Arguments Against Creator God

[Catholic_Lady]

Grand, I don't understand your response to me. My existence began in 1986 when my dad's sperm and my mom's egg came together and formed my DNA, which prior to that moment, did not exist. That, we do have proof of.

What do you mean by eternalism?

I don't understand you saying that I have always existed. It makes no logical sense to me.

When you say it makes no logical sense, what you really mean is that it is not intuitive to you, not that you have been able to use logic to debunk it. Again, intuition and logic are two different things.

Anyway, eternalism is philosophy to do with the nature of time, and it has implications regarding the nature of reality itself as a result. If you want to know more about it, you'll have to do some Googling, but the gist of it is that time is not how we normally intuit it. Time, under eternalism, doesn't flow from past to present to future. Rather, it is just simply a coordinate (or dimension) of a "frozen" reality that presently contains not just all the whereabouts and locations in this present instance of time, but also those of past and future instances of time. They all exist simultaneously and have always been. That's what I mean when I say you have always existed.

You are looking at it from the angle of the "present-you" and assuming an actual flow of time. When I say we have always existed, I am looking at it from the angle of a hypothetical (and illogical) "outside observer", observing a 4D (or more) sort of unbounded "block" that is called "reality" or "cosmos".

Ok. I think I get the gist of your beliefs as much as I can. You're right, it makes 0 sense to me lol. I'll stick with the belief in a non physical force unbound by the laws of nature. Seems much more plausible imho.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm sorry, but I don't know how better to explain what I mean by the Cosmos. The Cosmos is everything in existence, excluding God. Yes, people have varying definitions of this and that, but I'm trying to help you out here by giving you one definition that I adhere to. No, you're not the whole Cosmos. You are a part of it. Using some basic mathematics set terminology, the Cosmos is the set, and we are the various elements of it.

About this local universe that you and I are observing: actually, it's not necessarily true what you're saying. With the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe was started, but the theory doesn't actually state/imply that this universe had a beginning to its existence.

Well clearly I haven't always been here. So which part of the cosmos do you believe has always been here?

All of it, CL.  Think about it.  How could something come from nothing?  In order for that to happen, "nothing" would have to be some kind of some thing, that another thing could come from.  Nothing, by definition can't be any type of thing at all.  In other words, perhaps matter has always existed in some form.  What are your thoughts on that?

[Catholic_Lady]

Well clearly I haven't always been here. So which part of the cosmos do you believe has always been here?

All of it, CL.  Think about it.  How could something come from nothing?  In order for that to happen, "nothing" would have to be some kind of some thing, that another thing could come from.  Nothing, by definition can't be any type of thing at all.  In other words, perhaps matter has always existed in some form.  What are your thoughts on that?

Oh I completely agree that something can't come from nothing. But I also know that things have a beginning and an end. We have no proof that anything in existance could either always have existed, or never have an end. In fact, we only have proof to the contrary.

---

When we ask the question of how the first ever physical thing came into existence, there seems to be 3 possibilities:

1. It materialized from nothing

2. It always existed

3. A non physical force (not bound by the laws od physics) caused it to exist

We both agree the first option makes absolutely 0 sense. Things don't materialize from nothing. That's against science. Things all came from something... they all had a cause.

The second option, I don't see as possible either because of the same reasons as above, actually. Physical things aren't infinite. They all had a beginning and they all have an end.

The third option I find the most plausible. Since we already know that the laws of this physical world make options 1 and 2 impossible, it seems most resonable that whatever caused the first ever thing to exist was not of this world and thus not bound by the laws of this world.

[henryp]

All of it, CL.  Think about it.  How could something come from nothing?  In order for that to happen, "nothing" would have to be some kind of some thing, that another thing could come from.  Nothing, by definition can't be any type of thing at all.  In other words, perhaps matter has always existed in some form.  What are your thoughts on that?

