That there is a eternally existing God that createsd everything;therefore there is no need to continue to ask who or what came before;cuase we know that the buck starts&stops with God.
Or
A never ending creation and destruction of universes?
To me God makes more sense;but I was just wondering what everybody else thought.
2007-03-30 12:50:47 · 12 answers · asked by Maurice H 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The first one makes more sense to me because the second one doesn't explain how matter came into existence in the first place. Since something cannot come from "nothing", matter would have had to have always existed with no explanation for it's origin.
2007-03-30 13:00:29 · answer #1 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why use "god" as an excuse for being ignorant about something?
Science shows us a marvelous universe, all the more so because it is backed by proof. And who says that the universe is cyclical? Some physicists think that the big crunch, heat death/etc will be the end of the universe as we know it.
But you can't prove God, especially not a humanoid who floats in the sky and demands ritualistic worship. Religion is based on a human feeling that comforts in the absence of knowledge.
And religion doesn't take the place of science and understanding the world.
2007-03-30 12:57:08 · answer #2 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saying 'there is no need to continue to ask who or what came before' is exactly what is wrong with the irrational belief in 'god'. You aren't basing your opinions on facts, you are basing them on wishful thinking.
As for 'never ending creation and destruction of universes', that's one possible theory, but not an absolute truth. Science is the endless search for knowledge. Not giving up because you think the questions are too hard.
2007-03-30 12:56:03 · answer #3 · answered by Biggest Douche in the Universe 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As soon as you explain God in scientific terms: what "stuff" is he made of, where did he come from, how does he work; and then explain how the universe was created: what tools did God use, where did he get them, how did he do it?; I will readily accept your theory.
In the mean time, I must go with what makes the most sense. And it's not that a magical invisible man in the sky spoke the universe into existence.
2007-03-30 12:57:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember, your first supposition posits the existence of an extremely complex and eternal Thing. The second requires one fewer metaphysical gymnastic maneuver.
2007-03-30 12:57:39 · answer #5 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, we ARE skeptics after all, so we feel the need to question God anyway. Nice try.
2007-03-30 12:55:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isn't skeptics just a nicer way of saying atheists? This is how the term is usually used on this forum.
2007-03-30 12:53:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The second one makes perfectly logical sense to me, no finite beginning and no finite end... just like every other observable thing and concept you perceive.
_()_
2007-03-30 12:56:25 · answer #8 · answered by vinslave 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The latter makes more sense. There isn't any evidence for the former.
2007-03-30 12:55:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the second one makes more logical sense to me
2007-03-30 12:54:44 · answer #10 · answered by Militant Agnostic 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