Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?

quote:

---

There are an infinite number of other creators that are better than God. Therefore, it does not make any sense to claim that God is the ultimate being that created the universe.

​

Obviously, I don’t have time to list the infinite number of better creators, so I will give just a few examples:

---

Please provide links to the holy writings or creation stories associated with these creators you listed?Provide support for their qualifications.

quote:

---

My first post is the "holy writings". Below is a link, or you can find it just as simply by scrolling up the page.

​

EvC Forum: Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?

​

I don't know what you mean by "support" or "qualifications".

​

I think you've missed the point. Read message 5.

Please provide links to the holy writings or creation stories associated with these creators you listed?

​

My first post is the "holy writings". Below is a link, or you can find it just as simply by scrolling up the page.

​

EvC Forum: Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?

​

I don't know what you mean by "support" or "qualifications".

​

I think you've missed the point. Read message 5.

---

No, I didn't miss the point. You think the ancients pulled gods out of their ass. They didn't, but you did and poorly.They didn't just make up a creator our of thin air. There was a basis for how gods came to be. People based gods on the world around them.Your gods have only existed since 11:09 AM on November 18, 2009. The God of the Bible has been around for thousands of years.Since the God of the Bible already created Earth thousands of years ago, none of your gods could have created it. You have no evidence for anything else you claim your gods have done.My point is that you don't understand why the people wrote the way they did about their God and why God changed as people and civilization change.You base God's perfection on hearsay. You don't care to study the Bible (and apparently don't learn from discussions) to really understand what the writings were telling the people of the time, but want to debate with no support for what you write.So if you really want to know why creationists have faith in the God of the Bible as opposed to any another god, I suggest you actually chose a god that still has followers today.If you're really wanting to point out that gods are a product of human imagination, you did a poor job. Your opening post only shows that your gods are a product of human imagination. Try finding some actual support for your position.The other problem is that we have the Bible and other written works as reference information on the Christian God. Your gods have nothing we can reference, no foundation. You can make the backstory up as we go along.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Was the Bible created before the Earth was created? Unless that's the case, your point makes no sense. Exactly how soon after the Earth was created was it necessary to get the god hypothesis into the patents office?

---

You admitted that you just created your gods, therefore they didn't exist before 18 Nov 2009. Since the planet is already created, they didn't do it.

quote:

---

One of the points I was making is that there is no more evidence for God of the Bible than there is for any creator I could make up. So the God of the Bible is just as likely to be made up as the ones I list. What further evidence is there for a creator that made the Earth in 6 days than there is for one that made the Earth in 3 days, or 50 days?

---

Sure there is. I can go outside and see the ancient God, can you see any of yours? It all depends on how one approaches it.In Message 10, you asked: Who made up the rule that the Bible is the only source of information on God?Ancient gods were a personification of nature. Your gods aren't based on anything.The A&E story is a just so story telling how man came to be the way he is.The priestly creation story told how days and weeks came to be the way they are.Understand the foundation and then understand how God and religion changed with civilization.Yes, you can define perfect. It's a word and has a meaning. You need to define your usage of the word. The usage in the Bible doesn't mean flawless as slevesque pointed out in Message 13.

quote:

---

I understand that perfectly. I don't doubt for 1 second that ancient gods were a result of man applying anthropmorphic characteristics to mountains, trees, winds, etc. That doesn't mean that they suddenly became real creators of the earth. It means they are figments of the imagination.

​

I have to be honest, you sound very confused about whether or not you think God is a real creator or just something we imagined. Or do you think that by first imagining a creator it then becomes real?

---

If Scientist George makes an observation and writes it down, it is his observation (not fiction) whether he perceived the event correctly or not. Many years down the road Scientist Sally makes an observation that contradicts George's and shows he did perceive the event incorrectly. Sally's discovery does not make George's fiction.The ancients made observations about the world around them, nature. Man couldn't make the plants grow. Man couldn't make it rain. Man couldn't stop natural disasters. Whatever kept all these things going must have created their world.From a layman's standpoint, nature created the world. Man knows he didn't create the world around him. God is nature.

quote:

---

I.E. None of the "gods of antiquity" have any more validity as a creator than anything anyone could make up. Therefore they are utterly worthless.

