I need arguments against creation

[davidshane]

I'm actually writing a paper called "Cosmological Evidence for a Creator," and like any good paper, it has a "What do the Critics Say?" section. Unfortunately I've had problems finding actual scientific arguments along these lines, while I have plenty in favor of a creator. So even if you don't believe them yourself, I could use some observations. If you can cite a book, that would be best. If you can't -- well, you're still appreciated.

 

[tamtam92]

I find one difficulty with creationnism : light...

How it is that we can see stars several billions light-years ? I've not find anything really convincing about it... (but i keep faith, there must be an explanation !)

 

[Singing Bush]

I'm actually writing a paper called "Cosmological Evidence for a Creator," and like any good paper, it has a "What do the Critics Say?" section. Unfortunately I've had problems finding actual scientific arguments along these lines, while I have plenty in favor of a creator. So even if you don't believe them yourself, I could use some observations. If you can cite a book, that would be best. If you can't -- well, you're still appreciated.

Unfortunately, your question is rather vague. To me at least. What is it exactly that your Creator did? If He just zapped the world into existence through the Big Bang, then there's really no way such a theory can be supported or criticized scientifically. Can you be any more specific?

By the way, I am curious, what are these scientific arguments in favor of a creator?

Best of luck to ya.

 

[billwald]

There are no arguments against creation. There are only two possible answers to the problem of first cause: "God" and "always was." Neither can be investigated. The ball is in God's end of the court.

 

[funyun]

You can't scientifically argue against creation by diety, but you can scientifically argue against Creationism.

 

[davidshane]

I find one difficulty with creationnism : light...

How it is that we can see stars several billions light-years ? I've not find anything really convincing about it... (but i keep faith, there must be an explanation !)

I remember hearing a young-earth creationist on the radio when I was younger, and I was very impressed that he seemed to have an answer to every question except for this one. He just said that God must have created the Earth with the stars already visible. (Obviously he could have.) I've heard other people say that God just created the universe with an appearance of age -- Adam was not created as an infant, and neither was anything else.

 

[davidshane]

There are no arguments against creation. There are only two possible answers to the problem of first cause: "God" and "always was." Neither can be investigated. The ball is in God's end of the court.

The last question I asked in my paper was essentially, "Why was there ever anything?" My professor said that this was almost the best question to ask, just because it is so incomprehensible. As for the "always was," a physics professor once tried to explain to me how if the universe had existed for an infinite amount of time, you would never arrive at now, so it must have had a beginning, at least of time, at some point.

 

[Deamiter]

I'm moving this to the creation and evolution forum... You'll get better answers to such a specific question there.

 

[Hydra009]

It's impossible to pose scientific evidence against the existence of a god because the existence of a god is by definition outside of the bounds of science. Further, the "God did it"claim is unfalsifiable.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I'm actually writing a paper called "Cosmological Evidence for a Creator," and like any good paper, it has a "What do the Critics Say?" section. Unfortunately I've had problems finding actual scientific arguments along these lines, while I have plenty in favor of a creator. So even if you don't believe them yourself, I could use some observations. If you can cite a book, that would be best. If you can't -- well, you're still appreciated.

Well, first of all you have to admit that you have no scientific arguments for the existence of a supernatural creator and explain how the scientific method works.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I remember hearing a young-earth creationist on the radio when I was younger, and I was very impressed that he seemed to have an answer to every question except for this one. He just said that God must have created the Earth with the stars already visible. (Obviously he could have.) I've heard other people say that God just created the universe with an appearance of age -- Adam was not created as an infant, and neither was anything else.

The appearance of age argument is problematic on Earth because there would not merely be the appearance of age but also the appearance of a false history. Hypothetically, it would be possible for a mature planet to exist to be purposeful without giving a record of past events that never happened.

Examples:

1. The star issue you raise is already one of them. Light from starts that never actually existed is a false history. It also raises the question of why light would have to be created in transit so as to be viewed on earth anyway rather than no starlight visible at all.

