Sunday, December 6, 2009

If Eveything Needed a Creator, Then Who Created God?

This is a very common objection that people bring up when discussing the Cosmological Argument. In this 1-minute video, Dr. William Lane Craig refutes the idea that God would did a creator for Himself.


  1. I disagree with Lane Craig once again.

    As we do believe that the universe may be eternal, with new theories and evidences to help support it, we do not claim that there must be a supernatural entity outside of space time to cause such an event to occur. There are three groups to this argument:

    1. The universe exists, therefore an intelligent being had to be the cause.

    2. The universe exists, but I don't know any more than that it does exist.

    3. The universe exists, while we still do not know the how's or why's we will not make an assertion due to the lack of evidence.

    Craig says:

    "God is a metaphysically necessary being."

    Making an assertion without full knowledge, while saying the naturalistic explanations are false, is disengenous and a contradiction to the logic he uses.

  2. But the universe is real, tangible, empirical, god is made up to fill some something, I don't know what but something.

  3. Universe is eternal: Evidence please Jon!

    Three classes of belief re the universe: classes 2&3 are deliberate ingorance in order to claim some sort of neutrality.

    This is disengeneous as it is exactly the same position of those like yourself Jon. You assert there is no God Jon and make the assertion that the universe is purely of natural/random origins. You are making assertions, they just happen to be negative regarding God but they are positive assertions re naturalistic origins.

    Until you come up with some evidences for your eternal universe assertion Jon your argument falls appart before even starting. Never mind the philisophical problem of an infinite regression of causality.

  4. His thesis on the nature of God not having as "cause" contradicts his thesis in the other video about the creation of the universe. Namely, that the singular event of universe coming into being implies a "cause." It is a double standard being applied.

    This seems like contortionist logic. The early Christians unanimously believed that all matter is eternal (supporting the law of conservation in physics, E=MC2).

    As the Gospel of Philip puts it, "Matter is always undergoing change as worlds come into existence and pass away. Only progeny is eternal."

    In the Apocalypse of Abraham, a very important Jewish discovery, Abraham hails God: "God! Thou who dost bring order into the confusion of the universe, ever preparing and renewing worlds for the righteous." The Codex Brucianus (a new document) says the same thing: Creation is organization, and God is ever bringing order into the universe and is progressively ever preparing and renewing worlds for the righteous."

    The newly discovered Gospel of Mary says "progeny—sonship—goes on forever and ever. All physis—all physical universe, all nature, all plasma, all things that are made of material, all all physical work will return to their own root. But the root is not destroyed. Matter is indestructible, whatever its root."

    the Gospel of Truth tells us "all spaces were broken and confused at the time of the transition from old worlds to new" the scene becomes rather terrifying. In quite a number of these writings, the apostles ask the Lord if they can see such things, and he replies, "Don't ask. It's not a healthy thing. It would upset you; it would disturb your thinking and everything else if you saw too much of these things. You're not equipped to go out and stare at such things. In passing from old worlds to new, all space is broken and confused, for they have no fixity or stability during that time. That's a time to avoid."

  5. All of this cosmic teaching was comon in the 1st Cenutry. There are hundreds of recently discovered texts.

    "For the worlds exist," says the Second Coptic Work, "so that intelligent spirits might come and inhabit them. In the limited confines of the flesh, which condition all our thinking," says the Lord in the First Apocalypse of James, "we mortals can't possibly count or reckon the heavens. The Lord revealed all to me," James says, "He who has moved among worlds. Not only are they countless, but they have been going on forever and ever."

    "No words can describe Thy power over all Thy worlds," says the Ginza

    "To the Christians," said Justin Martyr, "is promised endless worlds, endless cosmoses."

    Aristotle first taught the earth must be the center of everything, the only world, not the Bible, The early Christians believed in many, many worlds.

    All the worlds are organized on a common pattern, according to the First Apocalypse of James, in the Second Coptic Gnostic Work, and in the Apocryphon of John, that in all the worlds you will find God alone rules, but with a presidency of three and through a council of twelve.

    This is the rule of all the worlds. The repetitions are infinite in number and scope. "In any world," say 1 Jeu and 2 Jeu (incidentally, 2 Jeu appears to be one of the most important early Christian manuscripts ever discovered, older than anything we have in the New Testament), "as a Jeu becomes a Father in a new world, the Fathers then appoint new Jeus [Jehovahs] for new worlds, who in turn will become Fathers," etc., ad infinitum." Each Jeu has created for its hosts ten thousand times ten thousand." In the Sefer Yetzira (some think this is the oldest Jewish work in existence), "the earth and planets are but atoms in an infinity of like systems." This is a very old, orthodox Jewish work, a great and mysterious work.

  6. Sorry this is so long. These 1st Century Christian writings are really cool:

    So, what does this do to the oneness of God? It doesn't do anything at all to it. In nothing is the idea of the real oneness of God more convincingly apparent than in the contemplation of the real cosmos. "There are many mansions," says the Second Coptic Work, "regions, spaces, heavens, degrees, and worlds, and they all have but one law. If you keep that law you too can become a creator of worlds." "It is the perfect Father who produced the all, in Whom the all is, and in Whom the all will rule," says the Gospel of Truth. "Out of the One come countless multitudes which yet remain in the One," says the Sophia Christi.

