Contradictory nature of the "creator being" assertion

[brian0918]

I've taken the traditional notion of a creator being, and by simply restating the believers' assertion, shown the contradiction. I can't figure out what the contradiction would be regarding the axiom of identity, though. Any suggestions? My guess is you would have to start with the fact that the being is "uncaused", and work through the idea of causality to show that the being must necessarily have no specific nature. Either that, or you would work from the idea of something "occurring" before time, but how can that be stated as succinctly as the first two examples below? Actor before time = unacting action? Is there anything more clearly connecting it to the axiom of identity?

1. Exists apart from existence = non-existing existent

2. Consciousness conscious of nothing = Unconscious consciousness

3. Identity example?

Edited October 2, 2009 by brian0918

[Plasmatic]

I've taken the traditional notion of a creator being, and by simply restating the believers' assertion, shown the contradiction. I can't figure out what the contradiction would be regarding the axiom of identity, though. Any suggestions? My guess is you would have to start with the fact that the being is "uncaused", and work through the idea of causality to show that the being must necessarily have no specific nature. Either that, or you would work from the idea of something "occurring" before time, but how can that be stated as succinctly as the first two examples below? Actor before time = unacting action? Is there anything more clearly connecting it to the axiom of identity?

1. Exists apart from existence = non-existing existent

2. Consciousness conscious of nothing = Unconscious consciousness

3. Identity example?

Infinite attributtes= no particular identity. Infinite location = no particular location. In essence "God" is unbounded and therfore has no identity.

[brian0918]

Infinite attributtes= no particular identity. Infinite location = no particular location. In essence "God" is unbounded and therfore has no identity.

I had thought of that angle, but is it necessarily true that a creator being have any "infinite" attributes? Sure, believers like to stick "omni" onto everything, but I'm trying to examine a fundamental creator being: "an intelligent, conscious entity which exists outside of existence, pre-dates time, is uncaused, and creates the totality of existence."

Edited October 2, 2009 by brian0918

[Plasmatic]

I had thought of that angle, but is it necessarily true that a creator being have any "infinite" attributes? Sure, believers like to stick "omni" onto everything, but I'm trying to examine a fundamental creator being: "an intelligent, conscious entity which exists outside of existence, pre-dates time, is uncaused, and creates the totality of existence."

Well even a creator "God" with no omnis would still have to be a non-existent existent, according to the above. This would violate Existence exist. There is no outside of existence. All means all. ["totality"]

Besides the only valid meaning of "creation" is one where one takes some entities and combines them to make a new essentially different whole. Even If this being was an uncaused existent,what would it make the new existents from? This is a violation of causality. Entities are causal primaries.

[brian0918]

I'd like to condense this into one sentence... "An unconscious consciousness in a non-existing existence acted without action."

[LogicsSon]

As I see it, all of the attempts to give god 'unlimited' attributes, are really attempts to immunize the concept of god from criticism. When something absurd surfaces these all encompasing traits 'help' to override the technical difficulties. For example, when Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ...) was asked whether or not the immaculate conception of Jesus was really plausable, his response was (not exact wording here) "Well, I mean God created the whole universe so whats irrational about thinking he could cause a miraculous birth?" ??? Sounds like, "Well my X can do anything and everything in every place forever (lol!) so why can't X have performed y?" Ludacris reasoning. No limits? No identity i.e. no existence. Every attempt to make a qaulity without quantity ends up in equivocation, contradiction, and negation. I love the way Dr. Peikoff words it in OPAR : "An existence beyond existence, and thing beyond an entity, and a something beyond identity."

"I'm trying to examine a fundamental creator being: "an intelligent, conscious entity which exists outside of existence, pre-dates time, is uncaused, and creates the totality of existence."

Some objections:

How have you rid yourself of omni's? How do you postulate a 'conscious entity which exists outside of existence, pre-dates time, is uncaused, and creates the totality of existence' and not consider that omnipotent? With such a description I fail to see how you avoid the same error. You still have the primacy of consciousness at work here, consciousness without content (equivocation) (Omniscient). Pre-dates time? Does this even make sense? (Omnipresent) Time isn't an a metaphysical entity, its as epistemic realtionship between entites. Prior to time means prior to action and change, in which case it is nonsensical to say that god acted prior to action. All of these attributes meet the same criticisms I gave above, equivocations, contradiction, and negation. It is a amazing that these words and statements are meant to convey so much but yet tell very little to nothing regarding its subject. As George H. Smith noted in his Atheism: The Case Against God, these kind of negative and contradictory qualities and descriptions do not bring us closer to understanding the concept, but push our understanding farther away. To be both prior to existence and nature, and having created both, would seem to be "super"natural.

Some try to postulate a 'natural god' which is a god who is not pre-existent, all knowing, all this and that... He is a finite being, who created cosmos from chaos, he is restricted by nature and logic, and not an immaterial ghost. But the first thing I thought of when I heard this description was Man. God isn't supposed to differ from man in just a matter of degree, but rather in kind. (G. Smith) Without the qualities of God being predicated on omni's, the qualities somehow become more man like.

Edited October 9, 2009 by LogicsSon

[D'kian]

As I see it, all of the attempts to give god 'unlimited' attributes, are really attempts to immunize the concept of god from criticism.

That's part of how God gets immunity. Another is the rules of logic don't apply to Him. Take the classic Question: can God create an object so heavy even He can't lift it? Either He can, and therefore he's not omnipotent (can't lift that weight), or he can't and therefore is not omnipotent (can't create something too heavy for Him to lift). Of course the question merely probes into God's qualities, and shows that omnipotence is absurd. I've never gotten a good enough asnwer, just variants of "God is not man that He may be put to the test."

Yet antoher does double duty to disparage Man's comprehension of reality. The oft claimed fact that God has a Plan and He has a good reason for allowing terrible things to ahppen, somehow it's all for the Best. So if you loose your wife and daughter to a senseless crime, that's God's plan and you can't understand it. Accept it and don't question God, who is not Man that he may be put to the test or Something.

It would all be hilarious if no one actually took such nonsense seriously.

[TheEgoist]

A little application of Ockham's rather to this argument is enough. The universe exists. That isn't to say existence exists, but that a physical arena exists that claims the totality of all that ever was and is exists. Why oh why then would someone claim that a more complex entity exists outside of this plain of existence that created it? And of course, who created it? Why would you invent this superbeing to explain that which you CAN see and verify/