Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

So an initiating creator being doesn't require both cause and effect...it is only a type of causing.

 

Fine. So do you admit your Creator is changing?

 

Yes or no.

[dawei]

there's not room for repeating false statements.

 

His premise is no more true or false then the scenario you are claiming. They are both just your own scenario.

 

His has cause/effect to everything/anything; There cannot be something uncaused AND which can cause.

 

Yours has a un-caused causer; You changed his scenario, which is fine, but it is no longer his scenario he supports.

 

I assume you raise your idea because of the problem of needing a first mover/causer? Or maybe not, but that is the one weakness, IMO, of the former scenario. The latter scenario has its issues too.

 

The way I see the first issue is not to assume the need for a first mover/cause but rather the chain is linked to itself; it runs circular and moves under it's own energy and causes. I tend to not like to think of it in terms of infinite regression of causes but that is HIS scenario and not circular variation.

[xor]

An uncaused creator is beyond cause and effect, and would have no way of interacting with our universe.

 

It would be like trying to run Windows 8.1 on an Intel 286 from the 1980's.

 

That's a strange analogy. So an uncaused creator is only missing some technology to be able to work...

Edited December 7, 2013 by xor

[Formless Tao]

This thread has turned into trolls heaven or hell?

[Aetherous]

Fine. So do you admit your Creator is changing?

 

Yes or no.

 

My Creator?

 

I said previously that a definition could be 'an eternal being' (unchanging nature) 'which has an intelligence and action that responds to creation' (aspects changing).

 

So, I can't just give you a yes or no. If I say yes, that means "eternal" is up for grabs, which it isn't when we're discussing the idea of God. If I say no, that means the Creator can't create or really do anything...both answers would negate the very idea and definition of a Creator God.

 

Is it possible for something to be eternal and changing at the same time? Well, even if God doesn't exist, we have to come to terms with why and how this apparent world manifests. If there is infinite cause and effect, then we must say that all of this is eternal (there was literally no beginning if this is the case)...and it's very apparent that it changes, since appearances change. So yes, it's possible for "something" to be eternal and changing both at the same time.

[RongzomFan]

So, I can't just give you a yes or no.

 

 

So then you are just wasting my time.

[Aetherous]

His premise is no more true or false then the scenario you are claiming.

 

Truth depends on making sound arguments. I showed how his premise was false.

 

Show how any premise in my scenario is false, and then my scenario will be no more true or false than his false premise/argument.

 

This is logic at work. Not that I'm good at it, but I suggest we all learn how to use it to avoid making meaningless statements such as "argument A is no more true or false than argument B" which isn't based on any reasoning. Just saying it doesn't make it accurate!

[RongzomFan]

Truth depends on making sound arguments. I showed how his premise was false.

 

Show how any premise in my scenario is false, and then my scenario will be no more true or false than his false premise/argument.

 

This is logic at work. Not that I'm good at it, but I suggest we all learn how to use it to avoid making meaningless statements such as "argument A is no more true or false than argument B" which isn't based on any reasoning. Just saying it doesn't make it accurate!

 

Your premises are false. Why don't you answer the question?

[RongzomFan]

Fine. So do you admit your Creator is changing?

 

Yes or no.

 

bump for a response

[Aetherous]

Your premises are false. Why don't you answer the question?

 

What premises of mine? How are they false? Just saying it doesn't make it so...prove it. Please use some form of reasoning, not just statements of opinion.

 

I answered the question fully...I went beyond simple yes or no, and sort of did answer that it was both yes and no.

[dawei]

I suggest we all learn how to use it to avoid making meaningless statements such as "argument A is no more true or false than argument B" which isn't based on any reasoning. Just saying it doesn't make it accurate!

 

But that is what you did...

 

"However, I don't think his argument was sound (meaning that the conclusion is not true), since it wasn't based on true premises."

 

It doesn't matter that you gave your idea of how his idea is not true... it is in the end, simply A vs B scenarios, both of which are current thoughts on this topic.

 

I think you were moving in the right direction but veered off about the creator creating the creation which in turn changes the creator... this is somehow a more 'true premise' ? I am simply saying I don't think so... it is simply your argument B.

