Isn't that a question for science and not for religion? Scientific processes should be left to science. This in no way diminishes from the fact that we are created beings living in a created universe. It just makes the fringe elements of Christianity that beleive in Bibilical literalism look more silly.
I'm not arguing with that, but there aren't many religious folk like you that can differentiate between the two.
Actually I think the opposite is true. I think living in the American south produces a skewed sense of what Christians beleive in regards to creationism. There are alot of Fundmentalists here who beleive in a literal reading of Genesis. Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Anglicans, which make up about 80% of all Christians worldwide don't teach literal interpretations of scripture and are much more open to scientific reality.
No. I am here, and as best I can tell so is the universe. So the fact that all this stuff was created is fact. I beleive it was created by some supernatural force called God. That is faith.
who says something has to be created for it to exist? we have been down this road before? god exists, right? was he created? no? he just always existed? why cant that logic apply to the universe?
We know this universe had a beginning. I will admit that it is a special pleading to say everything has a begining and an end ... except for God. I think that is a smaller logical fallacy than the infinite regress required if the every thing requires a creator.
do we? we know the universe appears to be expanding, and that it appears to be expanding from a single point where it was hypercompressed or whatever. but that doesnt mean it a had a "beginning" really in the traditional sense. i dunno what you mean exactly. but we do agree that is is your faith that tells you that the universe was "created". we dont know that.
