Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

[TGHusker]

Isn't it possible that the universe was created by a higher being but that being does not interact with his creation?

The Bible records a lot of interaction wt His creation - especially through the life of Jesus Christ. I believe He was the "First Cause" behind creation. He established the physical & moral laws by which the universe operates.

 

[NUance]

I DON'T SEE THE OPTION WHERE EVERYONE IS LIVING INSIDE A WORLD CREATED IN MY DREAMS

Well, maybe you didn't dream that option yet.

 

[GSG]

I DON'T SEE THE OPTION WHERE EVERYONE IS LIVING INSIDE A WORLD CREATED IN MY DREAMS

Well, maybe you didn't dream that option yet.

 

[JJ Husker]

Those voting for the first option, do you not believe in evolution?

I believe in evolution. Further, I believe that if science can discover it, God created it first. Evolution is simply the scientific trail of proof of what God did.

 

[Moesker]

Isn't it possible that the universe was created by a higher being but that being does not interact with his creation?

The Bible records a lot of interaction wt His creation - especially through the life of Jesus Christ. I believe He was the "First Cause" behind creation. He established the physical & moral laws by which the universe operates.

I know it does. But the bible is fictional. I am talking about if there truly was a God.

 

[JJ Husker]

Isn't it possible that the universe was created by a higher being but that being does not interact with his creation?

The Bible records a lot of interaction wt His creation - especially through the life of Jesus Christ. I believe He was the "First Cause" behind creation. He established the physical & moral laws by which the universe operates.

I know it does. But the bible is fictional. I am talking about if there truly was a God.

Well this is real f'n productive. How about if you don't want to have a reasonable, civil discussion about this that you just stay out of it? Thanks in advance for not continuing (yada yada yada)

 

[Moesker]

Isn't it possible that the universe was created by a higher being but that being does not interact with his creation?

The Bible records a lot of interaction wt His creation - especially through the life of Jesus Christ. I believe He was the "First Cause" behind creation. He established the physical & moral laws by which the universe operates.

I know it does. But the bible is fictional. I am talking about if there truly was a God.

Well this is real f'n productive. How about it you don't want to have a reasonable, civil discussion about this that you just stay out of the discussion? Thanks in advance for not continuing to be a d!(k.

Interesting...I laid out a scenario where God didn't interact with his creation and it was ignored by TGH because he only wanted to present his version of God. So then I relay my outlook

(yada yada yada)

. Sorry everyone hasn't conformed to your arrogant way of looking at things.

 

[NebraskaHarry]

Is this still a thing?

 

[NUance]

NOTE: I moved several posts to the Offending Posts Thread. One person made a comment intended to elicit a reaction. The other person reacted.

Guise, guise, I realize this is a contentious topic. But be civil.

==================================================

Sure, I understand the comment about the bible being "purely fictional" is offensive to most Christians. But that comment is over the top to the point of being absurd. Was Caesar fiction? Or Rome? How about Jerusalem? The bible is full of historical people and places. At most, a skeptic could accuse the bible of containing some fiction. But really, it's a fairly cohesive document considering it was written by 40 individuals, most of whom never met each other, over a period from 4,000 to 2,000 years ago.

 

[Moesker]

Guise, guise, I realize this is a contentious topic. But be civil.

==================================================

Sure, I understand the comment about the bible being "purely fictional" is offensive to most Christians. But that comment is over the top to the point of being absurd. Was Caesar fiction? Or Rome? How about Jerusalem? The bible is full of historical people and places. At most, a skeptic could accuse the bible of containing some fiction. But really, it's a fairly cohesive document considering it was written by 40 individuals, most of whom never met each other, over a period from 4,000 to 2,000 years ago.

Is saying that the bible is untrue any more offensive to Christians than saying it is true is to a non-Christian? There seems to be a double-standard which is the only thing I am pointing out.

I am not offended when people use bible passages despite not believing their validity. Maybe I just don't have thin skin.

I get the feeling that its not how I put it but the actual fact that I feel that way is the real issue for many.

And doesn't the premise of the question lead to the possibility that the bibles version is incorrect?

 

[TGHusker]

NOTE: I moved several posts to the Offending Posts Thread. One person made a comment intended to elicit a reaction. The other person reacted.

Guise, guise, I realize this is a contentious topic. But be civil.

==================================================

Sure, I understand the comment about the bible being "purely fictional" is offensive to most Christians. But that comment is over the top to the point of being absurd. Was Caesar fiction? Or Rome? How about Jerusalem? The bible is full of historical people and places. At most, a skeptic could accuse the bible of containing some fiction. But really, it's a fairly cohesive document considering it was written by 40 individuals, most of whom never met each other, over a period from 4,000 to 2,000 years ago.

 

[NUance]

Guise, guise, I realize this is a contentious topic. But be civil.

==================================================

Sure, I understand the comment about the bible being "purely fictional" is offensive to most Christians. But that comment is over the top to the point of being absurd. Was Caesar fiction? Or Rome? How about Jerusalem? The bible is full of historical people and places. At most, a skeptic could accuse the bible of containing some fiction. But really, it's a fairly cohesive document considering it was written by 40 individuals, most of whom never met each other, over a period from 4,000 to 2,000 years ago.

Is saying that the bible is untrue any more offensive to Christians than saying it is true is to a non-Christian? There seems to be a double-standard which is the only thing I am pointing out.

I am not offended when people use bible passages despite not believing their validity. Maybe I just don't have thin skin.

I get the feeling that its not how I put it but the actual fact that I feel that way is the real issue for many.

And doesn't the premise of the question lead to the possibility that the bibles version is incorrect?

We're not going to nit pick over every verse in the bible. I'd rather discuss the topic of this poll.

Which of these two things seems more far fetched?

• God is apparently very large, yet people cannot see him and He doesn’t talk to just anyone. He wants us to worship him.

• Somehow that simple lifeform became able to reproduce. It evolved into mankind and all life on earth.

 

[Moesker]

I believe it is far-fetched that God would want us to worship him/her. I feel if there is a God, he would likely watch his creation from a distance and not interact with it. Because of that, I feel the first option is more far-fetched.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

I think that both 'options' (neither is the correct one imo) are not mutually excluse and in fact the second one follows from the first. The 'big bang' is suspect and admittedly is such a wild hypothesis that it just might be true but there seems no logical reason why God would not have created the big bang and all things that follow from it.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

42