Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator?

May I remind you that I am not the one proposing the existence of a creator. I started this thread by asking why others believe in a particular creator. I asked the first question, asking them to provide the evidence or logic to support THEIR proposition.I ask you again (for the last time):Have you genuinely never heard the argument that at least all but one of the previously proposed creators must be made up? And even if that's the case, why do you need me to point you to someone else making that point?I do not have to justify every single word or sentence I put forward unless it is critical to the argument. We could never get anywhere in a debate if it was necessary to qualify every single word or sentence. And we're not getting anywhere in this debate because of your pedantic attitude. Please note that when you made the point that people believe in God for cultural reasons, I didn't ask you to support that with evidence. It's not necessary.Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : typo

Just for you, I have googled my argument and straight away found this facebook page of someone I have never heard of making exactly the same point.Update Your Browser | FacebookI hope this satisfies you that I don't just make things up to mislead anyone, and that you will now either address my argument proplerly or leave this discussion.

I can now see that I was wrong to describe you as bureaucratic and pedantic. They are clearly not strong enough terms.Further back in this discussion, you asked me to explain my motivation in raising the topic. So, I took the trouble to explain to you why I am concerned about religious belief, even though my concerns and my motivation are not directly relevant to the discussion. After I gave you my candid answer, you then had the audacity to accuse me of ranting against religion!Then, in message 60 you asked: So I then took the trouble to answer your question directly and gave you a very detailed re-explanation of my whole argument.Did you finally respond to my argument? No.You then asked me to provide a link or article to the "well known old argument" I had mentioned.Again, I took the trouble to do this for you, and gave you exactly the right link you asked for, even though it has no relevance to the main point.Do you show any appreciation of that and finally get round to responding to my main argument?Surprise, surprise, no! You are now saying you don't see how the link deals with my argument presented for this thread. And you even have the audacity to say: !!!???!!!You must think that I and everyone else on this formum are complete morons. It is YOU who keeps changing the questions.Unless you respond directly to my main argument, which I have re-phrased several times just for you, then you and I are done.(Actually, I guess there must be some morons on this site, seeing that you have somehow accumulated a rating of 4.3!!?!!)

Hi RickJBI appreciate your comments and support here. I think I've been dealing with a complete timewaster.Cheers

Thanks for your comments, but the thread is not about how "useful" creators are, it's about the validity of any claims for them being real. It's about people actually believing in their existence.

I understand that people believe in creators because their parents or others in their community have told them to. This can be seen by the geographical distribution of religions around the world. Most of those people have obviously not thought objectively about the creator they believe in, they have been indoctrinated by their culture. If most people thought objectively about the validity of any creator being real, there would be a much more even distribution of various religions and non-belief around the world.One of the reasons I ask the question is to encourage such people to think objectively about why they believe in a specific creator and to consider the likelihood of it actually existing. Why should anyone have a problem with that, unless they wish to restrict free thought?However, I am genuinely interested in the possibility that anyone may come forward and actually make a logical argument, or provide empirical evidence, anything at all that objectively favours the existence of any one particular creator.I have already said that I am open minded about the possibility of a creator, and that I think everyone should be, unless we can eventually rule out the possibility. So your accusation that I am a fundamentalist in that respect is totally wrong. I am just trying to engage in an objective discussion about what a real creator would be like.This debate has only descended into an unseemly argument because nobody seems to be willing to answer my point directly. If nobody has an opinion that relates directly to the question I raised, then I'd rather they stayed out of the discussion. We are already at message 75!

Well, I'm looking forward to Dr Sing coming forward with his evidence for God's existence that he promised me. Is the fact that I am genuinely interested in what he will present not sufficient for you to realise I'm open-minded.If you can give me the message number of any other responses that you feel gave me an objective logical or empirical reason for believing in a particular creator, then please let me know and I assure you I will go back and look at it again. Is that reasonable and open-minded enough for you?If on the other hand you feel that the only explanation for belief in a particular creator is due to someone's cultural background, and that nobody has a completely objective reason for believing in a particular creator, then I will happily agree with you on that point.

Thank (any) God at least one person understands my point!