why i believe in creation

this was taken from a website called "The Preacher's Files" but it makes sense, and is part of the reason why i am a Christian.

One of the biggest problems with atheism is the ultimate conclusion one must make with regard to morality.  If there is no God, there is no moral giver.  No moral-giver, no morals.
No morality, nothing wrong with killing.  Stepping on a roach and killing a baby=same thing without morals.

"every effect has an adequate cause"
The fly didn't knock the building down.  A nuclear explosion wasn't caused by a firecracker.  The Gettysburg adress wasn't written by an ape.  The INCREDIBLE intracacies of life weren't caused by the chemical reactions of inanimate rocks, dirt, and slime.

Some scientists assert that it all started with the "Big Bang."
1.  They never explain who or what provided the energy for the bang.
2.  They never explain how the physical realm came into being.
3.  The empty vacuum of space itself must have an explanation.

Again, every effect must have an adequate cause.
Toy--toy maker
shoe--shoe maker
watch--watchmaker
house--housemaker
universe--universe maker
man--man maker

If life did not come from God then only matter is left.  Two problems.
1.  Science has yet to record an instance where life of any kind came from inanimate matter.
2.  If matter is creator, than matter is eternal.  If something exists now then something must have always existed.  However, this flies in the face of the scientists own observations (ie. the second law of thermodynamics.) This law says that energy is becoming more and more unusable.  The universe is winding down and will come to an end.  This implies a beginning.  Therefore matter is not eternal, it is an effect that must have a cause.  In Hebrews 1:10-12, we see that the bible stated long ago this law that we have only recently "discovered."  Cause and effect IS a reality true science recognizes.

these are just some of the reasons why i believe in a creator, but alot of my faith comes from the bible.  I firmly believe that if more people would read the bible, and pick apart what the words are saying than we would have less atheism, and people would see that they can find the RIGHT answer within the text.
 

MartinM

GondolierAce
Feb 9, 2003
4,215
258
42
Visit site
✟5,655.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Today at 03:22 AM NoahK said this in Post #1
One of the biggest problems with atheism is the ultimate conclusion one must make with regard to morality.  If there is no God, there is no moral giver.  No moral-giver, no morals

No arbitrary morals, true. No morals at all, patently false.

Again, every effect must have an adequate cause.
Toy--toy maker
shoe--shoe maker
watch--watchmaker
house--housemaker
universe--universe maker
man--man maker

God--God maker.

Oops.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Well, Atheism doesnt = lack of morals. Many atheist find morals without god. Even beyond that, since atheists lack god, they also lack something to blame when they do something wrong. Many fanatics, who kill and murder, say god told them to do it, or that they did it for god. Since atheists dont have a god, they cant blame him for their actions (this of course, only fits for fanatics :) )

There are quite a few Theistic evolutionists that believe in evolution (remember, all evolution is is the change of animals to adapt to their environment) and in gods creation of the universe at the same time.

The big problem with this article, is that, although it makes some good statements, it also confuses things. It confuses atheism with evolution and evolution with other scientific theories.
 
Upvote 0

gentu

Active Member
Feb 24, 2003
113
0
Visit site
✟233.00
I happen to be someone who believes in Creation and is interested in science. Science has no opinion on God. God's existence does not nullify science, and the existence of science does not nullify God. In fact, for me, science strengthens God's existence, because science is the study of God's Creation.

-The fact that there was a Big Bang does not mean that there wasn't a creator to start it.
-The fact that life evolved on this planet does not mean that there wasn't a creator to begin or guide the process.
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
No morality, nothing wrong with killing._ Stepping on a roach and killing a baby=same thing without morals.

So why aren't all atheists out there killing babies, then? Babies can be pretty annoying sometimes, yet I don't see many reports of atheists killing babies because they were screaming or throwing up or blocking the aisle in the supermarket. How come murderers aren't disproportionately atheist? How come so few atheists kill people if kiling is OK?

And how dare you say that atheists think that there's nothing wrong with killing, without providing some solid evidence. That is simply wicked. It's the sort of demonising that really fractures society. Good grief - the person who wrote that piece didn't even give it as his opinion, he presented it as solid fact.

Must remember - not all Christians are such hateful bigots - Christianity does have some good points - sometimes it gets hard to remember what they are, though.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion

One of the biggest problems with atheism is the ultimate conclusion one must make with regard to morality. If there is no God, there is no moral giver. No moral-giver, no morals.
No morality, nothing wrong with killing. Stepping on a roach and killing a baby=same thing without morals.

Wrong. God is not requisite for morals.


"every effect has an adequate cause"
The fly didn't knock the building down. A nuclear explosion wasn't caused by a firecracker. The Gettysburg adress wasn't written by an ape. The INCREDIBLE intracacies of life weren't caused by the chemical reactions of inanimate rocks, dirt, and slime.

