Arguments Against Creator God

[GrandizerII]

Let me preface my comments by pointing out that I am NOT arguing for the existence of God--I am defending the charge that it is illogical. I am pointing out in a fairly objective way, where your arguments break down. There are several atheist in this forum who can point out some of the same things (don't mistake their silence as support). In other words, you don't have to be a theist to see the problems in your reasoning.

Which atheists? I've been kudosed by some of them, so it seems like there is some support for what I've been arguing. Even then, I'm sure there are always going to be atheists here and there who will disagree with me on all sorts of things, including arguments for God. But this has nothing to do with whether the arguments presented are sound or not. So not sure why you had to say this even, other than that you had to say this to try to undermine me in some way, lol.

Why in the world do you use the word 'existing' when referencing 'nothing'??? 'Nothing' is a metaphysical concept that means "not anything". You cannot say that 'nothing' has a state of existence. It does not because it literally means the opposite.

Have you not heard of reductio ad absurdum arguments? I'm starting to wonder if you've even had a basic course in logic.

Your sentence is unclear so I will state the typical theistic position: The stuff the universe is made of came from the nothing (not anything, the absence of something, no concept of a thing that previously existed). If you think there is something illogical about that statement, then you don't know what a logical statement is. Your objection seems to be based a violation of some causal principle. That is not the same thing.

In other words, as long as you think something magical, then the logical contradiction should be ignored, lol. So somehow, illogically, God didn't interact with prior stuff to form something, but that's ok because ... God is God, the illogical. This isn't just simply some violation of some causal principle. It defies logic. To cause something to exist requires an interaction with prior stuff to form it from.

Look, it's fine if you want to believe that your God need not be constrained by our human logic. And in fact, God being God may be so awesome it will naturally defy logic and do all sorts of logically absurd things. But at least be honest, and admit this to be the case. And this way, you can just simply respond to my arguments by saying logic doesn't matter when it comes to God anyway, instead of trying so hard to make your case for God logical.

Okay. If we have a past infinite series of events that lead up to now, we would never have arrived at now. There would always be more events on the leading edge to get past...forever.

Ok, I'm familiar with this argument because WLC has resorted to this kind of argument himself. But even if we concede this is illogical (I'll leave it up to others to argue the logic in this case), this is not a problem for my position on time (eternalism) because eternalism doesn't posit an infinite temporal series of past events.

There is a logical possible world in which no physical material exists. Therefore...physical material is not necessary. Both "possible world" and "necessary" are philosophical terms that are loaded with meaning that is not what you think of when you see just those words. Look them up.

I have looked them up a long while ago, and am very familiar with the terms, thank you.That said, you still made an assertion in your first sentence. I'm assuming by "physical material", you mean basically the whole natural Cosmos (apart from God). So how did you establish that it is even logically possible that no physical material exists, when I've been arguing that there always had to be something because "nothing" cannot exist in its place?

Answer this. Does the B Theory of Time avoid a beginning of our universe as you said?

There is ultimately no beginning to time (or beginning to anything) under my view of eternalism. We may experience "beginnings" and "flow of time", but these experiences don't truly reflect actual beginnings or flow of time.

"Prior to" is perfectly logical and is easily established by causation. Examples: God existed prior to the universe because he was the sufficient cause of the universe. The multiverse existed prior to our universe because it was the material cause of the universe. Your confusion probably stems from when cosmologists try to do metaphysics and don't know what they are talking about.

Steve, how about being a little bit more honest? I was questioning the logic of "prior to time". You conveniently replaced "time" with "universe" so as not to make it obvious that there is a logical contradiction going on there. And for the record, no one I know has ever argued that the multiverse goes beyond time (don't equivocate the philosophical notion of time with the time that is measurable in this local universe), unlike many theists do with their God.

1. A state of changelessness (which would be timeless) does not change the nature of God (that does not make sense). All of his attributes would not vanish in such a state. The fact that he created the universe and any subsequent actions would be a posteriori proof that he was more than a library of information.

No, Steve, it wouldn't be "a posteriori proof" that he mindfully (as opposed to spontaneously) created the universe. Otherwise, you're just begging the question. Perhaps God has always been more than a "library of information", but he couldn't logically behave as anything other than just a "library of information" in his timeless state.

2. No one would disagree with that. However, that is not what most theist believe. God was changeless/timeless before creation and changing and temporal after.
3. Sure. There is no "exercising the mind" in a changeless/timeless state.
4. Once again, the act of creation ended that changeless/timeless state. There is no logical problem with this.

So your response is that it is logical for God to timelessly do stuff. So why can't he create square circles again?

You have gaps in your knowledge.

Don't we all?

Try learning something from this experience.

I learn stuff every day, don't you worry about that.

You missed my point. It does not matter. Just the possibility of a beginning of the universe undercuts your claim of God creating ex nihilo is illogical. Read that sentence again. It may not be the case, but it is not illogical.

All this time, and you still haven't realized I don't believe it's logical that the universe (or cosmos, rather) had a beginning? My OP implicitly argues against that notion ... lol ...

---

So, tell me Peanut Gallery™, why didn't you tell Grandizer that his logic in the OP sucks? You know it did, so how come there was no condescending digs with very little substance forthcoming? Character flaw?

I think some atheists (or even most) would argue that what I'm doing is a silly/futile exercise in logic (in which case I would agree because I don't even think that the cosmos needs to obey the rules of human logic; I just assume that things are consistently logical), but again, if you can't do a good job of refuting the arguments yourself, and you need atheists to help you out, what does this say about you and your position? And chances are their objections are going to be different from the "objections" you've been raising.