2 Arguments against God

[anontheist]

First of all, I do not intend to offend anyone. But I have been asked why I do not believe in God. So, here are a couple of arguments. Good or bad, you decide.

I am sure, if you are a Christian, that these arguments will do nothing to change your mind about the existence of God. They did not change mine.

I had two things that made these arguments ineffective. One, my salvation experience and two, God’s word. So, no matter what arguments were raised, I was still secure with my belief.

First, the Bible as “God’s word” had to be put into question. This was done over a matter of several years in college. Then, the fact that other religions had similar experiences which justified their belief, led me to question my experience. Studying Philosophy started me on the path to questioning the existence of God. It tends to do that.

So, here are a couple of philosophical questions.

Question 1

I believe that the concept “God” is simply a human creation. But for the sake of argument, let us assume God exists. Will this idea lead to anything absurd?

It just seems to me that either God is not what one thinks he is or he does not exist.

It has been suggested by a few Christians (at least in some of the Christian writings that I have read) that God is perfect. That is just one of God’s attributes; perfection. But, what would this mean?

What does it mean to be perfect?

If there was a perfect being, what would be the point of doing anything? What would be the motivation?

If one was perfect, one would have no needs, no wants, no desires, for there would be nothing you would need or want. For, if there was something you would want or need, you would not be perfect.

It has been suggested God being perfect, is full of love, and wants to share this love with others.

Why?

Where does this “want” come from?

Why would you want something, (to share your love) unless you need something, (to be loved back). Perhaps you want someone to respond to your love. But why do you need a response? I mean, if you are prefect, why would you care if someone loved you or not? What would be the point?

It would seem odd, that a god would decide to create something merely to demonstrate its love. What would be the purpose? If one is perfect there is no need to share anything. And if one was perfect no response would be necessary.

With this in mind, let us consider an argument.

Argument 1

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

(Otherwise, he would not be perfect.)

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

(Unless one can suggest that this was done without a motive or some desire.)

5. Hence, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or God is not perfect.

#4, It has been suggest that the reason the universe exists, is God created it. But the question still remains, why? What was the motive? To offer God as a reason for the existence of the universe is not an explanation, if you cannot answer the question, why did God create the universe? To suggest “God” only answers the question; How? not Why?

But, to answer the question ”why?” would suggest a motive. But any motive to do anything would suggest some desire. If there is some desire, this would suggest something wanted. Does it make sense to suggest that a perfect being can want something? Not if he is to remain perfect.

So, God can do whatever he wants. He just cannot be “perfect” in doing so.

Perhaps a better question would be, How can a being be perfect and do anything?

Question 2

Now, a perfect being would not need to change. Because it is perfect. Change would mean something is not perfect, or less than perfect and some adjustment is necessary.

It has been said that God is unchanging. And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief. So, one of the attributes of God is immutability. God is unchanging.

If something is perfect, then there is no need to change.

With this in mind, let us consider another idea.

Argument 2

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.

(Because, that would be a change.)

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Or perhaps God changes.

There are a couple of issues to deal with.

#3, it has been suggested that God is outside of time, so one cannot suggest that there is such a thing as time when talking about God.

But we are talking about a sequence of events, not time, as such, that is part of the universe . And one cannot escape the sequence without running into other problems.

If it is suggested that God is “outside” of time and that his “intention” cannot have happened in what we would call a sequence. What this would suggest is that God both intended and did not intend. (Since time is not a part of God’s existence). But this leads to a contradiction. So, does the concept of God still exist?

Of course prior to the existence of the universe God had not willed the universe into existence, so there was a change from God not having yet willed the universe into existence to doing so.

There was a point that the universe came into existence (if you wish to say that God did it). Since it has been suggested that God created the universe, and you suggest that the universe is not eternal, there has to be some point that the universe came into existence. At that point, God “willed” (or whatever) the universe into existence. But at some point it was over. The universe exists. So, there is no longer the need to “will” anything. So, there was a change. God willed the universe into existence, when it was done, he stopped, He changed.

#4, Now, did God intend to create the universe?

