Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

[Moesker]

 

[NUance]

The question of WHICH god must be answered. You can't have faith in A god without actually factually knowing it is THE god.

If your god is THE god, how do you know?

If your god is A god, how do you know it's the RIGHT god?

That's a question I've spent a lot of time thinking about. And I still don't have a good answer. I mean, if I had been born in a suburb of Mumbai it would be overwhelmingly more likely that I'd be Hindu rather than Christian. Since I know Christianity is The Way I can't help but think that large sectors of the world's population are on the wrong path. But that doesn't seem fair.

:

OTOH, even though I know Christianity is the right path, I'm not so quick to condemn other paths as necessarily being wrong. Who is to say that God didn't communicate with other peoples in a different manner?

 

[knapplc]

That Hindu dude in Mumbai that you could have been - he feels the same way about you. With the same conviction, and the same lack of evidence or proof that his god is even real.

 

[NebraskaHarry]

That Hindu dude in Mumbai that you could have been - he feels the same way about you. With the same conviction, and the same lack of evidence or proof that his god is even real.

I.. I don't think that deer knew what hit it.

 

[The Dude]

The watchmaker analogy is self-refuting because it obviously looks designed compared to its natural surroundings, which weren't designed.

Interesting that you'd make that statement. Which would be more difficult to create from scratch, a brass watch or the bed of clovers that it is lying on? Given enough time and the right machinery I could make a brass watch. But all the world's resources and intelligence working for a decade could not create one single, reproducing clover plant.

Right. We're saying the watch has a creator, because we can replicate its creation. We can't make that argument with the clover. We can't replicate billions of years of natural selection in a decade.

 

[JJ Husker]

The question of WHICH god must be answered. You can't have faith in A god without actually factually knowing it is THE god.

If your god is THE god, how do you know?

If your god is A god, how do you know it's the RIGHT god?

Sorry, I totally fail to see why this is important, or even relevant, when the only question on the table is; is this by accident or is it by design?

I know you feel it is some sort of deal breaker but I just don't see it. I am absolutely convinced there is a God and that he is responsible for all of creation. Doesn't matter if some call him Allah and others call him Odin and yet others call him the spaghetti monster. People can be wrong. Peoples beliefs would have absolutely zero effect on the reality of an all powerful creator. Can you explain why you think it is important that a person has to box in their mind to some preconceived or predetermined notion of exactly which "god" it is they believe is the creator? I'm really trying to understand why you so strongly feel that human created multiple versions of God preclude the existence of one true God.

 

[NUance]

That Hindu dude in Mumbai that you could have been - he feels the same way about you. With the same conviction, and the same lack of evidence or proof that his 330 million gods is are even real.

FIFY.

 

[NUance]

The question of WHICH god must be answered. You can't have faith in A god without actually factually knowing it is THE god.

If your god is THE god, how do you know?

If your god is A god, how do you know it's the RIGHT god?

Sorry, I totally fail to see why this is important, or even relevant, when the only question on the table is; is this by accident or is it by design?

I know you feel it is some sort of deal breaker but I just don't see it. I am absolutely convinced there is a God and that he is responsible for all of creation. Doesn't matter if some call him Allah and others call him Odin and yet others call him the spaghetti monster. People can be wrong. Peoples beliefs would have absolutely zero effect on the reality of an all powerful creator. Can you explain why you think it is important that a person has to box in their mind to some preconceived or predetermined notion of exactly which "god" it is they believe is the creator? I'm really trying to understand why you so strongly feel that human created multiple versions of God preclude the existence of one true God.

Good point, JJ. This is a bit of a tangent as to whether creation was by design or happenstance.

 

[NUance]

The watchmaker analogy is self-refuting because it obviously looks designed compared to its natural surroundings, which weren't designed.

Interesting that you'd make that statement. Which would be more difficult to create from scratch, a brass watch or the bed of clovers that it is lying on? Given enough time and the right machinery I could make a brass watch. But all the world's resources and intelligence working for a decade could not create one single, reproducing clover plant.

Right. We're saying the watch has a creator, because we can replicate its creation. We can't make that argument with the clover. We can't replicate billions of years of natural selection in a decade.

Wait, wut? I no understand your logic. If we know something as simple as a pocket watch has a creator, wouldn't something as incredibly complex as all the biological systems on earth be even more likely to have a creator?

 

[JJ Husker]

The watchmaker analogy is self-refuting because it obviously looks designed compared to its natural surroundings, which weren't designed.

Interesting that you'd make that statement. Which would be more difficult to create from scratch, a brass watch or the bed of clovers that it is lying on? Given enough time and the right machinery I could make a brass watch. But all the world's resources and intelligence working for a decade could not create one single, reproducing clover plant.

Right. We're saying the watch has a creator, because we can replicate its creation. We can't make that argument with the clover. We can't replicate billions of years of natural selection in a decade.

