How can there be a creator without creation?

quote:

---

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.

---

Your conclusion does not follow your premise.Homer wrote fiction, with many details which are obviously not "real" in a literal sense. Does this mean that everything in his stories is fiction? Many thought so until Schliemann found and excavated some of the cities mentioned by Homer.You seem to be making the faulty assumption that either none of the account is fiction or all of it is. Literature is much more complex than this.

quote:

---

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?

---

Who says that "the Bible contains no valid account of creation?" I don't believe any Christian would say this.First, all Christians would agree that the Genesis account is "valid" and is presenting important spiritual truth, independent of whether its descriptions are literal or figurative. It is not a scientific account of creation, but it is nonetheless a valid account.Second, there are many other mentions of creation in the Bible. Even if we did not have the first few chapters of Genesis, we would know that God is the creator. See, for example, Psalm 19, Psalm 104, and Job 38-42. These are all poetic passages with lots of non-literal details, but they all present God as creator.

quote:

---

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.

---

What comprises "good evidence?" I would include historical records and revelation by God as "good evidence" for someone who did not witness events directly.

quote:

---

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!

---

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 disagree that the account is false. And I disagree that "nobody ever had any valid evidence for a creation."

quote:

---

OK, 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.

---

You are correct--they don't. But neither are they inconsistent with the modern scientific account. They are describing creation in a poetic fashion, not intended to be literal.

quote:

---

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 believe that God created the universe through a Big Bang roughly 13.7 billion years ago. I also believe the Bible is inspired by God and is true.

quote:

---

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?

---

Jesus often used parables (fictional accounts) to convey spiritual truth. Does this make the parables "false?"Authors often use made-up analogies or illustrations to make their point. Does this make them "false?"Poets often use non-literal language to convey ideas. Does this make the ideas "false?"I would not call any of the above "false." The author is not intending to mislead or to make any sort of false claims in any of these instances. The reader is not meant to infer any sort of false claims. So I see no reason to label these things as "false."

quote:

---

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?

---

I agree with you that the authors did not know about the Big Bang. I don't believe that they were trying to describe the Big Bang. This is a scientific concept, but the Bible is not a science text.The Bible is trying to convey a theological message, not a scientific one. It describes God as the creator of everything using theological and philosophical language, not scientific language.There are many ways of understanding and interpreting Genesis chapter 1. The various views can be grouped into "concordist" views, where Genesis 1 is matched up with modern science, and "non-concordist" views, where Genesis 1 is seen as a purely literary account with no direct match to modern science.You seem to be assuming a "concordist" perspective, and this is probably the natural approach for most people. The best concordist view I've seen is from Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe (http://www.rtb.org) In this view the Big Bang belongs in Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Note that this verse does not describe a Big Bang; it says nothing about when or how the creation of the universe occurred, only that God created it.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.