Who Created the Creator?

That's a nice example. I'm afraid my imaginary chalkboard figures were a bit pathetic (even in my imagination i can't draw :-( ), but I do understand the point you are making.The story could be expanded.How would they know that the fingers belonged to a personal being - and were not just a physical phenomenon. They would do so by observing how the fingers :-) looked and behaved and they would say - hey these evidences of how we came about and how our world is are a bit like fingers, so our creator, this thing from beyond our dimensions, must be something like us.I guess that is what creationists say: the signs that they see of God, are signs that in some ways resemble man's thoughts and feelings. The God of creationsts feels anger, love, and he makes and "designs" things - and creationists mean these terms as analogies to what man does. I presume they would need to say that God's love, anger and creativity are so far beyond their human conuterparts that the analogy can only ever be very weak.And so my position would be "how could the flat man or woman know whether these things really were the fingers of a God." Probably not just by observing the fingers themselves. They would need to try to understand what kind of world they lived in and if that was consistent with the kind of God they imagined.So the two circle church teaches that God is eternal and has in his mind's eye a beautiful drawing on the chalkboard. And sometimes he regrets drawing a particular character and rubs it out in order that his finished picture should eventually be more beautiful.But little flat skeptic says: how can an unchanging and all powerful God do that. He must have the plan worked out properly if he is eternal, and if he is all-powerful he doesn't need to rework bits, and if he is good he won't just rub out my friends and children and cause them suffering. So the little flat skeptic doubts if the fingers really were signs of God at all.And you know what? The little flat skeptic wouldn't be wrong. Perhaps there was a being outside the chalkboard drawing the characters. But that being couldn't be eternal and omnipotent and unchanging, because it would make no sense to say that such a being could or would draw upon the chalkboard, because that very act requires a being that can change and be different.

I agree, perhaps I started the story too late and missed something that would be vital to the story in its whole of 'the Flats'. In Genesis we read:Genesis 3:8 - Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
We can see that according to the Bible God walked with Adam and Eve. Who knows what form he was in or looked like, so perhaps what I missed is that God would have drawn himself on the board and then had to erase himself from the Board never to have such a contact with man again. This doesn't limit God to one place at all, he had to have known what was going around not just in the line of site of his own 'body' that he drew on the board, being like a 'puppet' to him persay. That would explain why they still knew it was the Lord that Created them and was their God. If we would still have contact with God as we would if no one ever ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I found another interesting passage, Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." This pretty much tells us that before he created the universe he had something else, the 'us' in Gods point of view. My hypothesis would be that they would be his Angels, I can't recall the bible ever making comment to the creation of Angels, accept that they were created.
I would say that God doesn't really 'regret' that he drew (created, or born into the world) anyone. I think it would be more of just a pain in his heart, such as what he had to do to judge sin by the Flood. Considering that God actually does have a plan and had this plan for all eternity (lets try not to stear into that vein popping wonder of the simple word 'eternity'). It would make scense, like setting the course for the future such as us. To realize that God is the judge of sin and hates sin. He would use these characters that he has drawn on the board in their use, and though it have pain in his heart from it would have to remove what should not be there anymore so that his board would not be corrupt. He wouldn't have to 'change his mind' because it would all be according to his plan of his finished picture. God knows the choices we will make all throughout his plan, we do have the ability to make a choice. Sometimes we would wanna grab that peice of chalk and draw something on the board, and mabye good looking in his eyes, but is absolutely nothing to what he wants it to look like, and his picture is beautiful in the end. Because God would change and rearange things on his 'chalkboard' doesn't mean that he has to actually change himself or be different or turn another direction. It can all be apart of his plan, and his finished product picture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question "Who created God?" is illogical.

​

---

Well, not really, before there was our universe, God resided somewhere, who created that? You could then ask, well, whoever did that must’ve created God, gets a bit circular after that.Where DOES God exist, if its outside the universe?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?"

