Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

who created God?

janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because matter works under a cause and effect cycle. This is the nature of matter. Thus there must be an unmoved mover - a first cause that is not part of the material universe.

This unmoved mover must then be by definition unaffected by what He sets in motion and thus cannot be a creature of matter, but rather one of pure will or spirit. For something to be unaffected it must be perfect within itself and thus the very source of everything. Additionally since you cannot give what you do not have we can know that this source must have perfect will, perfect intellect, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc... because these are things we also possess. Thus we are able to say that this creator being has the attributes of omniscient, omnipotence and omnipresence. This unmoved mover is what we define as God.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 6:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because matter works under a cause and effect cycle.

Matter and energy has been shown to be neither created or destroy, only that it changes form.

This is the nature of matter.

Ipse Dixit.

Thus there must be an unmoved mover - a first cause that is not part of the material universe.

Special pleading.


This unmoved mover must then be by definition unaffected by what He sets in motion and thus cannot be a creature of matter, but rather one of pure will or spirit.

Ipse Dixit, again.

For something to be unaffected it must be perfect within itself and thus the very source of everything.

That simply doesn't follow.

Additionally since you cannot give what you do not have we can know that this source must have perfect will, perfect intellect, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc... because these are things we also possess. Thus we are able to say that this creator being has the attributes of omniscient, omnipotence and omnipresence. This unmoved mover is what we define as God.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 6:37:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because matter works under a cause and effect cycle. This is the nature of matter. Thus there must be an unmoved mover - a first cause that is not part of the material universe.

This unmoved mover must then be by definition unaffected by what He sets in motion and thus cannot be a creature of matter, but rather one of pure will or spirit. For something to be unaffected it must be perfect within itself and thus the very source of everything. Additionally since you cannot give what you do not have we can know that this source must have perfect will, perfect intellect, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc... because these are things we also possess. Thus we are able to say that this creator being has the attributes of omniscient, omnipotence and omnipresence. This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

We also possess characteristics like malevolence, not just love and mercy. Where did these attributes come from?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:00:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:27:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because matter works under a cause and effect cycle.



Matter and energy has been shown to be neither created or destroy, only that it changes form.

Sure within the normal functioning of the universe they aren't either created or destroyed. However, there is no proof they existed prior to (if prior to can be conceived without time existing prior to) the Big Bang. Additionally you have to show what matter/energy actually are.

This is the nature of matter.

Ipse Dixit.

Show me the universe not acting in this manner and you might have a cause.

Thus there must be an unmoved mover - a first cause that is not part of the material universe.

Special pleading.

I do not think that means what you think it means...

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

Thus the application of my different standards to God it isn't special pleading. Special pleading is unfairly applying standards to similar things. God being the creator would necessarily exists outside of time and space and would not be similar to anything within the universe.

This unmoved mover must then be by definition unaffected by what He sets in motion and thus cannot be a creature of matter, but rather one of pure will or spirit.

Ipse Dixit, again.

Or basic logic.

For something to be unaffected it must be perfect within itself and thus the very source of everything.

That simply doesn't follow.

Sure it does. If I am perfectly intelligent I am a source of intelligence. There is no action of mine that changes my intellect, it is already perfect. Thus teaching others would have no effect on me. Whereas if I did not have perfect intellect, there would be something missing and there would inevitably be change in my intellect to fill that void. This would make my intellect subject to change and thus I could not be a source of intellect because my intellect is subject to action of outside forces.

Additionally since you cannot give what you do not have we can know that this source must have perfect will, perfect intellect, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc... because these are things we also possess. Thus we are able to say that this creator being has the attributes of omniscient, omnipotence and omnipresence. This unmoved mover is what we define as God.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:12:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:37:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because matter works under a cause and effect cycle. This is the nature of matter. Thus there must be an unmoved mover - a first cause that is not part of the material universe.

