|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can there be a creator without creation? | |||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
tuffers writes:
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).
How can God be both a fictional creator and a real creator?! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Mr Jack writes:
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. unlike Huntard I'm quite comfortable describing the genesis myth as proven false. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
tuffers writes:
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. No. I haven't heard of it, and I fear I'm going to regret asking this: what is it? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
tuffers writes:
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.
But they got that FUNDEMENTAL part wrong. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
tuffers writes:
Understanding comes from both sides.
I'm glad you're finally beginning to see my point. I fully take the blame for not articulating it very well. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
ICANT writes:
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. 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. Here, I'll quote it for you:
tuffers writes:
Notice the bolded part? and therefore the creator in that story, God, to be false. The rest I'll leave for Tuffers. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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
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." 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." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Let's ask him, shall we? Its clear that you and Mod think you understand what he meant. I am not so sure. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
ICANT writes:
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? Hold on there nelly, I believe he meant that science had proven the creation story. Not the Genesis story of creation. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
ICANT writes:
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? 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? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Not just Gen 1:1. The entire account of genesis.
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." 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.
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?
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". 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
ICANT writes:
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. But all of God's creation took place in Genesis 1:1 except water creatures and modern man. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
flylike1 writes:
That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? 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. And a free tip: Use the "Peek" button to the bottom right of this post to se how I did that neat little quotebox.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
flylike1 writes:
Yeah, I knew about that. Thanks for the links, very interesting stuff there!
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...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024