Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
29 online now:
Lammy (1 member, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,842 Year: 18,878/19,786 Month: 1,298/1,705 Week: 104/446 Day: 104/64 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can there be a creator without creation?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 46 of 111 (519512)
08-14-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theodoric
08-14-2009 10:42 AM


Re Creation
Hi Theo,

Theodoric writes:

That would be from a book. Not evidence of anything in the least.

Do you mean to tell me all those science books and pappers I have been reading is not evidence of anything. Man I have wasted a lot of time.

Theodoric writes:

Well with all the errors in the book, it is kind of hard to take anything as truth.

There is only verse in the Bible that addresses creation. That is Genesis 1:1.

quote:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Anything else we read is man's explanation and understanding of how God created the heaven and the earth. Eventhough man was inspired to write that understanding.

Theodoric writes:

Science does not know about creation or if there was one.

Scientifically there had to be one.

In 1998 it was discovered that the universe is flying apart faster than ever.

The expansion is speeding up.

So going backward would produce no existence.

Anything beyound none existence becomes pure speculation or religious.

There is no hard evidence for any of the proposals that have been mentioned and no empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature.

Theodoric writes:

You cannot prove your story is correct but you expect others to prove it isn't.

No I can not prove Gen 1:1 is true and correct.

I invited, even challenged tuffers to try to prove Gen 1:1 wrong.

All tuffers or you or anyone has to do to prove Gen 1:1 wrong is present the verifiable evidence for exactly what happened.

Theo do you want to take a crack at presenting verifiable evidence that will put Gen 1:1 to rest?

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 45 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2009 10:42 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 08-14-2009 11:36 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 48 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2009 11:45 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 49 by lyx2no, posted 08-14-2009 2:30 PM ICANT has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 111 (519514)
08-14-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
08-14-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Re Creation
Do you accept that somewhere down the casusal chain there has to be something that "just is"? i.e. something that is uncaused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 11:29 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 3:12 PM Straggler has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6683
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 48 of 111 (519515)
08-14-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
08-14-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Re Creation
All tuffers or you or anyone has to do to prove Gen 1:1 wrong is present the verifiable evidence for exactly what happened.

You cannot prove it is correct, so why the need to have someone prove it isn't?

Scientifically there had to be one.

In 1998 it was discovered that the universe is flying apart faster than ever.

The expansion is speeding up.

So going backward would produce no existence.

I do not think there had to be one. I thing this is just an assumption on your part. Why did ther have to be a beginning? or a creation? Why does going back lead to "no existence"?

Do you know that much about the universe?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 11:29 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 3:32 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 49 of 111 (519537)
08-14-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
08-14-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Re Creation
Do you mean to tell me all those science books and pappers I have been reading is not evidence of anything. Man I have wasted a lot of time.

Yes, those science books you have been reading are not evidence of anything except the printing press. The books are never the evidence. If they were we'd not have to do the research. We'd just write things into the books the way we'd like them to be: You can dam a river by sticking a marigold stem into the river bank: There, I could have saved Uncle Sam a gazillion dollars on the Hoover dam.

Scientifically there had to be one.

No there doesn't. The meaning of the word "beginning" breaks down at 10-43 seconds.

All tuffers or you or anyone has to do to prove Gen 1:1 wrong is present the verifiable evidence for exactly what happened.

Firstly, I can prove that Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 19th president of the United States of America, was not the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby without presenting verifiable evidence for exactly what happened. Having to prove what did happen is a ridiculous standard of disproof of a fairy story. I read in a book I wrote that the Lost Squadron disappeared off the East Coast of the U.S. when a giant toad leapt out of the sea and gobbled them up. All you or anyone has to do to prove me wrong is present the verifiable evidence for exactly what happened.

Secondly, Gen 1:1 is the claim. The claim is the bit that evidence need be supplied for. Denial of a claim is not a claim. Else-wise, we're back to my toad story.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 11:29 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 4:06 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 987 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 50 of 111 (519538)
08-14-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by tuffers
08-14-2009 5:36 AM


Re: Not a Non Sequitur
Hi, Tuffers.

tuffers writes:

I hope I can finally make my point concisely in this way.

You haven't yet failed to make your point. You've successfully communicated it three times now. But, I still disagree with it.

-----

tuffers writes:

GOD NUMBER 3) He created the Earth and Mankind in a different way to that depicted in the bible but he did all the other other things exactly as mentioned in the bible...

GOD NUMBER 3: might have existed but cannot justifiably be propositioned as a creator more than anything else can be as there is no evidence that he created anything.

But, we weren't talking about evidence for or against any of these propositions before. The point you very clearly articulated several times was that the God from the Bible can't be real if the way He is presented in the Bible is inaccurate.

But, the point is that people who believe in theistic evolution do not believe in the depiction of God presented in the Bible. At least, not in its entirety.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by tuffers, posted 08-14-2009 5:36 AM tuffers has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 51 of 111 (519539)
08-14-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
08-14-2009 11:36 AM


Re Creation
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

Do you accept that somewhere down the casusal chain there has to be something that "just is"? i.e. something that is uncaused.

