(December 1, 2017 at 12:04 am)Grandizer Wrote: The Impossibility of "Nothingness"
Quote:If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly created everything else in existence. This means that, when nothing other than God existed, there was only God, with "nothing" initially in place of everything else that existed (remember: the Creator God is supposed to be separate from everything else in existence). But for this "nothing" to exist, it has to be something. For to exist is to be. Yet, how can something that is not and yet is (simultaneously) be logical? It is not logical. Therefore, logically speaking, there has always been something alongside the Creator God. Therefore, the Creator God did not create everything else in existence. Therefore, the Creator God does not exist.
You are redefining 'nothing'. 'Nothing' quite simply means not anything. Your sentence (and the crux of your argument) "But for this "nothing" to exist, it has to be something." is the same as "But [not anything] is something." No, it is not. All it is is a logical contradiction.
Quote:The Impossibility of "Something from Nothing"
Quote:If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly created everything else in existence out of nothing. But to create anything out of nothing (or for anything to pop up out of nothing, for that matter), there has to be a "nothing" out of which the thing being created (or popping out) arises. But even if we grant that "nothing" can exist (though I argued in the previous argument that it cannot), it possesses no material whatsoever from which anything can arise, for it is supposed to be nothing. Therefore, because things exist, they have at least originated in something that has always existed. The Creator God, being separate from everything else in existence, cannot be that material origin. Therefore, the Creator God cannot logically create anything out of nothing. Therefore, the Creator God did not create anything. Therefore, the Creator God does not exist.
There is nothing illogical with creation ex nihilo. In fact, you actually support the concept with your sentence: "Therefore, because things exist, they have at least originated in something that has always existed." But then in the next sentence: "The Creator God, being separate from everything else in existence, cannot be that material origin." What in the world does the phrase "being separate from everything else in existence" mean and how does it support your premise. It seems you are just asserting your conclusion with no justification.
What is illogical is to posit past infinite physical material or that physical material necessarily exists.
Quote:The Impossibility of Timeless Creation
Quote:If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly created time itself. But the act of creating, or doing anything for that matter, already implies a passage of time occurring. To create time is to create time within time. Therefore, time has always been and could not have been created. Therefore, the Creator God did not create time. Therefore, negating the classical definition of the Creator God, the Creator God does not exist (if the Creator God is supposed to create everything else in existence, including time).
Easy. Causes can be simultaneous with their effect (just throw a baseball through your window and think about it). No passage of time (events) happened prior to the instant of creation. Time began to exist when an event occurred: creation. God existed timelessly before creation and in time after.
Quote:The Impossibility of Mindful Creation
Quote:If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly exercised the divine mind to "think" everything else into existence. To exercise the mind is to imply a passage of time. Otherwise, it would be a spontaneous mindless act. Yet, if we grant the possibility of timeless creation (and I have argued otherwise in the previous argument), then there was no time to exercise the mind before creation. Rather, the creation would be the outcome of something akin to some hypothetical "super computer software" that contains infinite information and acts spontaneously upon them. It is a mindless act, and not a mindful one. Therefore, the Creator God did not mindfully create anything into existence outside of time. Therefore, the mind is not a possible requirement for creating everything in existence aside from itself. Some things, at least, were mindlessly created. Therefore, the Creator God does not exist (as per the definition of the Creator God).
God is omniscient. Why do you imagine that he has to "think" about anything? What justification do you give to sneak in the word "mindless"? Because God did not count down 3...2...1...creation?
If God existed in a timeless state, it was also changeless. It did not pass gradually. It passed as one block--all at once--ending in the creation of the universe. Can you use the word "spontaneously" when discussing a timeless/changeless state? I don't think you can.
Quote:And there are more arguments against the Creator God, but these should suffice. Note that the last two arguments can be applied to both the A-theory and the B-theory of time.
Now, to be clear, the arguments stated above do NOT logically refute the existence of some God. Only that if there is a God, that God cannot be the Creator God because of the logical impossibilities argued above. This basically debunks a lot of stuff that mainstream Abrahamic religions preach about God, morality, Jesus (in the case of Christianity), and other relevant topics. The arguments also show that traditional deism is not as reasonable as deists make it out to be.
The arguments also demonstrate that something (aside from the Creator God) has always existed. And so we have every reason, rooted in logic, to accept that the Cosmos (which is everything in existence aside from the divine and the supernatural) has always been, in one form or another.
Well, since your arguments are full of holes, you didn't demonstrate anything yet.
