Has God created the world?

[blazeofglory]

You have a choice, to be a believer or a nonbeliever. If you believe in God you must oppose the theory of evolution or Darwinism, or you can not subscribe to the idea of Copernican or Galileo.

Later religious pundits or ideology holders reformed to keep them in tune with science.

You can not subscribe to two opposing ideas at the same time.

I for one can not believe as said in mythologies that God created the world.

I do not mean there is no force or power that frames natural laws. Indeed there is a source of every power.

Yet I can not conform to the idea of God, an after life, and that God created everything.

[jgweed]

Believing in "God" does not preclude accepting evolution, nor does accepting the evidence of the sciences preclude believing in "God."
The same can be affirmed for god "creating" the world, unless one believes in a crass interpretation of what it means to create (that is, an anthropomorphic analogy to human creation). Perhaps a way through the horns of the dilemma, is consider that creation might mean something akin to "set in motion" or create might mean something like "establish a final cause for all processes."

Or: we may argue thusly---
Time being a human conception, we can only posit it as applying to the human world in which past, present, and future have any sort of meaning. If---and this is a conditional argument---we assume God to be eternal and simultaneously existing in past, present, and future, then we could not posit time as meaningful to God, and moreover, (shattering climax)we could not posit the temporal activity of creation as possible for God, for action implies a present decision about a possible future.

Or: following the above discussion, one could argue that science presents an adequate explanation of the physical world, and that to extend a human explanation to interpret a (by definition) non-human event presents major difficulties. This is, essentially, the Kantian view that human understanding is limited to the human world, and when it is applied to the supra-human world the result is antimonies (opposites both of which can be proven) and confusion.

On the other hand, if one dogmatically holds, as a matter of faith, that (for example) the Biblical account of creation is an actual record of events and not a poetic creation that explains the origin of the world in a mythological sense, and if the evidences of science suggest that the Biblical account is impossible, then of course one must choose one or the other account as true.

So, the dilemma of contrary accounts only seems to arise under certain interpretations of God and creation, and need not under other interpretations.
Cheers,
John

[johann cruyff]

To my knowledge,there is an idea that serves as a bond between the two opposing ideas - deism.According to it,God did create the universe,and,obviously,everything in it,but does not interpose afterwards.That doesn't discredit the Darwinian theory at all...

I consider myself an explicit,strong atheist,but if I ever did doubt my beliefs,deism would probably be my choice.

[jgweed]

Deism is indeed yet another way to reconcile God with science. It might be argued, for example, that the laws of Nature (discovered over time by science) are the laws "ordained" by God, and that evolution and physical creation but follow those laws. God's active participation would, in this view, not be necessary for physical events.
One remembers Spinoza's enterprise of linking God with Nature (deus sive natura) in an essential unity in this respect.

[johann cruyff]

To Spinoza,God indeed is Nature,right(Pantheism has reached its pinnacle with Spinoza,in my opinion)?So if a man unites with nature,he,in a way,unites with God?I believe this is called intellectual love of God,at least as far as I remember it.

[jgweed]

I think what Spinoza might say is that man is, in a way, a part of nature and therefore a part of God. For example, "God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. Whatsoever is, is in God...".
Perhaps more directly bearing on the discussion: "God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things." And again,"The intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself . . . The love of God towards men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God, are identical."
Cheers,
John

[Statistic]

This question has been asked a jillion times, and will continue to be asked until religion is vanquished or nobody cares any more. Most people give long explanations with their opinions on this matter, but I think everyone wishes for a simpler answer, so here it is:

Nope. Gods, the supernatural, etc. are fake. I know this to be fact. Can you prove that I don't know this for a fact? How do you know I'm not withholding some great secret?

[CognitiveArtist]

Nope. Gods, the supernatural, etc. are fake. I know this to be fact. Can you prove that I don't know this for a fact? How do you know I'm not withholding some great secret? I also don't believe in God or supernatural events, but I don't think they are fake. Because I don't think there is truth.

With God creating the world there is really 4 positions.

1. God created the universe out of nothing.

2. The universe created itself out of nothing.

3. God created the universe and the universe repeats infinitely (something like the Matrix).

4. The universe created itself and repeats infinitely.

I like the idea of 4, but 2 and 3 also appeal to my mind (I don't think I've ever heard anyone believe in 3, but it seems like one of the logical possibilities). 1 I find to be anthropocentric, it's right because humanity would like it to be right. Also there's the question of what caused God.

[jgweed]

Perhaps the mental construct of "creation" is misleading when applied to the "universe," since creation implies something creating:---and this might not be the case at all....

[Smoogles]

Evidentally Blaze,

It is possible to be a Christian and believe in that it's called Deism: There is a creator, he put everything in place, made everything perfect, but does not interfere with everyday life, not connected with his creations (The scientists usually all bend to this notion of christianity) and then there is Theism: People who believe there is a personal God, aware of his creations, miracles, Big Band etc. And it is the Teleological Argument which proves that God is the Designer for life and intracacey in it, you are so ignorant to the facts of Christianity and it seems as if you are a lost lad looking for his dad. No offense but read your stuff before you post something about God or I can just post logical reason to prove my point every time.

[sappho22]

i think pantheism is the best doctrine to embrace since it reconcile all differences, neutralize all suspicions and can be easily corrobrated with our sense of sublimity when we confront nature, god is in there and in us being a part of it