XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.fan.michael-moore, alt.politics.liberalism   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: gn779631@cox.net   
      
   On 7/15/2010 4:49 PM, 5594 Dead, 727 since 1/20/098 wrote:   
   > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:28:10 -0400, Lefty  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 7/15/2010 11:03 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the   
   >> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:   
   >>> OK, this is THE ULTIMATE QUESTION we must ask God:   
   >>>   
   >>> "DO YOU HAVE A CREATOR?"   
   >>>   
   >>> If he answers "no," he's an atheist. If he answers "yes," he's not the   
   >>> Almighty God.   
   >>   
   >> That doesn't logically follow.   
   >>>   
   >>> If everything needs a creator, so does God.   
   >>   
   >> I see. So you're making up new arguments to prove yours.   
   >   
   > One of the oldest arguments in the book.  If God is eternal and   
   > created the Universe, you have to ask what he was doing before he   
   > created it, and why he created it.  If there was nothing prior to the   
   > universe, why would there be an omnipotent god in the middle of all   
   > that nothingness and what was the point of his existence?   
      
   Unfortunately, the presumption is that what we experience in our   
   existence is the sum total of all knowledge available in the universe.   
      
   The phrase is, "I don't know." It also assumes that; time is and was   
   finite, and that it exists in the first place; that the universe is   
   infinite and includes all existence; and that there is only one   
   definition of God that is acceptable.   
      
   No one knows.   
      
   >>   
   >> No one set as a condition that everything needed a creator. You and I   
   >> were "created" when our parents had sex and sperm and egg did their   
   >> thing. But it's entirely possible a being started the process off.   
   >>   
   > The "billiard shot" theory.  So you have a god who has spent eternity   
   > in nothingness.  What would motivate him to create a universe?   
      
   How would anyone know that? I can't understand the motivation of someone   
   who walks into a Starbucks for regular coffee when there's a McDonald's   
   across the street. God could be an authoritarian right winger who just   
   wants to control everything. And again not every religion suggests there   
   was nothingness prior to his creating the universe.   
   >   
   >>> If you propose the argument that everything which exists needs a   
   >>> creator, you have to accept the implications. That means if God   
   >>> exists, he must have had a creator. And because God's creator exists,   
   >>> he must have had a creator too - and so on and so on to an infinity of   
   >>> creators.   
   >>   
   >> I'm an atheist, and even I don't follow this silliness. If the   
   >> definition of God is the creator of everything in existence that we are   
   >> aware of, why does the possibility that he was created change that   
   >> definition?   
   >   
   > That the problem with the causal fallacy.  Saying "gawd done it" is   
   > just drawing a line and saying, "it all started here".  Except, of   
   > course, by saying God caused it, you've already established there was   
   > a "before" the "start of everything".  And, by the same logic,   
   > something must have caused the "before".   
      
   I've always been puzzled why people are so preoccupied with where we   
   came from, how we got here and where we'll go when we're finished. I   
   happen to think I got here because my parents had sex, I'm here because   
   they didn't abort me and when I'm gone I'll be cremated and my ashes   
   blown down Michigan Avenue for a few seconds. But really, I don't care.   
   I'm here. That's what matters.   
      
   >>   
   >> Whether or not God exists is not actually knowable. But trying to   
   >> logically prove or disprove his existence logically requires a singular   
   >> definition of God, which you don't have.   
   >   
   > He isn't arguing the existence of gods; he's questioning the validity   
   > of the creation arguments.   
      
   There are no creation arguments to be made. The creation stories are all   
   silly fables not meant to be taken literally. Unless someone can come   
   forward who was there at the beginning all speculation about how we came   
   into being is just that. But the argument he made about the creation is   
   based on solely upon the knowledge that we possess and discounts the   
   possibility that perhaps a "god" did create us, but he himself was not   
   created but in fact always existed. The fact that we can't conceive of   
   such a thing does not make it impossible.   
      
   The concept here is "I don't know." I am an atheist primarily because   
   I'm a skeptic. I don't believe much simply because someone tells me to   
   believe it. God may exist, but without evidence I have no plans to   
   simply take someone's word for it.   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> (link above)   
   >>>   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)