Are there any arguments for creation...

[Ophiolite]

The OP asked for an argument that is not based on tradition or belief. I gave him my favorite one.

I am not here to convince you that the contingency argument is valid or that you must accept it. If you like it, you can study it yourself. I am not your personal convincer ;-)

I'm amused that you think an argument that lacks support and justification can actually be called an argument. Such a belief is neither formally, nor logically consistent. I suggest you have failed to meet the OPs request.

 

[solid_core]

I'm amused that you think an argument that lacks support and justification can actually be called an argument. Such a belief is neither formally, nor logically consistent. I suggest you have failed to meet the OPs request.

Whatever you feel you need to say.

 

[Ophiolite]

Whatever you feel you need to say.

Just following your lead.

It is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss your own assertions it kind of defeats the point of having put them out there in the first place. But whatever charges your battery. I'll leave you to your monologues.

 

[DamianWarS]

But you crossed over into the scientific realm when you talk about the beginning of the universe. No one is holding an idea hostage. The point was that your belief can be shown to be no more valid than beliefs in the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti's or other unobserved phenomena. Once again the time to believe something is when valid evidence has been provided for it.

Science has the ability to disprove or prove the loch Ness monster, Yetis or other phenomena based in the space time continuum. Science doesn't have the ability to reach outside the continuum and observe God, so science may one day prove or disprove leprechauns or unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster but it has no capacity to disprove or prove God. Perhaps this is too abstract because if you understood the concept this question would have never been asked. I use science to show it's limits not to show God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

continuam

*continuum

 

[Speedwell]

Science has the ability to disprove or prove the loch Ness monster, Yetis or other phenomena based in the space time continuam. Science doesn't have the ability to reach outside the continuam and observe God, so science may one day prove or disprove leprechauns or unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster but it has no capacity to disprove or prove God. Perhaps this is too abstract because if you understood the concept this question would have never been asked. I use science to show it's limits not to show God.

I'm still confused about your position because it seems to me that there are two distinct questions n play:

1. Is there a supernatural entity of some kind which is responsible for the existence of the universe?
2. Can science be relied upon to give us reasonably accurate explanations for material phenomena such as the age of the universe, the origin of species, etc?

Giving four possible positions to take.

 

[DamianWarS]

Do you know how many creator deities are listed on wiki who are purported to have created the universe?

Are we talking about God or religion? All of those deities may effectively point to the same space they just call it something different. It stands to reason that people's perception of God is flawed which is why they are so varied. It seems arbitrary to speak of these details however when you don't even accept God.

 

[solid_core]

Just following your lead.

It is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss your own assertions it kind of defeats the point of having put them out there in the first place. But whatever charges your battery. I'll leave you to your monologues.

Well, first, you must understand how formal logical arguments work.
You, for example, cannot ask for proving a negative, which is what you did. Twice.

Second, the question was "is there any argument that is not based on tradition or faith" and I gave the information about such argument. I do not have so much time to discuss the argument with any random person in this thread I also live in a different timezone so when you are the most active, I have a night time.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm still confused about your position because it seems to me that there are two distinct questions n play:

1. Is there a supernatural entity of some kind which is responsible for the existence of the universe?
2. Can science be relied upon to give us reasonably accurate explanations for material phenomena such as the age of the universe, the origin of species, etc?

Giving four possible positions to take.

God created the universe so he does not "live" in the universe but rather separate to it. If the universe were to fold up God doesn't fold up with it. Science is based on the laws within the universe not outside so science can measure everything inside the universe but nothing outside and it is outside where the mystery of the existence of God is. This also means God is not measured by things like space time and matter but is above these things. Science can disprove or prove things like a yeti because yetis are based in the universe. but science does not have the capacity to peek outside of the universe and obverse God as it needs to observe things based on space/time (inside the universe) otherwise according to science it doesn't exist. Science can neither prove nor disprove God it can only say within the space time continuum it cannot find God.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Depending on how information is quantified and measured, this isn't necessarily true.

Can you provide an example of quantified or measured information? What ruler or units are used to do this?

This is why any time anyone tries to use this argument, I ask them to first define and quantify information with respect to DNA (as opposed to books, computers, or anything else that is not DNA).

I can assume that you can do this for us right? Other than the longest “word” known, I’ve never heard of the units used to quantify DNA information.

The vast majority of the time people can't, and this exposes the argument as being based on equivocation over the the term "information".

How does being able to measure the quantity of information render it non-information? If a man testified as to a crime, does the jury have to quantify that information before they KNOW it is information?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Zeus can be invisible. He can be anywhere.

He never claimed that ability.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have little doubt that you sincerely believe you are correct. I would just ask you to reflect for a moment on an alternative.

To the extent that I have discussed such matters with atheists, in the real world and online, I have yet to meet any who harboured an anger against the God they do not think exists. This is true regardless of their route to atheism. They cover the spectrum from those who never believed, never even thought about the concept much, if at all, all the way through to the militant, aggressive promoter of atheism. And, be sure, in the course of seven decades I have met many, across that spectrum.

Perhaps, you may suggest, they were all lying to me and to themselves. Perhaps, but I have benefited in my life from a competence, part natural, part acquired, in ferreting out liars. I imagine there are some atheists who think as you suspect, but they are few and far between.

From this side of the fence your suspicions in this regard look ludicrous. The one saving grace is that most atheists will just laugh at the notion and dismiss your posts with a smile. If they took you seriously they would be simultaneously offended, disgusted and enraged. Let's just hope they are all still laughing.

I am very sure you believe all
of what you wrote. I find it sad and am not laughing.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Zeus is based in our universe and so can be empirically proven or disproved and this is the same with the flying spaghetti monster. God is not based in our universe so he cannot be empirically proven or disproved.

You need to read what those who worshiped Zeus said oc him. Your making up abilities none said he had.

 

[DamianWarS]

You need to read what those who worshiped Zeus said oc him. Your making up abilities none said he had.

I don't claim any abilities on Zeus or that he exists.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I don't claim and abilities on Zeus or that he exists.

I had a chance to read another post your wrote and I withdraw my accusation. I was wrong and I apologize. Shall I delete it?

 

[Larniavc]

Are we talking about God or religion? All of those deities may effectively point to the same space they just call it something different. It stands to reason that people's perception of God is flawed which is why they are so varied. It seems arbitrary to speak of these details however when you don't even accept God.

Then you entertain the possibility that there may be a god quite unlike the one depicted in the Bible.

 

[Larniavc]

He never claimed that ability.

He would not need to to have that power.

 

[DamianWarS]

Then you entertain the possibility that there may be a god quite unlike the one depicted in the Bible.

Thats not the discussion and it's arbitrary to focus on the micro when the macro isn't established. It's like asking if a cart should be blue, green or red before you have established there is even a horse. But you're welcome to open a thread as to the accuracy of the Judeo-Christian depiction of God.

 

[46AND2]

Quite a few atheists on these sites are mad at the God they say doesn’t exist. It’s very common.

No it isn't. Don't confuse anger with god's followers as anger with god.

 

[46AND2]

I have a theory that all atheists are angry at God. I have not met every atheist, so I can't prove it.

That's silly.