Oh I completely agree that something can't come from nothing. But I also know that things have a beginning and an end. We have no proof that anything in existance could either always have existed, or never have an end. In fact, we only have proof to the contrary.

---

When we ask the question of how the first ever physical thing came into existence, there seems to be 3 possibilities:

1. It materialized from nothing

2. It always existed

3. A non physical force (not bound by the laws od physics) caused it to exist

We both agree the first option makes absolutely 0 sense. Things don't materialize from nothing. That's against science. Things all came from something... they all had a cause.

The second option, I don't see as possible either because of the same reasons as above, actually. Physical things aren't infinite. They all had a beginning and they all have an end.

The third option I find the most plausible. Since we already know that the laws of this physical world make options 1 and 2 impossible, it seems most resonable that whatever caused the first ever thing to exist was not of this world and thus not bound by the laws of this world.

What about a 4th explanation, that it, like just about everything has an explanation that obeys the laws physics, but we just don't what the explanation is, because we're stuck on this rock a few billion years later, and the laws of physics are tricky as hell.

Time is not constant is the one that boggles my mind.  There is nothing intuitive about it whatsoever.  You sync a couple clocks, send one around the world on a plane, they won't be telling the same time when it gets back.  

There are a few things like that I've come across in science.  Things that intuitively seem impossible.  

That's why when I look back at the origin of the universe I don't even bother trying to guess, because physics regularly behaves in ways that I would have assumed were impossible and certainly never would have conceived if someone really smart didn't figure out and tell me.  And that's in the tiny speck of the current universe in our tiny little speck of time that we are in now and can often measure.  

So I think breaking it down to something can't come from nothing, and everything has a beginning is selling what the universe and the laws of physics are capable of really really short.

[SteveII]

The Impossibility of "Nothingness"

If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly created everything else in existence. This means that, when nothing other than God existed, there was only God, with "nothing" initially in place of everything else that existed (remember: the Creator God is supposed to be separate from everything else in existence). But for this "nothing" to exist, it has to be something. For to exist is to be. Yet, how can something that is not and yet is (simultaneously) be logical? It is not logical. Therefore, logically speaking, there has always been something alongside the Creator God. Therefore, the Creator God did not create everything else in existence. Therefore, the Creator God does not exist.

You are redefining 'nothing'. 'Nothing' quite simply means not anything. Your sentence (and the crux of your argument) "But for this "nothing" to exist, it has to be something." is the same as "But [not anything] is something." No, it is not. All it is is a logical contradiction. 

The Impossibility of "Something from Nothing"

If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly created everything else in existence out of nothing. But to create anything out of nothing (or for anything to pop up out of nothing, for that matter), there has to be a "nothing" out of which the thing being created (or popping out) arises. But even if we grant that "nothing" can exist (though I argued in the previous argument that it cannot), it possesses no material whatsoever from which anything can arise, for it is supposed to be nothing. Therefore, because things exist, they have at least originated in something that has always existed. The Creator God, being separate from everything else in existence, cannot be that material origin. Therefore, the Creator God cannot logically create anything out of nothing. Therefore, the Creator God did not create anything. Therefore, the Creator God does not exist.

There is nothing illogical with creation ex nihilo. In fact, you actually support the concept with your sentence: "Therefore, because things exist, they have at least originated in something that has always existed."  But then in the next sentence: "The Creator God, being separate from everything else in existence, cannot be that material origin." What in the world does the phrase "being separate from everything else in existence" mean and how does it support your premise. It seems you are just asserting your conclusion with no justification. 

What is illogical is to posit past infinite physical material or that physical material necessarily exists. 

The Impossibility of Timeless Creation

If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly created time itself. But the act of creating, or doing anything for that matter, already implies a passage of time occurring. To create time is to create time within time. Therefore, time has always been and could not have been created. Therefore, the Creator God did not create time. Therefore, negating the classical definition of the Creator God, the Creator God does not exist (if the Creator God is supposed to create everything else in existence, including time).

