Which takes more faith to believe: "First there was nothing, then it exploded", or "in the beginning God.." Don't they both take faith?

Based on current levels of scientific literacy I'd say that for most people there is very little difference between the two. After all, is there really any difference in the following two statements. "I believe that God created the universe because Reverend Smith told me so" and "I believe in the Big Bang theory because my science teacher Dr Jones told me so".

Both Rev Smith and Dr Jones may be fine people. They may be equally earnest in their views. How can any person choose one over the other?

Well your religious person may choose Rev Smith because they have also had some sort of personal experience with God. But a scientist will disagree and say 'where is the evidence? ' When it comes to evidence its a sad fact that most people who say that the "Big Bang" was the start of the universe can't actually say what the Big Bang was.

They would in fact be hard pressed to give any supporting evidence. 9/10 people wouldn't even mention http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/redshift.html "Doppler shift" or be aware of http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~ipswich/Miscellaneous/Olbers.htm "why is the night sky black" So all they are doing is agreeing with Dr Jones because their friends agree with Dr Jones. No evidence is involved, so this is Faith.

And Faith in exactly the same way that the followers of Rev Smith have.

Yes, but what do you think is more believable, a creator to create everything and all the complex systems of his creation, or that an explosion that happened out of nothingness created the complex systems.

The short answer is yes, they both require faith One is faith in a higher being capable of creating everything - but with no way of proving it. The other is faith in the "scientific method" as a tool to discover how the world works - with the ability to prove or disprove every theory using this method. That's pretty much what 'scientific method' means - can this be proved, can it be repeated, does it fit every known fact at present?

Rational discourse and logical experimentation means you should arrive at a provable conclusion. It's no so much a question of faith, its about where you put that faith and why. What logic, or lack of logic, do you use to help you decipher the world?

That's always going to be a personal choice and we should all be allowed to make that choice without prejudice or fear of retribution. Which faith is hardest? Both require commitment but I think it's easier to have faith in something solid and scientific.

Even though both cannot be proved scientifically, look at the following example. 1st belief: "Once there was a stone. It suddenly changed into a bicycle.

After some years, it suddenly changed into a bike. After some years, it suddenly changed into a car. The car wished to fly.

Then it suddenly changed into a airplane. Then the air plane wished to go to other planets. Then it suddenly changed into a rocket.2nd belief: Man created bicycle, bike, car, air plane & rocket.

You're right, they both take faith. But doesn't most things in this life? Doesn't sitting on a chair require some measure of faith?

Faith that the chair will support your weight? Personally, I think it would take more faith to believe that the world just happened into existence. That doesn't seem logical to me.

The idea of Intelligent Design and a Creator makes much more sense to me. I wholeheartedly believe that God created this world to function as He designed it to. I do believe that He gave man some control of this world, and it has become what we have managed it to become.

However, I believe He remains in ultimate, sovereign control. I recently gave birth to my daughter. Throughout my entire pregnancy with her, I was continually amazed at the intentionality of the process.

There is nothing accidental about human life being conceived and developed within another human being. I cannot be so inhuman as to believe that we are mechanically controlled by scientific law. As I felt my child move within my abdomen, knowing that without my thought or conscious control, she was being fed and sustained from my body, I knew that Someone was guiding each step of her development.

Someone had intentionally designed my body to function in such way that would bring forth new life. Labor only confirmed those thoughts. A woman's body works very naturally in labor to bring forth life.

I could have been completely out of it in my mind and still have had a perfectly normal labor because my body was basically working all on its own. That alone is proof of Intelligent Design. Each person that you ask your question to will resolve a different answer.

But that doesn't mean every answer bears truth. Truth is not relative, and "individualized worldviews" mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Truth is truth, simply put.It cannot be altered based on preference and it will not be demeaned to fit into our comfortable, compartmentalized thought processes.

I am interested, since you brought up this "conundrum" to discover what belief you hold. I have a feeling you are biased one way or the other and posed the question to provoke debate. Please share your thoughts.

1st. How can 'nothing' explode? 2nd.

I think its all a pile of shit.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.