11 votes

I would like to hear your best evidence for a Creator

I'm putting together another list, and I could use your help. Opposing evidence is welcome as well.

*EDIT* Here are the answers I have gleaned from this thread.
http://www.dailypaul.com/315168/evidence-for-a-creationist-m...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Me

Next question

Asclepius's picture

The Emerald Tablet explains both creation and evolution...

Hermes Trismegistus, an ancient benevolent sage, was the author of the transcendent teaching known as The Emerald Tablet which is the most revered writing in all of Western mysticism and the germ seed of modern science itself. While the date of its origin is unknown, it is said to have originated 1000's of years ago. Sir Isaac Newton's translation of is reproduced below.

The Emerald Tablet

1. Tis true without lying, certain & most true.

2. That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing.

3. And as all things have been & arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.

4. The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the wind hath carried it in its belly, and the earth its nurse.

5. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here.

6. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth.

7. Separate thou the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry.

8. It ascends from the Earth to the heaven & again it descends to the earth and receives the force of things superior & inferior.

9. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world & thereby all obscurity shall fly from you.

Its force is above all force. For it vanquishes every subtle thing & penetrates every solid thing.

10. So was the world created.

11. From this are & do come admirable adaptations whereof the means (Or process) is here in this.

12. Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world.

13. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished & ended.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

my parents are creators

they created me. without them I would not be here.

Now if you are talking many moons ago...the creator of the fist living cell, well, I personally don't really care one way or another if some other being was involved in that. But if they were....then where did they come from? Chances are they are long gone by now. I sure hope they aren't hanging around watching over us like the NSA. Obviously I will never understand religion.

we create ourselves. we are

we create ourselves. we are creators.

pgrady
f___ all forms of govt.

Just read this...thought of your question:

How Old Is Our Planet?
http://www.icr.org/article/7904/

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Ironically it is evolution as best evidence

Evolutionists often use their theory as evidence of no creator or god. However, they only look into the past.

Most theories of our existence now describe something infinite, either infinite universes, a never ending universe as described by EU or in the past it has been repeating big bangs.

Therefore science does indicate some type of infinite existence. If this is true, then I ask what is evolution to infinity? Because whatever it is, it has already happened.

So this thought experiment although doesn't prove a creator created our existence, it does somewhat prove existence created a creator. And if the past is infinite, then maybe there are one in the same.

I don't normally respond to philosophical questions

because I'm not a great philosopher (nor a scientist).

But it seems the answer is that we were either created or just happened.

A long, long time ago, in Geology 101, I was taught about the great lighting that skimmed the surface of the amino-acid-filled-pond. Suddenly, in true Frankenstein-ian fashion, one of the amino acid molecules sprang to life as the first ever single-celled-living-organism (SCLO). Before dying off, it managed to somehow self-replicate itself, and so the chain of life began.

As time passed, some of the SCLO's began thinking that there must be more to life than being born, lying around the pond, self-replicating, and dying. Exactly how they thought this without a brain, I can't answer. But a few of them managed to mutate, and soon there were fish and birds. (I guess some of them must have liked lying around, but not in the water, and so they became grass and moss. The more adventurous mosses later became shrubs and trees.)

Some of the fish eventually wanted to roam the land, and turned into amphibians. Their descendants decided to leave the water for good and became reptiles, mammals and marsupials.

Of course, going from a SCLO to anything else, they also realized that self-replicating would soon over-populate Mother-Earth, so they developed into males and females. I'm not clear on exactly how the first male and female got things right, but apparently it wasn't that hard back then to make major design changes to the body and create entirely new parts that served the needed purpose in two separate creatures at the same time. And so the fish and birds and reptiles decided to lay eggs, while the mammals and marsupials decided to go with live birthing. Apparently each species is happy with the way they do it though, because although they stopped being self-replicating easily enough, none of them has changed their adopted way since.

I realize that this is a very condensed and over-simplified explanation of evolution, but I never have heard a good explanation of how a creature could go from self-replicating to male-and-female, let alone from egg-bearing to live-birth.

Another problem is that everything is too simplified when it is explained to us. Even further back, in high school biology, I learned that if you cut your finger, the blood is exposed to air, and the air makes the blood clot. Sounds reasonable. But there are actually numerous steps in the clotting process, and there are two distinct forms of clotting. (This too is an over-simplified explanation.) Anything goes wrong with any one step, and you can either clot prematurely or bleed to death. How does such a process "evolve" into this?