Easy. Causes can be simultaneous with their effect (just throw a baseball through your window and think about it). No passage of time (events) happened prior to the instant of creation. Time began to exist when an event occurred: creation.  God existed timelessly before creation and in time after.

The Impossibility of Mindful Creation

If the Creator God exists, then the Creator God supposedly exercised the divine mind to "think" everything else into existence. To exercise the mind is to imply a passage of time. Otherwise, it would be a spontaneous mindless act. Yet, if we grant the possibility of timeless creation (and I have argued otherwise in the previous argument), then there was no time to exercise the mind before creation. Rather, the creation would be the outcome of something akin to some hypothetical "super computer software" that contains infinite information and acts spontaneously upon them. It is a mindless act, and not a mindful one. Therefore, the Creator God did not mindfully create anything into existence outside of time. Therefore, the mind is not a possible requirement for creating everything in existence aside from itself. Some things, at least, were mindlessly created. Therefore, the Creator God does not exist (as per the definition of the Creator God).

God is omniscient. Why do you imagine that he has to "think" about anything? What justification do you give to sneak in the word "mindless"? Because God did not count down 3...2...1...creation?

If God existed in a timeless state, it was also changeless. It did not pass gradually. It passed as one block--all at once--ending in the creation of the universe. Can you use the word "spontaneously" when discussing a timeless/changeless state? I don't think you can. 

And there are more arguments against the Creator God, but these should suffice. Note that the last two arguments can be applied to both the A-theory and the B-theory of time.

Now, to be clear, the arguments stated above do NOT logically refute the existence of some God. Only that if there is a God, that God cannot be the Creator God because of the logical impossibilities argued above. This basically debunks a lot of stuff that mainstream Abrahamic religions preach about God, morality, Jesus (in the case of Christianity), and other relevant topics. The arguments also show that traditional deism is not as reasonable as deists make it out to be.

The arguments also demonstrate that something (aside from the Creator God) has always existed. And so we have every reason, rooted in logic, to accept that the Cosmos (which is everything in existence aside from the divine and the supernatural) has always been, in one form or another.

Well, since your arguments are full of holes, you didn't demonstrate anything yet.

[GrandizerII]

When you say it makes no logical sense, what you really mean is that it is not intuitive to you, not that you have been able to use logic to debunk it. Again, intuition and logic are two different things.

Anyway, eternalism is philosophy to do with the nature of time, and it has implications regarding the nature of reality itself as a result. If you want to know more about it, you'll have to do some Googling, but the gist of it is that time is not how we normally intuit it. Time, under eternalism, doesn't flow from past to present to future. Rather, it is just simply a coordinate (or dimension) of a "frozen" reality that presently contains not just all the whereabouts and locations in this present instance of time, but also those of past and future instances of time. They all exist simultaneously and have always been. That's what I mean when I say you have always existed.

You are looking at it from the angle of the "present-you" and assuming an actual flow of time. When I say we have always existed, I am looking at it from the angle of a hypothetical (and illogical) "outside observer", observing a 4D (or more) sort of unbounded "block" that is called "reality" or "cosmos".

Ok. I think I get the gist of your beliefs as much as I can. You're right, it makes 0 sense to me lol. I'll stick with the belief in a non physical force unbound by the laws of nature. Seems much more plausible imho.

What you're sticking to is logically impossible. You can hardly call that plausible, lol.

---

You are redefining 'nothing'. 'Nothing' quite simply means not anything. Your sentence (and the crux of your argument) "But for this "nothing" to exist, it has to be something." is the same as "But [not anything] is something." No, it is not. All it is is a logical contradiction.

No, Steve, when I say "for 'nothing' to exist, it has to be something", what I'm basically saying is that "nothing cannot exist". It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. If we can't speak logically of the existence of "nothing", then there has always been something. One of the logical problems with mainstream theism is that they make the claim that, before anything (apart from God) existed, both God and "nothing" existed. Then, God created stuff in place of "nothing". So yes, logical contradiction, and that's a problem for mainstream theism.

