Are there any arguments for creation...

[SkyWriting]

What did you expect? There is no argument for creation except a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories.

... 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.

Sorry you don't approve of the responses.

 

[pitabread]

What did you expect? There is no argument for creation except a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories.

I still hope to be surprised one day. I guess I'm just an optimist that way.

 

[Strathos]

So that's it? There are stories about a thing and therefore that thing is true?

Technically that does meet the criteria you asked for in your OP.

 

[GospelS]

... 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.

“Supernatural creation stories” without incredulity and/or awe.

Sorry. Not sure what stories you would like to know.

 

[pitabread]

Technically that does meet the criteria you asked for in your OP.

That sounds like a premise as opposed to an argument.

 

[com7fy8]

supernatural creation

Well, I can't say I am arguing, but offering how I get things.

For one thing > it is said that atoms have electrons passing over a thousand times around the nucleus, every second. That's fast. I simply can see that so many atoms could not have just gotten themselves started, like that, at one time. If it all started from some stuff, why did that stuff not start the universe sooner . . . I mean, if it acts only according to physical consistent principles?

And it is said there are billions of stars, and ones billions of light years from us. All the stars were supposed to have gotten started, at about the same time, right? That would take a high level of coordination with some sort of communication, I would think. And, of course, if all is physical and acting according to predictable scientific principles . . . why did it all start when it did, versus those principles of physics starting sooner . . . in all past eternity??

According to physical science, matter and energies act according to set principles which can be discovered and proven experimentally. So, if there is nothing but physical existence and its set and predictable principles . . . why did those principles produce the universe when they did and not sooner? They had all eternity to do what they are set to do.

But God could choose when to start His universe.

Another thing, by the way >

It seems very low life forms can have very highly developed structures and ways of doing things . . . including what humans still can not produce. Yet, humans can be such bozos, even though so intelligent. If all were the product of atoms and molecules and energies, how come these atoms and molecules and energies made unintelligent life forms so capable, and yet the same scientific principles of matter have produced humans that can be so wrecking things?

And if there has been evolution, meaning survival of the fittest by means of competition and greater capability, why now are humans so worried that someone might kill them and eat them? Why would atoms and molecules and energies produce beings who compete by killing and eating one another, then produce humans who are so afraid to so compete?

I, of course, understand Jesus wants us to love any and all others as ourselves, even while others kill us, and trust God to bring His good use of this, all in His control with us trusting Him >

"casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7)

How is it, that atoms and molecules and principles of energies would produce me capable of writing this if this does not even exist????

 

[Gene2memE]

Why yes.
Have you ever seen an empty jar fill itself?
Me neither.

I have. Throw an empty jar into the ocean.

Have you ever seen anything nonliving move toward being alive?
Me neither.

I've also never seen a particle disc accrete into a planet, or Pluto complete an orbit. No person has. Does that mean neither of those things can occur? Or does the absence of personal observation by humans not actually matter at all?

Has any science journal proposed a "Law of Nature" that would explain why life has come from non living materials? Me neither.

That would be the job of scientists, not a science journal. Any yes, there have been multiple hypothesis forwarded and published about how the laws of nature would allow for the formation of life from simpler non-living elements. There have even been papers published in the last few years that suggest that life is not just likely, but an inevitable result of the physical laws of the universe.

Has any Science Journal proposed how living organisms benefit the earth?
Me neither.

There is no requirement that "living organisms benefit the earth". This is a total red herring. Living organisms benefit themselves (by ensuring their own survival). If you really want to be reductionist, you could view life as just DNA's way of ensuring its own continuation.

If you ask a scientist why life has developed.....following natural processes is "Is sun shining on mud" a good reason for life to develop?" have you heard an answer? Me neither.

You've not heard an answer to such a question, because I suspect no-one with even a vague notion of abiogensis as a topic could form it before dissolving into fits of laughter.

Also, none of the above is EVIDENCE FOR THE CREATION ACCOUNT.

Completely disproving our understanding of abiogenesis and evolutionary biology WILL NOT REPLACE THEM WITH A RELIGIOUS CREATION MYTH. What will happen is that other naturalistic theories concerning the development and history of life on earth will be formed, drawn from the available evidence.

 

[Charlie24]

... 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.

None of us believers have had a revelation from God explaining how He created the universe.

We believe it by faith! Once a person sees who they really are (only the Word of God can do this) it's very easy to see how everything came into existence.

I guess it's something that must be experienced to understand. We can explain all day long, but all we can explain is what we have learned from God's Word.

 

[Aussie Pete]

... 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.

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.

The complexity of higher level life also indicates that living creatures were created, not an accident. Reptiles consciously seek out suitable temperatures to maintain correct body heat. Mammals have a closed loop temperature control system. It responds automatically to environment, to energy expenditure, to illness and to injury. I have some knowledge of these systems for process control and precision environmental controls (museums and art galleries for example). It is highly complex. Yet nowhere near as complex as a mammalian system.

 

[Jonaitis]

... 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.

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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Which is just an argument from awe, exactly what I referred to in the text you just quoted.

 

[pitabread]

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.

What is the argument though? "It exists" is not an argument.

What you are stating is premises, but the premises do not form an argument.

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.

This sounds like a misunderstanding of the Big Bang.

The complexity of higher level life also indicates that living creatures were created, not an accident. Reptiles consciously seek out suitable temperatures to maintain correct body heat. Mammals have a closed loop temperature control system. It responds automatically to environment, to energy expenditure, to illness and to injury. I have some knowledge of these systems for process control and precision environmental controls (museums and art galleries for example). It is highly complex. Yet nowhere near as complex as a mammalian system.

