• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An Atheist brain teaser

oldgun

New Member
An artist creates the greatest masterpiece the world has ever known. The next day a diabolical hater of art burns the masterpiece to ashes.

From a purely scientific standpoint, who was the creator and who was the destroyer?
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Every creation is destruction, every destruction is creation.

I am not an atheist, so you can kick me out if you wish :eek:

But from a scientific viewpoint, creation and destruction are only different by definitions or viewpoints. The destruction of an animal is the creation of Good plant nutrients for example :p
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
This sounds like a philosophical question rather than a (hard) scientific one. "Creator" and "destroyer" aren't really scientific terms so you question can't be honestly answered without further context. I don't see what any of it has to do with not believing in the existence of gods either.

Basically, I don't see the point of the question. Could you just jump to the "clever" catch you're inevitably waiting to spring?
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Depends. Do we have accurate information that there was an artist who created a masterpiece in the first place? Or are we just looking at the ashes of said masterpiece? If the former then we have enough information to deduce that there was a masterpiece if not, however, then there isn't enough evidence to deduce that the masterpiece existed in the first place.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
An artist creates the greatest masterpiece the world has ever known. The next day a diabolical hater of art burns the masterpiece to ashes.
From a purely scientific standpoint, who was the creator and who was the destroyer?
To pose a question with such an obvious answer suggests that some tricky word play looms.
But here it goes......
The artist is the creator, & the arsonist is the destroyer.

BTW, welcome aboard!
 
Last edited:

oldgun

New Member
No clever catch but the answer is given away in the question. Also, what happened is the facts with no speculation. I'll give a big hint.

I posted this in the Atheist forum.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
No clever catch
I don't believe you.

but the answer is given away in the question.
The question can't be answered because, as I pointed out, it isn't a scientific question. The answer you want us to give is given in the question but that leads us back to the catch you claim isn't there.

I posted this in the Atheist forum.
Yes, your artist represents God and your arsonist represents atheists. Your proposition is that God created a perfect world and we're destroying it. I believe you're wrong (at least on the first point) but I'm more than happy debating that.

What I'm not willing to do is play all the silly word games to just get to the basis of that debate. Don't waste your time and ours, just get to the point.
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Yes, your artist represents God and your arsonist represents atheists. Your proposition is that God created a perfect world and we're destroying it. I believe you're wrong (at least on the first point) but I'm more than happy debating that.

I thought that the arsonist was humanity in general (or adam and eve) :shrug:
 

oldgun

New Member
I don't believe you.

The question can't be answered because, as I pointed out, it isn't a scientific question. The answer you want us to give is given in the question but that leads us back to the catch you claim isn't there.

Yes, your artist represents God and your arsonist represents atheists. Your proposition is that God created a perfect world and we're destroying it. I believe you're wrong (at least on the first point) but I'm more than happy debating that.

What I'm not willing to do is play all the silly word games to just get to the basis of that debate. Don't waste your time and ours, just get to the point.

There is no need to be so sensitive but that was a great answer just as the first answer (not yours) about it being debateable on how you look at it was really good. BTW both yours and the first were still wrong. The artist isn't God. The artist is just an artist and the arsonist is just a diabolical hater of art.
 
Last edited:

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
There is no need to be so sensitive but that was a great answer just as the first answer was really good. BTW both yours and the first were still wrong. The artist isn't God. The artist is just an artist and the arsonist is just a diabolical hater of art.

Can I see my results, doc? Did I... Did I pass the test? -breathes heavily-
 

Shifty88

New Member
There is no destruction in science. Matter cannot be destroyed only changed into something else. So Both are creators.
 
Last edited:

oldgun

New Member
There is no destruction in science. Matter cannot be destroyed only changed into something else. So Both are creators.

Conservation of Mass for the win. Actually, the answer for our sensitive player so he can relate it to Atheism and feel good about it being here is:

There is no creator.

It's not meant to be a trick as the answer is pretty straight forward if you answer the question as it is asked. But it leads to interesting philosophical and theology based wrong answers.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
An artist creates the greatest masterpiece the world has ever known. The next day a diabolical hater of art burns the masterpiece to ashes.

From a purely scientific standpoint, who was the creator and who was the destroyer?
The one who burned created something new as they destroyed.
The one who painted destroyed materials as they created the masterpiece.

From a purely scientific standpoint, no matter or energy was created or destroyed during the events, so there was no creator or destroyer.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The one who burned created something new as they destroyed.
The one who painted destroyed materials as they created the masterpiece.

From a purely scientific standpoint, no matter or energy was created or destroyed during the events, so there was no creator or destroyer.

I think it's more accurate to call both of them creators and destroyers. Even if the constituent matter doesn't increase or decrease, with each act, an old arrangement of that matter is destroyed and a new one is created.

A drop of water may hold all the materials needed to make a snowflake, but it is not a snowflake itself.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Silly word games.
In the OP's context, the art is the subject, but the hidden premise is that it's about matter & energy because of the use of the word "scientifically".
Well, science can also be applied to constructs using energy & matter, eg, buildings, cars, paintings, computers. And those things can be destroyed,
despite the fact that energy & matter are conserved.

The old, "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?" is more interesting.
And then, which weighs more, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
(HInt....not the same answer.)
 
Top