Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

[Landlord]

One last parting thought. If you're looking for hard scientific evidence of God or a creator, you are going to likely be disappointed. I am amazed at the people who just can't grasp the nature of an unseen supernatural entity. You expect, nay demand, hard proof when the very nature of the being precludes hard evidence. It's like some people don't even try to understand it. I'm out.

This statement is mostly true, I think, and would be entirely true if God was a deistic sort of God, but if we're talking about the Christian God then we are talking about millenia of intervening within space time which would naturally lead one in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture to expect to find evidence.

Oh good. You are a believer. So based on this, please post the hard evidence you have of the existence of God so we can put this to bed once and for all.

I don't have any. At least not anything that couldn't just as easily be interpreted as evidence towards something else depending on a person's perspective.

 

[zoogs]

I've been accused of being dismissive when that was not my intention or in my thoughts whatsoever.

My apologies, JJ. I didn't intend to come off as accusatory, I only want to point out that the rather dim portrayal you put out there hasn't been my experience of people who grew up religious but are no longer. Of course, many others grow up and choose to stay in their religion (or a different one), which is their personal journey, and that's fine too.

You expect, nay demand, hard proof when the very nature of the being precludes hard evidence.

I can't speak for everybody, but I think these demands only come out in response to an argument that it's more logical or rational to believe in God -- rather than being a matter of upbringing, or choice of faith. When it comes to faith, it's probably best to not be empirical about it. Empirically we don't know and probably can't ever (but who knows!)

Hopefully atheists can see why religious people choose their way, and vice versa, without getting into a "you're wrong!" tizzy about it. To be able to do that is important all around, as in the end we do coexist, after all. Both traditions -- religious and atheist (and all other shades) -- are a part of our shared existence as humans.

 

[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.

Yes, science copied the book of Genesis.

Sorry I forgot to put in the sarcasm sign.

 

[JJ Husker]

One last parting thought. If you're looking for hard scientific evidence of God or a creator, you are going to likely be disappointed. I am amazed at the people who just can't grasp the nature of an unseen supernatural entity. You expect, nay demand, hard proof when the very nature of the being precludes hard evidence. It's like some people don't even try to understand it. I'm out.

This statement is mostly true, I think, and would be entirely true if God was a deistic sort of God, but if we're talking about the Christian God then we are talking about millenia of intervening within space time which would naturally lead one in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture to expect to find evidence.

Oh good. You are a believer. So based on this, please post the hard evidence you have of the existence of God so we can put this to bed once and for all.

I don't have any. At least not anything that couldn't just as easily be interpreted as evidence towards something else depending on a person's perspective.

So does this make you and other believers irrational, since in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture one should expect to find evidence? Or did you just want to use a bunch of long words together in one sentence with no purpose whatsoever?

 

[zoogs]

It doesn't make you irrational. Nothing says there can be no religion in a post-enlightenment culture and it's hard to imagine humanity ever running out of its supply of wonder.

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism. If it weren't, then it'd be just as crazy to be nonreligious as it would be to deny Newton's laws of motion. Then everyone would have to be either religious, or devoid of reason.

As it happens, reasonable people fall into either camp. We'd do well just to have that understanding, that neither is crazy.

 

[NUance]

One last parting thought. If you're looking for hard scientific evidence of God or a creator, you are going to likely be disappointed. I am amazed at the people who just can't grasp the nature of an unseen supernatural entity. You expect, nay demand, hard proof when the very nature of the being precludes hard evidence. It's like some people don't even try to understand it. I'm out.

^^ This.

Just what can we expect from our demands for interaction? I mean, think about the sheer difference in magnitude between a being capable of creating the universe and us. I'm not even sure you can apply human concepts like size and intelligence to God. But let's say you can. If God was as large as our solar system he would still be quite small in comparison to the universe. So maybe, if you could even think in terms of God having a size, you'd have to think of him being much larger than a solar system (btw, I don't really think God is a "being" in the sense that he has a particular size or shape that we can comprehend.) But even a solar-system-sized God trying to interact with humanity might be like thinking about a scientist (God) trying to interact with a few atoms (humanity) sitting on the surface of an amoeba. And there might be a similar difference between God's omniscience and our own limited intelligence as there is between the intelligence of the amoeba atoms and the scientist. So just what do we expect when we demand that this solar-system-sized God of infinite intelligence come down here and show himself? That's sort of like a belligerent hydrogen atom on the surface of that amoeba demanding that the scientist peering through the microscope come down there and show himself.

