UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 2 to Talk Back 77
Your conclusion entails another conclusion infinitely

by Reverend Eric Vande Zande

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

Kristine:

I was once a creationist because I believed it necessary to believe the Genesis story in order to be a faithful Christian.  As I became more learned and understood the mechanisms behind evolution, I believed that God used evolution as His mechanism for creation.  Eventually, I came to the conclusion that there is no need for God whatsoever.

Your argument is logically put forth, but as JT has already pointed out, your premises can be challenged, which makes your argument weak, unless you give it serious revision.  I, however, offer another counter-argument for rejecting your conclusion.

Your argument is an ad infinitum; meaning that your conclusion entails another conclusion infinitely.  For instance, if man needs a creator, by entailment God also needs a creator.  By entailment, God’s God needs a creator.  By entailment, God’s God’s God needs a creator.  And so on to infinity.  Using this line of thinking, there could be any number of Gods all creating each other.

Most freethinkers will choose not to believe there are infinite Gods, and see no reason to arbitrarily make the first God an eternal one, not needing creation.  They most often reject your argument because they believe in a scientific principle that in essence states go with the most simplistic conclusion.  That most simplistic conclusion right now is evolution.  While I don’t believe that evolution is necessarily completely correct at this point, I do believe that it is a leap closer to the truth than a belief in creationism.  It very well may be that the first God or the fourth God is the creator, but why believe that?  If you have an argument for believing that a god doesn’t need to be created, I would like to hear it