|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can there be a creator without creation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Welcome to EvC tuffers, I hope my little opinion on all this will help.
To me, your argumentation looks pretty much like the fallacy of denying the antecedent, which would go like this: 1. If the genesis account of creation is accurate, then the Christian God is real. 2. The genesis account of creation is no accurate 3. Therefore, the christian God is not real Now, I'm not an expert on argumentation, fallacies, etc. so I may be wrong. But if this is indeed what you are argumentating for, it is effectively a logical fallacy. There are a couple of ways to show that theistic evotuionism is not a rational position, but this is not one of them, in my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5304 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi Slevesque
Thanks 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5304 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Dear Icant
I 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5304 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi kbertsche
Thanks 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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: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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5304 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi kbertsche
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi tuffer,
tuffers writes: I will happily discuss my assertions and evidence another day under another topic heading. I want to keep this topic on track. If you did not want to discuss your assertions here why did you make the assertions here?You are the one making the assertions if the train got off the track you threw the switch. tuffrs writes: In my original message, I was asking a question out of curiosity. The question was aimed at those who already accept scientific evidence. I accept scientific facts.I do not believe scientific hypothesis as fact. That takes a lot of faith. I do not believe scientific theories as fact. That takes faith. Just to recap your derailment of your thread. You start of with the statement of fact as you believe it that "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional. I ask you for evidence to back up that assertion and you now tell me you would be glad to discuss the evidence just not in this thread. So I should just take my marbles and go play in another sandbox somewhere else.
Message 1tuffers writes:
Color added. 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. You make that as a statement of fact with no qualifications.
Message 6tuffers writes: Science may not (yet) have proven creation wrong, but the point I'm making is that it has proven God to be wrong.
Where and how did science prove God to be wrong?
Message 10tuffers writes: color added 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. Science has no clue as to the original creation. Since science has no theory of the creation, what scientific evidence proves God to be false?
Message 16tuffers writes: 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. Theistic evolutionist believes that God used evolution to accomplish all that there is. YEC creationist are basically the ones who believe God created man from scratch a few thousand years ago.
Message 22tuffers writes: The whole Bible story hangs on the proposition that God was a creator. But they got that FUNDEMENTAL part wrong. List the fundamental things that are wrong?
tuffers writes: 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. If you know that why did you make the statement in msg 16 above that you made.Was it just because you could? Message 24tuffers writes: 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. So which point in the story is so fundamentally wrong?You haven't pointed out one yet. Message 27ICANT writes: Are you saying the Bible is wrong?OR Are you saying what you believe the Bible says is wrong? Because according to what you have written so far you don't have a clue as to what the Bible says. In Message 28 you responded that you didn't even own a copy of the Bible. Then you made several statements the Bible does not say or teach. Although some people teach it says what you said. Big difference. You then made the statement I have asked you for the scientific proof of several times.
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.) Which you now say you have no intention of discussing or presenting evidence for in this thread.Then why did you bring it up in this thread? Oh I know just because you could. You then concluded the creation story as fictional and thus God as fictional. You then made the statement:
tuffers writes: Without evidence for a creation, there can't be any evidence for a creator. But there is evidence for a creation.Unless the universe is infinite. Which is scientifically impossible. Had the universe been expanding for infinity we would not exist. So either the universe is infinite or it began to exist. If the universe began to exist it had a cause for it's existence. Whether that cause was God or Hawking's instanton in imaginary time or some other exotic thing happening the universe had a creator. The proof is the universe exist.
Message 29tuffers writes: I think there is sufficient evidence now to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the creation story of Genesis was made up, Could you produce a little of that sufficient evidence.
Message 30tuffers writes: 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. You stated as a fact above that science had proved the creation story to be wrong. Now when confronted with the fact that nothing in science is ever proven you add reasonable doubt. Then you conclude that:
tuffers writes: I think I'll leave this topic now, life's too short (that is definitely beyond all reasonable doubt). I translate that to mean before that idiot ICANT asks me for evidence I can't produce.
Message 38tuffers writes: Science has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that that is not how humans came into existence. Science has not proven how life began to exist yet. That comes first. Anything without that is just guesses as you put it. You make this claim and then tell me to go find the evidence to back up your claim.It is your job to produce the evidence to support your claims. Not mine. Message 42tuffers writes: 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. You again claim God must be fictional because the Genesis account is fictional. But you don't even know what the Genesis account of creation is.
Message 56tuffers writes: 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 whatsoever of a creation? Just for your information, religionist are the only ones who have an account of creation. Science is silent on that subject. There has been a lot of speculaion put forth by the imaginations of man. So what scientific evidence do you have access to that refutes the Genesis account you keep telling us is wrong or fictional. What proves it to be so beyond reasonable doubt.
Message 62tuffers writes: It was never my initial purpose to declare that there cannot be a creator, If it was not your purpose, why did you do it so many times?
Message 64tuffers writes: 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! The only person who will accept that the creation account given in Genesis is false is a person who is not a born again blood bought child of God. I believe the Genesis account of creation to be literal and scientifically correct. The Genesis account of creation and the ones spawned off of it are the only accounts of creation we will ever have. Science does not have one. For science to get an account of creation it needs to figure out how to get past a very dense hot something that was a trillion degrees kevin. Anything else will be a guess. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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: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: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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi tuffers,
In the OP you state:
tuffers writes: 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. This is talking about creation and a creator. It has absolutuly nothing to do with evolution. So how do you get to this:
tuffers writes: 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. You abandoned your OP by the time we reached Message 28. So please explain where the transition from creation and the creator to evolution took place. That ain't moving the goalposts. That's moving to a different stadium. You need to settle creation, then the origin of life before you attack evolution. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5304 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi Icant
I 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5304 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi kbertsche
At 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi tuffers,
tuffers writes: I 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. Your OP seems pretty clear to me.
Message 1tuffers writes:
Color added. 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. The creation story of the Bible is fictional. Pretty plain to me.
Message 6tuffers writes:
"Science....has proven God to be wrong". Pretty plain to me.
Science may not (yet) have proven creation wrong, but the point I'm making is that it has proven God to be wrong.
Message 10tuffers writes: color added 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. "Science has proven the original creation story." Pretty plain to me. You came to EvC claiming: Science had proved the Bible to be fiction. Science had proved God to be wrong. Science had proven the original creation story. I have asked for the scientific evidence that accomplishes these things. Nothing else. As evidence you have presented an absence of any. I did not ask you to prove evolution. RAZD would be a much better person to ask for information on evolution. I simply asked you to back up your assertions with the scientific evidence you claim exists to prove these things. You can not produce the evidence because it does not exist. So I can't blame you for not wanting to back up your assertions as you can't. Now to the question you didn't asked in the OP. How could people believe in the Creator God and still believe that the story in Genesis is wrong. They simply do not believe in the God of Genesis 1:1. They believe in their version of the God in Genesis 1:1. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5304 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Hi kbertsche
Thanks 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Why an ancient religious text? Why not a modern one? Ancient people knew that the Sun and Moon existed, so they attributed them to God. Modern people know about evolution and the Big Bang, so if they are religious, they attribute those to him too as a couple of his ideas. God qua creator is simply not defined (except by fundies, to whom I would not trust the definition of "cheese sandwich") as: "The being who behaved in the way described in Genesis as taken absolutely literally". He's just defined as the First Cause of everything else --- whatever everything else turns out to be like.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024