Creation

I believe:

  • God created the universe. The Biblical Creation story is literally true.

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • The Biblical creation story must be read symbolically rather than literally.

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • God guided evolution over millions of years. The bible story is not literally true.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • God played no further part in evolution following the initial creation.

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • There is some doubt about whether or not the universe was created by God.

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • The universe was probably not created by God.

    Votes: 16 66.7%
  • Total voters
    24
There are claims of direct perception of aliens abducting hapless rednecks in Alabama. Why should one value claims of those that claim to be special enough to "perceive" that which others cannot? If they're unable evidence their claims, shouldn't they be left to the ranks of the delusional?
 
For comparison:

A Gallup poll in 1996 of Americans found:

46% of Americans believe in the literal truth of the Genesis story of Creation from the Bible.
40% of Americans believe that God has guided evolution over millions of years, and that the Bible Creation story is symbolic rather than literally true.
14% of Americans have some other view.
 
SkinWalker said:
There are claims of direct perception of aliens abducting hapless rednecks in Alabama. Why should one value claims of those that claim to be special enough to "perceive" that which others cannot? If they're unable evidence their claims, shouldn't they be left to the ranks of the delusional?
Click to expand...
the difference is that saintly people don't just just make claims of direct perception - they make claims of processes as well, hence its not unusual to find a range of normative descriptions in scripture
 
Yet their claims of "processes" don't hold up. Not a single one. If I'm wrong, cite a reference here.
 
Care to cite a passage to one? No need to quote the whole bit of mythology, just the chapter/verse/line.
 
Rosnet said:
No probability is important when we have only partial knowledge. And that we do. Considering how the idea of God could have originated in the first place, and considering whether we have any evidence for such a thing, we can say very well that God probably does not exist, the same way that we can say that (as someone pointed out very very long ago right here in SF) that flying pink unicorns probably don't exist.
Click to expand...
We can say that about certain ideas of god - the Biblical version, for example.
But the "creator-of-the-universe" god - the Deistic variety that can no longer interfere with their creation?
What knoweldge can we have of that one?
 
lightgigantic said:
unlike the celestial teapot, there are claims of the direct perception of god (saintly persons) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception
Click to expand...

OK, riddle me this, I sometimes get an overwhelming urge to drink tea, I have one right now, and must go immediately, put the kettle on, and get brewing. What is this is if it not divine guidance from the 'Great Celestial Teapot' itself?

People feel things inside themselves, and attribute them to external influences. God or Teapot, it's all the same. Internal, personal, and has no external reality.
 
what bugs me about this poll is that the last choice says "....probably..."

well were is the choice that says"....definitely was not created" ?
 
lightgigantic said:
unlike the celestial teapot, there are claims of the direct perception of god (saintly persons) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception
Click to expand...

Unlike your god , there are claims of the direct perception of the celestial teapot (lunatics) and also processes for others to come to that point of direct perception

Truly amazing how easy it is to replace a few words and still have equally valid statements.

The balls in your court.
 
Where's the option for the universe probably wasn't created at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top