Are there any arguments for creation...

[SLP]

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.

Ah, so only via special pleading can one be a 'Christian'.

 

[DamianWarS]

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

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.

 

[DamianWarS]

Ah, so only via special pleading can one be a 'Christian'.

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

 

[SkyWriting]

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

It was created by a person with human sensibilities....similar to us.
That's why it's so possible to enjoy.

 

[SkyWriting]

But they are bogus responses, and everyone sees this. Just makes you look desperate and dishonest.

You have the oddest definition of desperate ever.
I don't even think you could explain your definition of desperate.
Or dishonesty.

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.

 

[pitabread]

Scientifically speaking this would mean God is unobservable and unprovable.

Then how could God be used in an argument for creation?

 

[DamianWarS]

Then how could God be used in an argument for creation?

creation assumes creator

 

[Speedwell]

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

I think you have misunderstood the comment. This discussion, like almost all others in this forum, is not really about the existence of God per se, but about using the Bible to reject the findings of science. You are correct in that the existence of a creator is an unfalsifiable proposition, but creationists do make falsifiable claims about the origins of the universe which are what the OP is requesting arguments in support of.

 

[pitabread]

creation assumes creator

Based on what?

 

[DamianWarS]

I think you have misunderstood the comment. This discussion, like almost all others in this forum, is not really about the existence of God per se, but about using the Bible to reject the findings of science. You are correct in that the existence of a creator is an unfalsifiable proposition, but creationists do make falsifiable claims about the origins of the universe which are what the OP is requesting arguments in support of.

the OP is ambiguous and doesn't uniquely cite any accounts but seems more broadly defined to the supernatural part of creation. I interpreted the supernatural to be that which is beyond the natural laws so that which is outside of the continuum and that's where I started the conversation. Perhaps my perspective was in error but if the OP wanted to have a serious conversation about biblical accounts then it should talked about biblical accounts.

 

[DamianWarS]

Based on what?

based on the natural understanding of how we use words. I'm confused why this argument is turning into semantics? What is your goal with this digression?

 

[Speedwell]

the OP is ambiguous and doesn't uniquely cite any accounts but seems more broadly defined to the supernatural part of creation. I interpreted the supernatural to be that which is beyond the natural laws so that which is outside of the continuum and that's where I started the conversation. Perhaps my perspective was in error but if the OP wanted to have a serious conversation about biblical accounts then it should talked about biblical accounts.

LOL! Perhaps you are right about the OP, but Post #2 put the Bible squarely into the discussion, where it has remained.

 

[pitabread]

based on the natural understanding of how we use words. I'm confused why this argument is turning into semantics? What is your goal with this digression?

So this is strictly a semantics argument then?

I'm trying to understand what the actual argument is here. Because if it's just "creation implies a creator" then it sounds like a circular argument. IOW, your premise is the same as the conclusion.

 

[DamianWarS]

LOL! Perhaps you are right about the OP, but Post #2 put the Bible squarely into the discussion, where it has remained.

I didn't read it assuming of course the OP defined the context.. not post #2

 

[DamianWarS]

So this is strictly a semantics argument then?

I'm trying to understand what the actual argument is here. Because if it's just "creation implies a creator" then it sounds like a circular argument. IOW, your premise is the same as the conclusion.

Since its your OP why don't we start over with maybe re-phrasing what it is you want to discuss.

 

[pitabread]

Since its your OP why don't we start over with maybe re-phrasing what it is you want to discuss.

Exactly what is stated in the OP : are there arguments for creation that don't ultimately boil down to incredulity and/or awe.

Now it seems like there are, but I'm also seeing circular arguments and arguments based on special pleading.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Exactly what is stated in the OP : are there arguments for creation that don't ultimately boil down to incredulity and/or awe.

Now it seems like there are, but I'm also seeing circular arguments and arguments based on special pleading.

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

 

[DamianWarS]

Exactly what is stated in the OP : are there arguments for creation that don't ultimately boil down to incredulity and/or awe.

Now it seems like there are, but I'm also seeing circular arguments and arguments based on special pleading.

I still see this as fundamentally looking at a creator

 

[pitabread]

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

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.

 

[pitabread]

I still see this as fundamentally looking at a creator

Via a circular argument though?