Does the universe need a cause? (Creator, theist, eternal, point of view)

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

That wasn't the question at hand. He is trying to use "natural law" to disprove God and that is illogical. Stay on task!

I think you're getting too stuck on the "natural law" thing. It's not about natural law, or proving or disproving the existance of God.

I'll try to explain it differently...

If we assume from the getgo that it is a law of the universe that everything has to have a cause, then why does it have to stop at God? Why doesn't God have to have a cause as well? If you say that God simply exists and everything after God has to have a cause, then why isn't it just as logical to assume that the universe simply exists?

[Scuba Pete]

Pandamonk...

you said (and I quote)

Originally Posted by pandamonk}[I

So God, in creating the universe, must have adhered to these natural laws. This is the basis for the theists argument.[/i]

but now you are saying you meant something far different. Why bother with this discussion? You post something only to say that's not what you meant? That's sheer lunacy.

Your premise is flawed. God is not bound to your concept of how God should operate. Many theists (possibly most) don't buy into the theory you are assigning to them.

It's simply not my fault that after making these falacious assertions you can't seem to rationalize them.

I have no problem with atheists believing that God did not create the universe. I do have issues with you twisting logic and using circular arguments to further your rather tenuous grasp of illogic. You can't use God or nature to disprove the existence of God.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

If we assume from the getgo that it is a law of the universe that everything has to have a cause,

It was the assumption that is at the root of this. Mr Monk seems to assign this type of belief to all theists. That is an assumption of astronomical proportions and is simply false.

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

I didn't have a problem understanding what you're trying to say. I had a to read it a few times, but I'm slow anyway.

The problem with the "everything needs a cause" argument is that at some point, something just had to exist. If you say "God is the cause", then what caused God? What caused the thing that caused God? And it could go on like that forever and you can never reach the beginning without assuming that something, somewhere along the way, had to just exist.

Yes, i agree. If something has always existed then it does not need a cause. I would say things which weren't caused are time, the universe, nature, and I'm sure there are many many more, i just can't think of them right now. I, obviously, don't believe that everything needs a cause to exist. I just put forth this position, because many theists claim that "everything needs a cause".

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

That wasn't the question at hand. He is trying to use "natural law" to disprove God and that is illogical. Stay on task!

Why is it illogical? What I'm trying to show is that some peoples view that everything needs a cause, if correct, means that even God needs a cause. The only way God could not be bound by this law(if it is true), is if he created it. If God created, or caused, that "law" then there must've been a time where the "law" did not exist, and that at one point everything did not need a cause. If this is true, then the universe could have formed in that time without the need for God. God is not needed to explain the universe and nature. Alternatively if God did not cause that law, then there is something which God is bound by, meaning that he requires a cause. If you believe that i have made a logical fallacy, then please point it out.

[Scuba Pete]

Look at the disconnect here:

Originally Posted by post#44

Yes, i agree. If something has always existed then it does not need a cause.

Herein is an attribute of "God". Not a natural thing.

Originally Posted by post#45

if correct, means that even God needs a cause.

Refer to your logic in the previous quote.

Using natural law to disprove God is supercilious. Theists see God as being "super natural" and you are trying to define him in a natural context.

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Pandamonk...

you said (and I quote)

So God, in creating the universe, must have adhered to these natural laws. This is the basis for the theists argument.

but now you are saying you meant something far different. Why bother with this discussion? You post something only to say that's not what you meant? That's sheer lunacy.

Where did i say that i meant something far different? You have either twisted my word, or not understood what i meant. And if i have said that i "meant something far different", it is because you have been attacking a straw man. I have not atall changed what i meant. If anything, i have merely tried to clear up your misunderstanding or twist of my words.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Your premise is flawed. God is not bound to your concept of how God should operate. Many theists (possibly most) don't buy into the theory you are assigning to them.

It's simply not my fault that after making these falacious assertions you can't seem to rationalize them.

I have no problem with atheists believing that God did not create the universe. I do have issues with you twisting logic and using circular arguments to further your rather tenuous grasp of illogic. You can't use God or nature to disprove the existence of God.

I'm am not really trying to disprove God which this discussion. I'm trying to remove the need for a God, which the theists, who present the argument i have given, think they have shown. I have come across many many theists who have presented the watchmaker argument, and this is the argument i am attacking. If i have made a fallacious assertion, not realized it, and you have told me about it. If i ask how and where it is, is it not decent of you to point it out to me? If you do not, why should i accept that i have?

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

It was the assumption that is at the root of this. Mr Monk seems to assign this type of belief to all theists. That is an assumption of astronomical proportions and is simply false.

I have nowhere tried to assign this type of belief to all theists. What i have does is say, "the theist" implying, any theist who presents the watchmaker, or any other of this sort, argument. I have made this clear on many occasions!

Mr. Monk , lol, i like it.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by pandamonk

If you do not, why should i accept that i have?

I have done so many times and yet you miss it. Sorry to have wasted your time. I guess you will continue to ascribe beliefs to most theists that they simply do not hold to.

[pandamonk]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Look at the disconnect here:

"Yes, i agree. If something has always existed then it does not need a cause. "

Herein is an attribute of "God". Not a natural thing.

"if correct, means that even God needs a cause. "

Refer to your logic in the previous quote.

Using natural law to disprove God is supercilious. Theists see God as being "super natural" and you