When he created the universe, did he still intent to create it?

This last question does not seem to make much sense.

So, either God changed because his intentions changed, which means God is not immutable, or God does not exist.

One can suggest that God cannot change. But then how do you explain the change from nonexistence to existence of the universe? If God, “did it” then God changed. Even if it was just his intention or will that changed.

I would tend to think that if one was rational, one would either have to change one’s belief about the attributes of God, or consider the possibility that such a thing as a God, does not exist.

You will find these and other arguments in a somewhat new book, The Impossibility of God. Edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. By Prometheus Books.

So, did I change anyone's mind?

anon

[/b]

[Abulafia]

My first post here, so go easy
Thanks to anontheist for posting a rigorous version of each argument.

Some of this may be simply clumsy restatement of points made by others, but I thought I'd add the formal structure.

Here's my .02.


<.02>

There were several parenthetical comments made which are in themselves either premises or arguments and thus should be included.

Argument 1
P1: Any act of creation must stem from a motive or desire
P2: If there is a motive or desire, there is a need or want
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Hence, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

P1 can be debated. Of first importance is determining whether by "Any act of creation" we mean truly ANY act covered by the english word "creation", or whether we mean specifically the type of creation implied by "BRA" (The hebrew word used when discussing divine acts of creation, used in Genesis 1:1, Is 43:1, Ps 51:12): either a creating out of nothing, or an emenation out of one's own being.

Counterarguments to P1 using the wider form of creation are easy: When sedimentary rock is placed under great pressure metamorphic rock is created. No motive or desire necessary.

If we limit ourselves to "BRA", one can argue that no motive or desire is necessary. I'll leave P1 for now, as it's not the weakest point in the argument.

I would suggest we amend P2, 3, 4 to deal with wants, not needs (as motive or desire need not deal with want).

I think some of the problems in interpreting this argument come from applying semantics appropriate for human action/motivation/desire to God . The term "want" when applied to a human involves uncertainty. I want to have a good dinner, but it's impossible for me to know with certainty that this will happen. Were I to know with certainty that I would have a good dinner, would it be something I would still want?

Yes, in the sense that it would be something which I would consider good. (pass the Soy Sauce)

No, in the sense that I would not have the attendant emotions that go along with uncertainty including fear of what will occur if my want is not met and the stress involved in determining the best action to maximize the chance of my want being met.

I recognize this as an overly hasty characterization of the difference between omniscient-want and human-want, yet I think it serves to show that the want referred to in premise 3 isn't the human-want, but the omniscient-want.

Omnipotence plays perhaps a more important role:

For a human, not only is their uncertainty but there is a limited capacity to bring a want to pass. I may want to sprout wings and fly, but it will never happen.

For an Omnipotent being, if one wants something one can assent to it, and it is so.

With this distinction made, the phrase "needs or wants" is stripped of it's standard human connotations. As ST88 points out, there doesn't seem to be anything inherently contradictory in a perfect want. (which isn't to say that a perfect want is necessarily logically consistent, just that this is a point to argue, not one where inconsistency can be presumed).


Premise 2 needs refinement. As it stands it's false

A pantheist might think that god IS the universe, hence no need for God to create the universe.

One could also posit an everlasting universe which needed no creation. No need for God to create it then.

The rest of the argument becomes invalid if P1, P2 or 2 are invalidated.

It's of course interesting to note that premise 5 fits with the Gnostic gospels, whose followers believed that the creator of the universe was NOT the true God, but a lesser being/reflection of the true God.

</.02>

[Abulafia]

Argument two is interesting!

To restate:

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at another time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at another time, (after the creation), no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).


I think the easiest solution to the problems it raises is indexing.

Indexing is used by philosophers such as David Lewis to deal with similar temporal and multi-world problems.

We are looking at God's intentions across time, and the problem supposedly comes from the following:

At T1 (before the universe is created) God intends: C
At T3 (after the creation of the universe) God does not intend: C

Where C is "to create the universe"

Thus, we get C and Not C, giving a contradiction.

With indexing instead we get:

God intends C1
Where C1 is "To create the universe at T2 (the moment of the universe's creation)".

