God is no different from any other atheist. When you ask him who his creator is, he proudly put his hands on his hips, casts his gaze at the horizon and declares, "No one!'

He exists in the supernatural and arrogantly assumes there is no such thing as the super-duper-natural.

He thinks he was here first, that he is eternal, and is uncreated. But how can he know any of this?

Answer: He can't.

Wortfish wrote:

proudfootz wrote:The problem is that you can't just define something into existence.

If there is an 'uncaused first cause' the existence of that would need to be established.

Even if there were such a thing, why call it a god - there's no reason to suppose a 'first cause' has a personality or possesses intelligence.

I'm not defining God into existence. I am merely stating that God is believed to be the uncreated Creator of everything and so talk of who made God indicates a misunderstanding of what is meant by God.

And that's because you don't recognise that it is special pleading and presuppositionalism.

Wortfish wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The universe is defined the uncaused entirety of existence. It just exists, if it had a designer, it wouldn't be the universe.

Well, the universe was, indeed, thought to be eternal and therefore uncaused and uncreated. However, it was never defined as being uncaused, rather only the totality of all things.

It was never defined as having a creator either.

Wortfish wrote:If the universe was created and brought into existence, it would still be the universe.

Nope it wouldn't. That's not part of the definition.

Wortfish wrote:But if God was created, then whoever created him would be the real God.

Again special pleading and presuppositionalism at it's best.

Wortfish wrote:
I'm not defining God into existence. I am merely stating that God is believed to be the uncreated Creator of everything and so talk of who made God indicates a misunderstanding of what is meant by God.

Talk of who made god illustrates a problem that believers have their head in the sand about.
If there HAS to be a god because "who created x,y,z....."
then why does that logic not apply to god himself? Because humans defined that problem away? Upon what actual information did they base that definition?

Their only choices are to stick their heads further into the sand or realise that everything they think they know has its roots in the human imagination, not in actual knowledge, facts, experience, logic, or anything rational at all.

What does that leave them with?

zulumoose wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
I'm not defining God into existence. I am merely stating that God is believed to be the uncreated Creator of everything and so talk of who made God indicates a misunderstanding of what is meant by God.

Talk of who made god illustrates a problem that believers have their head in the sand about.
If there HAS to be a god because "who created x,y,z....."
then why does that logic not apply to god himself? Because humans defined that problem away? Upon what actual information did they base that definition?

Their only choices are to stick their heads further into the sand or realise that everything they think they know has its roots in the human imagination, not in actual knowledge, facts, experience, logic, or anything rational at all.

What does that leave them with?

I would say one key to enlightenment but many would insist that they have a rational explanation, grounded in experience and logic, for why there must be an unmoved mover. See WLC or STA for the details.

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:What did the first cause cause without something already there? Can't have a domino effect without dominos.

I can't speak for other theists, but you know that I'm an idealist who thinks that all creation happens in God's consciousness as an experience, so God doesn't need anything else to create something. Though I agree with your base concern and why this would be a problem for other theists.

Except you acknowledge you do need something else besides "God's consciousness". You need some unconscious or "sub-conscious" as a source of ideas, You realise that a God that exits eternally and just happens to contain all knowledge of an entire universe is the most outrageous just-so story that has it that the universe has always existed, in all it's complexity, in the mind of God.
There is no rational reason to believe that conscious minds can invent absolute novelty.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It was never defined as having a creator either.

The universe is defined as being the totality of material existence, whether created or not.

Nope it wouldn't. That's not part of the definition.

The existence of the universe is not predicated upon it being eternal and uncreated.

Again special pleading and presuppositionalism at it's best.

God's eternal existence is not a special pleading. It is an absolute requirement for him to be the creator of space and time. If God has a beginning, then he was caused into existence and so is not the ultimate creator of all. It only becomes a special pleading if you argue that God is his own cause. But if God is eternal and uncaused cause then he doesn't need a cause with which to exist.

zulumoose wrote:
Talk of who made god illustrates a problem that believers have their head in the sand about.
If there HAS to be a god because "who created x,y,z....."then why does that logic not apply to god himself? Because humans defined that problem away? Upon what actual information did they base that definition?

The question is logically flawed. "Who made the unmade Maker?" makes no sense. If God is the eternal first cause then he was never made but has always existed.

Their only choices are to stick their heads further into the sand or realise that everything they think they know has its roots in the human imagination, not in actual knowledge, facts, experience, logic, or anything rational at all.What does that leave them with?

It isn't about imagination so much as propositional logic.

Wortfish wrote:

zulumoose wrote:
Talk of who made god illustrates a problem that believers have their head in the sand about.
If there HAS to be a god because "who created x,y,z....."then why does that logic not apply to god himself? Because humans defined that problem away? Upon what actual information did they base that definition?

The question is logically flawed. "Who made the unmade Maker?" makes no sense. If God is the eternal first cause then he was never made but has always existed.

Essentially the same question can be phrased as "why is that an eternal God exists?" This is sometimes put as "Why is there something (God) rather than nothing?"

