Arguments Against Creator God

[SteveII]

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.

I have heard of it. You have tried to create one, but fail because you have defined 'nothing' as 'something that exists'. This is a definition problem. You really have to get over this. 

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.

Again, there is nothing illogical about an omnipotent God creating the universe ex nihilo. Your complaint boils down to what it means to be omnipotent. Fine, but don't imagine that you have found a logical contradiction when all you really mean is "omnipotence does not mean you can create something from nothing". 

For example, the existence of unicorns, tooth fairy and magic are not logical contradictions. You are using the term "logical contradiction" wrong. Browse this for some examples: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4...iction.htm

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.

You think that eternalism avoids an actual logical contradiction because you reformulate the sentence to use the term 'temporal'. Nope. The dimension of time has nothing to do with it. If there was past eternal physical material, there is past eternal series of causes and effects. As I said (reformulate for B theory of time): If we have a infinite series of causes/effects that precede the time slice we are experiencing now, then the causes responsible for the conditions of our time slice would never have happened--because even in the B theory of time, caused and effects only travel in one direction one following the other. But there could always be one more cause on the leading edge of the series...forever. 

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?

The confusion continues to be that you don't know what a logical contradiction is. Whenever you use the term "logical contradiction" what you mean is that you don't think there are sufficient reasons to believe this to be the case. They are NOT the same thing. See link above about logical contradictions. 

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.

The theory seems to do a lot of metaphysical handwaving--cloaking deficiencies with vague language. Example: your entire answer above. I don't want to start an entirely new topic in the middle of this. I may come back to this. 

"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.

I was showing you that your hangup on the word 'time' is irrelevant. Since 'time' is a feature of our universe, it is much more appropriate to discuss what was prior to our universe than what was prior to a feature of our universe. 

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.

I don't know what that first sentence means. God, with all of his attributes, existed changelessly/timelessly. That state ended when he did something: created the universe. I think your hangup is that God had to mull it over, plan it out, counted down 3...2...1. An omniscient mind does not mull it over and plan it out. 

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 ...

I don't care what you believe. Just pointing out that your OP failed to do what you said it was going to do: show us...

The Impossibility of "Nothingness"
[b]The Impossibility of "Something from Nothing"[/b]
[b]The Impossibility of Timeless Creation[/b]
[b]The Impossibility of Mindful Creation
[/b]