2007-06-07 05:14:44 · 11 answers · asked by The Angry Stick Man 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
indeepthought, I know its very loaded and in itself is a fallacy.
2007-06-07 05:22:31 · update #1
i was looking for creative answers
2007-06-07 05:23:03 · update #2
His Spirit.
2007-06-07 05:25:06 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. G™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that NO theory satisfactorily explains the fine-tuning of the universe, or the origin of life.
String-theory? There's no evidence to support it. NONE. Not even one single shred.
Steady-state theory, like that which was espoused by people such as Carl Sagan? The fact that the universe is expanding pretty much throws that one out the window.
How about the theory that the universe keeps expanding and contracting? Interesting, but still means that at one point the universe contracted to its smallest point.
Fact is, there is NOTHING that explains how life came about. It takes just as much faith, whether anyone likes it or not, to say "Well, we can't explain it now, but maybe someday we will" instead of insisting that the answer is that life was created.
What I find hilarious is that scientific discoveries keep pointing to the existence of God, archaeology and history prove the Bible repeatedly, and still people deny it. They just keep saying, "Well, right now it looks that way, but maybe in a few hundred years...."
I think the people who still deny it should ask a mathematics professor what the odds are that the universe and life itself was a cosmic accident, taking into account ALL the different elements, degrees of gravitational pulls, distance from the sun, moon and other planets, temperature of the sun and the earth's core, the size of other planets (which mostly protect us from asteroids and meteorites), the amount of water present on the planet, plate tectonics, et cetera. Have them do that. It's IMPOSSIBLE.
The odds are against life. Unless there are billions upon billions of other universes out there in which life has failed (which is not supported by any evidence, either), it could NOT have been an accident.
Maybe this isn't "creative," but it's the way I look at it.
2007-06-07 12:53:17 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Life is just there. It's in everything, part of everything. It's not something that needed to be created, it's a force of nature.
2007-06-07 12:24:57 · answer #3 · answered by KC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the question is kinda loaded. Any answer would basically raise more questions than it answers. Which "God" are you referring to"? If i answered "Ralph", would that make a bit of sense? Would that not make "Ralph" God?
2007-06-07 12:21:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is like asking 150 years ago: "If God wasn't the cause of life's diversity, who is?" ... ( Now, of course, we know. )
Answering "Goddidit" is *no more* intellectually fulfilling or satisfying than: "We don't yet know."
We don't know the details of abiogenesis or panspermia yet, but as with the question 150 years ago on the wonderful diversity of life, we hope to get there.
2007-06-07 12:17:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well these guys do it in a lab.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_29/c3792082.htm http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1072266v1
What makes you think that someone had to? Life isn't nearly as special as you think.
2007-06-07 12:20:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're assuming that someone, some entity had to create it.
2007-06-07 12:22:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does someone have to create it? Maybe it's just there.
2007-06-07 12:19:11 · answer #8 · answered by Amy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one.
It formed under natural, stochaistic principles
2007-06-07 12:18:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
God doesn't win by default on this one.
And it really IS okay to withold judgment until all the evidence is in.
2007-06-07 12:17:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