Granted it is nonsense to refer to before time began of a beginning of eternal existence it doesn't get you out of the bind.

Why is it that a sentience complex enough that it contains total knowledge of an entire universe can just happen to exist?

Dawkin's take, IIRC, was that if complexity requires a designer then a knower that knows all complexity must be complex and would therefore require a designer. If complex knowledge can just happen to exist then the premise is false and complexity does not require a designer.

Wortfish wrote:

zulumoose wrote:
Talk of who made god illustrates a problem that believers have their head in the sand about.
If there HAS to be a god because "who created x,y,z....."then why does that logic not apply to god himself? Because humans defined that problem away? Upon what actual information did they base that definition?

The question is logically flawed. "Who made the unmade Maker?" makes no sense. If God is the eternal first cause then he was never made but has always existed.

There are a couple of flaws with this response.

Defining a god as an 'unmade maker' is a new sort of definition, which is exactly what I meant by trying to define something into existence. It's a version of 'moving the goal posts' to keep changing the definition merely to avoid the consequences of a previous line of argument. It becomes an endless round of ad hockery in which the place we end up - the Ground of All Being - is completely unrecognizable from where we started - a Magical Ghost whom I can persuade to do me favors.

Now suppose we are somehow able to forget how this latest definition came about - there is still the flaw that whatever elements of the definition might be there still remains the problem of why anyone should place any confidence in the existence of the Ultimate Abstraction by any means other than by playing word games.

Their only choices are to stick their heads further into the sand or realise that everything they think they know has its roots in the human imagination, not in actual knowledge, facts, experience, logic, or anything rational at all.What does that leave them with?

It isn't about imagination so much as propositional logic.

In my experience the sorts of logic-chopping games created in an effort to 'prove' there must be a god seem to end up being that the god is something that stands outside of logic:

everything must have a beginning, except...

everything must have a cause, except...

everything must obey the rules of logic, except...

GrahamH wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

zulumoose wrote:
Talk of who made god illustrates a problem that believers have their head in the sand about.
If there HAS to be a god because "who created x,y,z....."then why does that logic not apply to god himself? Because humans defined that problem away? Upon what actual information did they base that definition?

The question is logically flawed. "Who made the unmade Maker?" makes no sense. If God is the eternal first cause then he was never made but has always existed.

Essentially the same question can be phrased as "why is that an eternal God exists?" This is sometimes put as "Why is there something (God) rather than nothing?"

Granted it is nonsense to refer to before time began of a beginning of eternal existence it doesn't get you out of the bind.

Why is it that a sentience complex enough that it contains total knowledge of an entire universe can just happen to exist?

Dawkin's take, IIRC, was that if complexity requires a designer then a knower that knows all complexity must be complex and would therefore require a designer. If complex knowledge can just happen to exist then the premise is false and complexity does not require a designer.

One of the problems I see with the proposition that there is an intelligence, or a designer, is the purpose of intelligence and the reasons why we must design things.

Oftentimes people talk of their gods as being infinite - but the reason humans need intelligence and must resort to designing things is because we are limited.

A god of all the superlative infinites would have no need to design tools to accomplish anything. I need a hammer to drive a nail, I need a nail to join two objects, etc. But a god could just wish the wood would join without the need for a hammer or nails. Of course, the god would have no need for a house for shelter from the elements.

A human needs to master fire for warmth, for light, for cooking, for making tools. A human needs to find out what in the environment can be used as food. A human has to figure out if other humans are friends or foes. We need to invent things, and need to design things to accomplish what we otherwise could not.

So a god has no needs, and therefore no motive for action of any kind, A god of infinites would have no motive to create anything, no need for a plan, no future and no past. A god with no needs has no reason to be intelligent, have a personality - likes and dislikes. An infinitely abstract god is infinitely inactive and infinitely meaningless.

Wortfish wrote:

zulumoose wrote:
Talk of who made god illustrates a problem that believers have their head in the sand about.
If there HAS to be a god because "who created x,y,z....."then why does that logic not apply to god himself? Because humans defined that problem away? Upon what actual information did they base that definition?

The question is logically flawed. "Who made the unmade Maker?" makes no sense. If God is the eternal first cause then he was never made but has always existed.

Their only choices are to stick their heads further into the sand or realise that everything they think they know has its roots in the human imagination, not in actual knowledge, facts, experience, logic, or anything rational at all.What does that leave them with?

It isn't about imagination so much as propositional logic.

You have used your imagination to propose that an unmade maker exists. Well if something that complex doesn't need a maker then neither does anything else. Proposing something without any basis is not logic, it is imagination, practically the definition of imagination in fact. Which leaves god where exactly, other than imagined?

GrahamH wrote:
Essentially the same question can be phrased as "why is that an eternal God exists?" This is sometimes put as "Why is there something (God) rather than nothing?"

Good question. But if we accept that something can and does exist rather than nothing, there is no logical leap in supposing that an infinite and eternal something exists rather than an arbitrarily finite and contingent something.

