Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can there be a creator without creation?
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 1 of 111 (519151)
08-12-2009 4:18 AM


Many people today who accept that science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional, somehow still believe in the creator from that story.
But surely if the creation is fictional, the creator of that creation must also be fictional.
How can the fictional creation character called God, who in a story made the Earth in 6 days and the first human out of some dust just a few thousand years ago, also be a real creator who made the Earth 4.5 billion years ago and made humans through the 3-4 billion year evolution process?
It does not make any more sense to pluck the character called "God" out of fiction and claim he is the creator of the real Universe we know of today, than it would to pluck out any other character from fiction for the same purpose. It's as ludicrous as saying that James Bond, Batman or Harry Potter created the Universe.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-12-2009 5:15 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2009 5:36 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 5:43 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 08-14-2009 8:43 PM tuffers has not replied
 Message 61 by slevesque, posted 08-16-2009 1:59 AM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 6 of 111 (519160)
08-12-2009 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
08-12-2009 5:15 AM


Science may not (yet) have proven creation wrong, but the point I'm making is that it has proven God to be wrong. God is the character in the Bible story that created the Earth in 6 days, etc. As science has proven that story to be wrong, it has proven the character God to be wrong.
We have only just discovered evidence for the 14 billion year old Universe. So if someone claims there is a creator of this newly discovered Universe, they must have only recently discovered evidence for this creator. That means that, unlike God, there must be evidence available today for this new creator. Where is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-12-2009 5:15 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 08-12-2009 8:14 PM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 7 of 111 (519161)
08-12-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
08-12-2009 5:36 AM


Re: The printed story isn't reality
Minnemooseus
If you are claiming today that the old road map is wrong but someone is building another road system, you must have evidence today for that new road system.
If they had got the old creation story right, and we had evidence today that it was right, yes that would prove that the creator called God was right, because he was an integral part of that story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2009 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 8 of 111 (519166)
08-12-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
08-12-2009 5:43 AM


Mr Jack
Thanks for your response, but I've no idea what your point is! I'm happy to accept that's because I'm not as bright as you, and I'm certainly not as cute as you appear to be in your photo!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 5:43 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 6:44 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 08-12-2009 9:05 AM tuffers has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 10 of 111 (519183)
08-12-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
08-12-2009 6:44 AM


Mr Jack
Thanks for explaining your point. I have to disagree with you though.
How can God be both a fictional creator and a real creator?!
Science has proven the original creation story and therefore the creator in that story, God, to be false.
If there is a real creator, it is not God.
So any new proponents of a creator need to start from scratch. They should not assign their creator with the same name or the same characteristics as the fictional character.
The problem for any new proponents of a creator, though, is that they can't hide their evidence thousands of years in the past. Any evidence available to them for a creator must also be available for us to see. Where is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 6:44 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 8:40 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 9:09 AM tuffers has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 16 of 111 (519204)
08-12-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Huntard
08-12-2009 8:40 AM


Hi Huntard
I'm mainly having a go here at the so called moderate christians who accept the current scientific understanding of the world, but somehow still believe in God of the Bible.
I fully agree with your view and Dawkins view that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The point I'm trying to make is that the statement THERE PROBABLY IS NO GOD, should be changed to THERE PROBABLY IS NO CREATOR. It is not just semantics. It is important because many of those who still believe in a real creator not only still use the name God, they still attribute him with being the actual character from the Bible.
The fictional Leonardo and the real Leonardo in Mr Jack's analogy are 2 different things. They are not the same Leonardo. One is false and one is real. In a similar way, God is false and a creator is, well, maybe real.
To find a creator responsible for the 14 billion year old Universe, the 4.5 billion year old Earth, and the 3-4 billion year old process of Evolution, you have to start afresh. You have to completely forget God. He can't have created man through the process of evolution over billions of years and also have created him from scratch a few thousand years ago.
I do not consider it intellectually or logically justifiable to pluck a character out of any fictional story and somehow make him a real creator. And I don't consider it intellectually or logically justifiable even to propose a creator without first finding evidence of a creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 8:40 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2009 6:23 PM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 20 of 111 (519304)
08-13-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
08-12-2009 8:14 PM


Last Thursdayism?
No. I haven't heard of it, and I fear I'm going to regret asking this: what is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 08-12-2009 8:14 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2009 4:50 AM tuffers has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 22 of 111 (519307)
08-13-2009 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
08-12-2009 6:23 PM