This unmoved mover must then be by definition unaffected by what He sets in motion and thus cannot be a creature of matter, but rather one of pure will or spirit. For something to be unaffected it must be perfect within itself and thus the very source of everything. Additionally since you cannot give what you do not have we can know that this source must have perfect will, perfect intellect, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc... because these are things we also possess. Thus we are able to say that this creator being has the attributes of omniscient, omnipotence and omnipresence. This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

We also possess characteristics like malevolence, not just love and mercy. Where did these attributes come from?

We tend to view these things as opposite like +/-. However, this is not the case. Malevolence is an action lacking love, justice and mercy.

Thus the "goodness" of an action is based on how much we let our actions be filled by that which is good. Conversely the "wickedness" of an action is based on how much we constrict that which is good from our actions.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:57:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

Sure, you have defined god, but now can you demonstrate god?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 8:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:57:15 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

Sure, you have defined god, but now can you demonstrate god?

Not in this thread... keep threads on topic.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 8:05:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 8:00:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:57:15 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

Sure, you have defined god, but now can you demonstrate god?

Not in this thread... keep threads on topic.

My question is germane.

You defined god, and simultaneously rejected that god was not created, which is what the original proposition is under contemplation. I am now asking that you provide a basis for you claim that god was not created.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 8:08:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 8:05:44 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:00:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:57:15 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

Sure, you have defined god, but now can you demonstrate god?

Not in this thread... keep threads on topic.

My question is germane.

You defined god, and simultaneously rejected that god was not created, which is what the original proposition is under contemplation. I am now asking that you provide a basis for you claim that god was not created.

If God was created, then by definition He would not be God. A first mover cannot be created, a source cannot be created... That is just basic logic. Under my definition God is not a being, but the very essence of being itself.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 11:17:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 8:08:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:05:44 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:00:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:57:15 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

Sure, you have defined god, but now can you demonstrate god?

Not in this thread... keep threads on topic.

My question is germane.

You defined god, and simultaneously rejected that god was not created, which is what the original proposition is under contemplation. I am now asking that you provide a basis for you claim that god was not created.

If God was created, then by definition He would not be God. A first mover cannot be created, a source cannot be created... That is just basic logic. Under my definition God is not a being, but the very essence of being itself.

There is nothing further to demonstrate your honour.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 11:21:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 11:17:28 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:08:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:05:44 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:00:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:57:15 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

Sure, you have defined god, but now can you demonstrate god?

Not in this thread... keep threads on topic.

My question is germane.

You defined god, and simultaneously rejected that god was not created, which is what the original proposition is under contemplation. I am now asking that you provide a basis for you claim that god was not created.

If God was created, then by definition He would not be God. A first mover cannot be created, a source cannot be created... That is just basic logic. Under my definition God is not a being, but the very essence of being itself.

There is nothing further to demonstrate your honour.

I fully answered the original poster and why one accepts a non-created God, but not so with the universe.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?

Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 6:07:20 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because matter works under a cause and effect cycle. This is the nature of matter. Thus there must be an unmoved mover - a first cause that is not part of the material universe.

This unmoved mover must then be by definition unaffected by what He sets in motion and thus cannot be a creature of matter, but rather one of pure will or spirit. For something to be unaffected it must be perfect within itself and thus the very source of everything. Additionally since you cannot give what you do not have we can know that this source must have perfect will, perfect intellect, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc... because these are things we also possess. Thus we are able to say that this creator being has the attributes of omniscient, omnipotence and omnipresence. This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

We, being you and a few other religious die-hards trying to wriggle out from under tons of scientific evidence contradicting your quirky beliefs.
"Let's just mix up a bit of twisted philosophy and some pseudo-science and make it sound convincing to the rest of the flock. They won't question it in their deluded state and it will keep the (science) dogs at bay for a while longer".
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 6:53:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Response: For the same reasons why you would not accept that the bed you left unmade when you left your house was suddenly made when you came back.

