|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why do Creationists have faith in a second rate creator? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
You seem to be saying, ''creating the world in 4 days is better than in 6, and so my 4-day creator is closer to perfection than the 6-day creator''. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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! That's a fairly common question... why doesn't god just prove he exists and instead rely on faith? There's threads on that question on this site here and here. I believe that if god proved he exists then we'd effectively be turned into automatons that believe in him by default. For some reason he saw it important for us to be able to not know that he exists and be able to not believe that he exists. I guess that way, those that do believe will be special.
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. I'm not convinced that your ability to imagine a way in which god could have done things differently, and be labelled as better, has anything to do at all with how intelligent or capable god is.
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. Your certainly free to hold that opinion. Do you actually want to discuss if your opinion has any merit? It seems to me that you don't really care to discuss it and would rather just have some fun with the christians. But you can prove me wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Well, I did give the meaninng of the greek word that we translate as 'perfect'.
In the greek, it would be close to ''mature'' or ''complete''. Or perhaps ''How it is supposed to be''. (''Flawless'' or ''without error'' would be pretty close also, but I think the previous are closer to the idea I have of perfection) We can take as an example a circle. We talk of a perfect circle when it is ''how it is supposed to be''. Which is defined by the mathematical description of a circle. Same goes for a perfect equilateral triangle. Given this definition of perfect, it would not make any sense to try and compare a circle and a triangle as to see which one is ''more perfect''. I could say corners are a bad thing, and so the triangle would be less perfect than the circle. And it would be more perfect than a square. Of course, I think we all agree that this doesn't really add up to even the common understanding of perfection. Circle, triangle and square can all be perfect if they are ''complete'' and ''how they are supposed to be'' in regards to the mathematical description of each one. In the same way, God is perfect. 6 days creation or 4 days creation does not make any difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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: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.
Etymology of the word perfect perfect (adj.) Look up perfect at Dictionary.com early 13c., from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in Eng. as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from late 14c. Perfectionist is 1650s, originally theological, "one who believes moral perfection may be attained in earthly existence;" sense of "one only satisfied with the highest standards" is from 1934. The usage in the Bible doesn't mean flawless as slevesque pointed out in Message 13.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
JUC writes: 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!
CS writes: That's a fairly common question... why doesn't god just prove he exists and instead rely on faith? Ehh, I don't think that's what he is saying, I think it goes a little deeper. I used to have the same questions when I was younger and on the fence about god. It's not about him proving to us anything, its that these books tell us we have to believe, they tell us we have to worship, we have to have faith, etc. All the while, god sits back and watches many of them (they can't all be right, for all of history) lie in his name, and believers follow blindly to the lies. If certain doctrines are true, most of the world is destined to eternal Hell simply for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time; some will end up in Hell because they listened to the wrong guy preaching the wrong book; many will end up in Hell because of circumstances out of their control - god sees this, and does nothing. So how could he expect anyone to trust an institution of men, or multiple institutions of men, all claiming to know what god wants, all professing that their books are the correct ones, all claiming different stories are the right story? Is it god or man who wants to be worshipped? If god loves us, why does he allow men to lead his children blindly into Hell by the millions? What does that say about god?
I guess that way, those that do believe will be special. Those who place their faith in the words of men are considered special to god? And those who in all honesty can't believe the words of men would be what? - Oni Oh, I'm off of myspace, starting up my website and videos will be there, don't need it or use it anymore. If you're on fb hit me up there. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Hi purpledawn
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. 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.
Ancient gods were a personification of nature. Your gods aren't based on anything...Understand the foundation and then understand how God and religion changed with civilization. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Hi slevesque
In the same way, God is perfect. 6 days creation or 4 days creation does not make any difference. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist
Thanks 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.
I believe that if god proved he exists then we'd effectively be turned into automatons that believe in him by default. For some reason he saw it important for us to be able to not know that he exists and be able to not believe that he exists. I guess that way, those that do believe will be special. 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 ... ".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Oni
I 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
None of us asked to be born. Is this a belief of yours? If it is not, please provide me with the objective verifiable evidence you have that this is true. I fail to see any connection between the bible and God's existance. I mean you are not actually proposing that showing the bible to be a total load of shit PROVES God doesn't exist. Are you? In regards to your OP. Are you suggesting that because you can make things up that everything for which there is no objective verifiable evidence is made up? Are you biologically related to your parents? Please provide the objective verifiable evidence this is true. A DNA test will be fine. Please don't tell me crap like they told you it was true, or you think you look like them. That's the same kind of evidence Catholic Scientist has for believing in God. If you think there is something wrong with his believing in God, then there is something wrong with your believing you are biologically related to your parents. Maybe being biologically related to your parents is just something everyone made up, kind of like the gods in your OP. Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Now to look at your gods.
quote:The 4 day week did not prevail. So this god did nothing "better". quote: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: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: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: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. Perfect The 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.
In the 1920s the term creationism became particularly associated with a Christian fundamentalist movement opposed to the idea of human evolution, which succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
If you think there is something wrong with his believing in God, then there is something wrong with your believing you are biologically related to your parents. 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.
I mean you are not actually proposing that showing the bible to be a total load of shit PROVES God doesn't exist. Are you? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
So my point is that the ancient gods were based on reality and knowledge of the time. Your gods aren't based on anything. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4941 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
"Why does lack of genocide make this god a better creator?" 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024