Hello Bluejay
Hi Bluejay
Thanks for your welcome and your reply. Not surprisingly I disagree that my argument is non-sensical, so let me have another go.
The whole Bible story hangs on the proposition that God was a creator. But they got that FUNDEMENTAL part wrong.
In your analogy, it as if you told me about your brother Steve's days as a high school football star, but you didn't even have a brother, and there was no such thing as football. It's not like they just got God's hair colour wrong! They got the fundemental idea of what God supposedly was, a creator, wrong. And they were so far off the mark that they had to have made the story up. It's not as if they just misread the evidence and said he made the Earth a billion rather than 4.5 billion years ago, or that humans descended from squirrels rather than apes. If they'd said that, I might accept that maybe they made a few honest mistakes and there was still some substantial truth in their story. But their creation story is so far off the mark that they blatantly made it up, and therefore they made up the creator to fit in with that creation. They never had any evidence for a creation and so never had any evidence for any creator, and certainly not the very specific creator depicted in the Bible.
I accept your point that there can be a difference in meaning between the words wrong and fiction, but whether God of the Bible was a wrong guess or a deliberate invention, the end result is the same.
I know nobody claims out loud that God created man through evolution over billions of years and also created him from scratch just a few thousand years ago. But that is effectively how illogical it is to pluck the God character out of the Bible and propose that he is the creator of the 14 billion year old Universe we are aware of today.
No! There is no logic or sense whatsoever to that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2009 6:23 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2009 5:40 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-13-2009 8:32 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 08-13-2009 10:08 PM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 24 of 111 (519313)
08-13-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Huntard
08-13-2009 5:40 AM


Hi Huntard
I'm glad you're finally beginning to see my point. I fully take the blame for not articulating it very well.
In my reply to Bluejay I was trying to argue that there comes a point where a story is so fundementally wrong that it has to be regarded as complete fiction. I would maintain that is the case with God, as the creation story is so far off the mark.
I don't consider it logical at all to state that God might be exactly as described in the bible, just not acting as described in the bible. In the story, he is described primarily BY his actions.
It sounds like this Last Thursdayism is similar to what I understand is called post-modern relativism. I.E. nothing can be ultimately proved or disproved and any idea is as valid or invalid as any other. My response to that is always that that in itself is an idea and therefore worthless by its own definition. I admire you for being totally open-minded, but I can't see the point of joining in a debate if you are so open-minded that you don't think any view can be logically reasoned or proven. Apologies in advance if I misunderstood you there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2009 5:40 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2009 7:19 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2009 10:05 AM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 28 of 111 (519389)
08-13-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
08-13-2009 10:05 AM


Hi Icant
I admit to not owning a copy of the Bible, and it's been a very long time since I read it, but I'm fairly sure I'm right that it makes several specific claims about creation, including such things as God made the Earth in 6 days and that he made the first man out of some dust and the first woman out of one of the man's ribs.
Now those are very specific accounts, and ultimately the undoing of the story.
If the writers of the Genesis story had only made a general statement "In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth", then it would be much harder to disprove that God was a creator.
There are only 2 possibilities regarding the originators of the Genesis story:
1) They were telling the truth, in which case they must have had evidence at the time for the specific events and characters they depicted. (How else could they have known of the events and characters they depicted.)
2) They simply made up the story.
For centuries it was accepted on faith that they told the truth, that they had somehow known of the events and characters they reported. However, I maintain that science has now proven (beyond all reasonable doubt) that the specific account of how God made the Earth and Life was completely false.
What science has proven above all, is that the originators of the Genesis story had no valid evidence for their creation or their creator. So they must have made up the claim that God was a creator. (Anything else related to God in the Bible is irrelevant to this discussion.)
Therefore, as the creation story was made up, it is as intellectually and logically unjustied to claim that God is a creator as it would be to claim that any other entity, fictional or real, is a creator.
I would also say that it is intellectually and logically unjustified even to begin to consider what the characteristics of an intelligent creator are before we have even determined whether or not there was a creation, let alone how the creation was carried out. Without evidence for a creation, there can't be any evidence for a creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2009 10:05 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2009 2:48 PM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 29 of 111 (519396)
08-13-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
08-13-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Hmm ...
Hi Dr Adequate
I fully understand the point you are making and if you read my long-winded reply to Icant I hope you can see what my position is.
I think there is sufficient evidence now to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the creation story of Genesis was made up, which means that whatever else it says in the bible, it is completely unjustified to continue to consider that God above anything else as a potential creator. We should therefore abandon all reference to God when talking about the possibility of a creation, unless any evidence is found for a creation and to link it to the character depicted in the bible.
I have deliberately avoided refering to any other religions and their creation stories for the sake of simplicity and also because I know nothing whatsover about them and hopefully never will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-13-2009 8:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-13-2009 2:02 PM tuffers has replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-13-2009 3:12 PM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 30 of 111 (519402)
08-13-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Huntard
08-13-2009 7:19 AM


