Vic

"Who created the universe?"
"A big Bang"
"OK, then who caused the big Bang?"
"A huge lump of matter that was compressed to a minute volume"
"OK, who created this matter?"
"A Uber-Matter"
"And who created Uber-Matter?"
"A Uber-Uber Matter"
etc, etc, etc...

Or, alternatively,

"Who created this matter?"
"It is self-created, eternal"

But this just adds an unnacessary step. Why not just postulate that god is self created or eternal?

I spell this out because it seems so hard for many atheists to understand ...

Philosoft

Because of what we already know. We know matter exists and we know it can neither be created nor destroyed. You, on the other hand, don't even have a definition of God, much less any empirical evidence or logical proof of his existence. "God is self-created" is meaningless until I know what "God" is.

<strong>

Thanks. Your lexical clarity is remarkable.

Vic

You have got your wires crossed.
It is ENERGY that cannot be created or destroyed.
But for energy to be present there must be matter.

Vic

Posted by Ryanfire
How about this: - God was sitting on that lump of matter and, one day, he got up ...

Vic

... or maybe he had a bowel movement

Autonemesis

If the the Big Bang was precipitated by a quantum fluctuation or some other physical process, it is conceivable that an advanced intelligence could manufacture a device to study this phenomenon under controlled conditions.

(Or is it?)

If a universe was precipitated by such an experiment, the "creator" need not even be aware that he has created anything. Or it might not be possible for him to detect or interact with his creation, even if he was aware that his experiment could create one. Are we obligated to this intelligence in any way, if such is the case for our universe? What exactly IS our relationship with this creator, if any?

Synaesthesia

Vic,
Infinite regress aside, there must have been some point at which our normal causation breaks down. As such, the god theory rejects it's initial premise. I agree, it seems that there is a point at which our assumptions about cause and existence break down.

When it comes to something like explaining existence, you get an infinite regress OR a breakdown of normal causality. However, God does not fundamentally solve the problem any better than the other theory and it is less parsimonious. As such, the argument cannot establish any preference for God.

1 &lt; 1+1

Either you have a universe with some sort of breakdown of causality or you have a universe PLUS an infinite God with some sort of breakdown of causality.

Perhaps the atheists don’t understand how one could be greater than two.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Vic

Synaesthesia.

Do not take my post seriously. I was just taking the same path of reasoning as Jobar did a few posts back and which I quoted in my post, but did not name the writer. The point is no one knows for sure one way or the other and just because there may have been a "kick-starter" does not necessarily follow that there is any type of relationship between the creator and the created in the sense that religions will have us to believe. This topic of discussion, we know from the start, will not get us any concrete answers, will not give either side the satisfaction of converting the other to their way of thinking and is in fact a waste of time.
Let both sides admit their ignorance and not come up with bombastic statements as if they were possessors of the ultimate truth. However, we all enjoy wasting time so ... let the debate continue.

Vic

Kind Bud.

You don't mean "a Quantum flatulence"?

LinuxPup

I don't understand why atheists (not all, but many) harshly criticize theists for the first cause theory... it seems every bit as reasonable as any atheistic viewpoint on the origins of the universe I have ever heard on the Secular Web and elsewhere.