Order can only originate from choice. Not non-choice.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 7:52:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

The one argument theists seem to be comfortable with is the assumption that "life is too complex" to have just happened and therefore had to be created which is mere speculation anyway.
By the same theory, a creator of "such complexity" would have to be even more somewhat complex. That creator could not just have happened and would have to be created also. So, who or what created God?

The whole concept of God was created by those who wish to control the masses and followed by those who feel they cannot control themselves.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:50:31 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?


Why are you asking "who"? I haven't insisted a personal creator at this point of the conversation.

Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.

The universe began 13.7 years ago:

http://www.space.com...

And why do you insist there had to be a prior moment? It could have been an atemporal event.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 10:23:59 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:50:31 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?


Why are you asking "who"? I haven't insisted a personal creator at this point of the conversation.


Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.

The universe began 13.7 years ago:


http://www.space.com...

And why do you insist there had to be a prior moment? It could have been an atemporal event.

That really is young earth creationist.
Even I have been around longer than 13.7 years.
Politics2016
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 11:59:41 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
If someone created God, then there would have to be a greater God who created God. Then there would have to be a greater greater God who created the greater God who created God. You see how I mean. If by your logic, for there to be a Creator and he had to have been created, we would have an infinite amount of Gods, thus undermining monotheism.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:03:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:50:31 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?

Why are you asking "who"? I haven't insisted a personal creator at this point of the conversation.

creator
noun
a person or thing that brings something into existence.
"James Bond's creator Ian Fleming"
synonyms: writer, author, composer, designer, deviser, maker, inventor, producer, developer; More
used as a name for God.
noun: Creator; noun: the Creator


Whilst the definition does include "or thing" the common usage is for a person or entity. We both know that you meant the latter. Let me humour you though. Please give us the creator for Jupiter and for snowflakes.

Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.

The universe began 13.7 years ago:

That would be 13.7 billion years ago and you are referring to the age of the universe since the Big Bang. It is not what I asked for. I asked you to identify a moment where the universe did not exist. If you can't then you cannot assert that the universe had a beginning. Correct?

http://www.space.com...

And why do you insist there had to be a prior moment?

How can you have a beginning if there was no moment of time where the universe did not exist? You are insisting that the universe began. The onus is then on you to identify the prior moment.

It could have been an atemporal event.

What is that? Do you mean like a quantum fluctuation? If so, how does that relate to your assertion that everything has a creator?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:08:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:16:09 AM, freekundli wrote:
God is creator of everything.

Bare assertion.

He created the universe.

Bare assertion.

He created galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

Nah, the first two were created by gravity, the third is the result of evolution.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:16:09 AM, freekundli wrote:
God is creator of everything. He created the universe. He created galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

And He created Himself, did he?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:16:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 10:23:59 AM, desmac wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:50:31 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?


Why are you asking "who"? I haven't insisted a personal creator at this point of the conversation.


Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.

The universe began 13.7 years ago:


http://www.space.com...

And why do you insist there had to be a prior moment? It could have been an atemporal event.

That really is young earth creationist.
Even I have been around longer than 13.7 years.

Whoops. Billion
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 12:03:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:50:31 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?

Why are you asking "who"? I haven't insisted a personal creator at this point of the conversation.

creator
noun
a person or thing that brings something into existence.
"James Bond's creator Ian Fleming"
synonyms: writer, author, composer, designer, deviser, maker, inventor, producer, developer; More
used as a name for God.
noun: Creator; noun: the Creator


Whilst the definition does include "or thing" the common usage is for a person or entity. We both know that you meant the latter. Let me humour you though. Please give us the creator for Jupiter and for snowflakes.
.

If your more comfortable with "cause" we can use that word instead. I believe precipitation in high altitudes causes snowflakes. I'm not sure about Jupiter. Are you suggesting it self generated?

Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.

