Originally posted by XanthosNZEven if one knew the mechanism behind what put the planets in orbit, that mechanism would still need another mechanism before it, and so on. Further, Newton does specify that he has other reasons as well.
"Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent."
Newton could not see the mechanism which started the orbits of the planets and ...[text shortened]... e know of the mechanisms Newton would have no need for a designer. So why would he invoke one?
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd a creator needs to be created. A designer solves no problems.
Even if one knew the mechanism behind what put the planets in orbit, that mechanism would still need another mechanism before it, and so on. Further, Newton does specify that he has other reasons as well.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think the poster may be right. One definition of God could be a Being for Whom a greater cannot be thought.
That's utter crap and you know it.
If there is one and a greater one cannot be thought, that is God.
A greater cannot be thought of One ever existing and self existing dependent upon nothing.
And if God is imaginary then a real God would be greater than an imaginary God. Since a greater cannot be thought than a real God, I propose the God is real.
Originally posted by jaywill(Waiting for the inevitable Kant-reference)
I think the poster may be right. One definition of God could be a Being for Whom a greater cannot be thought.
If there is one and a greater one cannot be thought, that is God.
A greater cannot be thought of One ever existing and self existing dependent upon nothing.
And if God is imaginary then a real God would be greater than an imaginary God. Since a greater cannot be thought than a real God, I propose the God is real.
Originally posted by jaywillCircular Logic ahoy!
I think the poster may be right. One definition of God could be a Being for Whom a greater cannot be thought.
If there is one and a greater one cannot be thought, that is God.
A greater cannot be thought of One ever existing and self existing dependent upon nothing.
And if God is imaginary then a real God would be greater than an imaginary God. Since a greater cannot be thought than a real God, I propose the God is real.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhy do you think it makes no sense?
You given a definition of a Creator that makes no sense.
A being that is uncaused or causa sui does not need a creator, by definition. If the Creator (of the Universe, that is) can be shown to be such a being, then your question is meaningless.
It's quite simple.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd the second half of your post is where the problem is. If the Creator of the Universe can be shown to be without cause then no cause is needed. So have you showed that a Creator exists let alone that he is without cause?
Why do you think it makes no sense?
A being that is uncaused or causa sui does not need a creator, by definition. If the Creator (of the Universe, that is) can be shown to be such a being, then your question is meaningless.
It's quite simple.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo, I haven't. Nor do I need to. Your original assertion ("And a creator needs to be created" ) does not require it to be disproved.
And the second half of your post is where the problem is. If the Creator of the Universe can be shown to be without cause then no cause is needed. So have you showed that a Creator exists let alone that he is without cause?