Saturday, August 23, 2008

Creation implies WHICH creator?

I have a question for the creationists. Please explain this to me.

You like to use the argument that a creation implies a creator. If you see a watch, the watch must have had a creator. If you see a painting, the painting must have had a painter. Thus you claim, "The universe exists, so clearly there must be a God who created the universe."

So my question is: If you claim that argument to hold for the existence of God, then please explain to me why, logically, the "creator" must have been specifically the God described in the Christian Bible and not, for example, some other creator that we have no knowledge of, or something equally random like one of the Egyption gods?

Further, here are some things to consider: If two molecules in outer space randomly bump into each other and a chemical reaction takes place, do you feel somebody must have manually caused the chemical reaction? Next, do you have to consciously control the chemical reactions in your body, such as the potassium and sodium reacting inside and around your cells? Sphere: Related Content

6 comments:

Agnostic Anarch said...

Stop distracting me! I'm concentrating on making the oxygen leave my blood cells to combine with my brain cells and any little distraction could. . . could. . . *gasp* Gah!

*falls on floor dead*

Mike said...

The God that created everything is the Christian God, because the evidence is overwhelming for the existance of Him. God created the process. It doesnt matter how, or when. It doesnt matter if it was by evolution or not.

Anonymous said...

You asked; "If two molecules in outer space randomly bump into each other and a chemical reaction takes place, do you feel somebody must have manually caused the chemical reaction?"

The problem? There was no space / Universe for two molecules to be floating around in, to haphazzardly bump into each other. Even "slacker" scientists agree that the Universe had a beginning. So, if there was no "space", your theory of random bumping is invalid before you can even bring it up.

Jeffrey Mark said...

anonymous said something that is pretty absurd, because it's filled with the same old "presupposition" nonsense that so many theists adhere to.

I'm talking about the here and now: If there are two atoms and they bump into each other, a reaction will take place. Does anybody make it happen? No. Even the most slacker of scientists would agree with me.

The real problem? People not taking enough science classes and understanding how all this works.

Anonymous said...

Uhh...mike.

In science, 'overwhelming evidence' generally does not imply that there is, in fact, zero evidence for the existence of something.

Was it coincidence that you didn't provide any proof of your claims whatsoever? No.

Anonymous said...

I'm struggling to understand why people are arguing moot points on here anyway. Is it for lack of a real purpose in life? Atheists can't prove there is not a God, religious persons of whatever faith cannot prove there is...

Tie Game; No Winner.