Jump to content


Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

NUance

By NUance,
in Politics & Religion

Which is a more likely explanation for creation?  

41 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Moesker Preferred Walk-On

Moesker

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

I voted for the non-god answer. If you vote for "god," you've got to decide which "god" you're talking about, and there are literally thousands. Each comes with their own creation myth, each has their own flavor of religion, all of those religions can be traced back to man-centric themes and are not reliant solely on supernatural things. There is no proof of the existence of "god" or of any god. there is no reason to believe that Odin is more real than Zeus or Jupiter or Allah or Aten or Quetzalcoatl or any of the other literally thousands of them.

 

Your religion is not a true thing, it is an accident of your location of birth. In this thread, this country, the predominant religion is Christianity. It, then, is no surprise that most here are Christian. If you conducted this poll on a forum dedicated to some soccer team in Riyadh, you'd likely get a lot of "yes, god" votes - but those votes would be for Allah, not the Christian god.

 

That I cannot explain how random bits of matter could coalesce into life does not mean gods are real. It means I (we) don't understand how that happened yet. That humans could not explain how birds flew 5,000 years ago did not mean that flight wasn't real, or possible - it just meant they didn't know how to do it yet.

 

Based on the progression of knowledge of the human species, it's more likely to me that we'll eventually figure out how life formed. It's a difficult puzzle, but if we have long enough, we'll get the answer. I find that more plausible than a story of "god."

I disagree. A person does not have to decide which god or which religion to come to the conclusion that a higher power caused this all to come about. And it is a logic leap to claim that because humans have come up with multiple versions of God that there must be more than one and for some reason now we have to choose which one. What if there really is only one true God and mankind's attempt to explain him has simply left us with all these multiple "gods" and religions you trot out in every thread like this? I think there is one true God with a multitude of human attempts at explaining him. Sure doesn't mean there is really more than one, and if there isn't more than one, then it is not necessary to choose which one and it doesn't matter where you were born or the predominate religion in the area. Too many people get hung up on the constraints generated by mere human beings. Yeah, humans probably don't have it right. So what? The existence of one God, one creator, one all powerful being, is not dependent on our ability to explain him.

 

Once a person can accept that there is one true God (however, whoever that may be) then it becomes very easy to realize we were created and not just some random accident. Then the only challenge is figuring out which religion, which explanation, which description of God a person is going to gravitate towards. Then, at that point, you are correct, it depends where your were born, how your were raised and what you were exposed to. But none of those human inspired details are the least bit important to come to the conclusion that there must be a higher power, an architect, a God.

 

Even if there is one true God, that doesn't mean that any of man's religions is correct. God's existence doesn't automatically point to a known religion as being true.

 

I think the fact that there are so many religions points to man having a need to create ways to explain things he does not understand. The concept of God is likely not completely understandable to humans thus, its likely no earthly religion is the truth.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, surprisingly, I really agree with that. Although I would modify it slightly and say that, logically, some earthly religions must be closer to the truth than others.

 

Not being argumentative...but why?

Link to comment

NUance Head Coach

NUance

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So this was just taking the long road in order to throw out one specific point of view? Shocking.

 

Oh but Moe, didn't you have fun in this thread arguing with people and needling other posters?

 

So I guess we can shut down this thread now that we've settled the issue that there actually is a God and He was behind the Big Bang and 2.5 billion years of evolution on earth to create mankind and all manners of life on earth.

 

 

Although my premise that a creator who has no desire to interact with her creation still stands under this view. I wonder how that God feels about worship of false Gods? Hope its not a jealous God.

 

If you believe and study the bible (like I do) then you have to know that God is indeed jealous. In fact, that's the first of the 10 Commandments: Thou shall have no other gods before Me.

Link to comment

Moesker Preferred Walk-On

Moesker

Posted
Posted

 

So this was just taking the long road in order to throw out one specific point of view? Shocking.

 

Oh but Moe, didn't you have fun in this thread arguing with people and needling other posters?

 

So I guess we can shut down this thread now that we've settled the issue that there actually is a God and He was behind the Big Bang and 2.5 billion years of evolution on earth to create mankind and all manners of life on earth.

 

 

Although my premise that a creator who has no desire to interact with her creation still stands under this view. I wonder how that God feels about worship of false Gods? Hope its not a jealous God.

 

If you believe and study the bible (like I do) then you have to know that God is indeed jealous. In fact, that's the first of the 10 Commandments: Thou shall have no other gods before Me.

 

Actually, nothing has been settled from this. Do you really think any new ground has been broken here because of this? Many Christians have afforded the possibility that creationism and evolution can co-exist.

 

And yes, we know the Christian God is jealous, but is the true God? You had better hope not if you have made the wrong choice. ;)

 

Help me out NUance, how is the needling just going in one direction. I think your persecution complex is showing.

Link to comment
Moesker Preferred Walk-On

Moesker

Posted
Posted

 

 

Oh but Moe, didn't you have fun in this thread arguing with people and needling other posters?

 

Help me out NUance, how is the needling just going in one direction. I think your persecution complex is showing.

 

 

 

I think he meant "noodling", because that would be a sign from the true god, FSM

 

RAmen.

Link to comment
NUance Head Coach

NUance

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The 2nd option happened whether the 1st option happened or not. There's just no good reason to assume the 1st option happened. The 1st option is a completely unnecessary leap of faith.

 

But does it make more sense to assume that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from a point of singularity—or does it make more sense to assume the universe had a maker? If you were walking in the woods and came upon a mechanical pocket watch would you assume it sprang into existence from a point of singularity, or had a maker? Of course we are familiar with how pocket watches are made, so you'd know it had a maker. But what if you lived 3,000 years ago—long before any such complicated mechanism had been created—and you found a pocket watch. Even though you'd never seen such a mechanism wouldn't you be able to study the sophisticated design of gears and springs and realize that someone had made the watch? That is why I don't think it's an unnecessary leap of faith.

Link to comment

NebraskaHarry Backup

NebraskaHarry

Posted
Posted

Science doesn't work in existence to faith. You might say that evolution exists because of God, someone else might say that evolution exists because of the spaghetti monster, someone else says because of alien space turtles. On and on this goes. Science isn't going to acknowledge these reasons of faith without empirical scientific clarity.

Link to comment
NUance Head Coach

NUance

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...