Originally posted by XanthosNZ
"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?

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 lucifershammer
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.

And a creator needs to be created. A designer solves no problems.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
And a creator needs to be created. A designer solves no problems.

Not really. Just as the question "What natural number is smaller than 1" is meaningless by definition, a Creator who is, by essence/definition, uncaused needs no meta-Creator.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not really. Just as the question "What natural number is smaller than 1" is meaningless by definition, a Creator who is, by essence/definition, uncaused needs no meta-Creator.

That's utter crap and you know it.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's utter crap and you know it.

No and no. If you're going to stand around in this forum and defend science and reason, you're going to have to do better than that.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's utter crap and you know it.

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 lucifershammer
No and no. If you're going to stand around in this forum and defend science and reason, you're going to have to do better than that.

You given a definition of a Creator that makes no sense.

Originally posted by jaywill
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.

(Waiting for the inevitable Kant-reference)

Originally posted by jaywill
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.

Circular Logic ahoy!

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You given a definition of a Creator that makes no sense.

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.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Circular Logic ahoy!

It isn't circular logic. There are other problems with the argument (St. Anselm's Ontological Argument, for future reference), but not circularity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

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?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It isn't circular logic. There are other problems with the argument (St. Anselm's Ontological Argument, for future reference), but not circularity.

Summed up he said "The Greatest is God therefore God is the Greatest.".

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Summed up he said "The Greatest is God therefore God is the Greatest.".

"The Greatest is God therefore God is Real" would be more to the point.

(Note: Anselm's argument is utter crap, I can't believe jaywill still brings it up seriously(?) in a debate)

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
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?

No, 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.