---

So my point is that the ancient gods were based on reality and knowledge of the time. Your gods aren't based on anything.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Now to look at your gods.

quote:

---

Omagad — he did absolutely everything that God did, except he was able to create the Earth in only 4 days, not 6.

---

The 4 day week did not prevail. So this god did nothing "better".

quote:

---

Lordilordi — he did absolutely everything that God and Omagad did, except he was able to create the Earth in only 2 days. And he didn’t even need a rest afterwards.

---

The 2 day week didn't even take hold. It was typcally 4-20 days depending on the time to market. Again, the 7 day week prevailed and this god did nothing "better".

quote:

---

Halleebaluya — did absolutely everything that Omagad did, except he was able to sort out certain miscreants by reasoning with them in a civilised manner, rather than commit acts of genocide.

---

Why does lack of genocide make this god a better creator?
He only sorted out certain miscreants. Why not all?
"Genocide" can happen in nature through natural disasters or disease.

quote:

---

Wotalototoss — did absolutely everything that Halleebaluya did, except he made it clear that, not only was it was never acceptable to rape homosexuals, it was also never acceptable to rape women.

---

What about young girls and boys? Making it clear doesn't stop it from happening, besides, if no one listens to him, it doesn't matter what he says. Again why does this make him a better creator?

quote:

---

Sensatlast — he did everything that Wotalototoss did, except he had a son or daughter born into every generation, so that his existence was clear and indisputable to everyone and there would never be any more time wasted in arguments.

​

Betasense — he did everything that Sensatlast did, except he also had his angels flying around constantly, just to be doubly sure the message got through. It also had the unexpected benefit of helping the angels lose weight.

​

Morthansense — the weight loss benefit was not unexpected to him, he KNEW it would happen. It was a deliberate part of his plan.

---

Apparently these gods didn't follow through since no one heard of them until 18 Nov 2009 and their existence is not clear and indisputable to everyone.It's not as easy to create a viable and flawless (I'm assuming that's what you feel perfect means) god as you think. The usage in the Bible is different. PerfectThe God of the Bible reflected the world and civilizations of the writers. The world is not flawless. Civilization is not flawless. We learn as we go.Why some people have a strangle hold on religion and others don't, is more about psychology and what people need. Faith/religion does fill a need for some people. It may not even be the same need for every person.Scientists may be able to give a long explanation about what they've discovered concerning the creation of our planet, but for the average person it doesn't matter. We're still going to surround real ideas with creative words and adventure. The stories are what we remember, whether from Christianity or not. The stories help pass on the history and lessons. Stories get updated to fit the culture. Christians try to update their stories to fit the current culture. If they hadn't been written down, they would have been updated by the storytellers.Within the plots, our TV shows sometimes deal with real issues that concern the society at the time, but the stories are still fiction. The issues aren't. Theistic evolution is an example of religious teachings evolving with society. Creationism came about in the early 1920's. What sparked this group?What do you call that which created us?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You're playing both sides of the fence.You agree with the personification and that the stories reflect the times, but then you say: You do realize there's a difference between creating and management. Nature isn't our manager. "Genocide" can happen in nature through natural disasters or disease. Mankind has to manage themselves. The Bible shows how that group progressed.

quote:

---

I've really no problem with most of the other things you say - in respect to the Bible being adapted stories, etc. It's people who are literalists and seriously propose the character God as being some kind of ultimate being and the real creator of the universe that causes me a problem.

---

I understand that. But why?Your issues seem to be with moral issues not the actual creation of the universe. Like I said, creation and management are two different things.Do creationists actually condone genocide today? (Not that they think God was justified in the OT.)Quite frankly, you seem to be all over the place concerning what you want to discuss. You're very picky about how gods do what they do and about how people express their belief.Yes, you're entitled to question them, but try understanding the opposition. (I know, you don't care to study the Bible, etc.) The stories do make sense in the time they were written.There's a difference between supporting current hearsay or teachings, than supporting what the Bible is actually saying and the reality behind the Bible.Since you're not doing any work to support anything you're saying, you're bouncing around between the present, the past, fiction, and reality.Land somewhere and follow through.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

- I am not concerned with what people believed in the past. I am concerned with what people believe or understand about the world today.

