Are there any arguments for creation...

[pitabread]

Atheism takes faith to believe that something, an effect, came from nothing which goes against the scientific rule if you will that effects always have a cause.

There is no "scientific rule" that effects always have a cause. What you are thinking of is a classic physics model, however our understanding of such physics doesn't apply to a scenario like the origin of the universe.

In fact, even in quantum mechanisms the normal rules of causality can get... weird.

 

[pitabread]

From what I understand of the scriptures, belief is a matter of choice. Therefore very much voluntary.

Belief isn't voluntary. You can't force yourself to believe or disbelieve. Belief is a state arrived at as a result of individual experience.

 

[fwGod]

Perhaps you did not understand "some atheists". And be careful when you accuse others of having faith.

The manner in which I express myself will not likely be altered by your attempt at correction or intimidation (which ever it might be). I realize that Atheists are capable of being polite but I've also discussed with some who weren't so I'm just explaining.

I will no doubt repeat to any other atheist as I've done here in acknowledging the fact that Atheists don't believe, which is simply a negative belief.

With the use of "no rest for the wicked" and "let there be light" the Atheists are speaking words from the Bible which belies your (collective or individual) hostility against anything to do with God.
It's because you quote from the Bible that I will let you know that non belief is still a form of belief that is used on the negative side of that phraseology coin.

Take your something from nothing claim. Depending on how one defines "nothing" our universe could have come from nothing without breaking any physical laws. If you watch the video "A universe from nothing" Krauss explains this rather well.

I realize that Atheists come up with their own interpretation and way of using a phrase to support their own views. But the phrase is after all from the Bible. So I will tell you what the Bible is conveying in that phrase.

Or skip down.

When the Bible speaks of something from nothing, it's regarding something that isn't seen nor can be touched. But it's rather heard. Things heard are words. And words are something. Words from God create things that are seen and can be touched.

You might object with "nothing was existing that could of heard words." .. "not even air that would carry a sound" Well, since Atheists allow that something can exist without violating physical laws.. then I should have the same privilege for my theological view. Or I could say that the one who heard was the Spirit of God who was hovering over the face of the waters. That intellectual energy creating and creative energy caused what was spoken to be manifest.

And do not put excessive hope in the law of cause and effect. That does not exist at the quantum level.

Now you know that I'm going to say what the Bible states, right? The law of cause and effect is demonstrated in the creation passages of Genesis chapters 1 & 2.

Quantum events tend to be statistical and not causal.

I've read from a Bible based book on that topic. But that's been awhile so I cannot give my understanding of what I read at this time.

 

[Speedwell]

The manner in which I express myself will not likely be altered by your attempt at correction or intimidation (which ever it might be). I realize that Atheists are capable of being polite but I've also discussed with some who weren't so I'm just explaining.

I will no doubt repeat to any other atheist as I've done here in acknowledging the fact that Atheists don't believe, which is simply a negative belief.

With the use of "no rest for the wicked" and "let there be light" the Atheists are speaking words from the Bible which belies your (collective or individual) hostility against anything to do with God.
It's because you quote from the Bible that I will let you know that non belief is still a form of belief that is used on the negative side of that phraseology coin.
I realize that Atheists come up with their own interpretation and way of using a phrase to support their own views. But the phrase is after all from the Bible. So I will tell you what the Bible is conveying in that phrase.

Or skip down.

When the Bible speaks of something from nothing, it's regarding something that isn't seen nor can be touched. But it's rather heard. Things heard are words. And words are something. Words from God create things that are seen and can be touched.

You might object with "nothing was existing that could of heard words." .. "not even air that would carry a sound" Well, since Atheists allow that something can exist without violating physical laws.. then I should have the same privilege for my theological view. Or I could say that the one who heard was the Spirit of God who was hovering over the face of the waters. That intellectual energy creating and creative energy caused what was spoken to be manifest.
Now you know that I'm going to say what the Bible states, right? The law of cause and effect is demonstrated in the creation passages of Genesis chapters 1 & 2.
I've read from a Bible based book on that topic. But that's been awhile so I cannot give my understanding of what I read at this time.

When you get done ranting about atheists, perhaps you could address the OP.

 

[fwGod]

There is no "scientific rule" that effects always have a cause. What you are thinking of is a classic physics model, however our understanding of such physics doesn't apply to a scenario like the origin of the universe.

In fact, even in quantum mechanisms the normal rules of causality can get... weird.

I just posted one time, but then other's began to post to me about science stuff that I haven't studied or kept up with in a long time. I had intended to indicate that the use of "science rule" was my personal phrase for what I was attempting to convey but then inexplicably.. didn't.

In your education it is logical to you that the classic physics model is nothing like the big bang in what I understand as 'cause and effect'. But for me there is no difference.

