# Creationist Attempts to Prove the Existence of God / Denial of Evolution \[merged threads\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889 "2012-02-05T20:47:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![TripleFail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@TripleFail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TripleFail)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/81 "2012-02-06T17:34:11Z")
I think before any discussion can be had, definitions need to clarified. I am interested to know what does spaceless, timeless and immaterial actually mean in the real world? Since I have only experience where time, space and material exists, simply using intuition is not good enough. If we talking Plank time/length I would be interested to know what the interpretation would be like. To side track a bit here is a memory where a bit only takes up 12 atoms > **[IBM Brains Turn 12 Atoms Into World's Smallest Storage Bit](https://www.wired.com/2012/01/ibm-scientists/)** > > IBM researchers have found a way to put a single bit of data on a 12-atom surface, creating the world’s smallest magnetic storage device. It’s a breakthrough that’s not likely to make its way into hard drives or memory sticks for decades, but it... How DARE the bit switch by themselves without cause!!! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/82 "2012-02-06T17:46:11Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > I think it’s reasonable, the “default option” to assume _something_ caused it to happen. It’s defying every morsel of common sense and basic human instinct to think otherwise. Yeah, I could be wrong, I’m human. But I’m hard-wired to assume a cause. I’m willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint, such as an explanation on how we already know things can happen “uncaused”.. I just need someone capable of breaking the concept down for a layman like me? Does your common sense also tell you that if something goes from point A to point B, it must also traverse the space between points A and B? Mine does. However, at the quantum level this is not true. Our intuition comes from both experience and years of evolution which causes us to model how the macro world works. That intuition is useless in discussing first causes. We also know how to measure the position and velocity of objects, and do it all the time, quite accurately. However our intuition also fails us at the quantum level, because Heisenberg Uncertainty makes this impossible. My understanding of quantum foam is that the reason for it (using reason loosely) is that it is impossible in nature to state with certainty that some region of space is empty, and thus particles appear. As for practical, if you reject all the things that make no sense at the quantum level, you would find you would be incapable of developing semiconductor logic at small enough feature sizes. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/83 "2012-02-07T01:00:50Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > We’ve mentioned the quantum foam several times now. It is the example of uncaused events that you’re looking for. Another example is the random decay of radioactive elements. Nothing “causes” a Uranium atom to decay. It just happens. The atom is unstable, and, after a period of time which no one can predict (although in large numbers, of course, it obeys the statistical pattern of the half-life) it pops. There is no “cause.” It happens when it is good and ready. ---
**Author:** ![raggyroo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f9ae1b/32.png) [@raggyroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raggyroo)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/84 "2012-02-07T17:11:12Z")
Consider this: The Bible tells us that God has no beginning and no end. God is eternal. To the human mind this seems impossible so many people refute it. But likewise a circle has no beginning and no end and we really can’t understand the circle; mathematically that is. For example: take an eight inch square and an 8 inch circle and mathematically describe (understand) them. The square is said to have four sides of 8 inches each, a perimeter of 32 inches and encompasses an area of 64 square inches. And that is correct! So we understand the square exactly! The circle on the other hand has a diameter of 8 inches, a perimeter of 25.13274 inches and encompasses an area of 50.26548246 square inches. But thats wrong! There is a little left out. So it really doesn’t describe the circle exactly. We can see the whole circle but we can not understand it. Mathematically, it shouldn’t exist. But it does. The mind of man, no matter how intelligent, can never under stand the existance of God. God is not made from matter or energy. He is spiritual. Calculas exists but a dog can never understand it because it’s brain is not capable of it. Likewise man is not capable of understanding God but must accept Him as a matter of faith. The proff of God is all around us if you look. You believe in the circle because you can see it, but you still can’t understand it. ---
**Author:** ![raggyroo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f9ae1b/32.png) [@raggyroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raggyroo)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/85 "2012-02-07T17:13:10Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Okay, well if you are going to try to have an informed opinion on these matters, then you should probably start with the metaphysics of time. Here’s a good run down on the [concept of a block universe](http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp). > > You are the one that is positing an incoherency in order to explain the universe - I am not. I’ve already given what I consider to be a good explanation of the universe, ie, a block universe. That explains the existence of the universe, no logically incoherent explanation required. > > That said, it seems you are being arbitrary - right now you seem to be suggesting that a God explanation, even though it’s contradictory and incoherent, is somehow superior to your view of a contradictory physical explanation. > > So if you