---

Would you actually address what I've asked you? Message 32
I realize you don't care about religion, god, or anything else that takes effort; but if you're going to make a thread, respond to what is presented.Do creationists actually condone genocide today? (Not that they think God was justified in the OT.)

quote:

---

- Many people today still think that the Universe and the Earth were created by the character called God in the Bible. They think he is a real character.

---

In Message 28 you said: I really don't have a problem with someone saying that they think the Universe was most likely started by some kind of intelligent entity, provided they stop there and admit they have no idea at this time what that entity could be. But when they try to describe that entity with a whole load of specific stories, which make little or no sense, let alone have no evidence to support them, then I am entitled to question them.You don't mind them believing, but you don't like the stories because they don't make sense to you. Just throw myths and legends out of our cultures. Why does that bother you?In Message 30 you state: I've really no problem with most of the other things you say - in respect to the Bible being adapted stories, etc. It's people who are literalists and seriously propose the character God as being some kind of ultimate being and the real creator of the universe that causes me a problem.So they believe the character in the Bible is a real being who really created the planet and the universe. Why is that a problem?

quote:

---

- I think I have clearly argued as to why I think there is no logical reason for anyone TODAY to think that the character God is a real creator of the Universe any more than any other creator who could be suggested - or has already been suggested (all the other gods of antiquity).

---

But you haven't supported your position, especially with all of the other gods of antiquity. You don't care about the past, but that is precisely why some consider the character of God in the Bible to be real. They go with the god they know.To get pagans to give up their gods, the Christians had to put Christian meaning onto pagan practices and symbols. Assimilate. (I know, you don't care.)

quote:

---

- If the character God were undoubtedly a supremely moral and ethical being, unimpeachable, then you could argue that it must be a valid description of the creator if the creator has to be a supremely moral being. But I've made it clear how easily disputable it is that God was so supreme, therefore that argument for God being the creator does not stand.

---

Only you have made that argument and haven't really supported why morality has anything to do with being the creator. Supreme doesn't mean ethical or moral. There's a difference between creating and management. (I know, you don't care about word meanings either.)

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Because I think people should be educated to think for themselves so that they properly appreciate the world around them. I think they will get more out of life if they appreciate the amazing facts that we are discovering.

---

Other than the creator issue, what facts and discoveries do creationists not appreciate?
Evidence, not hearsay please.

quote:

---

You can check out various Creationist/Christian/Islamic websites if you want evidence that they don't appreciate the following:

---

No that's your job. Provide the evidence that supports that the majority of creationists actually don't appreciate certain facts and discoveries, not general categories or apologetics.Edited by purpledawn, : apologetics

quote:

---

Here they make the ludicrous and illogical conclusion that because the fossil of a thorn was found BELOW a dinosaur fossil it means that dinosaurs and humans must have lived at the same time. Why? Because ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, thorns only appeared on the Earth after the "fall of man". So, as the thorn is in a lower sedimentary layer than the dinosaur, it must have been fossiled after the fall of man, when humans were on the Earth. So the dinosaur died after the first humans were on the Earth.

---

From what I can tell that's apologetics. Arguments made to defend the religious beliefs.This doesn't show that the majority of creationists, in reality, don't appreciate certain facts and discoveries.Quite frankly, I doubt if the majority of the population in the US would appreciate the discovery of a thorn fossil. Until I saw the slide show you provided, I didn't know of it and now that I do, it really doesn't matter in my life. The discovery is more important to those in the field or those with interest in the field than the average population.I'm sure creationist apologetics is annoying and illogical to scientists. I find that Christian apologetics lack common sense, but apologetics don't necessarily reflect the practical application of the believer.ABE

quote:

---

I hope you can see what nonsense this is - using the Bible to prove...er the Bible. If you can, I've no problem with you, although I'm not really sure what kind of creationist you are. But unfortunately, this character John Mackay travels around the world giving lectures and making TV appearences talking this absolute shit. A lot of people are easily fooled by this nonsense.

---

Making up gods doesn't counter apologetics.If you can't tell from what I've written so far that I'm not a creationist, you're not paying attention.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

quote:

---

Leaving aside quibbles over the definition of "better", the basic question is why anyone should consider the Judeo-Christian God over and above all other options. Why not worship Zeus, for example? It's a fair question.

