This is called a "false dilemma fallacy".

Is this pattern on the beach "created"? If not what do we call it? The waves caused it, they didn't intend to however.

Sounds nice. What about the cosmo argument do you find compelling?

It was nice while it lasted, now I have to pick my daughter up from school.

I already explained to you that I don't feel this discussion would be fruitful. The cosmological argument has been debated since before Jesus was born and it will be debated for as long as the earth exists. I accept it as compelling, you apparently don't. I don't take that as evidence of the mental superiority of either of us.

Ohh I see, you dont want to engage with your beliefs. I understand.

Argumentum ad ridiculum. Yeah, that's going to work.

Well you really are not making much sense here Spider so I am just pooking around in the dark.

You mentioned this argument, you offered it in support of your beliefs, and now offer as an excuse that you think smarter people have gone over the argument in the past.

It seems to me that you are unwilling to engage in this becuase it is a closely held belief. That is not a logical fallacy, it does not support my argument, it in no way has anything to do with my argument. It is my appraisal of your unwillingness to engage.

It seems to be a pretty fair assessment as well.

No one is forcing you to post.

creation can only occur due to motivation/need

Again, false dilemma fallacy.

but yet Spidercmb I can rest assure that you will not be able to give a logical reason as to why your supposedly perfect God that supposedly wants or needs for naught would have a need to create

it's taboo for a believer to admit that there God has needs

but unfortunely without need there can be no cause

Not really, its more about the defintion and usage of a word: creation.

I think funches is just saying that word is perspective specific.

The patterns on the beach are not created, they occur due to physical forces.

If an artists went to the beach and intended to mimic that pattern and spent time "creating" a duplicate that would be different.

It is a claim to usage . . not a fallacy. This is similar to the intelligent design argument for design. Just becuase it looks designed does not mean it must be designed, design is a personal perspective specific term that designates a source with intentions. Cause however is not. Causes occur without intentions, perspective or desires ect.

However this trend of yours to cry fallacy without asking questions, or really digging into the meat of the topic/claim is starting to be pretty common.

What about "want"? Want can cause a person to create something. Van Gogh didn't NEED to paint in order to survive, he simply wanted to.

. . . and yet here you are posting in this thread, making claims about fallacy.

Spider it is not me who needs to think long and hard about honestly engaging in a topic.

I know I make you mad. I know you struggle to find rational ways to argue against my positions.

That is ok, just if you are going to cry foul, back it up, if you are going to say you dont want to engage, dont.

In the mental health profession, they call this a delusion.

isn't want motivation

You said nothing about motivation. You said and I quote "without need". Persons can be motivated by a number of factors: want, need, duty, loyalty, love, etc. But you ignore all possible motivating factors and single out "need" as the only motivating factor that can prompt creation. That is called a false dilemma fallacy.

See Spider is picking his fights very carefully. He wants desperately to engage in this topic, but is afraid to engage with me on this topic. He is going to cherry pick anything he can . . . yeaaa . . .

sorry Spidercmb.. but you are mistaken....if you read post 7 it will have "motivation/need"

why not just try to answer the question instead of looking for ways not to answer it

THE QUESTION
what would be a logical reason that a perfect God that supposedly need for naught have a need to create ..

I responded to the post I quoted, I did not read every post in the thread. I only read the posts that catch my eye for one reason or another. So I stand by my statement that your post, which I quoted, did not say "motivation".



I was addressing what I quoted, I wasn't avoiding any questions.



It's simple, I don't believe that God had a "need to create", God wanted to create. It should have been reasonable to deduce this answer from my previous responses to your posts. I don't believe that any Christian theology teaches that God "needs" anything. I'll expand that, no Jewish, Muslim or Christian theology teaches that God has "needs".

SpiderCmb...you can't "want" to do something without first having a "need" to do it

if God didn't have a need to create as you claimed... then give a logical reason why he would create ...

but SpiderCmb.. you quoted from the very same post that contained the terms "motivation/need" which you tried to claim that I didn't mention