Arguments Against Creator God

[GrandizerII]

When you say it makes no logical sense, what you really mean is that it is not intuitive to you, not that you have been able to use logic to debunk it. Again, intuition and logic are two different things.

Anyway, eternalism is philosophy to do with the nature of time, and it has implications regarding the nature of reality itself as a result. If you want to know more about it, you'll have to do some Googling, but the gist of it is that time is not how we normally intuit it. Time, under eternalism, doesn't flow from past to present to future. Rather, it is just simply a coordinate (or dimension) of a "frozen" reality that presently contains not just all the whereabouts and locations in this present instance of time, but also those of past and future instances of time. They all exist simultaneously and have always been. That's what I mean when I say you have always existed.

You are looking at it from the angle of the "present-you" and assuming an actual flow of time. When I say we have always existed, I am looking at it from the angle of a hypothetical (and illogical) "outside observer", observing a 4D (or more) sort of unbounded "block" that is called "reality" or "cosmos".

Ok. I think I get the gist of your beliefs as much as I can. You're right, it makes 0 sense to me lol. I'll stick with the belief in a non physical force unbound by the laws of nature. Seems much more plausible imho.

What you're sticking to is logically impossible. You can hardly call that plausible, lol.

---

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.

No, Steve, when I say "for 'nothing' to exist, it has to be something", what I'm basically saying is that "nothing cannot exist". It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. If we can't speak logically of the existence of "nothing", then there has always been something. One of the logical problems with mainstream theism is that they make the claim that, before anything (apart from God) existed, both God and "nothing" existed. Then, God created stuff in place of "nothing". So yes, logical contradiction, and that's a problem for mainstream theism.

The Impossibility of "Something from Nothing"

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.

Oh, now you're going to pretend you don't know what I mean by "being separate from everything else in existence"? Tell me, Steve, are you a pantheist? If not, then what makes you not a pantheist then? Nice tactic, but it is a nothing more than a tactic, and doesn't debunk the argument.

So, Steve, have another go. Where did the substance of everything God created come from?

What is illogical is to posit past infinite physical material or that physical material necessarily exists.

How is either claim illogical? Is it just simply because they're counterintuitive? And given eternalism, the first claim doesn't apply anyway.

The Impossibility of Timeless Creation

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.

God existed before time, you say? You think about it. It wasn't easy after all, right, Steve?

The Impossibility of Mindful Creation

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?

Do computers have a mind, Steve? We normally don't consider current computers to be "thinking" or "mindful" devices just because they possess a library of information on various things to do with the world and the way it works. To think is to go through a process that requires time.

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.

Uh, yeah, you can. Timeless creation implies spontaneity.

Well, since your arguments are full of holes, you didn't demonstrate anything yet.

Steve, you didn't expose any holes in the arguments. All you basically did was handwave without really thinking about the arguments. But of course you would do that anyway. It takes mental effort and good reasons to want to really challenge your own views.