Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Fatihah]

Fatihah, you are approaching this question from the point of view of presuppositional apologetics, although I suspect that you may be unfamiliar with that term. That is, you make statements and ask questions as if there were no other point of view possible than that God/Allah exists, even when the question is whether God/Allah exists. That is viciously circular reasoning, and that is why it is called "begging the question". In circular reasoning, the claim one asserts is always "within itself".



Again, I agree that creations always have a creator. The question you are begging is whether everything around us qualifies as a "creation". Everything around us may well have a cause, but that is not the same thing as assuming that it is a creation.

BTW, I suspect that you aren't really going to engage this argument seriously other than to just repeat yourself no matter what anyone else says. However, it is worth pointing out that presuppositions are defined as unstated assumptions. So your argument that you never said "I assume..." once again misses the point.

Response: And your whole argument is based on you simply making statement after statement. But where's the proof? You also still wish to dodge the question posed. Again, name me another way possible for something to come into existence besides the process of a creation being made by a creator? A simple question. You've yet to give an answer. Instead you make the assumption that I say that everything around us qualifies as a creation. Another simple question, quote any post of mine in which I've said such a thing? You can't. Therefore, you've reduced your argument to setting up a strawmen and decided to refute that and not my actual points. Why? The reason is obvious. Because you can't refute what I've said to you. Why else would someone debate a point which was not even stated?

Throughout my posts, I am "asking", let me repeat it again, I am "asking" for you to tell me how the things in existence came into being. Being as though I am "asking", this repititive notion that I "assume" that everything was created is foolish. In order to call something an "assumption", I would first have to "claim as fact" that everything that exists was created. But instead, I am "asking", not "claiming", but "asking". So there is no assumption. This is simple english. Why is this so hard for you? But once again, when a person has to play with simple english words as there rebuttle instead of answering a straight forward question, that's where we part ways. Especially when the word itself is common sense.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Response: To the contrary, you're the one who is obviously being illogical. Every creation has a creator. Any dictionary on the face of the planet, any elementary school student will tell you the same. Prove otherwise. For you or anyone for that matter to say otherwise is simply absurd. To top it off, your inability to answer the question only confirms your denial. Show me a creation without a creator? This is a simple question in simple english. Why can't you answer? The reason is becoming very obvious. But since stating that every creation has a creator is an illogical fallacy to you, then it serves no purpose to continue a discussion. For when a person concludes common sense as illogical, any explanation is hopeless.

Every creation has a creator. The question: is a subatomic particle a creation, or did it always exist in some form?

 

[Fatihah]

Every creation has a creator. The question: is a subatomic particle a creation, or did it always exist in some form?

Response: Exactly. Every creation has a creator. Thus the question is who is the creator and what did he/she/it create. But that does not mean that everything that exists was created, as your question points out.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Response: Exactly. Every creation has a creator. Thus the question is who is the creator and what did he/she/it create. But that does not mean that everything that exists was created, as your question points out.

Actually, there are (at least) two questions:

1. was there a "First Cause" and, if so,
2. was its catalyst acting intentionally?

The problem with many if not most "First Cause" arguments is that, when you look at the therefore, there's not much there.

 

[Bware]

Response: To the contrary, you're the one who is obviously being illogical. Every creation has a creator. Any dictionary on the face of the planet, any elementary school student will tell you the same. Prove otherwise. For you or anyone for that matter to say otherwise is simply absurd. To top it off, your inability to answer the question only confirms your denial. Show me a creation without a creator? This is a simple question in simple english. Why can't you answer? The reason is becoming very obvious. But since stating that every creation has a creator is an illogical fallacy to you, then it serves no purpose to continue a discussion. For when a person concludes common sense as illogical, any explanation is hopeless.

Every creation has a creator huh? So the egg had to come before the chicken? No wait, the chicken had to lay the egg. No, wait the chicken had to be born from an egg so the egg came first. No wait. AAAAHHH.

Look this argument will go back and forth forever, it's not really worth arguing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Of course I believe there to have been a First Cause, after all there was an Effect. However, it is not necessary that this first cause that started the universe be something unnatural or divine. It is a mystery, but I don't believe it was something magical. Energy changes form, it is not created. That is what the majority of this universe is made of...energy. However, I do believe it possible for there to be other forms of energy (naturally occurring yet unknown to science) that may provide more answers. I don't believe anything in existence is unnatural or supernatural, we simply just don't understand everything.

