Uncreated Creator Argument

This is what many Theists use to prove "God" and no matter what you say, they always refer back to this...

quote:

---

Nothing in nature happens all by itself, not the big bang, nor a singularity, nor any supposed cycles of the universe, nor any proposed multiple dimensions. Therefore, there is only one possibility available for the cause of our existence and the universe which is the uncreated creator did it.
There cannot be an eternity of the past either of gods creating gods in the supernatural realm because we would have been derived from that past and would not still be sinning by now due to the exponential progression of conscience. Therefore, know that God did it! He is uncaused and has always existed.

---

Is this a valid argument or is it just circlular resoning?Edited by DD2014, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This argument is not circular; it is self-contradictory. It starts with a premise: that nothing exists that is not caused. From this, it somehow reaches a conclusion: that there is at least one thing that exists but is not caused (which, for some undisclosed reason, it refers to as god) and then goes on to ascribe to this one or more uncaused things a great number of attributes that are pure invention.To put this in more formal logical terms; Premise: The set of uncaused entities is empty (has no members); Conclusion: The set of uncaused entities has at least one member. This stream of logic is very common and popular (and generally considered valid) within that branch of logic that has been named Theology.

So there is no limit to what someone could claim exists, baced on that logic? Edited by DD2014, : No reason given.

As long as it contradicts no know evidence no

Hi, DD2014. Welcome to EvC!As AiG explained, God being uncreated violates the assumed "rule" that everything must have been created.Once you provide an exception to a rule, you can no longer use the rule as a stand-alone argument. For examples, one could argue that "all crows are black." However, if you ever see an albino crow, you can't simply amend the argument to say, "all crows except this one are black": rather, you must acknowledge that there could potentially be many albino crows.So, since God is an exception to the "all things must have been created" rule, He is a proverbial albino crow. Thus, the rule must accept that albino crows exist. Until it can be determined what it is that makes God an "albino crow," we cannot be certain that God is the only albino crow in existence. In fact, until we know what makes God an albino crow, we must accept the possibility that literally anything else might also be an albino crow.So, it isn't about what people might claim exists: it's about what someone might claim exists without having been created. I could say that walruses exist without having been created, and I would have just as much logical support for my argument as creationist have for theirs.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Thanks Bluejay,I understand that a lot better with that analogy.The only problem is many people that use the uncreated creater arrgument claim to know "what makes God an albino crow" and circle back to "The uncaused uncreated creator is the only possability givin 'he' or 'it' created everything" it makes no sense to me personally, I don't know if it is because I am a realist, they are just stupid, or some other reason not known to me?

It's extremely difficult for people to see past their own bias. People can hold completely contradictory opinions simultaneously and not even realize it.In this case, your confusion is caused by your observation that the "uncaused cause" argument relies on special pleading. Those who actually make that argument do not (and to a degree cannot) see how special pleading is invoked.Positing that therefore while simultaneously positing that is the very definition of special pleading. Most theists simply refuse to see it as such, or rationalize it away by saying "God is special."

​

It never occurs to them that their definition of God as a "special case" is completely arbitrary, and could just as easily be applied to the universe itself for a more parsimonious worldview.

Ah yes special pleading. Our old friend returns.Of course the usual response to "obviously" refute the inherent contradiction of the uncreated creator is to invoke the concept of eternity and externality to time as we know it. As above.But even I who agree with you must agree that as a form of self rationalisation the claim that gods are eternal and not subject to time and have therefore always existed is marginally superior at least superficially to just saying "Everything must be created except my god".Although I agree it amounts to the same thing in the end the argument to get there is necesarily more complex. In the context of this thread I will pre-empt the theists by throwing it into the ring before they do. But Rahvin nothing is eternal!Except God Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But Rahvin nothing is eternal!

​

Except God

---

And the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

Ahhh DD - You have obviously not taken into account the relevant subjective evidence.But perhaps that is one for another thread.........

I was just joking, but perhaps we can discuss that someother time

My apologies. My comment was something of an "in joke". There has recently been an extended discussion on exactly that topic.I agree with your comparison with the IPU 100%But there are others who do not. On the basis of something called "subjective evidence".See here for further details and feel free to take part in that discussion if you are so inclined. Message 5

Hi, DD2014. You're right, of course.But, when you ask them to provide the explanation, as Straggler said, it ends up being something like, "God is different," which really isn't a claim at all.Consider:I'm an entomologist. Often, to collect flying insects, we hang up a big white sheet at night and shine an ultraviolet light on it. Lots of insects flock to the sheet.If you were to ask an entomologist why the insects come to the sheet, you will probably get a description of the insect optical system, which often contains a visual pigment that is sensitive to UV light.Many people will then go, "Oh, okay: the sheet is reflecting ultraviolet light. Got it!" They will then proceed to tell their friends that UV light is the answer.Clearly, though, the fact that insects can see it does not explain why they are attracted to it. After all, I've seen a lot of things that I am emphatically not attracted to!With God, the concept is the same: creationists say, "The rules are different for God because he exists outside of time." But, how is that any different from saying, "The rules are different for insects because they see different colors from us"?In actuality, nobody knows what makes the rules different for God, nor what the implications of these different rules would be. I personally can't even get the concept of "existence" to make sense to me without chronology, let alone fathom how the rules of such an existence would function. So, claiming that the rules are different does literally and absolutely nothing to explain the phenomenon.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

This argument basically boils down to:The universe was created by god.
God just exists.Take occam's razor and slash away all the unnecessary parts.The universe -| was created by god.
God |- just exists.And voila we have...The universe just exists.