Yes logic is technically a matter of faith. I subscribe to it and so does she apparently. Her logical argument was faulty and I felt the need to expose it. I assume that by consciousness she meant "living and capable of thought". Because without thought there cannot be the will to "create". Of course that's a terrible argument because life capable of thought doesn't have to be created. Matter can just as easily become living with only the passive, unconscious assistance of energy as a creator can create it. There isn't sufficient evidence for either one. Although proponents of the former make a far more earnest attempt at proving their side, not enough to make me take a side, but their efforts are commendable.
No. But neither can you, so stop saying you can. And again; why doesn't the "fact" that the creator had to be created blow your theory apart?
The common rebuttal to that is that the creator has always existed. Of course if a creator can always have existed, so can matter.
Please point to me where I said I could. IMO the OP's arguement is really weak if he can't even give a good definition of what I've asked. Which I doubt he can.
Exactly; the statement "something conscious cannot create something unconscious" is unsustainable, because if you say there's a conscious creator... well... then he had to be created by something conscious. And so on, until you have to admit your theory is bunk.
Nuh uh, God did it! I mean just look at this universe, it's too complex to "just exist." It had to be created by a God that "just exists." Dumb non-believer!
I don't think that everything needs an origin. Something can't come from nothing. That's besides the point though.
When looking at the question of creation, you run into many problems, and you need to define them before going any further. All we have right now are theories as to what actually happened. The most plausible answer is the big bang. Opponents of the big bang say that a creator either a) created everything or b) set in motions the events of the big bang (god farted imo). Now, for the idea of a creator, to me, is not plausible at all. First off, we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest the presence of a supernatural force. A 2000 year old book that is sketchier than a Detroit crackhead isn't evidence, sorry. Second, saying that the universe is to complex to "just exist" and that it had to be created by a god who "just exists" is not true. Stop being inconsistent. Third, saying that everything has a creator, so naturally everything needs a creator, proves that god created the universe is LOGICALLY FLAWED because then GOD NEEDS A CREATOR. That's called inconsistency and it really pisses rational people off.
My point was simply that if a creator can always have exist, that which the creator creates can as well.
Actually let me rephrase that. The creator doesn't have to have an origin, that's not the only option. The creator could have always existed, of course then that also means that that which the creator supposedly created could have. All in all we have absolutely no way of knowing the answer. Because of this, the belief in a creator is a completely arbitrary decision.
Because of this, I spend virtually zero time thinking about why and how the universe was created. We can't know, so why waste time? I prefer looking at our environment now, and how we interact with it. Like string theory fascinates me. Couldn't these strings be considered a higher power? Not in the traditional sense, but I would say yes.
Time could too have been a creation of this 'creator', however, and therefore the creator did not always exist, it just exists, it only started always existing when it created time.
That's impossible. That which does not exist cannot create anything. It doesn't exist. Of course then the question arises, how can something not have an origin? Neither one is capable of being known. This is why there's no reason to believe anything about the origins of the universe.