​

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

​

It's important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, he is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

​

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

​

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

​

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

​

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

​

Now, what if you accept that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But is it self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science, history and law enforcement would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it was brought into existence, a logical absurdity.

​

Sooooo..

​

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have a beginning.

​

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

​

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

​

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

---

That the universe has a beginning is not in question, that there was causality is not in question. Whether that causality is naturalistic or supernatural IS in question.The question would be better stated as ; Does the beginning of the universe have purpose.Neither you nor I know this, either way.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"Well, not really, before there was our universe, God resided somewhere, who created that?-----God created the 'something' ie. the supernatural existing universe that existed before his universe subject to our laws of physics, condemned to our 3 dimentions, someone might call it 'the heavens' though I don't think that this would be a very correct name.You could then ask, well, whoever did that must’ve created God, gets a bit circular after that.----Yes it does become a circular argument, who created God, who created that God, and who created that God, and so on. It wouldn't be so if God is 'self existant'.Where DOES God exist, if its outside the universe?"----God exist in all dimentions, I can only speculate on 4, our 3 dimentions and a spiritual, or supernatural dimention which we are condemned from. God exists in all dimentions but without the 4th dimention we cannot begin to understand.Message 18 of 18 12-21-2001 06:01 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TrueCreation:God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question "Who created God?" is illogical.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, not really, before there was our universe, God resided somewhere, who created that? You could then ask, well, whoever did that must’ve created God, gets a bit circular after that.Where DOES God exist, if its outside the universe?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TrueCreation:So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?"Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

​

It's important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, he is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

​

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

​

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

​

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

​

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

​

Now, what if you accept that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But is it self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science, history and law enforcement would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it was brought into existence, a logical absurdity.

​

Sooooo..

​

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have a beginning.

​

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

​

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

​

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That the universe has a beginning is not in question, that there was causality is not in question. Whether that causality is naturalistic or supernatural IS in question.----I agree, thus it is a statement of faith to say it is either. It is wise to say 'I don't know' if you don't wish to choose a side. But it is also wise to go no further in speculation of origins, evolution or creation with a basis no more than 'I don't know'.The question would be better stated as ; Does the beginning of the universe have purpose.----That is another question but only fits in the confines of a reason from intelligence. So that question wouldn't exactly be 'the better stated'.Neither you nor I know this, either way.----Exactly

? Thats odd, I don't know how all that extra stuff got in there.. Well anyways just pay attention to this part --->That the universe has a beginning is not in question, that there was causality is not in question. Whether that causality is naturalistic or supernatural IS in question.----I agree, thus it is a statement of faith to say it is either. It is wise to say 'I don't know' if you don't wish to choose a side. But it is also wise to go no further in speculation of origins, evolution or creation with a basis no more than 'I don't know'.The question would be better stated as ; Does the beginning of the universe have purpose.----That is another question but only fits in the confines of a reason from intelligence. So that question wouldn't exactly be 'the better stated'.Neither you nor I know this, either way.----Exactly

Theres far too much agreement in this thread. It must stop immediately!

Cutting and pasting from other sources without attribution is very strongly discouraged here. If you didn't write it yourself, you need to give credit to the original author.I found what you posted when I did a search. The original can be viewed at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/197.aspIs this how you got through school? ;-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Is ToE, Theory of Evolution?

---

Yep.

This was not a reply to message #7, as listed. It was a reply to TrueCreation.Wierd.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Then why do you attempt to use science to prove it? If your faith was strong, wouldn't that be all you needed?
-----I don't use science to 'prove' that it indeed happend, and it happend this way, neither can Evolutionist 'prove' that evolution happend, let alone, that it happend this way. My 'faith' cannot be proven at all to even the smallest degree, because my 'faith' is my interperetation of the evidence, I see things and say oh look, god made this 6000 years ago and I see that it is entirely possible using science that it is so.

