God did make our world from the Genesis one. Have you forgotten about the Fall and how Paul says the world groans until redemption?

What I am doing is applying reason to the matter. I am questioning a basic assumption that many Christians make about the bible,but that is not in the bible. — Bartricks

Where is it then?

If God didn't even create us or this world, why should we think that he cares at all about anything we do or think? But then again even if he did create us, why would he care what we think? You seem to be displacing a stupid belief via an equally irrelevant proxy. Yes, maybe God didn't create this world yet exists, but what conclusions should we draw? The situation in which God has not created us or the world sounds mostly equivalent to the conclusion that we have no reason to believe in God at all and therefore should not believe in him in terms of consequences.

Not to mention that would leave us all alone in terms of moral injunctions and imperatives. But I suppose you would say a personal relationship with God is possible and that he can still give us inspiration. Or something.

Honestly it seems like you are trying to detach religion from religion, and I don't think it is working.

edit: not making an argument based off of my belief that Christianity is dumb, but I do think it is dumb

It has no philosophical or scriptural justification. — Bartricks

It's a matter of faith, which is different from the kind of justification that we would give for the existence of a statute, for example. I can look up statutes in the statute book and the parliamentary records. Matters of faith are matters about which we say 'Well, that seems right to me and I can't prove it but I trust it and I'm going to proceed as if it's the case even without being able to produce the evidence.' God created the heavens and the earth. I understand your point that it's not in scripture - or if it is in there somewhere, it's perhaps tucked away where one might not expect it. But in scripture or not it's a matter of faith.

Thought about it some more. So maybe we have God and then some incredibly powerful being capable of creating us and the universe/world. I remember back to the aseity thread you argued that some original thing must have existed with aseity. So if this powerful being that is less than god created us and this world he must have existed with aseity. What space could there be for God if something comes into existence with aseity and creates the only space there is? This thing would have to predate God or God created this being that then created our world. Both contingencies sound bizarre. And in the second one you could hold God accountable indirectly for our shitty world.

Oh do read the OP. Stop just saying stuff. Remember when you thought Descartes wrote 5 meditations?

What?

Christians believe with the Jews that this world is a copy of the original because of the Fall. Read saint Paul.

"For creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration but not by its own" Roman's 8

Focusing on the Garden described in Genesis 1-3, the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, c. 6000BCE, pretty good match.
Gen 3:17-24 - thistles, thorns, sweat, animal skins, driven out of a good place to a difficult place - yep, sounds historically accurate
Gen 4 - coupling, conception, childbirth, sibling rivalry - this place - check.
The only thing that doesn't fit here is that pretty, shiny, benevolent sky-daddy god.
Conclusion: pretty, shiny, benevolent sky-daddy god did not create "this place".
Therefore, Christians must have been misled.
But were they misled about the nature of the creation or the nature of the creator?

Conclusion: pretty, shiny, benevolent sky-daddy god did not create "this place".
Therefore, Christians must have been misled.
But were they misled about the nature of the creation or the nature of the creator? — Vera Mont

Reminds me of an old joke. The teacher asks the students: "Who was the most intelligent man in history? The pupil with the right answer gets five bucks from me." Bobby says: "Donald trump." NO, Bobby, it wasn't him." Michael says, "Galileo." "No, son," says the teacher, "It wasn't Galileo." Little Moritz says, "Teach, the smartest man ever alive was Edison." "Very good, Moritz, here's the five dollar for you. Now tell us, why he was the smartest." Moritz looks at the teacher, and says, "Teach, both of us know the most intelligent guy ever was Moses; but business is business."

Similarly, the squeeky clean, shiny god is known by everyone as a mean, vicious bastard; but we also know that we have no chance left with a mean vicious bastard unless we call him the best of adjectives we can ever muster.

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Those are the essential attributes of God (don't be tedious and question that - if you want to use the word 'God' to refer to a peach, that's fine, but you're just a berk). — Bartricks

I disagree - not entirely but I think some specifics need to be hashed out.
God is omnipotent (all energy - and matter e=mc2, they are equivalent), omniscient (all information throughout time - all interactions between energy and matter) that have or ever will occur) and omnipresent (all space in which these interactions occur). If that is the truth of things then God cannot be a person (because people are not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent) because they are minute objects in the system (universe).

A person cannot move a mountain for example (potency), be everywhere because they're a singular object (omnipresence) nor be omniscient (a person cannot know what someone across the world just named their newborn baby).

However, a person can behold/believe in this truth of things, this God, can hold that god as their ideal in their mind and understand it, and thus the limitations of its application in the Human sphere. The can channel that truth, its description, but they cannot be that truth - its characteristics.

In that sense one can reveal God to others but cannot be God itself, at most a conduit for the truth, a "truth teller", but not a "truth-be-er".

A person can however be onibenevolent, by describing this truth to others, and thus enabling insight, understanding and empowering them with the knowledge of God. In that way a person satisfies the final of four conditions for a god worth worshipping: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence (characteristics of the universe at large) and finally omnibenevolence (accurate description of the universe) only done by a person, a truth teller (a part of the whole universe).

