The Ridiculous 'proof From Creation' Assertion.

[oddbird1963]

In the now infamous Bart Ehrman thread, a Christian with the user name LNC once again made the tired old claim that god has revealed himself through creation to us so that we are condemned before god and without a good excuse because what can be made known about god is obvious and therefore everybody who does not turn to Jesus is condemned to hell. (I've taken some liberties in my paraphrase, but that's the way the thinking goes.

 

 

Actually, [Christianity] says that people are without excuse because God has made himself known through his creation. . . Knowing God's word allows us to know him more precisely; to know more about him. However, he has given us enough in creation to know he exists. People came to know him long before anything was ever written down or was even something that the average person could read as many were illiterate in the NT time.

 

My contention is that this belief about creation is a crock of pig excrement. I never came to such a conclusion about a god. I observed creation: the majestic sky, the cosmic display of lights in the night sky, mountains, sunsets, beautiful forests in spring time. While these sights are beautiful, moving and awe-inspiring, I never considered the mighty exhibits of nature as a path to the knowledge of god.

 

This is a classic case of how Christians insist that the Bible teaches a reality that just is not so.

 

 

I am aware of the source material for this incorrect contention:

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 

So, Romans 1 says people supress the truth when they observe creation. But I say, "No I don't!" I don't see anything in creation that suggests to me the existence of a god or any of its supposed attributes." Prove me wrong!

 

Another passage used is Psalm 19,

 

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language

where their voice is not heard.

4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world.

 

So, Romans 1 is just wrong. Psalm 19 is poetic in nature. I can admire the passage for what it meant subjectively to the psalmist, but that does not mean it reflects reality. A person who is already a believer, or who has at least been religiously indoctrinated may see the hand of a god in creation, but it is not intuitively obvious. The notions they get about creation are taught, not "caught" from creation.

 

How many people will have to tell you, christians, that they just don't experience reality in that way? Does the testimony of real, honest, flesh and blood people count for anything to you? How many people will you deny, discount and levy ad hominem attacks against before you will believe that Romans 1, and to some extent Psalm 19 are just wrong?

 

I repeat the challenge once again: Prove me wrong or shut up with the ridiculous statements about people that do not stand up to reality!

[Deva]

Yes, this statement was too ridiculous for me to address on the Ehrman thread. Anyone can see beauty and order in nature, perhaps, but how do we go from observation of the natural world to the conclusion that the Christian God exists? There is just no way to get from A to B. Paul was clutching at straws trying to find a way to make his God of predestination and "justice" a loving God at the same time. He had to make it appear that God was just in sending people to hell who never heard of him. It was a very poor effort.

 

It makes absolutely no sense.

[Shawn Truesdell]

Well put. For my part I would have to say that gods little literary effort leaves a lot wanting. I would be a lot more in awe of his creation, and knowledge of it, if he had not said the Earth was flat, or that the stars were just small points of light a few miles up, or that the sun revolved around the earth or any other stupid statements about science, and there are LOTS of them. I would have been much more in awe of the bible if it had spoken the truth, telling us that his creation was more immense than we could ever understand. That millions of light years of expanse lay beyond our little planet with wonders of light and color that no one could imagine. That a cosmic symphony was played out with millions of galaxies, billions of stars and trillions of planets. That would have been awe inspiring.

[oddbird1963]

Shawn,

 

Welcome to the Ex-C forums! As the OP, I am honored to be the recipient of your first post! From your well-worded reply, I look forward to hearing from you in future posts!

 

OB '63

[Vigile]

If creation teaches us about god then what it teaches is that god is a mother fucker. Animals continually push the envelope of their limited environment and either live lives of subsistence or are brutally weeded out by predators and disease. Within the natural paradigm this is reasonable and to be expected and pretty much just is. Within a theistic paradigm it's just sick and perverted.

