I Am Creation (Creator, evolution, God, verse)

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by camanintx

The question was who designed God, not who made God, and it was in response to Frank's statement that "someone designed everything". I am not defining God so much as asking if Frank resorts to the same special pleading all theists must. If you are going to claim that God does not require a designer or a creator, then you cannot argue that the universe requires such.

Reminds me of a line from "Get Smart": "Not Craw, CRAW!"

What part of "eternal" don't you understand? By requiring God to have a creator, you're redefining him by making him less than eternal. Logically, while every effect has a cause, it does not necessarily follow that every cause is an effect. So, yes, one can logically argue that God does not require a designer. (Dawkins uses the same argument as you, which goes to show that while he may be a good biologist, he'd drown in a saucer of water.)

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Logically, while every effect has a cause, it does not necessarily follow that every cause is an effect. So, yes, one can logically argue that God does not require a designer.

You do realize we both agree that Frank's statement "someone designed everything" is false?

Now maybe you can explain why the same eternity argument could not be applied to matter and/or energy just as easily as God.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by stephenw

It's not that it's difficult, I can see nature and when I look at nature I see God.
What is difficult for me to imagine is nature without God, or put another way, nature as a random by-product of aimless chance.

I think the idea that nature could have taken many different forms but happened to take one that is conducive to life and intelligence is just that much more amazing because no one had to force it to be that way.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by camanintx

You do realize we both agree that Frank's statement "someone designed everything" is false?

The "someone" is not contingent or a "thing."

Now maybe you can explain why the same eternity argument could not be applied to matter and/or energy just as easily as God.

Viewed as a non-spiritual phenomenon, God is energy. Logically, can we, having consciousness, mind, and ideal-values, possess more and therefore be more than All-That-Is?

But all this is neither here nor there. Religion is about relationship; not beliefs.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Logically, can we, having consciousness, mind, and ideal-values, possess more and therefore be more than All-That-Is?

Sounds nice, but before I can answer I would have to know what you mean by consciousness, mind, ideal-values and All-That-Is. These are subject to such a broad range of interpretations that your statement could be either really insightful or meaningless drivel.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

What part of "eternal" don't you understand?

um, speaking for myself - the "eternal" part.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Viewed as a non-spiritual phenomenon, God is energy. Logically, can we, having consciousness, mind, and ideal-values, possess more and therefore be more than All-That-Is?

We are neither more nor lesser than All-That-Is; we are a part of All-That-Is.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

We are neither more nor lesser than All-That-Is; we are a part of All-That-Is.

Kinda my point. Atheistic naturalism, on the other hand, says more comes from less.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Atheistic naturalism, on the other hand, says more comes from less.

Not necessarily.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I don't understand why it is easy to accept biological evolution (I have no problem with it) and so difficult to accept the evolution of ideas.

I have no problem with ideas evolving, it strikes me as likely. Thank you again for your patience.