Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can there be a creator without creation?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 11 of 111 (519186)
08-12-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tuffers
08-12-2009 8:16 AM


tuffers writes:
How can God be both a fictional creator and a real creator?!
Like Leonardo in Mr. Jack's example is both a fictional creator (all the stuff he mentions Leonardo doing) and a real creator (he painted the Mona Lisa).
Science has proven the original creation story and therefore the creator in that story, God, to be false.
No, it hasn't. All evidence points to it being false though.
If there is a real creator, it is not God.
How do you know? Just because he probably didn't create as described in the bible, that doesn't mean he didn't create at all.
So any new proponents of a creator need to start from scratch. They should not assign their creator with the same name or the same characteristics as the fictional character.
In my experinece, they certainly don't assign the same chracteristics to their god of choice as the ones we can glance from the bible.
The problem for any new proponents of a creator, though, is that they can't hide their evidence thousands of years in the past. Any evidence available to them for a creator must also be available for us to see. Where is it?
Up until now, I don't think there is any. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though it very strongly suggests it.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 8:16 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 10:55 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 14 of 111 (519192)
08-12-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
08-12-2009 9:09 AM


Re: It was not William Shakespeare that wrote Hamlet but another man of the same name
Mr Jack writes:
unlike Huntard I'm quite comfortable describing the genesis myth as proven false.
Heh. I thought something like this would come up. It's more my personal convivtion that absolutely nothing is completely certain that doesn't let me make such strong statements. I will say however that to me, for all intents and purposes, the Genesis myth is considered to be false. I just can't bring myself to give it that 100% certainty. Kinda like Dawkins doesn't give the non-existence of god a 100% certainty. And we all know how he feels about that.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 9:09 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 111 (519305)
08-13-2009 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by tuffers
08-13-2009 4:40 AM


Re: Last Thursdayism?
tuffers writes:
No. I haven't heard of it, and I fear I'm going to regret asking this: what is it?
It is the belief that the universe and everything in it (including your memories and all evidence that points to an older universe and earth) were created only last thursday. Impossible to disprove.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by tuffers, posted 08-13-2009 4:40 AM tuffers has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 23 of 111 (519309)
08-13-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by tuffers
08-13-2009 5:30 AM


Re: Hello Bluejay
tuffers writes:
But they got that FUNDEMENTAL part wrong.
How do you know? They may have got the manner of creation wrong, however, it might still be the case god is the creator of everything.
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.
I think I'm beginning to see your point. However, God might be exactly as described in the bible, just not acting as described in the bible (if that even makes sense). Logic has also never stopped the "true believers" from claiming all sorts of stuff.

I hunt for the truth

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 24 by tuffers, posted 08-13-2009 6:55 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 25 of 111 (519315)
08-13-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by tuffers
08-13-2009 6:55 AM


tuffers writes:
I'm glad you're finally beginning to see my point. I fully take the blame for not articulating it very well.
Understanding comes from both sides.
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.
Probably, yes.
I don't consider it logical at all to state that God might be exactly as described in the bible, just not acting as described in the bible. In the story, he is described primarily BY his actions.
You might have a point there. However, the creation story is not the only story about god in the bible.
It sounds like this Last Thursdayism is similar to what I understand is called post-modern relativism. I.E. nothing can be ultimately proved or disproved and any idea is as valid or invalid as any other. My response to that is always that that in itself is an idea and therefore worthless by its own definition.
Yep.
I admire you for being totally open-minded, but I can't see the point of joining in a debate if you are so open-minded that you don't think any view can be logically reasoned or proven. Apologies in advance if I misunderstood you there.
Apologies accepted. For you did.
My stance is that nothing is absolutely certain. I also maintain that things that have no evidence for them should be treated as if they don't exist, since they apparently don't influence reality. So while there is some open-mindedness there, you'll never see me defend for example the great flood as something that happened. For all intents and purposes that to me didn't happen. Neither did the genensis creation story, or other supernatural "miracles" and so forth. I however maintain they could be true, however find it pointless to consider their truth without any evidence for it.
In short, it's all based on evidence. I just don't like absolutism, since absolute proof can never be obtained.
That's how I go about my life.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by tuffers, posted 08-13-2009 6:55 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by tuffers, posted 08-13-2009 1:38 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 76 of 111 (520030)
08-19-2009 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
08-18-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:
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.
No he didn't. Can't you read even the things you yourself quote? Look at that last one again, carefully, especially the part you didn't colour.
Here, I'll quote it for you:
tuffers writes:
and therefore the creator in that story, God, to be false.
Notice the bolded part?
The rest I'll leave for Tuffers.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 08-18-2009 6:22 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 9:21 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 82 of 111 (520088)
08-19-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
08-19-2009 9:21 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hey ICANT,
Mod explained it quite well I think. But I'll run down your interpretation as well.
Statement of fact. "Science has proven the original creation story
Conclusion, desiginated by therefore meaning because of that,
"the creator in that story, God, to be false."
Result of that conclusion, "If there is a real creator, it is not God."
Uhm no. These are in effect 2 sentences. The first and primary being "Science has proven the original creation story to be false." The second one being "Because science has disproven the creation story false, it also proved the creator in that story to be false."
This was condensed into a single sentence, by use of the word "and". This was the sentence you quoted.
Now please point out where I messed up and did not understand what tuffers said.
I hope it's clearer now.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 9:21 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:39 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 85 of 111 (520096)
08-19-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
08-19-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:
Its clear that you and Mod think you understand what he meant.
I am not so sure.
Let's ask him, shall we?
Tuffers, my dear man, what did you mean with that sentence?
Did you mean, like ICANT thinks, that the creation story of the bible has been proven by science.
Or did you mean, like Mod and me are saying, that becasue science has proven the creation story of the bible wrong, it has therefore also proven that the "god" in that creation story cannot exist.
Thanks for responding and clearing this up!

