How can there be a creator without creation?

Well, I don't think this argument is very good.Look, suppose (for the sake of argument) there was some supernatural being that (for example) created the universe, but not in the way depicted in Genesis, who spoke to Abraham, who gave Moses the Ten Commandments and parted the Red Sea for him, who cast down the walls of Jericho, who laid waste the armies of Sennacherib, who was incarnate as Jesus, who spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus ... then would inaccuracies in Genesis lead us to say "God doesn't exist; or "Genesis is an inaccurate story about God"?---And that's just the Bible God. There are others. Why, apart from cultural chauvinism, didn't you begin your argument by defining God as the guy who dictated the Qur'aan to Muhammad?---Or then again, consider the following. If you read a Scientologist biography of L. Ron Hubbard, you will read a work of fiction containing an entirely fictional account of how he created Scientology.But instead of this leading us to say that L. Ron Hubbard didn't exist, we would rather say that Scientologist writings about him are inaccurate, wouldn't we? Because he isn't defined as being the person whom Scientologists have described with perfect accuracy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

My emphasis added.When you say "that God", then you kind of admit that "God" doesn't necessarily mean "that God", otherwise you wouldn't need to specify which God you were talking about.It is plain, on scientific grounds, that there was no being who magicked species into existence 6000 years ago. So if that's what we meant by "God", then there is no God. But that's not what we mean by "God", which is why you have to specify him as "that God".

Unless you read the Book of Genesis.

But isn't that like saying: "I think there is sufficient evidence now to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the Scientologists' story of the creation of Scientology was made up ... We should therefore abandon all reference to L. Ron Hubbard when talking about the possibility of the creation of Scientology ..." Well, that's your problem right there.You wish to argue that "God" doesn't exist, but you want to take "God" to mean the particular version of God believed in by Christian fundamentalists, and you actually say that you know nothing about any other concept of God and that you hope you never will.Well, this sort of attitude will not help you debate with anyone who has a concept of God different from that believed in by the fundies. On the contrary, it will make you look like an idiot. Why should you define "God" to mean "the God believed in by fundamentalist Christians"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

"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.