 

[Falvlun]

Response: Exactly. Every creation has a creator. Thus the question is who is the creator and what did he/she/it create. But that does not mean that everything that exists was created, as your question points out.

You have to first show that a rock is in fact a creation. If it is a creation, then it had a creator. But we don't know whether it is a creation or not, unless you wish to beg the question.

 

[Copernicus]

Response: And your whole argument is based on you simply making statement after statement. But where's the proof?

Argumentum ad nauseam. You keep saying to everyone you disagree with, no matter how many times you are refuted.

You also still wish to dodge the question posed...

Nonsense. You simply do not understand what a presupposition is (or stubbornly will not acknowledge my point). The easiest explanation I can give you is with a loaded question like "Has John stopped beating his wife?" Suppose that John isn't married. You can't negate the hidden claim (or "presupposition") that John has a wife by answering "yes" or "no". The proper response is "John doesn't have a wife, so he can't be said to have beaten her". Now a question like "Who created everything" is loaded with the presupposition that everything was created. The proper response is "Everything is not necessarily a creation." You simply assume that it is.

Throughout my posts, I am "asking", let me repeat it again, I am "asking" for you to tell me how the things in existence came into being...

And the proper response is that things (i.e. physical reality) did not necessarily come into being. You are merely asking a question loaded with the presupposition that they have. I can ask you the same question: "How did Allah come into existence?" You cannot respond except by claiming that Allah just always existed and so my presupposition that he came into existence could be false.

Being as though I am "asking", this repititive notion that I "assume" that everything was created is foolish. In order to call something an "assumption", I would first have to "claim as fact" that everything that exists was created...

Absolutely false. You can ask questions that presuppose it. I just explained quite clearly to you what a presupposition is. It is an unstated assumption that must be true in order for a speech act to make sense.

But instead, I am "asking", not "claiming", but "asking". So there is no assumption. This is simple english. Why is this so hard for you? But once again, when a person has to play with simple english words as there rebuttle instead of answering a straight forward question, that's where we part ways. Especially when the word itself is common sense.

You can lecture me on what simple English is, but I have a Ph.D. in linguistics. I have just lectured you on what a presupposition is.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You can lecture me on what simple English is, but I have a Ph.D. in linguistics. I have just lectured you on what a presupposition is.

Ouchhhh!!! That is why when I read something of yours it is almost like I am reading it directly out of an encyclopedia. You definitely have a way with words. I have a strong admiration for that.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Response: Exactly. Every creation has a creator. Thus the question is who is the creator and what did he/she/it create. But that does not mean that everything that exists was created, as your question points out.

CarlinKnew clarified exactly what I meant and you're dodging the question. I don't disagree with you that all creation has a creator. But I'm asking you: are subatomic particles a creation? Yes or no?

And perhaps I didn't answer your question because I missed it. I don't feel like going back several pages to find it. So if you'll just repost your question, I'll answer it.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Response: Exactly. Every creation has a creator. Thus the question is who is the creator and what did he/she/it create. But that does not mean that everything that exists was created, as your question points out.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

Any questions rests on some unspoken assumption(s). Even some so simple a question as "What time is it" makes several assumptions. It assumes there is such a thing as time. It assumes there is some agreed upon way to measure time. It assumes that the person questioned has access to that means and can use it.

Your creator question assume "things" have been created. Which also requires an assumption that at some time they did not exist. You have assumed YOUR world view and based your question upon it.

As has been pointed out that assumption on your part - explicitly stated or no - is both an assumption and unsupported by any evidence you have provided.

And I think you damn well KNOW it!

 

[Fatihah]

Argumentum ad nauseam. You keep saying to everyone you disagree with, no matter how many times you are refuted.



Nonsense. You simply do not understand what a presupposition is (or stubbornly will not acknowledge my point). The easiest explanation I can give you is with a loaded question like "Has John stopped beating his wife?" Suppose that John isn't married. You can't negate the hidden claim (or "presupposition") that John has a wife by answering "yes" or "no". The proper response is "John doesn't have a wife, so he can't be said to have beaten her". Now a question like "Who created everything" is loaded with the presupposition that everything was created. The proper response is "Everything is not necessarily a creation." You simply assume that it is.



And the proper response is that things (i.e. physical reality) did not necessarily come into being. You are merely asking a question loaded with the presupposition that they have. I can ask you the same question: "How did Allah come into existence?" You cannot respond except by claiming that Allah just always existed and so my presupposition that he came into existence could be false.



