I don't think a God would need a Creator. Just because things in the natural, tangible world have a beginning does not mean the One who created them needs to have a beginning. As far as Christians go, the Bible describes God as "the beginning and the end" which could mean that beginning and end are irrelevant to Him. He created time, space and matter, therefore He is not subject to any of it unless He chooses to restrict Himself to it. (An example of that restriction would be the idea of Jesus- God in the form of man).
Shaaali- I've heard people argue that God only knows things that are possible to know. E.g. God knows how many hairs are on your head but He doesn't know what the square root of a banana is because that's nonsense, bananas don't have square roots. He knows the chemical composition of spaghetti but He doesn't know the birthday of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because (let's assume for argument's sake) the FSM doesn't actually exist. So He knows things that are knowable. That same logic could be extended to Omnipotency. Theoretically God can do anything that is possible. He can create a really big stone, but technically "a stone so large He couldn't lift it" could not actually exist (regardless of its origin) therefore He could not make it.
Does that make sense?
I have not read all 278 pages of this argument- I tend to stay away from online arguments about God because after 1000s of years of arguing man is no closer to conclusively proving whether or not God exists (and in what form) so I doubt its going to happen on an internet forum.
One thing we must realise is that God can not necessarily be proven or disproven in a science lab. We can hail the glory of science but it lacks the capacity to prove or disprove God. So let me take two rather simplistic notions: either God exists or God does not. If God exists, since science cannot prove it, it is something that must be taken on faith. If God doesn't not exist, since science cannot prove it, it is something that must be taken on faith. I am weary of people who say they can prove/disprove God's existence but I am not weary of people who say "on the basis of my philosophical view on life, weighing up everything I see, and choosing to take into account my personal experiences, I choose to believe in the existance/nonexistance of God."
This does not mean faith is something less than science, something wishy washy people just want to believe for no good reason. Many people have come to faith decisions after agonising over it for years (not just emotionally agonising, but studying history, archeology, philosophy, etc.). Also, as great as science is, we have to realise its limits. For one thing, our scientific beliefs tend to change of the years as we find more evidence for or against things. We should hold on to scientific claims tentatively, assuming that they are "true" until we can find sufficient reason to believe otherwise. But in a sense, even in this, we are operating in a low-level of faith- choosing to accept that something is true, even though it might not be, and we cannot conclusively prove it one way or the other.
The above are my personal beliefs. They may be true or false but that's how I see things.
