Atheists: where did everything come from?

[ThreeFiddy]

Answer please.

[methodman535]

Know any atheists or agnostics that pretend to know tthis answer? I sure dont. Why dont you tell us where everything came from. And by the way, most atheists dont "religiously deny" the existence of a god. They just find flaws in current theistic explanations, as well as the theistic definitions of god, hence the term a-theist. An agnostic is sometimes mistaken for an atheist.


But in answer to your question, a die hard atheist would probably say it was always there and then ask you where god came from, did god create himself?

An agnostic might say that yes, god was involved in whole or in part in the formation of the universe and perhaps even the earth but then would come out and tell you that all the religions are pure fabrications.

And then you would have your old friend, the faith laden follower of a competing religion who would laugh at you and tell you that your scriptures are a book of fallacy and untruths and then <insert religious doctrine here> etc etc etc...and show you that they are as persistent and "faithfull" to their beliefs as you are.

[ThreeFiddy]

Atheism:

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


BTW, You didn't answer my question.

[methodman535]

Since I am not a die hard atheist I dont have to answer it. I did put forth an answer on behalf of an atheist that probably doesnt even exist in this forum though, so theres your answer.

[ThreeFiddy]

Since I am not a die hard atheist I dont have to answer it. I did put forth an answer on behalf of an atheist that probably doesnt even exist in this forum though, so theres your answer.

Well how do you explain it?

[methodman535]

Since I am not a die hard atheist I dont have to answer it. I did put forth an answer on behalf of an atheist that probably doesnt even exist in this forum though, so theres your answer.

Well how do you explain it?

I dont. I believe that comprehending the creation of the universe in its entirety is beyond human cognitive ability. That would be worse than asking an ant in an antfarm how his environment was created. You cannot even communicate the question in its full meaning to the ant's nervous system let alone get any kind of a coherent answer or any answer at all.

Anyone who says they know the answer is wrong. Thats my opinion. And that includes any cleric of any religion. In fact I dont even think astronomers are fully "right" with all these big bang theories etc.

[ThreeFiddy]

I dont. I believe that comprehending the creation of the universe in its entirety is beyond human cognitive ability. That would be worse than asking an ant in an antfarm how his environment was created. You cannot even communicate the question in its full meaning to the ant's nervous system let alone get any kind of a coherent answer or any answer at all.

Okay, lets step away from the creation of the universe for a second then. What about the creation/emergence of life on Earth?

Anyone who says they know the answer is wrong. Thats my opinion. And that includes any cleric of any religion. In fact I dont even think astronomers are fully "right" with all these big bang theories etc.

Agreed. To an extent. :P

[brij]

Okay, lets step away from the creation of the universe for a second then. What about the creation/emergence of life on Earth?

Evolution

[Zapata]

Answer please.

from me ass.... gaandu!

Everything has been here since eternity and will remain here forever.

no one has the answers to this question... no matter what any religion sez, it is nothing but stories.

=v

[ThreeFiddy]

Okay, lets step away from the creation of the universe for a second then. What about the creation/emergence of life on Earth?

Evolution

lol

wanna elaborate?

[ThreeFiddy]

Everything has been here since eternity and will remain here forever.

What are you basing this on? I'm sure you're aware of the empirical evidence against that.


no one has the answers to this question... no matter what any religion sez, it is nothing but stories.


Why the fuck is everyone bringing religion into this? This has NOTHING to do with religion. I want to have a proper discussion concerning the "creation", of sorts, of the universe and the emergence of life on earth.

Oh and Mr Evolution: evolution is not a fact and does NOT explain the beginning of life, it merely describes its course. What I think you're meaning is "abiogenesis", which is flawed.

So please, try again, or just say you don't know. I'm not really interested in hearing "no one can answer it".

[methodman535]

Everything has been here since eternity and will remain here forever.

What are you basing this on? I'm sure you're aware of the empirical evidence against that.




Emperical evidence that just covers the STATE of matter not being here forever. However, since we know that in the known universe matter and energy change from one into the other, in effect it has been here for "eternity". Eternity itself is a very complex number, in math it is anything divided by nothing which itself is very hard to quantify "emperically". Which emperical evidence do you speak of anyway?

[ThreeFiddy]

Emperical evidence that just covers the STATE of matter not being here forever. However, since we know that in the known universe matter and energy change from one into the other, in effect it has been here for "eternity".

How does your argument support your conclusion? According to you, there's empirical evidence proving that the STATE of matter hasn't existed forever; okay, fine. But then you go on to say that this somehow implies energy has existed forever? Assuming it is shown that energy changes into mass under extreme conditions, it does not mean the absence of matter implies existence of energy; there's a chance there was, and a chance there wasn't (this is based on the fact that mass and energy aren't strictly conservative, as suggested by high school physics). For example, it could have just been total vacuum, nothing, void, no?

