(June 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote:(June 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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.
And the basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a prior cause is what, besides it being convenient to the desired conclusion?
The only thing we've ever observed beginning to exist is virtual particles, and they begin to exist without a cause. Everything else we've observed 'beginning to exist' was actually a transformation of something that existed previously.
Unless you can prove the universe, or perhaps the multiverse, is not eternal, you're using special pleading. Yes, the universe as we know it had a beginning, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist at all until it expanded. If it didn't exist at all before it expanded, that doesn't mean that it didn't arise from a quantum foam substrate that births universes. Interestingly, QF seems to have the property of necessarily existing. And I didn't just define it as eternal to make an argument, that's what known physics and the math point to.
