If the assumption that the creator could exist without a creator...

First 61 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
whereu

27,104 Posts.

3

29/04/17

22:20

Post #: 24359529
Share

Originally posted by DBT9 ↑

''No, again that is imposing the attributes, rules and limitations of creation, on the Creator and limiting what He can or cannot be.''

Except it doesn't have anything to do with a Creator, which is an unknown entity (to make a positive claim of knowledge in relation to an unknown entity is merely an assertion).

This problem in logic is related to the given terms and conditions made by the claimant; complex things must have a creator. If it is claimed that universe, life, etc, could not form or exist because such complexity can only be created, the logic must necessarily apply to all complex entities, including a creator. To claim exemption for the so called solution to complexity, the creator, by the rules of logic, is begging the question.

So, on the contrary, to say that all complex entities, the universe, life, species, etc, must have a creator but the creator is eternal is imposing your own rules of logic in a flawed attempt at establishing a case for the existence of a creator.

Expand

If the assumption that the creator could exist without a creator is used then why restrict this to the creator? The same logic says that creation could just as well exists without a creator. It seems to me that those who assume that the creator does not need a creator, but creation does are the ones who are "imposing the attributes, rules and limitations of creation".

So, I agree with your analysis.
Upvote

Reply