Arguments Against Creator God

[SteveII]

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

So, you think that by using imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's gravitational equations--which has the effect of avoiding describing anything before Planck Time means that is what happened in reality? Seems to be motivated more by metaphysics than anything. My understanding is that the Standard Bid Bang Theory is still the preferred theory. Regardless, just the existence of the Standard Theory is enough to deflect any charge of God creating ex nihilo as illogical. Even if it became popular, the Hartle-Hawkins model is at best an undercutting defeater.

[GrandizerII]

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.

And yet, before the "something" that God created, there was ... nothing. "Not anything" existing (key word here) has to be something, not nothing.

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.

Absence of something = nothing. So the substance of creation is made of ... "nothing"? If you can't see what's wrong with that, I don't know what else to say. Perhaps square circles aren't logically impossible after all, lol.

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.

Asserted Steve, and that's all. Provide the logical argument to demonstrate your point.

There is nothing about physical material that make it necessary (could not have failed to exist).

Can you provide the logic to demonstrate this? Assertion is not an argument.

Eternalism, even with all of its inherent problems, still does not avoid a beginning of the universe (space/time).

That's because you want it to have problems, lol. You can't but think this way.

All of the most promising (as in fit the most observations of the universe) cosmological models have a beginning of the universe.

With the usage of the phrase "most promising", why does this sound so much like an incredibly biased opinion?

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.

They do? Which ones, Steve? There is logically no such thing as before time. And I have a strong feeling you're generally misrepresenting what multiverse "theorists" are saying.

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.

That's not what I asked. Do current computers have a mind, Steve?

Before time (if that's even possible, which it's not), God could not have been anything but a library of information. There is no logical way to act within time while in a timeless state. Exercising the mind requires a passage of time. Otherwise, it's just spontaneous "thinking" (scare quotes because it's not really thinking).

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

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

Maybe you should trash harder. Because I didn't notice any trashing (as in, actual debunking arguments). So when are we going to get some debunkers?

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.

More handwaving, I see. Ok, thanks for your time. When you're ready to debunk the arguments, let me know. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.

[GrandizerII]

So, you think that by using imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's gravitational equations--which has the effect of avoiding describing anything before Planck Time means that is what happened in reality? Seems to be motivated more by metaphysics than anything. My understanding is that the Standard Bid Bang Theory is still the preferred theory. Regardless, just the existence of the Standard Theory is enough to deflect any charge of God creating ex nihilo as illogical. Even if it became popular, the Hartle-Hawkins model is at best an undercutting defeater.

The Standard Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the cosmos had a beginning. And even with regards to this local universe, the most you can say is that there was a beginning to the expansion of this universe, not existence.

[SteveII]

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.

And yet, before the "something" that God created, there was ... nothing. "Not anything" existing (key word here) has to be something, not nothing.

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. 

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. 

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.

Absence of something = nothing. So the substance of creation is made of ... "nothing"? If you can't see what's wrong with that, I don't know what else to say. Perhaps square circles aren't logically impossible after all, lol.

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. 

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.

Asserted Steve, and that's all. Provide the logical argument to demonstrate your point.

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. 

There is nothing about physical material that make it necessary (could not have failed to exist).

Can you provide the logic to demonstrate this? Assertion is not an argument.

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. 

Eternalism, even with all of its inherent problems, still does not avoid a beginning of the universe (space/time).

That's because you want it to have problems, lol. You can't but think this way.

Answer this. Does the B Theory of Time avoid a beginning of our universe as you said? 

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

They do? Which ones, Steve? There is logically no such thing as before time. And I have a strong feeling you're generally misrepresenting what multiverse "theorists" are saying.

"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. 

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.

That's not what I asked. Do current computers have a mind, Steve?

Before time (if that's even possible, which it's not), God could not have been anything but a library of information [1]. There is no logical way to act within time while in a timeless state.[2] Exercising the mind requires a passage of time.[3] Otherwise, it's just spontaneous "thinking" (scare quotes because it's not really thinking). [4]

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

Maybe you should trash harder. Because I didn't notice any trashing (as in, actual debunking arguments). So when are we going to get some debunkers?

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.

More handwaving, I see. Ok, thanks for your time. When you're ready to debunk the arguments, let me know. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.

You have gaps in your knowledge. Try learning something from this experience.

---

So, you think that by using imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's gravitational equations--which has the effect of avoiding describing anything before Planck Time means that is what happened in reality? Seems to be motivated more by metaphysics than anything. My understanding is that the Standard Bid Bang Theory is still the preferred theory. Regardless, just the existence of the Standard Theory is enough to deflect any charge of God creating ex nihilo as illogical. Even if it became popular, the Hartle-Hawkins model is at best an undercutting defeater.

The Standard Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the cosmos had a beginning. And even with regards to this local universe, the most you can say is that there was a beginning to the expansion of this universe, not existence.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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......?

[purplepurpose]

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......?

What would you replace religion with?

[The Grand Nudger]

A strange question, why would it need to be replaced, and why would it matter what I would replace it with, if I would replace it with anything? Does any of that have any bearing on what you quoted and responded to, or just wondering?

[purplepurpose]

A strange question, why would it need to be replaced, and why would it matter what I would replace it with, if I would replace it with anything?  Does any of that have any bearing on what you quoted and responded to, or just wondering?

How many years you spend in religion? You seem awfully pissed about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, none.  Try again.

[purplepurpose]

LOL, none.  Try again.

How believers managed to get you so anti theistic?