Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Which Is More Absurd
79 Answers
1 )Accepting (for the time been) that we dont yet fully understand how the universe came about and how life came to be. Or
2) Believing one ancient creation myth out of scores of other ancient creation myths
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths)
and believing the others to be bunkum but yours to be right without a shred of evidence?
2) Believing one ancient creation myth out of scores of other ancient creation myths
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths)
and believing the others to be bunkum but yours to be right without a shred of evidence?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Atheist - // Theland, I think Andy said something I disagree with when he said that atheists believe that physics is the creator. Physics is not a person or entity that could create something; physics is a word for the process of looking at the world in search of discovering the truth about what is really out there. //
I think that's a matter of semantics, but the thrust of my point is that scientists are happy knowing they don't know, which I can fully go along with, Christians say they do know, but have no proof, which I can't go along with.
I think that's a matter of semantics, but the thrust of my point is that scientists are happy knowing they don't know, which I can fully go along with, Christians say they do know, but have no proof, which I can't go along with.
Andy @ 21:46 - On the question of proof, I can fully understand your reticence to give any credence to the claims made by Christians.
But the only proof you would accept would be something presented as a result of physical detection, and that is not forthcoming, apart from the creation itself.
Also, as it is widely believed by atheists, that any other proofs would therefore be tenuous, such proofs as exist are enthusiastically and promptly explained away by resorting to yet another naturalist explanation.
So where does that leave us?
Hopefully agreeing to disagree with mutual respect.
But the only proof you would accept would be something presented as a result of physical detection, and that is not forthcoming, apart from the creation itself.
Also, as it is widely believed by atheists, that any other proofs would therefore be tenuous, such proofs as exist are enthusiastically and promptly explained away by resorting to yet another naturalist explanation.
So where does that leave us?
Hopefully agreeing to disagree with mutual respect.
Theland - // Andy @ 21:46 - On the question of proof, I can fully understand your reticence to give any credence to the claims made by Christians.
But the only proof you would accept would be something presented as a result of physical detection, and that is not forthcoming, apart from the creation itself. //
I have to repeat, that the universe is clearly a fact, but its creation is not - and as to that, we differ.
// So where does that leave us?
Hopefully agreeing to disagree with mutual respect.
Absolutely - that works for me.
Thank you.
But the only proof you would accept would be something presented as a result of physical detection, and that is not forthcoming, apart from the creation itself. //
I have to repeat, that the universe is clearly a fact, but its creation is not - and as to that, we differ.
// So where does that leave us?
Hopefully agreeing to disagree with mutual respect.
Absolutely - that works for me.
Thank you.
The Bible creation stories (Genesis 1 & 2 ) can ONLY be read as myth.
They cant be read any other way. Theres not a zoologist alive who believes that snakes once talked. There cant be an astrophysicist alive who believes that the Earth was born before the sun. Theres not a biologist alive who believes that life all life came about on the same day.
They cant be read any other way. Theres not a zoologist alive who believes that snakes once talked. There cant be an astrophysicist alive who believes that the Earth was born before the sun. Theres not a biologist alive who believes that life all life came about on the same day.
// //who are you to decree how people should read things?//
Personally, by what they tell me.//
er happens alot in religion
you accept being taught when you sign up
The pope Bishop of ROme says that JOnah and the whale is a parable
the pope 0 Papa Tedris ( Papa Shenouda died a few years ago) says it is true
I mean Jesus - is this a big deal ?
Personally, by what they tell me.//
er happens alot in religion
you accept being taught when you sign up
The pope Bishop of ROme says that JOnah and the whale is a parable
the pope 0 Papa Tedris ( Papa Shenouda died a few years ago) says it is true
I mean Jesus - is this a big deal ?
// They cant be read any other way. "//
Jesus was crucifed on the cross
You cant really say - o o this is a parable for - he went into the centre for a macchiolato and then took the rapid transit to Glastonbury
one has to hem hem sensible at least some of the time
even tho this is AB - - - - ter daaah !
Jesus was crucifed on the cross
You cant really say - o o this is a parable for - he went into the centre for a macchiolato and then took the rapid transit to Glastonbury
one has to hem hem sensible at least some of the time
even tho this is AB - - - - ter daaah !
fiveleaves - // Which is the most absurd?
1. There was nothing which exploded.
2. The Universe is the result of a divine Creator //
Personally, I would not use the term 'absurd' for either.
However, the first option does capture the imagination of thousands of brilliant minds who are groping their way towards the factual answer, and will find it - just not in our lifetime.
The notion of a 'divine creator' speaks to the human psyche - a need to find a reason for the unexplainable - and shows no sign whatsoever of providing a hint of evidence. That is reserved for the dead, and so far, no-one has come back to advise either way.
1. There was nothing which exploded.
2. The Universe is the result of a divine Creator //
Personally, I would not use the term 'absurd' for either.
However, the first option does capture the imagination of thousands of brilliant minds who are groping their way towards the factual answer, and will find it - just not in our lifetime.
The notion of a 'divine creator' speaks to the human psyche - a need to find a reason for the unexplainable - and shows no sign whatsoever of providing a hint of evidence. That is reserved for the dead, and so far, no-one has come back to advise either way.
