What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

Nosy said this didn't qualify for a Coffee House thread, and I wasn't sure it had what it takes to be a thread unto itself, but let's see if it will float.This started as an off-topic sequence in which robinrohan said something about fossils when it turns out he meant transitionals. He believes the existence of transitionals in the fossil record, if they really are transitionals, means that God can't exist.http://EvC Forum: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation -->EvC Forum: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 08:45 PM

But Robin, I thought you made it clear you mean transitionals when you say fossils. The fossils, the bazillion fossils all over the earth, are no proof against God, or at least you haven't made the case yet for why they are if you think they are. I thought you had in mind the supposed "transitionals" as the proof against God. I think you need to clarify this.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 09:05 PM

I don't think they ARE transitionals of course, but proving that wouldn't be easy, and would probably take us away from the focus of this thread.I agree with your basic logic.Your method appears to be to argue from what you present as self-evident logical propositions. I get your point but I don't think anybody else does, maybe because you stick to the minimal possible statement of your case. But my guess is that even if you expanded on it you might get the same response.Are there any philosophers who have argued something along these lines?Anyway I can't stick around tonight but maybe sometime tomorrow I'll think about how I'd answer your challenge to God.

I think it has something to do with a great sea change over the last few decades in the zeitgeist or the philosophical culture we live in. It's something like Robin thinks more like a modernist and most everybody else here thinks like a postmodernist. It's not necessarily a generational thing but to some extent it may be. What he's saying would have been recognized by an earlier generation, perhaps disputed, but at least recognized as logical propositions and not regarded as lacking sense as you all read it. To my mind most of you seem capable of imagining absolute absurdities as refutations of his propositions. I don't see how communication is even possible any more.

Sounds like you are well into your cups tonight.Hot date with some leftover work. Which I have to get done in case I have a hot date tomorrow.Well, I thought I was getting your method but if not, we'll have to fight it out some other time. Cheers.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 12:17 AM

You are able to imagine a completely irrational Creator who is capable of deceit and trickery. To me that would have to be the devil, sheer evil. This is what Robin appears to be saying too. The idea that God would be that alien to us that He could absolutely contradict the logic we have in our heads, however imperfectly we exercise it, makes of life such a futility I really don't know how people live with it. This is beyond relativism, probably postmodernism, as I was saying, though I don't grasp all the elements involved in that.

See I just can't get how anyone can think like this. If God is perfect then everything He is and does is perfect. He couldn't create an imperfect world, by definition.

Yes that is too hard to believe. It's completely illogical. A good God does good things; a perfect God does perfect things.

God is consistent.

The world was created perfect originally. The Fall, human sin, is what made a horror of it.

Humans had free will, the ability to disobey God at will. {abe: If they had't had free will the creation would not have been perfect}. If they hadn't disobeyed there wouldn't have been a Fall. But they did and here we are.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 10:20 AM

Sin didn't exist until they disobeyed God. Sin is disobedience of God. The ability to sin is part of the original perfection. If they hadn't had the ability to sin or disobey God, meaning if they hadn't had free will, the creation would not have been perfect.

Let's not get all tangled up in semantics. Sin hadn't yet occurred on earth, that's what I meant about how it didn't exist. Eden was a state of perfection without sin in the beginning.Yes Satan had fallen, but that wasn't an earthly event.

Yes I know there is this argument that free will was some kind of imperfection. I can't see it that way. Free will is necessary to created perfection. Creating beings who were unable to rebel would be my idea of imperfection.

Free willed beings are necessary to perfection. I can't see that automatons who couldn't reject God would be a good thing at all.