[RongzomFan]

 

What premises of mine? How are they false? Just saying it doesn't make it so...prove it. Please use some form of reasoning, not just statements of opinion.

 

I answered the question fully...I went beyond simple yes or no, and sort of did answer that it was both yes and no.

 

What caused your uncaused Creator to cause?

[dawei]

Intiating causes requires change i.e. cause and effect.

 

I don't recall if you've dealt with the absence of a first cause/move[r]...

 

The infinite regression starts how, in your model?

[RongzomFan]

The infinite regression starts how, in your model?

 

If the Big Bang has a cause, then something has to have caused that cause, which in turn has a cause, which in turn has a cause, which in turn has a cause, which in turn has a cause etc.

 

There is no place for a Creator in an infinite chain of regression of cause and effect.

 

If the Big Bang has no cause, there is no Creator.

[dawei]

If the Big Bang has a cause, then something has to have caused that cause, which in turn has a cause, which in turn has a cause, which in turn has a cause, which in turn has a cause etc.

 

There is no place for a Creator in an infinite chain of regression of cause and effect.

 

If the Big Bang has no cause, there is no Creator.

 

I didn't ask about a Creator.

 

I asked how did your model start?

[RongzomFan]

What caused your uncaused Creator to cause?

 

bump for turtle shell.

[RongzomFan]

I didn't ask about a Creator.

 

I asked how did your model start?

 

There are no beginnings. Its an infinite regression.

[Aetherous]

But that is what you did...

 

"However, I don't think his argument was sound (meaning that the conclusion is not true), since it wasn't based on true premises."

 

It doesn't matter that you gave your idea of how his idea is not true... it is in the end, simply A vs B scenarios, both of which are current thoughts on this topic.

 

I think you were moving in the right direction but veered off about the creator creating the creation which in turn changes the creator... this is somehow a more 'true premise' ? I am simply saying I don't think so... it is simply your argument B.

 

It does matter. Not all opinions are equally valid in the realm of logical analysis.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

[RongzomFan]

It does matter. Not all opinions are equally valid in the realm of logical analysis.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

 

Your opinions are not logical at all.

 

What caused the uncaused Creator to cause?

[Aetherous]

What caused your uncaused Creator to cause?

 

It's just as understandable as what caused infinite cause and effect. There is no absolute beginning, either way. Creator or not. With the Creator scenario, nothing would have caused the uncaused Creator to cause...it would have always been its nature.

 

[Aetherous]

Your opinions are not logical at all.

 

I don't think I've been giving any opinions, only showing how your premises were false through examples.

[dawei]

It does matter. Not all opinions are equally valid in the realm of logical analysis.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

 

I only know that it appears that it matters to you that his premise is wrong and yours is right... and he holds the same thought in reverse.

 

You guys can try to convince the other as you want.

[RongzomFan]

I don't think I've been giving any opinions, only showing how your premises were false through examples.

 

[Stosh]

My Creator?I said previously that a definition could be 'an eternal being' (unchanging nature) 'which has an intelligence and action that responds to creation' (aspects changing).So, I can't just give you a yes or no. If I say yes, that means "eternal" is up for grabs, which it isn't when we're discussing the idea of God. If I say no, that means the Creator can't create or really do anything...both answers would negate the very idea and definition of a Creator God.Is it possible for something to be eternal and changing at the same time? Well, even if God doesn't exist, we have to come to terms with why and how this apparent world manifests. If there is infinite cause and effect, then we must say that all of this is eternal (there was literally no beginning if this is the case)...and it's very apparent that it changes, since appearances change. So yes, it's possible for "something" to be eternal and changing both at the same time.

could you describe the interaction of a creator with an object for me? The idea that the universe changes is an illusion which comes about because the physical objects move around in it. If the mass energy content remains the same..then all that exists now always did. The laws of physics are constant everytime you unsupport an object it always falls.. what room is there for an influence made by an uncaused causer ...once the planets were set rolling?

[RongzomFan]

Turtle Shell,

 

You central false premise is that your uncaused Creator changes, and something must cause than change.