My level is so kindergarten that you must consider yourself a professor by comparison. I'm not resentful neither do I think that you are being arrogant. Just saying.

Thank you for your degree of courtesy toward me. I briefly checked on the topic of quantum events and I glanced briefly at the phrase 'quantum entanglement'.. is that what you mean by things can get weird?

But I think that I should let that be rhetorical because I didn't intend to engage in posts any longer than a few paragraphs, with any one particular poster, nor continue any more posts than two. Best I think under the circumstances.

 

[fwGod]

Belief isn't voluntary. You can't force yourself to believe or disbelieve. Belief is a state arrived at as a result of individual experience.

It's interesting when those who have no experience talk about something as if they know exactly what they're talking about.
You've posted the clinical dictionary description that comes from those who don't know.

It'd be like me copy-pasting any science article in order to let you know that I know exactly everything on the science topic.

But you'd no doubt immediately know that I barely knew anything about it at all.

I think that this is as good a place as any to say.. an amiable, Have a nice day.

 

[fwGod]

When you get done ranting about atheists, perhaps you could address the OP.

Naw.

 

[Speedwell]

It's interesting when those who have no experience talk about something as if they know exactly what they're talking about.
You've posted the clinical dictionary description that comes from those who don't know.

It'd be like me copy-pasting any science article in order to let you know that I know exactly everything on the science topic.

But you'd no doubt immediately know that I barely knew anything about it at all.

I think that this is as good a place as any to say.. an amiable, Have a nice day.

Yet that doesn't stop you from imposing your ideas about what being an atheist entails, something about which you have no personal experience.

 

[fwGod]

Yet that doesn't stop you from imposing your ideas about what being an atheist entails, something about which you have no personal experience.

I have personal experience when talking with Atheists.. I can't jump in your head but I'm observant enough to pick up on how you think.

Now, do you want to have a Bible study with me right now or are you going to suddenly remember that you have to go clean out your cat's sandbox?

 

[Speedwell]

I have personal experience when talking with Atheists.. I can't jump in your head but I'm observant enough to pick up on how you think.

Now, do you want to have a Bible study with me right now or are you going to suddenly remember that you have to go clean out your cat's sandbox?

Of course. I cleaned out the cat's sandbox already this morning. But it might help you prepare to know that I am a Christian, an Anglican in particular.

 

[pitabread]

It's interesting when those who have no experience talk about something as if they know exactly what they're talking about.

No experience with what exactly? Believing things?

 

[fwGod]

-

 

[fwGod]

- - I have to leave the forum now. I've managed to misidentify the other person.. and just now post to you the answer for the other person and post to that person the answer for you.

I may not be back.

 

[Speedwell]

Wow, too many times I don't look at who I'm talking to and then I put my foot in my mouth. I apologize.

No harm done. I don't put it my profile because I am well aware that many creationists don't consider Anglicans (and other Traditional Christians) to be "real" Christians and I don't like to press the point unless they become offensive about it. I am, after all, certainly not a creationist myself.

 

[46AND2]

It's interesting when those who have no experience talk about something as if they know exactly what they're talking about.

I have personal experience when talking with Atheists.. I can't jump in your head but I'm observant enough to pick up on how you think.

And many of us have personal experience when talking to Christians....with the added benefit of having been former Christians.

 

[Speedwell]

- - I have to leave the forum now. I've managed to misidentify the other person.. and just now post to you the answer for the other person and post to that person the answer for you.

I may not be back.

Don't take it so hard--this is only a chatroom, and we all frequently make blunders of that kind. From my point of view I think your input would be welcome. It may prove to be a refreshing change from the "The world was created in 4004 BC or Jesus died for nothing" attitude one usually expects from creationists.

 

[fwGod]

And many of us have personal experience when talking to Christians....with the added benefit of having been former Christians.

Like I said, I can't jump in your head and know all there is about you. I can guess and make mistakes.

 

[fwGod]

Don't take it so hard--this is only a chatroom, and we all frequently make blunders of that kind. From my point of view I think your input would be welcome. It may prove to be a refreshing change from the "The world was created in 4004 BC or Jesus died for nothing" attitude one usually expects from creationists.

Thanks for being so welcoming. So, would you like to open with a question for me to see if I can answer?

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks for being so welcoming. So, would you like to open with a question for me to see if I can answer?

OK. How old do you think the universe as we know it is? Do you put any credence in the generally accepted scientific figure of 13.8 billion years?

 

[46AND2]

Like I said, I can't jump in your head and know all there is about you. I can guess and make mistakes.

Then, should you not offer us the same leeway...rather than making snarky comments about us talking about things in which we have no experience?