It All Comes Down to Faith

[Riverwolf]

Right, because dictionaries are more concerned with political correctness tha actual meaning.

Which is why dictionaries NEVER include vulgar slang words or words that are used to insult a particular group.

 

[Storm]

Gah. Sorry for all the typos, I'm adjusting to a new keyboard.

 

[Riverwolf]

You're so called knowing only begs the question; who created the creator?

Why does a Creator need a Creator?

 

[dogsgod]

Response: No one.

You just contradicted your notion that all is created.

 

[Storm]

Fortunately the opposite is true.

You realize that acknowledging this undermines your argument, right? Since dictionaries are more concerned with actual meaning than avoiding offense, if your definition of "faith" were valid, it would be in there.

 

[Riverwolf]

You just contradicted your notion that all is created.

The Creator is separate from "all."

 

[MoonWater]

‘Prejudice: any adverse, pre-conceived notion made by those of religious faith against unbelievers.’ Is that the sort of ‘relationship’ you are saying is not to be found among dictionary definitions? The reason you won’t find it is because such a stereotyping definition would itself be a prejudice, and quite untrue. I was referring to a disposition, a pre-conceived partiality that holds dogmatically to particular view as if it were certain. It is found in many ideological beliefs. In this case I’ve identified the prejudiced view in the dogmatic belief that the statement ‘there is no God is false’, which is in essence no different to any other judgement made in advance of knowledge.

not everyone of faith "holds dogmatically to a particular view as if it were certain." I don't and have met numerous other people on and off these forums who don't either. It could be considered prejudiced to believe without doubt that your view is true and others are false and that is certainly a view many people of faith hold; but one is not required to hold that view in order to have faith. Indeed the above I would say is not "faith" but is "blind faith" and there is a distinct difference between the two.

 

[Fatihah]

I'm sorry but I disagree. To say 'all creations are created' is a tautology. While it is true by definition, and tells us nothing we do not already know, it isn't the same as saying 'all existent things are created'.

Response: I never said that it did. However, from your statement above, you do confirm that by definition that every creation has a creator.

Quote: cottage
We can't declare that whatever exists was caused to exist as a necessary truth because all existent things are in wont of a creator if, at the same time, we want to argue to being who is self-existent. So, at a stroke, that argument falls down.


Response: Not at all. You see, when faced with two possible logics, the most logical one would be the truest. So when pertaining to life itself and the universe, there is no better logical concept than it being a creation from a creator just like you can't provide a more logical concept to the existance of your response to this post. It's a creation(the post) from a creator (you).

Quote: cottage
It falls down for a second reason, too. In order to make that argument (all existent things are in wont of a creator), we are saying one thing is the cause of another and thus the existence of the world is an effect, which is to say all worlds must be as this. But there is no 'Law of Cause and Effect' that obtains necessarily. To say every action is an effect that is caused is not the same as saying a triangle's three angles must be equal to two right angles, which is a contradiction if denied. So it's 'truth' lies in the past and probability - not necessity. And an argument from the past cannot be used as an argument to certainty and the future. That being the case, we cannot say the world was created, implying a creator, as a logically true conclusion.

Response: Its truth relies on it's logic and there is nothing more logical than a creation having a creator.

 

[dogsgod]

The Creator is separate from "all."

So there are exceptions.

 

[Riverwolf]

So there are exceptions.

*Sigh*...

The Creator (I don't really believe in one, by the way; I'm defending the concept, not my personal beliefs), is separate from its creation. It is not an exception, unless the Creator is part of its creation, which in Islam, it is not. (Right?)

 

[cottage]

Why does a Creator need a Creator?

It doesn't - except when the proposition is that all existent things require a creator. And in that case the creator needs a creator...and so it goes on ad infinitum.

 

[Riverwolf]

It doesn't - except when the proposition is that all existent things require a creator. And in that case the creator needs a creator...and so it goes on ad infinitum.

Like I said to dogsgod, the Creator is separate from the creation.

 

[MoonWater]

It doesn't - except when the proposition is that all existent things require a creator. And in that case the creator needs a creator...and so it goes on ad infinitum.

unless, as river pointed out, the creator is separate from the creation. Being separate from it's creation different "rules" would apply to the creator(just as different "rules" apply to Michelangelo as to his sculptures.)

 

[cottage]

You realize that acknowledging this undermines your argument, right? Since dictionaries are more concerned with actual meaning than avoiding offense, if your definition of "faith" were valid, it would be in there.

What nonsense is this? It isn't the business of dictionaries to identify and enumerate every form of bigotry under each heading.

And I'm saying faith is prejudiced. I didn't give a definition of faith. Faith is a strong and committed belief in the supernatural, or some other element understood to control or influence human destiny. I agree entirely with that.

 

[dogsgod]

*Sigh*...

The Creator (I don't really believe in one, by the way; I'm defending the concept, not my personal beliefs), is separate from its creation. It is not an exception, unless the Creator is part of its creation, which in Islam, it is not. (Right?)

If The Creator is an entity that exists and was not created, nor part of it's own creation, this logic proves an entity can exist without being created.

 

[cottage]

unless, as river pointed out, the creator is separate from the creation. Being separate from it's creation different "rules" would apply to the creator(just as different "rules" apply to Michelangelo as to his sculptures.)

Makes not an iota of difference, as far as I can see. Please explain your argument.

 

[Riverwolf]

If The Creator is an entity that exists and was not created, nor part of it's own creation, this logic proves an entity can exist without being created.

And in Islam(and certain sects of other religions), the only such entity is the Creator, God.

 

[Riverwolf]

Makes not an iota of difference, as far as I can see. Please explain your argument.

Have you ever written a poem or a story?

 

[cottage]

If The Creator is an entity that exists and was not created, nor part of it's own creation, this logic proves an entity can exist without being created.

This 'logic' is arguing in a circle. The argument was that what exists is created and that view was extended to the world needing a creator. If that argument is being maintained then the creator of the world needs a creator. So you can only argue for a self-existent God if you concede that not all things need a creator. And that being the case the material world can also be self-existent.

 

[Riverwolf]

This 'logic' is arguing in a circle. The argument was that what exists is created and that view was extended to the world needing a creator. If that argument is being maintained then the creator of the world needs a creator. So you can only argue for a self-existent God if you concede that not all things need a creator. And that being the case the material world can also be self-existent.

That still requires God to be a "thing." Which God is not.