By indexing the intention to a given time, we eliminate the contradiction.

While folks like David Lewis apply indexicality even to such concepts as "Reality" (claiming it to be an indexical word referring to the possible world the speaker resides in), using it to resolve problems such as the argument discussed above is by no means radical.

[anontheist]

I said, concerning God’s unchanging nature, “And I have even seen some references to scripture to support this belief.” I did not say this correctly. I should have said, I have read other Christians who have made references to scripture in support of this idea; God being unchanging.

But, here are a couple of Bible references to consider. This is, of course, not exhaustive.

(NRSV)

Numbers 23:19, “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

1 Samuel 15:29, “Moreover the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind.”

Psalm 102:26+27, They with perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like clothing, and they pass away; but you are the same, and your years have no end.”

Malachi 3:6, “For I the LORD do not change therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished.”

2 Timothy 2:13, “If we are faithless, he remains faithful - for he cannot deny himself.”

James 1:17, “Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation of shadow due to change.”

Emphasis mine.

(See also Ezekiel 24:14)

Again, if you have problems with these verses, the problem is not with me, but with those Christians that believe these verses imply God is unchanging.

anon

[agnostic_pilgrim]

I would think any desire God would have would be altruistic. We often talk about the inability to have perfect charity, because there is always a good feeling associated with donating to charity or doing charitable work, a feeling which is necessarily sefish. But these are the feelings and thoughts of Man.

Similary, we find in the Bible, numerous instances of God being "pleased" with something or having found something "good" (with the implication of being pleasing). But can this be said to be the same psychological pleasure as that of Man? I submit that God does not have a psychology. All attempts to put one on him are futile.

Desire and want, as we see it, is based on the thing that is missing -- we want something because we don't yet have it. It is very difficult to imagine this kind of desire, or, say, a desire for aesthetics, as being unselfish. But isn't this the point? That we have difficulty imagining a nature of God without such venal sins as pride and greed is why we would need constant counsel and reminder.

I see now. The argument that anontheist had presented suffers from the problem of presupposing that God’s attributes is the same with that of humans. Indeed this is begging the question. But saying that God’s attributes is not the same with that of humans thus they cannot be compared (which seems to be what you are saying) is also an a priori. By saying the former or the latter is how we should rightly view God’s properties implies that the claimant knows something about God – his nature and attributes. The thing is we humans simply do not know anything about the nature or attributes of this God, much more, he/she/it/their existence.

Whether or not God’s attribute is the same and operates the same way as that of human beings or whether god has a psychology or does not is the question. Perhaps it works the same, way perhaps it does not. Or perhaps a combination of the two or perhaps neither. Or perhaps the question itself is meaningless since such a being is non-existent after all. Or perhaps we’ll never know.

Again, I think this is ascribing human attributesto God. We change our environment because we think we can make it better for our own situation. But God doesn't need a change in his situation, so we must ascribe this desire to something else, something more divine.

As stated above, you seem to have the preconceived notion that God attributes works differently than that of humans. This is simply assuming what one wishes to prove. Of course those who say that God’s workings can be compared to the inner workings of the nature of man are also guilty of the same crime.

About defining the term perfect: As you may have guessed, I think we have an unnnecessarily anthropomorphic view of God and the mind of God. Even if you accept that there is a God, you must accept that the mind of God is unknowable.

Perhaps god’s mind is unknowable. Perhaps it is knowable. Or perhaps some parts of this god’s mind are knowable and some parts are not. The statement “the mind of god is unknowable” is a presupposition and thus begs the question.

It therefore follows that God does not have the same type of thought patterns and processes that Man does, because then we would be able to know.

I agree with you if indeed the mind of god is unknowable.

Man is made in God's image, in Genesis. But this doesn't mean Man is a clone of God. I think we need to accept that this philosophical notion of God does not conform to our ideas of ethics or morality.

So what you believe concerning the nature and attributes of god (his attributes operating differently with humans, his mind being unknowable, etc.) are based on the Bible?