​

Biology is not religious, it is evidence-based. I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow because the sun has always risen. I do not "believe" in evolution the same way people "believe" in God or Jesus or Vishnu or Allah. It is the best explanation of the evidence, which may change is the evidence leads it to change. Religions, by contrast, do not change in light of new evidence. They are believed regardless of the evidence.
-----Biology is not religious I agree, but also biology does not prove that we came from anything more than a human, what people say is that scince we can see little changes they think they can add many many little changes and make big changes, is this based on a 'belief'? Yes it is, why is it? Because it cannot, and never has been observed. The analogy of a sun rising and setting is not a very good one. Why isn't it? Because we've seen it happen repeatedly every day of our lives. It isn't the best explination of the evidence, but according to your 'opinion' you think it is. I think that the evidence best fits a very young earth based on my interperetation of the evidence, likewize you think it is old based on your interperetation of the evidence. If you follow the creation and evolution debate with a keen eye you will see that there is alot of this 'interperetation of the evidence' that goes on. One says that the Grand canyon was formed by a little bit of water and alot of time, another person says that it took alot of water and a little bit of time.
I find it odd how Biblical Creationists can have successfully been able to use the same stories over and over again and find nothing that will change it. Evolution is greatly being fashioned and patched up all the time. I believe, in regard to the evidence.
I've seen people give regard to a 'ToE', I am unaware of this abreviation, care to tell me so I may comment on it?

---

Well, I must now sadly conclude that you are choosing to be willfully-ignorant and narrow-minded.You are choosing to ignore the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning
hundreds of years(including Creationist scientists from the 1800's).The fact that scientific theories change in the light of new and better evidence is one of science's greatest strengths, not a weakness at all.Creationists use the same stories no matter how much evidence to the contrary they have to twist, misquote, or ignore.You obviously need science to bolster your faith, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you wouldn't be attempting to explain the Bible stories of creation in quasi-scientific terms.You should realize that most Christian denominations have no problem with scientific findings.You can assert that "evolution doesn't happen" all you want to, but when the pesticide-resistant bug eats all of your shrubs, or the antibiotic-resistant bacteria makes you sick, or the new species of nylon-digesting bacteria makes holes in something you own, that's evolution.

Isn't it nice? We can actually have some agreement somewhere, of course theres always a line to draw between sides. Atleast the debate doesn't have to 'rage' against each other.

Sorry if i didn't give credit ( I rrecently read the 'rules' of the debates and found what you probley would have been better off posting rather than 'it is discouraging'. Isn't it nice? Care to comment on any of the assertions in the article that I had posted?

"Well, I must now sadly conclude that you are choosing to be willfully-ignorant and narrow-minded."
--You'd think so wouldn't you?You are choosing to ignore the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning
hundreds of years(including Creationist scientists from the 1800's).
--Actually this is what I rely on."The fact that scientific theories change in the light of new and better evidence is one of science's greatest strengths, not a weakness at all."
--I didn't say it was a weakness, where did you get that idea? I simply said its great how the Biblical framework being slightly more complex than the Evolutionary framework(having all of the dates and vague but absolute foundations and a step higher for our evidence to point to) has stayed in quite nice condition for the whole of the 'never ending' debate."Creationists use the same stories no matter how much evidence to the contrary they have to twist, misquote, or ignore."
--I wish you would state some of this 'evidence we ignore' because I don't know of any. The biggest one that boggles my mind and I have only researched personally being unable to contact an expert, is the question of why Angiosperms after Gymnosperms in the fossil record. We use the same basic foundational models and being as many others thinking we don't have to say well 'goddidit' as we can present evidence for our claims."You obviously need science to bolster your faith, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you wouldn't be attempting to explain the Bible stories of creation in quasi-scientific terms."
--Ofcourse I need science to uphold my 'faith' being as a 'faith' you have called it, likewize you rely on science to bolster your faith as-well, whether you choose to think it as a faith or not. It would be wrong to assert science as we use it as 'quasi-scientific' being as scientific as science can be."You should realize that most Christian denominations have no problem with scientific findings."
--I don't have a problem with anyones findings, I have a problem with them stamping their millions of years on it because that simply requires a faith to some degree because we simply were not there, it is not a 'fact' and it is a far cry from an 'absolute'."You can assert that "evolution doesn't happen" all you want to, but when the pesticide-resistant bug eats all of your shrubs, or the antibiotic-resistant bacteria makes you sick, or the new species of nylon-digesting bacteria makes holes in something you own, that's evolution."
--Hey technically it is but its a far cry from what you need to make a bacteria turn into a fish. I don't disagree with speciation as we see it, or variation, or anything of such a nature. Its simply getting the stamp of these small changes turning into massive changes over the 'millions of years'. These changes are small, some argue that these changes are enormous, though it is the contrary, a simple change can have devestating effect. This would be evolution without the capital 'E'. New species we see every day.

