This far in your reasoning is accurate. But it erroneously implies that creation is still a requirement.The idea that everything needs a Creator is flawed; if that were the case, then an Infinite Regress occurs in which nothing is created.
This is also flawed since evolution shows that nothing needs a creator. Can you give an example of anything that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process?Instead of that premise, take this one,"what has a beginning has a creator."
Again an entirely flawed argument. Consider the internal combustion engine – a piston moves away from the explosion only to return again in an endless cycle. Current science is now once again proposing, based largely on the realization of dark matter that the universe expansion will slow, contract and end with a big crunch, and then begin again.Now did the universe have a beginning? The universe is expanding right? Put the tape in reverse and eventually you get to a beginning point.
You have defeated your own argument. If we accept that something doesn’t come from nothing then the rather obvious conclusion is that it has always existed. There is no reason to search any further. The imaginative concept of a supernatural creator becomes entirely superfluous.It's hard to comprehend some form of matter has simply always been there because in order for matter to exist it would have to have one thing in particular: space in which to exist. But that space needs to come from somewhere, as it can't just pop out of nowhere.
I agree but then there is no reason to believe that the universe just happened – goes back to your earlier flawed reasoning.To say that space is always there is inconsistent with the idea that a beginning to the universe happened.
As I have clearly shown your conclusion is itself seriously flawed.So to say matter could have just always been is flawed.
Katazia said:
This far in your reasoning is accurate. But it erroneously implies that creation is still a requirement.
This is also flawed since evolution shows that nothing needs a creator. Can you give an example of anything that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process?
Again an entirely flawed argument. Consider the internal combustion engine – a piston moves away from the explosion only to return again in an endless cycle.
Current science is now once again proposing, based largely on the realization of dark matter that the universe expansion will slow, contract and end with a big crunch, and then begin again.
You have defeated your own argument. If we accept that something doesn’t come from nothing then the rather obvious conclusion is that it has always existed. There is no reason to search any further.
The imaginative concept of a supernatural creator becomes entirely superfluous.
Why can't a true creator exist?Dreamwalker said:I would also say that a true creator cannot exist. Some things just came into existance or were always there.
You are not the only one, wolfgreywolf said:good answer. i didnt think of that.
Why can't a true creator exist?
1. The universe is not "running down". That's just the creationist misunderstanding of entropy. In fact, it may be "cycling" as Katazia said.
2. The postulated "creator", whether "spirit" or not, also has to have it's own "beginning". As Lemming3k originally said, a creator needs a creator needs a creator....