Wait, wut? I no understand your logic. If we know something as simple as a pocket watch has a creator, wouldn't something as incredibly complex as all the biological systems on earth be even more likely to have a creator?

It's the easy way out. People that don't know God or that can't define him to their satisfaction simply say it must be random chance.

See what I did there?

 

[TonyStalloni]

I voted for both options. While I believe in the Creator, I don't believe in the literal six 24 hour days. If you follow the six days of creation described in Genesis, it roughly follows the description of how scientists say the world was formed and life started.

Day 1.

Bible - "Let there be light".

Science - The Big Bang happened and the universe glowed from the charged electrons. The sun and planets formed.

Day 2.

Bible - “God said, ‘Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.’”

Science - Water rich asteroids and other bodies collided with earth and as the earth was still hot, water vapor escaped which formed our atmosphere. The sun and moon were probably not visible at this point though day and night could be sensed. Eventually with further cooling clouds started forming and dumped large amounts of water back on earth.

Day 3

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear."

Science - The weight of the new oceans compressed the earth and pushed up land masses and separated land from water.

Day 3A

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit."

Science - This passage does not reconcile well with science as they say sea creatures appeared first.

Day 4

Bible - “And God said. ‘Let there be light in the firmament of Heavens to separate the day from the night."

Science - Again a bit confusing as light from the sun and moon was made on the first day. One theory says that because there was so much humidity in the atmosphere that the skies were opaque and the sun and moon weren't visible as such. Another theory states that this second reference to light on day four of Genesis refers to the evolution of vision of the simple sea life. If there was no vision, then there was, in a sense, no light. So the lights were “turned on” in the evolution of sight in animals. “To separate day from night” refers to the time before and after sight.

Day 5

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas..."

Science - They confirm life began in the sea and over time became the fishes that we see in fossils and currently inhabit the oceans.

Day 6

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind. Then God created man in his own image ... Male and female created He them ... And God formed man of the dust of the ground ... He took one of Adam’s ribs and made a woman.”

Science - They say that life on land.....birds, animals, humans etc came after fish in the sea.

I also believe that while Adam and Eve weren't the first 2 legged, upright walking humans on earth, they were the first that God breathed the "breathe of life" into which gave them a conscience, reasoning and the ability to love which separated them from their more animal like ancestors.

 

[C N Red]

I find it funny when non-believers say its the easy way out to believe in God. Is there anything harder to believe in and try to explain to people? I havent found anything harder to do than keeping faith in a higher power. I'd say not believing is much easier. Nothing to worry about or expect to answer for. Thats easy.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

It is much easier for me to believe that we have a purpose and that a higher power caused all this to happen. I just can't accept (and really don't want to) that this all happened by random chance.

It's the easy way out. People that don't know God or that can't define him to their satisfaction simply say it must be random chance.

See what I did there?

OOH! OOH! Teacher, pick me! I see what you did there -- you contradicted yourself again. You admitted to pressing the easy button, then changed your mind and said others are pressing the easy button, even though I'm not sure anyone else said that's what they are doing.

I find it funny when non-believers say its the easy way out to believe in God.

I find it funny when believers admit they are taking the easier path, then accuse others of it.

 

[C N Red]

It is much easier for me to believe that we have a purpose and that a higher power caused all this to happen. I just can't accept (and really don't want to) that this all happened by random chance.

It's the easy way out. People that don't know God or that can't define him to their satisfaction simply say it must be random chance.See what I did there?

OOH! OOH! Teacher, pick me! I see what you did there -- you contradicted yourself again. You admitted to pressing the easy button, then changed your mind and said others are pressing the easy button, even though I'm not sure anyone else said that's what they are doing.

I find it funny when non-believers say its the easy way out to believe in God.

I find it funny when believers admit they are taking the easier path, then accuse others of it.

Pretty sure i said it isnt easier. Reading comprehension is a b!^@h. And yes, if others say believing is easier i say bs, theres nothing easy about faith which you are helping us, believers, prove.

 

[The Dude]

The watchmaker analogy is self-refuting because it obviously looks designed compared to its natural surroundings, which weren't designed.

Interesting that you'd make that statement. Which would be more difficult to create from scratch, a brass watch or the bed of clovers that it is lying on? Given enough time and the right machinery I could make a brass watch. But all the world's resources and intelligence working for a decade could not create one single, reproducing clover plant.

Right. We're saying the watch has a creator, because we can replicate its creation. We can't make that argument with the clover. We can't replicate billions of years of natural selection in a decade.

Wait, wut? I no understand your logic. If we know something as simple as a pocket watch has a creator, wouldn't something as incredibly complex as all the biological systems on earth be even more likely to have a creator?

No. The reasons we know the watch had an intelligent designer can't be applied to the clover. Assuming the complexity of life on earth is the product of an intelligent designer fails to account for alternate explanations. Darwin had a better explanation.