2. Limestones comprised of shells of organisms that never existed.

3. Fossils of organisms that never existed.

4. Tectonic events shaping the earth's surface that never occurred. There is direct evidence that indicates how angular unconformities and mountains form, for examples rather than simply being placed there instantaneously.

5. Banded iron formations that represent a period in earth's history where its atmosphere lacked the free oxygen that it has in relative abundance now.

6. Radiogenic daughters whose radioactive parent nuclides never existed.

7. Meteorite craters representing impacts with Earth that never actually happened.

There are other examples, but ones like this are not necessary for an earth to be purposeful. They are indications of an actul history on earth and if these events did not happen, then that makes the Christian god into a liar.

However when a young earth creationist makes the appearance of age argument, it is like a tacit admission that scientists are correct: the evidence DOES indicate an old earth after all. The young earth creationists however are emotionally unable to accept that conclusion and are even willing to make their own god concept into a deceptive god in order for their pride in their interpretation of the BIble to be maintained.

 

[WaZoO]

There's always Hawking's wave function of the universe, which shows a 95% chance for a universe like ours to exist uncaused.

 

[michabo]

I've heard other people say that God just created the universe with an appearance of age -- Adam was not created as an infant, and neither was anything else.

Was Adam created with scars and bruises? Was he created with, say, a broken finger or arm? A beard? How about a memory of a childhood that he never had?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm actually writing a paper called "Cosmological Evidence for a Creator," and like any good paper, it has a "What do the Critics Say?" section. Unfortunately I've had problems finding actual scientific arguments along these lines, while I have plenty in favor of a creator. So even if you don't believe them yourself, I could use some observations. If you can cite a book, that would be best. If you can't -- well, you're still appreciated.

You haven't really defined creation. YEC, OEC, evolutionary creation for instance. I am afraid your question may be too general.

 

[davidshane]

It's impossible to pose scientific evidence against the existence of a god because the existence of a god is by definition outside of the bounds of science. Further, the "God did it"claim is unfalsifiable.

This is what I at least partially addressed. If science is this system where you formulate testable hypothesis and then conduct those tests or make those observations, it would seem like a "god did it" claim is not something we should even be considering. Most scientists aren't content to stop there, though, they're actually looking for truth. If God is the ultimate truth, shouldn't we let them find Him, or at least hypothesize Him? We shouldn't say "we're looking for the truth," and then, before we even begin, say, "but we're sure this won't be included."

 

[davidshane]

You haven't really defined creation. YEC, OEC, evolutionary creation for instance. I am afraid your question may be too general.

Thanks to everyone who has provided arguments, and sorry for being too vague. Basically, for this paper I'm just arguing that the universe had some creator that is outside of it. While I might hold to YEC myself, I'm not pushing for t[/I]hat view, (and wouldn't lose faith if it turns out the Earth is quite old. I just don't think that myself.) My paper does include some evidence that the Earth is younger and could be younger than generally posited, however, since a common characteristic of naturalistic theories of origins is a long time requirement. Does that make sense?

 

[Hydra009]

If science is this system where you formulate testable hypothesis and then conduct those tests or make those observations, it would seem like a "god did it" claim is not something we should even be considering.

That's right. The existence or non-existence of any deity is the realm of theology, not science.

Most scientists aren't content to stop there, though, they're actually looking for truth. If God is the ultimate truth, shouldn't we let them find Him, or at least hypothesize Him? We shouldn't say "we're looking for the truth," and then, before we even begin, say, "but we're sure this won't be included."

... What?

Scientists, like everyone else, hold some kind of theological view. But how would it be useful for scientists to hypotheisize God in their fields of study? "God did it" is a valid personal belief, but not a valid scientific hypothesis, because science deals only with the natural world and physical things.

 

[Kripost]

In other words, the focus of your question is the existence of God, and not about YEC. Is that correct?

 

[davidshane]

In other words, the focus of your question is the existence of God, and not about YEC. Is that correct?

Yes. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[tryptophan]

The problem is that you cannot have evidence against there being a creator. Science doesn't say that there was not a creator. It simply says that it is inconclusive whether there was a creator or not since it cannot be proven or disproven.