# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/781 "2010-09-09T23:20:51Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@Latro](#): > > > > 1\> Altruism in the wild is observable NOW. But the claim is that it evolved. My point is how did the earliest population survive until it did? > > Well, go-it-alone types are still out there NOW too; it’s not all symbiotic plants and insect hives and aquatic mammals who stick around to raise their young and big cats who hunt in packs and thus and such. Once you get down to _ **really** _ primitive life-forms, they don’t especially _ **need** _ much in the way of cooperation or restraints on behavior or whatever. > > Take, say, an inoffensive little single-celled organism like the euglena: combine a knack for photosynthesis with asexual reproduction by fission and it doesn’t need to mate any more than it needs to raise the ensuing offspring, sure as they don’t need to hunt in packs or practice cooperative agriculture or whatever; they don’t need teamwork sure as they don’t need to refrain from much; they can’t _ **do** _ much; they get by just fine with little more than sunshine and fresh water, swimming around to eat the occasional bit of algae in the wild. That’s life. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> If it is both (hard wired and survival) then a\> you contradict other posters here, and b\> yu will need to address BOTH of my points above. > > I’m afraid I don’t follow you. First off: which two points are you referring to? Second, which posters here categorically rule out both the hard-wired impulse in question and the hard-wired impulse for survival? 1\> That’s life… I agree. But humans have an aversion to murder, and the claim is that this aversion ‘evolved’. Evolution decrees that at some point the single cell organisms began to develop and over millions of years we get more complex life forms, and ultimately man. During this lengthy process, the earliest life forms who ARE capable and motivated to kill ‘appear’. As they appear, they compete, fight, kill, get diseased, etc. It is inconceivable that fledging populations would suurvive. 2\> The two points…On page 15 I asked the following question: \*Is the naturalistic position that an aversion to murder is: a\> a hard wired emotional response, unrelated to ‘survival’ as such, or is it b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? are the answers given to my question arguments that apply to both hard wiring and survival.\* Diogenes specifically ruled out b in post 698 when he stated “It is a. It has nothing to do with a subconscious deisre for survival…”. Apollyon suggested it could be both (post 695), although I believe he did clarify that postion later. I believe another poster suggested it was b. The point is that neither answer gets around the fundamental problem…how did fledgling populations survive the early stages of the development of this aversion as they competed, without it, for resources, food, mates, territory, etc etc etc. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/782 "2010-09-09T23:26:07Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Fair comments. I say again that I have and would never claim that I can ‘prove’ that there is a God. The word proof relates to natural things; God is supernatural, so the terms don’t relate. The point is what is plausible on the balance of probabilities. Ultimately for all of us that involves belief, for you can no more prove your theories of origins than I can prove the existence of God. > > I have no theory of orgins, I just consider that if something is proven (in time) like the earth not being flat, the earth the center of the universe etc.( and the proof for that which we all now know to be proven) > > Science does seem to prove itself more than beliefs. The difference between the debate as to weither God had a beginning makes just as much sense as if existence itself had no beginning. so much can be shown as the world evolves. Scientists now have pictures of stars being born even though that happened eons ago. Thanks to the Hubble and other telescopes put in space! 1\> I agree with you on ‘proof’. It is interesting to note that the Bible stated that the earth was round, and not at the centre of the universe, long before man knew these to be true. 2\> Science is about establishing truth about the natural world. It is about trial and error, experiment and observation. But it’s very nature it may proove itself wrong more often than it proves itself right. I have no issue with science, however I have a healthy scepticism of scientists. Scientists compete for funding, distort results, exagerate claims and even (in the worst cases) fabricate findings. Not a good look. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/783 "2010-09-09T23:29:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > It is amusing that you persist with this issue rather than address the objections being debated. Tooth and claw is a common expression. Are you that threatened by the expression “tooth and claw society”? It’s not that difficult. > > There is no such thing as a “tooth and claw **society**.” That would be a contradiction in terms. If you want to insist otherwise, please provide an example of a “tooth and claw society” which has ever existed. A tooth and claw society is one that deploys the basic instincts of sruvival. The expression ‘natuure is red in tooth and claw’ is wiidely used…google it. You’re just sore because you can’t answer my objection to the evolution of aversion to murder. get over it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/784 "2010-09-09T23:37:57Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> If empathy evolved, it was not always present. > > 2\> Until it was, populations had no reason to constrain their ‘tooth and claw’ fight for survival. > > 3\> The already fledgling populations would not survive ‘thousands and thousands’ of generations of a ‘tooth and claw’ fight for survival. > > Ah, but what about before the species developed into a social one? In a species where it’s every organism for itself, you’d expect a strategy where a creature is more vicious would be the one to be favored (and therefore instilled by evolution). But when a population of them needs to cooperate to survive, like we apes clearly do, the individuals with those more brutal instincts would be selected out, leaving the more empathic ones. > > By the way, you keep using “tooth and claw” with the word “fight.” I think the phrase you may be looking for is “tooth and nail,” which is a common expression that denotes an especially vicious fight. 