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?

[boatsnguitars]

[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.

The theists tend to flock to the Doctrine section because the forum rules state that you can't challenege the truth of the Bible, only discussion different interpretations.

It's their safe space, and I for one agree that safe spaces are important for many people, especially the neurodivergent.

[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.

[Purple Knight]

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.

[William]

[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.

I am neutral re both theist and atheist positions and take the shape of Pangaea to be a sign that it may suggest a mind is behind and organizing matter.
I don't take the sign as being all we need to make that determination. Rather I see it as significant alongside all the other evidence pointing to the likeliness of mindful organization of matter.

The Science of Signs.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #1]

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:

Two comments on this

1. Many wonder why God does not do anything about the evil in the world. The flood is an example of God doing something about the evil in the world. The heart of every man on the earth had nothing but evil and violent thoughts. Genesis 6:5 "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The flood is God doing something about the evil in the world.

The ring of fire, earthquakes, fossils the miles of layers of rock are all reminders of the consequences of wickedness. Men have deliberately forgotten about the flood. 2 Peter 3:5,6,7 "But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world of that time perished in the flood. And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men"

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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #25]

The flood is an example of God doing something about the evil in the world.

It is certainly an example of the Christian god doing evil. Drowning (or bashing against rocks) all but 8 humans, and wiping out all the air-breathing animals (what "evil" did they do?) is evil. This story is fiction of course, 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. But the lack of any geological evidence for it, the lack of enough water for it, and many other facts are sufficient to prove it never happened ... just like the prior flood myths the Genesis story was plagiarized from.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

Like God?

I think the whole argument is silly. Kalam and all that.

What is obvious is that whatever was necessary for the Universe to exist as it is, was always in place. The argument is whether all this matter, chaos, matter, and energy was all there was (or the potential for it), or whether there was also, compltely separate and undetectable, a Perfect Being that just happens to love humans, care what they rub their privates against, care what they eat on Friday, etc.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

It is certainly an example of the Christian god doing evil. Drowning (or bashing against rocks) all but 8 humans, and wiping out all the air-breathing animals (what "evil" did they do?) is evil. This story is fiction of course, 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. But the lack of any geological evidence for it, the lack of enough water for it, and many other facts are sufficient to prove it never happened ... just like the prior flood myths the Genesis story was plagiarized from.

What is good? How are you determining what is good?

God did save those that were righteous there were eight people who were righteous. The entire Earth was like the men of Sodom who wanted to break down Lot's door and have sex with the new men or angels that came from their city. The entire city came out to rape them. The same thing happen when God had Isreal destroy the town in Benjamin when they did the same thing to the man and his slave that came into that city. Before the flood, the entire earth was like that.

Are you saying that evil does not happen on this earth?

What is your criteria for determining what is evil? Is something that is destructive to the person and society evil? No, one is going to think what they are doing is evil.

[Purple Knight]

The argument is whether all this matter, chaos, matter, and energy was all there was (or the potential for it), or whether there was also, compltely separate and undetectable, a Perfect Being that just happens to love humans, care what they rub their privates against, care what they eat on Friday, etc.

It's a good point that the arguments that say they prove a creator, definitely don't prove any specific God worshiped by people. They just prove (if you accept that they do) a creator, and that's it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #28]

God did save those that were righteous there were eight people who were righteous.

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.

Are you saying that evil does not happen on this earth?

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.