How can there be a creator without creation?

Hi DocI 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?

Hi Mr JackI 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!

Hi Icant & Everyone Else,I don't mind admitting when I have made a mistake and I have made a massive mistake during this debate. It has been to allow it to go way off track from my original question.Before I go back to my original question, I want to make this point. I understand the concept of absolutism; I.E. that nothing can be regarded as ultimately proven, or ultimately known. But I make no apologies for giving no consideration whatsoever to completely unlikely events, until such time as there is good reason for doing so. Nobody can live a life by giving serious consideration to the incredibly unlikely. Anyone who refuses to open their front door every morning just in case they might step straight into the fires of Hell would be considered insane. Unless they live in Manchester. Leading a life that way would be impossible and pointless, and so debating something in that way is also pointless. Anyone else is free to continue debating in this manner, but I will not be joining them.My original question was to aimed at those who have accepted that the bible contains no valid account of creation, but who continue to regard the character God is a real creator. There are many leading scientists and high-rankers in major religions, including the Catholic Church, who adopt this position.This is what I can't understand. How can you consider that you have a valid and specific creator, if you don't have any account whatsovever of a creation?I suppose there's no reason why there should be, but 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? I would like to hear something more interesting that simply that there is no proof God was not a creator. As I said in my first post, that doesn't give any more reason to believe God is a creator than anything else.

Hi SlevesqueThanks for your welcome.It was never my initial purpose to declare that there cannot be a creator, nor was it my initial purpose to declare that there cannot be a creator who shares some of the characteristics of God of the bible.I am simply interested to know how anyone who dismisses the creation account of the bible still considers that the character God is a creator. They never had an account of creation for which there was any evidence; now they admit they don't even have an account of creation in which to place faith! So without any account of creation AT ALL with which to link God, how do they still consider God to be a creator?I wasn't trying to express my own view. I am interested to understand how so-called moderate Christians arrive at theirs.I think my question could be legitimately asked by a literalist Christian, as easily as it could by an agnostic/atheist.

Dear IcantI will happily discuss my assertions and evidence another day under another topic heading.I want to keep this topic on track.In my original message, I was asking a question out of curiosity. The question was aimed at those who already accept scientific evidence. If you don't fall into that catagory or if you don't have an opinion about those that do, that's absolutely fine and this topic is not for you.May your god bless you.

Hi kbertscheThanks for your response. I appreciate that you have made one of the few real answers my question.The thing that lead me to ask my question is my understanding of what "faith" is.I hope it is fair to say that the only way any events listed in the bible could be true is if someone either directly witnessed those events or if they had good evidence for them at the time. Otherwise all they could be were guesses.Those who may have witnessed any events in the bible are long dead, and no evidence for the events has been passed down. That is nobody's fault, because they didn't have things like cameras or audio recorders 2000-3000 years ago! So, without evidence today, all you can have is trust that the originators of the account of events in the bible were telling the truth about evidence they had at the time. That trust in someone elses account is what I understand to be FAITH.So if you no longer even have FAITH in a literal account of creation, you are saying that there wasn't even any evidence at the time the account was written. That can only mean that you consider those who wrote the account were guessing.So, to re-phrase my original question: if you consider that the literal account of creation in the bible is false, and therefore that nobody ever had any valid evidence for a creation, how do you still consider that God is a creator? As far as I can see it, you now only have faith in what you consider to be someone else's guess!

Hi kbertscheOK, I've read the psalms and Job 38-42 as you suggested. Thank you.I don't see how they reflect the modern scientific understanding of how humans evolved and the age of the universe.Just to repeat: my question is aimed at those who already fully accept the modern scientific understanding the universe, and link it to God.It seems to me that nobody on this site actually fits into that category, or has openly admitted to doing so, so it is probably pointless any of us trying to second-guess their reasons for doing so. I was at fault for attempting this on a few occasion. Unless anyone comes along and clearly explains how they fully accept the modern scientific account of evolution and the universe, and link it to the character God, I'm going to abandon this topic.I'm interested though in your following assertion:I wouldn't say that "the literal account of creation in the bible is false." Rather, I would say that the account of creation in the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally. There's a big difference.I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'd appreciate your explanation of difference?Edited by tuffers, : Edited for clarity and spelling error.

Hi IcantI was using the term "creation" as a broad term to encompass the "creation of mankind" and the "creation of the universe". Sorry that I didn't clarify that at the start.Science holds the opinion that humans evolved from other species without the interference of an intelligent designer. I have already acknowledged that science hasn't yet ascertained how life started on this planet.This topic was aimed at those who ALREADY ACCEPT the general scientific principles such as evolution and the Big Bang. I want to understand why some of them still believe in a specific intelligent designer and how they link that intelligent designer to specific processes such as evolution and the Big Bang when those processes are not literally accounted for in the bible.I am not interested in getting bogged down in the question of evidence for evolution under this topic. As I have already said, I am happy to discuss that with you another day, but I only have limited time to discuss anything so I want to concentrate on my topic at this moment.I will get back to you!

Hi kbertscheAt last it seems I might have found someone who holds the kind of opinion I was questioning right at the start! I hope we can now take this discussion somewhere and you don’t mind me questioning you on the reasons for your belief.I fully understand that the creation passages in the bible could be poems or parables that offer metaphorical accounts of real events. If they are based on real events, I accept that that - as metaphors - they are not false.However, they could only be true metaphorical accounts of real events (such as the Big Bang) if the originators knew of the real events upon which they based their metaphors.Yet, to me I can’t understand how people who lived 2000-3000 years ago could possibly have known of the Big Bang that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. They didn’t have anything like the scientific instrumentation or communications that we have today. Indeed, their metaphors sound to me like made-to-fit-almost-anything metaphors that anyone could just dream up.And the fact that they used metaphors instead of directly stating specifics like the Universe starting 13.7 billion years ago, or life starting on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago, only dramatically increases the likelihood that they didn’t know of those events.So, my first question is: please could you explain why you are convinced that the metaphors were designed to describe what we both accept to be real events such as the Big Bang?

