Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

[84HuskerLaw]

I believe there is NO other rational explanation for the existence of the universe and all things physical and metaphysical and otherwise than devine creation. Those who say there is no God and that the universe was somehow formed out of nothing without any cause or source or 'creator' should bear the burden of proof as to their theory.

 

Believers have offered a perfectly rational explanation (God) that has never been disproven. When the atheists offer a truly logical and rational basis for how and why nothing suddenly exploded into everything, then I swould stipulate they have met the their burden. From there, a rational rebuttal is necessary. Until then, the devine creation theory is really the only credible way to explain 'everything'. Stephen Hawking, who has offered his 'theory of everything,' would most likely admit that existence and devine involvement in the creation of everything, much as Einstein did in the later years of his life, would suggest the laws of physics and science in general can explain the 'how' the physical world changes over time mechanically but really offers no concrete notions of 'why'!

 

Man will likely never know why God does what God does as the motivations of something so infinately all knowing and all powerful and all intelligent as to create the vast and incredibly perfect designs of an entire universe or even infinite universes. It has taken the combined thinking power of many of the brightest minds in human history to concieve of and describe the existence and consequence of God in such writings as the Bible and many others. In recent times (perhaps the past couple hundred years), some very bright minds have developed many theories and concepts in science and philosophy. None have proven that God does not exist and I don't believe they ever will.

[knapplc]

I believe there is NO other rational explanation for the existence of the universe and all things physical and metaphysical and otherwise than devine creation. Those who say there is no God and that the universe was somehow formed out of nothing without any cause or source or 'creator' should bear the burden of proof as to their theory.

 

Believers have offered a perfectly rational explanation (God) that has never been disproven. When the atheists offer a truly logical and rational basis for how and why nothing suddenly exploded into everything, then I swould stipulate they have met the their burden. From there, a rational rebuttal is necessary. Until then, the devine creation theory is really the only credible way to explain 'everything'. Stephen Hawking, who has offered his 'theory of everything,' would most likely admit that existence and devine involvement in the creation of everything, much as Einstein did in the later years of his life, would suggest the laws of physics and science in general can explain the 'how' the physical world changes over time mechanically but really offers no concrete notions of 'why'!

 

Man will likely never know why God does what God does as the motivations of something so infinately all knowing and all powerful and all intelligent as to create the vast and incredibly perfect designs of an entire universe or even infinite universes. It has taken the combined thinking power of many of the brightest minds in human history to concieve of and describe the existence and consequence of God in such writings as the Bible and many others. In recent times (perhaps the past couple hundred years), some very bright minds have developed many theories and concepts in science and philosophy. None have proven that God does not exist and I don't believe they ever will.

 

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.

[TAKODA]

I was going to add my 2 cents but it really doesn't matter does it?

 

JJ, Landlord, look to your left and you will see me by your side defending the viewpoint that has "GOD" as the reason. Landlord, that is correct, I said left which means if you look far enough left, I will ultimately be to your right!

 

Cheers gentlemen!

[Landlord]

Second paragraph: before that first molecule, there is no left.

 

 

 

There really isn't such thing as 'before'.

[The Dude]

 

If All of a sudden Science came out and said....Ah haaaa....we know where that molecule came from and we have proof it has nothing to do with a higher power....Fine....It frees up my Sunday mornings.

 

 

Science can't, and won't, make that claim, because science deals with observations about the seen universe. Science doesn't have a bias against faith or the supernatural, but it has a materialistic presupposition because it's literally the study of materialism, so science will only ever get to the point of saying, "Here is what we know about this thing due to confirmed, duplicated, falsifiable observations and conclusions that we are able to witness".

 

 

Unrelated, time is not linear. Space time is a dimension and it doesn't exist on a timeline the way that we live through it, so for someone to say "I just don't get how something could have existed the second before everything existed" makes about as much sense physically speaking as saying that "I don't get how left and right work because there's always something more left than left. Where does left start? How can there be something more left?"

That's a good analogy. Stephen Hawking said it would be like asking for directions to the edge of the earth.

