Arguments Against Creator God

[GrandizerII]

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.

And yet, before the "something" that God created, there was ... nothing. "Not anything" existing (key word here) has to be something, not nothing.

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.

Absence of something = nothing. So the substance of creation is made of ... "nothing"? If you can't see what's wrong with that, I don't know what else to say. Perhaps square circles aren't logically impossible after all, lol.

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.

Asserted Steve, and that's all. Provide the logical argument to demonstrate your point.

There is nothing about physical material that make it necessary (could not have failed to exist).

Can you provide the logic to demonstrate this? Assertion is not an argument.

Eternalism, even with all of its inherent problems, still does not avoid a beginning of the universe (space/time).

That's because you want it to have problems, lol. You can't but think this way.

All of the most promising (as in fit the most observations of the universe) cosmological models have a beginning of the universe.

With the usage of the phrase "most promising", why does this sound so much like an incredibly biased opinion?

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.

They do? Which ones, Steve? There is logically no such thing as before time. And I have a strong feeling you're generally misrepresenting what multiverse "theorists" are saying.

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.

That's not what I asked. Do current computers have a mind, Steve?

Before time (if that's even possible, which it's not), God could not have been anything but a library of information. There is no logical way to act within time while in a timeless state. Exercising the mind requires a passage of time. Otherwise, it's just spontaneous "thinking" (scare quotes because it's not really thinking).

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

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

Maybe you should trash harder. Because I didn't notice any trashing (as in, actual debunking arguments). So when are we going to get some debunkers?

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.

More handwaving, I see. Ok, thanks for your time. When you're ready to debunk the arguments, let me know. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.