Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!aecom!berger From: berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: More replies to Ken (and general comments) Message-ID: <1017@aecom.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 16:54:31 EST Article-I.D.: aecom.1017 Posted: Thu Dec 13 16:54:31 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 08:37:54 EST References: <1114@trwrba.UUCP> <> <1905@nsc.UUCP> <397@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <993@aecom.UUCP> <316@pyuxd.UUCP> <1016@aecom.UUCP> Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 48 > > >>>But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This > > >>>could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) [SARGENT] > > > > >>Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created > > >>God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for > > >>whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with > > >>one level of indirection? [ARNOLD] > > > > > this assumes that G-D was created. [TEITZ] > > > > Ah, let's make a little list: > > > > A) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > > a deity, (3) the deity was created by ???, ... > > > > B) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > > a deity, (3) the deity didn't have to have been created > > > > C) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe didn't have to > > have been created by an entity/deity > > > > Since A) results in an endless chain, if B) is considered feasible [God didn't > > have to have been created], then C) is just as feasible [the universe > > didn't have to have been created by God], and much less presumptive. > > You can't have your cake here and eat it too. When one proclaims, > > "How could the universe not have been created? There must have been > > a creator.", then one might have to accept the same possibility about > > the creator (that IT must have had a creator). If you don't accept > > that (God didn't have to have a creator), then, once again, it is > > equally fathomable that the universe didn't have to either. > > > > (By the way, what's this arbitrary demarcation between the universe and god?) Since we know from experience that time does exist in this universe. (At least it did when I got up this morning.) Since time itself is defined by events, and their sequence, by cause and effect, without objects time is a meaningless concept. Assuming that G-d is non-corpreal, it would be similarly meaningless to assume that G-d is subject to the framework of time. Why is it harder to assign timelessness to G-d than spacelessness? Either way, if G-d is bodyless, than there is no objects in His realm to undergo motion and change i.e. events. No events, no time. Without time, there is no before and after, no begining and end. It is meaningless to talk about G-d's begining, His creation if he is in a timeless realm. Therefor us timed beings were created, G-d (assuming He is non-corpreal) was not. Q.E.D. michab