' formerly known as Saoradh
-
Isapop — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 01:45 PM)
This is about your illogical response to rowan's comment on THIS thread:
if the universe requires a creator then so does a god.I'm not sure how logical it is to say that the created is on equal footing with its creator in terms of those requirements.
-
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 02:05 PM)
I don't remember any premise in THIS thread that has anything to do with my response to rowan's comment, let alone an
original
one that states EVERYTHING must have a creator. In any case, anything that is created requires a creator, for nothing can create itself. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 01:12 PM)
Why do you think that?
If god is the creator, and the universe is the created, then
"If the creator requires no creator then nor does the created, and if the created requires a creator then so does the creator."
Still logical? Because I'm having trouble seeing the logic of asserting that something which is created doesn't require a creator. After all, nothing can create itself.
In any case, asking who or what created God is like asking what came before the first or what comes after the last. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 02:01 PM)
In the context of the First Cause argument in and of itself, the universe could be the "first cause" if it is indeed ultimately uncaused. But for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.' But we're talking about the question of who or what created God. Let's assume for the sake of
this
discussion that the universe itself is uncaused
Who or what caused the universe?
See how that works? Or rather, see how that
doesn't
work? For if it was caused, it isn't the "universe". -
rowan_morrison — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 02:07 PM)
If you "assume that the universe itself is uncaused"
then the answer to the question:
"Who or what caused the universe?"
is nothing.
Ditto any gods you can imagine.
Good job, you just demonstrated that the universe could be a god.
p u r p l e
o r a n g e -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 02:12 PM)
If you "assume that the universe itself is uncaused"
then the answer to the question:
"Who or what caused the universe?"
is nothing.
Don't be silly. Nothing can't do anything.
Good job, you just demonstrated that the universe could be a god.
You missed something:
"for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.'" -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 03:28 AM)
You missed something:
"for it to be "God", it would need to be more than simply the 'first cause.'"
So no true god is simply the first cause? Does it need a back story, too? Or is it that it has to be deliberate?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 03:29 PM)
So no true god is simply the first cause? Does it need a back story, too? Or is it that it has to be deliberate?
It has to be something more than simply the 'first cause'. But you knew that already, didn't you? Given our discussions about this in the past, I'd say yes, I think you did. -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 07:16 AM)
It has to be something more than simply the 'first cause'
This just seems to be you deciding what 'god' has to be, and especially what it has to be responsible for. It is not even certain, as this board shows that the (traditional) god 'has to' exist at all. It hardly needs to be said that other views are available and you know this. Given our discussions in the past I am sure, yes, you ought.
But you haven't said what other things you think characterises 'god'. Does it have to be deliberate, sane, efficient or singular for instance? Indeed can a uniquely great Cause be separate from that it causes if by imagining something more than the Cause we therefore must be able to think of a combined something greater than it? Suppose a there is a First Cause which is just responsible for the start of everything as it is, and can be, and has since done no more. Why is that impossible when a god presumably can do everything (including choosing to do nothing)?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 10:03 PM)
This just seems to be you deciding what 'god' has to be
No, this is what
we
decided when
you
said it must be deliberate.
But you haven't said what other things you think characterises 'god'.
I suppose sentience might be one of those things.
Suppose a there is a First Cause which is just responsible for the start of everything as it is, and can be, and has since done no more.
Are you a deist, then? Isn't that what Antony Flew decided after he rejected atheism?
Why is that impossible when a god presumably can do everything (including choosing to do nothing)?
For every argument about omni-whatever I tackle, two more pop up in its place.