|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can there be a creator without creation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. My emphasis added. When you say "that God", then you kind of admit that "God" doesn't necessarily mean "that God", otherwise you wouldn't need to specify which God you were talking about. It is plain, on scientific grounds, that there was no being who magicked species into existence 6000 years ago. So if that's what we meant by "God", then there is no God. But that's not what we mean by "God", which is why you have to specify him as "that God".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi tuffers,
tuffers writes: 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. There are people who claim God made the earth in 6 days. The Bible makes no such claim. 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. Science claims life began to exist...Well actually there is no theory of Abiogenesis. We don't know, we are working on it. The Bible does claim that a woman was made from the man's rib. Gen. 2:22.
tuffers writes: 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. Well that is exactly what Genesis 1:1 says:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Would you care to present evidence that proves that statement wrong?
tuffers writes: 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.) If there is proof please present it.
tuffers writes: 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. Before you can draw that conclusion and get me to accept it you must first prove that the Bible account of creation is false. I challenge you to try to do so.
tuffers writes: Without evidence for a creation, there can't be any evidence for a creator. Are you willing to apply the same restriction to the scientific method? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are people who claim God made the earth in 6 days. The Bible makes no such claim. Unless you read the Book of Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: Unless you read the Book of Genesis. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1 At Genesis 1:2 the earth existed. From Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 there is an account of a rearranging things preformed by God. So no Genesis does not say the earth was created in 6 days. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. But isn't that like saying: "I think there is sufficient evidence now to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the Scientologists' story of the creation of Scientology was made up ... We should therefore abandon all reference to L. Ron Hubbard when talking about the possibility of the creation of Scientology ..."
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. 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. Well, that's your problem right there. You wish to argue that "God" doesn't exist, but you want to take "God" to mean the particular version of God believed in by Christian fundamentalists, and you actually say that you know nothing about any other concept of God and that you hope you never will. Well, this sort of attitude will not help you debate with anyone who has a concept of God different from that believed in by the fundies. On the contrary, it will make you look like an idiot. Why should you define "God" to mean "the God believed in by fundamentalist Christians"? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Tuffers.
tuffers writes: 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. Non sequitur. Being wrong doesn’t mean you blatantly made something up. I think it is infinitely more likely that beliefs in spirits and deities long predated beliefs in spiritual creation. Consider: As an ancient hunter-gatherer, which question would you seek to answer first: How did the world come to be? or What makes these berries I eat grow on this bush, and how can I get it to make more? {Added by Edit: Even if god-myths and spirit-myths are completely false, it is infinitely more likely that they first arose as an explanation for physical phenomena before they took on their introverted, philosophical nature.} -----
tuffers writes: 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. This is an assertion on your part. But, it is a non sequitur. These two statements are analogous:
These two statements are not analogous:
-----
tuffers writes: The whole Bible story hangs on the proposition that God was a creator. Nonsense. There is more to God than Creation. Who gets to dictate what is and what isn't a fundamental part of God's identity? Here is a short list of things that God does in the Bible:
Which of these things has anything to do with God creating the universe in 6 days?Which of these things is automatically false if God did not create the universe in 6 days? You are arguing a non sequitur. -----
tuffers writes: The whole Bible story hangs on the proposition that God was a creator. But they got that FUNDEMENTAL part wrong. In our lab at the university, there is an old identification key for spiders of the family Theridiidae. As it turns out though, half of the spiders in that key do not belong in the family Theridiidae (and, in fact, aren’t even particularly closely related to the Theridiidae), and so, do not belong in that book. They got that FUNDAMENTAL part wrong. Yet, interestingly enough, the key still accurately identifies nearly all of the misplaced species, and so, I can still use it when identifying spiders for my research. One error---even one huge error---in a book does not mean that everything else in the book is also wrong. Edited by Bluejay, : Addition. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5276 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Dr Adequate