Okay, I've rambled enough. My point is that the THEORY of evolution doesn't (to me) have enough evidence to support it. On top of that, the human body (as an example) is far too complex to have evolved upward from a single-celled creature.

So again, we were either created, or we evolved into what we are.

I cannot grasp how a Creator Himself could not be created, nor how He could exist outside of time.

But that is the difference between faith and science ("to know"). Some things I know, some things I take by faith.

Therefore, I am unable to provide the answer you desire, "...best evidence for a Creator." The simple answer is look around you. Look at all that exists. Look at the complexities of them, not just their beauty. Did they just happen, or were they created?

One final thought: many people believe in the Big Bang Theory, which in my simplistic understanding means that the "nothingness" coalesced together and exploded in a gigantic expulsion of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths. And so time and energy came into existence, and, as they say, the rest is history.

On the other hand, the non-scientific, Creator-based explanation is: "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." God spoke, and time and energy came into existence.

Again, your decision: it happened or it was created.

Things taken by faith cannot be proved, otherwise they are no longer based on faith.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

this is pretty compelling

http://www.evolutionfacts.com/images/Cell-Diagram.jpg this is a fraction of the biochemistry of a human cell.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Design...

Design is not necessarily intelligent,
rather conscious...as is that which comes of the design and makes lively all the former aspects of a seemingly impenetrable force.

To say design is intelligent is a misstatement. Design is foundational and innate to existence itself; it is conscious of itself, yet to say it is intelligent assumes an ordainment of it's intelligence and serves to lessen the awe that consciousness alone invokes.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

the human body. The stars at

the human body. The stars at night, intelligent design of the solar system. I could go on and on.....

Consider one moment, a thought..

What is a thought in reality, is it simply a complex process of an electro chemical signal created in the brain, a code or formula that illicits a response in the individual. Does a thought have form and definition, does it possess physical properties, is it reliant on a long chain of hereditary evolution, or is it dynamic, Can it be replicated and assimulated, does it consume energy, does to possess energy, does it conform to physical laws, to logic or can it simply be random in form.
When a thought is transformed into words and possess tangible physical properties, can it be conveyed to other beings to illicit a similiar response, a diverse response, a reaction or emotion. Does a thought then have energy, the potential to create physical, emotional and mental reaction.
When a thought is transformed into written words, does it not proliferate, does it have the potential to become immortal, can a thought ultimately change the world we live in.
Were we not created with such ability.
Is not a thought of itself, the very definition of creation.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

My best evidence for the existence of a Creator

is my belief in the unprovable opinion that you exist. Thank you for being what you are: a Creature of the Creator by way of Creation. I AM and I believe that YOU ARE also. Please do not doubt your existence as being another miracle.

How is it that we can think of things that do not exist and then bring them into existence? Think about it. Everything that you see around you came out of the ground. This laptop I use is amazing.

Please don't waste your time and energy doubting. Look around and be thankful.

There is an old saying: God is Love. Remember when you were very young and how you felt in your mother's arms? Why would she feel that way about you? She created you.

I could not presume to know the answer,

but Creator as a Being? I think a deep study of physics could help understand the possibilities. I'm stopped in one minute after thinking if all space was not a vacuum then over eons a right combination of molecules collided with one another to create some disturbance like Wind, which then created blah blah blah.

But any conversation on the subject should strike the use of the word "God", since that word has already been used and abused. I'm almost certain the word God comes from the word that means "Bull, Taurus" in the ancient Sumerian or ancient semetic languages, which referred to the alien astronauts that came to Earth from space and did in fact create the human race as we know it.
It is my understanding that powerful people in Govt and/or Church created an image of a ONE God that was beyond what he actually was/is in order to make easier the control of the masses.
The One God Creator of All idea may have evolved over centuries as nobody was living who actually remembered the gods/astronauts that came to Earth, but the initial stimulus was when the Church/Govt decided that there would be One God in their State and not many different Gods, so it's easy to see how in time the idea of One God can grow to include One Almighty God Creator of the Universe.
Reading Zecharia Sitchin is a must for true understanding of the Bible God and his relation to Man, and makes God more Real and not just an imaginary being. I go on record to say Sitchin's "The Twelfth Planet" has got to be one of the greatest books ever written.

DEAD SEA SCROLLS...

Any commentary regarding Allegro's studies?

All Rights Reserved, c 1791
RP 2012 and beyond....

Doublepost.

Doublepost.

I am.

