Duvenoy

Ah, the Question!

The universe is vast far beyond my poor comprehension. But logic tells me that if there is one god, then why not two? Or five? Or fifty; or even an entire population of supreme beings scattered over the cosmos, each one furiously defending it's little, nickle-and-dime piece of territory like a fence lizard on a flat rock?

I wonder what the breeding season would be like?



d

DieToDeath

Time cannot be invented or done away with. Period. And even if it could, God STILL had to be created at some point in the non-time. So your answer does not satisfy the question.

RufusAtticus is basically correct. As I'm sure you've all heard before, "God created man and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."

But if you want to argue that God exists, at least tell me his birthday.

Mageth

Time is a creation of God. Time is essentially a measurement of change. God lives within time, but He also lives without, or beyond it, and He never changes.

Since god allegedly created everything, and is in everything, this little nonsensical mind pretzel could be adapted for anything:

"Dung is a creation of God. Dung is essentially a...well, a pile of excrement. God lives within dung, but he also lives without, or beyond it, and He never changes. Since he spends so much time in dung and never changes, he's starting to get a little ripe."

Dr Rick

Sadly, neither does randman.

DieToDeath

>< I use the name "Rand" on most message boards. "randman" makes me feel bad about it by being such a moron.

But, back to the argument at hand. God needs to have a moment of creation. And.. I'm not seein' it here.

randman

It is quite amusing to see atheists actually state that because somethign exists, it must be created. LOL.

Btw, the principle of cause and effect is appicable only to that which is observed within space-time, not God.

God obviously does not "need" to be created, regardless of how some here "need" Him to be.

bluefugue

This is really a philosophical question, no? The question of First Cause.

You can look at it two ways I suppose. You can posit an infinite regression of causes, or you can say at some level, you reach something that "just is" and doesn't need to be regressed beyond. Something that requires no cause. Now, Sagan asked, if we are to declare that God requires no cause, why not skip a step and simply declare that the universe requires no cause? Perhaps the theist might reply that, unlike the universe, God is defined as needing no cause... i.e. only a God, and nothing else, can satisfy those criteria. Shades of the ontological argument? As I am unsure what the word "God" actually means in any specific or concrete sense, this approach doesn't seem very helpful to me. But then I suppose if I only opened my mind to the Holy Spirit, it would all make sense...

bluefugue

This is exactly what Creationists say about the universe. Why does God get to be immune? Oh yeah. He's defined as immune. Nice semantical trick, that.

Well, I define the Great Snoo as preceding God! So there.

Says who? And what about the universe in toto, which contains space-time, and is therefore not "within" it?

Yes, obviously, because you have defined him thus. Again, that's a nice semantical trick. Whether it has any bearing on reality is another matter...

DieToDeath

...that's funny? Who knew.

So God is outside space-time. Yet he fathered a child with a human. Ah, of course. It all comes together now.

Liquidrage

Thank you for pointing it out since when we're talking about the BB we're always wondering what caused it.
But since you just stated that only space and time need a cause, and since prior to the BB space and time did not exist, then we have no need for a cause. Mystery solved.

This statement isn't just for show. Nor do I know Randman's view on this. However, it is valid and so is the question that started this topic.

If a "god" can get around first cause, so could a universe without a god. The mechanism used would obviously be unknown at this point. But who ever said humans know or are even capable of understanding everything?

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>