[JJ Husker]

The unicorn analogy isn't maybe the best for this discussion. It might be possible to prove unicorns actually existed as, unlike God, there is at least a chance of finding fossil records. But, since it was already offered up.....you can't prove a unicorn exists or that it doesn't exist. Failure to prove one does not mean the other is correct by default.

 

I completely understand the nonbelievers viewpoint, that they do not have to accept that God exists based on anecdotal evidence. But let's also not act like God never provides any proof of his existence. It just isn't satisfactory for people predisposed to not believing in him or for those who will accept nothing but earthbound (empirical) proof. Sorry but the nature of God does not lend itself to that type of proof. Like I stated earlier, if that is the only proof a person will find acceptable, they are not truly serious about finding God.

 

It seems some want it to be too easy. It takes a lot of effort to discover and know God. It won't just happen. There are billions of people convinced of his existence. I guarantee you they aren't all just pushing the easy button because they don't have some alternative knowledge. I personally have had 2 experiences that I attribute directly to the existence of God. I'm not going to bother explaining them because they are not provable or falsifiable and could easily be explained away by someone so inclined. And funny enough, that is currently (billions of years later) the same situation that science finds itself pertaining to the moment before the big bang. I will acknowledge that does not mean "God" is the answer but it also sure doesn't mean he isn't.

 

I don't have the answers for why God doesn't make it easier for us. It doesn't seem fair to be honest. Some people are given experiences that convince them while others don't seem to have the same opportunities. I do know one thing though, if you give up on trying to discover him it will only get harder, if nOT make it completely impossible. I have not given up accepting scientific evidence and considering it but it sure seems some have given up on the possibility of God. I feel sorry for those people. I guess that is my motivation for even participating in these discussions.

[JJ Husker]

Lots of nonbelievers have the same hangup with faith and free will as AR Husker expressed earlier. I understand it but I've also thought about it a lot and I just cannot fathom how it would work if faith were not required and if we didn't have free will. God knowing what choice we will make before we make it does nothing to interfere with us making that choice. It is still up to us. It seems people want to put humanly and earthbound constraints on a being that exists outside of time and space and that leads them to thinking "faith is a sloppy way" to run the show or it precipates accusations that God is a worse father than they are. I guess I am not arrogant enough to think that way. Earthly suffering may seem pretty horrible to us but I really don't think God views in it the same manner that we are limited to viewing it. 60, 70, 80 years on earth is but a fleeting moment compared to eternity. And without free will we could not choose to love God. Imagine for a moment there is a supernatural being that always has been and always will be and that he created us and desperately wants us to know him and love him. If he makes it too obvious, he takes away our ability to freely love him. In that scenario we would be no more than play things that could not return his love. I think he has things set up in the only manner that will allow us to truly love him. If it were any easier, we would be little more than slaves. At least that is why I do not have the same hangup with free will, faith being required, and it not being easy to that degree.

[funhusker]

Sometimes we think we know exactly what a unicorn is and what a pretty unicorn looks like. Sometimes we discover we were wrong about our belief of what a unicorn should be....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/29/giant-siberian-unicorn-existed-much-more-recently-than-previously-thought-experts-say.html

[knapplc]

Sometimes we think we know exactly what a unicorn is and what a pretty unicorn looks like. Sometimes we discover we were wrong about our belief of what a unicorn should be....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/29/giant-siberian-unicorn-existed-much-more-recently-than-previously-thought-experts-say.html

Do you honestly think this is what a Unicorn is? It's nothing like the Unicorn of the common myth.

 

Your story shows this:

 

 

We're all talking about this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless you're saying "god" isn't what you think it is, and that the glorious figure of god, like the unicorn in the second image, is actually a very mundane earthly creature from a bygone age as in the first picture?

 

Because there's several problems with that, ranging from the evolving image of god to suit today's ideal, the glorious god people believe in compared to the actual shabby god there is, the fact that the god of the Bible says, "I'm the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" meaning what we believe is god today can't be different than what god is, or that if god is different than what we believe, the fault lies somewhere with an omniscient god's lack of communication and willful allowance of such errors to be made...

