Does creation need a creator, as per reason?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bakmoon said:
Why is an infinity of moved movers illogical?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that a power source, designed, was required when we as question such as, where did energy come from, or the stars and the infinitude of stellar fusion? Isn’t it logical to conclude that laws like gravity, magnetism and density come from some sort of design? I mean did gravity and magnetism simply self generate?
 
Bakmoon said:
Why is an infinity of moved movers illogical?
Click to expand...
Because infinite regression is not possible; eventually, one must admit the existence of a mover that is unmoved, or else posit the existence of an endless loop of causation. But if such an endless loop did exist, what caused that? Ultimately there must be a causative agent outside of the loop, or series of loops, or series of universes or multiverses. This agent is eternal and uncaused, of necessity. In fact, He is the necessary being. That is what we call God.
 
Faithdancer said:
I think Bak Moon must have gone nighty-night Joe, as I must. But congratulations on starting quite a deep and thought-provoking thread. I gain more respect for our Doctor Thomas all the time. How did he reason so perfectly? Well, I guess Aristotle helped. Then a bit of revelation added to his already superlative intellect. His beatific vision must be very close and perfected indeed!**

For me the universe simply cannot be a product of nothing. What I see is a universe being a product of eternity by our Savior. Jesus Christ, or should I say the Holy Trinity. Atheists always suggest that there is simply nothingness other than our time and space within the universe. I believe that the universe, no matter how old it is, is the real nothingness when compared to eternity. Just a blip on the radar that will one day be gone and eventually renewed ushering in the New Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
 
joe370 said:
Doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that a power source, designed, was required when we as question such as, where did energy come from, or the stars and the infinitude of stellar fusion? Isn’t it logical to conclude that laws like gravity, magnetism and density come from some sort of design? I mean did gravity and magnetism simply self generate?
Click to expand...
We know of nothing in nature that is proven to self-generate. There can only be one essence that self-generates, all else must be generated.
 
joe370 said:
For me the universe simply cannot be a product of nothing. What I see is a universe being a product of eternity by our Savior. Jesus Christ, or should I say the Holy Trinity. Atheists always suggest that there is simply nothingness other than our time and space within the universe. I believe that the universe, no matter how old it is, is the real nothingness when compared to eternity. Just a blip on the radar that will one day be gone and eventually renewed ushering in the New Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
It is indeed against all observations of nature that something could come from nothing; parthenogenesis was the last gasp of this absurd thinking in the natural sciences. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t say last gasp, since atheist cosmologists still desperately try to convince that subatomic particles appear randomly from nothing. Of course, they can’t detect the “something” that must logically be there according to reason and nature, with even the most sophisticated scientific instrumentation.

Even if we perceive a nothingness there must be a causative agent which produces something out of that perceived nothingness. Creatio ex nihilo, by definition, is impossible without a creator.
 
Faithdancer said:
We know of nothing in nature that is proven to self-generate. There can only be one essence that self-generates, all else must be generated.
Click to expand...
👍 The idea of the original universe self-generating, imploding, giving way to another universe, ad infinitum, not only removes the beginning but also the end. Of course some are quite content with the idea of a self-generated Universe. Wish I could self-generate a new car; mine is on its last leg. LOL…😃
 
Faithdancer said:
It is indeed against all observations of nature that something could come from nothing; parthenogenesis was the last gasp of this absurd thinking in the natural sciences. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t say last gasp, since atheist cosmologists still desperately try to convince that subatomic particles appear randomly from nothing. Of course, they can’t detect the “something” that must logically be there according to reason and nature, with even the most sophisticated scientific instrumentation.

Even if we perceive a nothingness there must be a causative agent which produces something out of that perceived nothingness. Creatio ex nihilo, by definition, is impossible without a creator.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 👍
 
Faithdancer said:
It is indeed against all observations of nature that something could come from nothing; parthenogenesis was the last gasp of this absurd thinking in the natural sciences. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t say last gasp, since atheist cosmologists still desperately try to convince that subatomic particles appear randomly from nothing. Of course, they can’t detect the “something” that must logically be there according to reason and nature, with even the most sophisticated scientific instrumentation.

Even if we perceive a nothingness there must be a causative agent which produces something out of that perceived nothingness. Creatio ex nihilo, by definition, is impossible without a creator.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve got to get some shut-eye brother, as you do, so I’ll talk to you later. 👍
 
joe370 said:
👍 The idea of the original universe self-generating, imploding, giving way to another universe, ad infinitum, not only removes the beginning but also the end. Of course some are quite content with the idea of a self-generated Universe. Wish I could self-generate a new car; mine is on its last leg. LOL…😃
Click to expand...
And ultimately it’s the same dead end question- self-generated from what? Atheist cosmologists avoid the obvious dilemma by positing another, earlier universe, which may indeed be true, but then what caused that universe? Ultimately one either gives up or realizes the obvious.
 
Faithdancer said:
Because infinite regression is not possible; eventually, one must admit the existence of a mover that is unmoved, or else posit the existence of an endless loop of causation. But if such an endless loop did exist, what caused that? Ultimately there must be a causative agent outside of the loop, or series of loops, or series of universes or multiverses. This agent is eternal and uncaused, of necessity. In fact, He is the necessary being. That is what we call God.
Click to expand...
Can it be demonstrated that an infinite regression is not possible?
 
Bakmoon said:
Can it be demonstrated that an infinite regression is not possible?
Click to expand...
Bear with me as this conversation is way above my intelligence level, but why should everything in the universe have a beginning and an end except the universe itself. An infinite intelligence I can kind of understand, but matter in an infinite form is too hard for me to grasp.
 
Bakmoon said:
Can it be demonstrated that an infinite regression is not possible?
Click to expand...
Peter Kreeft explains it quite handily, in this excerpt from peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

“If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.”
 
Faithdancer said:
“If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.”
Click to expand...
But he bases his argument on the first boxcar, saying:
But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train.
Click to expand...
However, if the chain of boxcars extends infinitely in both directions, there ISN’T a first boxcar. His whole argument presupposes the existence of something that doesn’t exist.
 
Bakmoon said:
But he bases his argument on the first boxcar, saying:

However, if the chain of boxcars extends infinitely in both directions, there ISN’T a first boxcar. His whole argument presupposes the existence of something that doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
the train is a metaphor…the clue to that is the phrase, “is like a”
 
Bakmoon said:
But he bases his argument on the first boxcar, saying:

However, if the chain of boxcars extends infinitely in both directions, there ISN’T a first boxcar. His whole argument presupposes the existence of something that doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Where did the boxcars come from?
 
Bakmoon said:
In this scenario, they always existed.
Click to expand...
I would ask how they could have already existed but I’m sure I missed something. How do you people that debate these thing keep from going insane.:whacky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top