The universe began 13.7 years ago:

That would be 13.7 billion years ago and you are referring to the age of the universe since the Big Bang. It is not what I asked for. I asked you to identify a moment where the universe did not exist. If you can't then you cannot assert that the universe had a beginning. Correct?=

The universe didn't exist until the big bang occurred.

http://www.space.com...

And why do you insist there had to be a prior moment?

How can you have a beginning if there was no moment of time where the universe did not exist? You are insisting that the universe began. The onus is then on you to identify the prior moment.

If it was an atemporal event.

It could have been an atemporal event.

What is that? Do you mean like a quantum fluctuation? If so, how does that relate to your assertion that everything has a creator?

Atemporal means without time.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:17:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

The universe exists by and according to a set of defining limitations and parameters. "God" is the presumptive origin of those limitations and parameters. Thus, of the two, only "God" can be perceived to exist without origin.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:42:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 6:07:20 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/4/2016 6:22:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because matter works under a cause and effect cycle. This is the nature of matter. Thus there must be an unmoved mover - a first cause that is not part of the material universe.

This unmoved mover must then be by definition unaffected by what He sets in motion and thus cannot be a creature of matter, but rather one of pure will or spirit. For something to be unaffected it must be perfect within itself and thus the very source of everything. Additionally since you cannot give what you do not have we can know that this source must have perfect will, perfect intellect, perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc... because these are things we also possess. Thus we are able to say that this creator being has the attributes of omniscient, omnipotence and omnipresence. This unmoved mover is what we define as God.

We, being you and a few other religious die-hards trying to wriggle out from under tons of scientific evidence contradicting your quirky beliefs.
"Let's just mix up a bit of twisted philosophy and some pseudo-science and make it sound convincing to the rest of the flock. They won't question it in their deluded state and it will keep the (science) dogs at bay for a while longer".

Or you could post a substantive rebuttal and make a meaningful contribution instead of merely straw-manning.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:51:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 2:24:12 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:03:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:50:31 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?

Why are you asking "who"? I haven't insisted a personal creator at this point of the conversation.

creator
noun
a person or thing that brings something into existence.
"James Bond's creator Ian Fleming"
synonyms: writer, author, composer, designer, deviser, maker, inventor, producer, developer; More
used as a name for God.
noun: Creator; noun: the Creator


Whilst the definition does include "or thing" the common usage is for a person or entity. We both know that you meant the latter. Let me humour you though. Please give us the creator for Jupiter and for snowflakes.

If your more comfortable with "cause" we can use that word instead. I believe precipitation in high altitudes causes snowflakes. I'm not sure about Jupiter. Are you suggesting it self generated?

Okay, you have (unsurprisingly) retreated from your original assertion. Your revised statement now becomes:

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Firstly, cause and effect is a temporal phenomenon associated with our universe. You are committing the fallacy of composition. You are attributing to the whole what is true of the parts. Secondly, cause and effect requires time. However, time is a property of our universe (as in the discussion below). You assume the time of the universe when you are without a universe. Another fail. Thirdly, a cause for the universe does not have to be a sentient being (a creator) which is the subject of this thread after all. Failure all round.

Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.

The universe began 13.7 years ago:

That would be 13.7 billion years ago and you are referring to the age of the universe since the Big Bang. It is not what I asked for. I asked you to identify a moment where the universe did not exist. If you can't then you cannot assert that the universe had a beginning. Correct?=

The universe didn't exist until the big bang occurred.

You are still avoiding the question. Space-time (the fabric of the universe) are a consequence of the Big Bang. If time did not exist "prior" to the BB then what clock ticked over as the Big Bang occurred? Please identify that moment.

http://www.space.com...

And why do you insist there had to be a prior moment?

How can you have a beginning if there was no moment of time where the universe did not exist? You are insisting that the universe began. The onus is then on you to identify the prior moment.

If it was an atemporal event.

There is no such thing. You state an oxymoron. For something to be called an event there must be a "before" and an "after".

event
noun
a thing that happens or takes place, especially one of importance.