Why is it that a sentience complex enough that it contains total knowledge of an entire universe can just happen to exist?

A profound question. But you may be assuming that complexity is emergent when it may actualy be an inherent property of existence. There may be nothing simple about the reality of existence.

Dawkin's take, IIRC, was that if complexity requires a designer then a knower that knows all complexity must be complex and would therefore require a designer. If complex knowledge can just happen to exist then the premise is false and complexity does not require a designer.

Not so because biological complexity is a different kind of complexity to non-living complexity. It requires an explanation- but not necessarily a designer - because it clearly did not exist before life began.

zulumoose wrote:
You have used your imagination to propose that an unmade maker exists. Well if something that complex doesn't need a maker then neither does anything else. Proposing something without any basis is not logic, it is imagination, practically the definition of imagination in fact. Which leaves god where exactly, other than imagined?

I haven't imagined an unmade maker into existence. The cosmological argument maintains that an uncaused cause, unmoved mover etc, must necessarily exist to escape the logically fallacy of an infinite regress of causes and actions.

Wortfish wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Essentially the same question can be phrased as "why is that an eternal God exists?" This is sometimes put as "Why is there something (God) rather than nothing?"

Good question. But if we accept that something can and does exist rather than nothing, there is no logical leap in supposing that an infinite and eternal something exists rather than an arbitrarily finite and contingent something.

Why is it that a sentience complex enough that it contains total knowledge of an entire universe can just happen to exist?

A profound question. But you may be assuming that complexity is emergent when it may actualy be an inherent property of existence. There may be nothing simple about the reality of existence.

No, I'm uestioning the opposite. I take it the proposition is that God is infinite and inherently complex. Why would that be so? It's unanswerable, but allowing that arbitrary complexity can just happen to exist without cause you lose the argument.

Wortfish wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Dawkin's take, IIRC, was that if complexity requires a designer then a knower that knows all complexity must be complex and would therefore require a designer. If complex knowledge can just happen to exist then the premise is false and complexity does not require a designer.

Not so because biological complexity is a different kind of complexity to non-living complexity. It requires an explanation- but not necessarily a designer - because it clearly did not exist before life began.

Right, so no need for God. Complexity can evolve from simple origins. Complexity doesn't need a designer.

Wortfish wrote:

zulumoose wrote:
You have used your imagination to propose that an unmade maker exists. Well if something that complex doesn't need a maker then neither does anything else. Proposing something without any basis is not logic, it is imagination, practically the definition of imagination in fact. Which leaves god where exactly, other than imagined?

I haven't imagined an unmade maker into existence. The cosmological argument maintains that an uncaused cause, unmoved mover etc, must necessarily exist to escape the logically fallacy of an infinite regress of causes and actions.

Even suppose that a first cause is needed, which is not a given at all, it's not obvious that it must be sentient. It doesn't have to be God.

Wortfish wrote:The universe is not infinite (it is expanding) and it is not eternal (it is getting older with the passage of time).

If time is inextricably a feature of the universe, then it's correct to say that the universe has always existed. "Always" means for all time, and you've only got time if you've got a universe. No universe, no "always", no "before".

As for whether the universe is infinitely large, we just don't know. You seem to think that, because it's expanding, that it's impossible or incoherent. Infinite is infinite, and nothing is any bigger, right? But it's not that simple. We know from maths that some infinities can be bigger than others, so why is it necessarily impossible, in principle, for an infinite universe to expand? Show your work!

Another problem with proposing that something infinite exists, it would entail that nothing else exists. Because the existence of two things would necessarily entail that neither of them is infinite, because there is a limit to each of them - where the other begins.

But we do have reason to suspect non-infinte things (like ourselves) exist, which immediately disproves the proposition of an infinite being.

proudfootz wrote:Another problem with proposing that something infinite exists, it would entail that nothing else exists. Because the existence of two things would necessarily entail that neither of them is infinite, because there is a limit to each of them - where the other begins.

But we do have reason to suspect non-infinte things (like ourselves) exist, which immediately disproves the proposition of an infinite being.

I think the usual terms here are that the limited things are contingent upon the infinite, not separate from it as two things. The omnipresent bit means there is no finite thing where infinite God ends and finitude begins. IN other terms, an infinite universe might contain finite things.

GrahamH wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Another problem with proposing that something infinite exists, it would entail that nothing else exists. Because the existence of two things would necessarily entail that neither of them is infinite, because there is a limit to each of them - where the other begins.

But we do have reason to suspect non-infinte things (like ourselves) exist, which immediately disproves the proposition of an infinite being.

I think the usual terms here are that the limited things are contingent upon the infinite, not separate from it as two things. The omnipresent bit means there is no finite thing where infinite God ends and finitude begins. IN other terms, an infinite universe might contain finite things.

I can see where there could be an infinite collection of finite things.

Typically goddists in my experience are trying to say their infinite thing isn't a collection of things, but one indivisible thing.