God is not a...

[PRmerger]

I don’t think there’s any need to read any more into what I posted. It’s just to indicate that creating something does not necessarily mean that you have control over it. Mary Shelley wrote a book about it.

And I don’t think you can make any comparison between a creature and the Creator (in the manner you’re doing).

That would be as absurd and saying, “Frankenstein was stupid. Therefore Mary Shelley is, too”.

Right?

 

[Bradski]

And I don’t think you can make any comparison between a creature and the Creator (in the manner you’re doing).

That would be as absurd and saying, “Frankenstein was stupid. Therefore Mary Shelley is, too”.

Right?

You’re still reading too much into this. I am simply pointing out that creating something does not mean in any way whatsoever that you therefore have any control over how it evolves.

‘God created the universe, therefore He controls it’, is not a logically sound statement. The second clause is an assumption. It doesn’t logically follow from the first.

If you want to say that something caused the universe to come into existence, then I might agree for the purpose of the discussion. But…you cannot get from there to a point where you can say: ‘And that something was God’. And you also cannot get from there to a point where you can say: ‘And He therefore has power over it’.

There is no connection. You have to make an assumption. Which is naturally based on your existent beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re still reading too much into this. I am simply pointing out that creating something does not mean in any way whatsoever that you therefore have any control over how it evolves.

‘God created the universe, therefore He controls it’, is not a logically sound statement. The second clause is an assumption. It doesn’t logically follow from the first.

What follows from “God created the universe” is that he must necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.

Are we agreed on that?

 

[Bradski]

No. They are assumptions. Based on the assumption that the universe was created and the assumption that the creator was the Christian God.

 

[PRmerger]

No. They are assumptions. Based on the assumption that the universe was created and the assumption that the creator was the Christian God.

Yes, we assume that the universe was created.

But no, there is no assumption here that the creator was the Christian God.

You simply must assert that the entity which creates the universe MUST be omnipotent and omniscient. #logic

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, we assume that the universe was created.

Incidentally, science AND logic tell us that the universe was created.

 

[Bradski]

Yes, we assume that the universe was created.

But no, there is no assumption here that the creator was the Christian God.

You simply must assert that the entity which creates the universe MUST be omnipotent and omniscient. #logic

That it was created, and I assume that you mean that as an act of will, is itself an assumption.

Then you move on to assume that the act of will was God’s.

Then you move on to assume that God must be therefore omnipotent and omniscient.

None of it is logically based. It is always and in every instance based on a prior belief in God. You can get to a willful creation by an omnipotent God if you start with a belief in God. But if you start with a universe that appears to have started X amount of time ago, you cannot, in any way, shape of form, in any logical manner whatsoever, get to a personal and omnipotent God.

One has to ask that you surely must agree that it it is logically possible that whatever created the universe is none of those things.

 

[PRmerger]

That it was created, and I assume that you mean that as an act of will, is itself an assumption.

Look at this logically, Bradski.

We are agreed that the creator has to be immaterial, yes? (Otherwise, material already exists. And we’re trying to explain how material began).

Immaterial things don’t create something…without a will.

Or, can you tell me when was the last time a number (which is an example of an immaterial thing) created something?

 

[Solmyr]

You simply must assert that the entity which creates the universe MUST be omnipotent and omniscient. #logic

No, none of that follows “logically”. You cannot even assert that the creation was intentional, it could have been an unwanted by-product of some other activity. You can find a nice triangle on the beach, which was created by the waves and the wind pushing three twigs together. The only logical corollary is that the creator had enough power to do it. That is the maximum you can “assume”.

 

[e_c]

PR - Perhaps he is appealing to the idea that God can be under compulsion of nature to create. That’s certainly not a new idea (I think it found its zenith in Spinoza) but it gets something very wrong about… Do I even have to say it at this point? Radical primacy.

 

[Bradski]

We are agreed that the creator…

We don’t even get to ‘the creator’. That’s an assumption. And you are not using logic. Your statements fail on that account. You are using what you would describe as common sense.

We have seen where that gets us when we talk of things for which there is no scientific answer. But then, you are not talking science, you are talking theology. From the standpoint of someone who already believes in God and who already believed that He created the universe before ever being aware of the arguments which you are trying to make.