Immutability of God:
Quote:
Psalm 102:25-26
Of old Thou didst found the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands.
Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment;
Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed.
But thou are the same, and Thy years will not come to an end.

This states the unchanging nature of God applies to death -- i.e., God is unchanging because he does not grow old and die the way we do.

Agreed. I see no problem here.

Quote:
Malachi 3:7
For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

This seems to say that because God will never stop being God, the nation of Israel will never cease to exist. This also refers to immortality being the basis of God's immutability.

Concerning the statement “God will never stop being God”, if He is immortal then He indeed will never stop being one. But I don’t see that God’s immortality alone can be a basis that the nation of Israel will never cease to exist. He might change his mind and abandon them thus even if he remains immortal the Israel could be annihilated since they do not have his protection without his protection (If for example there is a global conspiracy to exterminate every trace of Israelites).

Quote:
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

This is Balaam's response to Balak when asked to curse the Israelites. God has already blessed them and will not go back on his blessing. This represents the unchanging nature of God's edicts. All His blessings will always be blessings, all His commandments will always be commandments, etc.

Looking at the New Testament, Most of Yahweh’s earlier commands are no longer commands that we should adhere to. Even if we disregard that, this only speaks of the nature of God’s edicts not the nature of God himself.

God Changes His Mind:
Quote:
2 Kings 20:5
"I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you."

God tells Hezekiah (through Isaiah) that He has changed His mind about killing him off because he has repented.

And, of course, there is the grief of God in Genesis 6:5-7 where he laments that His creation, man, has done so much wickedness.

From these (& others), I get the impression that God sometimes changes course because of the actions of men. But this does not mean that his nature changes, only his approach towards His people.

I agree.

As I said in my earlier post, if we are talking about the Judeo-Christian god here, the statement “Immutability only applies to the nature of God” is then to be assumed.

But again, when anontheist posted the “God’s perfection” argument I was thinking, by saying god, he meant any being that we could rightly called God, which is not necessarily the Christian god.

[anontheist]

Abulafia,

One, thank you for posting. Two, I think you have some great points. I am not sure I can answer all of them, but I will do my best with some.

P1 can be debated. Of first importance is determining whether by "Any act of creation" we mean truly ANY act covered by the english word "creation", or whether we mean specifically the type of creation implied by "BRA" (The hebrew word used when discussing divine acts of creation, used in Genesis 1:1, Is 43:1, Ps 51:12): either a creating out of nothing, or an emanation out of one's own being.

Forgive me but I am not sure I understand, can you explain what difference it would make which kind of creation we are talking about?

Either God created or he didn't. I do not know that it would matter what he created, if he did.

If he created something the question is , why? What was the motive?

Counter-arguments to P1 using the wider form of creation are easy: When sedimentary rock is placed under great pressure metamorphic rock is created. No motive or desire necessary.

Oh! I see P1 is out of context. P1 should read something like any act of creation (by a person or being) must stem from a motive or desire.

With this distinction made, the phrase "needs or wants" is stripped of it's standard human connotations. As ST88 points out, there doesn't seem to be anything inherently contradictory in a perfect want. (which isn't to say that a perfect want is necessarily logically consistent, just that this is a point to argue, not one where inconsistency can be presumed).

I think the issue is, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect in all aspects of existence, (if God exits).

Your "being" is perfect. Your mind is perfect. Your emotions are perfect. Your joy is perfect, your love is perfect. etc. etc. What would be the motive to do anything?

A pantheist might think that god IS the universe, hence no need for God to create the universe.

Please keep in mind the context or perhaps I was not clear. We are on a Christian discussion board. I am discussing the Judeo-Christian (and perhaps) Islamic concept of God. I used Prof. Geisler's definition.

”The third argument for God’s unchangeability argues from his absolute perfection. Whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since he could not be better or more complete. Therefore, God cannot change. If he did, he would not be god for he would have lacked some perfection.“

.

One could also posit an everlasting universe which needed no creation. No need for God to create it then.

Which is what I believe.

anon

[anontheist]

Abulafia,

At T1 (before the universe is created) God intends: C
At T3 (after the creation of the universe) God does not intend: C

Where C is "to create the universe"

Thus, we get C and Not C, giving a contradiction.

