A proposal about a creator

Since the word "God" has many different meanings and definitions, can you please describe in detail what you mean by God? 

I believe I would be better able to respond once I know what it is that you define God to be exactly. 

Some followers of Jesus of Nazareth address questions about the existence of a creator because according to Jesus it matters.  What I think you're saying and asking is, "Atheists and Believers and Christians (specifically) leave me alone!  If I want to believe in the God I have in mind haven't I the right to do so without you trying to persuade me otherwise?"  If I've heard you correctly... I think atheists would try to persuade you that there is no god because they feel threatened by your belief.  Why else would they waste time arguing about someone they don't believe exists?  Some Christians would try to persuade you about the God Jesus taught about because Jesus taught it is in your best interests to believe in the God Jesus taught about.  When Jesus started his public work he referred to the "good news", and later he explained the good news and the bad news.  But it is your choice whether or not to listen to him (or them), and if listening whether or not to agree with him (or them).

Hi, DrBill!

Although you refrain from arguing for the proposition that a creator exists, do you sense an intellectual call to defend your belief in a creator against objections? For example, the notion of existential inertia, the multiverse hypothesis, arguments for the infinitude of the past or the necessity of physical reality, and arguments from hiddenness or evil all challenge various views regarding a creator, perhaps even your view. So, besides choosing to not defend a case for the proposition that there is a creator, do you intend to not even defend this proposition against objections?

Also, I hope you can clarify the following two questions that seek clarity regarding your proposal. 

First of all, you said to Dr. Bennett on May 31 at 10:55am that you propose the simultaneous initiation of creator and created. And in the OP, you ask “how is the simultaneous creation of God (or a god) and the universe not permitted or illogical per se”? The language of the question in the OP mirrors the language of your statement to Dr. Bennett. In other words, you seem to interchange “God” with “creator”, “the universe” with “the created”, and “initiation” with “creation”. In which case, your remark to Dr. Bennett can be correctly reread as this: “I propose the simultaneous creation of creator and created.” You are proposing, then, that the creator is itself created. Am I understanding you right? 

Secondly, according to the same two statements I referenced from you in the above paragraph, you claim that the creator and the created began to exist concomitantly. However, it seems to me that if the creator began to exist, then the creator was not brought into being by anything else. After all, if the creator was brought into being by something else, then the creator wouldn’t be the creator, after all, which is contrary to hypothesis. Do you intend for your proposal to imply that the creator was not brought into being by anything else? 

Thank you, DrBill.

From, Kaiden.

"But "axiomatic", not as self-evident, but as a simple basis upon which other arguments may be based. I choose not to defend (and cannot logically defend) my belief."

we went over this before and my thoughts were a bit scattered. Here's where I am with this.

Two problems, the first is that the definition you use appears to relate to mathematics. I couldn't find any examples of it being the basis of a philosophical discussion. If you have any I would be interested to see such.

The second is a bigger problem for me, you say that you use this in the sense of a basis for argument, but then close that door by saying you're not prepared to discuss it. Sorry, that's not the basis for argument at all. You'appear to try to argue a baseless belief into something more than it is.

The reason I object to this is that if this is established as an axiom in this sense people will latch onto it and claim it's an axiom in other the other sense. Why not just call it what it clearly is, a belief and nothing else.

"If we accept the "Big Bang", the sui generis formation of the Universe, how is the simultaneous creation of God (or a god) and the Universe not permitted or illogical per se?"

Who says it's not permitted? It's not evident, there's no basis for such a claim, there's no model with predictions which have all been borne to fruition as technology advanced a la Big Bang, but  where is it forbidden? It's illogical because it isn't supported by good reasoning.