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 )