:If God is a maximally great being, which is the common definition of God, that entitles the trait of necessity and eternity. A contingent being would not be as maximally great as a non-contingent being. Hence, God's non-contingency.

Would it? You haven't justified that.

Quote:Not to mention the several mentions to God's eternal attribute in the Bible-

"We know that god is eternal because it says so in the bible! And we know the bible accurately reflects the universe at large because the god who wrote it is perfect and eternal!"

Wow.

(June 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Why do you think you get to get out of explaining why the creator doesn't need a creator just by defining the creator as uncreated? 'Everything needs a creator but the creator' is special pleading. Either everything needs a creator or not everything needs a creator. If there are things that don't need a creator, why can't the universe be one of them?

Can I start calling the universe the 'uncreated universe' and make you out to be deficient for talking about someone creating the uncreated universe?

You're coming at the position as if apologists have ever said "everything needs a creator but the creator" which is begging the question. If you actually knew the correct premises of the arguments (i.e. everything that begins to exist, or all contingent things need a prior cause) then you'd see that there is no problem in saying God does not need a creator since He is eternal. Thus destroying your "special pleading" argument.

I cannot believe people actually think this is a legitimate objection.

And the basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a prior cause is what, besides it being convenient to the desired conclusion?

The only thing we've ever observed beginning to exist is virtual particles, and they begin to exist without a cause. Everything else we've observed 'beginning to exist' was actually a transformation of something that existed previously.

Unless you can prove the universe, or perhaps the multiverse, is not eternal, you're using special pleading. Yes, the universe as we know it had a beginning, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist at all until it expanded. If it didn't exist at all before it expanded, that doesn't mean that it didn't arise from a quantum foam substrate that births universes. Interestingly, QF seems to have the property of necessarily existing. And I didn't just define it as eternal to make an argument, that's what known physics and the math point to.

(June 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote: If you actually knew the correct premises of the arguments (i.e. everything that begins to exist, or all contingent things need a prior cause) then you'd see that there is no problem in saying God does not need a creator since He is eternal. Thus destroying your "special pleading" argument.

All you've done is make another special pleading argument. Why does the universe have to have a beginning? So Christians can claim that it had to have been created by God.