Are there any arguments for creation...

[pitabread]

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.

What you stated previously though was that a creation requires a creator. Which assumes that the universe is a creation, which is the very thing you (or anyone else) is being asked to prove.

Now if the argument is simply that the universe needed some sort of 'force' to start it, fine. But that doesn't necessitate that the 'force' is a supernatural deity. IOW, that is a different argument to begin with.

Of course the latter argument also runs afoul of a completely different issue which is demonstrating that the universe does in fact require a force to start it off. Which we don't know if that is true to begin with.

 

[pitabread]

'Supernatural"? that is the language of faith.

Yup, indeed it is!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sorry, that is a fail on your part. First off there are uncaused events. They occur all of the time on a quantum level. It is not a violation of logic, you merely formed the argument poorly. Second, even if there was a "cause" you do not get to assume that it was a god and especially not your personal God. William Lane Craig's abuse of the Kalam has been endlessly refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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".

I see that you do not know how to Google search properly either. Using quotes in your search causes endless articles to be ignored. You should have just used the words thermodynamics and abiogenesis without the quotes. Here is the first article I came across when I did so:

A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

There are many others. When you do not understand something it is always wiser to politely ask questions. It is very foolish to do a biased search and then pretend that you have proved something. When someone politely asks me questions I will answer politely. Or you could have simply said "Citation needed" and I would have provided an article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Then why believe? Probability is a knife that cuts both ways. You just stated that there is no evidence for God, even though you probably do not realize that.

 

[DamianWarS]

What you stated previously though was that a creation requires a creator. Which assumes that the universe is a creation, which is the very thing you (or anyone else) is being asked to prove.

Now if the argument is simply that the universe needed some sort of 'force' to start it, fine. But that doesn't necessitate that the 'force' is a supernatural deity. IOW, that is a different argument to begin with.

Of course the latter argument also runs afoul of a completely different issue which is demonstrating that the universe does in fact require a force to start it off. Which we don't know if that is true to begin with.

Then the universe is the exception to every rule. We exist in a space time continuam. Outside of the continuam is outside of space and time so it cannot be measured by space and time. Whatever force it is would be eternal and uncreated based on our laws because it is not define by space/matter (so is uncreated) or time (so is eternal). Does this force assume the supernatural? Of course because it's entire existence is outside what we call the natural. The force would be unchanging not in a constant state of evolution which to me demands God otherwise anything less would be in a constant state of change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What we call "creation" is the universe. Could it have been uncreated? eternal? Does Big Bang count as creation?

The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. It is neither evidence for or against a god and does not count as a creation since that word implies a creator. We do not have evidence for or against a creator. Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know yet."

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, poor arguments are not "logic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then the universe is the exception to every rule. We exist in a space time continuam. Outside of the continuam is outside of space and time so it cannot be measured by space and time. Whatever force it is would be eternal and uncreated based on our laws because it is not define by space/matter (so is uncreated) or time (so is eternal). Does this force assume the supernatural? Of course because it's entire existence is outside what we call the natural. The force would be unchanging not in a constant state of evolution which to me demands God otherwise anything less would be in a constant state of change.

The problem is that we cannot know anything about something outside of time and space. There is no good reason to assume a god, since that implies a thinking being. There may be a larger universe that is endless and our little part of it may just be a temporary bubble. We simply cannot make any claims of something beyond the universe that may or may not even exist.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. It is neither evidence for or against a god and does not count as a creation since that word implies a creator. We do not have evidence for or against a creator. Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know yet."

And that is where speculation comes in and sometimes that takes the form of a faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that is where speculation comes in and sometimes that takes the form of a faith.

Or one could remain neutral. Many Christians make the error of stating that atheism is a belief that there is no God. That is not correct. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. Atheists avoid faith since it is not a pathway to the truth.

 

[Larniavc]

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".

Well yeah, old stars get reconstituted into newer stars. But the concept of generations is not so outlandish.

We can both agree that all stars did not become stars at the same time.

 

[expos4ever]

What about the fine-tuning argument?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Or one could remain neutral. Many Christians make the error of stating that atheism is a belief that there is no God. That is not correct. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. Atheists avoid faith since it is not a pathway to the truth.

I personally find it hard to remain completely neutral. of course it is possible and I can see how some people might prefer it. But what makes sense to me is a fundamental consciousness of some kind that holds it all together. Speculation based on maybe some experience and some ideas from others. It is a working model for me to make some sense of things and give my life some order and direction rather than simply shrugging my shoulders.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well yeah, old stars get reconstituted into newer stars. But the concept of generations is not so outlandish.

We can both agree that all stars did not become stars at the same time.

I must have been unclear. Apologies. The concept of generations is an extremely useful one in astrophysics and cosmology. However, someone - such as com7fy8 - unfamiliar with the science could interpret generations to refer to distinct periods of star formation, which - in terms of the universe - is not really the case.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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

You got that right. Atheists being the prime example.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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

What makes that happen?

God. Really simple.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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

The only wonder of evolution is that anyone believes it.

 

[pitabread]

The only wonder of evolution is that anyone believes it.

It's a useful science that is foundational to modern biology and has real world applications. It's really that simple.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It's a useful science that is foundational to modern biology and has real world applications. It's really that simple.

It's a useful science that is foundational to modern biology and has real world applications. It's really that simple.

We've been down this track to nowhere before. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.