Comments on: Refuting Dr. Hugh Ross

By: Keith Brian Johnson

Keith Brian Johnson — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:27:00 +0000

(continued) But the argument from design is a different argument. It does not assume that God is the First Cause. If one deduces from the argument from design that there is a Designer, it's perfectly legitimate to ask about the Designer's designer, *unless one identifies the universe's Designer with the First Cause*. Here, the name "God" misleads us: It tempts us to say that since the First Cause argument gets us God's uncreated existence, the Designer God is uncreated. But this identifies the Designer with the First Cause. If you want to identify the two, you may, but it isn't a logical mistake for the blogger to ask about the Designer's designer if the design argument is being made independently of a First Cause argument. And for anyone who doesn't accept that a First Cause argument does in fact demonstrate the existence of a First Cause outside of the universe, the Designer deduced in the design argument doesn't yet have the established feature of being uncreated, leaving the question of the Designer's designer quite legitimate.

By: Keith Brian Johnson

Keith Brian Johnson — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:26:03 +0000

Don: Clearly, you are accepting the First Cause argument. One argues that there must be a First Cause, in the standard way, and then simply gives that First Cause the label "God." However, this is highly misleading, since we think of God as a sentient entity who cares about human beings, who listens to prayers, who perhaps intervenes in our lives, who legislates morality, who presides over an afterlife, and so on, whereas all the First Cause argument gets you is a First Cause. Thus, you are identifying God as the First Cause, and on that basis claiming that the blogger is mistaken in inquiring as to God's cause. (Continued next)

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:34:26 +0000

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

By: David

David — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:57:44 +0000

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.

By: askegg

askegg — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:21:50 +0000

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).

By: Cometa

Cometa — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:44:08 +0000

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?

By: Don

Don — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:06:19 +0000

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

By: askegg

askegg — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:16:03 +0000

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: Don

Don — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:28:36 +0000

"…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.