Absolutely false. You can ask questions that presuppose it. I just explained quite clearly to you what a presupposition is. It is an unstated assumption that must be true in order for a speech act to make sense.



You can lecture me on what simple English is, but I have a Ph.D. in linguistics. I have just lectured you on what a presupposition is.

Response: How does one have a PH.D and lack common logic in the same field at the same time? Surely you gave a lecture, but your lecture was missing the most important element.... facts. All you've said was a bunch of statements. There's the statement. Where's the proof? Simply saying something is true is not proof that it is so.

 

[Commoner]

Response: How does one have a PH.D and lack common logic in the same field at the same time? Surely you gave a lecture, but your lecture was missing the most important element.... facts. All you've said was a bunch of statements. There's the statement. Where's the proof? Simply saying something is true is not proof that it is so.

Response:

But it did remind me of Monty Python's "Argument Clinic". Funniest sketch ever!

 

[Fatihah]

Your creator question assume "things" have been created. Which also requires an assumption that at some time they did not exist. You have assumed YOUR world view and based your question upon it.

As has been pointed out that assumption on your part - explicitly stated or no - is both an assumption and unsupported by any evidence you have provided.

And I think you damn well KNOW it!

Response: Again, there's no need to conversate with a grown adult who doesn't no basic simple english. But it is however the classic rebuttle. When a person can't refute the argument presented, in order to keep afloat, they reduce themselves to argue and play with meaning of words in the argument, rather than the argument itself. The unfortunate part is that they are to blind to see that the such an argument only makes them look more absurd because they're consistantly demonstrating a lack of understanding simple and basic english.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Response: Again, there's no need to conversate with a grown adult who doesn't no basic simple english. But it is however the classic rebuttle. When a person can't refute the argument presented, in order to keep afloat, they reduce themselves to argue and play with meaning of words in the argument, rather than the argument itself. The unfortunate part is that they are to blind to see that the such an argument only makes them look more absurd because they're consistantly demonstrating a lack of understanding simple and basic english.

Speaking of simple English, are you familiar with the word pompous?

 

[Fatihah]

Response:

But it did remind me of Monty Python's "Argument Clinic". Funniest sketch ever!

Response: I agree.

 

[McBell]

Response: Again, there's no need to conversate with a grown adult who doesn't no basic simple english. But it is however the classic rebuttle. When a person can't refute the argument presented, in order to keep afloat, they reduce themselves to argue and play with meaning of words in the argument, rather than the argument itself. The unfortunate part is that they are to blind to see that the such an argument only makes them look more absurd because they're consistantly demonstrating a lack of understanding simple and basic english.

I agree 100%.

The problem is that you are still in denial.

Now is when you ask "still trolling?"
And I reply "Nope. Just stating the facts."

 

[averageJOE]

Show me a creation without a creator?

ALLAH!!


Unless...Allah has a creator.

 

[Fatihah]

Speaking of simple English, are you familiar with the word pompous?

Response: Yes. Why do you ask?

 

[PureX]

Of course I believe there to have been a First Cause, after all there was an Effect. However, it is not necessary that this first cause that started the universe be something unnatural or divine. It is a mystery, but I don't believe it was something magical. Energy changes form, it is not created. That is what the majority of this universe is made of...energy. However, I do believe it possible for there to be other forms of energy (naturally occurring yet unknown to science) that may provide more answers. I don't believe anything in existence is unnatural or supernatural, we simply just don't understand everything.

Well put, and I would agree. But one of the arguments against the first cause position is that "cause and effect" is an observation that exists within the universe. It's mostly the result of the fact that we humans see the "whole" as a bunch of interrelated parts. That interrelationship is what we call a chain of "cause and effect". But in actuality, The big bang is still happening, and the universe is one single event occurring.

That being the case, the chain of cause and effect that we see everywhere we look is a bit of an illusion. And is likely to end as the moment the big bang began. So arguing for a "first cause" before that point may be completely wrong.

This is why I won't pose the 'first cause' argument. Instead, I point out the fact that the big bang exploded with built in limitations, rather then randomly, and that these limitations have become the blueprint for the universe, begs us to ask the 'first cause question' for a different reason than the one presented in the traditional first cause argument. This time the reason is intuitive, rational, and almost automatic.

If the universe is ordered, is it expressing an idea?