What if the xtian god thing was only responsible for creating people? Suppose cosmology wasn't his job. Aside from the bible, is there any other reason to assume god's creative function applies to absolutely everything?

Couldn't god still be pretty great even if we were his only product? If this god thing is beyond us, how can we know its limits?

If the xtian god-thing were seen as existing within a cosmology not of his own making, then suddenly his craftsmanship really amounts to something. Just pulling things fully formed from one's divinely fecund fundament by magic is so much less impressive.

If any xtians would like to weigh in I would really like for you to explain to me why it matters and just how you can be so certain.

Whateverist. What you describe sounds more like the Platonic view of a 'demiurge' where there are a succession of created beings, the last of which created what we see. Some forms of Gnosticism took that view. Mormons too believe that 'God' created from pre-existing material. Though all of those would still not have a different creator of man than the rest of creation. Perhaps the closest to that view is the Ancient Greek mythology that Prometheus especially gave man the gift of standing up and gave him the gift of fire (after Epimetheus had given all the available qualities, such as speed, to all the other animals). So Man had a special relationship with one of the Gods, Prometheus.

But to see man as separate from the rest of creation, created independently by a separate being...That doesn't make much sense to me biologically or theologically. I'm not sure how much useful we can say about something neither of us believe in. As ever, I think it's best to engage with Christianity as it is, not with as it isn't.

I think if you look at the cultural history of Yahweh, one finds that he was once city god of someplace, a d even married. He probably didn't have that property then, and it was an add on.

"Is "being the creator of everything" an essential characteristic of the xtian god?"

Yes. I think the central understanding of God comes from this point. As Aquinas says, him being first cause necessitates a few attributes. He had to be pure good for anything to eminate from him. An originating force cannot be self defeating. It goes on.

(October 5, 2014 at 6:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: He had to be pure good for anything to eminate from him. An originating force cannot be self defeating. It goes on.

"He had to be pure good"... Why's that? Why couldn't He be a big, evil tyrant? I do not see why His characteristics have to depend on His abilities.

(October 5, 2014 at 1:42 am)whateverist Wrote: What if the xtian god thing was only responsible for creating people? Suppose cosmology wasn't his job. Aside from the bible, is there any other reason to assume god's creative function applies to absolutely everything?

Genesis claims that god created "the heavens and the earth." The writer probably figured that the flat disc of the Earth and the dome-like covering of the heavens was the extent of existence, so his belief would be that god made everything. It may be possible to imply that he used something that was already there to start building with, which wouldn't be surprising; the writer would have assumed that every builder takes the materials that are already there when he begins to build. Or he simply wasn't concerned with regression-- god built it all, did it matter whether he pooped out the atoms first?

(October 5, 2014 at 6:58 am)Baqal Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 6:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: He had to be pure good for anything to eminate from him. An originating force cannot be self defeating. It goes on.

"He had to be pure good"... Why's that? Why couldn't He be a big, evil tyrant? I do not see why His characteristics have to depend on His abilities.

Because something bad = something destructive yes? A first cause of everything can't be destructive. It couldn't produce anything. Therefore, if existence had a creator, that had to be a positive force.

(October 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because something bad = something destructive yes? A first cause of everything can't be destructive. It couldn't produce anything. Therefore, if existence had a creator, that had to be a positive force.

Being destructive does not preclude him from producing anything. For all you know, his reason for creation might be that he could build things up only to destroy them later on.

(October 5, 2014 at 6:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote: "Is "being the creator of everything" an essential characteristic of the xtian god?"

Yes. I think the central understanding of God comes from this point. As Aquinas says, him being first cause necessitates a few attributes. He had to be pure good for anything to eminate from him. An originating force cannot be self defeating. It goes on.

Are you really such a big idiot that you can believe in any of what you just said?

(October 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because something bad = something destructive yes?

Um... No?

Quote:A first cause of everything can't be destructive. It couldn't produce anything. Therefore, if existence had a creator, that had to be a positive force.

Well, at least it could produce something to destroy it later on. You haven't presented a valid argument for why the Creator has to be good. He could be a "positive force" that has made this entire world for humans to live on, and then, once He runs out of stuff to do in the free time (I guess?), come down to the surface of the Earth and enslave the entire humanity for reasons. Why is this impossible? And if you ask me "Why would God need slaves?", I would ask you "Why would God need people to love Him, worship Him et cetera?"