Ok, Which of these Theories Makes More Sense?

Question

1) That the universe as we know it was formed by natural processes over a very long period of time, obeying the laws of physics as we understand them, to produce the universe as we see it today, or.

2) God spoke/sneezed/snapped his fingers, and here we all are.

Answer 1

The first statement answers the question of how the universe works; and the second, despite the derogatory wording, answers the question of where it came from.

Answer 2

1) Is a gross assumption because current theories cannot include all the laws of physics. For example, everyone that watches fireworks on the fourth of July sees the firework explode equally and outwardly away from the initial explosion.
Now if this happened in space every thing would be expanding outwardly in different directions. But thats not what we see. We see the laws of acceleration and thermodynamics, gravity, overriding antimatter of equal and opposite reactions being defied by a fined tuned universe that makes life on our planet just right for us. Astrophysisists are still working on better models that explain galaxies that spin in opposite directions and planetoids, asteroids, and comets going in every direction.

I would like you to explain at least one of these "natural processes" that no one can seem to explain except you believe it by faith. The chemistry is not there to support carbon based life forms from the elements, The physics is out on how to explain where all the lighter elements come from that cannot be brought about by fusion. No one can really explain what causes gravity just how it behaves. Whats a force, anyway?

2) Makes more sense even if He did use a little razza matazz.

Answer 3

3) That the universe as we know it was formed by natural processes begun by God over a very long period of time, obeying the laws of physics as God created them, to produce the universe as we see it today.

Answer 4

I would have to say theory number 1 makes more sense although there are some flaws to it. I guess it will always be a mystery as nobody totally knows for sure one way or the other how everything came about into existence. Although I admit that there is a part of me that's leaning slowly but surely to becoming an Atheist.

Answer 5

When you put it like that, theory 1. Theory 2 does have the benefits of being simple for easy explanation to children, until you go into the logical implications, but 1 clearly has the upper hand in terms of feasibility.

Answer 6

A better "theory" would be

3) God created the universe to follow the scientific laws that he established, regardless of if we do or do not understand those principles.

Answer 7

Well, we know that the universe couldn't form itself out of nothing, natural processes or not, don't we? And we know that life couldn't have spontaneously formed from non-living chemicals (since scientists are unable to replicate this in the laboratory-using carefully controlled conditions). So what do you think?

Answer 8

Some people prefer the second because it feels better. Religion is an emotional thing. You don't need evidence and scientific theories if you got a firm desire to be religious.

If you really really need to believe in a god, just don't go into scientific careers and such. And go to church a lot and be around others like you...

Answer 9

Since the first theory is based upon the supposition that either matter has always existed with no explanation for it's origin or that something came from "nothing" I would go with the second one only rephrase it to say that an extra-dimensional omnipotent being who exists outside of time is responsible for the orderly universe that we see around ourselves.

Answer 10

None of the above make sense. That’s why the universe is a great mystery to both science and religion. Just because they don’t understand it doesn’t mean they have to go inventing stories & excuses. It most probably will always remain a complete mystery, and that’s just what I love about it.

Answer 11

Fools, Chuck Norris created the universe.