Hi kbertscheThanks for your reply.I don't like to make assumptions but feel I'm being forced to do so in order to tease out an explanation from someone as to why they hold the view that I'm questioning. It seems so hard to get anyone to step up to the plate and clearly explain how they link a specific fictional/metaphorical tale to what they consider to be a real event, and how they define their creator from that position.Anyway, thank you for recommending http://www.rtb.org. I will take a look at it.

Hi IcantOK. It seems like I'm not going to get any explicit answers to my question directly from this site, so I'm now happy to discuss my assertions with you. Thanks for your patience.You ask me to provide evidence for science proving God to be wrong.First, I will re-iterate that I’m talking about God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. (I am not familiar with the texts of other religions but as far as I am aware the same principles I will explain here would apply to any other god of scripture. If I am wrong I am open to being corrected on that.) I am talking about the literal God of the Bible. The one that created the heaven and the earth, AND created the first man out of dust, AND the first woman out of a rib, AND did all the other things it says he did.I assert that science has proven that THAT God does not exist.I pick evolution as the most obvious example of proof that that God does not exist.I have already explained that I understand the principle that nothing can ever be absolutely 100% proven or known. I would define proof as an overwhelming combination of evidence pointing in 1 direction, together with sane reasoning based on logic, experience, and probability.Evolution is not compatible with the story of humans being created out of dust and a rib. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution and absolutely none whatsoever for a man being made out of dust and a woman out of a rib. That is why I accept there is overwhelming proof that THAT God does not exist.You ask for the evidence. I’m not clear what you want me to do. I’m sure you are aware of fossil records, genetics, geology, anthropology, etc. I cannot physically deliver fossils over the internet. I am not going to deliver them to your front door with a large Coke. If you don’t know about those things, you need to read books on those subjects, as I have already suggested. These books have been written by people who have made the effort to go out into the field or construct experiments in a laboratory and then written down their findings for your convenience. They’ve made it easy for you. You are extraordinarily fortunate to live in a time and a place where you don’t even need to get off your backside to order these books. If you don’t believe the facts reported in the books, fine. You can either go out into the field yourself and make your own observations, or you can go to the scientific institutes, museums and universities and ask to see the evidence. That is the big difference between the accounts of thousands of science books and the account of the Bible. The evidence collected by modern science is still available.I’m not going to help you any more on your request for evidence. You need to make your own effort.Now back to my assertion that God does not exist. I have explained my assertion that there is proof that the God that created humans out of dust and a rib does not exist.If you wish to claim that there is another character called God, and it is real, then please define literally what it really is. Don’t give me metaphors or poems. What are you ACTUALLY talking about? I will then consider whether or not there is proof of its existence or non-existence.

Hi DocAs indicated in my last message to Icant, I don't consider a generalised undefined creator to be anything at all. Therefore, it is nothing to be proven or disproven.The only defined creator that I am familiar with is the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. If you know of any ancient or modern text that actually has the balls to stick its neck out to define a creator, then I would happily consider it.

Hi IcantSorry for my absence. I had to spend a few days back in the real world for the sake of my sanity.Huntard and Modulous have explained very well what I meant (better than I did, I think) and I have paraphrased my argument several times, so I’m not going to go over old ground. I will just expand my general point (hopefully for the last time) as follows.It doesn’t help by declaring creation stories such as the Adam and Eve to be metaphors, because you are still left with the most basic questions about God:1) What actually is God?2) What specifically did God create?3) How did God create anything?You need to be able to define exactly what God is supposed to be in order to prove/disprove God’s existence, and you need to be able to define exactly what God created to know what kind of creator God is. Otherwise all you can do is attempt prove what God is not. But what is the point of trying to prove what something is not when you have no basic definition (or certainly no consensus) of what it is?That is the thing that really baffles me: how people keep talking about God as if there is a universal understanding of what is meant by the word. I want people to stick their neck out and specify what they mean by God, especially if they are going to use it as a basis for expressing absolute certainties. God, as it stands, is not a basis for anything. Uh oh! I feel another topic coming!Anyway, you want to discuss my assertions about evolution. You keep asking me to back up my assertions. Please specify exactly what you would like me to offer, because I don’t want to waste time. I am not a scientist, so I don’t possess any physical evidence myself, but I could list some of the evidence I have seen that has convinced me evolution is a fact. Will that be satisfactory for you?

Hi IcantI did not assert in my opening message that "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional". I asserted that many people have accepted that to be the case.As I have explained to you several times, my topic was aimed at those who accept the scientific account of how the Earth was formed and how humans came into existence, yet who still believe in the creator character from the Bible. I could have asked my original question from the perspective of either an atheist or a fundamental creationist.Anyway, because I am a good little atheist, just for you I will take the trouble to compile a short list of some of the evidence for disproving the creation story of the Bible. Give me a day or 2 because I am busy and I need to pick a few choice examples - I'm not going to copy a whole book on evolution or cosmology onto this site.Meanwhile, please feel free to read some science books yourself.

Hi IcantThanks for clarifying what you wanted, so I won't waste my time.As I consider "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth" to be an utterly meaningless statement (there being no clear definition or consensus on what "God" and "Heaven" are), there is nothing to prove or disprove. It is only where the Bible makes a half-hearted effort to stick its neck out and claim things such as humans being made out of dust and a rib that you actually have anything of substance to prove/disprove.Anyway, if you want to discuss these things any further I suggest you start a new topic.Have a nice weekend.