quote:

---

You are choosing to ignore the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning
hundreds of years(including Creationist scientists from the 1800's).
--Actually this is what I rely on.

---

No, you don't rely on science at all, and neither does Creation "Science".The problem here is that you don't know how to tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience.Real science NEVER assumes it can know ahead of time what it must find to fit a predetermined outcome, yet Creationism does just that.For goodness sake, a Scientific Theory of Creation, complete with confirming evidence, testable hypothese, and potential falsifications, doesn't even exist.In real science, there are no sacred cows. Every single theory or bit of evidence is available to revisit and possibly reject or revise in the light of new, more reliable evidence. (Emphasis on the "more reliable")Creationism, on the other hand, holds certain
things to be absolute, no matter what. This is as unscientific as it gets!Please read the following sites. The first explains what science is and how it is done, and the second deals with Creation "science" and why it is pseudoscience. http://www.skepdic.com/science.html
http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

quote:

---

"The fact that scientific theories change in the light of new and better evidence is one of science's greatest strengths, not a weakness at all."
--I didn't say it was a weakness, where did you get that idea?

---

I got the idea from what you wrote in message #14 of this thread.TrueCreation:"I find it odd how Biblical Creationists can have successfully been able to use the same stories over and over again and find nothing that will change it. Evolution is greatly being fashioned and patched up all the time. I believe, in regard to the evidence."You characterized the fact that scientific theories may change as needing to be "fashioned and patched up all the time", implying that this was a sign of weakness compared to Creationist's unchanging beliefs. [QUOTE]I simply said its great how the Biblical framework being slightly more complex than the Evolutionary framework(having all of the dates and vague but absolute foundations and a step higher for our evidence to point to)

quote:

---

I don't understand what you say here. What "vague but absolute foundations"? What do you mean by "step higher"?

​

quote:

---

"Creationists use the same stories no matter how much evidence to the contrary they have to twist, misquote, or ignore."
--I wish you would state some of this 'evidence we ignore' because I don't know of any.

---

​

Actually, I don't think that you, specifically ignore evidence. I think that you probably just haven't exactly sought out much in the way of evidence from Biology yourself, so you don't know it is being ignored by the authors of the articles at the religious sites you frequent.

​

Here you go:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_overview.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt5.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part6.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

​

quote:

---

The biggest one that boggles my mind and I have only researched personally being unable to contact an expert, is the question of why Angiosperms after Gymnosperms in the fossil record.

---

​

That's the only one? Have you forgotten our discussion of ostriches, pterosaurs, grass and sucessive fossil forests of flowering trees, and insects? What about trilobites and crabs? Whyy don't we find those two species together, as they are of similar densities, both live on the ocean floor, and have similar mobility?

​

quote:

---

We use the same basic foundational models[

---

​

No, Creation "science" does't use the same basic models as science. Creation "science" isn't scientific, because it violates some of the basic tenets of science as I explained a bit about above, and the links I provided will explain further.

​

quote:

---

and being as many others thinking we don't have to say well 'goddidit' as we can present evidence for our claims.

---

​

But uoi haven't presented much evidence for your claims at all! You do a lot of "The insects would have survived on floating logs". That is hardly evidence. That is pure conjecture.