Also, if the energy suddenly changed into mass one day, what are the reasons for it? I mean, lots of energy exists, and one day, it just changes into mass? Hmm...

Eternity itself is a very complex number, in math it is anything divided by nothing which itself is very hard to quantify "emperically".

Eh. Seems a bit "convenient", no? BTW, eternity isn't really a number, infinity is. Eternity refers to time.

Which emperical evidence do you speak of anyway?

I was speaking of hubble's constant which shows that the universe is expanding at a very fast pace; the inference of this theory also dates the universe to be around 15-20 billion years old.

And the steady state theory of Plato has been discounted by a lot of extremely reputable scientist, including I believe Albert Einstein - who said that his belief in the steady state theory of the universe was his greatest mistake.

[methodman535]

Emperical evidence that just covers the STATE of matter not being here forever. However, since we know that in the known universe matter and energy change from one into the other, in effect it has been here for "eternity".

How does your argument support your conclusion? According to you, there's empirical evidence proving that the STATE of matter hasn't existed forever; okay, fine. But then you go on to say that this somehow implies energy has existed forever? Assuming it is shown that energy changes into mass under extreme conditions, it does not mean the absence of matter implies existence of energy; there's a chance there was, and a chance there wasn't (this is based on the fact that mass and energy aren't strictly conservative, as suggested by high school physics). For example, it could have just been total vacuum, nothing, void, no?

Also, if the energy suddenly changed into mass one day, what are the reasons for it? I mean, lots of energy exists, and one day, it just changes into mass? Hmm...



You still have not produced this emperical evidence that matter/energy was not present for all eternity. Where is this data that you spoke of?

[ThreeFiddy]

You still have not produced this emperical evidence that matter/energy was not present for all eternity. Where is this data that you spoke of?

What evidence do you have to support it?

Also, there's very little support for the steady state theory in the scientific community.

A quick search in google gave me this: http://nbsp.sonoma.edu/resources/teachers_materials/universe_01/cosmology_2/tsld025.htm

Which confirms what i said before - the Hubble's Constant.

[Ragga_NZ]

Atheists: where did everything come from? Answer please.

Firstly i best define my standing on religion...I have no evidence to disprove the existance of god/a god/many gods although I do not believe one exists (my opinion is that everyone is their own god and that their actions reflect what they lose/gain in life). N thass why i write "Agnostic Atheist" under religion for anything i gotta fill.

I can't surely say where everything came from initially...not too familiar with the big bang theory either. Coulda come from space i guess(notice not strongly claiming this to be true). I do believe in evolution which has nothing to do with where our initial ancestors came from but everything to do with how we came from them.

It's too far back to have any hard proof really

[ThreeFiddy]

Ragga, evolution does not explain how life started.

And as for the beginning of the universe - no more takers?

[brij]

lol

wanna elaborate?


(Sorry I missed this) Well evolution can be a possibility.



Ragga, evolution does not explain how life started.

Can you please explain why it does not explain how life started?


And as for the beginning of the universe - no more takers?

The truth is no one can explain how the universe started.

[ThreeFiddy]

Can you please explain why it does not explain how life started?

Evolution is the continuous/graduation development of life, so it assumes that life already existed. Thus implying life didn't evolve out of rocks and water. Life doesn't come from non-life - this is a simple observation. I'd like for you to cite to me when science has ever observed life come out of non-life because to believe that evolution created life, that is the evidence you have to produce. Oh and before you quote the creation of the four amino acids back in 52 - do some research on them first.

BTW, I think what you meant originally is abiogenesis, not evolution.

The truth is no one can explain how the universe started.

:lol: And atheists accuse religious people of forcing their views down other people's throats...

Look mang, the truth is that science doesnt KNOW how the universe started, but there's a fair amount of clues out there. And the clues out there do not support a steady state universe (your model of an infinite and eternal universe). Now if you want to believe that we can never know, then go for it. But don't come in and say "the truth is that no one can explain how the universe started", because I know how universe started - via a creator :D Oh yes that's my belief. Just like it's your belief that no one knows. You believe in coincidence, and I believe in intelligent design.

[brij]

Evolution is the continuous/graduation development of life, so it assumes that life already existed. Thus implying life didn't evolve out of rocks and water. Life doesn't come from non-life - this is a simple observation. I'd like for you to cite to me when science has ever observed life come out of non-life because to believe that evolution created life, that is the evidence you have to produce. Oh and before you quote the creation of the four amino acids back in 52 - do some research on them first.

BTW, I think what you meant originally is biogenesis, not evolution.


Ok you are talking about evolution and creation from nothing, evolution is no here to prove where life actually comes from, evolution can never show how life can come from non-life, it only shows we evolved. I may have jumped the gun when saying evolution is a possibility on this post with creation, I know it can not prove were everything actually comes from, only that we evolved. But do you believe we evolved?