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:39 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:57 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 87 of 111 (520108)
08-19-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by ICANT
08-19-2009 10:57 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:
Hold on there nelly,
I believe he meant that science had proven the creation story.
Not the Genesis story of creation.
Uhm, it's quite clear that's the one he meant. What is "the creation story" anyway? What do you mean by that if not the one from genesis in this context?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:57 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 4:17 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 111 (520158)
08-19-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
08-19-2009 4:17 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:
Unless the universe is infinite it had to begin to exist.
Whether it was God, that beautiful pink unicorn, or Hawking's instanton 'some thing' caused it to begin to exist.
Or do you believe the universe to be infinite?
First of all, let's not turn this into another "origins of the universe" thread. Second, I think the evidence so far shows the universe has existed for all of time. Third, that's not an answer to the question, what is this "original creation story" you keep referring to?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 4:17 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 5:11 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 91 of 111 (520174)
08-19-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ICANT
08-19-2009 5:11 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:
Creation that tuffers has said that science has proved to be false is the version found in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Not just Gen 1:1. The entire account of genesis.
So how did science prove it to be false?
By showing that's not what happened. But I'll let Tuffers make his own points.
The only way is to prove how the universe was created. That is the origin of the universe. That is what Genesis posits.
My Hebrew teacher had a unique way of getting around this universe being infinite. He held Genesis 1:1 should have been translated "in the beginnings God created the heaven and the earth".
Indeed.... if we put the word didn't in there, it has changed even more, wouldn't you say? Why is this correct? Because you feel better when it says this?
All of time is not infinity.
Not yet, no.
Is the universe infinite or not?
As far as I can tell, the universe is finite. But I'm no physicist.
Expansion proved to Einstein that his infinite universe did not exist therefore the universe began to exist.
Argument from authority. Einstein thought the universe was a steady state one, before being proven wrong. And he certainly didn't think of it as "beginning to exist" in the way you seem to be implying.
But again, not another "origins of the universe" thread, please. I was merely pointing out that you made a mistake in quoting and interpreting what Tuffers said, let's await his answer before we continue.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 5:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 6:21 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 93 of 111 (520233)
08-20-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
08-19-2009 6:21 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:
But all of God's creation took place in Genesis 1:1 except water creatures and modern man.
That's your interpretation. There are many others, and this isn't a bible study thread. Anyway, take it up with Tuffers, he's the one that wrote the OP.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 6:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 108 of 111 (556311)
04-19-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by flylike1
04-18-2010 7:38 PM


Re: The Law Of Superposition
flylike1 writes:
I think it's worth pointing out that Ibn Sn, or Avicenna (a Muslim, for what it's worth) is considered the "father of geology" largely for the fact that he proposed plate tectonics, the law of superposition, and many other things in his "book of healing" or "Kitab Al-Shifa" around the year 1020.
That's interesting. Do you have a source for that?
And a free tip: Use the "Peek" button to the bottom right of this post to se how I did that neat little quotebox.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by flylike1, posted 04-18-2010 7:38 PM flylike1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by flylike1, posted 04-20-2010 4:51 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 111 of 111 (556787)
04-21-2010 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by flylike1
04-20-2010 4:51 PM


Re: The Law Of Superposition
flylike1 writes:
Yeah sure. I just recently learned about him, extremely interesting and intellectual guy. He lived during the Golden Age of Islam, which was at one point far more advanced than anywhere in the world. Then came their theocracy...
Yeah, I knew about that. Thanks for the links, very interesting stuff there!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by flylike1, posted 04-20-2010 4:51 PM flylike1 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