    But the one God always remains in control. For only on condition of being exactly like him can souls take the next step. God will trust you to represent him, to act for him, only if he knows that you will do exactly what he would do in all circumstances. Then he can leave you alone. He trusts you. You're like him—a perfect identity, as far as your function is concerned. You can just carry on his work. It's like arriving at the same answer to a problem. He will trust you only if he is sure you will come out with the same answer as he did. "All other worlds look to the same God, also to the common Son," says the Untitled Gnostic Text. The crucifixion is effective in other worlds, as it is in this one. "All the cosmoses follow the pattern of a single world (called the topos)," says the Sophia Christi. "Ever since the beginning this has been so. This pattern keeps the entire physis (physical universe) in a state of joy and rejoicing," being dominated by one mind, by one great plan.

  7. Hmm, interesting Bristol that most of your supporting quotes (apart from the equivocal ones from recognised sources like Justin Martyr) all come from either Gnostic or apocryphal writings... None of which were recognised by most of the church or more than regionally and even then not for long.

    Why are you going to non-scriptural evidences for your position? There are plenty of sources of error in every church age (especially today), why would it be surprising to find error in the marginal works of the early church?

  8. You're missing the point and asking the wrong questions. The point is these ARE the earliest Christian texts. This is how early Christians and Jews viewed the cosmos. These are original texts that pre-date any transmitted New Testament manuscripts we have by hundreds of years. They are much closer to Christ chronologically.

    The Church councils in the 4th Century systematically eradicated most of these teachings because they didn't know what to make of them. They didn't fit the tidy worldview of Platonist philosophy that formed the undergirding of the Churchmen thought. The fathers were schoolmen at heart (especially Augustine), philosophers, students of Greek thinking bent on reconciling the backwater Church with the more "logical" pagan traditions. This influenced the decisions of the councils greatly.

    So they abandoned these views. If you simply write them all off as "gnostic" (whatever that means) then you are basically saying that all 1st Century Christians were gnostics! If it was just a scrap here or there that turned up, that would would be different. But we have hundreds of these texts that have emerged in our ifetimes, they litter the ancient world from Egypt to Greece. It just keeps piling up and must be accounted for.

    Also, the above qoutes just scratch the surface. There are volumes of similar teachings, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi are just primers.

  9. Bristol you may want to give up as you'll get absolutely no where with Gee. And Gee, to defend myself I never said the universe was eternal, I said "MAY BE ETERNAL." You see what I said there right? Here let me help you since the statement of "may be" confuses you so. Scientists and astrophysicists believe that the universe may be eternal and have many theories and mathematical proofs as to how it could be. There, did you read anyone claiming THAT IT WAS ETERNAL? You assume things more often than you should. I recommend that you read and re-read before making an assertion. As for the evidence, you're a big boy and can find it on your own and please don't say you lack the time, because you have enough of it to post here.

  10. @Jon

    You are right, I am confused by your response. You disagree with WLC that much is clear, but I must in light of your latest comments ask why? Do you think the universe is eternal and thus disagree or is there some secret reason why you disagree?

    As to your other comments, interesting tactic... personal attacks is the remit of those who lack a rational support for their personal dogmas. You made an assertion I am mearly pointing out your lack of scientific rigour. I've looked into it; but the burden of proof is with you to provide backing for your position.

  11. @ Bristol

    Thank you for your response, it is good to consider another person's perspective and discuss it. Could you give me the resources you've gotten this information from? or is it from all over?

    Regardless, in the searches that I've done on the texts you list the earliest of them are from the 4th/5th century and most of them much later dates. The earliest are the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea libraries. Of these the DSS does not support your position and the NHL are of gnostic origin and thus does not represent the early church's perspective.

    You have commented on my use of "gnostic" to discount the sources you used, fair enough I'll try to explain why I think that is the case. Gnosticism (the use of special knowledge or "gnosis" to gain union with a god) was around in pagan mysticism before Christianity arose and afterwards was condemned as heresy (a major error in how people view God/Jesus/the bible etc).

    This is shown clearly in the writings of the early church fathers who date from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. These being Ireneaus of Lyon, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria. All of them clearly identify gnostic teaching like the NHL to be contrary to scripture and the church's views. The most famous of these is Ireneaus's "On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis", normally referred to as "Adversus Haereses" (in English, "Against Heresies").

    The perspective you are putting forward and the sources you quote from the gnostic tradition were particularly opposed by the early church fathers and thus the early church. It matters not at all how many of these documents arrise, they are accounted for by the response of the church at the time and by their contradiction of scripture.

    On that point I must ask Bristol, why do you as someone who affirms scripture put forward something that is found nowhere in scripture and was opposed by the church when it first was suggested?

  12. Oh as a further point that I failed to include. The church fathers that I cited date long before the church councils you claim irradicated this perspective. The church has always opposed this teaching as the 1st century writings of the new testament and the 2nd/3rd century church father's writings show clearly.

  13. No Gee, the personal attacks are due to you not reading before your post. You misrepresented what I said even when what I clearly said was stated plainly in simple text; this I might add is something you have done on more than one instance. That is why I resorted to the so called personal attacks. It's not that I lack merit but simply getting fed up with you claiming I said something when all can see exactly what I said.

  14. Oh well I guess I'll say fair well again then Jon. I will pray for you and if you want to discuss again in the future let me know.

    Incidentally my name is David or Dave not Gee.

    God bless you and goodbye


Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.