Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

[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?

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.

Why do people who do not believe in God always insist that evolution precludes the possibility of God? I don't think the concept of evolution is incompatible with God.

 

[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.

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.

Pretty sure I never suggested it was you that said it was easier -- that's why I included the other quotes. Understanding third party references in conversations can be a b!^@h, as can labelling others via pronouns. Please try to keep up.

 

[BigRedBuster]

There are a lot of great scientists who are Christians.

Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to stop asking questions about how the world works.

 

[Moesker]

There are a lot of great scientists who are Christians.

Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to stop asking questions about how the world works.

It would be silly to think otherwise.

Its human nature to search for answers.

 

[Moesker]

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.

I think any religion could find a way to make all of this fit with their scripture.

 

[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.

Pretty sure I never suggested it was you that said it was easier -- that's why I included the other quotes. Understanding third party references in conversations can be a b!^@h, as can labelling others via pronouns. Please try to keep up.

Please re-read my original post and tell me where i said it was easier for people to believe in God. Get back to me. It says straight out its harder to believe than not believe. I said its funny when NON-BELIEVERS say its easier. Imo of course. But let me know what im missing that you so clearly are stating I said.

 

[Moesker]

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.

Pretty sure I never suggested it was you that said it was easier -- that's why I included the other quotes. Understanding third party references in conversations can be a b!^@h, as can labelling others via pronouns. Please try to keep up.

Please re-read my original post and tell me where i said it was easier for people to believe in God. Get back to me. It says straight out its harder to believe than not believe. I said its funny when NON-BELIEVERS say its easier. Imo of course. But let me know what im missing that you so clearly are stating I said.

As one who has been both a believer and non-believer...neither are particularly hard.

 

[Mierin]

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.

I'd say they're equally easy depending on your point of view and your nature and what happens to you.

It's easy to believe in God if you don't suffer horrible tragedy.

It's hard to believe in God if you suffer horrible tragedy.

It's easy to believe in God if you're scared of death and want comfort.

It's easy to not believe in God if you're not scared of death.

Obviously these aren't the only options.

Anyhow, as a Christian my biggest issue has been similar to what someone else already posted. How can you think everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus and what he did is going to hell when you have tribes living in the jungles of Brasil with no chance of ever seeing a Bible? Maybe there are several religions that are fine and you're just not supposed to be a horrible person very often. Although that flies in the face of Jesus dying for people's sins and not needing to earn our way to heaven.

So I think I can believe what I believe about Jesus and let God deal with the other people if he wants to instead of forming an opinion and judging others.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

LOL

Please re-read my original post

Don't need to. I understood it the first time.

and tell me where i said it was easier for people to believe in God.

I never said that you said that.
Oooh, Look! I even pointed that out in my previous post:

Pretty sure I never suggested it was you that said it was easier

Did you miss that?

Get back to me.

That's what I'm trying to do. I'm sending, but you aren't receiving.

I said its funny when NON-BELIEVERS say its easier. Imo of course. But let me know what im missing that you so clearly are stating I said.

I don't believe I ever "clearly stated" you said anything, particularly what you seem to specifically claim that I stated. Please don't explicitly and unambiguously accuse me of doing things that I clearly did not do.

What I think you are missing is that you said, "I find it funny when <somebody says something>"

Then I replied with, "I find it funny when <somebody else says something else>"

Please note that I believe YOUR "<somebody says something>" does not necessarily refer to me,
just as MY "<somebody else said something else>" does not necessarily refer to YOU.

Does this help?

 

[knapplc]

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.

It's a dealbreaker because those gods aren't real. You know they aren't real because YOUR god is real, the one true god, the only god, and therefore every other god is unreal. The Bible says this.

1 Timothy 2:5

Jude 1:25

1 Corinthians 8:4

Your faith teaches you one god, but there isn't one god, there are many gods. And the faiths of those other gods also teach that they are the only true god. For example:

Quran 59:22-24

Quran 112:1-4

The problem is, those other religions teach with equal authority that YOUR god is not real. And were you born in another country, you would believe that with the same fervor you have for the god of the Bible.

So you have a quandary. You can believe in the god of the Bible, which is based on the circular logic of the Bible being God's word and the God being real/true because "the Bible tells me so." But this is no more proof than Muslims get from the Quran, and is no more nor less likely to be true.

The God of the Bible is not Zeus, he is not Odin, he is not Jupiter - they all have separate and distinct origin myths, which cannot be confused for each other. They are not all parts of the same story, and claiming that worshiping Allah is the same as worshiping the god of the Bible is false, and not based on any logical interpretation of either sacred text.

It is self-evident why you should know which god you're worshiping. You cannot love a woman you don't know, nor she love you. You cannot have a relationship with a god you don't know, and despite whatever you're telling yourself, you do not KNOW your god, anymore than a Muslim knows his god, or a Hindu his god.

 

[JJ Husker]

Knapp, the problem with that approach is that you are allowing for there being multiple or different gods based on how people have chosen to describe him. When you approach it from there being only one true God who created everything, you can more easily see that all those different names and multiple versions are simply human beings attempts at describing the same, one thing.

I don't happen to believe that what I believe in is absolutely correct or the only way. And, I don't believe that those who believe differently are inherently wrong. But the one thing that I know, from deep in my being, is that there is one God, one creator. My Catholic Christian faith may very well not have him nailed down (no pun intended) perfectly. I realize my more specific beliefs are the result of where and when I was born and where and how I was raised. That does not force me (unlike you) to demand that one way has to be right and all others wrong. I think that one all-powerful creator would be more than capable of dealing with an infinite number of people's versions of him. So, my and other Christians way to salvation may be the belief that Jesus Christ died for us and our religions may say that is the only way. Personally, I think there may be other ways, especially for people who have never been exposed to that knowledge. I sure am not going solely rely on my lowly human brain to limit the possibilities of an all powerful omniscient being. Maybe all we can do is the best we can do and that would allow for the Christian way being correct for Christians and the Hindu way being correct for Hindus, etc. What if they're all right?

