Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things

[Subduction Zone]

In my opinion there exists great evidence for a Creator God who loves creating things:
the great variety of life and landscapes on earth.
Landscapes keep changing and life can be found in all its forms.

That is a claim, what is the evidence? The last time I checked you were still refusing to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[thomas t]

who's not a sadistic a-hole.

God isn't either, I think.
If He would let me die of Corona this evening, I would be glad, I mean I would be even more so if I could attend the next song recording, tomorrow (I don't have Corona, btw).

You have that backwards.
Life adapts to the landscape / environment it finds itself in - not the other way round.

yeah, but there has to be a variety of landscapes to begin with. Only then we have a variety of things life can adapt to... That was my point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In my opinion there exists great evidence for a Creator God who loves creating things:
the great variety of life and landscapes on earth.
Landscapes keep changing and life can be found in all its forms.

Is Smoke on the Water evidence for the Loch Ness Monster? Is the Mona Lisa evidence for Bigfoot? Does the poem Fire and Ice support the existence of Yetis?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God isn't either, I think.
If He would let me die of Corona this evening, I would be glad, I mean I would be even more so if I could attend the next song recording, tomorrow (I don't have Corona, btw).

yeah, but there has to be a variety of landscapes to begin with. Only then we have a variety of things life can adapt to... That was my point.

Couldn't there be a variety of landscapes at some point? What is the support for you claim that they have to exist from the beginning?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

the variety in itself is evidence for a God who loves variety, as I see it.

Beetle species are diverse and the numerically dominant group of animals so far described on Earth. God could be seen to have an inordinate fondness for them from that. How can this be shown to be evidence for God and not for some other, natural process?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is a claim, what is the evidence? The last time I checked you were still refusing to learn what is and what is not evidence.

That is a big problem and always has been. People that cannot distinguish the difference between claims and evidence have very loud voices. Equally loud are those that claim evidence, but cannot connect that evidence to their claims without employing magic or conspiracy theories.

 

[thomas t]

"Landscapes keep changing" is called evolution.

Evolution has to do with the rise of the species, as I understand it.
Lanscapes aren't limited to plant and animal life though, they contain other elements, too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution has to do with the rise of the species.
Lanscapes aren't limited to plant and animal life though, they contain other elements, too.

That change in landscapes is an evolution.

 

[thomas t]

A variety of things doesn't logically lead to a creator that likes to make a variety of things - there are other explanations. You're just assuming your conclusion again (begging the question).

no.
I say it's evidence for a loving creator, that's all.

Just to be clear here. If there was a creator that likes making a variety of things, then we would observe a variety of things (which is reasonable), doesn't imply that observing a variety of things means that there is a creator that likes making a variety of things. This is a logical error called affirming the consequent.

An analogy:
if the road is wet... this counts as evidence for rain to have caused the wet road.
There is no logical error involved when I claim so. Even if the wet road might be wet due to other reasons...
Same here:
If we see a great variety of landscapes... it should count as evidence for a creator that likes creating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution has to do with the rise of the species.
Lanscapes aren't limited to plant and animal life though, they contain other elements, too.

What you are referring to is biological evolution. The theory explains speciation, diversity and the commonality of ancestry as well as providing mechanisms for change.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

no.
I say it's evidence for a loving creator, that's all.

Then you are stating a belief that you, so far, have failed to support as objective.

An analogy:
if the road is wet... this counts as evidence for rain to have caused the wet road.

It could be. A fire truck might have drained its tanks on the road too. There are other explanations for evidence than what we want to believe.

There is no logical error involved when I claim so.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect here.

Even if the wet road might be wet due to other reasons...

Then you are stating a belief that you cannot support with the evidence you claim.

Same here:
If we see a great variety of landscapes... it should count as evidence for a creator that likes creating.

It should? Is there some natural law or logical reasoning that supports this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has to do with the rise of the species, as I understand it.
Lanscapes aren't limited to plant and animal life though, they contain other elements, too.

Correct! It is called physical geography. Understanding basic geology would explain much of this to you.

 

[thomas t]

I rarely received this many answers from one and the same person.

Why not? What is the basis for your claim here?

Landscapes can exist even without a great variety of them being in place. See the (variety of) landscapes on the moon.

Can you explain how that is?

Ah yes, if someone loves creating a variety, it's plausible to expect a great variety of created things. If a musician likes composing stuff, it makes sense to assume there are lots of compositions.

Do you think that the "wonder of the variety" is the same as "variety"?

no idea. I'm no philosopher.

Can you see where I am going with this?

no, I'm no intellctual.

What?

it's what I said in the post.

Is Smoke on the Water evidence for the Loch Ness Monster? Is the Mona Lisa evidence for Bigfoot? Does the poem Fire and Ice support the existence of Yetis?