:lol: And atheists accuse religious people of forcing their views down other people's throats...
Look mang, the truth is that science doesnt KNOW how the universe started, but there's a fair amount of clues out there. And the clues out there do not support a steady state universe (your model of an infinite and eternal universe). Now if you want to believe that we can never know, then go for it. But don't come in and say "the truth is that no one can explain how the universe started", because I know how universe started - via a creator :D Oh yes that's my belief. Just like it's your belief that no one knows. You believe in coincidence, and I believe in intelligent design.



Of course science does not no many things, there are many theories to a lot of things. You can’t make a bold statement that the universe started via a creator, you must prove it was, just like scientist are trying to prove the universe was created by there theories. Until we know the truth ‘‘we don’t know’’. I don’t believe I don’t know how the universe started, I know that I don’t know. Belief is not truth, belief is faith, an idea, devotion, ect, until it can be proven fact, the burden of proof is on those who state claims as fact, just like scientists must proof there science. What kind of god do you believe in? What evidence, clues as you say is there to prove your god exists?

[ThreeFiddy]

But do you believe we evolved?

Yes. Although I believe the current model of evolution nearly isn't as consistent as it should be.



You can’t make a bold statement that the universe started via a creator, you must prove it was,

What kind of proof would you be happy with? Since the creator created the universe, so rationally speaking the creator has to exist outside the bounds of the universe (unless we are inside the creator itself, which is another topic but lets not get off-topic here), so what kind of evidence would suffice for you? There has been many phillosophical writtings that prove the existence of God from a strict metaphysical standpoint and that's as far as we can ever go.

just like scientist are trying to prove the universe was created by there theories. Until we know the truth ‘‘we don’t know’’. I don’t believe I don’t know how the universe started, I know that I don’t know. Belief is not truth, belief is faith, an idea, devotion, ect, until it can be proven fact, the burden of proof is on those who state claims as fact, just like scientists must proof there science.

Okay, going forward with your "burden of proof is on the positive claiment" idea, how do you explain the fact that the steady-state universal model which you put forth cannot explain Hubble's constant? And most importantly, why do you think the big-bang idea is flawed?

What kind of god do you believe in? What evidence, clues as you say is there to prove your god exists?

Sigh. I wanted to keep this strictly off-religion but I made the first reference so I'll end it here. Like I said, I don't put my trust in coincidence, I put it in intelligent design. If you want evidence of creation, look around you. All the evidence you'll ever need. However, solid proof is something I cannot provide.

[brij]

What kind of proof would you be happy with? Since the creator created the universe, so rationally speaking the creator has to exist outside the bounds of the universe (unless we are inside the creator itself, which is another topic but lets not get off-topic here), so what kind of evidence would suffice for you? There has been many phillosophical writtings that prove the existence of God from a strict metaphysical standpoint and that's as far as we can ever go.


What evidence would suffice me? Why evidence which proves the existence of a god. I have debated with many people on this outside, in the end no one could even find a real theory which shows an outside, even to what an outside is. Most use this outside as a why to show what there saying is true, even if it defies how there god works. Maybe we should create a thread about this outside and discuss it.



Okay, going forward with your "burden of proof is on the positive claiment" idea, how do you explain the fact that the steady-state universal model which you put forth cannot explain Hubble's constant? And most importantly, why do you think the big-bang idea is flawed?

I think you have mistaken me for another post, I have not put forth this steady-state model you are speaking of. The steady state theory is still a theory, I don’t believe in this theory, as the universe is expanding, hubbles constant shows that the universe is expanding, I think most scientist no longer believe this theory as there is to much evidence against this. I don’t think the big bang is flawed, it may not provide where the matter actually came from, but besides that I have not found it to be flawed, I Think they have even found from the way the universe is expanding, moving that they found the point of where the explosion may have started.



Sigh. I wanted to keep this strictly off-religion but I made the first reference so I'll end it here. Like I said, I don't put my trust in coincidence, I put it in intelligent design. If you want evidence of creation, look around you. All the evidence you'll ever need. However, solid proof is something I cannot provide.


This wasn’t meant for religion, just for the god you believe in and the evidence or clues you have for this god, I do not agree with ‘‘look around you’’ that’s more of a belief, not evidence. Well at least someone can admit solid proof cannot be provided, just as I cannot provide evidence of how the universe was created.

[ThreeFiddy]

Havent got much time so I'll reply to this:

I do not agree with ‘‘look around you’’ that’s more of a belief, not evidence. Well at least someone can admit solid proof cannot be provided, just as I cannot provide evidence of how the universe was created.

