
Or like they just didn’t know how the universe worked or how things came into place so people used what they had and came to a conclusion that something or someone must have created it. If looking at the “creation of the universe”saying that god created something from nothing “ex nihlo” and saying that it is basically the big bang makes sense. But a lot of physicists are coming up with more robust hypothesis saying that the big bang is not the most likely way for the universe to have “popped in”
I think you are missing my point, people explain the unknown with whatever framework they have. Back then it was “let there be light,” today it’s the Big Bang. But neither is the final word, since even physics is still working out what really happened. The key difference is that science is designed to change, while religion declares the truth and later adapts it when science looks at a likely hypothesis
I’m saying with anything out there air, water, earth any form of matter has an origin, the water we drink has existed for millions of years and you mean to sit here and tell me because we are the ONLY planet with water, and food for a sentient species like us and you think it was some scientific accident? Why even talk about this with someone who clearly doesn’t know what they are speaking on.
I’m not debating whether the Bible teaches good lessons. again, my point is about frameworks of explanation. Taken literally, it has been wrong, flat earth cosmology, young earth timelines, global floods, the Tower of Babel explaining languages. That’s why people later call those things metaphor. Finding meaning is fine, but that’s not the same as being factually correct. The difference is science is designed to change when proven wrong.