And a painting was painted by a painter?
Then wouldn't creation be created by a creator?
I mean a building did not just happen, nor a painting...it was made by someone.
2007-02-13 03:47:02 · 17 answers · asked by Mandolyn Monkey Munch 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
makes perfect sense to me
2007-02-13 05:54:33 · answer #1 · answered by arzzz 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Eloise Logic:
If all elephants are pink, and Eloise is an elephant, then Eloise must be pink.
You are starting with a misconception. A lawyer can also paint a picture, as a fireman can build a building. A saint can be a sinner, and a hero can also be a looser.
Nope, the logic does not work that way. Yes, they are made by someone, or something, but who are we to say? We can only speculate.
So, we go back to: what was your point? That only God can create? That evolution can not happen? Or were you going for something else?
Your question is not clear. Go back and work on the logic, and then form it into a question.
2007-02-13 11:58:34 · answer #2 · answered by Boudica 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
LOL.
Does that REALLY make sense to you? Isn't it obviously ridiculous?
You're saying that if you can identify some things that were made by someone, then everything must be made by someone. Let's try that logic in other realms, and you'll see how silly it is...
There are some tire tracks in the snow outside that were made by a pickup truck. Therefore all tire tracks are made by pickup trucks. Oops.
Last year I saw a mourning dove build a nest. That means that all nests are made by mourning doves. Doh!
Oh, how about this? I just swept up some of the dust on my kitchen floor, and left it near the door. That means that I must have put all of the dust on the floor where it is. Oh, no, wait...
Do you regret posting this rather obvious nonsense yet?
2007-02-13 11:50:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
Haven't you already been refuted on this?
Your question begs itself... it assumes what it wishes to prove.
"Then wouldn't creation be created by a creator?"
The third word is the assumption. Of course if there's a 'creation', then by necessity a 'creator' (or 'creators') would need to exist.
So where's the 'creation'?
This is nothing more than an oversimplified Argument from Design. Read up on your logical fallacies, dear.
2007-02-13 11:51:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't the builder have to have been created by something? Like a mother?
All of the builders and painters on Earth were created by mothers.
2007-02-13 11:53:44 · answer #5 · answered by r~@~w 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Actually, order simply implies an ordering principle. That principle might well be immanent in the system, as for example with the formation of crystals. Complex structure emerges from chaos; it's simply something the universe does. It may imply that we need to understand more about how the world works, but it doesn't imply any kind of supernatural intervention.
2007-02-13 11:53:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Exactly,
and planets were planted by a planter,
cooks were cooked by a cooker,
shat was shat by a shatter
the big bang was banged by a big banger
religions were created by the religious
The earth evolved from evolution
creation was created by creative cretans?
2007-02-13 11:59:22 · answer #7 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a false analogy. We know buildings have to be built but we don't yet fully understand the mechanisms that were required to bring the universe into existence.
2007-02-13 11:51:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 0⤋
It's the difference between manufactured and naturally occurring. And it's only "creation" in religious views...
2007-02-13 11:51:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
yes a creation would be created by a creator.
if you are trying to refer to the earth, well I dont think its a creation.
2007-02-13 11:50:07 · answer #10 · answered by UFO 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That would require it being a creation and not just a thing.
2007-02-13 11:52:08 · answer #11 · answered by poseidenneptune 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