Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?

I’m talking about God, of course.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?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:Omagad — he did absolutely everything that God did, except he was able to create the Earth in only 4 days, not 6.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.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.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.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.You get the general idea. And these are just the ones that are only just a tiny bit better than God. There’s an infinite number of others, like Huf, who are so much better they make all these look ridiculous.So, how can God be seriously considered as candidate for the perfect, ultimate being that created the Universe!EDITED NOTE: It may help appreciate the point I'm making by reading messages 4 & 5 between Percy & myself.Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : Better expression!Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : Requested by Admin.Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : CLARITY!?!

Hi PercySorry my original post was too brief. I've modified my post by inserting a lot of examples. I hope this is sufficient!

Making gods up!!! Whoever heard of such a thing?You seem to imply that there is something wrong with my list of creators, that they are unequal to the "gods of antiquity". How can they be considered unequal if they are closer to being perfect?The point I am making is that it is so easy to make up a creator that is better than the "gods of antiquity" that it means that any "god of antiquity" that is supposed to be perfect (such as God of the Bible) must have been made up itself.Certainly, at least, God can't be both the creator and the perfect, ultimate being.I think that is a simple and logical argument. If it can't lead to a discussion, I would say that means it's accepted and nobody believes in God anymore!Can we run with it or would you like me to change the original post again? No worries.

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.

From hundreds of Christian preachers - and I've heard Muslims claim the same about their god. Are you seriously claiming you've never heard anyone say that? I'm not a biblical scholar, but I'm fairly sure that the Bible refers to God being perfect (or words to that effect). Maybe someone can find such quotes. Did I claim it said so in the Bible anyway? Not all claims made about God are in the Bible. Who made up the rule that the Bible is the only source of information on God? .Agreed. Is he not the same god as the one in the New Testament? If not, what is the Old Testament doing in the Christian bible? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "previous" gods? Anyway, what is a god if it isn't some kind of perfect, or at least "super", being? If a god/creator is so superior to us, why doesn't it conduct itself in a manner that is far superior to anything we can imagine? If an idiot like me can so easily see how a god/creator can improve itself, it is obvious that it isn't a super being at all, because it would have ensured it was always at least as good as I could ever imagine. It's obvious someone even more stupid than me must have made it up.

Of course, "better" or "perfect" may be subjective. But something the Bible is undoubtedly clear on is that people should believe in God, should worship God, should obey God. Those points are rammed home again and again. How, then, is does a "better" or "perfect" God allow his existence and his doctrine to be disputable? If he thinks it is better for us not to believe in him, not to worship him, not to obey him, why does he keep telling us to believe in him, worship him and obey him? That doesn't make any logical, objective sense! I've suggested some simple ways in which he could make things easier for us to do what he wants. Almost anyone could do so. This alleged creator called God is less intelligent than the average human being! Therefore, he is totally incredible as any kind of divine super-being/creator. A big "if". You assume that he exists and his way is perfect if you want. I won't for the reasons stated above. A better creator would not have made it difficult to understand things if it were important to understand them.

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?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? You could make further slight modifications to virtually every little section of the Bible, so that you end up with a radically different story, and it would be just as supported/unsupported by evidence as the Bible is.

Well, if we can't agree that 4 days is better than 6, how can we agree that 6 days is better than 4?Of course I don't define "perfect". I don't think you can. It's one of the points I'm making. Anyone (and there are many) who claims that God is in any way better, perfect, superior, great, etc can't then knock down a suggested superior alternative by saying you can't define better or perfect.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.Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : No reason given.

Hi purpledawn I'm using my creators to reflect on the absurdity of God as a proposed creator. Unless you have some evidence that God of the Bible or any other "gods of antiquity" were written about BEFORE the earth was created, then they are not superior candidates. And if they were written about before creation, that doesn't really make any sense either! If there really is a creator, then it couldn't have come into existence the moment someone on Earth first wrote down its story. 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?