​

quote:

---

"You obviously need science to bolster your faith, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you wouldn't be attempting to explain the Bible stories of creation in quasi-scientific terms."
--Ofcourse I need science to uphold my 'faith' being as a 'faith' you have called it,

---

​

Why? Isn't the nature of faith that one believes, no matter what? It seems a weak sort of faith that needs proof. Thomas needed evidence of Jesus being risen from the dead, and he was shamed because of his lack of faith.

​

Are you a "Doubting Thomas", needing proof to believe? If not, then why go into this business of using science to bolster your faith?

​

quote:

---

likewize you rely on science to bolster your faith as-well, whether you choose to think it as a faith or not.

---

​

I accept the evidence for the Theory of Evolution the same way I accept the evidence of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter. If we were to find a human fossil in the same layer as a dinosaur fossil, the ToE, as it stands now, would be falsified for me. If radiometric dating methods all began showing wildly different dates for rocks instead of agreeing, that would also be a falsification. I would have to change, which wold be fin, as I do not hold science as a faith or belief in a religious fashion.

​

Tell me, what would falsify Creationism for you?

​

quote:

---

It would be wrong to assert science as we use it as 'quasi-scientific' being as scientific as science can be.

---

​

Creation "science" is not scientific, as the links I provide above will explain to you. Creation "science" is metapysics and religion dressed in a lab coat, holding a beaker. It uses the trappings of science, but it lacks the methodology, basic tennets, and error-correcting systems of real science. If the Supreme Court is more persuasive to you, here you go:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

​

quote:

---

"You should realize that most Christian denominations have no problem with scientific findings."
--I don't have a problem with anyones findings, I have a problem with them stamping their millions of years on it because that simply requires a faith to some degree because we simply were not there, it is not a 'fact' and it is a far cry from an 'absolute'.

---

​

The age of the Earth is derived from many different lines of evidence.

​

Please provide some evidence that all of the various dating methods are inaccurate.

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

​

Wait a minute. YOU have made very specific factual claims about how things happened with the Flood, yet none of us were there to see it. You have talked about the evidence LEFT BEHIND as pointing to a worldwide flood. This inicates that you will accept evidence that there were NO eyewitnesses to. So, is it that you will only accept evidence that agrees with how you want things to be, and will ignore any evidence that contradicts your preferred evidence?

​

Are autopsies worthless if nobody saw the person die? Can no witnessless crimes EVER be solved?

​

[QUOTE]"You can assert that "evolution doesn't happen" all you want to, but when the pesticide-resistant bug eats all of your shrubs, or the antibiotic-resistant bacteria makes you sick, or the new species of nylon-digesting bacteria makes holes in something you own, that's evolution."
--Hey technically it is but its a far cry from what you need to make a bacteria turn into a fish.

​

I don't disagree with speciation as we see it, or variation, or anything of such a nature.

​

Its simply getting the stamp of these small changes turning into massive changes over the 'millions of years'. These changes are small, some argue that these changes are enormous, though it is the contrary, a simple change can have devestating effect. This would be evolution without the capital 'E'. New species we see every day.[/B]

---

You accept that speciation occurs??If all of the different dating methods are ALL wrong, why are they worng in such a way as to agree with each other?What mechanism prevents many small changes from accumulating?

scraf:
What mechanism prevents many small changes from accumulating?John Paul:
OK- take 20 pennies and stack them one on top of the other. Now keep placing pennies on top. By your logic that stack should just get higher and higher. The safe bet would be there is a limit to the height of the stack of pennies.Also by your logic I should be able to take an application program, mutate it (give it small random mutations that get culled by the compiler) and eventually get an OS.What we do see is when the genetic code gets hammered on genetic diseases occur.Now I know you don't like this, but it is up to you to show mutations can accumulate in such a way that the ToE could be indicative of reality. As of now alll you can do is continue the practice of gross anatomy.------------------
John Paul