Personal incredulity. Not compelling.


Some scientists assert that it all started with the "Big Bang."
1. They never explain who or what provided the energy for the bang.
2. They never explain how the physical realm came into being.
3. The empty vacuum of space itself must have an explanation.

Since science can't explain it, therefore God. But if science gets around to explaining it...


Again, every effect must have an adequate cause.
Toy--toy maker
shoe--shoe maker
watch--watchmaker
house--housemaker
universe--universe maker
man--man maker

As has already been pointed out, God -- God creator.


If life did not come from God then only matter is left. Two problems.
1. Science has yet to record an instance where life of any kind came from inanimate matter.
2. If matter is creator, than matter is eternal. If something exists now then something must have always existed. However, this flies in the face of the scientists own observations (ie. the second law of thermodynamics.)This law says that energy is becoming more and more unusable. The universe is winding down and will come to an end. This implies a beginning. Therefore matter is not eternal, it is an effect that must have a cause.

Indeed our own universe appears to be "winding down". Yet, we can only chart back our own space-time to the beginning of that very space-time. What comes before that and whether or not the laws of thermodynamics even apply is anyone's guess.
 
Upvote 0

Quath

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2002
597
5
53
Livermore, CA
Visit site
✟15,831.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
You can say the Big Bang has always existed in the same manner that God has always existed. Outside our universe there is no time. So "always" is pretty meaningless concept. But whatever you say about God, you can say about the Big Bang. In the extreme, you can consider the Big Bang a "God" with no inteligence and just one action.

Scott (Quath)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
You seem to really lack an understanding of the theories that you criticize. Your view of how the big bang occured is flawed. Do you really think it is intellectually honest of you to express an opinion on somthing of which you are obviously know very little. It would be like me criticizing the coach of a cricket team (I don't know the first thing about cricket). Actually, it was not even YOUR opinion you expressed. YOu merely regurgitated the opinion of your pastor (was he even the original source?).

BTW, if the Big Bang theory was so faulty in that it violated the basci principles of physics (broke the laws of physics), don't you suppose that it would have been abonded by physicists a long long time ago? Doctors gave up the notion of the "four humors" centuries ago when they realized that was not how the human body worked. Do you really think that scientists are THAT incompetent? How do you explain the current explosion of new technology if it is all based on flawed notions?

Look, if you really want to debate evolution, or any other scientific theory I would suggest that you LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT FIRST rather then just repeating other people's propaganda.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Yesterday at 10:22 PM NoahK said this in Post #1

this was taken from a website called "The Preacher's Files" but it makes sense, and is part of the reason why i am a Christian.

One of the biggest problems with atheism is the ultimate conclusion one must make with regard to morality
. If there is no God, there is no moral giver.  No moral-giver, no morals.

So you are not really discussing science, but trying to debate theism vs atheism. Wrong board.  Science isn't about denying God.  If you believe in God, science tells you how God created. Read The Bear's response.

Now,as to morality, Noah, consider these two questions and tell us which is correct:  Is something good because God commands it? or Does God commmand something because it is good?

As you look over those questions, you will find the fallacy in the statements you made.

"every effect has an adequate cause"
The fly didn't knock the building down.  A nuclear explosion wasn't caused by a firecracker.  The Gettysburg adress wasn't written by an ape.  The INCREDIBLE intracacies of life weren't caused by the chemical reactions of inanimate rocks, dirt, and slime
.

Ah! The confusion between material causes and ultimate causes and god-of-the-gaps.  Yes, the chemical reactions in rocks, dirt, and slime are sufficient, as material causes, for the intricacies of life.  Now, do we also need some supernatural cause working parallel with the material causes? Science doesn't know.  But you aren't saying that. You are saying that the material causes aren't sufficient as material causes and that you must insert God as a material cause.  This isn't permitted in Christian theology because it reduces God to the status of a creature.

 Noah, if you trace all the effects and causes backwards, eventually you must get to an Uncaused Cause that started the whole string. This is called "First Cause".  There are at least 5 candidates for First Cause. Deity is one of them.

Some scientists assert that it all started with the "Big Bang."
1.  They never explain who or what provided the energy for the bang.
2.  They never explain how the physical realm came into being.
3.  The empty vacuum of space itself must have an explanation.


The cause of the Big Bang is First Cause.  That is unknown.  As I said, there are 5 candidates.  One of them is that God caused the Big Bang.  But, because the other 4 are also possible, science can't say for certain that God really is First Cause. 

The "empty vacuum of space" is really spacetime.  And spacetime too came into existence at the Big Bang along with matter/energy.

If life did not come from God then only matter is left.  Two problems.
1.  Science has yet to record an instance where life of any kind came from inanimate matter
.

