Again, any objections to a logical argument for a creator (I guess these are called philosophical arguments) cannot appeal to anything that includes infinite time or space. The universe and actually all physical creation must have had a beginning a finite time ago. Otherwise we have absurdities
Since logic says this/these physical creations must have a creator, the creator must exist outside of time and space and cannot be physical. The real rub, then becomes, what is the nature of such an entity.
My experience is that those who argue against a creator cannot explain how the physical universe arose. They just say it is incomprehensible and appeal to the lack of understanding of everyone. The average person believes science explains everything when it doesn’t.
Certainly, some naturalists are happy (well, maybe not happy, but willing) to just leave some aspect of physical reality, or physical reality as a whole, brute. It's there, and that's the end of it. Stop asking questions!
Others, however, will suggest there is some necessary aspect of physical reality that somehow gives rise to the contingent aspects. However, I have never seen a plausible take on how any physical reality could be necessary in itself *and* give rise to an orderly and stable contingent effect (versus random chaos).
FWIW, I offer a more substantive critique of both in my forthcoming book.
Again, any objections to a logical argument for a creator (I guess these are called philosophical arguments) cannot appeal to anything that includes infinite time or space. The universe and actually all physical creation must have had a beginning a finite time ago. Otherwise we have absurdities
Since logic says this/these physical creations must have a creator, the creator must exist outside of time and space and cannot be physical. The real rub, then becomes, what is the nature of such an entity.
My experience is that those who argue against a creator cannot explain how the physical universe arose. They just say it is incomprehensible and appeal to the lack of understanding of everyone. The average person believes science explains everything when it doesn’t.
It is an example of the “availability cascade.”
Hi Jerry,
Good to hear from you.
Certainly, some naturalists are happy (well, maybe not happy, but willing) to just leave some aspect of physical reality, or physical reality as a whole, brute. It's there, and that's the end of it. Stop asking questions!
Others, however, will suggest there is some necessary aspect of physical reality that somehow gives rise to the contingent aspects. However, I have never seen a plausible take on how any physical reality could be necessary in itself *and* give rise to an orderly and stable contingent effect (versus random chaos).
FWIW, I offer a more substantive critique of both in my forthcoming book.