 

LNC would have us look at the splendor of Kilimanjaro and chooses to ignore raw and bloody laws of the jungle (bible boy sleight of hand). And I didn't even mention that the whole premise of his argument is a non sequitur in the first place.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I don't remember exactly who said it, but I remember a response to the theory that "creation" tells us who God is being,"Well, one thing we know for sure, God must have an uncanny fondness for beetles." I thought it was a good answer, because even if it is true that we can see the will and nature of god through the natural world, what we gather from observing the world around us doesn't indicate anything about mythologies in a book. In fact, looking at the natural world objectively led me far away from the Bible and out of Christianity, so maybe I should be thankful such a silly notion was taught to me. At very best someone could see the natural world as evidence for a creator, but who and why and how etc is not at all indicated. It takes a huge leap to say the earth exists therefor Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead and everything the Bible says is true.

[Autonomous]

Anyway, which god? Even if someone felt that observing the universe led them to think or feel that there is some kind of god or creator, it wouldn't be Christianity. Pre-Christian peoples observed the world around them and came up with all kinds of spiritual-based ideas about what was going on, they didn't come up with Christianity! According to the Bible those who follow other gods, whether real or imagined, are damned.

[Guest bela]

Anyway, which god? Even if someone felt that observing the universe led them to think or feel that there is some kind of god or creator, it wouldn't be Christianity. Pre-Christian peoples observed the world around them and came up with all kinds of spiritual-based ideas about what was going on, they didn't come up with Christianity! According to the Bible those who follow other gods, whether real or imagined, are damned.

 

What about god that “creates” the universe, including the earth and the human races that in turn “create” religions and faiths? I mean a non-religion’ God. Is it out of topic?

 

"It takes intelligence to know intelligence" - Dr. Julia Hoffman

[oddbird1963]

Anyway, which god? Even if someone felt that observing the universe led them to think or feel that there is some kind of god or creator, it wouldn't be Christianity. Pre-Christian peoples observed the world around them and came up with all kinds of spiritual-based ideas about what was going on, they didn't come up with Christianity! According to the Bible those who follow other gods, whether real or imagined, are damned.

 

What about god that “creates” the universe, including the earth and the human races that in turn “create” religions and faiths? I mean a non-religion’ God. Is it out of topic?

 

"It takes intelligence to know intelligence" - Dr. Julia Hoffman

 

 

Bela,

 

If this deistic sounding god you refer to created the universe and that's it - - no further involvement with humanity such as judgment and tossing humans into hell, then it might be off topic.

 

But if you are suggesting that this god who created the universe , the earth and humanity and will someday judge the human race then it is not off topic. You would still need to maintain that something in creation makes it so obvious to humans who god is and what his nature is that they are accountable and without excuse before it. The question is, can you demonstrate this?

[Deva]

The issue is does the type of God that could conceivably come into someone's mind by looking solely at the natural world ever correspond in the slightest to the God that the apostle Paul is presenting such that they are "without excuse" if they don't hear the gospel.

 

Could anyone just by looking at nature understand a man/god Jesus sacrificed for sins? Could they understand the Christian concept of sin? Could they understand the atonement? Why would it enter their minds?

[Guest bela]

Oodbird 1963 wrote:

The question is, can you demonstrate this?

--------------------------

I limit myself to your last question. Is it about the negation of God?

 

In case we can not prove or demonstrate that “something” exist, does it means that it doesn’t exist at all?

 

Do you mean that I have to demonstrate that god is something real (structured-measurable object) perceivable to human sense?

 

Anything “created” can be the proof of the existence of “something” that makes it “created”.

 

Devalight wrote:

1. Could anyone just by looking at nature understand a man/god Jesus sacrificed for sins? 2. Could they understand the Christian concept of sin? 3. Could they understand the atonement? 4. Why would it enter their minds?