I agree!
Thanks for your reply, Huntard.
I think we are in entire agreement. When I proposed that science has proven the creation story to be wrong, I did of course mean proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I.E. proven as much as anything can be proven.
I think I'll leave this topic now, life's too short (that is definitely beyond all reasonable doubt).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Huntard, posted 08-13-2009 7:19 AM Huntard has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 37 of 111 (519479)
08-14-2009 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
08-13-2009 2:02 PM


A TYPO!
Dr Adequate
Sorry, it was an honest typing error to say "that God". Please delete "that".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-13-2009 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 38 of 111 (519481)
08-14-2009 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
08-13-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Re Creation
Hi Icant
You say: "The Bible does say man was formed from the dust of the earth. But that God breathed life into that form and it became a living soul. Gen 2:7....The Bible does claim that a woman was made from the man's rib. Gen. 2:22."
Science has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that that is not how humans came into existence. How life started in the first place, I admit, is still unproven. But WE evolved from other species. That is the proof that the alternative bible account of creation was false. The 2 accounts are not compatible.
If you want evidence I refer you to the general subject of biology, and in particular to evolution and genetics. You can go to any good library and read books on those subjects. Those books were written by people who have actually got off their backsides and worked really hard and combined their knowledge with the work of others in a way that would simply not have been possible to those who were around 2000-3000 years ago. That is why I consider their knowledge to be far and away superior to the account of the bible. If you don't trust what they have written in their books, good for you, I admire your scepticism. But you can always go and actually ask them to show you the evidence they have reported.
If you don't want to read all the books of biology, evolution and genetics (and I don't blame you!), I would suggest that the forthcoming book "The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by (oh yes) Richard Dawkins, will be as convincing as any other compilation of evidence.
There comes a point where you have to consider there is so much evidence for something that you consider it proven as much as anything can be. I'll always leave the door open for someone to come up with some more substantial evidence that points in another direction, but you'll need something more substantial than the combined works of biology and other related sciences to disprove evolution and thereby open the possibility again that God really might have made man out some dust and women out of a rib.
You ask me to prove the statement "in the beginning God made the heaven and the earth" wrong. The point I'm making is that there is no greater validity in saying that than saying "in the beginning ANYTHING ELSE made the heaven and the earth". There is no logical justification whatsoever for putting God forward as a candidate for a creator.
To the best of my knowledge, at no point in the whole of the rest of the bible story does it state that the character God they are talking about is something other than the God who supposedly created the Earth and mankind. It is clearly implied, if not actually stated, that they are talking about the same character all the way through. In fact, I'm sure at some points in the overall story it actually emphasises that there is only one God. So if the character that supposedly created man out of some dust never existed, neither could the character who supposedly created man out of some dust AND also said and did anything else have ever existed.
If you want to claim that there really was an entity that said things like "Thou shall't not covert thy neighbour's ox", or whatever, and you want to call him God, fine. But he must be something OTHER than the character called God who was a creator and also said those things. And if you want to claim that he was a creator by a different method than that descibed in the bible, then YOU need to come up with some evidence. Otherwise it is no more valid to say that God was a creator than to say Scooby Doo was a creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2009 2:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 10:31 AM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 39 of 111 (519483)
08-14-2009 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Blue Jay
08-13-2009 10:08 PM


Not a Non Sequitur
Hi Bluejay
I hope I can finally make my point concisely in this way.
Let's consider 3 possible characters called God:
GOD NUMBER 1) He created the Earth and Mankind exactly as depicted in the bible AND ALSO did all the other things mentioned in the bible.
GOD NUMBER 2) He did not create anything but he did all the other things mentioned in the bible.
GOD NUMBER 3) He created the Earth and Mankind in a different way to that depicted in the bible but he did all the other other things exactly as mentioned in the bible.
CONCLUSION:
GOD NUMBER 1: I maintain could not have existed because science has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that his creation never happened. So he can't have carried out that particular creation AND done anything else at all.
GOD NUMBER 2: might have existed but by definition wasn't a creator.
GOD NUMBER 3: might have existed but cannot justifiably be propositioned as a creator more than anything else can be as there is no evidence that he created anything.
So, there is no justification whatsoever for anyone continuing to propose God as a creator. Even if we talk of a possible creator, it is as illogical to call him God as it would be to call him Scooby Doo. And unless we can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there was a creation and know how it was carried out, we can't begin to propose what the creator was. It would be like trying to propose a criminal without even knowing if there had been any crime and what kind of crime it had been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 08-13-2009 10:08 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Jack, posted 08-14-2009 5:43 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2009 3:09 PM tuffers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024