consider both to be incoherent, why prefer one over the other? > > Actually, its perfectly valid. Your position should be ‘i don’t know’, at least if you want to hold a rational position. > > BTW - I’m not sure you could describe the properties of a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial entity, but I’d love to see you try. Consider this: The Bible tells us that God has no beginning and no end. God is eternal. To the human mind this seems impossible so many people refute it. But likewise a circle has no beginning and no end and we really can’t understand the circle; mathematically that is. For example: take an eight inch square and an 8 inch circle and mathematically describe (understand) them. The square is said to have four sides of 8 inches each, a perimeter of 32 inches and encompasses an area of 64 square inches. And that is correct! So we understand the square exactly! The circle on the other hand has a diameter of 8 inches, a perimeter of 25.13274 inches and encompasses an area of 50.26548246 square inches. But thats wrong! There is a little left out. So it really doesn’t describe the circle exactly. We can see the whole circle but we can not understand it. Mathematically, it shouldn’t exist. But it does. The mind of man, no matter how intelligent, can never under stand the existance of God. God is not made from matter or energy. He is spiritual. Calculas exists but a dog can never understand it because it’s brain is not capable of it. Likewise man is not capable of understanding God but must accept Him as a matter of faith. The proff of God is all around us if you look. You believe in the circle because you can see it, but you still can’t understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/86 "2012-02-07T17:17:44Z")
> [@raggyroo](#): > > Consider this: The Bible tells us that God has no beginning and no end. God is eternal. To the human mind this seems impossible so many people refute it. But likewise a circle has no beginning and no end and we really can’t understand the circle; mathematically that is. For example: take an eight inch square and an 8 inch circle and mathematically describe (understand) them. The square is said to have four sides of 8 inches each, a perimeter of 32 inches and encompasses an area of 64 square inches. And that is correct! So we understand the square exactly! The circle on the other hand has a diameter of 8 inches, a perimeter of 25.13274 inches and encompasses an area of 50.26548246 square inches. But thats wrong! There is a little left out. So it really doesn’t describe the circle exactly. We can see the whole circle but we can not understand it. Mathematically, it shouldn’t exist. But it does. The mind of man, no matter how intelligent, can never under stand the existance of God. God is not made from matter or energy. He is spiritual. Calculas exists but a dog can never understand it because it’s brain is not capable of it. Likewise man is not capable of understanding God but must accept Him as a matter of faith. The proff of God is all around us if you look. You believe in the circle because you can see it, but you still can’t understand it. i can draw a circle that has no beginning and no end, then erase it 5 minutes from now. Does the circle have a beginning and an end? By the way, just because _you_ have trouble understanding certain things doesn’t mean this lack of understanding is universal. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/87 "2012-02-07T17:19:07Z")
> [@raggyroo](#): > > But likewise a circle has no beginning and no end and we really can’t understand the circle; mathematically that is. I think this is a made-up definition of “understand.” > [@](#): > > Mathematically, it shouldn’t exist. This ought to be good: please explain how a circle shouldn’t exist. I’ll give you some points for creativity; I haven’t seen anyone else assert that God exists because there are irrational numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/88 "2012-02-07T17:53:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > i can draw a circle that has no beginning and no end, then erase it 5 minutes from now. Does the circle have a beginning and an end? By the way, just because _you_ have trouble understanding certain things doesn’t mean this lack of understanding is universal. Don’t let him know about lines (as opposed to line segments) and planes. They will blow his mind. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/89 "2012-02-07T17:54:34Z")
> [@raggyroo](#): > > Consider this: The Bible tells us that God has no beginning and no end. God is eternal. To the human mind this seems impossible so many people refute it. But likewise a circle has no beginning and no end and we really can’t understand the circle; mathematically that is. For example: take an eight inch square and an 8 inch circle and mathematically describe (understand) them. The square is said to have four sides of 8 inches each, a perimeter of 32 inches and encompasses an area of 64 square inches. And that is correct! So we understand the square exactly! The circle on the other hand has a diameter of 8 inches, a perimeter of 25.13274 inches and encompasses an area of 50.26548246 square inches. But thats wrong! There is a little left out. So it really doesn’t describe the circle exactly. We can see the whole circle but we can not understand it. Mathematically, it shouldn’t exist. But it does. The mind of man, no matter how intelligent, can never under stand the existance of God. God is not made from matter or energy. He is spiritual. Calculas exists but a dog can never understand it because it’s brain is not capable of it. Likewise man is not capable of understanding God but must accept Him as a matter of faith. The proff of God is all around us if you look. You believe in the circle because you can see it, but you still can’t understand it. I’m not sure why you think I’m taking issue with **eternal** things in particular, I think it’s quite clear that I accept it as a coherent notion, since my metaphysics of time depends on an eternal universe. My point about God’s mind is that when we speak of minds, we have particular things in mind, _namely human minds_ that take place **in space and time**. This is **not what** is meant by God’s mind - _so what is meant_? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/90 "2012-02-07T17:57:40Z")