I don't care.

Couldn't there be a variety of landscapes at some point? What is the support for you claim that they have to exist from the beginning?

didn't claim so.

Beetle species are diverse and the numerically dominant group of animals so far described on Earth. God could be seen to have an inordinate fondness for them from that. How can this be shown to be evidence for God and not for some other, natural process?

but here, the natural processes could explain everything, I assume.

It could be [evidence]. A fire truck might have drained its tanks on the road too. There are other explanations for evidence than what we want to believe.

no, the wet road is evdence, as I see it.
Wikipedia sees evidence like this:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion,[1] because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).
the wet road definitely supports the rain hypothesis.
There could be other reasons for a wet road though.
If there are two competing explanations, such as the fire truck, we need more information as to which explanation is the right one.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect here.

actually, I'm not I think.

It should? Is there some natural law or logical reasoning that supports this?

it's the analogy to a musician who likes his art of composing. Even if he does not perform live on stage, which happens sometimes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I rarely received this many answers from one and the same person.

Landscapes can exist even without a great variety of them being in place. See the (variety of) landscapes on the moon.

Ah yes, if someone loves creating a variety, it's plausible to expect a great variety of created things. If a musician likes composing stuff, it makes sense to assume there are lots of compositions.
no idea. I'm no philosopher.

no, I'm no intellctual.


it's what I said in the post.
I don't care.


didn't claim so.

but here, the natural processes could explain everything, I assume.

no, the wet road is evdence, as I see it.
Wikipedia sees evidence like this:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion,[1] because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).
the wet road definitely supports the rain hypothesis.
There could be other reasons for a wet road though.
If there are two competing explanations, such as the fire truck, we need more information as to which explanation is the right one.


actually, I'm not I think.
it's the analogy to a musician who likes his art of composing. Even if he does not perform live on stage, which happens sometimes.

All that you have is an argument from ignorance. That is not evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if everything is only natural as per objective evidence, then your "uhu, sure" is not objective nor with evidence and thus not natural.

This still makes no sense in reply to the point that I actually made.
Did you even read what I said?

No idea what you are replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Give evidence for the fact that there is a natural universe. That is what you in the end claim. So deliver!

That is not at all what I claimed.

Please read the posts you respond to with a speck of attention.

What I actually said was that the "laws of nature", like Newton's laws of motion for example, are simply our descriptions of how the universe appears to work.

The weren't "given". There is no "lawmaker". And if you insist on one, then it's us humans, as we are the ones who use laws to describe the workings of reality, of how things interact with one another.

We do this through observation and experiment.

Please drop the pseudo-intellectual gooblydock and stop wasting my time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This still makes no sense in reply to the point that I actually made.
Did you even read what I said?

No idea what you are replying to.

You have a positive world view, right? You are not just lack of belief/disbelief. You have beliefs for which you in all likelihood, believe you have correct reasons, logic and evidence and you are not a cognitive relativist or strong skeptic, right?

I don't want to play that religion is without logic, reason and evidence. We both agree. The fun is that there is more than we are both non-religious. So forget about religion. Nothing follows from than we are both non-religious other than we are non-religious. And you don't live your life by being just non-religious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So this is not about a natural universe for which your in-group have evidence, knowledge and what not. So you admit that you are nothing but a believer?

Dude..........................

If you can not have an honest discussion, then just stop.
A few more of these posts and I'll violate my own principles and put you on ignore, something I usually never do.

I'm growing tired of this.
I haven't said anything remotely close to your nonsense here. Neither did @ChristineM .
Who, btw, liked the post in which I informed you that you are misrepresenting what she said. You should take that as a hint that you might indeed be misrepresenting her.

Now, either reply to the points actually made or accept the invite to my ignore list, thanks.
For the record: I prefer to have an honest open discussion instead of having to "silence" people.

But even my angelic-style patience has limits.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is not at all what I claimed.

Please read the posts you respond to with a speck of attention.

What I actually said was that the "laws of nature", like Newton's laws of motion for example, are simply our descriptions of how the universe appears to work.

The weren't "given". There is no "lawmaker". And if you insist on one, then it's us humans, as we are the ones who use laws to describe the workings of reality, of how things interact with one another.

We do this through observation and experiment.

Please drop the pseudo-intellectual gooblydock and stop wasting my time.

Please expand on appears and We do this through observation and experiment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If He would let me die of Corona this evening, I would be glad

Owkay then.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

yeah, but there has to be a variety of landscapes to begin with. Only then we have a variety of things life can adapt to... That was my point.

But you don't even believe that life can adapt to the environment, because
1. you are a creationist who doesn't accept evolution
and
2. your OP says variety in life is the result of your god creating things and not the result of blind biological processes.

So if that is what your point is, then I guess your point is to be self-contradictory.