 

I mean, if we're claiming that the legendary unicorn was, in fact, a rhinoceros, don't we also have to acknowledge that what ancient Israelites thought was "god" was, in fact, something else?

 

This really isn't a road we want to go down, is it?

[Landlord]

meaning what we believe is god today can't be different than what god is, or that if god is different than what we believe, the fault lies somewhere with an omniscient god's lack of communication and willful allowance of such errors to be made...

 

 

The Bible also says, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

 

You're good at this, and even if other people don't see it, it's obvious that a lot of your arguments are troll-ish in nature because you're thinking one step ahead and luring the people you're talking with into certain answers that you can then refute even more. All that to say, I know that you know that this is a lame argument.

 

Presupposing the existence of God, God's actual nature and human-kind's perception and understanding of that nature are two completely separate and distinct things. This has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with us. As a kid I thought I knew what sex was. Turns out I was hilariously mistaken. Does that mean that sex wasn't actually sex? As I've gotten older my understanding of what love is has grown and been shaped differently, yet I was still tapping into the unchanging idea of love; just incompletely.

 

God said He's the same yesterday/today/tomorrow. He didn't say, probably intentionally so, that we wouldn't grow in our understanding, and realize that certain things that we thought God was like weren't actually the way of it.

[knapplc]

The unicorn analogy isn't maybe the best for this discussion. It might be possible to prove unicorns actually existed as, unlike God, there is at least a chance of finding fossil records. But, since it was already offered up.....you can't prove a unicorn exists or that it doesn't exist. Failure to prove one does not mean the other is correct by default.

 

I completely understand the nonbelievers viewpoint, that they do not have to accept that God exists based on anecdotal evidence. But let's also not act like God never provides any proof of his existence. It just isn't satisfactory for people predisposed to not believing in him or for those who will accept nothing but earthbound (empirical) proof. Sorry but the nature of God does not lend itself to that type of proof. Like I stated earlier, if that is the only proof a person will find acceptable, they are not truly serious about finding God.

 

It seems some want it to be too easy. It takes a lot of effort to discover and know God. It won't just happen. There are billions of people convinced of his existence. I guarantee you they aren't all just pushing the easy button because they don't have some alternative knowledge. I personally have had 2 experiences that I attribute directly to the existence of God. I'm not going to bother explaining them because they are not provable or falsifiable and could easily be explained away by someone so inclined. And funny enough, that is currently (billions of years later) the same situation that science finds itself pertaining to the moment before the big bang. I will acknowledge that does not mean "God" is the answer but it also sure doesn't mean he isn't.

 

I don't have the answers for why God doesn't make it easier for us. It doesn't seem fair to be honest. Some people are given experiences that convince them while others don't seem to have the same opportunities. I do know one thing though, if you give up on trying to discover him it will only get harder, if nOT make it completely impossible. I have not given up accepting scientific evidence and considering it but it sure seems some have given up on the possibility of God. I feel sorry for those people. I guess that is my motivation for even participating in these discussions.

The unicorn analogy isn't maybe the best for this discussion. It is, because god and unicorns are two mythical creatures, neither of which can be proven to exist.

 

But let's also not act like God never provides any proof of his existence. There's more evidence of the existence of Zeus as there is of the god of the Bible. I see lightning every Spring & Summer. That's Zeus, right there. I see the sun every day - that's Apollo. I've felt an earthquake - that's Pele. There's evidence of gods everywhere, you just believe in a different god.

 

Sorry but the nature of God does not lend itself to that type of proof. That's nonsense. The god of the Bible is omnipotent. He has every nature he wants to have. If he's not showing himself to you, making you basically wager on his existence, that's a willful choice on his part. Proof is readily available to such a god, but in this myth, the god chooses to let his children live in ignorance of his existence. Which of your children would you do that to? What kind of parent would leave their child alone, without direct guidance, and hope they make it back to heaven where they belong? That story does not make sense.