---

Humanity had that option when Zeus was popular. Some people still worship Zeus.Why did Zeus and the Olympians lose the majority bid?IMO, it was easier to appease one god, as opposed to many. Even Islam came about to change the people over from many gods to one. Consolidation.There will probably be a time when humanity will move away from the need for gods at all.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

For example, genital mutilation of children every day by Islamic believers.

---

The OP said God, not Allah. When you speak of creationists and God, I assume Christian creationists.You stated in Message 35: Because I think people should be educated to think for themselves so that they properly appreciate the world around them. I think they will get more out of life if they appreciate the amazing facts that we are discovering.The list of categories you provided suggests scientific facts and discoveries.Your examples don't show facts and discoveries that Christian creationists (not just any Christian) don't appreciate.The question is: Other than the creator issue, what facts and discoveries do creationists not appreciate?

quote:

---

In any case, I think we are going off topic in asking why it concerns me what people believe. I'm happy to discuss this on another thread but it's not directly relevant to my opening question.

---

Your question was: Why do so many creationists latch on to God as being the creator of the universe, claiming he is the perfect, ultimate, highest form of being?IOW, why do religions chose the creator they chose?I've already explained why. Gods were born out of personification of nature and have become part of the culture/tradition.In Message 35 you state: I hope that my position is very clear. I don't see any logical reason for anyone today to think that the character God was a real creator of the universe because there are no valid credentials to his character that put him ahead of an infinite number of other potential candidates for the role of creator.You're not concerned about the past, only about now. Well the past leads to now. I showed you that Creationism started about the 1920's, but of course you don't want to discuss that.In Message 16 you stated: I'm not really the one proposing a god/creator, a super-being. I'm making the point that God of the Bible is nothing special, nothing to shout about. That it is without substance. That it is as obviously made up as my alternative examples.

​

If there is nothing special about God, if he's not perfect, superior, better, etc than anything else, tear him up and throw him away, and I guarantee I'll do the same with my creators.You won't explain why the Christian God must be special, perfect, superior, or better than anything else to be chosen. Since your gods are copies of the Jewish God, there must be something special. There is substance to the Jewish God.The "battle" between the gods of antiquity for supremacy already took place. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam took the lead. If you want to know why, you'll have to look in the past. Christianity spread due to Roman acceptance.Religion is a way of life for many people. If they don't want that way of life, then they will change religion or become religion-free.Essentially you agree with what I've said, but instead of discussing it you keep responding with your personal venting on religion.Since you don't want to define perfect, or supreme or provide the credentials for your gods; and you don't want to discuss the past or creationism, the only thing left to discuss is why it is an issue. Venting is your specialty and seems to be what you really want to do. If you don't want to discuss your personal issues, then stop bringing them up.I would posit that God is the creator because they believe; not that they believe because God is the creator. Judaism doesn't need the creation stories for their religion. Judaism started with Abraham. Do you have any complaints about Judaism or are you mostly upset with the spinoffs?Christianity went to the Greeks and since most of the Jews promoting the Way didn't survive the destruction of 70 CE, the Greeks lost touch with the legends and history of the religion and assimilated pagan religions. When the Protestants broke off, they lost even more history and went more literal with none of the legends and history to explain.Minus the creation stories, the writings in the OT spoke of a nation, not just a religion. The writings carried authority. Gives us an idea of why the other religions lost out. Creationism deals with the conflict between religious beliefs and science. Fundamentalism deals with strict adherence to religious principles. So when you say there's no logical reason for creationists to choose God as a creator, I assume you are referring to science issues not moral issues.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

quote:

---

Therefore, if they think objectively, they should be able to see that there is no justifiable reason to think that, if there is a creator, it is likely to be anything like the one they currently believe in.

---

Why is it unlikely that a creator would be anything like the one they currently believe in? Objectively speaking of course.

quote:

---

I don't know how many gods of antiquity there are. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are 100 that are competing for the role of creator. Without any empirical evidence to support any of them, on that level there is no better than a 1 in 100 chance of any of them being a real creator. That is a well-known old argument - at least all but one of them must be made up. They could ALL be made up, of course.

---

Please provide a link or article concerning this "well known old argument".