Hi slevesque The number of days it took to create the Earth was only a simple and initial example. I'm saying that we could slightly change every single part of the bible story, so that it was a completely different story, and we could then change part or the whole of that story again, etc, etc until we had a whole load of different stories. We could do the same with all the other ancient gods, and we could come up with an infinite number of other creators and variations of them all. How would an objective observer then pick out God of the Bible and say he was the best one, or even "the one"?This isn't really about whether or not my creators are "better" or "perfect", because it's obvious that I'm not seriously proposing them as potential creators. It's up to those who seriously propose God as a creator (because they say that God is "perfect", "flawless", "without error", or even just "very good") to point out how he stands out from any other creator that has been or could be proposed.If nobody can explain how God is better than anything I could make up, then it is completely unjustified to keep proposing him as a creator. He should be thrown back into the infinite pool until such time as someone actually comes up with something of substance.

Hi Catholic ScientistThanks for the links. I'll check them out when I get a moment.I am genuinely interested in this topic. I assure you I'm not just trying to pick on Christians. But that doesn't really tally with what the bible says. For a start, according to the stories he does show himself to some people. It's true we're not automatons, we've obviously got free-will. But God gets extremely upity (to put it mildly) when we don't follow some of his arbitrary rules. So why give us free-will then? None of us asked to be born. I'll be honest, I like Jesus for the most part. But one of the most cruel lines I have ever heard anywhere is when he says about Judas (correct me if I'm wrong on this!) "it would have been better for him if he had never been born". If that's the case, in my opinion it was Judas who really suffered for our sins, not Jesus. Jesus had a few painful hours. Judas is suffering in Hell for eternity just because he was dealt the part of the villain. That seems to be what you're saying about the rest of us. Some are born special and some aren't. Is that really a "perfect" or even a "good" creator?But the point I'm trying to make is not how much better or perfect my creators are, it's when you stand God (or Allah, etc) against my creators, how can you say that God is better? How can you even say there is any more evidence or "Truth" in the creator God than there is in an infinite number of other creators?I'm not the one seriously proposing a creator. I'm using the infinite number of potential creators to reflect upon the creators that are seriously proposed. If any of them have any validity as a real creator, then their proponents should be able to say "this must be the real creator and it stands out from the infinite pool of creators because ... ".

Hi OniI agree with everything you say and it is at least partly what I was getting at.I'm trying to make it clear that there is no more validity to proposing any of the "gods of antiquity" as a creator than there is to an infinite number of other creators that could be made up. Some of the responses have been along the lines of "how can you say any of your made up creators are "better" or "more perfect". Well, I'd like to think most of us could agree on how God could have done a better job. But even if I can't prove how my creators are "better", then how can they prove that theirs are "better"?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.

Not that it is really any of your business, but I am not biologically related to my parents. At least that is what they told me; they haven't given me any DNA evidence to prove that they are not my biological parents. However, there is a BIG difference between my belief that they are not my biological parents and anyone's belief in God. As you say, we could prove whether or not they are my parents with a DNA test. This is the difference between science and religion. Yes, for practical reasons, most of us have to have faith in science, because it would be impractical to demonstrate every scientific theory to every person. But scientists have to be able to prove their theories to their peers either through practical or logical demonstrations. If the religious could prove their supernatural theories in the same way, they would become accepted scientific facts. No, I'm not. I'm asking the question - why choose "God", or any other god of antiquity, because there is no logical or empirical basis for doing so. 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.It is also for this reason I want to get away from using the word "God" as a general term to describe any potential intelligent creator, because it is so closely associated with the specific character in the Bible. If we are to discuss seriously the question of whether or not there may be an intelligent creator of the universe, let's just call it a "potential creator" until such time as we have anything of substance to describe it further.

But this issue is about what people believe or claim NOW, not in ancient time. I've no problem with accepting that what the ancients called "God" we now call "nature" or "natural forces". We have made many more discoveries since those ancient explanations were made. This has built upon our knowledge and allowed us to make new explanations for those natural forces with no apparent involvement of an intelligent entity.The problem is people are ignoring the further discoveries and explanations and STILL relying on ancient explanations.

I think most of us would agree that a creator that managed to solve problems peacefully without committing acts of genocide must be better (in at least the moral sense).If we can't agree on what is morally better, then I hope nobody ever uses God or the Bible again as a moral guide. They can't have their cake and eat it! I would also say that a better creator would have been able to make it clearer that he was the creator and what is morally right. It is clear in the Bible that he thinks those things are important yet, as I have already pointed out, anyone of average intelligence could have found much better ways of making those points clear.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.
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : No reason given.