(June 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(June 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm)Pandas United Wrote: No, but nice try. You said to point to one of his logical absurdities- I just outlined one. If he had established a well thought out rebuttal to the cosmological arguments like the establishment of B-Theory then I would respect his attempt. Instead it's these childish arguments that have no logical coherence. He is literally saying "who created the uncreated creator?" what an absurd question. My issue with Dawkins is he obviously has no idea what he's talking about when he steps into the field of philosophy, and more specifically, metaphysics. Stick to evolutionary biology, Rich, that's what you're good at.
Why do you think you get to get out of explaining why the creator doesn't need a creator just by defining the creator as uncreated? 'Everything needs a creator but the creator' is special pleading. Either everything needs a creator or not everything needs a creator. If there are things that don't need a creator, why can't the universe be one of them?
Can I start calling the universe the 'uncreated universe' and make you out to be deficient for talking about someone creating the uncreated universe?
You're coming at the position as if apologists have ever said "everything needs a creator but the creator" which is begging the question. If you actually knew the correct premises of the arguments (i.e. everything that begins to exist, or all contingent things need a prior cause) then you'd see that there is no problem in saying God does not need a creator since He is eternal. Thus destroying your "special pleading" argument.
I cannot believe people actually think this is a legitimate objection.
All generalizations are false.
