Which statement is more likely to be true:

[Jeremiah]

Of the two choices check which one you feel is more likely to be true. Feel free to explain your choice or make any other comment related to the topic.

 

[outhouse]

homo sapiens existance? yes
the earths existance? yes

what matter created the big bang? no

it sure wasnt a myth that created anything.

 

[Madhuri]

Of course we don't know. We all think we do, but we don't really!

 

[Madhuri]

it sure wasnt a myth that created anything.

I agree- myths don't create things

 

[paolops181]

all living creatures existence? Yes
the earths existence? yes
all planets? yes
everything? yes
God Almighty created everything.
"Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself; Who frustrates the signs of the babblers,
And drives diviners mad; Who turns wise men backward, And makes their knowledge foolishness," -Is.44:24-25

"We have only one God, and he is the Father. He created everything, and we live for him."
-1Cor.8:6

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe we do know what created everything in existence. What created everything in existence is none other than God.

 

[Madhuri]

I want to point out that knowing and believing are two different things. People believe a lot of different things. Most people don't 'know' what reality is, they just have their beliefs. Their beliefs may be right or wrong, but they don't know it.

 

[Jeremiah]

The obvious answer is that humans have no such knowledge. We don't even know if existence can even be said to have been created. We observe cause and effect in our limited little section of existence and draw a conclusion of a beginning and an end. But really we have no justification for such an idea. Instead of movement from starting point A to end point B, cause and effect could just be spontaneous movement (for whatever reason) of what has always been there. With no aim of an intended end, just the random movement of "matter" against "matter". This could simply be the nature of existence, no human concept of "creation" required. And it is just as valid to say this nature is eternal as it is to make claims of eternal creators.

If cause and effect does not necessarily point towards existence as being created, then what other justification is there to say it has been created? Creation is a human concept, and even without a valid opposing theory we have no justification to say existence is necessarily created.

There is the something can't come from nothing argument, but then that is a stupid argument. Which does not explain anything but only unnecessarily expands the borders of existence.

 

[Onkara]

I voted that we do. On grounds that logically we can arrive at "answers" if we recognise our limitations.

 

[Engyo]

I think the statements both contain a bias. They presuppose that existence was "created". I submit that we do not "know" that for absolute fact.

 

[fantome profane]

[youtube]U2_p1pfpLWQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Hogan's Hero"s (stick version)

 

[LuisDantas]

I voted no. I would vote for "We don't know that there was really a creation of existence" if such an alternative did exist.

 

[Eliot Wild]

God Almighty created everything.

He didn't create this post I'm writing right now. And if he really does exist, he better not try to take credit for my novel I'm currently working on. It is a piece of speculative fiction heavily influenced by Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo, but it is solely my product, produced from many late-night composition sessions under the stresses and strains of my own anxieties, creative urges and explicit demands for quality.

If he exists, God can take credit for the planets, the Grand Canyon, kaola bears and whatever other creations are solely his, but you, sir, are wrong when you write that god almighty created everything. You may consider it 'pride', but it is damn well deserved -- there are a few things I did on my own.

 

[Willamena]

Of the two choices check which one you feel is more likely to be true. Feel free to explain your choice or make any other comment related to the topic.

There's no option for both. Oh well...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the statements both contain a bias. They presuppose that existence was "created". I submit that we do not "know" that for absolute fact.

I'm not even sure whether "what created existence" is a valid concept in the first place. It seems to me that it assumes the existence of a "what" prior to existence coming into existence. I see a number of logical problems with this.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I picked: No humans do not know, because quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe a literal creation took place. To me the creator gods in my religion could have just been given those honorary titles because the ancients believed they did, but it doesn't mean the ancients were right. I think life might have evolved from the formless underlying reality- Brahman, Netjer, Allah, whatever you wish to call it.

 

[Willamena]

I agree- myths don't create things

If there were no myths, there wouldn't be this response you made to his post. That's something.

 

[Bereanz]

In my opinion this is a very open ended and unqualified question for a religious forum and seems to be phrased in such a way as to timidly open a discussion about peoples various religious belief in a forum that usually disusses anything but religion. But that's just me.

As a Christian and a Bible believer i.e that the Bible is the Book of Books and the word of the Creator God Himself then one has to say; of course I know and that if one states that they dont know, then one is an ignorant fool and without exuse for suggesting anything to the contrary.

But putting my personally and strongly held religious beliefs aside, the agnostic is perfectly welcome to say, "he/she isn't sure", and the athiest is perfectly welcome to say he/she doesn't know/doesn't want to know, and the Darwinian evolutionist is perfectly welcome to say "we got here through planted DNA from a highly evolved Darwinian alien race". And on and on it goes etc etc...

In conclusion, what exactly is the point of your poll? I see it as kind of like the reinvention of "flogging a dead horse." Scenario. Surely a quick 10 minute squize around the plethora of threads in this thrilling forum would give you your answer? I've been here 15 minutes, that did the trick for me!

Happy New Year, or is it? Does any body really know?

 

[Willamena]

I'm not even sure whether "what created existence" is a valid concept in the first place. It seems to me that it assumes the existence of a "what" prior to existence coming into existence. I see a number of logical problems with this.

Even this contains logical problems... that existence "comes into existence."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even this contains logical problems... that existence "comes into existence."

Yes... this was one of the logical problems I was thinking of: the idea that existence can be "created" at all.