True Creator?

[Cyperium]

Ok, I think I understand what you mean.

My whole point is that since it is God that we talk about, then He should be at least the highest being. The highest of high.

God is unknown for us, therefor we shouldn't (at least I wouldn't) accept Him to be any less than He could be. He is even higher than our imagination.

But it all depends on the individual view on Him. I wouldn't accept that God isn't good. I wouldn't accept that God was any less than my imagination of what He could be, I would rather think He is so much higher than all the glory I can possibly think of.

I wouldn't imagine God as someone who made mistakes either, a mouse can't say to a human that he made a mistake, any less can we blame anything on God. Things that are, are things that had to be. God made everything. It's all up to Him who lives or who dies, who suffers and who don't. God gives both sunshine and rain, everything has it's purpouse. I get the feeling that some around here are accusing a imagined looser before the race is over.

 

[jcarl]

Sorry for the late reply, even if it matters.

We know the universe exists.
We have no good evidence that it hasn’t always existed.

I'm still grappling with this one. How is it that once the universe reaches its heat death, how does it manage to start back up again? What allows this moment to overcome the 2 Law of thermo.?

We know something infinite must exist.[/B][/Quote]

Can an actual infinite really exist in this spatiotemporal universe?

It seems to me that this cyclic universe is an infinite regress by another name. For instance, what happened before the Big Bang? This theory would say a big crunch. What happened before that? an expansion; before that, a bang; before that, a crunch; and so on to infinity. Wouldn't it require a singularity happening sometime in the past? These may have an infinte future, but it seems like something had to happen to get the whole thing started.

The creator concept requires –

The existence of a supernatural realm and there is no evidence of such a thing or that any such thing could ever be possible.An immense intelligence and power beyond our comprehension – again there is no evidence for such things.

This is a presupposition of naturalism. You say that there is no evidence of a supernatural thing, but there is no good evidence that it doesn't exist.(this is using the same logic you used in your second premise.)

Conclusion -

The creator concept lacks even the beginnings of credibility – it is a non-starter.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

Wow this does go back a while.

I'm still grappling with this one. How is it that once the universe reaches its heat death, how does it manage to start back up again? What allows this moment to overcome the 2 Law of thermo.?

It never reaches that point since gravity takes over resulting in a big crunch. Think of an elastic band being stretched to its limit and then snapping back again.

We know something infinite must exist.
Can an actual infinite really exist in this spatiotemporal universe?

If it didn’t then there would be a point where nothing existed and there wouldn’t be anything to make the universe start, and then we couldn’t be here. Hence, either there is an infinite creator or the universe itself has existed for infinite time.

It seems to me that this cyclic universe is an infinite regress by another name. For instance, what happened before the Big Bang? This theory would say a big crunch. What happened before that? an expansion; before that, a bang; before that, a crunch; and so on to infinity. Wouldn't it require a singularity happening sometime in the past? These may have an infinte future, but it seems like something had to happen to get the whole thing started.

Why? Where is the beginning in a circle?

This is a presupposition of naturalism. You say that there is no evidence of a supernatural thing, but there is no good evidence that it doesn't exist.(this is using the same logic you used in your second premise.)

Second premise? Umm, which one do you mean? I am quite certain that I have never offered any attempt to prove a negative. But your argument is nonsense. If you are going to insist on evidence for things that do not exist then you will create utter chaos. For example please prove to me that you do not have 3 invisible immaterial heads in addition to the one I presume you have. Prove to me that pink polka-dot dragons do not exist. If you make a claim for something then the onus is entirely on you to show it is true if you want anyone to believe you, otherwise you should be rightly ignored.

Kat