[_ Old Earth _] Creator

[TING]

An argument I've heard a lot is "the earth HAS to have a creator. everything does". My question is where did god come from?

According to christians, "it always existed" is an illogical answer.

 

[Vic C.]

Wrong forum. I am moving this thread.

 

[Free]

According to christians, "it always existed" is an illogical answer.

"HE always existed." And no, it is not an illogical answer, but a very rational and plausible one.

 

[antitox]

Let's liken man to God as a dog to its master.

Dog has no idea where master gets that really nice, rich food that he sometimes is allowed a tidbit of, aside from his own bowl of dog chow but he accepts that his master has it together.

Dog has no clue why his master's house is warm in the winter, cool in the summer, dry when it's raining, but he knows that master provides really well and allows him the comfort of the home.

Dog doesn't understand why master doesn't allow dog to do some things, yet allows dog other priviledges, but he accepts the obvious- that master is alot smarter than himself and that is reason enough to accept.
----
Now, with God being way above the mere contrast I described, eternity can't even begin to fit into your brain or mine. Man has no clue whatsoever as to the extent of the kind of platform that a spiritual existence is built upon. The rules are different; the stage is set with different building blocks than what we have lived with. You only know a beginning and an ending, so nothing else figures into your thinking because you operate within limits; earthly physical limits. God doesn't.
People try to put limits on God everyday, thinking that He has to fit the little physical rules we set for Him. It's a joke.

 

[cubedbee]

According to christians, "it always existed" is an illogical answer.

"HE always existed." And no, it is not an illogical answer, but a very rational and plausible one.

Well then,it is also very rational and plausible to believe the universe always existed,without a creator.

 

[Free]

Well then,it is also very rational and plausible to believe the universe always existed,without a creator.

Am I correct then in assuming that you don't believe in the "Big Bang"?

 

[cubedbee]

Well then,it is also very rational and plausible to believe the universe always existed,without a creator.

Am I correct then in assuming that you don't believe in the "Big Bang"?

I believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang. However, it is just as valid of a belief to take an atheistic position and believe the universe is eternal. We cannot observe what happened at or before the big bang, but there are scientific theories, compatible with the known universe, which posit an infinite cyclic universe of big bangs and big crunches. Unlike similar models from earlier this century, the new ones do not violate laws of entropy or energy. You can read about them here: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

Even if this theory proves to be false, the existence of a creative power outside of our universe does not imply God. An atheist could just as validly posit the existence of a mindless, eternal medium governed by laws which cause the spontaneous generation of 4D spacetime universes such as the one we live in. There is no logical necessity for the First Cause to be a personal entity.

 

[Asimov]

I think Cubedbee would agree with me in saying that arguments like the God of the Gaps, Causality, and Intelligent Design arguments are bad ways of showing God exists, or that he doesn't exist.

 

[Drew]

I think Cubedbee would agree with me in saying that arguments like the God of the Gaps, Causality, and Intelligent Design arguments are bad ways of showing God exists, or that he doesn't exist.

1. God of the Gaps - a bad argument as it is generally presented. Just because we do not have an explanation for something does not justify attributing that phenomena to a personal God.

2. Causality - another bad argument if one means that positing a "god" solves the "first cause" problem. I think, such a proposition just shifts the "target of explanation" to the "god" in question - how do we account for God's existence?

3. Intelligent Design - Unlike the other 2, I think ID is a good argument for the existence of God, if in fact it can be shown that it is a "better" explanation of the facts (the way the world is) than a "naturalistic" explanation.

I think that the Intelligent Design case has to be made very carefully - it is fraught with subtleties. Therefore, I am not prepared to offer a "defence" for it at present. When time permits, I hope to post my thoughts on the ID theory.

 

[Free]

However, it is just as valid of a belief to take an atheistic position and believe the universe is eternal. We cannot observe what happened at or before the big bang, but there are scientific theories, compatible with the known universe, which posit an infinite cyclic universe of big bangs and big crunches.

First, from what we know of this universe, it "began at a point in time" (realizing of course that time came into being simultaneously). So in regards to what we know now to be true, not just a theory, it is more rational to believe in a Creator rather believe the universe is eternal.

Second, if the universe does collapse, or crunch, and then bang again to form a universe, it is not the same universe, so it is again irrational to say that the universe is eternal.

Third, even if there is an infinite cycle of crunches and big bangs, this only delays the problem, not solves it.

An atheist could just as validly posit the existence of a mindless, eternal medium governed by laws which cause the spontaneous generation of 4D spacetime universes such as the one we live in. There is no logical necessity for the First Cause to be a personal entity.

Where do the laws come from? To say that certain laws that govern the universe have always just existed, is more irrational than believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe. Laws require a law giver, they cannot just form themselves.

I think Cubedbee would agree with me in saying that arguments like the God of the Gaps, Causality, and Intelligent Design arguments are bad ways of showing God exists, or that he doesn't exist.

But of course these arguments are not meant to prove that God exists, only that it is plausible and likely that he exists; that it is more rational to conclude that he exists than that he doesn't exist.

2. Causality - another bad argument if one means that positing a "god" solves the "first cause" problem. I think, such a proposition just shifts the "target of explanation" to the "god" in question - how do we account for God's existence?

Then you have misunderstood the argument. The argument's purpose is to directly answer the question "how do we account for God's existence?". And it does a decent job of answering. I think it is a fairly strong argument.

 

[Drew]

2. Causality - another bad argument if one means that positing a "god" solves the "first cause" problem. I think, such a proposition just shifts the "target of explanation" to the "god" in question - how do we account for God's existence?

Then you have misunderstood the argument. The argument's purpose is to directly answer the question "how do we account for God's existence?". And it does a decent job of answering. I think it is a fairly strong argument.

Perhaps you can recap this argument for me. But please be clear as to exactly how the argument does not merely transfer the "target of explanation" from the existence of the Universe to the existence of God.

 

[Free]

Dear Drew,

: I offer my apology as I seem to have thought you were saying something else.

You are correct, the argument does only posit that there was a First Cause, not that God was the First Cause (although St. Thomas Aquinas did call the First Cause "God").

However, it is more rational to believe that God is the First Cause instead of "just because".

 

[ThinkerMan]

However, it is more rational to believe that God is the First Cause instead of "just because".

Why?

By calling it God, you are giving it specific traits. You are saying it is perfect, omnipowerful, omnipresent and a variety of other things.

In fact, I imagine you specifically are giving it the specific trait of being Yahweh.

"Just because" isn't a cop-out, it simply an admission that although a cause exists, we have no knowledge of what that cause is. It could be natural, supernatural, inherant to the existance of the universe or perhaps some kid with a magnifying glass burning ants.

I think it is much more rational to not predetermine the traits of a "first cause" then it is to arbitrarily give it specific traits.

 

[Free]

By calling it God, you are giving it specific traits. You are saying it is perfect, omnipowerful, omnipresent and a variety of other things.

Exactly.

It could be natural, supernatural, inherant to the existance of the universe or perhaps some kid with a magnifying glass burning ants.

The problem with either a nautral or inherent-to-the-existence-of-the-universe explanation is that nothing can cause itself.

This is similar to Aquinas's argument from motion: everything is in motion, that is, changing "from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality". Since everything is in motion there must be a first mover which caused the motion. The first mover must be pure actuality otherwise it would have potentiality, which means it could be moved and couldn't be the first mover.

If one says that nature changed on its own, then one is left with nature being potential, not actual, and therefore it couldn't be the first mover.

The two arguments are closely related although not the same.