Does Creation Itself Prove That God Did It?

[Skeptical]

Hello, all. I'm new to the forum and as you can tell by my screen name, I'm a bit of a skeptic, that is, a bit skeptical about religious beliefs. Therefore, I wanted to have a debate/discussion with Christians about whether or not creation itself actually proves the creative powers of God. And a Bible verse that came to mind says that creation itself makes that self-evident at Romans 1:20:

https://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Young's Literal Translation
for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable;

However, it would seem as if some things found in nature would demonstrate that God's invisible qualities and divine nature cannot be clearly seen and understood from what has been made since the creation of the world. And I'm not an expert in science, but I was going to bring up the example of the ring of fire and the Pangea and show this short little video:



But while looking for that video, I came across this 23 minute video and I had never heard anything like it before in my life:



I mean, there were a lot of assumptions and extrapolations, and a lot of things said that were not even remotely said in the Bible. And then there's the whole thing about how the all the dinosaurs were living in different continents before Noah's flood occurrenced. Because, I mean, what would have happened with all that if Eve hadn't have bitten that apple? Plus, one can only conclude that God decided to subject all of humankind to the horrors of the ring of fire by unleashing the flood of Noah's day because apparently, that was the best option that he could think of? It all just doesn't make sense to me. But does anyone else have any comments?

[Skeptical]

It's definitely counterintuitive that there should be something, and not nothing.

What do you mean?

If there is nothing, then it needs no explanation.

If there is something, it's silly that something should have created it (because then where did that creator come from) and it's equally counterintuitive that the something should have always existed.

You just bent my brain... and I'm still scratching my head.

[Skeptical]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #14]

But I did look around a bit, but it didn't look as if there were any theists or believers around here. So, are there?

Oh yes ... far more than nonbelievers. Just head to Board index > Debate, then to sections like Christianity and Apoligetics (largest number of posts by far on the entire forum), or Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. You'll find theists galore willing to debate on a wide range of topics.

Right. I started a thread in one of those forums. But of course, playing by those rules.

[Skeptical]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #1]

What always interested me about the image of Pangea is how fetal-like it looks.

Its the green part with a blue background I was referring to.

There's a word for personally perceiving images in things, but I can't think of that word right now.

I think the word you may be looking for is "pareidolia." Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon where the mind perceives a familiar pattern, shape, or image in a random or vague stimulus. This can occur when looking at clouds, a stain on the wall, or even the surface of Mars. The human brain has a natural tendency to seek out patterns and familiar shapes, which can sometimes lead to the perception of objects which said shapes remind us of.

But if others can see the same shape, and agree that the shape is reminiscent/like the object it reminds them of, then the shape/likeness must be there…

That must be it. Although at first that word didn't look familiar and I tried to look up synonyms for it in online thesauruses, but I couldn't find anything. Therefore, that must be it.

[Skeptical]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #14

I've been a bit busy and I haven't had a minute to post. But I did look around a bit, but it didn't look as if there were any theists or believers around here. So, are there? And if not, how is it that this forum has debate forums? Because they would appear more like echo chambers to me.

I take a theistic position, though an unconventional one. Pertaining to this particular discussion, I don't base any of my arguments on the shape of Pangaea.

What do you mean?

[Skeptical]

So just because men try to make up excuses that attempt to escape the need of God. They are not successful in this attempt.

2. Example plate tectonics is the reason why modern geologists say the ring of fire occurs. Has no mechanism for the starting of the movement of the plates or how the plates move under the pressure associated with the depths involved.

So, what do you believe is the mechanism for the starting of the movement of the plates or how the plates move under the pressure associated with the depths involved?

[Skeptical]

but if it were something this god wanted to do a much more civil method would have been to simply poof the evil humans out of existence (which would obviously be possible for such a being) and leave the good ones to carry on. This event could not have been done as a lesson to those who survived, because there were none outside of the mythical ark.

DrNoGods has a point. And the only theist/believer argument that I've ever heard against that was in order to wipe out the supposedly hybrid offspring of rebel angels and human women who were bullying and ruining the earth. However, God had the ability to get rid of them without having to flood the entire planet and wipe out the animal and insect species (with the exceptions of the pairs in the ark), and thus, change the weather patterns for the worse (unless that was his intentions for a planet of sinful humans), and according to that second video that I posted in my OP, break up the Pangea and create plate tectonics and the ring of fire on earth.

However, I'm not a theist expert, therefore, I'll let a theist/believer explain it to me.

[Skeptical]

And why kill all the air-breathing animals as well?

Exactly! Same thing with some of the ancient pagan cities that Yahweh had the ancient Israelites slaughter: Why the all the animals too?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #14

I've been a bit busy and I haven't had a minute to post. But I did look around a bit, but it didn't look as if there were any theists or believers around here. So, are there? And if not, how is it that this forum has debate forums? Because they would appear more like echo chambers to me.

I take a theistic position, though an unconventional one. Pertaining to this particular discussion, I don't base any of my arguments on the shape of Pangaea.

What do you mean?

I mean......just what I said.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #35]

What is yours it is your theory?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #30]

This is just more evidence that the story is a myth. This flood supposedly happened only about 4500 years ago when the population of Earth is estimated at something in the 20 - 100 million range. You're telling us that only 8 people from that number were "righteous"? Even if you randomly make up some other time period, the existence of cities as you describe implies some reasonably large number of people (many thousands). And only 8 were good enough to save? Hardly believable.

How are you defining good? Who decides what good is? Man does not have a very good track record for defining what good is. Is killing Christians good? Is killing Jews Good? Can war be good? Christians are being killed today? Jews are being killed today is that good? One day the world as a whole will try to kill all Jews and Christians that is what the Bible predicts and the world will think that is good. Just like many people do today. There are whole sections of the Earth in which people want to kill Christians and Jews. Is it good to let people kill themselves?

Yes, the entire world was evil just like everyone today commits evil acts.

Of course evil happens, and is defined broadly by our collective ideas of right and wrong. Murdering thousands or millions of people with a global flood would fall into the evil category in my book, whether or not they failed the righteous test of a certain religion. And why kill all the air-breathing animals as well? The whole story is silly nonsense if taken literally ... but not if it is a story (threat) meant to illustrate what an angry god can do if he/she/it is not worshiped properly.

It is not defined by our collective ideas of right and wrong. There are those that believe that all Christians and Jews should be killed. There are many atheists that believe that now and in the past. Air-breathing animals are going to die during a flood. Are the Christians and Jews that died today and in the past at the hands of atheist nonsense? That is what men and women before the flood were doing killing each other and killing themselves.