Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I didn't see you condemming the initial poster, claiming that people who refute Kalam's flawed argument are 12 year olds. Grow a pair, god knows we've put up with centuries of persecution from theists, you can handle a curse word or two on the internet i'm sure.
The whole "then who or what created God?" isn't used as a standalone argument to attempt to disprove God's existence. Hell, it's not even an argument to disprove God's existence. I've only ever seen it as a refutation to "Everything which exists has to have a creator," knowing full well that the Christian making this argument will use special pleading to claim that God always existed and doesn't need a creator.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
(November 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm)WesOlsen Wrote: I didn't see you condemming the initial poster, claiming that people who refute Kalam's flawed argument are 12 year olds. Grow a pair, god knows we've put up with centuries of persecution from theists, you can handle a curse word or two on the internet i'm sure.
Oh you said it mate. I at least give theists the opportunity to post glaring lies and/or inaccuracies so we can rip them to shreds.
All this deflection just to avoid showing even one Christian who uses that argument?
Shall I turn the shedder off ? Do you actually have proof of your claim?
(November 7, 2013 at 10:35 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: This has always struck me as rather an as hoc argument: Everything that began to exist must have a beginning (somewhat tautological in itself), but theists comfortably insist that only God did not have a beginning.
Pretty weak.
Boru
They invented him. They can make him do whatever they like. From leaping tall buildings in a single bound to shitting gold nuggets. When you are dealing with fictional creations the sky is the limit.
Besides, who the fuck takes Vinny seriously anyway?
(November 6, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:
Okay, so there are smart atheists and there are dumb atheists.
Some dumb atheists make some piss poor arguments. Here I'll deal with one that comes up a lot.
1) "If God created everything then who created God?"
This is one facepalmtastic objection. Typically the atheist is some 12 year old who thinks he's "refuted religion". If he is, it's no use trying to reason. But if there are smart atheists, they ought to know why this is a terrible argument:
a) There are various beings that are called "God", and they all have different features. But philosophically, the most rigorous concept of God is called the "Maximally Great Being", or a being that possesses all the categories of greatness to such a degree that nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being is almost always thought to be personal rather than impersonal.
b) One of the features of this maximally great being is it's role as the "First cause" or "uncaused cause". To understand what this is, you have to look at everything in the world in terms of cause-effect relations. Everything contingent has a cause that leads backwards in a causal chain. Does the causal chain go on infinitely, or is it finite? Theists argue that the causal chain is finite, and it begins at an uncaused cause, or first cause which was not itself caused by anything. This is God.
If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.
What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.
What I find interesting is that you felt the need to repudiate a bad refutation to a bad argument, rather than the bad argument itself.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
November 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm (This post was last modified: November 7, 2013 at 4:37 pm by Simon Moon.)
(November 6, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Okay, so there are smart atheists and there are dumb atheists.
Some dumb atheists make some piss poor arguments. Here I'll deal with one that comes up a lot.
1) "If God created everything then who created God?"
This is not an argument against the existence of a god. It is an argument to demonstrate that theists are often guilty of the fallacy of special pleading.
I have never heard a single atheist use this as an attempt to disprove the existence of a god.
This does not bode well for you that you seem to misunderstand the use of this argument.
Quote:a) There are various beings that are called "God", and they all have different features. But philosophically, the most rigorous concept of God is called the "Maximally Great Being", or a being that possesses all the categories of greatness to such a degree that nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being is almost always thought to be personal rather than impersonal.
Just because a being can be conceived of that possesses all categories of greatness, does not that it exists. It does not even offer a shred of evidence for the possibility or the probability that it exists.
Quote:b) One of the features of this maximally great being is it's role as the "First cause" or "uncaused cause". ]To understand what this is, you have to look at everything in the world in terms of cause-effect relations. Everything contingent has a cause that leads backwards in a causal chain. Does the causal chain go on infinitely, or is it finite? Theists argue that the causal chain is finite, and it begins at an uncaused cause, or first cause which was not itself caused by anything. This is God.
