I prefer to stay away from belief in general. It doesn't seem to serve much purpose, at least not the kind of belief that I think you're talking about: i.e. trying to make yourself believe something which is doubtful. I think that exposes the mind to risks I'd rather not take, sort of like playing "chicken" with the truth. The scientific method provides us with a way to reduce our uncertainty about doubtful things, such as how the universe came to be. It doesn't usually let us reduce the uncertainty to zero, but reduction is still a good thing. More to the point, I think, human beings are well advised to learn to live with uncertainty, because there is a LOT of it in life which simply cannot be eliminated. Trying to do mental gymnastics about it ("I believe in X, even though I have no compelling evidence") seems to me more about dramatizing one's discomfort with uncertainty than anything heroic.

If Einstein said he believed in creation, I believe him.

I believe in creation

If you mean creation in the Biblical sense then no, it's not. It's not reasonable to believe in anything for which there is no supporting evidence, especially when there are other explanations that, though incomplete, are supported by observation and evidence - such as the Big Bang and evolution.

No. Creation has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence to support it and there's no way to test creation and falsify it so it cannot be scientific.

It depends on what you mean by "creation". If you mean a belief that the Earth was created in a very short period time essentially as it is today, then I would say no it is not scientifically reasonable to believe this. I respect that right of those who do believe it to believe as they wish, but I don't believe that science supports that idea. However, if by "creation" you mean that there was a Divine creator behind the creation of the universe and our world, then I would have to say that such cannot be ruled out. No matter how much we may learn about the origins of the universe, etc., we will always be faced with the question of, "Yes, but what caused that?" There will never be an end to the search for the first cause. This is where a belief in the Divine comes in. The Divine provides a first cause for everything else. Since we can't eliminate the possibility of a God having created all that we see, I don't consider it unreasonable to believe in one. Personally, I am a devoutly religious person. I will admit that I can't prove that God exists, but I believe that he does. You are free to form your own opinions on this.

Yes its reasonable. How did the ball of energy that started the big bang get there? If you start today and go back in time, you will see everything was created somehow. Eventually you will come to the big bang, but was that ball of energy not created? Does it go back infinitely, or does it stop at something that wasnt created, but just is. Now im not saying be pro creationism crazy religous people, nor am i saying there was a creation (i believe there was), but I am saying it is reasonable to believe in one.

Well, we can look into the universe, and see stars and planets forming, I suppose that is a form of creation, right. Though we may not be able to fully understand it, it is occurring in many places, and is being documented as such. I hope this is helpful. Here is an article from NASA regarding the birth of a planet, http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_931.html Anh here is another , from The Planetary Society, http://planetary.org/news/2006/1019_Astronomers_Track_the_Birth_of_a_Planet.html And here is one regarding the birth of a star, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/birth/proto.html

I am the adult child of a Christian minister. I am also a lawyer and a non-church-going spiritualist. I have struggled with my beliefs for many years, although never much of a creationist. (I was taught, thank goodness, that the bible stories were symbolic, not literal.) I have recently decided for myself, and I mean like THIS MONTH, that I believe in "God" but not in RELIGION. Not the Old or New Testament Gods, but the God that I believe in. When I say "God" I mean, that something miraculous happened at the beginning of the universe to create something out of nothing. To me, it is hard for me to understand how it is not obvious to all that at the very least, something fabulous got us moving. To not understand this makes me think that people don't understand the profundity of nothingness. Nothing does not BECOME something. It remains nothing forever. I think a lot of people get hung up on the word "God." I think it should be changed to something less value-laden, like The Fabulousness. (Lol. As in The Fabulousness that started the universe.) I can't tell you how much relief this has brought me. It's like...how could I have not known this was an option all along?! Anyway, I don't think GOD is the problem, I think RELIGION is the problem, the plethora of organizations that believes that we MUST believe in THEIR God and we must believe in the WAY that they want us to and worship how they SAY we worship. Organization is the problem. Hearts are not citizens of forced organization. It seems to me in my memory of things that Creationism was not a big deal when I was a child. That was all resolved at trial and only backward-thinkers weren't bright enough to figure out the difference between symbolic mythos and actual factual science. POLITICS created the modern Creationist! AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT. When the Republicans found that they were lacking a sturdy foundation, they adopted the right wing Christians and brought them more firmly into the flock in the early 80's. It was politically brilliant. They are used to blind devotion: they will never leave you! Creationism is a political movement. Science doesn't need to be believed in, it either is or it isn't and once it is proved, we move on.

No, it has more to do with emotion than with reason: "Reason is thinking characterized by logic and symbolic categorization. It requires the ability to think, understand and draw conclusions in an abstract way. It is often felt to be objective or neutral concerning the understanding of reality it can be used to develop, and is thus contrasted with emotionalism, which is thinking driven by desire, passion, or prejudice. Reason is a conscious attempt to discover what is true and what is best. Reason often follows a chain of cause and effect, and the word "reason" can be a synonym for "cause"." "Modern psychology has much to say on the role of emotions in belief formation. Deeper philosophical questions about the relation between belief and reality are studied in the field of epistemology, which forms part of the philosophical basis of science, a branch of human activity that specifically aims to determine (certain types of) truth by methods that avoid dependence on the emotions of the researchers." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

I think a "god" is one possible explanation for the beginning of the universe. However, I have no reason to beleive that such an entity is still involved with the universe.

I am saying that I am not sure what started the universe and that a "god" is one possible explanation.

Yes; of course it is. You see the only element in 'science' appearing to point against 'religion' are those atheists and agnostics in charge of most of the scientific world at present. Real scientific discoveries, as those tabled in the book, TWO BIRDS ... ONE STONE, by Denis Towers, are hush-hushed under the carpet. These actually show how genuine, provable science and the Bible actually marry perfectly.

Big bang and Creator. =========== Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter (all elementary particles and all quarks and their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”. And after there was a “Big Bang”. The scientists wrote very thick books about this theory. But nobody wrote the reason of the “Big Bang” because nobody knows it. I know the reason. The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm, we have named " a singular point". And action, when the God opens his palm, we have named the "Big Bang". ============ ==============. The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII declared this in 1951. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/ Now we have unity between Religion and Science. Alleluia !!! Alleluia !!! Alleluia !!! But it is strange,…… why cannot we hear the happy sounds of Scenic’s /Church’s bells? =============.

No. Creation implies a Creator. And everything claimed to be evidence of a creator has been debunked, and since we've done so well to explain our world without that myth, you're left believe in something imaginary for the fun of it. It's perfectly good to do that for it's own sake... it turns into Dungeons and Dragons. But if you base any decision with real life consequences on that belief, you're behaving irresponsibly.