Sorry, it was an honest typing error to say "that God". Please delete "that".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5276 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5276 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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. Woah there, nelly, isn't this you conceeding your point? No-one in this thread has argued for God's existence, only that the invalidity of the Genesis story doesn't mean he doesn't exist. These are different issues. ---- As a complete aside: where abouts in Norwich do you live, Tuffers? I grew up near there, and did my GCSEs and A-Levels at Eaton CNS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5276 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi Doc
I would happily read another ancient account of creation (religious text) if anyone could tell me of one that accurately reflects our modern scientific understanding of the universe. Or if any of them are supported by evidence for an alternative reality that outweighs our modern scientific evidence. In fact I would be absolutely enthralled in wonder by such a text. Can you recommend one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5276 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi Mr Jack
I like your subtitle. Maybe a fair one because I've struggled to articulate my point! With respect to the fact that I'm not discussing other creation stories, I maintain that "God" is "God of the Bible". That means he is the character that supposedly both created mankind etc as depicted in the Bible AND ALSO did everything else exactly as it says in the Bible. Therefore, God can only be GOD NUMBER 1 in my example. And I maintain that it has been proven that that character must be fictional because the creation that he supposedly carried out has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be fictional. If there is anything that matches the description of GOD NUMBERS 2 or 3 in my example, well firstly without any evidence for them there is only a 1 in infinity chance of them existing, as I just made them up in my head. And that is effectively the same as zero. But even if they did exist, they should not be labelled with the same word as the character in the Bible, because they would be fundamentally different. For a start, they would actually exist, whereas God of the Bible was fictional, which is about as fundamentally different as 2 things could be. I live in the village of Coltishall near Norwich, but I didn't grow up in Norfolk. What on Earth made you move from Norwich to Coventry? That really is illogical!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi tuffers,
This is a debate board and you come on here preaching your sermon, in which you have made several claims. It is then your duty to present evidence to back up your claims. It is not my job to go to the library and confirm your beliefs. Your claim is that God is a fictrional character and did not create the universe. In Message 27 I asked 2 things.
quote: Either the universe is infinite or it began to exist. I believe God caused the universe to begin to exist.Source of information Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". tuffers believes ___________caused the universe to begin to exist. In Message 32 I asked if you would care to present evidence that proves Gen 1:1 wrong. So far zero evidence has been presented to back up anything you have asserted. You made this statement in 'msg=25
tuffers writes: 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.) In Message 32 I asked you to present that proof if it existed.No evidence presented. In the same message I challenged you to prove the Bible account of creation is false.
tuffers writes: 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. How does this: "How life started in the first place, I admit, is still unproven." Follow this: "Science has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that that is not how humans came into existence." It can not be proven that it did not happen the way the Bible says it happened until it is proven how it happened. So present your proof.
tuffers writes: 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. Could you produce a little of that evidence to back up your many assertions.
tuffers writes: 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. OK Then put forth your candidate for creator.Don't say the BBT as it created nothing. If you would like to debate the Genesis account of creation I would be delighted to participate. If you would like to compare the Genesis account of creation and what is scientifically known about creation I would be delighted to participate. We could start by your answering my questions. 1. Is the universe infinite? 2. Did the universe begin to exist? 3 Would you care to present evidence that Genesis 1:1 is wrong? yes/no If you care to present evidence lets have it. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I believe God caused the universe to begin to exist. Do you accept that somewhere down the casusal chain there has to be something that "just is"? i.e. something that is uncaused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I believe God caused the universe to begin to exist. Source of information Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". That would be from a book. Not evidence of anything in the least.
In the same message I challenged you to prove the Bible account of creation is false. Well with all the errors in the book, it is kind of hard to take anything as truth. The book makes claims that go against all laws of the physical universe. It makes extraordinary claims. I don't even need extraordinary evidence. Just give me some ordinary evidence. Science does not know about creation or if there was one. Why do you feel there is some special reason your biblical story is correct? Why cannot other creation stories be correct? You cannot prove your story is correct but you expect others to prove it isn't. Does your pomposity know no bounds? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024