-------------------------

1-3. Looks like “You are asking ridiculous questions and hoping someone to answer ridiculously”. The concepts of redemption, sin and atonement, to me, can be treated as part of traditional concepts surrounding the religion. Christians understood quite right that the holy scriptures were written in certain period of time and thus only in part relevant to the modern day moral teachings. We can reinterpret them in many ways (One among many reasons not to leave Christianity).

 

4. Note that even those who claim to be atheists still have an atheistic god. And to me, it implies that “something” we referred to as God does really enter human mind from the earlier stage of their rational thinking capability.

 

Is it ridiculous proof from creation? It depends on who view something as what.

[Deva]

Devalight wrote:

1. Could anyone just by looking at nature understand a man/god Jesus sacrificed for sins? 2. Could they understand the Christian concept of sin? 3. Could they understand the atonement? 4. Why would it enter their minds?

-------------------------

1-3. Looks like “You are asking ridiculous questions and hoping someone to answer ridiculously”. The concepts of redemption, sin and atonement, to me, can be treated as part of traditional concepts surrounding the religion. Christians understood quite right that the holy scriptures were written in certain period of time and thus only in part relevant to the modern day moral teachings. We can reinterpret them in many ways (One among many reasons not to leave Christianity).

 

Bela, you seem to be missing the point. I am only addressing what the apostle Paul said, which is that people in other countries that never heard of Christ were "without excuse" because everything could be known from nature. It is ridiculous that someone could know all the Christian doctrines that Paul promulgates simply by looking at nature. That is all I am saying. I am not saying that people might not come up with an idea of God. They very well might.

 

What you are saying about the relevancy of scriptures to life today is a separate question. Of course people reinterpret scripture but that was not a question I was addressing.

4. Note that even those who claim to be atheists still have an atheistic god. And to me, it implies that “something” we referred to as God does really enter human mind from the earlier stage of their rational thinking capability.

 

An atheist, by definition does not believe in God. To say they have an "atheistic god" does not make sense. I believe what you are trying to say is that whether an atheist believes in God or not, God still exists, but I am not sure.

[oddbird1963]

Oodbird 1963 wrote:

The question is, can you demonstrate this?

--------------------------

I limit myself to your last question. Is it about the negation of God?

 

In case we can not prove or demonstrate that “something” exist, does it means that it doesn’t exist at all?

 

Do you mean that I have to demonstrate that god is something real (structured-measurable object) perceivable to human sense?

 

Anything “created” can be the proof of the existence of “something” that makes it “created”.

 

Devalight wrote:

1. Could anyone just by looking at nature understand a man/god Jesus sacrificed for sins? 2. Could they understand the Christian concept of sin? 3. Could they understand the atonement? 4. Why would it enter their minds?

-------------------------

1-3. Looks like “You are asking ridiculous questions and hoping someone to answer ridiculously”. The concepts of redemption, sin and atonement, to me, can be treated as part of traditional concepts surrounding the religion. Christians understood quite right that the holy scriptures were written in certain period of time and thus only in part relevant to the modern day moral teachings. We can reinterpret them in many ways (One among many reasons not to leave Christianity).

 

4. Note that even those who claim to be atheists still have an atheistic god. And to me, it implies that “something” we referred to as God does really enter human mind from the earlier stage of their rational thinking capability.

 

Is it ridiculous proof from creation? It depends on who view something as what.

 

Hi Bela! Nice to hear from you again.

 

While it is true that many people reach an idea of some type of a god through some form of the cosmological or teleological arguments, I contend that these arguments are creations of the few, taught to and repeated by the many, but not with a universal scope. In other words, not all people are going to come to some form of cosmological argument from observing creation.

 

Even if everybody derived the Kalaam Cosmological argument or Anselm's ontological argument from looking at a beautiful mountain range, that does not explain how Paul's contention in Romans chapter 1 could be true. Remember, he said that god's eternal attributes are accessible in creation and that people are without excuse because of this.

 

 

My contention: I do not get this from an observation of creation. Prove me wrong.

