I came across a rather insane creationist that claimed that his proof for the existence of a god is, “the Creation proves a Creator”. What immediately came to mind was the idea that that “Creator” could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that his statement in no way helps the claim of Yahweh - the Judeo-Christian deity. What is your opinion on this, and do you have anything you might add? :dubious:
ADDENDUM: I also realized that the Universe did not necessarily require a creator, as shown in advanced levels of quantum physics.
So who created the Creator?
There’s always the old reliable “Who created the creator?” But that one is getting a bit trite.
Ask him to prove a creation. Or ask him to prove that the creator is sentient. Rivers create canyons, but no one has called a river a god in a long, long time.
What you don’t want to do is concede a sentient creator. Then he gets to replace “if there’s a God” with “Since there’s a God” in all of his arguments henceforth.
Moved MPSIMS --> Great Debates.
You got it right on one. Even if there is a creator, not clear, it sure isn’t the god he believes in because that god got the story totally wrong.
The person should come back with a Bible which talks about the Big Bang - I once wrote a version of Genesis that got it right. The person might also consider the possibility that there is an interventionist, personal God - but He cares about some alien race, who didn’t take 13 billion years to show up. They might all be in heaven today, and we might be here totally accidentally, up until the God decides to clean up. Contradicts fewer known facts than the Bible does.
So Creation proves the creator; what proves creation?
In the interest of fighting ignorance, that’s not true.
My questions would be:
1 - Is God god of creation?
2 - Is His God also god of the living? (Luke 20:38)
3 - Is creation alive?
A lot depends on how it is answered, but assuming one line of answers:
4 - What is the role of creation, would it not to be to support other, ‘smaller’ lives?
5 - Would not creation be a ‘female’ counterpart to God.
6 - Would that be along the lines of Adam and Eve, since man was created in the image of God.
7 - Was not Adam and Eve a single being (called Adam) at one time before parts of Adam were removed and made into 2 different beings male and female.
8 - Since man is made in the image of God, would it be likewise that God separated himself into male and female, or as he calls it creator and creation, to us male and female.
9 - If we take that to be true, God (the male part) didn’t create creation, but God (both male and female) divided himself into 2 parts, so God now works together with Creation.
10 - if that is the case why should we place God higher then creation, that would be placing Dad at a higher level then Mom, which seems like a horrible system.
Calling the universe “creation” is already conceding to the circular logic.
That depends on how one defines the Judeo-Christian God. If, say, one defines God as the entity who spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush, then establishing the existence of a Creator would do nothing to prove the existence of God. But if one defines God as the Creator, without regards to things like the Burning Bush, then establishing the existence of a Creator does establish the existence of God (though does nothing to prove that God spoke through the Burning Bush). And if, then, the creator turns out to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, well, then, the FSM is just another name for God.
What if the Creator caused the universe through natural means but does not posses supernatural powers are they still a god?
Does your concept of god just need to create in order to be supernatural?
What if he/she/it coincidentally or without knowing created it and has no power to act in it? Is he/she/it still a god?
How about if he/she/it had attempted to make a particle soup but the bang went wrong and he got this clumpy super cluster type and is embarrassed to show it to the other creators so it just sits in a bag while they claim to have left it at home?
How about if there are 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy and 50 billion galaxies (yes there are more of both)
How do you know out of the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars that he/she/it made it for you or would it still be a god if it saved it’s supernatural powers for others.
Maybe we are just the mold in the yogurt he/she/it forgot about in the fridge on a cold winters day.
Maybe he/she/it bought an age inappropriate universe from the back of a magazine but did a “factory reset” when his/her/it’s parents walked in the room resulting in the big bang.
Maybe the big bag was preceded by the big compression, caused by a crazed atheist terrorist that somehow got hold of a quantum suitcase Imploder.
would that still be a god, because it is unknown to you?
I see no logical reason to think creator = god
And I’ve heard it suggested somewhere that God hasn’t actually created any universes yet. He’s just running a bunch of simulations (of which the Universe that we think we know is just one), to test the feasibility of various scenarios. Presumably, when He discovers a scenario or model that seems to work well, then He will actually create that Universe.
I’m into Natural History. We know that the Earth is several billion years old and at any given point during that time, the ecosystem consisted of species up to a certain level of sophistication. At a later point, some of these species became extinct while some newer, more sophisticated ones had come into existence, apparently derived from some earlier species.
Without getting specifically into evolution, any account of how life came about needs to conform with this basic framework. It’s not like all life forms–from bacteria to fish to humans–all popped into existence during the same week.
So creationists need to be a bit more specific as to what they think actually happened.
Circular logic / begging the question.
Cast this rhetoric into the Fetid Pile of Derision!™
My old question stands…Who created the place for God to be?
This is a cousin to what is known as the “ontological argument” for the existence of God: God is by definition perfect, and if something only existed in concept but not in reality then it wouldn’t be perfect, therefore God exists. It sounds silly (at least to me it does), but many great philosophers have wrestled with it for centuries.
God #1 created God #2, who created God #3…
In other words, it’s turtles all the way down!
My question is if God is a being he must have first had a place to exist, and who or what created that? One must be in existence to exist,so existence had to be before being. It is impossible for nothing to exist.if it exists it is something!
One could posit that God has always existed, has always been. One could take it further, eliminate the middle man–God, and posit that the world itself has always existed, has always been. The idea that the world is “the Creation” is merely assuming that the world was created. Fleshing out what cmyk wrote, taking this assumption as the premise for an argument is an example of begging the question. Saying that “the Creation proves a Creator” is merely circular logic based on begging the question.