.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I AM (expanded deduction)

I know that I AM.
I know that I AM a part of a greater whole.
I know that AWARENESS exists.
Therefore a greater whole awareness exists of which I AM an individuation. (individual).
I call this greater whole awareness "The Creator\Source".
The Entanglement of all that is and that which gives rise to all.
OMNI EVERYTHING.

www.ForGood.com
Thrive, What in the World is it going to take?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s
Find out here!

I prefer not to go into philosophy.

But rather, into something that is either true or false (tangible and not).

It is true that the human brain is the most complex "machine" in the universe. But let's not go there, let's just stick to the more general area of DNA, the blueprint of life.

Now imagine this: If i were to open up the hood of a car to expose the engine, could I in my wildest imagination consider the engine (and the outer shell of the vehicle) to have been created by random chance?

Likewise, if I reverse-engineered a piece of software, let's say a video game, to expose the code/language it was written in, could I imagine that it was randomly sequenced by chance?

Even if i gave several billion years for things to evolve, there is not way I can believe such a thing. I think only those who've studied bio-chemisty and/or organic-chemistry understands that what the majority understands of DNA is only the icing on the cake, because most do not understand the intricate chemical "dance" that must take place in order for a strand of DNA to just replicate. When one studies DNA and it's replication process at the molecular level in detail, it is hard to deny that it was engineered.

So if I can look at a car engine or piece of software code and be utterly convinced it was engineered/designed, I cannot with a right conscious believe that life with all of its bio-chemical complexities could possibly be randomly evolved. Because truly these modern-day analogies are nowhere near the level of DNA complexity. And this is just considering the process of DNA replication.

IMHO, it seems obvious that there is a "creative energy" behind life and it's universe.

By defining

God as the creator, the issue becomes the characteristics of the creator as opposed to whether or not there is a creator.

Two things: The progress of mankind and the paradox.

1. The Progress of Mankind. According to Science, Mankind will continue to learn and grow until it travels in time and space and then continues on discovering the secrets of the universe and eventually knowing all things and having power over all things including time, space etc.. therefore by evolving into that you would be what God is. And since time is irrelevant He would already exist right now.

2.The Paradox: If somehow you could peer into all of the past and understand all the future and everything in it you could truly say there is no God. However if you had that power you would be God.

One other comment. God isn't arbitrary and random. The Laws he makes are perfect and wonderful. God can't lie otherwise you couldn't trust Him. God has to be trusted otherwise the things he gives Laws and commandments would not obey Him. All Powerful doesn't mean He can do anything it means He has every possible Power that can be had by anyone. God's glory is enhanced by our obedience to the Laws he gives. That is why there is place for those who don't want to chose to live his Laws (Hell). Only with God are all things possible.

according to 'God and the New Physics' by Paul Davies:

The universe is so orderly and predictable as a result of how matter organizes itself at each level (he quotes Feynman here) from quarks to molecules to waves and surface tension in water etc, that if there is a creator God it appears that he did not have any choice at all in how the universe would end up looking. In other words God could not have made the universe in any other way.

http://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/0671528...

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

LOL

Scientists are explorers, investigators, blind men groping in the dark and children seeing the world for the first time.

Of course the Universe that God made is self consistent. Why wouldn't it be. But to say that God could not have created it any other way is childish. Of course he could, every rule of physics could be different.
mathematics, logic and reality could be different.

Scientists used to look at the universe with a sense of awe, but lately there seems to be too much arrogance and the number of times they are proven wrong is way to high to have that kind of arrogance.

Well since something can't come from nothing

Something had to make the universe. QED : Creator

And of course the creator couldn't come from nothing, and since that is the principle that logically demands the universe had a creator, the creator had to have a creator.

And of course the universe's creator's creator couldn't just come from nothing. That's absurd. We've already established things can't come from nothing, or else the universe wouldn't have had to have a creator.

So the universe's creator's creator had to have a creator.

And so on.

Now one might argue that something could come from nothing, but in that case we've obviated the logical necessity for a creator whatsoever! Which clearly isn't true.

What would be really crazy would be to say one thing had to have a creator, but that thing didn't have to have a creator. So since we can rule that out as plain idiotic..

It's turtles all the way down.

God is supernatural, not natural

The big bang could not happen. The structure of the universe is not random and random events do not sufficiently describe creation.

Natural things of this universe require a first cause - a supernatural event. Creation.

As God is supernatural He can exist fully outside of the law of nature and therefore does not need to have a creator. Natural things must.

This is not a proof of the existence of the God of Moses per se. But it is a requirement for a supernatural creator - who very well could be the God of Moses.

This is classic begging the question

First off because you don't understand something doesn't make it 'supernatural'.

