Arguments Against Creator God

[Norfolk And Chance]

Billions?

[The Grand Nudger]

None, you're bad at this.

Is there any reason we're driving this into the dirt? Do you want to modify my appraisal? Do you think that gods are a few thousand years older, or the universe a few billion years younger? Is there some challenge to the notion that literary creations are incapable of flitting off the page and then retroactively causing the existence of the universe they exist in?

[purplepurpose]

None, you're bad at this.

Is there any reason we're driving this into the dirt?  Do you want to modify my appraisal?  Do you think that gods are a few thousand years older, or the universe a few billion years younger?  Is there some challenge to the notion that literary creations are incapable of flitting off the page and then retroactively causing the existence of the universe they exist in?

Religion "wounds" people mentally, if you listen to those preachers long enough. Some kind of mindrape it seems. No wonder people are angry.

[SteveII]

It's possible for a coin to land, perfectly balanced..on it's edge - neither heads nor tails.  1/6000  for a nickel.  That doesn't actually make it logical for you to believe it will occur when you flip a nickel...even though it's much less of a longshot than some silly "god".

I feel like you need to be reminded that your god is 2k years old at best.  Which doesn't exactly seem ancient enough to have been around for creation, let alone a possible candidate for initiating it.  No god is older than the human species, most or all are a great deal younger, and we're pretty much babies in the grand scheme of things ourselves.  I really do think you should be able to appreciate how silly it sounds to talk about the possibility of something a few thousand years old creating a universe that's been around for billions......?

So, tell me Peanut Gallery™, why didn't you tell Grandizer that his logic in the OP sucks? You know it did, so how come there was no condescending digs with very little substance forthcoming? Character flaw?

[The Grand Nudger]

Would my picking through someone else's statements make yours any less silly, or something? Or are you asking for help dealing with Grand...what with your own responses having devolved into assessments of the possibility that fairy tales retroactively created the universe?

Perhaps you should go back and read the first response in this thread, lol. You're welcome.

[Succubus]

Religion "wounds" people mentally, if you listen to those preachers long enough. Some kind of mindrape it seems. No wonder people are angry.

How do you reconcile this statement with this one:

What would you replace religion with?

[purplepurpose]

Religion "wounds" people mentally, if you listen to those preachers long enough. Some kind of mindrape it seems. No wonder people are angry.

How do you reconcile this statement with this one:

What would you replace religion with?

There are people, you can see them on the news each day, who went as far as show that theft and other crime is normal for them. That's a nightmare.

[GrandizerII]

Let me preface my comments by pointing out that I am NOT arguing for the existence of God--I am defending the charge that it is illogical. I am pointing out in a fairly objective way, where your arguments break down. There are several atheist in this forum who can point out some of the same things (don't mistake their silence as support). In other words, you don't have to be a theist to see the problems in your reasoning.

Which atheists? I've been kudosed by some of them, so it seems like there is some support for what I've been arguing. Even then, I'm sure there are always going to be atheists here and there who will disagree with me on all sorts of things, including arguments for God. But this has nothing to do with whether the arguments presented are sound or not. So not sure why you had to say this even, other than that you had to say this to try to undermine me in some way, lol.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

2. No one would disagree with that. However, that is not what most theist believe. God was changeless/timeless before creation and changing and temporal after.
3. Sure. There is no "exercising the mind" in a changeless/timeless state.
4. Once again, the act of creation ended that changeless/timeless state. There is no logical problem with this.

So your response is that it is logical for God to timelessly do stuff. So why can't he create square circles again?

You have gaps in your knowledge.

Don't we all?

Try learning something from this experience.

I learn stuff every day, don't you worry about that.

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 ...

---

So, tell me Peanut Gallery™, why didn't you tell Grandizer that his logic in the OP sucks? You know it did, so how come there was no condescending digs with very little substance forthcoming? Character flaw?

I think some atheists (or even most) would argue that what I'm doing is a silly/futile exercise in logic (in which case I would agree because I don't even think that the cosmos needs to obey the rules of human logic; I just assume that things are consistently logical), but again, if you can't do a good job of refuting the arguments yourself, and you need atheists to help you out, what does this say about you and your position? And chances are their objections are going to be different from the "objections" you've been raising.

[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]

[GrandizerII]

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.

Logically problematic statements can be part of reductio ad absurdum arguments. Either you really don't know what it means, or we're talking past each other here.

When you say "not anything exists", this is the same as saying "nothing exists". But you can't apply existence to what's "not a thing". Otherwise, it would be something, not "nothing".

I noticed you didn't answer what was in place of God's creation when it did not yet exist.

Let me rephrase in other words, non-existence cannot by definition exist. Existence exists, not non-existence.

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".

I used to be a Christian apologist myself, so I know what most Christian apologists argue regarding God's omnipotence. God being omnipotent often means he can do [almost] anything but what's logically impossible. Therefore, God can't create square circles and such. It's the same thing here. It's logically absurd to speak of something made of "nothing". No material cause for something that had a beginning to its existence means that this "something" could never have been made. A "something" that has no substance at all is not a "something", it's "nothing". If God can't do what's logically impossible, then he can't create something out of "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

Yawn ... it's like you are deliberately being obtuse.

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 no past in eternalism, Steve. At least not in an absolute sense. There are "points in time", so to speak, with the connection being spatial, not temporal. Your argument against eternalism here shows you have no idea what it is about.

So I will link you to an article on eternalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism...y_of_time)

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.

I kept my original quote here so people can see what you're actually addressing. Now, note how I asked a question in that quote of mine, which you did not answer at all. Instead, you just continued to ramble on about me not knowing what a logical contradiction is, even though I am very well aware of the distinction between logically impossible and implausible.

So, Steve, what existed in place of God's creation when God had not yet created? Also, is "nothing exists" not a logical contradiction?

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.

This is eternalism. It's not something I made up. Eternalism is the philosophy of time most backed by science, as opposed to presentism. Eternalism is linked to the B-theory of Time, while presentism is linked to the A-theory of time.

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.

Actions require time to exist. This includes divine action. When, according to you, God created the universe, time began. But prior to time beginning, not even divine action could logically be performed. Because it's like saying that God acted in time to create time, which is clearly an absurd thing to say.

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.

LOL, it's like you don't even try to think about the logical implications of what you're defending ...

Reread your last sentence here. That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. No mulling or planning, then no exercise of the mind. God could only exercise the mind (if he wanted to, of course) within time.

But speaking of omniscience, this is another problem with God regarding him being a mindful entity. If God is omniscient, then there is no exercise of the mind needed, even within time. So God behaves mindlessly and spontaneously, similar to computers.

I don't care what you believe.

I know you don't. You're just here to defend your God no matter the logic and/or evidence.

Just pointing out that your OP failed to do what you said it was going to do: show us...

The Impossibility of "Nothingness"
The Impossibility of "Something from Nothing"
The Impossibility of Timeless Creation
The Impossibility of Mindful Creation

Ok, not that it's going to matter to you at all, but the OP arguments in short:

Nothing cannot exist. To exist is to be.

To be made from nothing is to be made of nothing. Something is not made of nothing. It's made of something.

Actions require time to exist. Creation of time is not possible without time already existing.

In the absence of time, if timeless actions was somehow logically possible, then only mindless actions can be made. Mindful actions require time to exist.