J
joe370
Guest
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?
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Some might disagree, depending on what you mean by “creator”, “creating”, and the semantics around the other forms of the word “create.” For example if I say that "this lump of gold was created by supernova nucleosynthesis because of the impersonal nature of most nucleosynthesis some would say it had no creator. Some would say that even nucleosynthesis is not personified. Some will say that their god (whether Yahweh or some one else) created the material and nucleosynthesis only rearranged it, just as manufacturing rearranges pre-existing material. And some might say the material has always existed. After all we have not yet witnessed matter/energy being created or destroyed. Only transformed.
Overall I’d say the question is very open and a bit ambiguous.
C
cerad2
Guest
I do quite a bit of hiking, not uncommon to come across fallen trees spanning streams. Not all bridges are created as you seem to think.
Likewise, plenty of caves serve as houses.
Your statement is not only inaccurate but reduces to a tautology: anything created by a creator does indeed have a creator, anything not created by a creator is not created by a creator.
T
TheDoors
Guest
There is no effect without a cause. None. Eventually, if we go back far enough, we must find the unmoved mover.
E
ExCatholicGuy
Guest
To me, that is the essential argument against atheism.
P
pete_29
Guest
I must be getting smarter. I actually understood some of this. 
J
joe370
Guest
Your answer to the question was…?
Does creation itself follow the same paradigm (regarding things that are obviously created aka made) or is creation the only exemption?
P
Poseidon
Guest
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.
J
joe370
Guest
The universe might not need a cause? So, saying that the Empire State Building might not need a creator (maker) is not believable but saying that the largest material thing that exists (universe) might not need a creator (maker) is believable? Gosh, I wish an atheist could take the time and explain how that could be possible, and no sarcasm intended. I would really be interested in hearing some plausible explanations.
C
catholictiger
Guest
Science will never be able to tell us why the world came into existence, I know this sometimes frustrates atheists but I think sometimes you could look at it the wrong way. We aren’t saying that there is a reason that the world come into existence rather we are saying Why did it happen this way. We aren’t asking the how question.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
The use of the term ‘creation’ to refer to the universe in a literal sense of being made by a personal creator is a case of begging the question. It doesn’t make a sound argument.
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
I disagree, the OP’s statement is neither inaccurate nor does it reduce a tautology. The question that the OP is positing is “Is Creation (of the universe) exempt from the creator–>creation link?” Nothing in your post seemed to promote the exemption of Creation.
J
joe370
Guest
J
joe370
Guest
Creation coming from a creator does not make sense to you? OK…
B
Bakmoon
Guest
I said it was begging the question. That means that you are assuming your conclusion from the beginning. When you use the term ‘creation’ in that way, you have already assumed that the universe was made by a creator, and so no one who doesn’t already believe that will accept that premise.Creation coming from a creator does not make sense to you? OK…
J
joe370
Guest
Let’s assume the universe was not made by a creator. You said that “It doesn’t make a sound argument.” Why?
B
Bakmoon
Guest
It doesn’t make a sound argument because begging the question is a fallacy. If person x tries to make a logical argument that the death penalty is morally wrong like this:Let’s assume the universe was not made by a creator. You said that “It doesn’t make a sound argument.” Why?
- Killing people outside of self-defense is wrong
- Executing criminals as punishment for a crime is outside of self-defense
- Therefore, executing criminals as punishment for a crime is wrong
You’re argument is that:
- The Universe is a creation (in the sense of having been made by a personal being)
- Such creations require the existence of a personal creator which is outside of the creation to create it
- Therefore, there is a personal creator outside of the universe who created it
When you make a logical argument to someone to prove something, it only works if both the logic is good, and the person you are trying to convince accepts the initial premises of the argument. If they don’t, then you need to try to prove those premises first.
J
joe370
Guest
Makes sense, but I said: let’s assume there is no creator when attempting to field the question in the original post? How can something (universe) come from nothing?
B
Bakmoon
Guest
Are you adding that as a new premise to your argument or are you making a new one?Makes sense, but I said: let’s assume there is no creator when attempting to field the question in the original post? How can something (universe) come from nothing?
J
joe370
Guest
I am adding it. Let’s assume that God does not exist. Or should I say: I will assume for the moment that God does not exist. Of course neither of us can prove that God does not exist but that is for another thread.
How can something (universe) come from nothing?
- Status