Second off if there is such a thing as 'supernatural', beyond our knowledge, then you certainly don't know anything about it that you didn't just make up. Because it's beyond our knowledge. That means you don't know.

Third off you don't know that anything can exist outside the laws of nature, or even what the laws of nature are in any remotely complete way.

If things need creators then creators need creatrs.
If things don't need creators then they don't.

You're making a claim about the universe without evidence, and much worse, making a claim about something that by definition you can't comprehend or possibly know.

If there is a God, how can you possibly say he wasn't created? You've inferred all sorts of thing about him, motivations, morality, benevolence, vengefullness (accrding to some), gender, etc that are directly analogous to human beings. So then how, and why, can you possibly say he didn't have a creator?

It's preposterous that some (not all) Christians make all sorts of claims of fact about God, and then turn around and claim he's beyond our knowledge. "Gods ways are not for men to understand." Well ok but then why do we make knowledge claims about God?

Wrong - you don't know what begging the question means

It is not begging the question it is answering the question.

1) How could the universe have started?
2) Not through nature since every result of nature needs a cause.
3) Therefore the start of the universe is supernatural.

It is a simple construct - it is not begging the question it is proposing the only possible answer.

When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth...

Your supposition is worse:

1) How could the universe have started?
2) Not through nature since every result of nature needs a cause.
3) Yes, through nature but I have no idea how.

That is begging the question. It is the definition of begging the question.

Begging the question is assuming the conclusion

This is exactly what the argument in discussion does.

By definition I cannot possibly be begging the question. I am not making an argument. I am debunking an argument.

I'm not making any assertion about the nature of reality. I'm not saying things need creators or they do not need creators. I'm not making a claim that God does not exist.

This is why you lose. I am merely showing that this particular argument for the existence of God is absurd.

If all things need creators then fine. If all things do not need creators then fine. But don't tell me this one thing here needs a creator, without any evidence to show, and this other thing over here doesn't need a creator without any evidence to show, and also I might add, that the other thing exists at all.

'Supernatural' is just an excuse for the unknown that people seize upon to further their own agenda.

There are only three categories of things.

The known.
The unknown.
The unknowable.

God is clearly not in the first category.
He may be in the second category. And then in the fullness of time we will know his nature.
If you want to tell me he is in the third category, then stop making knowledge claims about God. Because you cannot possibly know anything about him, by definition.

Because surely you wouldn't be so silly as to claim, the things you like to believe about God, you know are true, despite his being beyond our knowledge. But the things you don't like to believe about God, are not true, also despite his being beyond your knowledge.

If you believe in God fine. Don't pretend there is a logical proof he does exist.

I don't believe in God. I don't pretend there is a logical proof God doesn't exist.

Only three categories of things?

Who decided that rule. If there are unknowns, isn't one of the unknowns another category of of things.

The misknown, makes at least four.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

You seem to have ruled out

You seem to have ruled out the possibility of a thing that doesn't need to be created, but you haven't offered why. If everything needs a prior sufficient cause, i.e., no thing is necessary or sufficient in itself, than you've committed yourself to an infinite regress of causes. Are you comfortable with that?

What's wrong with postulating something that exists outside our conception of time, and so doesn't have before and after, but is just the fundamental reality, necessary in its existence. Why necessary? Because by definition it would have to exist in order for everything that is not necessary, every contingent reality to exist.

This can terminate the infinite regress of causes. Whether this fundamental, timeless stratum is an inexplicably 'given' nature, or a mind, would be the subject of philosophical debate or metaphysical discussion, or, if accessible to science, to scientific description.

But to say that the only possible answer is an infinite past history of sufficient causes, never terminating, doesn't seem to be rationally justified by any argument.

Well I have to rule that out don't I?

I mean if something doesn't need to have a creator then there goes the proof for God.

If things have to have creators then we get a creator, and an infinite regress of creators. A high order of infinity in fact because there's no reason to suppose that any given creator only creates one thing.

If things don't have to have a creator then we lose the logical necessity for god as there's no reason to assume something not in evidence otherwise. Even worse imputing properties to the thing not in evidence (creator) that are contrary to our understanding of the things in evidence (universe).

I'm willing to accept things have to have creators. I'm willing to accept things don't have to have creators. What pretty silly is to say this one thing has to have a creator but this other thing, which we have no evidence of in the first place, does not have to have a creator.

Now it's certainly possible some things need creators and other things do not, but there is no reason to think that and plenty of reasons not to. But it's also certainly possible that there is a planet out in the universe which is made from cheesecake and rains ice cream. But there's no particular reason to think that and plenty of reasons not to.