Creation:A Response To PM

Re: # 196

PM

((((simple: Even if we take as a starting point that the universe is incapable of self-creationthe non-existence of attributes in the universe that negate a causation agent does NOT automatically imply the existence of a being with such attributes))))

Well regardless of the intellectual fate (or creditability) of this debate, the idea of "self-creation" itself is quite misleading and sounds ridiculous whether it is being argued in the context of God or the universe. ’IF’ universe has beginning than it won’t be easy to deny the creationist theory (on the scientific basis). Regardless of the content it offers (creationist) it would be ‘technically and rationally the least incorrect’ theory. In the case of beginning there is no choice other than having "either be or not be’ approach to this matter i.e. either it has beginning hence created or no beginning therefore not-created.

Theologian or I better say ’scientific theologian" does score a point over atheist provided the big bang theory is correct. When we say God has no cause or we HAVE TO accept such a being which has no cause or creator it does not mean that God HIMSELF is the creator of himself. Because we never say that God has made his own beginning possible. We simply say that God has no beginning; in fact, it’s in the "definition" of God. But in the case of universe the case is entirely different. IF universe has beginning, we cannot say that universe itself has created itself for we cannot explain that ITSELF.

Here we have the problem of definition. Being in itself (himself) is in the ’definition’(i.e. creator) of God, whereas the STATUS of universe is yet to be decided.

We are debating on this issue that whether Universe has the beginning or not, whether it is infinite and finite, does it have creator or not. There is nothing that we accept as an abstract definition of universe but in the case of We have an abstract concept of God and one of the aspects of that abstraction is creator(as for this debate is concerned).

Having atheistic view based on science is possible only if universe has no beginning and dare I say no end (in the context of this issue)
Even if, as PM said, the whole scientific debate ends up with sheer agnosticism, this "agnosticism’’ itself would be the pre-requisite for the religious philosophy (as I have mentioned #71 in reply to PM’s #48).