Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


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 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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 92 of 111 (520185)
08-19-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Huntard
08-19-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes:
Not just Gen 1:1. The entire account of genesis.
But all of God's creation took place in Genesis 1:1 except water creatures and modern man.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 5:57 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2009 1:55 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 95 by tuffers, posted 08-25-2009 12:23 PM ICANT 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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 94 of 111 (520293)
08-20-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
08-19-2009 10:28 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
I read this sentence taking all his assertions in account as having a period he left out after original story.
Adding punctuation marks to other people's writings probably explains a lot - like how so many people so often point out you are having comprehension problems. I do wonder what other assertions you are referring to, because all of the ones on this subject seem to be asking why someone would believe in a character from a story that they think has been proven fictional.
I do realize we in America speak a different English than most countries.
I know Americans have strange rules about quotations and punctuation, but I've not met an American who thinks that adding punctuation to radically alter meaning is normal practice.
Fortunately Tuffers said the same thing in multiple different ways. His central question:
if you accept the Biblical creation story has been proven false
then why do still believe in the existence of its central character?
So, just to engage the topic for a moment - do you think it makes sense to hold the idea that a story is fictional but that the protagonist is real - especially given the intimate link between protagonist and deeds that is characteristic of YHWH - or am I being foolish using contemporary English to try and discuss this with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:28 AM ICANT has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 95 of 111 (521021)
08-25-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
08-19-2009 6:21 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Icant
Sorry 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 6:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 2:31 PM tuffers has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 96 of 111 (521224)
08-26-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by tuffers
08-25-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi tuffers,
tuffers writes:
Anyway, you want to discuss my assertions about evolution.
No I have not asked you to discuss your assertions about evolution.
I did ask for scientific evidence that backs up your assertion you made Here
The assertion being "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional".
All I ask was for you to produce the evidence that proves the Bible story of creation to be fiction.
If you don't have any then just say so.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by tuffers, posted 08-25-2009 12:23 PM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by tuffers, posted 08-27-2009 5:07 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 103 by flylike1, posted 04-11-2010 6:59 PM ICANT has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 97 of 111 (521342)
08-27-2009 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
08-26-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Icant
I 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 2:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 10:22 AM tuffers has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 98 of 111 (521395)
08-27-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by tuffers
08-27-2009 5:07 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi tuffers,
Good to hear from you.
tuffers writes:
I will take the trouble to compile a short list of some of the evidence for disproving the creation story of the Bible.
Just as a note.
All I am interested in is evidence concerning the universe begining to exist and life begining to exist. Nothing else is about creation.
Anything after they began to exist is about how they progressed after they existed until today.
I point this out so you won't waste a lot of time presenting how things have changed over time.
Which has nothing to do with how they began to exist.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by tuffers, posted 08-27-2009 5:07 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by onifre, posted 08-27-2009 1:08 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 102 by tuffers, posted 08-28-2009 5:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 99 of 111 (521434)
08-27-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
08-27-2009 10:22 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
All I am interested in is evidence concerning the universe begining to exist and life begining to exist.
If the universe did not begin as a process from nothing to something, which is the leading opinion in cosmology, then no creator is required, nor a process of creation. - Creation myth disproven.
As far as we can tell, it has always existed upto a small scale that we can mathematically explain using the current theories. Beyond that point, nothing more can be said with certainty.
-------------------------------------------
Your point about life falls into the process after the fact. Before life as we describe it is found on Earth, all of the necessary componenets are found. What took place in between life and non-life is the process that you do not wish to get into. - Creation myth disproven
Life did not come into existance at the moment of the Big Bang, it happened billions of years after the fact, so it falls within the parameters that you said are not part of your inquiry, so it's irrelevant, right?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 10:22 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 2:39 PM onifre has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 100 of 111 (521465)
08-27-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by onifre
08-27-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi oni,
I thought you wasn't talking to me.
onifre writes:
As far as we can tell, it has always existed upto a small scale that we can mathematically explain using the current theories. Beyond that point, nothing more can be said with certainty.
You don't know how it began to exist but you can still declare how it did not begin to exist.
onifre writes:
Life did not come into existance at the moment of the Big Bang,
Life began to exist in Genesis 1:1 so if you want to prove Genesis 1:1 false you would need to present the evidence for how it began to exist.
Since there is no scientific evidence for how either began to exist we can choose to believe whatever we desire.
Just don't tell me Genesis 1:1 has been proven false until your metaphysics becomes science.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by onifre, posted 08-27-2009 1:08 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 08-27-2009 4:00 PM ICANT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 111 (521502)
08-27-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ICANT
08-27-2009 2:39 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi ICANT,
I thought you wasn't talking to me.
You shouldn't think that. Maybe in one thread due to you not willing to see further than your perspective, but certainly not overall.
We cool...we always cool
You don't know how it began to exist but you can still declare how it did not begin to exist.
Again, I'm saying there is no point to begin from. In other words, there was never nothing and then suddenly something.
You are the only one declaring that it began from a state of nothingness. You cannot show evidence for that nor can you describe nothingness. It's a nonsensical concept.
Life began to exist in Genesis 1:1 so if you want to prove Genesis 1:1 false you would need to present the evidence for how it began to exist.
Nonsense. You're already coming into that with the view that Genesis is right.
Tell you what, describe how "life" began using Genesis as your guild. See how far you can get into describing the origin of the first cellular life using the Bible. If you come close to what the current evidence (scientific) shows, then I'll concede.
However, note that life is not described as beginning with a man and a woman, which is how the Bible states it. How do you get around that?
Just don't tell me Genesis 1:1 has been proven false until your metaphysics becomes science.
There's no metaphysics in the study of abiogenesis, and the fact that we are as close as we are to creating cellular life shows that it is possible.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 2:39 PM ICANT has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 102 of 111 (521579)
08-28-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by ICANT
08-27-2009 10:22 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Icant
Thanks 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 10:22 AM ICANT has not replied

