RE: Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?
December 11, 2015 at 9:30 pm
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2015 at 9:34 pm by GrandizerII.)
(December 11, 2015 at 11:29 am)SteveII Wrote:(December 11, 2015 at 10:23 am)Irrational Wrote: If there was no progression in the mind of God prior to creating the universe, if there was no "prior" at all, then the creation of the universe was a mindless act.
That does not follow. Why can't a single state of consciousness be the cause of the universe (and the beginning of time)?
Quote:Regarding the first half of the question, you believe God himself needed no cause, but you won't grant that possibility for the universe or reality overall? This is just special pleading.
As for infinite regression, I have not seen any logical argument that effectively shows that it is illogical. Just because a concept is not intuitive to the limited human mind doesn't mean it automatically defies logic.
Hilbert's Hotel
Quote:No, you just didn't get it. Efficient causes need not be sentient. And, even given the Creator, the universe itself was not the result of sentience.
So you think that the universe springing into being from nothing (no efficient cause nor material cause) makes more sense than just an efficient cause.
Single state of consciousness implies no planning. So your God's creation was achieved spontaneously, not mindfully. Therefore, God's mind was not needed. If so, why invoke God as the best explanation when a mindless entity could easily be the first cause instead.
Hilbert's Hotel is not an argument against infinite regression but against treating infinity as a number.
Your last statement is a strawman and, again, shows you didn't understand my argument. My argument isn't about the universe springing forth from nothing, but about the fact that reality itself could still account for the existence of this universe. Realiy itself is the efficient cause.
FTR, it's theists who tend to argue that the universe came out of nothing.