(December 30, 2015 at 4:19 am)robvalue Wrote:(December 30, 2015 at 2:01 am)robvalue Wrote: It is perfectly justified to ask what created god if the premise of an argument is that everything needs a creator.
Further thought:
When someone defines something that doesn't need a creator, after stating everything needs a creator, all they are showing is that their initial premise is wrong. It's self defeating.
Of course we have desperate attempts to smuggle things in, by essentially saying "everything that isn't God needs a creator" which is begging the question.
I don't know if it's begging the question too hard. It seems like everything needs a 'creator.' But it also seems like something needs to not have had a creator at some point. I think that's very simplistic, and even if I ascribed to it, I see no reason to settle on God as an answer, but the rules seemed to be different back on day 1.
Personally, I'm comfortable with saying "who knows?" and not worrying about it.