As many times as I have stated I believe the universe is infinite in an eternal now you have to ask me a question like the one above.

I believe that existence "exists" That existence is responsible for the existence of everything. That existence is the God of Genesis 1:1.

If you got a better explanation spit it out.

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 47 by Straggler, posted 08-14-2009 11:36 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 08-15-2009 10:52 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 52 of 111 (519541)
08-14-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Theodoric
08-14-2009 11:45 AM


Re Creation
Hi Theo,

Theodoric writes:

You cannot prove it is correct, so why the need to have someone prove it isn't?

I know I can't prove the Bible is correct.

Neither can you prove the scientific hypothesis is correct.

If you can that will disprove what the Bible says.

tuffer said science had proved the Bible wrong all I ask for was the evidence.

He is the one making the claim it is up to him to back up his claims or yours if you want to take up his cause.

Theodoric writes:

I do not think there had to be one. I thing this is just an assumption on your part. Why did ther have to be a beginning? or a creation? Why does going back lead to "no existence"?

Do you know that much about the universe?

Well I believe the universe is part of an eternal infinite existence so I don't have a problem with a beginning.

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning. I have yet for anyone to tell me when the beginning of eternity was.

Now if expansion of the universe is true there had to be a beginning.

Because if expansion had been happening for an infinity we would not be here.

A couple of studies in the late 90's proved the universe's expansion is speeding up, which messes up a lot of things.

So I will ask you the question.

Is the universe infinite according to science?

Did the universe have a beginning according to science?

You have already seen me get in trouble discussing this point so I will give no references to scientist that say the universe had a beginning.

You asked, "Do you know that much about the universe?"

You could write what I know about the universe on the point of a ball point pen.

But I can read and science tells me the universe had a beginning and will expand until it and everything in it dies.

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 48 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2009 11:45 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 53 of 111 (519542)
08-14-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by lyx2no
08-14-2009 2:30 PM


Re Creation
Hi 2

lyx2no writes:

Secondly, Gen 1:1 is the claim.

No Genesis 1:1 is my belief that I can not prove.

The claim is:

Re: Hmm ... (Message 29) "What science has proven above all, is that the originators of the Genesis story had no valid evidence for their creation or their creator"

I asked for the evidence.

In Re: Hmm ... (Message 29) tuffers said:
"I think there is sufficient evidence now to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the creation story of Genesis was made up,"

I asked for the evidence.

None has been forth coming from tuffers or any of the hand waving posters at EvC.

The other part of your post is to far off topic for me to comment.

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 49 by lyx2no, posted 08-14-2009 2:30 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 420 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 54 of 111 (519560)
08-14-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tuffers
08-12-2009 4:18 AM


quote:
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.

Your conclusion does not follow your premise.

Homer wrote fiction, with many details which are obviously not "real" in a literal sense. Does this mean that everything in his stories is fiction? Many thought so until Schliemann found and excavated some of the cities mentioned by Homer.

You seem to be making the faulty assumption that either none of the account is fiction or all of it is. Literature is much more complex than this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 4:18 AM tuffers has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 55 of 111 (519603)
08-15-2009 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
08-14-2009 3:12 PM


Re: Re Creation
Straggler writes:

Do you accept that somewhere down the casusal chain there has to be something that "just is"? i.e. something that is uncaused.

ICANT writes:

I believe God caused the universe to begin to exist. Re: Re Creation (Message 43)

ICANT writes:

As many times as I have stated I believe the universe is infinite in an eternal now you have to ask me a question like the one above.

ICANT can you explain to me how these two statements of yours are not contradictory? What am I missing here? An "eternal now" that had a beginning? What exactly do you mean by this?

If you got a better explanation spit it out.

OK. The universe quite possibly "just is".

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 3:12 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2009 12:04 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 56 of 111 (519611)
08-15-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
08-14-2009 10:31 AM


Let's get back to my original question!
Hi Icant & Everyone Else,

I don't mind admitting when I have made a mistake and I have made a massive mistake during this debate. It has been to allow it to go way off track from my original question.

Before I go back to my original question, I want to make this point. I understand the concept of absolutism; I.E. that nothing can be regarded as ultimately proven, or ultimately known. But I make no apologies for giving no consideration whatsoever to completely unlikely events, until such time as there is good reason for doing so. Nobody can live a life by giving serious consideration to the incredibly unlikely. Anyone who refuses to open their front door every morning just in case they might step straight into the fires of Hell would be considered insane. Unless they live in Manchester. Leading a life that way would be impossible and pointless, and so debating something in that way is also pointless. Anyone else is free to continue debating in this manner, but I will not be joining them.

My original question was to aimed at those who have accepted that the bible contains no valid account of creation, but who continue to regard the character God is a real creator. There are many leading scientists and high-rankers in major religions, including the Catholic Church, who adopt this position.

This is what I can't understand. How can you consider that you have a valid and specific creator, if you don't have any account whatsovever of a creation?

