Is this why it is easier for people to believe in a creator

  • Thread starter Thread starter thenewguy1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the reasons why some individuals may find it easier to believe in a creator, particularly in the context of scientific explanations for the origins of the universe. It touches on the interplay between science and religion, the concept of gaps in scientific understanding, and the philosophical questions surrounding the existence of a creator.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the lack of scientific explanations for the universe's origins leads people to believe in a creator who is not bound by natural laws.
  • Others argue that there are multiple reasons for belief in a creator, and caution against oversimplifying this belief to a single explanation, referencing the "God of Gaps" argument.
  • Questions are raised about the nature of the creator, including the paradox of who created the creator and whether the creator came from nothing.
  • Some participants assert that there is not necessarily a conflict between science and religion, noting that many scientists and laypeople reconcile both views without seeing them as mutually exclusive.
  • It is suggested that belief in a creator may be seen as an easier option when faced with unanswered scientific questions, rather than relying on human explanations that are still incomplete.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between science and religion, with some asserting a conflict and others denying it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of belief in a creator and the implications of scientific gaps.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the nature of science and religion, and the discussion does not resolve the philosophical questions posed about the creator's existence.

thenewguy1
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Because science yet has to fill the puzzle of how the world came into existence from nothing so the reason that makes sense for people is that a creator whom is not restricted to the laws of the universe or any made it
Until science reveals

Am I right
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure if "makes sense" is the right term. There are a myriad of reasons as to why people believe an intelligent entity created/runs the universe. You aren't going to be able to pin it down to just one all encompassing explanation. Having said that your post resembles the "God of Gaps" argument whereby people justify their belief/argument by fallaciously asserting that because there is no explanation for phenomenon X an intelligent being (usually from their religious belief) is responsible.
 
I want to ask "who created the creator? did the creator come into existence from nothing?" ...so it doesn't make sense.
 
shashankac655 said:
I want to ask "who created the creator? did the creator come into existence from nothing?" ...so it doesn't make sense.

But people that believe in a creator accept the question as an unknowable mystery that a entity out of our laws and universe knows so that's why it also makes it easier to believe in an accept than a question that man supposedly could answer but still has not
 
thenewguy1 said:
Am I right
No, you're not.

You are implicitly assuming the existence of an inherent conflict between science and religion. There is of course a potential for conflict between science and religion; some branches of some religions do subscribe to beliefs that have been falsified by science. Some branches, mind you. There are plenty of scientists who are also religious. They do not see an inherent conflict between science and religion. There are plenty of lay people who accept scientific teaching and also believe in some religion. They too do not see an inherent conflict between science and religion.

You are also implicitly assuming that science will have all of the answers. Science does strive to give an ever deeper explanation of the universe, how we came into existence, the nature of consciousness, etc. However, the fervent hope of scientists, whether deeply religious or adamantly atheist, is that science will not have answers to all of the outstanding questions in their lifetime (or at least not until they retire). What would they do for a living if science did come up with all of the answers?

While religion need not depend on gaps in science, science most certainly does.
 
D H said:
No, you're not.

You are implicitly assuming the existence of an inherent conflict between science and religion. There is of course a potential for conflict between science and religion; some branches of some religions do subscribe to beliefs that have been falsified by science. Some branches, mind you. There are plenty of scientists who are also religious. They do not see an inherent conflict between science and religion. There are plenty of lay people who accept scientific teaching and also believe in some religion. They too do not see an inherent conflict between science and religion.

You are also implicitly assuming that science will have all of the answers. Science does strive to give an ever deeper explanation of the universe, how we came into existence, the nature of consciousness, etc. However, the fervent hope of scientists, whether deeply religious or adamantly atheist, is that science will not have answers to all of the outstanding questions in their lifetime (or at least not until they retire). What would they do for a living if science did come up with all of the answers?

While religion need not depend on gaps in science, science most certainly does.

No what I meant is that they believe in the proven facts of science but it's just that when there is an unproven question like the one stated that people seem to resort to creator who is out of our laws and universe which is easier to believe in than a group of men who yet have to find an answer
 
This thread comes this close to violating our rules on religious discussions, and is just begging someone to make a post that does violate those rules.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K