Guys, man is incapable of understanding God. Just don’t even try. Take it on faith! Let me just write out a little essay explaining why you should believe in God… ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/91 "2012-02-07T20:09:32Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Guys, man is incapable of understanding God. Just don’t even try. Take it on faith! > > Let me just write out a little essay explaining why you should believe in God… So sayeth the Revenant… ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/92 "2012-02-08T06:08:00Z")
> [@raggyroo](#): > > Consider this: The Bible tells us that God has no beginning and no end. God is eternal. To the human mind this seems impossible so many people refute it. But likewise a circle has no beginning and no end and we really can’t understand the circle; mathematically that is. For example: take an eight inch square and an 8 inch circle and mathematically describe (understand) them. The square is said to have four sides of 8 inches each, a perimeter of 32 inches and encompasses an area of 64 square inches. And that is correct! So we understand the square exactly! The circle on the other hand has a diameter of 8 inches, a perimeter of 25.13274 inches and encompasses an area of 50.26548246 square inches. But thats wrong! There is a little left out. So it really doesn’t describe the circle exactly. We can see the whole circle but we can not understand it. Mathematically, it shouldn’t exist. But it does. The mind of man, no matter how intelligent, can never under stand the existance of God. God is not made from matter or energy. He is spiritual. Calculas exists but a dog can never understand it because it’s brain is not capable of it. Likewise man is not capable of understanding God but must accept Him as a matter of faith. The proff of God is all around us if you look. You believe in the circle because you can see it, but you still can’t understand it. Uhm… wow. There’s so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin. Firstly, mathematics is not some super-rational language of existence. It’s a model that humans developed to try to make sense of the world. Basically it’s just a language, like English or Esperanto (though the rules of math are far more consistent than a spoken language and very useful for all sorts of nonlingual purposes, obviously). There is nothing more mystical about numbers and shapes than letters or colors or any number of other things. Perfect circles, infinity, calculus, and so on don’t actually exist in the real world. They are conceptual models we have developed based on observations, then extrapolated, not divined from some universal truth. Secondly, I would argue the principle barrier to canine understanding of mathematics is lingual, not intellectual. A dog’s brain (as a human’s brain) performs all sorts of calculations all the time, but humans alone have developed a way to systematize those calculations in mathematical terms, and to teach those concepts via a language. The real shortcoming of dogs (or triumph of humanity, if you prefer) is the abstraction of reality in the form of languages. But those abstractions are _always_ conceptual models. There are no Platonic forms, and no serious person should entertain the idea. Thirdly, you say mathematically circles shouldn’t exist (personally, I’m geometrically stunted, so I didn’t really follow your example). But _perfect circles **don’t** exist_ in the real world. As a school child, I was distressed about the fact that 1/3 \* 3 = 1, but that this concept could not be expressed in decimals (0.3repeating \* 3 = 0.9repeating). This is not a limitation of human understanding or an indication of some mystical universal truth, it’s just a hiccup in an otherwise very useful model of understanding. Fourthly, if dogs could speak (so we could have this conversation), and said calculus didn’t make sense, why would I tell him to accept that it works _on faith_? If he doesn’t find the model accessible or useful, then he doesn’t have to use it. He won’t make an effective rocket scientist, but there’s nothing inherently enlightened about rocket science. Calculus is the best way we have of understanding various phenomenon, and it’s undoubtedly very accurate, but it’s not the language of the Gods. Utility is not the same as mystical truth. Fifthly, can you name one thing, aside from God, that isn’t some form of material energy? You say he’s spiritual, but what does that actually mean? And what evidence is there that anything spiritual exists at all? Sixthly, even leaving aside evidence, what does your concept of God help us understand about the world? We talk about perfect circles because they are useful models for understanding the world, not because they actually exist. If you can demonstrate a use for your God concept, than rational people might adopt it as a lens through which to study observable phenomenon, even if they don’t believe there actually is some God out there. This still wouldn’t mean that there’s actually a God, just as there’s not actually a perfect circle, but at the very least it would demonstrate some practicality of your concept. Seventhly, if it really has some applicable use, _why_ should people have to accept it on faith? If it doesn’t have any applicable use, _why_ believe it at all? Eighthly, I suspect I will have stirred up a hornet’s nest of not-necessarily-religious Neo-Platonists that will defend mathematics as the language of the universe, but to hopefully preempt that, I want to make it clear that I’m talking about Capital “T” TRUTH, not just effectively true accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/93 "2012-02-08T07:02:06Z")
