5 ms·

He said that "the universe did not require a creator". Not that we know how the universe got into existence. That's a different statement altogether. And he is

He said that "the universe did not require a creator". Not that we know how the universe got into existence. That's a different statement altogether. And he is right. Based on our current knowledge of physics & cosmology we don't need a creator to explain the universe. A creator may still be involved but he is un-necessary. So the question is now: "Why should we even discuss about a creator when he is both un-necessary and there are NO evidence whatsoever for his existence?" PS: I hope I will not hear the "What was before the Big Bang?" question.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>Based on our current knowledge of physics & cosmology we don't need a creator to explain the universe. That is aside from our amassed knowledge of physics [cosmology is a subset surely?]. This is like one of those "everything has been discovered" considerations. Anyway it seems you're taking as your axiom that the universe is uncreated/self-created (or what-have-you) and your faith in this matter should be enough for anyone. You admit we don't have any generally* objective evidence one way or another I assume (by which I mean objective truths that can be observed by anyone at arbitrary time). >PS: I hope I will not hear the "What was before the Big Bang?" question. I quite like that one because it seems like it would force a reductio for those who argue against the need for a creator: An atheist (or multi-theist, or ...), say, argues that if God created the Universe then who created God? The common theist responds that God is eternal and uncreated. The atheist (in this case) argues that is absurd, if the Universe were created by God then God must have been created too. The theists position is now one arguing that a creator is necessary for existence. Reductio ad absurdum as they are arguing the counter argument to their initial objection that a creator is not necessary. Is that why you didn't want anyone to mention it? ;0) [Yes, I know this is a naive rendition but the atheist/multitheist/recursive-theist objection has rarely been followed in any of these fora to it's logical conclusion. I can see one easy out from the side of Zeno; But I think overall Parmenides comes off better. Very happy to hear objection to this latter analysis.]

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>Based on our current knowledge of physics & cosmology we don't need a creator to explain the universe. That is aside from our amassed knowledge of physics [cosmology is a subset surely?]. This is like one of those "everything has been discovered" considerations. Anyway it seems you're taking as your axiom that the universe is uncreated/self-created (or what-have-you) and your faith in this matter should be enough for anyone. You admit we don't have any generally* objective evidence one way or another I assume (by which I mean objective truths that can be observed by anyone at arbitrary time). >PS: I hope I will not hear the "What was before the Big Bang?" question. I quite like that one because it seems like it would force a reductio for those who argue against the need for a creator: An atheist (or multi-theist, or ...), say, argues that if God created the Universe then who created God? The common theist responds that God is eternal and uncreated. The atheist (in this case) argues that is absurd, if the Universe were created by God then God must have been created too. The theists position is now one arguing that a creator is necessary for existence. Reductio ad absurdum as they are arguing the counter argument to their initial objection that a creator is not necessary. Is that why you didn't want anyone to mention it? ;0) [Yes, I know this is a naive rendition but the atheist/multitheist/recursive-theist objection has rarely been followed in any of these fora to it's logical conclusion. I can see one easy out from the side of Zeno; But I think overall Parmenides comes off better. Very happy to hear objection to this latter analysis.]