Arguments Against Creator God

[SteveII]

---

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.

Again your first sentence is the equivalent of "Not anything has to be something". There is no reason in the world why we cannot discuss the absence of anything. God existed--not God and something called nothing. This is absurd. 

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?

No pantheist here. Again, nothing illogical with creation from ex nihilo (out of not anything). Just because there is no material cause of the universe does not make it illogical that God creating something from the absence of something. You at least have a sufficient cause. A sufficient cause paired with omnipotence = a universe from from nothing - this is a perfectly logical statement no matter what you think. 

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.

Because there is no such thing as an infinite number of anything concrete. That would include the cause/effect events that the existence of physical material necessitates. There is nothing about physical material that make it necessary (could not have failed to exist). Eternalism, even with all of its inherent problems, still does not avoid a beginning of the universe (space/time). All of the most promising (as in fit the most observations of the universe) cosmological models have a beginning of the universe. 

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?

Prior to our current space/time is perfectly coherent. Multiverse theories posit the same thing.

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.

Computers have a mind that programmed them. So at some point there was intentionality/personhood that made decisions as to purpose etc. Characterizing God as simply a "library of information" is incomplete in so many ways. 

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.

So that is your response to the trashing of your premise?

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.

Your grasp on what is logical and what is not is tenuous. What your arguments amount to is "I can't imagine this happening". You have not actually shown why anything I said was illogical (hint: your answers to my questions might have to be more than one sentence). You have not solved your problem of past infinite absurdity. And you certainly are not supporting your thread title very well.