Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: the Universe, w/o antecedents
Message-ID: <2163@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 18:35:09 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2163
Posted: Sat Dec 29 18:35:09 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 05:27:03 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 46

From: 				Eliyahu Teitz.
>	If you believe, though, that the universe is timebounded, then 
> where did it come from? If you like the big-bang theory, from where the 
> bang? The theory, as I understand it, assumes gasses floating around 
> that exploded.  Where, pray tell, did these gasses come from? They 
> were "just there". If so why not think that somehow they were put 
> there ( by, you guessed, G-D ).

Why not?  Well, why so?  Personally I liked "The Meaning of Life" by Kurt
Baier, reprinted in E.D. Klemke et. al., eds., *Introductory Readings in the
Philosophy of Science* (except where Baier strays into moral philosohphy).

From: berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger)         michab
> > 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
> > ...
> > 	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.
>...
> 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? 

Well, I recall someone arguing that if G-d is a thinking, conscious person
G-d must be located in time or at least some kind of "meta-time".  I think
I'll let him explain why.

> 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.

The "therefor" is a non sequitur.  What allows you to conclude that us
timed beings were created?  You have not answered the argument you quoted.

				--Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
	(until 1/11, then back to	ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047	)