Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:50 AM
50 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, edge, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 43 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,545 Year: 3,582/19,786 Month: 577/1,087 Week: 167/212 Day: 9/25 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   How can there be a creator without creation?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 76 of 111 (520030)
08-19-2009 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
08-18-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:

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.


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.

Here, I'll quote it for you:

tuffers writes:

and therefore the creator in that story, God, to be false.


Notice the bolded part?

The rest I'll leave for Tuffers.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 08-18-2009 6:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 9:21 AM Huntard has responded

    
tuffers
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 77 of 111 (520050)
08-19-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
08-18-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Icant

OK. It seems like I'm not going to get any explicit answers to my question directly from this site, so I'm now happy to discuss my assertions with you. Thanks for your patience.

You ask me to provide evidence for science proving God to be wrong.

First, I will re-iterate that Iím talking about God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. (I am not familiar with the texts of other religions but as far as I am aware the same principles I will explain here would apply to any other god of scripture. If I am wrong I am open to being corrected on that.) I am talking about the literal God of the Bible. The one that created the heaven and the earth, AND created the first man out of dust, AND the first woman out of a rib, AND did all the other things it says he did.

I assert that science has proven that THAT God does not exist.

I pick evolution as the most obvious example of proof that that God does not exist.

I have already explained that I understand the principle that nothing can ever be absolutely 100% proven or known. I would define proof as an overwhelming combination of evidence pointing in 1 direction, together with sane reasoning based on logic, experience, and probability.

Evolution is not compatible with the story of humans being created out of dust and a rib. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution and absolutely none whatsoever for a man being made out of dust and a woman out of a rib. That is why I accept there is overwhelming proof that THAT God does not exist.

You ask for the evidence. Iím not clear what you want me to do. Iím sure you are aware of fossil records, genetics, geology, anthropology, etc. I cannot physically deliver fossils over the internet. I am not going to deliver them to your front door with a large Coke. If you donít know about those things, you need to read books on those subjects, as I have already suggested. These books have been written by people who have made the effort to go out into the field or construct experiments in a laboratory and then written down their findings for your convenience. Theyíve made it easy for you. You are extraordinarily fortunate to live in a time and a place where you donít even need to get off your backside to order these books. If you donít believe the facts reported in the books, fine. You can either go out into the field yourself and make your own observations, or you can go to the scientific institutes, museums and universities and ask to see the evidence. That is the big difference between the accounts of thousands of science books and the account of the Bible. The evidence collected by modern science is still available.

Iím not going to help you any more on your request for evidence. You need to make your own effort.

Now back to my assertion that God does not exist. I have explained my assertion that there is proof that the God that created humans out of dust and a rib does not exist.

If you wish to claim that there is another character called God, and it is real, then please define literally what it really is. Donít give me metaphors or poems. What are you ACTUALLY talking about? I will then consider whether or not there is proof of its existence or non-existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 08-18-2009 6:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:20 AM tuffers has not yet responded

    
tuffers
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 78 of 111 (520057)
08-19-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2009 4:40 AM


Re: Hmm ...
Hi Doc

As indicated in my last message to Icant, I don't consider a generalised undefined creator to be anything at all. Therefore, it is nothing to be proven or disproven.

The only defined creator that I am familiar with is the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. If you know of any ancient or modern text that actually has the balls to stick its neck out to define a creator, then I would happily consider it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 4:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 79 of 111 (520075)
08-19-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Huntard
08-19-2009 5:30 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Huntard,

Huntard 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.

Here, I'll quote it for you:

tuffers writes:

and therefore the creator in that story, God, to be false.


Notice the bolded part?

The rest I'll leave for Tuffers.

OK you be the English teacher.

Here is the entire quote.

Message 10

tuffers writes:

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.

color added

Statement of fact. "Science has proven the original creation story

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."

My interpertation.

Science has proven the original story of creation
(I entertained the thought for a moment that He was saying science had proven the original Bible story of creation but dismissed that idea as he comes over as an atheist.)

The God of the Bible creation story is false

If there is a creator it was not God.

Now please point out where I messed up and did not understand what tuffers said.

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 76 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 5:30 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 08-19-2009 9:34 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 10:26 AM ICANT has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 111 (520080)
08-19-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
08-19-2009 9:21 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Now please point out where I messed up and did not understand what tuffers said.

Break the sentence into two sentences (there is a conjunction):

Science has proven the original creation story to be false.
Science has therefore proven the creator in that story, God, to be false.

So science has proven two things false (hence the conjunction "and" being used), ( 1)it has proven the original creation story false, and it follows from this that (2)the creator in that story false.