1\> In a species where it’s ‘every organism for itself’, the more vicious creatures, or let’s say the intial ‘survivors’, will ultimately compete with other ‘vicious creatures’ once the weak are eliminated. At that point, with no developed sense of empathy, the competion, and therefore the killing will prevent the species repopulating. 2\> The cooperation you speak of amongst ‘we apes’ would never eventuate. Earlier life forms ould simply not survive the brutality of life long enough. That is the entre point. And as an aside, the trait of ‘cooperation’ would also need to evolve, against a battle for survival. It is utterly implausible. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/785 "2010-09-09T23:44:09Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Fair comments. I say again that I have and would never claim that I can ‘prove’ that there is a God. The word proof relates to natural things; God is supernatural, so the terms don’t relate. The point is what is plausible on the balance of probabilities. Ultimately for all of us that involves belief, for you can no more prove your theories of origins than I can prove the existence of God. > > The word proof relates to deductive logic, not necessarily ‘natural things’. If you are saying God is beyond logic, your position is automatically incoherent and not worth discussing (since it would be literally impossible to discuss). > > Further, you cannot logically comment on how probable God is if you consistently say that God is unknowable. > > So our choices, according to you, are: > > 1. Scientific theory/model/etc > 2. Admit uncertainty > 3. An incoherent unknowable thing you’ve called God. > > I cannot see how it is at all rational to choose ‘3’ here, since you cannot use anything to support it (you would have to _know_ something about God in order to support the contention). 1\> Actually there are many forms of truth, so I take your point. Let me clarify. God is not beyond logic. In fact we have logic only because of God. 2\> If I stated God is ‘unknowable’ then I erred. We can not understand everything about Gid, but we can certainly know Him, and know about Him. But even if He weree unknowable, that would not limit our ability to comprehend the probability of His existence. ‘Knowing’ about something is quite a different matter to comprehending its existence. 3\> The choices are: a\> faith in the hypothesis that everything that is can be accounted for by purely naturalistic explanations, and that nothing exists outside the natural. b\> faith in the hypothesis that an intelligent agent existing outside of the natural universe, brought the natural universe into existence. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/786 "2010-09-09T23:54:14Z")
[quote=“Meatros, post:775, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > I’ve stated many things with regard to the big bang. What you are referring to is the contradiction of a creator creating time. I’ve pointed out time and time again that in order to create time you have to presuppose an already existing time. Otherwise it’s impossible to say there was a time before time. There is no contradiction with a creator creating time. Unless you can prove that any other form of time to the one we experinece is impossible, you cannot discount it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/787 "2010-09-10T00:00:20Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Where did this time come from? Further, if _this_ time could exist without a creator, then why couldn’t the universe? > > You are begging the question and multiplying entities - in the end your position is ‘it’s magic’ and you are basing this off of the idea of an ‘unknowable’ entity! > > This is _not_ a competing explanation on the origin of the universe. 1\> The universe could not exist wiithout an uncaused first cause. 2\> The uncaused first cause MUST, by definition, be outside of time as we understand it. 3\> You have no evidence for an eternally existing universe or for a natural universe coming into being without a cause. These thoughts are as much beliefs as the existence of God. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/788 "2010-09-10T00:04:20Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Because they are explanations and they have theoretical models. They may not be perfect, but they give us something to understand. > > An ‘intelligent agent’ that operates outside of time/space without physical materials who has mental states without a brain/time/space is simply incoherent. > > So, on the one hand we have an imperfect scientific model on another hand we can admit that we don’t know. There are no hands to support the notion of an incoherent magic man. Explanations and theoretical models are no more evidence than argumentation for an intelligent agent. There is not a single shred of empirical evidence that even a single other universe exists. In the 1970’s we had explanations and theoretical models that the earth was headed for an imminenet ice age. