Are there any arguments for creation...

[Subduction Zone]

They trend toward disorganization and lower energy. Naturally.

Only people can make people. Nothing in chemistry says people would turn up.
All of our experiences show that the creator must be a God. Chemicals are just too stupid.

Lower energy yes, disorganization, not necessarily. That is a misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In fact the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports abiogenesis. Life speeds up the lowering of total entropy of a system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You get that from your god, i am a ape ( i can live with that because i know that is a lie).
And i get this from my God, “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

No, I do not need a God. False accusations against others is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

And you should not worry. Science does not refute God. It only corrects incorrect interpretations at best. For example almost no one here denies the fact that the Earth is a globe and not flat, even though a literal reading of the Bible tells us that it is flat.

The fact is that you are an ape no mater how much you want to deny it just as gravity is a fact. Once again science does not lie, it is only a method of solving problems.

 

[DamianWarS]

... that don't ultimately boil down to an argument from incredulity and/or awe?

edited to add for clarification:

By "creation" I'm referring to the typical supernatural creation stories about the creation of the universe, stars, the planets, life, etc.

Science points to an unknown phenomenon creation points to a known phenomenon. It's not that science and creation are incompatible it's that science is unable to look outside of itself (space time continuam) and can only measure inside. God is not his creation, he exists outside of it so science cannot measure God. Science can't peak outside which is why it points to things like an uncaused cause because it is unable to see anything beyond this event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science points to an unknown phenomenon creation points to a known phenomenon. It's not that science and creation are incompatible it's that science is unable to look outside of itself (space time continuam) and can only measure inside. God is not his creation, he exists outside of it so science cannot measure God. Science can't peak outside which is why it points to things like an uncaused cause because it is unable to see anything beyond this event.

Why believe that there is a "creation" in the first place?

 

[DamianWarS]

Why believe that there is a "creation" in the first place?

Because an uncaused cause is a gross violation of logic. But the only way it to be caused is to look outside of the space time continuam.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lower energy yes, disorganization, not necessarily. That is a misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In fact the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports abiogenesis. Life speeds up the lowering of total entropy of a system.

Well, that makes one person in the world who thinks so at least.

About 36,000 results (0.63 seconds)
No results found for "Thermodynamics supports abiogenesis".

About 79,400 results (0.70 seconds)
No results found for "Second Law supports abiogenesis".

 

[pitabread]

Yes, show me evidence except the evidence you provide.

An argument from awe is an emotional argument. I'm trying to see if there are arguments for creation that don't ultimately boil down to emotional responses.

So either clarify your response or we'll leave it at that.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I would suggest reading up on contemporary origin of life research.

At any rate, this thread isn't about what science can or can't answer. It's about whether there are any arguments for creation that don't ultimately boil down to arguments from incredulity and/or awe.

So far, I'm not seeing anything to the contrary.

I like the idea of inquiry not using religious mythology. We are here. We goi here somehow. Andy all seems to be interconnected. We need a metaphysical system to begin to sort out the why and meaning. I like Advaita Vedanta.

 

[SLP]

... that don't ultimately boil down to an argument from incredulity and/or awe?

edited to add for clarification:

By "creation" I'm referring to the typical supernatural creation stories about the creation of the universe, stars, the planets, life, etc.

You can add 'zealotry'..

 

[SLP]

Why yes.
Have you ever seen an empty jar fill itself?

Oh my word, why OBVIOUSLY Jesus is Lord!!!

 

[SLP]

So you'd like proof that intelligent beings create stuff?

How many examples would you like?

Cool bait and switch!

Or are you saying humans created the universe?

 

[SLP]

My answers are entirely science research based.

Proof that information only comes from intelligent living beings.

Correction - you have only provided evidence that HUMANS create things.

Analogies are not evidence, no matter how much the desperate creationist needs them to be.

 

[SLP]

That won't stop my responses to your op.

But they are bogus responses, and everyone sees this.

Just makes you look desperate and dishonest.

 

[SLP]

Easy. It exists. Fundamentally, nothing "just happens". There is the immeasurable quality we call life. That has to come from somewhere. It did not arise spontaneously.

Nothing should exist. If the "big bang" theory is correct, equal quantities of matter and anti-matter were formed at the exact same time. So matter would have cancelled itself out the instant the big bang occurred.

A version of the argument from awe..

 

[SLP]

Yes, you just need to turn off your computer and go outside for once, take a look around and immerse yourself at the sight of it.

At the sight of the wonders of evolution, I agree.

 

[SLP]

Yes, show me evidence except the evidence you provide.

Your "evidence" was not evidence.

 

[SLP]

The secular worldview has a bias toward creation science, we know this. Christians are always confronted with the secular side of things, it is the opposite that rarely ever occurs, because we are always shut down as superstitious and pseudoscience.

And rightly so - you seem to have forgotten the centuries during which it was the Church's way or the highway (to torture and execution for "not believing").

You had your turn, and we got suffering and war.

 

[SLP]

What you just said here is exactly what you ignored in my post. Stay closed minded.

The ironic projection is thunderous...

 

[SLP]

Chemicals and physics laws tend toward lower energy states.
All matter trend toward lower organization and less energy states.
Nothing organizes itself into a system. Nothing suggests life.

But intelligent people can organize and can accumulate energy.

So again you posit that humans created the universe.
Cool...

 

[SLP]

Science points to an unknown phenomenon creation points to a known phenomenon.

And the creationist relies on begging the question.

God is not his creation, he exists outside of it so science cannot measure God.

How convenient - apparently, nobody can see God or his works now that we have photography and newspapers and the like...

Science can't peak outside which is why it points to things like an uncaused cause because it is unable to see anything beyond this event.

Umm.... It is not science that points to an uncaused cause....