You can get to the creator of the universe if you start with God but it doesn’t work the other way around. In fact, all the arguments would lead to anyone’s God. If they lead to all, they are valid for none.

 

[BornInMarch]

God IS a moral agent. Specifically he is the Summum Bonum: the Highest Good.

God being Omnibenevolent is the ONLY reason why I worship him. In my opinion it is His best quality.

If God was All Knowing and All Powerful but NOT All Loving then I wouldn’t worship him, I wouldn’t adore him, and I wouldn’t respect him: if God was not All-Loving then I would be terrified of him. The world would be a horrifying place.

Compare the Cosmology of Christendom to that of Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[e_c]

God IS a moral agent. Specifically he is the Summum Bonum: the Highest Good.

God being Omnibenevolent is the ONLY reason why I worship him. In my opinion it is His best quality.

If God was All Knowing and All Powerful but NOT All Loving then I wouldn’t worship him, I wouldn’t adore him, and I wouldn’t respect him: if God was not All-Loving then I would be terrified of him. The world would be a horrifying place.

Compare the Cosmology of Christendom to that of Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia and you’ll see what I mean.

Then all His actions are necessarily good, therefore the category of “moral” doesn’t apply.

 

[PRmerger]

We don’t even get to ‘the creator’. That’s an assumption. And you are not using logic. Your statements fail on that account. You are using what you would describe as common sense.

No, Bradski.

It is a common truth of logic: whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

That’s just good old logic.

Just do a google search of “logic” and “whatever begins to exist”:

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=logic%20%22whatever%20begins%20to%20exist%22

 

[PRmerger]

We have seen where that gets us when we talk of things for which there is no scientific answer.

Not sure what you mean here…

But then, you are not talking science, you are talking theology.

I am talking epistemology. And philosophy. And science. And theology.

(And so are you, BTW. I guess you just don’t realize it )

From the standpoint of someone who already believes in God and who already believed that He created the universe before ever being aware of the arguments which you are trying to make.

I can argue God existence without any a priori beliefs.

And people have been doing this for centuries.

You can get to the creator of the universe if you start with God but it doesn’t work the other way around.

Then you are left with answering the question: what caused the universe?

Science has made it almost 100% certain that the universe had a beginning.

And remember, logically…whatever begins to exist needs a cause.

What’s your answer?

 

[e_c]

Not sure what you mean here…

I am talking epistemology. And philosophy. And science. And theology.

(And so are you, BTW. I guess you just don’t realize it )

I can argue God existence without any a priori beliefs.

And people have been doing this for centuries.

Then you are left with answering the question: what caused the universe?

Science has made it almost 100% certain that the universe had a beginning.

And remember, logically…whatever begins to exist needs a cause.

What’s your answer?

There doesn’t need to be a temporal beginning of the universe to demonstrate the inner dependency of all things with parts on something without parts… Aristotle gave his arguments under the impression that the universe had no such beginning, St. Thomas said that the argument was good either way but that faith demands a temporal beginning (“creation”).

 

[PRmerger]

There doesn’t need to be a temporal beginning of the universe to demonstrate the inner dependency of all things with parts on something without parts… Aristotle gave his arguments under the impression that the universe had no such beginning, St. Thomas said that the argument was good either way but that faith demands a temporal beginning (“creation”).

Well, Science has pretty much shown that there is a beginning to the universe, so…

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t think there’s any need to read any more into what I posted. It’s just to indicate that creating something does not necessarily mean that you have control over it. Mary Shelley wrote a book about it.

Are you saying that God cannot control what he creates?

Sorry I have not read the whole thread.

 

[e_c]

Are you saying that God cannot control what he creates?

Sorry I have not read the whole thread.

He’s certainly saying that. The fact that he uses Shelley as an example makes one wonder how much thought he’s given to it though.

Power is of three kinds… Can we name them all?

 

[BornInMarch]

Then all His actions are necessarily good, therefore the category of “moral” doesn’t apply.

His his actions are necessarily good, then moral DOES apply.

God isn’t completely outside the Morality Spectrum, he is at the very end of the “good” end. That’s why the distinction between “good” and “bad” isn’t completely arbitrary.