> [@dorsk188](#): > > . . . Eighthly, I suspect I will have stirred up a hornet’s nest of not-necessarily-religious Neo-Platonists that will defend mathematics as the language of the universe, but to hopefully preempt that, I want to make it clear that I’m talking about Capital “T” TRUTH, not just effectively true accuracy. Superb eight-point rebuttal! Polite applause! I sometimes take math as a little like law. You have a basic set of rules that people have simply agreed to agree on, and then they put them together in a vaguely “argumentative” way. A proof, in geometry, has a little in common with a solid case in a legal proceeding. But the postulates are unproven. (Non-Euclidean geometry was controversial once…like same sex marriage!) ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/94 "2012-02-08T11:41:39Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I’m curious as to what you are suggesting. > > It seems to me that you actually accept the proposition that something can come from nothing - after all, what did God use? Nothing, right? > > So the problem is not actually something coming from nothing - it’s something being uncaused. QP, via quantum fluctuations, show that particles can pop into and out of existence in a vacuum uncaused. Philosophically I think this makes sense, seeing as the entire notion of causation that human beings are aware of is one where agents act upon pre-existing material/energy within time and space. That’s what _we_ mean when we say ‘x caused y’. > > So when you come to causation from nothing, it doesn’t seem to make sense to say that an agent was responsible. There was nothing for the agent to act upon, no time for the agent to do it, and no space for the agent to do it in. It’s an effort in paradoxes. > > Also, this entire conversation is predicated on a presentism metaphysics of time - which begs the question. Would this be like spontaneous combustion? If a Hay tack has moisture is stored in a barn, it has been known to start fire without any being starting it. At least in away. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/95 "2012-02-08T11:53:22Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Guys, man is incapable of understanding God. Just don’t even try. Take it on faith! > > Let me just write out a little essay explaining why you should believe in God… I believe you are correct in saying God exists only by faith,one can believe in a God, but that doesn’t mean it does. Faith is not fact, A fact can be proven, faith doesn’t require fact, and can be used anyway one wishes. Once faith is proved then it can be called fact, and is no longer faith. A theologian once said that after one got to heaven, faith and hope woud disappear, and then only love would exist. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/96 "2012-02-08T13:29:57Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Would this be like spontaneous combustion? If a Hay tack has moisture is stored in a barn, it has been known to start fire without any being starting it. At least in away. I need a little more to go on, or maybe it’s just early and my head is foggy. Are you saying something akin to existence having some sort of potential to cause a universe? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/97 "2012-02-09T11:28:32Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I need a little more to go on, or maybe it’s just early and my head is foggy. Are you saying something akin to existence having some sort of potential to cause a universe? The universe exists ,we know that, so it to is in existence. what ever is not in existence doesn’t exist! I have no ides of the cause,just that there has to be a place for anything( or one) to exist.I was just pointing out that spontanous Combustion is caused by a Chemical reaction, the heat generated starts the fire, no person is involved. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/98 "2012-02-09T11:36:06Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The universe exists ,we know that, so it to is in existence. what ever is not in existence doesn’t exist! I have no ideas of the cause,just that there has to be a place for anything( or one) to exist.I was just pointing out that spontanous Combustion is caused by a Chemical reaction, the heat generated, starts the fire, no person is involved. To add I watched a show on the science channel, where they showed how matter and anti matter work, in some cases they destroy each other, but it seems some matter was able to survive which cause the planets etc. to come into existence. I make no cliam to know, and could be wrong about a lot of things, that is why I like straight dope. I hope to learn. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/99 "2012-02-09T14:40:55Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > To add I watched a show on the science channel, where they showed how matter and anti matter work, in some cases they destroy each other, but it seems some matter was able to survive which cause the planets etc. to come into existence. I make no cliam to know, and could be wrong about a lot of things, that is why I like straight dope. I hope to learn. I hear you. I don’t claim to _know_ either, really. Some positions make more sense to me than other ones. I don’t find “God” to make sense (some of the reasons are in this thread) out of the ‘creation’ of the universe. Is it possible? Yes, I could be mistaken in what I hold to be true (such as with regard to time, causation, etc). To say that it’s the default because it make more sense is incorrect to me (again, I may be mistaken). ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889/100 "2012-02-10T00:02:18Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I believe you are correct in saying God exists only by faith,one can believe in a God, but that doesn’t mean it does. Faith is not fact, A fact can be proven, faith doesn’t require fact, and can be used anyway one wishes. Once faith is proved then it can be called fact, and is no longer faith. A theologian once said that after one got to heaven, faith and hope woud disappear, and then only love would exist. This is basically my point. If God has to be taken on faith, then attempting to persuade people that he exists takes that faith away, or gives a higher risk for it to be so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationist-attempts-to-prove-the-existence-of-god-denial-of-evolution-merged-threads/611889.md?page=6)