I disagree, we have "I" and "not I". C is not affected.

I being "intentions."

The creation of the universe, in this argument, is a given. What is at issue is God's intentions.

Either God intended or he did not intended.

At T1 God intended and at T2, God no longer had such intentions.

My understanding is that an "Indexical" is an expression whose reference on an occasion is dependent upon the context: either who utters it, or when or where it is uttered, or what object is pointed out at the time, of its utterance. Russell preferred "ego-centric particular" I think.

So, given the context, what would this mean?

I do not think this changes the thrust of the argument, nor weakens it in any way.

anon

[Abulafia]

Forgive me but I am not sure I understand, can you explain what difference it would make which kind of creation we are talking about?

Either God created or he didn't. I do not know that it would matter what he created, if he did.

If he created something the question is , why? What was the motive?

This was mainly a pedantic point on my part, but I think it's always good to tighten up an argument as much as possible.

Surely any act of creation needn't be motivated by a desire. (I give the example of geological processes as creation without a motivated agent in my original post).

Likewise, an act of creation may come from a sentient agent and still not be the end-goal of a line of motivation: I can create caramel by dropping sugar on the stove... it wasn't the direct product of a motivation, merely a side-effect.... perhaps I was sleep-walking... there may not be any motivation at all.

It's important to distinguish what kind of creation we're talking about, and what we mean by it must stem from a motive or desire in order to maximize the proposition's robustness, and minimize the potential for counterexamples (yes, I'm aware that's a redundant statement, and also that it's overly repetitive ).

Oh! I see P1 is out of context. P1 should read something like any act of creation (by a person or being) must stem from a motive or desire.

Again, the sleepwalking caramel-maker example above might be a counterexample to this definition.

I think P1 can be strengthened to a point of workability. It's just important to see that a lot of the human connotations usually involved in "create" or "motive" or "desire" won't necessarily apply.

I think the issue is, what does it mean to be perfect?

Your "being" is perfect. Your mind is perfect. Your emotions are perfect. Your joy is perfect, your love is perfect. etc. etc. What would be the motive to do anything?

Perfect is such an incredibly tricky word. It's one of those words that gives semanticists the shudders... it's so totally subjective when used as a general word.... I tend to agree with Korzybski (the pioneer of general semantics), that words of this sort have no meaning in themselves: they have to be applied to something in order to gain meaning.

You say that if your "being" is perfect, your mind is perfect, your love is perfect, etc.... .must one have emotions to be perfect? Must one have a mind? Anything which we put on the list of necessary perfections to be worthy of the general term "perfect" must be subjective... that makes trying to define a being solely in terms of general terms and our subjective definitions for those terms a very tricky thing.

To be perfect in all aspects of existence, (if God exists).

Ah... here we're treading perilously close to Anselm's attempted proof of god. Roughly: Since God is by definition perfect, and since existence is necessarily more perfect than non-existence, God must by definition exist, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the Perfect being....

It's an argument that doesn't work, but can sometimes seem compelling to the human mind, in large part I think because of the way we deal with language and meaning.

A pantheist might think that god IS the universe, hence no need for God to create the universe.

Please keep in mind the context or perhaps I was not clear. We are on a Christian discussion board. I am discussing the Judeo-Christian (and perhaps) Islamic concept of God. I used Prof. Geisler's definition.

I think clarity is good. While we are on a Christian discussion board, we're in the Philosophy section, and I think it's very important to state what our assumptions behind any definition we use (particularly around terms like "God") are. There's all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs here, and my presumption was that your original questions were about 2 arguments against "God", not just 2 arguments against a Judeo-Christian god.

Mind you, there are people within the Christian fold (such as Marcus Borg) who take panentheism (if not pantheism) seriously (if I remember correctly).

One could also posit an everlasting universe which needed no creation. No need for God to create it then.

Which is what I believe.

How do you envision the universe in terms of cosmology then? Steady state? Oscillating? Fractally expanding (that's one of my favourites ... they did a neat piece on "fractal inflationary theories" in Scientific American about ten years back).