"For creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration but not by its own" Roman's 8 — Gregory

Whoa, we haven't got that far. So far "God created the heavens and the earth" is under discussion because it is doubted whether the earth God is said to have created is this earth or some other earth. The authors should perhaps have been clearer about what they meant when they wrote "the earth". It's a common fault, if it is a fault.

Saint Paul, representing Christians, calls the earth "creation". Isn't that what the OP wanted to know?

Christ! Provide evidence that a Christian 'has' to believe the world was made by God. Stop just saying stuff.

Did you read the OP??

This world appears to have been created incredibly slowly.

The place described in Genesis is created in 6 days.

The place described in Genesis contains people whose average lifespan is 900 years or thereabouts.

And so on.

Vera: oh, but it contains animals. So does here. Therefore it is here. Jesus.

Yes, I am sure you do. And that makes you a what?

So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks

there is,
consider a god which creates a world, and god which doesn't.
which one is more benevolent?

there is,
consider a god which creates a world, and god which doesn't.
which one is more benevolent? — SpaceDweller

There's no difference.

Note too that I did not say God did not create anything (although that too would be entirely consistent with being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent)

I said that there is nothing in Genesis that commits a christian to the idea that God created this world.

Thought about it some more. So maybe we have God and then some incredibly powerful being capable of creating us and the universe/world. — ToothyMaw

All I am arguing here is that nothing in the concept of God or in Genesis (or, I suspect) in the bible commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world.

I have not argued that the Christian can deny God created some place - for it does say that in Genesis.

Note: atheists typically do not believe the world was created by someone other than God. THey believe God does not exist and they believe the world has non-agential origins.

There's nothing, I am pointing out, that stops a Christian from simply accepting that.

Note too that denying that God created the world does not then oblige one to provide an account of what or who did create it.

I remember back to the aseity thread you argued that some original thing must have existed with aseity. — ToothyMaw

No, I argued that if there exist thinks that have come into being, then there also exist things that have not. I did not - and have never - argued that there must be one such thing. On the contrary, I have argued that all of us have that status. Minds - all minds - seem to exist in that manner for none of them are divisible. Being indivisible is what something that exists with aseity would be.

So if this powerful being that is less than god created us and this world he must have existed with aseity — ToothyMaw

I don't follow you. You seem to be thinking that if I claim the world was not created by God, then I am committed to the view that someone else created it. No I'm not. I do not know who or what created the world. I am saying that God didn't. That nothing in the concept of God implies he did - on the contrary, it implies he didn't. And nothing in the bible does either, so Christians can - and should - agree with me.

What space could there be for God if something comes into existence with aseity and creates the only space there is? — ToothyMaw

TO exist with aseity is not to have come into being. That's the point.

But anyway, you are attributing to me a whole load of claims that I have not and would not make.

Being omnipotent involves having the ability to do anything. That's entirely consistent with there being other powerful people around and so on. It's entirely consistent with other people and other processes creating things. There's no contradiction involved.

You're not a very subtle person are you?

Read Genesis 'without' assuming that 'the earth and the heavens' refers to here. Don't be dumb. Don't think "oh, it must refer to here because, you know, that's what people have been stupidly assuming for thousands of years'. Try and think a little differently. Try it. Try being original.

Notice things, such as the fact the place described there is created in.....6 days. This world wasn't. They estimate it is 4.54billion years old.

Do you spot the difference? 6 days. 4.54billion years. 6.....days. 4,540,000,000 years.

No? Well, 4.54 billion years is 1657100000000 days.

"I'll meet you in 6 days"

Gregory: "so, you mean 1,657,100,000,000 days?"

Descartes wrote 6 meditations.

Gregory: "so, you mean he wrote 1,657,100,000,000 meditations? I thought he only wrote 5"

Christians interpret the OT in light of the New.

Er, okaaay. Good one.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.


Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/creating_the_world_in_6_days#:~:text=100%20Bible%20Verses%20about%20Creating%20The%20World%20In,was%20hovering%20over%20the%20face%20of%20the%20waters.

Hebrews 11 3 says "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"

There's no claim that God actually created the world. 'Framed by' does not mean 'caused by' (whatever it does mean). And saying that a group of people believe something to be the case is not the same as asserting that it is the case.
Note, I do not deny that Christians typically 'believe' that the world was created by God. I do not deny that this is what Christians understand to be the case. But is it the case? Not 'is it the case taht they believe it" but "is it actually the case that God created the world?"

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. — Gregory

Question begging - you've just assumed 'in heaven and on earth' refers to here. That's precisely what's at issue. It's not at issue that the bible says God created at place - a place consisting of heaven and earth. What's at issue is whether God created this place.

Colossians 1:16 is as clear as you can get unless the Bible means nothing by it's words. You don't read the Bible like Christians and yet you say that they don't interpret correctly according to your non believing ways. Odd. Also, click on the link i gave for many more verses on this

Again, it's question begging to interpret it as you have done. I think you just can't see this. I mean, why not quote Genesis at me?

Then who are you trying to argue with with this thread if not against Christian interpretations of their own book? Your new interpretations doesn't make theirs irrational

Again, question begging. Read the OP. There's nothing irrational about my interpretation. There's everything irrational about the traditional one.

Look, if all you can do is simply tell me what CHristians typically believe, then you're no use to me.

So you have a novel interpretations of 100 verses. That's nice