What makes most sense to believe about creation?

Question

I'm afraid I must display my ignorance here. It seems to me that you believe that
1. The universe exploded out of a single atom.
2. From random environmental events, life formed as single cell organisms.
3. These mutated into multicell organisms and eventually every diverse specie we have today.

OR

1. There is an intelligent creator able to create matter, who did so.
2. This creator formed from the matter all manner of living diverse organisms.

Is there a third option? How can anyone say that one of these two makes more sense than the other? I think that both require faith, since it seems that there are either huge holes or huge assumptions in both.

And PLEASE don't respond by correcting technicalities. If you're going to insert smaller steps of evolution, or claim that the Big Bang was slightly different from my understanding, you're not answering the question. Similarly, adding details about God or whatever creator(s) you believe in just won't help.

Answer 1

"And PLEASE don't respond by correcting technicalities. If you're going to insert smaller steps of evolution, or claim that the Big Bang was slightly different from my understanding, you're not answering the question. Similarly, adding details about God or whatever creator(s) you believe in just won't help."

But, you see, your misunderstanding of the concept, plus your apparent unwillingness to learn, make this question completely meaningless. It's like asking "Why does 2+2=5? Don't tell me that it doesn't, because that doesn't answer my question". You may as well just be smashing your palms on the keyboard at this point.

Answer 2

Most human endeavors require faith, that's not the problem. It's a matter of insistantly blind faith or evidence based faith.

But there is a third option, and though it is closer to your first scenario than your second, it includes elements of both. This scenario says that the ground state of the universe (quantum vacuum) is an information medium interlinking all points in time and space, and moving toward an goal of full expression of its potential states. Such interlinking implies a form of memory, learning, etc., and helps explain why all of the possible evolutionary trajectories don't fracture space-time and the universe just dissolve. Here we require no personality that does the creating (just the nature of the source to emerge as it does). We also are able to include modern evidence for things like "directed mutation" because the field states of the whole universe and its individulal constituents can act as directing mechanisms. This drastically shortens evolutionary time requirements and leads to a greater potential for positive mutation. Perhaps the goal is the production and full expression consciousness, which might explain why no evolutionary value has been found for consciousness - it's not a means, its an end.

Answer 3

You complicate the matter a billion fold by saying that everything is less likely to have evolved from a (possibly pre-existing) infinite amount of mass mixing w. energy over an infinite period of time in infinite space, you instead propose that, 'First there was a guy/God, a big guy, and he waved his wand and made all these things and set in motion everything that led to us. Where did he come from? Why? Maybe we'll end up being Gods ourselves one day but then we are still more likely to have come from the simplest start possible. I agree that black holes and all the other theories are far fetched, many will be dead ends, some theories will prove more accurate than others, some will indeed turn out to be nonsense, but choosing to believe that the world is supported by 3 turtles (or any make believe fantasy) because you want to rather than trying to help work out what happened from what we actually do know can observe and experiment with to constantly find further evidence to support more accurate theories is stone age thinking. There are too many of us w. too much power to carry on in the stone age from this point.

Answer 4

There are tons of facts that give evidence to the "Big Bang Theory" how ever many people would argue that the are historical facts to back up the belief the God or some other higher power then ourselves created the Earth. However I side with the scientist on this issue because I believe people hundreds of years ago knew nothing about space or the universe... the just made up stories to satisfy their thirst for information... :) hope that helped!

Answer 5

Unfortunately, if you are so set upon refusing to be corrected upon the actual theories of evolution and the Big Bang, then I must say three. The universe didn't expand from a single atom (which, in your scenario, was around before the Big Bang). However, I believe in a purely secular scenario (including the Big Bang, Evolution, and the like.)

Answer 6

But it's the gaps in the technicalities, which you resolutely decline to hear, which limits your understanding. That is your choice. But it invalidates your question, because it means you can set the terms of the position opposite from the one you wish to hold (a "straw man"), or in other words, you seek only to argue with yourself.

The Big Bang wasn't just slightly different from your "understanding" (for it is no such thing, a fact of which you appear proud), it was nothing like it. The scientific view of creation does not require faith, because it has been established through empirical evidence piled on evidence piled on evidence. Nothing of the kind has ever served the second version of creation you cite, which is just a suppositional story.

Answer 7

I believe this one:

1. There is an intelligent creator able to create matter, who did so.
2. This creator formed from the matter all manner of living diverse organisms.

The Bible says that there is a sun that rains on the just and unjust. Swedenborg says it is the spiritual sun that God created and that God created the finite universe from the spiritual sun

Answer 8

If you believe in an eternal Creator, then it's not a stretch to believe in an eternal Universe (i.e. one that's always been here). Yes, an atom may have created the Big Bang, but where did that atom come from? Was it created, or always here? Both of these ideas are on equal terms.

Answer 9

You've not missed "technicalities" in the big bang or evolution, you completely misrepresented them.

What's the point of answering a question which makes invalid assumptions?



PS: Dyhana has it 100% backward.

Answer 10

As you said, both explanations require faith. You can choose where you put your faith.

Some choose to put their faith in science and man's "wisdom".

As for me and my household, our faith is in God through Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit.

Your choice won't change how creation occurred, but it could determine how you see this creation re-born.

May God bless you.