  
flylike1
Junior Member (Idle past 5090 days)
Posts: 4
From: Taylor Mill/Louisville, KY, USA
Joined: 04-11-2010


Message 103 of 111 (555021)
04-11-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
08-26-2009 2:31 PM


Re: ICANT
"All I ask was for you to produce the evidence that proves the Bible story of creation to be fiction"
The Law of Superposition. The bible says everything was created at the same time, the Law of Superposition (applied) proves that this is not the case.

All religions are based on faith. If faith can lead to false belief, then what is the value of faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 2:31 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by AdminSlev, posted 04-11-2010 11:40 PM flylike1 has not replied
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 3:56 AM flylike1 has replied

  
AdminSlev
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 03-28-2010


Message 104 of 111 (555042)
04-11-2010 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by flylike1
04-11-2010 6:59 PM


Re: ICANT
Hi flylike1, welcome to EvC. Hope you have a good time here.
I just wanted to mention to you that you replied to a 6month old post, so it is possible you won't get a response immediatly. You can still PM ICANT if he is still around to invite him back into this thread for discussion.
Also, you can easily put your quote of someone in a nice little box like this:
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by flylike1, posted 04-11-2010 6:59 PM flylike1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 111 (555069)
04-12-2010 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by flylike1
04-11-2010 6:59 PM


The Law Of Superposition
The bible says everything was created at the same time, the Law of Superposition (applied) proves that this is not the case.
"Everything was created at the same time" is not a fair summary. The Bible says that fiat creation happened over a period of six days, but it does not say that everything came into being as a direct result of that act of fiat creation. No creationist would argue with the proposition that I was born two thousand years or so after the Emperor Augustus, because no creationist thinks that Augustus and I are a direct result of the six-day creation. Hence although he and I are comprised in "everything", the Bible does not state nor imply that we were both created at the same time --- nor "created" at all in a strict sense.
In the same way, a creationist is free to suppose that successive layers of sedimentary rock were indeed laid down successively in the order implied by superposition. (He'd have a bit more trouble with the law of faunal succession.)
As a matter of fact, the law of superposition was proposed by a creationist, Nicholas Steno, back in the day when creationists did things other than be wrong.
Your argument needs a little more work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by flylike1, posted 04-11-2010 6:59 PM flylike1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by flylike1, posted 04-18-2010 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 107 by flylike1, posted 04-18-2010 7:38 PM Dr Adequate 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