The Impossibility of "Something from Nothing"

There is nothing illogical with creation ex nihilo. In fact, you actually support the concept with your sentence: "Therefore, because things exist, they have at least originated in something that has always existed."  But then in the next sentence: "The Creator God, being separate from everything else in existence, cannot be that material origin." What in the world does the phrase "being separate from everything else in existence" mean and how does it support your premise. It seems you are just asserting your conclusion with no justification.

Oh, now you're going to pretend you don't know what I mean by "being separate from everything else in existence"? Tell me, Steve, are you a pantheist? If not, then what makes you not a pantheist then? Nice tactic, but it is a nothing more than a tactic, and doesn't debunk the argument.

So, Steve, have another go. Where did the substance of everything God created come from?

What is illogical is to posit past infinite physical material or that physical material necessarily exists.

How is either claim illogical? Is it just simply because they're counterintuitive? And given eternalism, the first claim doesn't apply anyway.

The Impossibility of Timeless Creation

Easy. Causes can be simultaneous with their effect (just throw a baseball through your window and think about it). No passage of time (events) happened prior to the instant of creation. Time began to exist when an event occurred: creation.  God existed timelessly before creation and in time after.

God existed before time, you say? You think about it. It wasn't easy after all, right, Steve?

The Impossibility of Mindful Creation

God is omniscient. Why do you imagine that he has to "think" about anything? What justification do you give to sneak in the word "mindless"? Because God did not count down 3...2...1...creation?

Do computers have a mind, Steve? We normally don't consider current computers to be "thinking" or "mindful" devices just because they possess a library of information on various things to do with the world and the way it works. To think is to go through a process that requires time.

If God existed in a timeless state, it was also changeless. It did not pass gradually. It passed as one block--all at once--ending in the creation of the universe. Can you use the word "spontaneously" when discussing a timeless/changeless state? I don't think you can.

Uh, yeah, you can. Timeless creation implies spontaneity.

Well, since your arguments are full of holes, you didn't demonstrate anything yet.

Steve, you didn't expose any holes in the arguments. All you basically did was handwave without really thinking about the arguments. But of course you would do that anyway. It takes mental effort and good reasons to want to really challenge your own views.

[Minimalist]

God is omniscient.

Yeah?

How come your fucking god is always surprised when stuff doesn't work out?

He said his "work of creation was 'good'" and then a little later drowned the whole world.  How come your boy didn't see that coming?

I'm glad my stockbroker has a better track record.

[SteveII]

---

You are redefining 'nothing'. 'Nothing' quite simply means not anything. Your sentence (and the crux of your argument) "But for this "nothing" to exist, it has to be something." is the same as "But [not anything] is something." No, it is not. All it is is a logical contradiction.

No, Steve, when I say "for 'nothing' to exist, it has to be something", what I'm basically saying is that "nothing cannot exist". It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. If we can't speak logically of the existence of "nothing", then there has always been something. One of the logical problems with mainstream theism is that they make the claim that, before anything (apart from God) existed, both God and "nothing" existed. Then, God created stuff in place of "nothing". So yes, logical contradiction, and that's a problem for mainstream theism.

Again your first sentence is the equivalent of "Not anything has to be something". There is no reason in the world why we cannot discuss the absence of anything. God existed--not God and something called nothing. This is absurd. 

There is nothing illogical with creation ex nihilo. In fact, you actually support the concept with your sentence: "Therefore, because things exist, they have at least originated in something that has always existed."  But then in the next sentence: "The Creator God, being separate from everything else in existence, cannot be that material origin." What in the world does the phrase "being separate from everything else in existence" mean and how does it support your premise. It seems you are just asserting your conclusion with no justification.