Despite the vast difference in magnitude between God and us, I actually do think God—being omniscience and all powerful—can interact with us. And I think he has interacted with us throughout history whenever it suited his purpose. Maybe he interacts with us quite frequently. I just don't think we are very good at comprehending God.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The other day I was wondering when we would rehash this.

Something that both sides seem to totally ignore is that at some point, both sides believe I something that is totally beyond comprehension by the human brain.

Just because you think the thought of a God is totally hogwash, you are still willing to believe in a Big Bang from matter that always has existed. That matter had no "beginning".

I don't see how believing that is more logical than believing in a God who created it.

 

[Moesker]

The other day I was wondering when we would rehash this.

Something that both sides seem to totally ignore is that at some point, both sides believe I something that is totally beyond comprehension by the human brain.

Just because you think the thought of a God is totally hogwash, you are still willing to believe in a Big Bang from matter that always has existed. That matter had no "beginning".

I don't see how believing that is more logical than believing in a God who created it.

I have been on record as saying that both concepts are hard to wrap my head around. But just because I don't understand it, it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Thats true for a supreme being and yes, it is also true for theories such as the Big Bang.

But allowing the possibility that there is a God that created everything we know is much different than believing in a specific God that man has created...or thousands of them.

 

[Moesker]

Why are you so angry?

I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again.

Yeah, its tough when those on the other side of the argument are as condescending as you are. But at least you have the advantage of your point of views condescension being embraced as fighting for your faith while mine is simply being a "d!(k" as you put it even though it is the same type of arguing.

 

[knapplc]

Just because you think the thought of a God is totally hogwash, you are still willing to believe in a Big Bang from matter that always has existed. That matter had no "beginning".

Because there's gathering evidence that it's true.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

 

[knapplc]

Why are you so angry?

I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again.

Yeah, its tough when those on the other side of the argument are as condescending as you are. But at least you have the advantage of your point of views condescension being embraced as fighting for your faith while mine is simply being a "d!(k" as you put it even though it is the same type of arguing.

This really doesn't benefit anyone, and is best left to the Shed.

 

[Landlord]

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism.

Yep. I would consider myself an empiricist, a rationalist, a skeptic and a materialist, while also a person who tries to follow Jesus, who believes in the resurrection and believes in Yahweh the Father as Creator still being active in this world.

I don't think this is irrational, it's just hard to put into a neat little categorical box that humans like to group things into, and it requires a certain kind of surrender that certain elements of what I believe are mostly experiential and can't be falsified or tested in a lab.

 

[Moesker]

Why are you so angry?

I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again.

Yeah, its tough when those on the other side of the argument are as condescending as you are. But at least you have the advantage of your point of views condescension being embraced as fighting for your faith while mine is simply being a "d!(k" as you put it even though it is the same type of arguing.

This really doesn't benefit anyone, and is best left to the Shed.

Maybe not but its true. There is a double standard in play here.

 

[Moesker]

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism.

Yep. I would consider myself an empiricist, a rationalist, a skeptic and a materialist, while also a person who tries to follow Jesus, who believes in the resurrection and believes in Yahweh the Father as Creator still being active in this world.

I don't think this is irrational, it's just hard to put into a neat little categorical box that humans like to group things into, and it requires a certain kind of surrender that certain elements of what I believe are mostly experiential and can't be falsified or tested in a lab.

Do you believe those who think your belief is irrational are themselves irrational? Can't it simply be a difference of opinion?

 

[Landlord]

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism.

Yep. I would consider myself an empiricist, a rationalist, a skeptic and a materialist, while also a person who tries to follow Jesus, who believes in the resurrection and believes in Yahweh the Father as Creator still being active in this world.

I don't think this is irrational, it's just hard to put into a neat little categorical box that humans like to group things into, and it requires a certain kind of surrender that certain elements of what I believe are mostly experiential and can't be falsified or tested in a lab.

Do you believe those who think your belief is irrational are themselves irrational? Can't it simply be a difference of opinion?

I don't think that you can determine that just based off of that one factor. A person thinking my belief is irrational may be being irrational themselves, but not necessarily because of that. I know plenty of rational people who think I am entirely irrational, and plenty of irrational people who think I am entire irrational