Fallacy of composition. Just because things within the universe have cause and effect relations, does not mean that the universe itself does.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
November 7, 2013 at 7:07 pm (This post was last modified: November 7, 2013 at 7:07 pm by Whateverist.)
Bullshit, Vinny. Anyone who insists that everything must be created is absolutely accountable for showing where their 'first mover' came from. Contrariwise, if there is any point where there is a layer of being which can come from nothing, then it matters not where that layer comes.
The only reason you think you can get away with this dodge is that you've defined god as that which needs no creator. "By definition" is not much support for the existence of something so exceptional.
Somehow, this line of reasoning reminds me of this dialogue:
Quote:KIRK: Why does V'Ger travel to the third planet of the solar system directly ahead?
ILIA PROBE: To find the Creator.
KIRK: To find the Creator? Whose? ...What does V'Ger want with the Creator?
ILIA PROBE: To join with him.
SPOCK: Join with the Creator? ...How?
ILIA PROBE: V'Ger and the Creator will become one.
SPOCK: And who is the Creator?
ILIA PROBE: The Creator is that which created V'Ger.
KIRK: Who is V'Ger?
ILIA PROBE: V'Ger is that which seeks the Creator.
November 7, 2013 at 7:45 pm (This post was last modified: November 7, 2013 at 7:46 pm by Jackalope.)
(November 7, 2013 at 7:43 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Somehow, this line of reasoning reminds me of this dialogue:
Quote:KIRK: Why does V'Ger travel to the third planet of the solar system directly ahead?
ILIA PROBE: To find the Creator.
KIRK: To find the Creator? Whose? ...What does V'Ger want with the Creator?
ILIA PROBE: To join with him.
SPOCK: Join with the Creator? ...How?
ILIA PROBE: V'Ger and the Creator will become one.
SPOCK: And who is the Creator?
ILIA PROBE: The Creator is that which created V'Ger.
KIRK: Who is V'Ger?
ILIA PROBE: V'Ger is that which seeks the Creator.
Sadly, the next bit of the script was cut from the theatrical release:
KIRK: Mr. Sulu, arm all photon torpedoes.
SULU: Torpedoes armed and locked on target, Captain.
KIRK: Fire!
(November 6, 2013 at 10:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Okay, so there are smart atheists and there are dumb atheists.
Some dumb atheists make some piss poor arguments. Here I'll deal with one that comes up a lot.
1) "If God created everything then who created God?"
This is one facepalmtastic objection. Typically the atheist is some 12 year old who thinks he's "refuted religion". If he is, it's no use trying to reason. But if there are smart atheists, they ought to know why this is a terrible argument:
a) There are various beings that are called "God", and they all have different features. But philosophically, the most rigorous concept of God is called the "Maximally Great Being", or a being that possesses all the categories of greatness to such a degree that nothing greater can be conceived. Such a being is almost always thought to be personal rather than impersonal.
b) One of the features of this maximally great being is it's role as the "First cause" or "uncaused cause". To understand what this is, you have to look at everything in the world in terms of cause-effect relations. Everything contingent has a cause that leads backwards in a causal chain. Does the causal chain go on infinitely, or is it finite? Theists argue that the causal chain is finite, and it begins at an uncaused cause, or first cause which was not itself caused by anything. This is God.
If you disagree with this idea, you can either:
i) Challenge the claim that the causal chain is finite, arguing that it is infinite in the past.
ii) Challenge the claim that the first cause must be God.
What you cannot do is imply that God needs to be caused by something.
I've never heard this argument in the context you seem to be presenting it.
You seem to be saying that atheists are walking over to religious people and just simply blurting out this claim.
I've only ever heard this claim in the context of a religious person saying something along the lines of
Quote:"Something can't come from nothing so god did it"
It seems like a perfectly rational reply to say
Quote:"If God created everything then who created God?"
In the context of a reply to someone already making the original claim that things have to be created in order to exist.
But if you live in a world where atheists are constantly making this claim then I can see why you would be annoyed, I don't think I've seen this claim in the context of how you're putting it ever.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
