Question for Creationists

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 16 2006, 12:31 PM) [snapback]256305[/snapback]</div>

Daniel, you are too funny. I was having difficulty choosing among the last four options, but I voted in accordance with my serious belief (i.e., there is no god) And if in fact god created the laws of chemistry, after having taken organic in college I would have to concur with the concept of a cruel god who toys with humans for his own amusement.

 

oh no... here we go

to those of you who voted that no reaction would occur without god's hand: i guess cocaine is divine then huh?

it all makes sense now.

 

:lol: LMAO~ spaghetti & meatballs :lol:

 

I voted other. It is Atom Smith's invisible hand that is behind all of it.

No atom or molecule would ever interact with another without direct divine intervention from Atom Smith.

 

Well, I don't recall this subject ever coming up in any sermon or class I've been in. I find that option 2 best corrisponds with my understanding of the Bible and science. I interpret the Bible as indicating God created all creatures, which dosen't leave room for evolution. (Yes, I know thats a big other controversy, but that is just how I understand it.)

Secondly, God provided for free will. I have no idea what will is made up of, scientifically, but my best guess is it is chemical. Life depends completly on chemical reaction, so will is likely to as well. If God is actively controlling all chemical reactions, then free will is moot. Therefore, God created all creatures and set laws to govern the chemical reations, but not to control them.

There is my maybe good, probably illogical answer from a creationist. For what it's worth, I think the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and whatever other natural laws you can think of fall under the same umbrella.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 16 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]256328[/snapback]</div>

Well (snort), you do have a point there...

 

I would have appreciated an "agnostic" option, for the same reason as for the atheist. I can't vote without being frivolous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 16 2006, 11:59 AM) [snapback]256328[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Someone once told me (back in the 60's) "God made pot, man made booze, who do you trust?"

Then I picture a giant lightning bolt... Oh nevermind, too many Monty Pythone episodes h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 16 2006, 09:02 PM) [snapback]256646[/snapback]</div>

I voted "other" because I'm a creationist with a little "c", in that I believe God "created the heavens and the earth", but I also accept the evidence amassed for evolution and the origins of the universe. Truth is truth, even if one truth seemingly contradicts another.

As Father Georges Lemaitre said, much to the initial consternation of Einstein "There were two ways of arriving at the truth. I decided to follow them both." That pesky priest turned out to be right, and the expanding universe pushed Einstein's "cosmological constant" right out of the cosmos!

So I guess I would say:

In the beginning, God said "BANG!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 16 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]256305[/snapback]</div>

My vote was number two. I would think that after God created the universe and all of those laws and such of chemistry, there wasn't a need for him to watch over every chemical reaction.

 

This subject is related to Prius ownership, how?

 

fshagan, you're OK!

daniel, your first several choices were well thought out, or they wouldn't have attracted the distribution of responses they did

 

Apparently, you guys don't watch "Star Trek - next-gen".
Gods = Almighty "Q".
No offense to anyone's belief intended.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(subarutoo @ May 16 2006, 11:57 PM) [snapback]256702[/snapback]</div>

Stay away from FHP, mate. It's an insideous vortex that will suck you in and leave you wonder why you spend you life arguing philosophy with people you've never met. In many ways it's similar to crystal meth.

I'm in the agnostic camp as well. But, if I were a theist I'd definitely take the approach that God doesn't mingle with the mundane. Why on Earth would someone want to micro-manage and entire universe? Same for a deterministic universe. That's got to be the most boring thing ever (excepting various pieces by Shostakovitch). What's the point of the whole thing if you know and determine everything?

My personal view is that if there is a God, he/she/Clapton determined some laws, set them in motion, and is still waiting to see where it all ends up. This God has a general notion of where the system is headed but doesn't know the outcome of specific events/stream of events. The God might even be surprised by unpredicted situations. We are not special in this system, though we obviously plan a part.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 17 2006, 02:13 AM) [snapback]256712[/snapback]</div>

Funny how this subject inspires people to bring up illicit substances B)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 17 2006, 02:13 AM) [snapback]256712[/snapback]</div>

Unless he's someone like Donald Rumsfeld.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 17 2006, 02:13 AM) [snapback]256712[/snapback]</div>

Clapton is God!!! You must be a fellow guitarist.

 

...Other. (Please post.)...

Mythology as propensity for supernatural...

Aliens, as presented by Van Daniken and others...perhaps more alien mythology...

I happen to bump into people who claim that 'life on earth' is just a science project carried by some higher intelligent life-form. I wonder when will they terminate the experiment? :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ May 17 2006, 08:20 AM) [snapback]256768[/snapback]</div>

DId you ever consider the possibility that maybe they did, and we just don't know it yet?