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/789 "2010-09-10T00:07:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Meatros](#): > > > > Where did this time come from? Further, if _this_ time could exist without a creator, then why couldn’t the universe? > > > > You are begging the question and multiplying entities - in the end your position is ‘it’s magic’ and you are basing this off of the idea of an ‘unknowable’ entity! > > > > This is _not_ a competing explanation on the origin of the universe. > > 1\> The universe could not exist wiithout an uncaused first cause. This is not true. This is simply an ignorant, unfounded belief you are unwilling to drop. > [@](#): > > 2\> The uncaused first cause MUST, by definition, be outside of time as we understand it. Since an uncaused first cause is nothing but gibberish you’re making up, sure, whatever you want it to do. If you want it to enlarge penises or fart lighting, that’s cool too. > [@](#): > > 3\> You have no evidence for an eternally existing universe or for a natural universe coming into being without a cause. These thoughts are as much beliefs as the existence of God. You don’t have any evidence either. The proper answer to a question with no evidence one way or another is “I don’t know.” Not to assert childish nonsense about God. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/790 "2010-09-10T00:07:35Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > So what? The point you seem to be missing is that these are explanations while what you are putting forward is _not_. These explanations maybe wrong, but it is more rational to hold to them because they are coherent and have some physical models to work with. > > A magic immaterial man has none of these. Therefore it is not rational to support such a notion. You can easily replace the word ‘hold’ inyour statement to ‘believe’. And in what sense are using the term ‘coherent’? The notion of an intelligent agent IS coherent, more so than untested explaanations and models. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/791 "2010-09-10T00:09:47Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Meatros](#): > > > > Because they are explanations and they have theoretical models. They may not be perfect, but they give us something to understand. > > > > An ‘intelligent agent’ that operates outside of time/space without physical materials who has mental states without a brain/time/space is simply incoherent. > > > > So, on the one hand we have an imperfect scientific model on another hand we can admit that we don’t know. There are no hands to support the notion of an incoherent magic man. > > Explanations and theoretical models are no more evidence than argumentation for an intelligent agent. There is not a single shred of empirical evidence that even a single other universe exists. In the 1970’s we had explanations and theoretical models that the earth was headed for an imminenet ice age. It was never the scientific consensus that another ice age was imminent. It doesn’t surprise me that you believe that, however. Before you respond. Look up the term “scientific consensus.” ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/792 "2010-09-10T00:11:15Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> The universe could not exist wiithout an uncaused first cause. > > This is not true. This is simply an ignorant, unfounded belief you are unwilling to drop. > > Since an uncaused first cause is nothing but gibberish you’re making up, sure, whatever you want it to do. If you want it to enlarge penises or fart lighting, that’s cool too. > > > [@](#): > > > > 3\> You have no evidence for an eternally existing universe or for a natural universe coming into being without a cause. These thoughts are as much beliefs as the existence of God. > > You don’t have any evidence either. The proper answer to a question with no evidence one way or another is “I don’t know.” Not to assert childish nonsense about God. 1\> There is no single example of any other ‘thing’ in the naural universe coming into existnece from nothing. That is a fact. So you are compelled to believe something that has never once been observed in the natural universe. That isn;t scienece, it;s blind faith. 2\> ‘You don’t have any evidence either’ is hardly argumentation. So you admit you don’t know. Fine. I have made it clear I believe in an intelligent agent on the balance of probabilites. Are you honest enough to accept that’s all you have also? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/793 "2010-09-10T00:12:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Explanations and theoretical models are no more evidence than argumentation for an intelligent agent. There is not a single shred of empirical evidence that even a single other universe exists. In the 1970’s we had explanations and theoretical models that the earth was headed for an imminenet ice age. > > It was never the scientific consensus that another ice age was imminent. It doesn’t surprise me that you believe that, however. > > Before you respond. Look up the term “scientific consensus.” Truth is not determined by consensus. Never was, never will be. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/794 "2010-09-10T00:12:33Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > And in what sense are using the term ‘coherent’? The notion of an intelligent agent IS coherent, more so than untested explaanations and models. There is no evidence for God. You want God to be real because you believe in him. