Here's an honest question for you Piper:
What makes you think the "creation" is a "creation"? So far, all you've done is play with words. If you call something a painting, yes, it means it has to have a painter. If you call something a creation, it must need a creator. However, calling something one thing does not make it so; you need reasons why it should be labeled as such. I could call my laptop a painting, and therefore argue that it has a painter (logically), but the fact that my laptop isn't a painting means my argument falls down due to definitions.
So, your argument that God is creator of the Universe is valid if and only if the thing you label as "creation" is in fact a creation. So please, what evidence do you have to suggest it was a creation?
What makes you think the "creation" is a "creation"? So far, all you've done is play with words. If you call something a painting, yes, it means it has to have a painter. If you call something a creation, it must need a creator. However, calling something one thing does not make it so; you need reasons why it should be labeled as such. I could call my laptop a painting, and therefore argue that it has a painter (logically), but the fact that my laptop isn't a painting means my argument falls down due to definitions.
So, your argument that God is creator of the Universe is valid if and only if the thing you label as "creation" is in fact a creation. So please, what evidence do you have to suggest it was a creation?