Oh, now you're going to pretend you don't know what I mean by "being separate from everything else in existence"? Tell me, Steve, are you a pantheist? If not, then what makes you not a pantheist then? Nice tactic, but it is a nothing more than a tactic, and doesn't debunk the argument.

So, Steve, have another go. Where did the substance of everything God created come from?

No pantheist here. Again, nothing illogical with creation from ex nihilo (out of not anything). Just because there is no material cause of the universe does not make it illogical that God creating something from the absence of something. You at least have a sufficient cause. A sufficient cause paired with omnipotence = a universe from from nothing - this is a perfectly logical statement no matter what you think. 

What is illogical is to posit past infinite physical material or that physical material necessarily exists.

How is either claim illogical? Is it just simply because they're counterintuitive? And given eternalism, the first claim doesn't apply anyway.

Because there is no such thing as an infinite number of anything concrete. That would include the cause/effect events that the existence of physical material necessitates. There is nothing about physical material that make it necessary (could not have failed to exist). Eternalism, even with all of its inherent problems, still does not avoid a beginning of the universe (space/time). All of the most promising (as in fit the most observations of the universe) cosmological models have a beginning of the universe. 

Easy. Causes can be simultaneous with their effect (just throw a baseball through your window and think about it). No passage of time (events) happened prior to the instant of creation. Time began to exist when an event occurred: creation.  God existed timelessly before creation and in time after.

God existed before time, you say? You think about it. It wasn't easy after all, right, Steve?

Prior to our current space/time is perfectly coherent. Multiverse theories posit the same thing.

God is omniscient. Why do you imagine that he has to "think" about anything? What justification do you give to sneak in the word "mindless"? Because God did not count down 3...2...1...creation?

Do computers have a mind, Steve? We normally don't consider current computers to be "thinking" or "mindful" devices just because they possess a library of information on various things to do with the world and the way it works. To think is to go through a process that requires time.

Computers have a mind that programmed them. So at some point there was intentionality/personhood that made decisions as to purpose etc. Characterizing God as simply a "library of information" is incomplete in so many ways. 

If God existed in a timeless state, it was also changeless. It did not pass gradually. It passed as one block--all at once--ending in the creation of the universe. Can you use the word "spontaneously" when discussing a timeless/changeless state? I don't think you can.

Uh, yeah, you can. Timeless creation implies spontaneity.

So that is your response to the trashing of your premise?

Well, since your arguments are full of holes, you didn't demonstrate anything yet.

Steve, you didn't expose any holes in the arguments. All you basically did was handwave without really thinking about the arguments. But of course you would do that anyway. It takes mental effort and good reasons to want to really challenge your own views.

Your grasp on what is logical and what is not is tenuous. What your arguments amount to is "I can't imagine this happening". You have not actually shown why anything I said was illogical (hint: your answers to my questions might have to be more than one sentence). You have not solved your problem of past infinite absurdity. And you certainly are not supporting your thread title very well.

[Nay_Sayer]

God is omniscient.

Yeah?

How come your fucking god is always surprised when stuff doesn't work out?

He said his "work of creation was 'good'" and then a little later drowned the whole world.  How come your boy didn't see that coming?

I'm glad my stockbroker has a better track record.

Well their god is a silly figment. FSM is never surprised, Mostly because his word is truth and his actions just.
The flood is also silly fiction.

RAmen.

[Angrboda]

How is either claim illogical? Is it just simply because they're counterintuitive? And given eternalism, the first claim doesn't apply anyway.

Because there is no such thing as an infinite number of anything concrete. That would include the cause/effect events that the existence of physical material necessitates. There is nothing about physical material that make it necessary (could not have failed to exist). Eternalism, even with all of its inherent problems, still does not avoid a beginning of the universe (space/time). All of the most promising (as in fit the most observations of the universe) cosmological models have a beginning of the universe. 

In theoretical physics, the Hartle–Hawking state, named after James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, is a proposal concerning the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch.

Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the universe has no origin as we would understand it: the universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%...king_state