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/795 "2010-09-10T00:16:00Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > This is not true. This is simply an ignorant, unfounded belief you are unwilling to drop. > > > > Since an uncaused first cause is nothing but gibberish you’re making up, sure, whatever you want it to do. If you want it to enlarge penises or fart lighting, that’s cool too. > > > > You don’t have any evidence either. The proper answer to a question with no evidence one way or another is “I don’t know.” Not to assert childish nonsense about God. > > 1\> There is no single example of any other ‘thing’ in the naural universe coming into existnece from nothing. That is a fact. So you are compelled to believe something that has never once been observed in the natural universe. That isn;t scienece, it;s blind faith. Didn’t I ask you to look up virtual particles before? You don’t know how the universe was created. This means you’re making up an explanation. Does that seem like something a smart person would do? > [@](#): > > 2\> ‘You don’t have any evidence either’ is hardly argumentation. So you admit you don’t know. Fine. I have made it clear I believe in an intelligent agent on the balance of probabilites. Are you honest enough to accept that’s all you have also? I haven’t said what created the universe. You’re saying that you have an answer, which makes you a person who says things without evidence. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/796 "2010-09-10T00:16:44Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > This begs the question - block time makes better sense out of our physical theories, as I’ve explained (and you’ve ignored). > > As to skepticism, I agree - we should be skeptical of all cosmological models/theories that explain the origin of the universe. We should consider what’s on the table. > > So far you have utterly failed to make the case that ‘God did it’ is on the table. In fact, even beyond that, you’ve failed to make the case that ‘God did it’ is even coherent. I would argue that you _cannot_ make this case since you’ve already conceded that God is unknowable. > > Therefore, God is off the table. This is where my earlier post about science and scientists is substantiated. Models and opinions are not evidence, yet they are elevated to a position of authority. God is on the table because the same (if not superior) level of argumentation can be made for the existence of an intelligent agent as for another universe. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/797 "2010-09-10T00:18:55Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> There is no single example of any other ‘thing’ in the naural universe coming into existnece from nothing. That is a fact. So you are compelled to believe something that has never once been observed in the natural universe. That isn;t scienece, it;s blind faith. > > Didn’t I ask you to look up virtual particles before? You don’t know how the universe was created. This means you’re making up an explanation. Does that seem like something a smart person would do? > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> ‘You don’t have any evidence either’ is hardly argumentation. So you admit you don’t know. Fine. I have made it clear I believe in an intelligent agent on the balance of probabilites. Are you honest enough to accept that’s all you have also? > > I haven’t said what created the universe. You’re saying that you have an answer, which makes you a person who says things without evidence. 1\> Virtual particles are formed from within a quantum vacuum, hich is not nothing. Further there is no evidence that virtual particles are uncaused…sceinece is still working on that. 2\> I claim to have a plausible hypothesis. So do you. Both are on the table. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/798 "2010-09-10T00:21:00Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > It was never the scientific consensus that another ice age was imminent. It doesn’t surprise me that you believe that, however. > > > > Before you respond. Look up the term “scientific consensus.” > > Truth is not determined by consensus. Never was, never will be. I didn’t say that. You are having trouble understanding what is going on, I’ll try again. You suggested that “scientists” said there was an imminent ice age in the 70s. This is because you believe bullshit you read without questioning it. In fact, only a very few fringe wackos thought an ice age was imminent. The scientific consensus was never that the fringe wackos were right. Because the scientific community examined their evidence and found it to be bullshit. If you had the tiniest shred of a desire to debate, you’d now admit that the statement you made was wrong. But you wont. Because you’re witnessing. You’re standing on a soapbox and screaming about God. Not debating. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/799 "2010-09-10T00:21:28Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Actually it is, since in theory, it could be tested and in theory it could work. Further, they are understandable and even the ones that seem wrong (big crunch) are to be preferred over the incoherent (god did it) that have _NO_ explanatory power. ‘Could’ be tested. ‘Could’ work. But nether has happened has it? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/800 "2010-09-10T00:24:29Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Didn’t I ask you to look up virtual particles before? You don’t know how the universe was created. This means you’re making up an explanation. Does that seem like something a smart person would do? > > > > I haven’t said what created the universe. You’re saying that you have an answer, which makes you a person who says things without evidence. > > 1\> Virtual particles are formed from within a quantum vacuum, hich is not nothing. Further there is no evidence that virtual particles are uncaused…sceinece is still working on that. And science is still working on the origin of the universe. We may never find out. But suggesting it’s God is simply ignorance speaking. > [@](#): > > 2\> I claim to have a plausible hypothesis. So do you. Both are on the table. With no information you can’t make an assessment of plausibility. And I don’t know what created the universe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=41)