That is what he is saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 9:21 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:28 AM Modulous has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 81 of 111 (520086)
08-19-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by tuffers
08-19-2009 6:59 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi tuffers,

tuffers writes:

OK. It seems like I'm not going to get any explicit answers to my question directly from this site, so I'm now happy to discuss my assertions with you. Thanks for your patience.

I would be happy if you would discuss your assertions.

Assertion #1 found in OP.

quote:
Message 1 science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional.

tuffers writes:

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.


Color added.

For science to prove the creation story in the Bible to be fictional they would have to produce the original facts of creation.

Which you did assert in:

Message 10

tuffers writes:

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.

color added

Where is the scientific evidence?

tuffers writes:

You ask me to provide evidence for science proving God to be wrong.

Well I asked you to present your evidence to back up your bare assertion you made in:

Message 6

tuffers writes:

Science may not (yet) have proven creation wrong, but the point I'm making is that it has proven God to be wrong.

tuffers writes:

I assert that science has proven that THAT God does not exist.

I pick evolution as the most obvious example of proof that that God does not exist.

I am going to assume you mean science has proven that God does not exist within a probability of 99.99% not 100%.

You cited evolution as your proof.

First of all evolution does not have anything to do with creation.

Second evolution does not have anything to do with the origin of life.

Those have to exist before evolution can occur. Therefore evolution can not disprove the creator. Nor can it disprove that life was created by the creator.

Is the universe infinite? yes/no

Science says the universe can not be infinite because it is expanding.

That would mean the universe had to begin to exist.

If the universe began to exist it has a cause for its existence.

The position that you claim science has proven false and therefore God non existent.

The Bible says in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Science says in the beginning......you complete with your evidence.

The Bible says in Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Science says life began......you complete with your evidence.

I have been told here that:

Science says in the beginning "we don't know".

Science says concerning the origin of life, "we don't know".

Now if science don't know how the universe was created, how can you say it has proven the Bible creation story false?

Now if science don't know how life came to be, how can you say science proves the Bible story to be wrong.

Evolution proves only that some things change over time.

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 77 by tuffers, posted 08-19-2009 6:59 AM tuffers has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 82 of 111 (520088)
08-19-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
08-19-2009 9:21 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
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

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."


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."

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 9:21 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:39 AM Huntard has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 83 of 111 (520089)
08-19-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Modulous
08-19-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

That is what he is saying.

I read this sentence taking all his assertions in account as having a period he left out after original story.

I do realize we in America speak a different English than most countries.

Maybe you are a better mind reader than I am.

Maybe tuffers could clarify his assertion if he ever discusses it.

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 80 by Modulous, posted 08-19-2009 9:34 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 08-20-2009 1:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 84 of 111 (520094)
08-19-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Huntard
08-19-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Huntard,

Huntard writes:

I hope it's clearer now.

Its clear that you and Mod think you understand what he meant.

I am not so sure.

tuffers stated in the OP "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."

"science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional"

He did not call this the original story.

Original story would be exactly how it happened.

Like I said to Mod if tuffers ever decides to discuss his assertions maybe I will understand what he is saying.

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 82 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 10:26 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 10:45 AM ICANT has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 85 of 111 (520096)
08-19-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
08-19-2009 10:39 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:

Its clear that you and Mod think you understand what he meant.

I am not so sure.


Let's ask him, shall we?

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:39 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:57 AM Huntard has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 86 of 111 (520100)
08-19-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Huntard
08-19-2009 10:45 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Huntard,

Huntard writes:

Did you mean, like ICANT thinks, that the creation story of the bible has been proven by science.

Hold on there nelly,

I believe he meant that science had proven the creation story.

Not the Genesis story of creation.

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 85 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 10:45 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 11:49 AM ICANT has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 87 of 111 (520108)
08-19-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by ICANT
08-19-2009 10:57 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:

Hold on there nelly,

I believe he meant that science had proven the creation story.

Not the Genesis story of creation.


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?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 10:57 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 4:17 PM Huntard has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 88 of 111 (520157)
08-19-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Huntard
08-19-2009 11:49 AM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Huntard,

Huntard 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?

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?

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 87 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 11:49 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 4:33 PM ICANT has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 111 (520158)
08-19-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
08-19-2009 4:17 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
ICANT writes:

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?


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?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 4:17 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2009 5:11 PM Huntard has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 90 of 111 (520164)
08-19-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Huntard
08-19-2009 4:33 PM


Re: Thanks for responding.
Hi Huntard,

Huntard 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?

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?

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".

Amazing how one little letter can change things.

All of time is not infinity.

Is the universe infinite or not?

Expansion proved to Einstein that his infinite universe did not exist therefore the universe 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 89 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 4:33 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2009 5:57 PM ICANT has responded

    
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019