 

It seems some want it to be too easy. Even when you're there for your children every day, it's not easy. You're a dad, you know that. You sat by your children's bedsides when they were sick, holding their hand, providing comfort. What kind of father would you be if your child needed you, and instead of coming to them, holding them, comforting them and letting them feel the strength of your embrace, you stood five miles away and sent positive thoughts their way? We hear all the time about deadbeat dads who father children and run off. Sure, some of them pay child support, but is that really enough? Doesn't the child need their father in their lives, not just as some rumor? Do those kids, whose dads send the occasional check but never appear in their lives, have it "easy?"

 

It takes a lot of effort to discover and know God. That's absurd. Why? An omnipotent god has the ability to have you in heaven right now. No hoops, no belief system, no chance of hell. You. There. Now. If it takes a lot of effort, that's entirely on god, it's his choice, he decided it had to be that way, and that's a crock. You would never, ever do that to your child. Ever.

 

There are billions of people convinced of his existence. Argumentum ad populum. There are a billion people convinced Allah is real. That doesn't make it so.

 

I don't have the answers for why God doesn't make it easier for us. There's an answer that needs to be considered, and it'll only come to people wiling to try to discover it. If you never try to discover why there isn't a god, it will only get harder.

[knapplc]

The Bible also says, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

You're good at this, and even if other people don't see it, it's obvious that a lot of your arguments are troll-ish in nature because you're thinking one step ahead and luring the people you're talking with into certain answers that you can then refute even more. All that to say, I know that you know that this is a lame argument.

 

Presupposing the existence of God, God's actual nature and human-kind's perception and understanding of that nature are two completely separate and distinct things. This has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with us. As a kid I thought I knew what sex was. Turns out I was hilariously mistaken. Does that mean that sex wasn't actually sex? As I've gotten older my understanding of what love is has grown and been shaped differently, yet I was still tapping into the unchanging idea of love; just incompletely.

 

God said He's the same yesterday/today/tomorrow. He didn't say, probably intentionally so, that we wouldn't grow in our understanding, and realize that certain things that we thought God was like weren't actually the way of it.

The Bible also says, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." I Corinthians 13:12. I know the verse.

 

You're good at this, and even if other people don't see it, it's obvious that a lot of your arguments are troll-ish in nature because you're thinking one step ahead and luring the people you're talking with into certain answers that you can then refute even more. All that to say, I know that you know that this is a lame argument. That's really disappointing. I didn't start this thread, I answered it honestly. Claiming that this is some elaborate troll is both offensive and contrary to the honest nature of discussion. If you only want to read things that support your faith, never think critically, then I'd advise you to block my posts from now on, because I'm not going to stop questing for the answers. The fact that some of these answers don't agree with your worldview doesn't mean I'm trolling, it means I think differently than you.

 

But what's perhaps most disappointing about the "troll" claim is that the 1 Corinthians passage you took the above verse from is in a section talking about the nature of love. The very next verse, 1 Corinthians 13:13, says, "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love." Go ahead and defend your faith. But maybe don't cast people who believe differently from you as some kind of entrapping ogre. That's rather contrary not only to the conversation, but to the tenet of love.

[Landlord]

If you only want to read things that support your faith, never think critically, then I'd advise you to block my posts from now on, because I'm not going to stop questing for the answers. The fact that some of these answers don't agree with your worldview doesn't mean I'm trolling, it means I think differently than you.

 

You know that that's not me.

 

 

 

But what's perhaps most disappointing about the "troll" claim is that the 1 Corinthians passage you took the above verse from is in a section talking about the nature of love. The very next verse, 1 Corinthians 13:13, says, "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love." Go ahead and defend your faith. But maybe don't cast people who believe differently from you as some kind of entrapping ogre. That's rather contrary not only to the conversation, but to the tenet of love.

 

I think you misunderstand; I'm not criticizing at all. It's actually fascinating and entertaining to watch you see where conversations are going, ask certain questions, and steer it down certain paths. I don't venture into threads like this much these days, but when I do I usually see a few things you say, think, "someone's going to respond to this poorly", and then watch it play out exactly like it seems.

 

I give you credit for your consistency in your conclusions, for sure. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit in assuming you're some mastermind at work behind the keyboard

[JJ Husker]

What is it exactly that has you so pissed off at God? It is very apparent there is much more to it than simply making a case against his existence. You can't logically hate something that you claim doesn't exist.