 

To prove me wrong you would have to choose arbitrary words in the bible over my statements about my mind. I don't see how you could credibly do that.

 

That is what this discussion is about.

[Antlerman]

In case we can not prove or demonstrate that “something” exist, does it means that it doesn’t exist at all?

I'll accept that as true.

 

Anything “created” can be the proof of the existence of “something” that makes it “created”.

I won't accept this as true, certainly not in how I interpret what you are suggesting. What do you mean by "created"? To see something that is ordered, and use the term 'created' to describe it can subtly suggest a deliberate designer; something that functions like we do with intentional and deliberation in how we create as humans. This isn't the case with nature.

 

When you look at the even waves of sand over a wind-blown desert, do you think mysterious intelligence designed those to look that way, with even, recurring pattern of ripples? Or do you think, 'the wind blowing over that caused that"?

 

When you look at nature, perhaps a better way to describe it would be as 'result'. Not creation. Even though the wind 'created' the patterns on the sand, when people use the term to describe the entire system of nature as created, they will automatically leap to cultural training and anthropomorphizing the system, and see it like something they would create like a mechanical watch. A watch is not a product of nature. Nature is not a product of intentional design. It is a result of processes.

 

Is there 'something' that caused it all? Sure. But it is unnecessary to leap to mystical beings with intention in mind behind it all. That, is a created religious thought - as you yourself recognize.

[Ouroboros]

In case we can not prove or demonstrate that “something” exist, does it means that it doesn’t exist at all?

 

You're right, but this is also true: In case we can not prove or demonstrate that "something" exists, does it means that it exists?

 

You see the problem is that we cannot prove that Santa Claus or Invisible Pixies do not exist, so if we should assume that something exists just because we cannot prove it not to, then both Santa Claus and Pixies must exist, and we both know this is not true. So the absence of evidence doesn't prove either way, it proves nothing. So God cannot exist just because we cannot prove he doesn't.

 

Do you mean that I have to demonstrate that god is something real (structured-measurable object) perceivable to human sense?

I think previous posters explain this, the discussion here is about a particular statement or belief among Christians (and probably other religions too) which is that Nature--the existence of it, the beauty of it, the complexity of it, the birds and bees and pretty flowers--is a proof that God exists. But most of us non-believers do not see this.

 

Anything “created” can be the proof of the existence of “something” that makes it “created”.

Only if you use the word "created". Just like you wouldn't pick the word "something real" as an attribute to describe God, then "created" isn't necessarily a word we should pick for Nature. Nature is. It became. I exists. It came into existence. But was it "created?" It's the choice of word rather than evidence.

 

4. Note that even those who claim to be atheists still have an atheistic god.

Eh, sure. I have a "God", and it's called Nature. Nature exists. And how do I know? Because Nature is out there, when I open my eyes. That exists, and that's my God. But I don't pray to it. I'm in awe and wonder of it, but I don't worship it. I don't call it's name to get help in a dire situation, but I call my own senses, body, and mind to help when I need help. I'm the actor of Nature's will. I'm the outreached hand from the divine, particularly when it applies to my own life.

 

And to me, it implies that “something” we referred to as God does really enter human mind from the earlier stage of their rational thinking capability.

Which is Nature itself, not something Super-Natural, or outside of Nature. It doesn't necessarily follow that "Oh, ah, pretty" is the same as "oh, something magical happened."

[par4dcourse]

4. Note that even those who claim to be atheists still have an atheistic god.

I assure you, I in no way shape or form believe in a divine being of any type. Is that clear enough?

[florduh]

4. Note that even those who claim to be atheists still have an atheistic god.

 

You, sir, are a moron.

[Antlerman]

"It takes intelligence to know intelligence" - Dr. Julia Hoffman

And sometimes intelligence misreads something non-intelligent as intelligent.

[Deva]

"It takes intelligence to know intelligence" - Dr. Julia Hoffman

And sometimes intelligence misreads something non-intelligent as intelligent.

