Existing creator is more logical

[ahoba]

Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

[Sinfidel]

ahoba wrote

Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

Regards,

"More logical" than what????????????????

[ahoba]

Sinfidel wrote

"More logical" than what????????????????

You again

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

I can assure you with 100% certainly that nobody here is angry with you.

Bored? Yes. Irritated, sure. But not angry. Don't overinflate your own ego.

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

Why did you move this to general discussion?

Is it because you're admitting that you have nothing scientific to discuss? Where is your more logical theory for "existing creator?" If existing creator is theoretically possible and also more logical, show us the theory and the superior logic. Chop chop.

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

Define "creator."

[ahoba]

Creator: a person or thing that brings something into existence.

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

Creator: a person or thing that brings something into existence.

This definition is very imprecise.

Let's say a "person" is a creator. Was a painter like, say, Picasso a creator? Did he bring anything into existence? Well, it's probable that the same amount of matter exists in the universe before and after his death. He merely rearranged materials on a canvas, and sculpted some materials into different geometric forms and he transformed food he ate into feces, but did he bring anything into existence? On the other hand, his stupid paintings and poo wouldn't exist without him, right? So, yeah, I suppose he was a creator.

Now, let's say a "thing" is a creator. Can a thing create? Let's say it's an automatic bread machine. You dump in the ingredients, push a button, and bam, a couple of hours later, out pops a loaf of bread. Did the machine create it? By your definition, you could say it did. Would the bread exist without the machine? No. Therefore the bread machine is a creator, right? Or, you could say that you were the creator of the bread, because you combined the ingredients and pushed the button. Or, you could say the electricity was the creator, because without it powering the bread machine, no bread in existence.

Now, though, to my main point of this. All of those creators are observable. Picasso was observable (we have photographs as well as reliable eyewitness testimony and provenance). A bread machine is observable. Electricity is observable. You are observable.

Maybe here's a better working definition.

Creator: an observable person or thing that rearranges existing matter or language/ideas into new forms.

Probably still incomplete, but a lot more precise and reality based than yours.

So let's go with that definition, for now.

[ahoba]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

This definition is very imprecise.

Let's say a "person" is a creator. Was a painter like, say, Picasso a creator? Did he bring anything into existence? Well, it's probable that the same amount of matter exists in the universe before and after his death. He merely rearranged materials on a canvas, and sculpted some materials into different geometric forms and he transformed food he ate into feces, but did he bring anything into existence? On the other hand, his stupid paintings and poo wouldn't exist without him, right? So, yeah, I suppose he was a creator.

Now, let's say a "thing" is a creator. Can a thing create? Let's say it's an automatic bread machine. You dump in the ingredients, push a button, and bam, a couple of hours later, out pops a loaf of bread. Did the machine create it? By your definition, you could say it did. Would the bread exist without the machine? No. Therefore the bread machine is a creator, right? Or, you could say that you were the creator of the bread, because you combined the ingredients and pushed the button. Or, you could say the electricity was the creator, because without it powering the bread machine, no bread in existence.

Now, though, to my main point of this. All of those creators are observable. Picasso was observable (we have photographs as well as reliable eyewitness testimony and provenance). A bread machine is observable. Electricity is observable. You are observable.

Maybe here's a better working definition.

Creator: an observable person or thing that rearranges existing matter or language/ideas into new forms.

Probably still incomplete, but a lot more precise and reality based than yours.

So let's go with that definition, for now.

Then?

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

Then?

For?

[ahoba]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

For?

By your definition, you agree with me, don't you?

[ahoba]

So why did you reply and for what??? just talking anything?!!!!!!

Hobotronic2037 wrote

This definition is very imprecise.

Let's say a "person" is a creator. Was a painter like, say, Picasso a creator? Did he bring anything into existence? Well, it's probable that the same amount of matter exists in the universe before and after his death. He merely rearranged materials on a canvas, and sculpted some materials into different geometric forms and he transformed food he ate into feces, but did he bring anything into existence? On the other hand, his stupid paintings and poo wouldn't exist without him, right? So, yeah, I suppose he was a creator.

Now, let's say a "thing" is a creator. Can a thing create? Let's say it's an automatic bread machine. You dump in the ingredients, push a button, and bam, a couple of hours later, out pops a loaf of bread. Did the machine create it? By your definition, you could say it did. Would the bread exist without the machine? No. Therefore the bread machine is a creator, right? Or, you could say that you were the creator of the bread, because you combined the ingredients and pushed the button. Or, you could say the electricity was the creator, because without it powering the bread machine, no bread in existence.

Now, though, to my main point of this. All of those creators are observable. Picasso was observable (we have photographs as well as reliable eyewitness testimony and provenance). A bread machine is observable. Electricity is observable. You are observable.

Maybe here's a better working definition.

Creator: an observable person or thing that rearranges existing matter or language/ideas into new forms.

Probably still incomplete, but a lot more precise and reality based than yours.

So let's go with that definition, for now.

Easy!!!
by your definition is creator is theoretically possible or not?!!!!! easy!!!

[Hobotronic2037]

ahoba wrote

So why did you reply and for what??? just talking anything?!!!!!!



Easy!!!
by your definition is creator is theoretically possible or not?!!!!! easy!!!

A creator by my definition is of course theoretically possible. You are a creator. You eat food and create poop. So what?

You should be so very proud of your creation.

You should gaze upon it and say "it is good!"

[ghoulslime]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

...You are a creator. You eat food and create poop. So what?

You should be so very proud of your creation.

On the seventh day, he rested from his movement, and saw that it was good.

Holy crap! What if ahoba IS God, and nobody is paying attention? He needs to raise a bigger stink.

Glory unto Him!

[Sinfidel]

ahoba wrote

Creator: a person or thing that brings something into existence.

I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

Trying the ole logical fallacy trick, eh! We're too sofistikated here to fall for that. Try it in Sunday skool.