How does complexity indicate creation?

Stating a premise is not making an argument. What is the argument?

 

[pitabread]

We believe it by faith! Once a person sees who they really are (only the Word of God can do this) it's very easy to see how everything came into existence.

I guess it's something that must be experienced to understand. We can explain all day long, but all we can explain is what we have learned from God's Word.

I can accept the answer that belief in creation is a matter of faith. Based on everything I've read in terms of arguments for creation, that is what it seems to boil down to.

 

[Jonaitis]

Which is just an argument from awe, exactly what I referred to in the text you just quoted.

Yes, show me evidence except the evidence you provide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Study quantum physics, things "just happen" quite often. And yes, life had to come from somewhere. It appears to have arisen from complex chemical reactions. There is evidence for that, there is no evidence of a creator. What makes you think that life cannot have arisen naturally?

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.

Except that there are observable violations to parity. Anti-matter and matter do not always follow mirrored responses:

Wu experiment - Wikipedia

We cannot totally replicate the conditions of the Big Bang, but it would not be wise to assume that there was not even great parity violation then.

The complexity of higher level life also indicates that living creatures were created, not an accident. Reptiles consciously seek out suitable temperatures to maintain correct body heat. Mammals have a closed loop temperature control system. It responds automatically to environment, to energy expenditure, to illness and to injury. I have some knowledge of these systems for process control and precision environmental controls (museums and art galleries for example). It is highly complex. Yet nowhere near as complex as a mammalian system.

I am sorry, but this is just a weak argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. The complexity of higher level life is explained very well by the theory of evolution. It would help if you learned what is and what is not evidence. You would see that there is no evidence for creation if you understood that concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, show me evidence except the evidence you provide.

You do realize that scientific evidence comes with strings attached. It puts the burden of proof upon the person that does not accept it. So if given evidence you cannot just deny it. You would have to explain why it is wrong. "Could be" or "Maybe" does not cut the cake.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Study quantum physics, things "just happen" quite often. And yes, life had to come from somewhere. It appears to have arisen from complex chemical reactions. There is evidence for that, there is no evidence of a creator. What makes you think that life cannot have arisen naturally?



Except that there are observable violations to parity. Anti-matter and matter do not always follow mirrored responses:

Wu experiment - Wikipedia

We cannot totally replicate the conditions of the Big Bang, but it would not be wise to assume that there was not even great parity violation then.



I am sorry, but this is just a weak argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. The complexity of higher level life is explained very well by the theory of evolution. It would help if you learned what is and what is not evidence. You would see that there is no evidence for creation if you understood that concept.

There is no "evidence" that you exist. Or anything at all.

No one knows because no one was there to observe it. Even if they did, it is unlikely that they would understand what they saw. Mensa level intellectuals believe in creation and other Mensa level intellectuals do not.

The idea that life can arise from inanimate matter is laughable. It has not been done in the lab and it cannot be done. Sixty years of continual research and they are no closer.

The ignorant are those who start with a supposition that God does not exist and then try to develop a theory that excludes God. That supposition flies in the face of every sensible and logical evaluation of the material world. Surely the Bible states it perfectly: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"

Nobel prize winner and evolutionist Dr Francis Crick:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."

Dr Crick was almost right. The origin of life is a miracle. There is no other plausible explanation.

 

[Jonaitis]

You do realize that scientific evidence comes with strings attached. It puts the burden of proof upon the person that does not accept it. So if given evidence you cannot just deny it. You would have to explain why it is wrong. "Could be" or "Maybe" does not cut the cake.

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. Why not examine if some of the claims of Islam is true? I've heard scientific claims to support their argument, and you know it possibly has some ground to stand upon. Oh, but because it believes in a theistic worldview, everything else it says must be disregarded. "If we gave credibility to them, we would have to go back on everything we stated and accept that God is real." It is a phobia from their side that prevents us from being taken serious in the scientific community, and because we aren't taken serious, there is none to represent us in the scientific community globally. When we do provide substantial claims with compelling arguments in the field of archaeology, geology, etc, we have only certain mediums to express these views, and those are disregarded because they aren't from "legit" scientific research papers. If we had a voice to begin with in the scientific community as an alternative view, maybe we would be able to share our views through more official means. We got well-studied men in our field that are hardly ever noticed because they believe in a god.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What is the argument though? "It exists" is not an argument.

What you are stating is premises, but the premises do not form an argument.



This sounds like a misunderstanding of the Big Bang.



How does complexity indicate creation?

Stating a premise is not making an argument. What is the argument?

What is the argument though? "It exists" is not an argument.

What you are stating is premises, but the premises do not form an argument.



This sounds like a misunderstanding of the Big Bang.



How does complexity indicate creation?

Stating a premise is not making an argument. What is the argument?

I've been down this track with you before. I'm not wasting any more of my time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no "evidence" that you exist. Or anything at all.

No one knows because no one was there to observe it. Even if they did, it is unlikely that they would understand what they saw. Mensa level intellectuals believe in creation and other Mensa level intellectuals do not.

The idea that life can arise from inanimate matter is laughable. It has not been done in the lab and it cannot be done. Sixty years of continual research and they are no closer.

The ignorant are those who start with a supposition that God does not exist and then try to develop a theory that excludes God. That supposition flies in the face of every sensible and logical evaluation of the material world. Surely the Bible states it perfectly: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"

Nobel prize winner and evolutionist Dr Francis Crick:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."

Dr Crick was almost right. The origin of life is a miracle. There is no other plausible explanation.

So you have no clue.

Why not try to learn instead of making yourself look foolish?