Painter - (dictionary.com)

What does a painter need to have to be able to paint? Assuming he can do nothing but paint, he would need the canvas, paint, paint tray, easel, stool, brushes, floor, and perhaps a subject to paint provided. Cool.  And as you pointed out, these things need to come from somewhere.  Understood.

Creator - (dictionary.com)

Obviously since this is an athiest environment, I am forced to conveniently overlook the second definition, so I will focus on the first. Since the Creator is not a painter but instead a creator, he doesn't need a canvas or brush. Rather a creator, fundamentally needs only something to create.  Whatever the creator needs to create that creation, he creates.  If he needs matter, then he creates matter and anti-matter. If he needs light, then he creates darkness and light.  If he needs energy fields he creates the positive and negatives of that particular field, so that in essence everything equals zero, but because of the creator he became the uncaused cause of the matter, light, and energy which can be seen.

So can the universe be too complex for one creator? Sure. That is one possibility.  Another is that, the one Creator was just that much more complex or powerful!

If there were more than one creator, why would they synergize to create? Van Gough and Michelangelo would never be able to paint something without the spectator seeing where one artist left off and another started.

Getting taught by a teacher? ok...who could have possibly created the teacher? A more powerful creator perhaps, bringing you back to the initial piont.

You're not forced to overlook anything.  After all, this is an atheist environment.

It would be teachers all the way down wouldn't it?

Creator of this universe was tought (And created) by teacher, who was tought (And created) by a higher teacher, tought (And created) by teacher, tought (And created) by teacher, tought (And created) by teacher, tought (And created) by teacher... etc. un (Ad?) infinium.

They didn't necesaraly have to synergize. The guy who made the paint, didn't have to synergize with the guy who made the canvas, didn't have to synergize with the artist. But they still all did do a part of the creation of the painting, coincedences and chance (I think).

you lost me. 

Pariah, I am forced to ignore the second definition because that is the conclusion that I am trying to illustrate...thanks for your encouragement nevertheless, but i am already a believer of the second definition.

Ophios, the point is that since this universe exists, and since it is not dark and cold, then by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it cannot be infinitely old.  If it is not infinitely old then it had a beginning.  At that beginning, all caused things need an uncaused cause.  i find the speculation of an infinite number of creators rediculous just as you also pointed out, and it wouldn't make sense either.

Secondly, the point is that the paint maker et al did synergize with the painter since the painter benefited from the paint maker. But since a painter and a creator are two entirely different ideas, they cannot sensibly used analogously.

Thirdly, the styles of two creators would be as different as Michelangelo and Van Gough...quite obvious actually.  It is a null point though.

You twist the words of the 2nd law. Matter and energy could have always existed, and the first law says they always did.

So why should I prefer one possibility over the other?

The surface of the earth is finite, so where's the beginning? There are cosmological theories that give us a finite, but unbounded universe. In this case, there's no beginning of time.

Which is the main point of the post. Drawing analogies between God creating the universe and a painter making a painting (or a watchmaker making a watch) are flawed.

Quote: So why should I prefer one possibility over the other?

If there were an infinite number of creators, each creating the next, and each less powerfull than the one before, then the Creator that made the world would have no power to create it.  Monothiest view doesn't have this problem.

Quote: The surface of the earth is finite, so where's the beginning? There are cosmological theories that give us a finite, but unbounded universe. In this case, there's no beginning of time.

So you would more quickly believe that a measureable unit of time eventually repeats itself on no proof whatsoever than believe that time is linear? Do you also have a round meter/yard stick which zeros back out after a certain distance?

Good to see you're back, Holy_Spirit_is_Welcome.

Ophios wasn't saying that creators were creating other creators. He/she said that maybe there was more than one creator creating the universe.

These creators could have all been at the same level of ability.

I don't think anyone suggested that there were infinitely many creators.

If the Creator of the world didn't have the power to create the world, then how did the Creator create the world?

Saying something has no boundary doesn't mean it loops back on itself. (Although the example I gave of a sphere does have that property.) So I'm not claiming that time is a circle, just that there might not be a time t=0.

Being measurable has nothing to do with it. I could make a ring with a circumference of a yard. Although I guess it wouldn't be a yard stick, but a yard ring. Plus a yard stick doesn't measure time.

As far as "quickly believing" goes, what I said is that it's possible for the universe to be finite and unbounded. Stephen Hawking has come up with a cosmological model with this property. I'm not saying I'm accepting it, just that it's possible.

The reason I pointed this out was you said "If it is not infinitely old then it had a beginning." which isn't true. There's (at least) three possibilities.
1. Infinite (and unbounded of course).
2. Finite and bounded.
3. Finite and unbounded.

So if the universe is finite, it doesn't automatically mean it had a beginning (a boundary).

False.

If the universe is a closed system and not dark then it cannot be infinitely old. But if the universe is in fact infinitely old then it cannot be considered a closed system. In this case you cannot apply the law of entropy since it only applies to closed systems.

So you find the idea of an infinite number of creators ridiculous but not the idea of one creator who is himself infinite? I find THAT ridiclous.

No one has ever established whether the universe is open or closed, nor has the second law of thermodynamics, which applies exclusively to closed systems, ever been demonstrated to apply to the whole universe. The reason for this is that the Omega Point of universal density has not been found. If it is <1 then Open, if >1 then closed. I also find the notion of infinite number of creators ridiculous, but I also find the notion of one creator equally ridiculous. I find the whole notion of a creator ridiculous. The idea of the impossibility of infinite regress is a philosophical notion that fails to take into account the nature of the universe. The singularity point up to 10 the power of -44 seconds after the big Bang can be explained, now that Microarray Radioastronomy is advanced enough. I'm still waiting on the results from the atom smasher at CERN to find the Higgs boson particle (the God Particle), or the quantum physics effects to prove the Everet interpretation, which would suggest that this universe is one of an infinite number of universes, constantly forming, for eternity.