Does creation need a creator, as per reason?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pete_29 said:
Ain’t that the truth 👍
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t the truth. Atheism jmerely takes the intellectual honsety of admiiting to yourself that, although kits of things about tyhe universe and ‘creation’ are mysterious and are very likely to remain mysterious, adding a new and even bigger mystery does not make sense.
 
belorg said:
No, it isn’t the truth. Atheism jmerely takes the intellectual honsety of admiiting to yourself that, although kits of things about tyhe universe and ‘creation’ are mysterious and are very likely to remain mysterious, adding a new and even bigger mystery does not make sense.
Click to expand...
I do admire your faith in atheism, and I am not being sarcastic. 👍🙂
 
joe370 said:
Nobody denies that everything created was done by a creator e.g., cars, houses, bridges skyscrapers etc. Does creation itself follow the same paradigm or is creation the only exemption?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that sounds exactly like Ray Comfort’s chief “argument” - creation needs a creator. First, you have to demonstrate that everything that exists - the universe - is actually an entity that requires deliberate creation, rather than natural development/evolution. Then you can start speculating about the nature of the creator. This seems necessary, since the purported “creator” seems rather reluctant to reveal him/her/itself directly.

And when that is sorted out, you might like to answer the question - who or what created the creator?
 
Faithdancer said:
Everything has a beginning except that which is eternal, and infinite- which is God. Does this help?
In this sense, “In the beginning” represents the beginning of time, which coincides with what we refer to as “creation.” Before the Big Bang, there was no time, and no creation. Kind of an eternal pause. Then God pressed “play” and everything started moving.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to suppose that any eternally existing entity has to be the kind of personal, intelligent, creative being associated with the name ‘God’.

If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely rearranged, then it’s far more parsimonious to suppose that eternal existence consists of energy - because matter is energy in another form. If eternal existence is the necessary prime mover, then the simpler this eternal existence is, the better. An intelligent, creative, emotive, physically interactive supernatural entity is not simple - cannot be simple. Such an entity requires development…or creation.
 
belorg said:
No, it isn’t the truth. Atheism jmerely takes the intellectual honsety of admiiting to yourself that, although kits of things about tyhe universe and ‘creation’ are mysterious and are very likely to remain mysterious, adding a new and even bigger mystery does not make sense.
Click to expand...
It makes sense to me.
 
Faithdancer said:
Actually it is completely logical to argue that if there is a binary, i.e. “God” or “no God,” and “no God” does not explain, then “God” is the only alternative. Particularly since “God” completely explains. This also accords with Occam’s Razor.
Click to expand...
It depends upon what you call “God”.

As far as I am concerned, natural entities and forces are adequate to explain that which we observe, and are far more in accordance with Occam’s Razor than an intelligent designer, which requires so much groundwork before it may even be claimed to exist.
 
Sair said:
And when that is sorted out, you might like to answer the question - who or what created the creator?
Click to expand...
I personally find this particular argument not to work, as because of the nature of the arguments in which this is brought up, the creator is argued to be an uncaused cause. I think that the better way of arguing this point is to rephrase the argument as “Why is there a creator?” rather than “What created the creator?” but that’s just me 🤷
 
The answer is there is a creator because there is an uncaused cause. When you prove that their is a least element in a well-ordered set you have nothing further to explain. Causality is well-ordered.
 
Bakmoon said:
That question seeks to shift the burden of proof, because in questions of proving the existence or non-existence of something, the burden of proof rests on the side that holds to the existence of the thing which is being argued. If side A claims X exists and side B claims X does not exist, the burden of proof rests with side A.

You are side A in this case, because you are holding to the position that a proof of the necessity of an origin point, and I hold that such a proof does not exist. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate such a proof exists.
Click to expand...
This is actually incorrect. The burden of proof lies not with the one claiming existence, but the original person making the statement as fact. So, if person A said “God doesn’t exist” the burden of proof lies with him and not with person B who believes in God because person A is the one who made the original statement.
 
Bakmoon said:
I personally find this particular argument not to work, as because of the nature of the arguments in which this is brought up, the creator is argued to be an uncaused cause. I think that the better way of arguing this point is to rephrase the argument as “Why is there a creator?” rather than “What created the creator?” but that’s just me 🤷
Click to expand...
Does everything require a beginning except the universe or universes?🙂 If so can you explain…?
 
joe370 said:
Does everything require a beginning except the universe or universes?🙂 If so can you explain…?
Click to expand...
I suggest you try to put your argument in a more formal structure to examine it a bit better. Let’s try it out:
  1. Everything requires a beginning
  2. The Universe is a thing
  3. The Universe has a beginning
Would you say that this is an accurate rendering of your argument? Once we settle this I will be able to examine your point in more detail.
 
Bakmoon said:
I suggest you try to put your argument in a more formal structure to examine it a bit better. Let’s try it out:
  1. Everything requires a beginning
  2. The Universe is a thing
  3. The Universe has a beginning
Would you say that this is an accurate rendering of your argument? Once we settle this I will be able to examine your point in more detail.
Click to expand...
Seems reasonable. 👍
 
joe370 said:
Seems reasonable. 👍
Click to expand...
Whoops. I realized that I didn’t explicitly include causation in the argument. Let me fix it.
  1. Everything requires a cause
  2. The Universe is a thing
  3. The Universe has a cause
Is this still a fair representation of your argument?
 
bzkoss236 said:
This is actually incorrect. The burden of proof lies not with the one claiming existence, but the original person making the statement as fact. So, if person A said “God doesn’t exist” the burden of proof lies with him and not with person B who believes in God because person A is the one who made the original statement.
Click to expand...
This is problematic. If it is true that the burden of proof rests not with the one who asserts existence, but with the original person making a factual statement, then the burden of proof depends on something as trivial as the order of conversation.

Imagine that St. Thomas Aquinas and Richard Dawkins (It’s a thought experiment, so I might as well make it interesting) are waiting for a bus and each recognizes the other. Either one could speak first and claim his position is correct, and the burden of proof would rest with whoever asserts their position first, rather than being even remotely related to the actual content of what they say. This seems arbitrary to me.
 
I have to play devil’s advocate for some of my Catholic brothers here.

Many say “We assume a creator for a watch, why not the universe?”

Because we know watches are made by people, there is no assumption. No watch has ever existed except that was made by a person.

The whole question is, is the universe made by an intelligent being.
 
Poseidon said:
The answer: no one knows for sure. It could need a creator, but it might not. We just don’t know yet. And that’s okay, because that’s what science is all about - finding the answers! So I’ll get back to you when we figure it out.
Click to expand...
The idea that science can provide positive inferences regarding the ultimate nature of reality is a Fallacy based on a flawed understanding of the role of science and an ignorance of its epistemological limits. You clearly don’t understand science.

I think your talking about “scientism” which is clearly something different from mainstream science.
 
Bakmoon said:
Whoops. I realized that I didn’t explicitly include causation in the argument. Let me fix it.
  1. Everything requires a cause
  2. The Universe is a thing
  3. The Universe has a cause
Is this still a fair representation of your argument?
Click to expand...
You aren’t gonna pull the ol’ - then who created God thing are you? LOL…Just kidding…Yeah, that seems reasonable. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top