HeadingNorth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 So actually they think more along your train of thought, they can't comprehend that something can exist without being created or caused much like you. He hasn't answered that point yet; give him a chance to respond to my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Do you really believe that this is supporting your position? My position is that I enjoy watching you flounder; sorry, I know it isn't very charitable and I shouldn't. Bit like rubbernecking at car crashes and such. I'll take a backseat. Or maybe I'll get back to my novel and have a cup of tea. Or start cooking tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Which is a direct contradiction of their reason for invoking a god in the first place - their claim that things must have a creator.Their claim is that all things were created by God. They have never claimed "God" would also need to have had a creator, it's theorists that have made that claim. Theorists have no more reason to question the causeless existence of God than the religious have reason to question the soundness of the logical reasoning which enables scientists to reach the conclusion that the universe can exist without needing a cause. Once you acknowledge that the universe can exist without needing a creator, you're acknowledging that things that don't need a creator do exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Their claim is that all things were created by God. They have never claimed "God" would also need to have had a creator. Yes, exactly! Hence the contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Their claim is that all things were created by God. They have never claimed "God" would also need to have had a creator, it's theorists that have made that claim. Theorists have no more reason to question the causeless existence of God than the religious have reason to question the soundness of the logical reasoning which enables scientists to reach the conclusion that the universe can exist without needing a cause. Once you acknowledge that the universe can exist without needing a creator, you're acknowledging that things that don't need a creator do exist. There claim is that the universe was created by God, there reason for thinking this is because it is too complex to exist without a creator. So if something complex needs a creator it would imply that God needs a creator because God must be more complex than the created. Alternatively the universe is more complex than its creator, which would then mean its creator isn’t a God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Their claim is that all things were created by God. They have never claimed "God" would also need to have had a creator, it's theorists that have made that claim. Theorists have no more reason to question the causeless existence of God than the religious have reason to question the soundness of the logical reasoning which enables scientists to reach the conclusion that the universe can exist without needing a cause. Once you acknowledge that the universe can exist without needing a creator, you're acknowledging that things that don't need a creator do exist. The universe doesn't need a creator and does exist, so that statement is OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Alternatively the universe is more complex than its creator, which would then mean its creator isn’t a God. Who says the universe is more complex than its creator? Where has the idea come from that God did not create the universe? Evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 What!!? Our ability to comprehend the nature of the universe is in direct correlation with the current limits of the observable universe. Surely that's even more obvious? That is still not a limit to comprehension. It's the current limit of the data. There is always more information to extract from the universe, whether you look inward (LHC) or outward (SKA) - and this endless stream of information has yet to terminally challenge human comprehension. Furthermore, human comprehension is not limited to only scientific understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Yet it does exist; the real question is not 'How?' but 'Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Yes, exactly! Hence the contradiction.It's no more contradictory than saying- 'logical reasoning deduces that the universe must have no cause because a creator that has no cause cannot logically exist'. Therefore, the premise of the logical deduction is- If a creator exists, we must assume that it would need to be be a product of yet another creator, which presents us with a infinite regressive loop. My question therefore, is- 'How does logical reasoning deduce that a creator would need to be a product a another creator, then claim the universe isn't a product of creator? Also- Where do we draw the logical comparison between the theory of a causeless creator that created creation, and the theory of a causeless universe that created creation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.