Are there any arguments for creation...

pitabread said:

Via a circular argument though?

Click to expand...

the only circular discussion seems be between you and me. I can't figure our what you really want as you seem against the idea of speaking of a creator or God. is it language? would you prefer I use supernatural deity? I am not defending literal details of creation accounts as per the bible but rather the who behind creation and you are free to call that "who" using what you deem as reasonable.

pitabread said:

As described in the OP, I'm referring to creation as per a supernatural deity as described in creation stories.

The Big Bang itself doesn't necessitate a creator per se.

Click to expand...

'Supernatural"? that is the language of faith.

DamianWarS said:

science observes and measures things within the space time continuum and it has no capacity to observe or measure outside. Conceptually God would be pre-existent to the continuum which means he cannot be observed by laws within the continuum and this is the only place science can play. Scientifically speaking this would mean God is unobservable and unprovable.

Click to expand...

How convenient.

Might as well consider the concept to be made-up.

DamianWarS said:

This is about the existence of God and it seems arbitrary to argue misrepresented details of faith to claim the former is not real.

Click to expand...

But you wrote that God is unobservable and unprovable, so the concept of God is just vapor and unworthy of consideration.

SkyWriting said:

It was created by a person with human sensibilities....similar to us.

Click to expand...

Sensibilities similar to us?
I know of no rational human that yearns to be given the foreskins of his enemies.

That's why it's so possible to enjoy.

Click to expand...

Precious little just-so story.
But it doesn't work so well on educated adults, sorry.

SkyWriting said:

You have the oddest definition of desperate ever.

Click to expand...

So you don't think that positing just-so stories or relying on analogies smacks of desperation?

You cannot possibly think that what you are doing is rational or worthy of debate...

But I do see you are concerned about looks.....so that helps me understand.
You are worried about how others see you and they influence your beliefs.

Click to expand...

Not at all. But others see your posts and realize that you can offer nothing of substance in support of your position.

DamianWarS said:

creation assumes creator

Click to expand...

So you will rely on silly semantics games.

SLP said:

But you wrote that God is unobservable and unprovable, so the concept of God is just vapor and unworthy of consideration.

Click to expand...

God in completeness is unobservable and unprovable through the lens of science so he is unworthy of consideration in science simply because science has no ability to observe outside of itself, so science is blinded to God. Science may observe various phenomena but will never put God at the end of the chain and at best it will be unknown. God may interact with the continuum in observable ways and again science may classify this but it will only describe what it sees and knows not what it is unable to see and unable to know.

This is something like flatland... but the problem with flatland is that if a 2D circle was lifted out into a 3D plane it would still only be able to see in 2D which would be single lines with various shading for depth so unlike flatland no one can be lifted out and see everything. This of course is an example and I'm not suggesting a sphere or a 4th dimension object is God, the characters on flatland are all based on space and time and God is not so we cannot see God in the way flatland sees a sphere. The best character for flatland that we would probably fit would be the single point having no other ability to observe things other than himself.

This is more abstract and it's not scientific because science will never point to God it will only point to what it can explain but this doesn't make it false. Logic still demands that if we trace everything down to a single event, there was a force behind that event and the force would not be bound by the laws created in that event. This is simply the space where God exists and it is logical even if it is unprovable (from a scientific perspective). You might saying something like a flying spaghetti monster is also unprovable but this isn't true because a flying spaghetti monster is bound by space and time simply by his form and thus is defined within the continuum not outside and can be observed by science so if it existed it could be provable. The moment I demand God fit into an observable form he no longer is God. The FSM is bound by the laws of our universe and if such a thing was out there, whatever it is, it would not be God nor could it have made the universe that it is bound by.

SLP said:

So you will rely on silly semantics games.

Click to expand...

it's logic and I don't find it silly

com7fy8 said:

All the stars were supposed to have gotten started, at about the same time, right?

Click to expand...

Incorrect. There have been a few generations of stars since the Big Bang.

Aussie Pete said:

Fundamentally, nothing "just happens"

Click to expand...

Yeah it does. Virtual particles a popping in an out of existence all the time.

What makes that happen?

Larnievc said:

Incorrect. There have been a few generations of stars since the Big Bang.

Click to expand...

Correct, but potentially misleading. Star formation in the universe is an ongoing process. There are always new stars being formed. The generation concept is to reflect the increasing metallicity (the presence of any elements other than hydrogen or helium) as heavier elements produced in super-nova enter the inter-stellar medium and contribute to the next wave of star formation.
One cannot really be more incorrect than just plain, old incorrect, but if one could be this continuity of star formation through time would make com7fy8's remark "more incorrect".

DamianWarS said:

it's logic and I don't find it silly

Click to expand...

Not logical when one of the major premises is unfounded.

SLP said:

How convenient.

Might as well consider the concept to be made-up.

Click to expand...

i's inconvenient for science on a level but since it's not the purpose of science to look outside of itself then science goes on happily. It's not the purpose of science to explain God, science explains his creation.

Aussie Pete said:

I have some knowledge of these systems for process control and precision environmental controls (museums and art galleries for example).

Click to expand...

This is what happens when people opine beyond their area of expertise.

DamianWarS said:

God in completeness is unobservable and unprovable through the lens of science so he is unworthy of consideration in science simply because science has no ability to observe outside of itself, so science is blinded to God.

Click to expand...

I don't agree.
In science, one can make inferences based on what IS known and observable - the discovery of Pluto, for example, was inferred, not directly observed.
I think God is amenable to investigation, via consideration of His supposed works. These would leave evidence.
But alas, there is none.
Just apologia and anecdotes.

SLP said:

Not logical when one of the major premises is unfounded.

Click to expand...

events are caused, that's logical. the event that triggers the universe and all the laws in it would be from a cause that's preexistent to the event and wouldn't be defined by the laws created within it, that also is logical. scientific foundation is not required.

SLP said:

I don't agree.
In science, one can make inferences based on what IS known and observable - the discovery of Pluto, for example, was inferred, not directly observed.
I think God is amenable to investigation, via consideration of His supposed works. These would leave evidence.
But alas, there is none.
Just apologia and anecdotes.

Click to expand...

the universe infers a force that caused it

pitabread said:

The purpose of the argument is to demonstrate that the universe is a creation in the first place.

If the argument starts off with the premise that the universe is a creation, then that is not a conclusion you can derive from that premise; you've effectively using the premise as a conclusion, which is a circular argument.

If that isn't your argument, then please feel free to restate it accordingly.

Click to expand...

you seem to take issue with my language I'm using not the argument. the argument is based on logic that things don't happen without a force behind it. that not circular logic it's linear logic.