|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can there be a creator without creation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
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. How can the fictional creation character called God, who in a story made the Earth in 6 days and the first human out of some dust just a few thousand years ago, also be a real creator who made the Earth 4.5 billion years ago and made humans through the 3-4 billion year evolution process? It does not make any more sense to pluck the character called "God" out of fiction and claim he is the creator of the real Universe we know of today, than it would to pluck out any other character from fiction for the same purpose. It's as ludicrous as saying that James Bond, Batman or Harry Potter created the Universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the How can there be a creator without creation? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Yeah, you're right but people still believe in the supernatural for all sorts of reasons.
Our brains are pretty much wired to infer conscious will from pretty much anything: volcanoes, tidal waves, comets etc. Helped keep us alive in prehistoric times. By the way; science does not prove creation wrong: it strongly suggests it is wrong. A small but significant difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
The road map being wrong doesn't mean that someone hasn't been building roads.
The true nature of the creation is the creation, not a book about the creation. Had they got the creation story right in Genesis, would that have proven the existence of God? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
And on the third day, Leonardo Da Vinci flew through the air with the greatest of ease, and rained fireballs from the sky upon the invaders. And then, after a nice cup of tea and a bun, he fashioned the great barrier reef from a sock and yesterday's avocado.
Now, did Leonardo make the Mona Lisa or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Science may not (yet) have proven creation wrong, but the point I'm making is that it has proven God to be wrong. God is the character in the Bible story that created the Earth in 6 days, etc. As science has proven that story to be wrong, it has proven the character God to be wrong.
We have only just discovered evidence for the 14 billion year old Universe. So if someone claims there is a creator of this newly discovered Universe, they must have only recently discovered evidence for this creator. That means that, unlike God, there must be evidence available today for this new creator. Where is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Minnemooseus
If you are claiming today that the old road map is wrong but someone is building another road system, you must have evidence today for that new road system. If they had got the old creation story right, and we had evidence today that it was right, yes that would prove that the creator called God was right, because he was an integral part of that story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Mr Jack
Thanks for your response, but I've no idea what your point is! I'm happy to accept that's because I'm not as bright as you, and I'm certainly not as cute as you appear to be in your photo!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
My point is that writing wrong fiction about a real person has no impact on whether that person is real or not; or whether they actually made what they really made or not.
Similarly, that a story about God is false provides no meaningful information about the reality of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tuffers Member (Idle past 5305 days) Posts: 92 From: Norwich, UK Joined: |
Mr Jack
Thanks for explaining your point. I have to disagree with you though. 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. If there is a real creator, it is not God. 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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
tuffers writes: Mr JackThanks for your response, but I've no idea what your point is! I'm happy to accept that's because I'm not as bright as you, and I'm certainly not as cute as you appear to be in your photo! Tuffers, in this ultra short story, one of the things you are telling us is that you are not as cute as Mr Jack appears to be in his photo. The photo in question is a picture of a cat. We all know that cats don't participate in debates like this one. Therefore the cat in the photo is not Mr Jack, and your story is false. Are we now to assume, solely on this evidence, that Mr Jack does not exist? Surely not. Mind you, I am an atheist, and I sympathize with your thoughts, but I just want to point out that your reasoning is flawed. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Okay, I see your point more clearly now.
It seems to me that it's a question of semantics. Does the fact* that the genesis myth is false prove that God-who-created-the-universe-like-what-it-says-in-genesis doesn't exist? Yeah, I guess it does. But it doesn't prove that God-who-didn't-make-the-universe-like-that doesn't. And when someone says that genesis being myth being false doesn't disprove God they're talking about the second of those gods, not the first. * - unlike Huntard I'm quite comfortable describing the genesis myth as proven false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
In light of what I wrote to Tuffers, I hope you are not going to tell me that the cat in your photo is not Mr Jack, but another cat of the same name...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024