Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can there be a creator without creation?
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 1 of 111 (519151)
08-12-2009 4:18 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-12-2009 5:15 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2009 5:36 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 5:43 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 08-14-2009 8:43 PM tuffers has not replied
 Message 61 by slevesque, posted 08-16-2009 1:59 AM tuffers has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 111 (519153)
08-12-2009 4:45 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the How can there be a creator without creation? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 3 of 111 (519156)
08-12-2009 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tuffers
08-12-2009 4:18 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 4:18 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 5:55 AM Larni has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 111 (519158)
08-12-2009 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tuffers
08-12-2009 4:18 AM


The printed story isn't reality
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 4:18 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 6:10 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(2)
Message 5 of 111 (519159)
08-12-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tuffers
08-12-2009 4:18 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 4:18 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 6:40 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 17 by Evlreala, posted 08-12-2009 1:00 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 6 of 111 (519160)
08-12-2009 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
08-12-2009 5:15 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-12-2009 5:15 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 08-12-2009 8:14 PM tuffers has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 7 of 111 (519161)
08-12-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
08-12-2009 5:36 AM


Re: The printed story isn't reality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-12-2009 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 8 of 111 (519166)
08-12-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
08-12-2009 5:43 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 5:43 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 6:44 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 08-12-2009 9:05 AM tuffers has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 111 (519168)
08-12-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by tuffers
08-12-2009 6:40 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 6:40 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 8:16 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 10 of 111 (519183)
08-12-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
08-12-2009 6:44 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 6:44 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 8:40 AM tuffers has replied
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 9:09 AM tuffers has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 11 of 111 (519186)
08-12-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tuffers
08-12-2009 8:16 AM


tuffers writes:
How can God be both a fictional creator and a real creator?!
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).
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 8:16 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 10:55 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 12 of 111 (519188)
08-12-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by tuffers
08-12-2009 6:40 AM


The cat and Mr Jack
tuffers writes:
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!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 6:40 AM tuffers has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 13 of 111 (519190)
08-12-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by tuffers
08-12-2009 8:16 AM


It was not William Shakespeare that wrote Hamlet but another man of the same name
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 08-12-2009 8:16 AM tuffers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 9:15 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 15 by Parasomnium, posted 08-12-2009 9:16 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 14 of 111 (519192)
08-12-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
08-12-2009 9:09 AM


Re: It was not William Shakespeare that wrote Hamlet but another man of the same name
Mr Jack writes:
unlike Huntard I'm quite comfortable describing the genesis myth as proven false.
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.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 9:09 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 15 of 111 (519194)
08-12-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
08-12-2009 9:09 AM


Re: It was not William Shakespeare that wrote Hamlet but another man of the same name
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2009 9:09 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024