Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can there be a creator without creation?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 18 of 111 (519261)
08-12-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by tuffers
08-12-2009 10:55 AM


Fiction vs. Wrongness
Hi, Tuffers.
I don't think I've welcomed you to EvC yet, so... welcome!
tuffers writes:
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.
This is a really non-sensical argument.
It sounds to me like you are saying that, if I tell a story about my brother Steve's days as a high school football star, and I get a few details wrong, I have somehow invented a new brother. Your solution to this is for me to no longer use the name "Steve," and to completely wipe my mind clear of all things I thought I knew about Steve, when talking about Steve's football career.
This is about the least sense I have ever heard anybody make in my life.
-----
I think the major misconception that you are suffering from is equivocation on the words "fictional" and "wrong." Being wrong doesn't make something fiction. Fiction is written with no intention of being right. Wrongness comes from trying to be right, and failing. The Bible was not written as fiction: its writers intended it, and its believers read it, as a factual exposition on what they thought was an actual, historical person.
When some facts are wrong, you don't completely remove a historical character from the history books: you simply remove the errors. And, that's how Christian evolutionists view God.
To theistic evolutionists, God is not a fictional character: He is a historical character about whom the writers got some of their facts wrong. Maybe they got all the facts wrong, in which case we should subscribe to your proposal; but, since the religious community, including the theistic evolutionists, still view God as a historical character, asking them to treat Him as a fictional character will get you nowhere.
-----
tuffers writes:
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.
Who are these people you're talking about who believe both of these things simultaneously and on purpose?
I say these people do not exist.
Those who believe both believe the first to be literal, and the second to be metaphorical. There is no paradox: there is only the question of why God gave us a metaphor when it would only confuse and mislead us.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 10:55 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by tuffers, posted 08-13-2009 5:30 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 36 of 111 (519464)
08-13-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by tuffers
08-13-2009 5:30 AM


Non Sequitur
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:
  • According to the Bible, Creation is something that God did.
  • According to my story, throwing four touchdown passes in one game is something that my brother did.
These two statements are not analogous:
  • According to the Bible, Creation is something that God did.
  • According to my story, I have a brother named Steve.
-----
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:
  • throws fireballs
  • saves souls
  • turns someone into a pillar of salt
  • heals the sick
  • brings people back to life
  • prophesies about the future
  • exorcises unclean spirits
  • sacrifices His Son for people’s sins
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by tuffers, posted 08-13-2009 5:30 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by tuffers, posted 08-14-2009 5:36 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 50 of 111 (519538)
08-14-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by tuffers
08-14-2009 5:36 AM


Re: Not a Non Sequitur
Hi, Tuffers.
tuffers writes:
I hope I can finally make my point concisely in this way.
You haven't yet failed to make your point. You've successfully communicated it three times now. But, I still disagree with it.
-----
tuffers writes:
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...
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.
But, we weren't talking about evidence for or against any of these propositions before. The point you very clearly articulated several times was that the God from the Bible can't be real if the way He is presented in the Bible is inaccurate.
But, the point is that people who believe in theistic evolution do not believe in the depiction of God presented in the Bible. At least, not in its entirety.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by tuffers, posted 08-14-2009 5:36 AM tuffers has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 58 of 111 (519620)
08-15-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tuffers
08-15-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Let's get back to my original question!
Hi, Tuffers.
tuffers writes:
...is there anyone at all on this site who can give a good explanation as to why they or anyone else should continue to consider God to be a creator when they don't have an account for any creation he may have carried out?
So, all you wanted was for somebody to provide evidence of a creator?
That's an extremely broad topic.
I personally maintain my belief system only because I simply don't have the time to research all possibilities thoroughly enough to confirm to my own satisfaction that I understand how everything fits together. Furthermore, much of the stuff I do know, I don't know how to interpret.
So, to me, retaining a belief in God is just a way of keeping an open mind about things that I don't understand completely. In reality, I count more as agnostic than religious.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tuffers, posted 08-15-2009 11:36 AM 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