It could have been an atemporal event.

What is that? Do you mean like a quantum fluctuation? If so, how does that relate to your assertion that everything has a creator?

Atemporal means without time.

Um, I know what it means. Nothing can happen without time as already explained. God cannot act without time as it would contradict the meaning of the word "act".
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 10:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:51:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:24:12 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:03:54 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:50:31 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:19:13 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:18:35 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 5:57:16 PM, janesix wrote:
Why do most theists accept that God can just exist with no creator, but can't accept a universe that just is, without a creator?

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Really? Jupiter began to exist. Who created it? You can't say God because that would be assuming your conclusion. How about a snowflake? It begins to exist. Who created it?

If you have no answer to the above, then your assertion that everything which begins to exist has a creator is false. Yes?

Why are you asking "who"? I haven't insisted a personal creator at this point of the conversation.

creator
noun
a person or thing that brings something into existence.
"James Bond's creator Ian Fleming"
synonyms: writer, author, composer, designer, deviser, maker, inventor, producer, developer; More
used as a name for God.
noun: Creator; noun: the Creator


Whilst the definition does include "or thing" the common usage is for a person or entity. We both know that you meant the latter. Let me humour you though. Please give us the creator for Jupiter and for snowflakes.

If your more comfortable with "cause" we can use that word instead. I believe precipitation in high altitudes causes snowflakes. I'm not sure about Jupiter. Are you suggesting it self generated?

Okay, you have (unsurprisingly) retreated from your original assertion. Your revised statement now becomes:

Because experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, sooooo...

Firstly, cause and effect is a temporal phenomenon associated with our universe. You are committing the fallacy of composition. You are attributing to the whole what is true of the parts. Secondly, cause and effect requires time. However, time is a property of our universe (as in the discussion below). You assume the time of the universe when you are without a universe. Another fail. Thirdly, a cause for the universe does not have to be a sentient being (a creator) which is the subject of this thread after all. Failure all round.

Also, please prove your assertion that the universe began to exist. If that were the case then there must be a moment in time when the universe did not exist. Please identify that moment.

The universe began 13.7 years ago:

That would be 13.7 billion years ago and you are referring to the age of the universe since the Big Bang. It is not what I asked for. I asked you to identify a moment where the universe did not exist. If you can't then you cannot assert that the universe had a beginning. Correct?=

The universe didn't exist until the big bang occurred.

You are still avoiding the question. Space-time (the fabric of the universe) are a consequence of the Big Bang. If time did not exist "prior" to the BB then what clock ticked over as the Big Bang occurred? Please identify that moment.

http://www.space.com...

And why do you insist there had to be a prior moment?

How can you have a beginning if there was no moment of time where the universe did not exist? You are insisting that the universe began. The onus is then on you to identify the prior moment.

If it was an atemporal event.

There is no such thing. You state an oxymoron. For something to be called an event there must be a "before" and an "after".

event
noun
a thing that happens or takes place, especially one of importance.


It could have been an atemporal event.

What is that? Do you mean like a quantum fluctuation? If so, how does that relate to your assertion that everything has a creator?

Atemporal means without time.

Um, I know what it means. Nothing can happen without time as already explained. God cannot act without time as it would contradict the meaning of the word "act".

If he created our reality and our time, time as we know it is powerless white noise to him. The rules of Sim City are meaningless to it's creator.

The atheist declares there was nothing, then something. The theist claims there was something and then...something. besides, the Bible tells us Iran and Russia will be allies in the end days, nucleur fire will be the end result, the end time battle will be fought in the region that is now Northern Israel and Syria, Christians will be genocided and beheaded and all by a group that rejects Christ specifically, bows to an image, comes from the seed of Ishmael, worships a violent "god", et etc. That would be the greatest guess ever known to mortal man if not true.

And besides, you need to get familiar with James Gates so you aren't suffocated with ignorance and denial anymore. Any questions?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...