Wild idea?

[Jimmy]

Let’s say the universe was created. Why then would it be so far fetched to believe that people were a part of that creation?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

the conclusion would NOT be farfetched

IF the premise were true

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let’s say the universe was created. Why then would it be so far fetched to believe that people were a part of that creation?

If it was, the universe incorporates all things. But it's far fetched to assume there is a creator.

 

[Stevicus]

Let’s say the universe was created. Why then would it be so far fetched to believe that people were a part of that creation?

It wouldn't necessarily be far-fetched, but I would suggest that it still leave unanswered questions. We would have to be making assumptions about the intentions and practices of whatever hypothetical creator we're talking about.

For all anyone knows, the universe could be some scientific experiment by some extra-dimensional race of beings beyond our comprehension. Humans might be some unfortunate by-product or residue or waste product. Part of creation, but not one of the better parts. It could be something like that just as easily anything else we can concoct with our imaginations.

 

[sun rise]

One problem with creation threads like this one is that what constitutes 'created' is not defined except by Biblical literalists.

And God said "let there be a big bang creating a universe with the following laws that will inevitably lead to people through the laws of evolution".

 

[Brian2]

If it was, the universe incorporates all things. But it's far fetched to assume there is a creator.

Isn't it far fetched to assume that there is no creator?

 

[Brian2]

It wouldn't necessarily be far-fetched, but I would suggest that it still leave unanswered questions. We would have to be making assumptions about the intentions and practices of whatever hypothetical creator we're talking about.

For all anyone knows, the universe could be some scientific experiment by some extra-dimensional race of beings beyond our comprehension. Humans might be some unfortunate by-product or residue or waste product. Part of creation, but not one of the better parts. It could be something like that just as easily anything else we can concoct with our imaginations.

Really?

 

[ChristineM]

Isn't it far fetched to assume that there is no creator?

No

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Isn't it far fetched to assume that there is no creator?

No. It's a default. People can have a hunch the universe existed in many ways without a creator.

Where does the hunch come from?

I've never had the hunch.

 

[Stevicus]

Really?

Anything is possible, right?

 

[Brian2]

No. It's a default. People can have a hunch the universe existed in many ways without a creator.

Where does the hunch come from?

I've never had the hunch.

I would have thought the default position is "I don't know", not the assumption that there is no creator.

 

[Brian2]

Anything is possible, right?

No, not everything imo.
I would go with a creator, for whom there is evidence, rather than what you suggest,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if it was possible.

 

[Brian2]

No

An assumption of no creator even with evidence for a creator would mean that people with such an assumption would automatically dismiss any evidence for a creator, unless of course the evidence was very strong.
A strong claim needs strong evidence so they say. But a strong assumption or claim against a creator does not seem to need strong evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

An assumption of no creator even with evidence for a creator would mean that people with such an assumption would automatically dismiss any evidence for a creator, unless of course the evidence was very strong.
A strong claim needs strong evidence so they say. But a strong assumption or claim against a creator does not seem to need strong evidence.

There is no evidence for a creator, only confirmation bias based on assumption. If evidence existed do you honestly think there would be so many different religions each imagining their own version of god or gods. And so many none believers saying, i see no evidence, show me valid evidence and i will examine it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would have thought the default position is "I don't know", not the assumption that there is no creator.

No. There's nothing to not know. In other words take me (and those like me). I had no concept of a creator growing up,no hunch, etc.

If someone asked if I believed in a creator Id say no. I have no object of comparison, no description, experience, and no doubts. The idea doesn't make sense in my view.

Kind of like if I asked, not in a rude way, do you believe there are people living on other planets.

More than likely from what you know you'd say no. If you said I don't know, are you leaving a chance there could be life?

Why?

 

[ratiocinator]

Isn't it far fetched to assume that there is no creator?

No. And you rapidly disappear into an infinite regress if you start making assumptions like that (unless you indulge in special pleading, that is).

 

[Stevicus]

No, not everything imo.
I would go with a creator, for whom there is evidence, rather than what you suggest,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if it was possible.

What evidence? It's all just a bunch of wild guessing. You think that your wild guesses are superior to other people's wild guesses?

 

[ratiocinator]

I would go with a creator, for whom there is evidence...

An assumption of no creator even with evidence for a creator...

So where is this evidence...?

 

[Brian2]

So where is this evidence...?

Apart from the wonders of creation God has revealed Himself to us through the Jewish history and by sending His Son to save us from the consequences of our sins.

 

[Brian2]

What evidence? It's all just a bunch of wild guessing. You think that your wild guesses are superior to other people's wild guesses?

The history of Israel and God showing Himself there is not a wild guess.
At least we should start with something that is real instead of making up stuff from our head.