stenlis wrote:To all:
I wanted to discuss two specific points in this thread (see the OP). Please respect it or the discussion will never get anywhere. If you want to debate the emotional impact of atheism and similar topics, please make a separate thread for it.
Though most of this will be somewhat of a repeat of what others have said, heres my two cents.
In response to the creator's creator, when I have been presented with that its almost always in this form, one of which Ray Comfort loves to use. "The universe is here. Just like a building was built, it had to have a builder. A painting had to have a painter (and so on). Therefore, everything has to have a creator, even the universe and us." When put that way, it does require a creator's creator forever back, if EVERYTHING has to have a creator/first cause/whatever. Of course most theists always say "Well, everything has to have a creator except God, cause hes outside of time/space/material." That doesn't solve anything and its special pleading to say that well, the creator you posit is the only thing that gets out of the "everything needs a creator." If for some reason it was agreed that your creator could get out of that, I believe its equally valid to say that well the universe has always been here, in some form. And one thing that Hitchens likes to bring up is that people like junk explanations over no explanation. We may not know what form the universe was before the big bang, but positing a creator is unknown and therefore unfounded.
On a side, yet somewhat related note, I wish theists (and those debating them should stop them from this) saying that atheists claim that the universe came out of nothing. That implies that it hasn't always been here in some form. The problem is people are so used to the idea that something has to be created, start from something that its hard to imagine otherwise.