That's a matter of debate.    :) See the thread Protocells redux for an instance where many scientists do claim that life came from inanimate matter.

 
these are just some of the reasons why i believe in a creator,

Fine. You believe in a Creator.  So did Darwin.  Surprised?  Evolution isn't atheism. 

but alot of my faith comes from the bible.  I firmly believe that if more people would read the bible, and pick apart what the words are saying than we would have less atheism, and people would see that they can find the RIGHT answer within the text.

Answers to what questions? Theological questions like Is there a deity?  Did that deity create?  How does that deity view humans?  How would that deity like humans to behave towards one another?

Yes, you can claim those answers are in the Bible.

Questions like How old is the universe? How did it get to its present form?  How did the diversity of life arise?  Those answers you find in God's Creation, not the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Today at 12:55 PM Late_Cretaceous said this in Post #11

Look, if you really want to debate evolution, or any other scientific theory I would suggest that you LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT FIRST rather then just repeating other people's propaganda.

This is sound advice, but before Noah is going to be able to take it, we must get him out of the science is atheism, creationism is Christianity fallacy.  Noah isn't really discussing scientific theories. He is trying (incompetently) to argue the theism corner of the theism vs atheism debate.
 
Upvote 0
well, i was merely stating some reasons why i believe in a creator... you guys took it a bit far.  I copied this from an article, and i thought it had some key points, thats pretty much all.

I do believe that life itself breaks the laws of thermodynamics in that everything would like to be at its lowest possible energy level, and that everything over time, will become more and more disordered.  If everything wants to become more and more disordered, doesn't that contradict the whole picture of evolution?  According to evolution aren't we becoming more and more complex?

I am willing to read your opinions, but i dont appreciate being called stupid.  I DO believe in evolution, but there are two kinds of evolution: Micro and macro.  Micro meaning evolution and adaptations within ones own species.  Macro meaning one species mutating into another over time.  I have been told that there is no physical evidence observed of one species mutating into another.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
I agree, being called stupid isnt fun. :)

There are a couple reasons why evolution doesnt violate the laws of thermodynamics.
1) The laws of thermodynamics are talking about a closed system. The earth isnt a closed system because its constantly being given energy from the sun. This energy is quite often used by plants and animals to do work.

2) The second law of thermodynamics also says that a system will head towards entropy, but this only means that the system needs to average out as being more chaotic.
Although probably flawed, here is a simple example.
A lower number is more Chaotic (a higher entropy) and a higher number is more complex. The final number is the total entropy (chaos) of the system.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 = 50
4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 = 48
3 3 3 3 3 3 7 7 7 7 = 46
2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 8 = 44
1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 =42

although its not a very complex example, you can see how part of the system can become more complex, as long as there are more things becoming more chaotic then not chaotic. Then the average of the system is a higher entropy.

Here is an article about an observed Macro evolution:
http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=423

Today at 04:14 PM NoahK said this in Post #14

well, i was merely stating some reasons why i believe in a creator... you guys took it a bit far.  I copied this from an article, and i thought it had some key points, thats pretty much all.

I do believe that life itself breaks the laws of thermodynamics in that everything would like to be at its lowest possible energy level, and that everything over time, will become more and more disordered.  If everything wants to become more and more disordered, doesn't that contradict the whole picture of evolution?  According to evolution aren't we becoming more and more complex?

I am willing to read your opinions, but i dont appreciate being called stupid.  I DO believe in evolution, but there are two kinds of evolution: Micro and macro.  Micro meaning evolution and adaptations within ones own species.  Macro meaning one species mutating into another over time.  I have been told that there is no physical evidence observed of one species mutating into another.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
Today at 07:14 PM NoahK said this in Post #14

I do believe that life itself breaks the laws of thermodynamics in that everything would like to be at its lowest possible energy level, and that everything over time, will become more and more disordered.

It should be noted that there is NOTHING in thermodynamics that prevents localized "order" from arising from "disorder".


I have been told that there is no physical evidence observed of one species mutating into another.

Then you were lied to.

For the record, even creationist proponents like AIG and Kent Hovind accept speciation.

edit: Just an FYI, species don't "mutate" into one another. That implies spontaneous transformation. Rather, new species form after genetic differences accumulate between the original population and sub-populations until the populations are no longer able to successfully interbreed.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
Evolution does not specify increasing complexity, although it is often portrayed that way by laymen. In fact, many small organisms as well as parasites evolved from creatures that would be considered "more complex". The simply adapted to a lifestyle that did not require such a high degree of organization.

Life itself does not violate the second law of thermodynamics any more then does your car. There is an outside enegry source for life, the sun, without which all life would cease to exist.
 
Upvote 0