 

Antler, may I add that to my signature line?

[scitsofreaky]

I don't remember exactly who said it, but I remember a response to the theory that "creation" tells us who God is being,"Well, one thing we know for sure, God must have an uncanny fondness for beetles."

Not only beetles, but parasitoid wasps too (parasitoids are like parasites, but they consume their victim).

I thought it was a good answer, because even if it is true that we can see the will and nature of god through the natural world, what we gather from observing the world around us doesn't indicate anything about mythologies in a book. In fact, looking at the natural world objectively led me far away from the Bible and out of Christianity, so maybe I should be thankful such a silly notion was taught to me. At very best someone could see the natural world as evidence for a creator, but who and why and how etc is not at all indicated. It takes a huge leap to say the earth exists therefor Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead and everything the Bible says is true.

This is the essence of the deist argument. So at the most, one could be a deist by observing nature, but like everyone else here has said, it in no way leads to any specific god.

 

Human brains try to find patterns in everything we observe. From what little I have read, it seems to me this is a consequence of how our brains work, i.e. how neurons are organized. This is why we see things that aren't really there, like Mary on toast, or Jesus in a tree stump. I don't think it is necessarily because we want to see it (although sometimes that is the case), but because our brain is trying to process something that doesn't have meaning.

[Antlerman]

"It takes intelligence to know intelligence" - Dr. Julia Hoffman

And sometimes intelligence misreads something non-intelligent as intelligent.

 

Antler, may I add that to my signature line?

Certainly. I'm flattered.

[Guest Davka]

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the whole "creation proves god to those who have never heard" argument is found in an examination of cultures who were never exposed to monotheism. Without exception, primitive, isolated cultures have looked at nature and come to the same conclusion: there are mysterious "spirits" in charge of the various aspects of nature, most of whom must be pacified.

 

Rather than come to the conclusion that a single entity created everything, primitive societies end up placating a "thunder spirit" and the "rain spirit" and "tree spirits," etc. etc. Animism is the default belief system of those who never hear otherwise, not monotheism. So apparently nature doesn't declare anything at all about a creator to people unless other people plant that idea in their heads. Nature declares that the world is ruled by mysterious and powerful forces which must be appeased or at least not pissed off.

[florduh]

That's the smartest thing Davka ever said.

 

Think about it, morontheists.

[Ouroboros]

Good point, Davka.

 

Perhaps this is how the development of monotheism came about:

 

First the animism belief came about, probably during the hunting and gathering period, because first when humans started to be aware and have a language, they put "life like their own" into the perspective of things in the world. It was a reflection of their own minds. If they could think about the world, why couldn't other things be like them? Why couldn't the tiger or the bird also be talking, thinking, and reflecting on the things we see in nature. So all things were give the idea of "spirit."

 

When the agricultural change came about, and leaders and kings came about, then of course the structure of society had to be reflected in the spiritual world, and suddenly there wasn't just a big chunk of gods, but some of the gods had more prestige, more power and wealth, and some were even leaders to other gods.

 

Next the ideas started to come in, where it wasn't enough to have a hierarchy of gods, but one or few gods were so important that the other gods were not even real gods, but rather just messengers, or slaves to the ruling gods. And eventually just one of the gods won out, and suddenly we had monotheism; one god ruling over angels and saints.

 

It's a natural progression, or evolution, of religion. Religion is the reflection of human ideas of society and the world. We the culture grows, the belief changes.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

How many people will have to tell you, christians, that they just don't experience reality in that way? Does the testimony of real, honest, flesh and blood people count for anything to you? How many people will you deny, discount and levy ad hominem attacks against before you will believe that Romans 1, and to some extent Psalm 19 are just wrong?

 

 

 

I like this one....

 

"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. By his power he churned up the sea.... By his breath the skies become fair.... And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! How then can we understand the thunder of his power?" (Job 26:7-9, 11-14)