The ways of the Creator ARE mysterious.

[guillaumeb]

As are the ways of our fellow humans in many cases. Can anyone here claim to know with 100% certainty why anyone really does anything? Or all of the reasons? No.

In the case of the Creator, we as humans are limited by our human intelligence and perception. So any attempt to explain why the Creator created, or why any particular thing exists in that creation, are an attempt to understand the mind of the Creator.

A similar difficulty exists when anyone asks, "if there is a Creator, where is the Creator?". The Creator is in creation, and creation is in the Creator.

And if anyone asks, a favorite theme, "why is there disease, or germs, or hurricanes?", the only answer is, because that is how the universe developed.

[wasupaloopa]

1. Can anyone here claim to know with 100% certainty that there is a creator? I find everything said

are inventions of humans.

[guillaumeb]

2. Not in my view.

Any speculation on my part is unprovable and is my own.

Can I know with any certainty that you exist? No, and the same applies for you about me.

[wasupaloopa]

4. You have evidence that I exist by this post. You have nothing from a creator.

[Igel]

7. You could be a Russian bot.

A troll.

An AI programmed to pass the Turing test in limited circumstances.

Not a real person, unique from others at DU, behind the moniker "wasupaloopa".

Pontius Pilate's very existence was called into question for a century. Where's the evidence for his existence? If there's no evidence, he didn't exist. There's no Homer, for instance, because there's no contemporaneous records of his existence.

Then in 1961 they discovered an inscription from Pilate's time period that confirmed that he existed and had the "right" title. Oops. That's how arguments from silence go. They might be right; they might be wrong. To say that they must be right is to show faith at its most arrogant. To say that they might be wrong shows humility. America dominant culture has lost humility as a virtue; it's now a defect.

That said, I don't doubt that you exist as a separate being from the other posters.

[wasupaloopa]

10. I have trouble with history as presented in the Bible.

My brother is a Catholic priest and is very involved with Church history in the need to prove that the Catholic Church is the true church.

I never discuss it with him since I believe churches were the inventions of men not god.

[edhopper]

12. So therefore

everything in the Bible about him, including the words he spoke and what he did is true, right?

Same with the Exodus, since therecwas a Pharoh Ramses.

Is that what you are saying.

[trotsky]

19. You lecturing about humility.

Wow.

[guillaumeb]

30. A familiar pattern, again.

The 11th Commandment is a harsh and demanding one.

[Lordquinton]

34. Did he question a theist?

How rude.

[guillaumeb]

36. A very demanding commandment indeed.

It requires that its followers be ever vigilant.

[Lordquinton]

45. Keep pushing that meme from one side

And asking if people want discussion from the other.

Maybe try and consolidate the two contradictory points, you seem to think that's possible.

[guillaumeb]

47. Merely observation of what is obvious.

If it were no so obvious it could not be observed.

[TomSlick]

5. You and I have had this discussion before.

Those who believe cannot prove the existence of a creator but neither can those who deny the existence of a creator prove their premise. We either believe or not but we cannot know. Since neither side of the argument can prove their position, the only honest response is a modest toleration for those with whom we disagree.

[Eko]

6. might as well

ctrl c and ctrl v.

[wasupaloopa]

11. You cant prove a negative but you can prove a positive.

There is no physical evidence of a creater. That is fact.

[trotsky]

20. That's not how any of this works.

If I propose a one-horned, one-eyed, flying purple people eater, you don't need to prove it doesn't exist in order to dismiss it.

[guillaumeb]

31. We still agree.

[msongs]

3. "the" creator. the creator "created" but germs etc just "developed" lol

[Mariana]

13. The Creator only creates good things.

Shitty things like germs, disease and hurricanes "developed". Isn't that convenient?

[trotsky]

21. A great gig to be sure.

All of the credit, none of the blame.

[trotsky]

22. This is what passes for advanced theological thought, evidently.

Amazing how there are still a few of us who don't accept it, huh? Must be something wrong with our brains. Or we just want to keep sinning and worshiping Satan, I guess.

[MineralMan]

8. More circular logic, eh?

When I do not know, I investigate or read about the investigations of others. I learn more in searching for answers. In my 72 years, New discoveries have moved my understanding forward constantly.

I stopped looking at millennia-old writings long long ago. What knowledge can be found there is static. New information is available almost daily.

[guillaumeb]

32. You learn more? Perhaps.

Perhaps you only think that you have learned.

[MineralMan]

40. No. I have learned.

I've watched the model of the atom go from a model that looked like a solar system to the current model, as science learned more about matter at that scale. Each step forward in understanding our physical world, I have followed, and learned.

I don't just think I've learned. I have learned. All evidence-based information.

[guillaumeb]

41. I understand your position.

Really, I do.

[MineralMan]

43. No, you do not.

You have illustrated your failure to understand my position over and over again.

And, with that, I have reached my subthread limit on replies to you.