Not a question relevant to this thread, but I'd love to know!

Cheers (and thanks for the great questions)

[Abulafia]

Abulafia,

At T1 (before the universe is created) God intends: C
At T3 (after the creation of the universe) God does not intend: C

Where C is "to create the universe"

Thus, we get C and Not C, giving a contradiction.

I disagree, we have "I" and "not I". C is not affected.

I being "intentions."

The creation of the universe, in this argument, is a given. What is at issue is God's intentions.

Either God intended or he did not intend.

My mistake: I should have had we get "God Intends C" and "God does not Intend C". I agree that the intentions are the issue, not the creation of the universe, thanks for pointing out the error!

At T1 God intended and at T2, God no longer had such intentions.

I understand what you're saying. What I'm suggesting is that it may be more legitimate to not consider this a change of intentions.

The difference lies in indexing the act of creation to the time. If God is both Omnipotent and Omniscient, to me it seems similar to all of time being laid out before God. While it makes sense to treat any mortal's intentions temporally, it seems viable to suggest that God's intentions should be treated atemporally.

By this I mean instead of God thinking "I'll do this... there that's done (And it's good), now I'll do something else", it would be closer to: "And at T1 I shall do nothing and at T2 I shall create the universe and at T3 I'll appear to Moses". God's intention would be to bring the universe in it's spatio-temporal entirety into being. That intention would not change with time, any more than a sculptor's decision to create a sculpture involves a change of that intention when she stops working on a foot and starts working on the head.

My understanding is that an "Indexical" is an expression whose reference on an occasion is dependent upon the context: either who utters it, or when or where it is uttered, or what object is pointed out at the time, of its utterance. Russell preferred "ego-centric particular" I think.

So, given the context, what would this mean?

I would agree with your description of an indexical, though I would also add that sometimes the way an indexical is treated is by adding the contextual details to the proposition itself (in this case, changing it from being the proposition P being held at T2 where P is "I will now create the universe" to the proposition P being held atemporally where P is "I will at T2 create the universe".

I do not think this changes the thrust of the argument, nor weakens it in any way.
anon

I guess I think it weakens the argument somewhat, as it provides an alternate way of framing the same problem which doesn't yield a contradiction:

At T1 God intends P
At T2 God intends P
At T3 God intends P

where P is "The Universe will be created at T2".

This intention doesn't change.

It's interesting: This argument in many ways parallells McTaggart's arguments regarding "whether anything existent can possess the characteristic of being in time", from his The Nature of Existence (Vol II 303 - 333). My counterargument is certainly influenced by C.D. Broad's response from his Examination of McTaggart's Philosophy, as well as by Lewis' work with Indexicals.

If you're interested, both are available in an AWESOME collection called "Metaphysics: The Big Questions" edited by Peter Van Inwagen and Dean W. Zimmerman.

[otseng]

One could also posit an everlasting universe which needed no creation. No need for God to create it then.

Which is what I believe.

How do you envision the universe in terms of cosmology then? Steady state? Oscillating? Fractally expanding (that's one of my favourites ... they did a neat piece on "fractal inflationary theories" in Scientific American about ten years back).

Not a question relevant to this thread, but I'd love to know!

Definitely create another thread on cosmology and an everlasting universe. I'd be curious to hear this (and the fractally expanding universe also!).

[anontheist]

First of all, I will try to get to all the other objections raised when I have a bit more time. But for now I wish to deal with just one of the many objections raised against the arguments I posted.

I would like to respond to the objection that creation is a temporal concept. The problem is that the definition of 'create' is to "cause to come into being." God cannot cause anything to come into being unless God existed temporally prior to what was created. So, if there is no time prior to the existence of the universe, then it is logically impossible for the universe to have been created. In which case, there could not possible be a creator.

If God does not exist within time, then he could not have been the creator of the universe, because, by the very concept of creation, (if the universe was created at all), then its creator must have existed temporally prior to it.

If God, being timeless, did not exist temporally prior to anything, then God cannot have been the creator of the universe.

anon