I suppose there's no reason why there should be, but is there anyone at all on this site who can give a good explanation as to why they or anyone else should continue to consider God to be a creator when they don't have an account for any creation he may have carried out? I would like to hear something more interesting that simply that there is no proof God was not a creator. As I said in my first post, that doesn't give any more reason to believe God is a creator than anything else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2009 10:31 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 08-15-2009 12:55 PM tuffers has not yet responded
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2009 1:01 PM tuffers has responded
 Message 60 by kbertsche, posted 08-15-2009 1:41 PM tuffers has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 57 of 111 (519615)
08-15-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Straggler
08-15-2009 10:52 AM


Re Creation
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

ICANT can you explain to me how these two statements of yours are not contradictory? What am I missing here? An "eternal now" that had a beginning? What exactly do you mean by this?

It is kinda confusing isn't it.

Is it any wonder that the people of 3500 years ago had a hard time expressing it.

God is existence.

Genesis 1:1 written by Moses says In the beginning. That would be the start of everything.

Well God had no start as He is existence. So there was no beginning.

So yes if there was a beginning then God created the heaven and earth then. Since there was no beginning then the universe is infinite.

Straggler writes:

OK. The universe quite possibly "just is".

You trying to steal my thunder. I been saying for 2+ years the universe has always existed in some form.

Problem is science demands that it have a beginning.

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 55 by Straggler, posted 08-15-2009 10:52 AM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 987 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 58 of 111 (519620)
08-15-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tuffers
08-15-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Let's get back to my original question!
Hi, Tuffers.

tuffers writes:

...is there anyone at all on this site who can give a good explanation as to why they or anyone else should continue to consider God to be a creator when they don't have an account for any creation he may have carried out?

So, all you wanted was for somebody to provide evidence of a creator?

That's an extremely broad topic.

I personally maintain my belief system only because I simply don't have the time to research all possibilities thoroughly enough to confirm to my own satisfaction that I understand how everything fits together. Furthermore, much of the stuff I do know, I don't know how to interpret.

So, to me, retaining a belief in God is just a way of keeping an open mind about things that I don't understand completely. In reality, I count more as agnostic than religious.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tuffers, posted 08-15-2009 11:36 AM tuffers has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 59 of 111 (519622)
08-15-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tuffers
08-15-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Let's get back to my original question!
Hi tuffers,

tuffers writes:

I don't mind admitting when I have made a mistake and I have made a massive mistake during this debate.

The biggest mistake I see is all the assertions you have made and not presented any scientific evidence to back up your assertions.

tuffers writes:

Before I go back to my original question,

I am more interested in your assertion.

So would you please present the scientific evidence to back up your statement in:
Message 28

quote:
What science has proven above all, is that the originators of the Genesis story had no valid evidence for their creation or their creator. So they must have made up the claim that God was a creator.

Or you could continue to ignore my request for the evidence. Because none exists.

tuffers writes:

Anyone else is free to continue debating in this manner, but I will not be joining them.

You coming on here making a lot of assertions about my God and His creation claiming all kinds of scientific evidence againt God's creation is not debating.

When you show up and start debating you will present your evidence to back up the assertions you have made.

tuffers writes:

I suppose there's no reason why there should be, but is there anyone at all on this site who can give a good explanation as to why they or anyone else should continue to consider God to be a creator when they don't have an account for any creation he may have carried out?

Unless I am a brain in a jar in an aliens labatory with all the information fed into my brain that I think is reality.

The universe exists.

Science says the universe did not always exist.

If the universe began to exist it has a creator.

So all those folks you talk about believing in a creator has physical evidence of the universe existing. They have science that tells them the universe had a beginning. They have a book that says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. They have the ability to think, and choose what they want to believe.

What more do they need?

Now I believe God is existence and existence is responsible for everything. Existence could not have a beginning therefore there was no beginning and the universe has always existed in some form. It probably has been rearranged many times over the eternal now I talk about.

Now that I have given you a reason why peole believe in a creator will you present your scientific, studies, tests, resulting in evidence that proves that, "the originators of the Genesis story had no valid evidence for their creation or their creator"

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 56 by tuffers, posted 08-15-2009 11:36 AM tuffers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by tuffers, posted 08-17-2009 8:41 AM ICANT has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 420 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 60 of 111 (519627)
08-15-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tuffers
08-15-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Let's get back to my original question!
quote:
My original question was to aimed at those who have accepted that the bible contains no valid account of creation, but who continue to regard the character God is a real creator. There are many leading scientists and high-rankers in major religions, including the Catholic Church, who adopt this position.

This is what I can't understand. How can you consider that you have a valid and specific creator, if you don't have any account whatsovever of a creation?



Who says that "the Bible contains no valid account of creation?" I don't believe any Christian would say this.

First, all Christians would agree that the Genesis account is "valid" and is presenting important spiritual truth, independent of whether its descriptions are literal or figurative. It is not a scientific account of creation, but it is nonetheless a valid account.

Second, there are many other mentions of creation in the Bible. Even if we did not have the first few chapters of Genesis, we would know that God is the creator. See, for example, Psalm 19, Psalm 104, and Job 38-42. These are all poetic passages with lots of non-literal details, but they all present God as creator.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tuffers, posted 08-15-2009 11:36 AM tuffers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by tuffers, posted 08-17-2009 9:11 AM kbertsche has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019