[guillaumeb]

44. I am devastated.

[Blue Owl]

9. Could the creator create a creation that creationists could miscreate while recreating?

I'd sure like to know...

[guillaumeb]

42. Points for creativity.

[marylandblue]

14. 100% certainty is not available to humans

But we don't base any of our judgments about reality on 100% certainty. Complete lack evidence despite significant searching is normally considered proof of nonexistence and "faith" is inconsequential. What would you think of a jury that found someone guilty but the prosecutor never even showed up? If the judge instructed the jury, "If you have faith there is a prosecutor on this case, you may find the defendant guilty," and since the jury could not be 100% certain there was no prosecutor, they say "guilty?"

[elleng]

15. Nature

[Voltaire2]

16. An anti-science screed.

We should just stop trying to understand the universe, it is just the mysterious unknowable acts of your gods.

[guillaumeb]

33. You misread it.

[Voltaire2]

38. Nope.

So any attempt to explain why the Creator created, or why any particular thing exists in that creation, are an attempt to understand the mind of the Creator.

That is classic anti-science theistic goofiness.

[guillaumeb]

39. As I said, you misread it.

Points for consistency, and adherence to the 11th Commandment.

[Voltaire2]

48. Ill try to make it simple for you.

1. Humans are too stupid to understand why your gods do things.

2. Trying to understand why stuff like germs and hurricanes exist is impossible because of (1).,


By the way Bill O’Reilly made the same argument using tides as his incomprehensible natural phenomena.

It is a goofy argument from any source, and it is deeply anti-science.

[guillaumeb]

49. Perhaps this was for you, but you missed the point again.

But I understand the need by some to both construct straw men and to then attack said straw men.

[trotsky]

17. How do you know this?

It is merely your opinion, gil. It has no value whatsoever, according to your claims about others' opinions.

[Mariana]

23. The Creator is mysterious and unknowable by humans

except for Gil. Gil seems to know an awful lot about this Creator, since he's forever ascribing properties and actions to it.

[trotsky]

25. "Any speculation on (his) part is unprovable and is (his) own."

But he'll continue to make definitive, declarative statements anyway.

Classic gil.

[guillaumeb]

35. Do you know the difference between speculation and making definitive statements?

I do.

[trotsky]

37. "The ways of the Creator ARE mysterious."

vs.

"I believe that if there is a creator, its ways are likely mysterious and not understandable by humans."

One of those statements is declarative and definitive. One is speculative.

Which one is yours?

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. Yeah, mysterious.

Mysterious in that the ways of the creator work in such a manner that implies there is no creator. That's pretty fucking mysterious, indeed.

[Major Nikon]

24. Ah yes, the old "God works in mysterious ways" explanation

Personally I think it's a great idea for believers to believe in an incomprehensible non-interventionist god. If they truly believed that there would be no need for all the forced doctrine, forced dogma, and god-bothering. Organized religion would be pointless and die out in a generation.

[democratisphere]

26. The "Creator" or Great Spirit can only help those that help themselves.

As human creatures we are doing a really lousy job of helping our species and all other species and environments. We will get what we give and be assured we are really going to get it!

[WhiteTara]

27. According to Buddhist tenents

all is driven by karma.

The Creator is in creation, and creation is in the Creator.

Without Mind, there is no Buddha. Without Buddha, there is no Mind.

[malchickiwick]

28. "The Act of Creation Destroys and the Act of Destruction Creates" -- Lord Shiva

Hinduism 101

[DetlefK]

29. Well, we already know why God does things. The Bible tells us so.

God is omniscient, omnipotent, he is perfect, he is goodness... Humans are way more complicated. God is easy to understand.

As God is omniscient, we know with 100% certainty that he knows everything he needs to know for his plan. So, whatever it is he is doing, he is doing it on purpose, because lack of information is not a problem.

As God is omnipotent, we know with 100% certainty that God is not held back by difficulties and obstacles. So, whatever it is he is doing, he is doing it on purpose, not out of necessity.

As God is perfect, we know with 100% certainty that he's capable of executing his plan with absolute perfection. So, again, whatever it is he is doing, he is doing it on purpose, not out of personal shortcomings.

As God is goodness manifest, we know with 100% certainty that his actions are goodness as well.



See? God is easy to understand.

[Lordquinton]

46. Can you clarify the part

Where you say at the start it's all creation, but at the end you say how it was developed? It seems like you're absolving your creator of any wrongdoing in his creation.

You also claim a lot of knowledge of what your creator did and didn't do while simultaneously saying that his ways cannot be known, which is it? That goes directly contradictory to many people throughout history who have claimed to know his designs, including every Pope who is a direct conduit to the creator, unless you are worshiping a different creator or claim that the RCC is incorrect in their views. Furthermore, how do you know that we cannot comprehend your creator's mind?

Just a couple of things that jump out as either inconsistent or unsupported.