"…If God is at all complex, then (by exactly the same argument) he must have been created as well."

This statement is a logical error. By definition, God is a being that transcends creation. Therefore by definition he cannot have been created. If one is to argue philosophy, one must abide by the rules of philosophy. Otherwise we will waste our time until we come to the realization that we are not talking about the same thing. You will be talking about a creatable God (a contradiction) while the rest of us talk about the properly defined God.

If you are going to play that game, then how many other things "transcend creation" and why? If there can be one entity (God) who can be uncreated, then how many other things could be? Explain your reasons rather than simply asserting it must be the case.

One of the reasons for believers using the "uncreated creator" argument is they can keep asking "well, what created that then?" until they reach a final point – then label that thing "God". To throw away the argument at the final step is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. To enact some vague philosophical "laws" is to change the rules of the game from the outset – moving the goal posts.

By definition, and I don't make up definitions, I'm just reiterating the rules of philosophy laid down long ago, I only need one "God" to get a creation. I don't need any other things that "transcend creation" because everything else is created. One uncreated God is both necessary and sufficient. God is not an infinite regression argument, it is a philosophical position stating that there is an absolute truth that comes from an uncreated entity.

Your idea that philosophical law is changing the game at the outset is true: the philosophical laws were set down at the outset of this philosophical discussion thousands of years ago and haven't moved since. If you haven't caught up, well, you should. If you think they are vague it's because you don't understand them.

I by the way disagree with Dr. Ross, but not in the way you do, and for different reasons. Dr. Ross has subjected the Bible to interpretation by atheistic Science, rather than what he should be doing, which is interpreting the physical universe in light of God's revelation to us in the Bible.

Don

I think what askegg was getting at is that if one thing can transcend creation, why can't others?

And I don't feel that an uncreated God is necessary; it is necessary only to your argument, you are yet to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there is a God and that he existed before creation.

Also you, or someone else may be able to answer this question, but why is God always depicted wearing clothes? He created man in his image, and created them naked, and was ashamed of them when they hid their naked bodies, does it not follow that God is a nudist, and so would be wearing clothes?

That's it exactly. If they allow one thing to be uncreated (God), then there is nothing to stop other things from being uncreated. Indeed there may be an infinite number of uncreated things. The required evidence that there is only one uncreated entity is yet to be presented (and I do not see how it could be done).

Don, do you know what you are talking about? There are no "laws" of philosophy that state there must be an uncreated god which transcends creation. Restating the argument as a philosophical position that there is an absolute truth which comes from an uncreated entity is just as awkward. You are simply taking a theological position and attempting to pass it off as classical philosophy.

Don – you are simply defining God into existence. How you have the nerve to lecture others on the rules of philosophy is beyond me.