 

[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.

I think any religion could find a way to make all of this fit with their scripture.

The Book of Genesis wasn't written last week and made to fit what science says. Moses wrote it at a time when nearly every person was illiterate and written language was relatively new. One could almost say science came along 3900 years later and copied the 1st Chapter of Genesis. Perhaps the two religions....science and faith can arrive at the same point some time in the future.

 

[C N Red]

LOL

Please re-read my original post

Don't need to. I understood it the first time.

and tell me where i said it was easier for people to believe in God.

I never said that you said that.

Oooh, Look! I even pointed that out in my previous post:

Pretty sure I never suggested it was you that said it was easier

Did you miss that?

Get back to me.

That's what I'm trying to do. I'm sending, but you aren't receiving.

I said its funny when NON-BELIEVERS say its easier. Imo of course. But let me know what im missing that you so clearly are stating I said.

I don't believe I ever "clearly stated" you said anything, particularly what you seem to specifically claim that I stated. Please don't explicitly and unambiguously accuse me of doing things that I clearly did not do.

What I think you are missing is that you said, "I find it funny when <somebody says something>"

Then I replied with, "I find it funny when <somebody else says something else>"

Please note that I believe YOUR "<somebody says something>" does not necessarily refer to me,

just as MY "<somebody else said something else>" does not necessarily refer to YOU.

Does this help?

Now that i look back i could see that, but lumping my quote in made it seem that way.

 

[knapplc]

Knapp, the problem with that approach is that you are allowing for there being multiple or different gods based on how people have chosen to describe him. When you approach it from there being only one true God who created everything, you can more easily see that all those different names and multiple versions are simply human beings attempts at describing the same, one thing.

I don't happen to believe that what I believe in is absolutely correct or the only way. And, I don't believe that those who believe differently are inherently wrong. But the one thing that I know, from deep in my being, is that there is one God, one creator. My Catholic Christian faith may very well not have him nailed down (no pun intended) perfectly. I realize my more specific beliefs are the result of where and when I was born and where and how I was raised. That does not force me (unlike you) to demand that one way has to be right and all others wrong. I think that one all-powerful creator would be more than capable of dealing with an infinite number of people's versions of him. So, my and other Christians way to salvation may be the belief that Jesus Christ died for us and our religions may say that is the only way. Personally, I think there may be other ways, especially for people who have never been exposed to that knowledge. I sure am not going solely rely on my lowly human brain to limit the possibilities of an all powerful omniscient being. Maybe all we can do is the best we can do and that would allow for the Christian way being correct for Christians and the Hindu way being correct for Hindus, etc. What if they're all right?

But mine is the only logical approach to come at it from.

If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be Muslim.

The approach that "this IS the one true god" rests SOLELY on where you were born. That's no basis for a faith so profound.

You can say you believe that God would be OK with people having an infinite number of versions of him. But Zeus is a disparate and distinct god from God, as is Jupiter, Odin, Zoroaster, etc. These are NOT versions of your god, they are wholly distinct. And they were in competition with your god, and your god SPECIFICALLY SAID that he is the "One true god." He only gave you ten rules, and this is one of them!

I do agree on this, though: "...all those different names and multiple versions are simply human beings attempts at describing the same, one thing."

They ARE trying to describe one thing, but it's not "god," it's Something We Don't Understand. That's where religion came from - a lack of understanding. We don't know what lightning is, what earthquakes are, what the sun is, so we make up a god to explain it. Over time, different groups of people met, they had different gods, so competition arose, "My god is greater than your god." You actually see this in the Bible, with the story of Elijah vs. the prophets of Baal. If Baal worshipers existed today, Baal would have been the one to send the lightning bolt down on the altar to consume the sacrifice, not Yahweh. History is written by the victors, so Elijah's story is told as truth.

People don't like things they can't explain. Ancient man explained these things with "god." That doesn't make them right, it shows they didn't understand things.

 

[ColoNoCoHusker]

I think any religion could find a way to make all of this fit with their scripture.

The Book of Genesis wasn't written last week and made to fit what science says. Moses wrote it at a time when nearly every person was illiterate and written language was relatively new. One could almost say science came along 3900 years later and copied the 1st Chapter of Genesis. Perhaps the two religions....science and faith can arrive at the same point some time in the future.

I am curious how you arrived at this statement? For such a short statement, it contradicts an amazing amount of Religious dogma, Historical evidence, and Talmudic/Biblical scholarly research.

Based on the Hebrew calendar The Exodus occurred around 1100-1400 BC while Christian/Biblical research places it between 1480-1220 BC. Not even close to 3900 years before science (even assuming you meant the advent of Modern Science).

As far as Moses being the author, research into the 5 books attributed to Moses indicate 3-5 different writers (based on writing & style analysis). Ignoring that, the arguments that still claim Moses as the 1st party author base this claim on inordinately high literacy rates ~300 years after the oldest known writing (aka the time of Moses).

So either Moses wrote it and the Hebrews were highly literate or the Hebrews were not very literate and someone other than Moses penned it. A third option would be if you were referencing the LDS books of Moses written by Joseph Smith which would self-refute your statement...