You're not understanding the difference between evidence and proof. "Look around you" is proof, not evidence. Read up on it. Ta ta

[brij]

proof -

-any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something
-a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
-the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something


I don’t understand how ‘’looking around’’ is proof. How did you conclude that ‘’looking around’’ shows that there is a god and also the particular god that you believe in?

[ThreeFiddy]

proof -

-any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something
-a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
-the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something


I don’t understand how ‘’looking around’’ is proof. How did you conclude that ‘’looking around’’ shows that there is a god and also the particular god that you believe in?

Claim: there is a good
Qualities/attributes pertaining to claim: creator, can create anything
Proof of qualities/attributes: creation
Evidence of attributes: none

[ThreeFiddy]

...in the end no one could even find a real theory which shows an outside, even to what an outside is.

You do understand the nature of what you are asking them to prove right?

Most use this outside as a why to show what there saying is true, even if it defies how there god works. Maybe we should create a thread about this outside and discuss it.

I came to the understanding the God is outside of the universe beacuse of the way the universe operates. I cannot create a program from within it, I have to write it from outside. It's the same kind of analogy for God. If you think God should exist within the universe, post why and I'll reply to them.


Anyway, back to topic: so it is agreed that the big bang theory is the most correct now and that is what you follow/believe?

[Ragga_NZ]

Ragga, evolution does not explain how life started.

And as for the beginning of the universe - no more takers?

If u read my post u'd notice how i said that evolution had nothing to do with where we came from initially. There's no solid way of knowing for sure how life began.

[vaatyaar]

If any of you atheists would pick up a book of embryology, go study cadaveric anatomy, biochemistry, or neuroanatomy then you will realize (as I did) that the blueprints of all creation in this world is WAY WAY WAY too complex for it to have originated from mere atoms and so perfectly ended up this way - that there must have been some higher being (i.e. God). Only after entering medical school and studying all those sciences was I fully assured of such a conclusion.

[brij]

You do understand the nature of what you are asking them to prove right?

Well just explain what you think an outside is and what makes you think that it actually exists, i have debated people with different ideas on what an outside is. Why does god need to be in an outside? Is there an outside for the outside? Is there a religious concept for this outside? What is this outside based on?


came to the understanding the God is outside of the universe beacuse of the way the universe operates. I cannot create a program from within it, I have to write it from outside. It's the same kind of analogy for God. If you think God should exist within the universe, post why and I'll reply to them.


Anyway, back to topic: so it is agreed that the big bang theory is the most correct now and that is what you follow/believe?




The problem is there are many paradoxes with a god that is outside. One comes to mind that if god is outside beyond our laws of nature and time, ‘‘outside’’, then god is an absent god, not a god that is with us, not a god that is in our time of events, not a god that is helping us, god in this instance is simply an observer. God becomes limited with an outside, god requires an outside to exist for the universe to work, gods characteristics must change if he is outside then to the typical characterises most believe in. I think this outside concept is more of a belief, a faith, a idea.

I follow science, I believe in following logic, I believe many ideas from Buddhism and some other religions such as pain and suffering and denial, that we are in control and responsible for our future, no being controling and changing what happens in our lives.

[brij]

If any of you atheists would pick up a book of embryology, go study cadaveric anatomy, biochemistry, or neuroanatomy then you will realize (as I did) that the blueprints of all creation in this world is WAY WAY WAY too complex for it to have originated from mere atoms and so perfectly ended up this way - that there must have been some higher being (i.e. God). Only after entering medical school and studying all those sciences was I fully assured of such a conclusion.

Complexity does not prove a god exists. Complexity in biology did not happen over night, it may of taken billions of years, evolution maybe, from a singled celled organism to more complex ones, changing to meet the environment. We have not perfectly ended up this way, we are no where near perfection, we have simply evolved this way. People look at us and seem to believe there must be a intelligent designer, this designer then must continuously keep designing so the universe mets this gods plans, we are no where near complex, the universe does not stand still, it is changing every second, we can still become more complex, imagine how more complex things can become in a few more million years.

[sexcaliburr]

belief in god is a theory...just like many other theories today...and some of us Athiests dont believe in god...

i personally have the believe of Evolution...

when you die...
there is no heveanor hell...there is no paradise or karma....

but...
there is ashes mixed with the wind...and there is bones down to the dirt...

everything on life is balanced... its true...people die and others are born...to keep this place blanaced...

but how do we know that the reason is God?!....

i dont hate god...
i respect god very much...i bow down to every shrine/temple/mosqe/church i run into...

But to some of us...

gods still a theory...like everything else in the world...proof is needed...
Strong proof....

[sexcaliburr]

everything happens for a reasoning....

but that doesnt mean that everything that happend was becuase of god...

it was through time and evolution...our atoms and cells are so perfect...so structered and organized because that is the way Evolution changed them and after ions...we are the master race here...

[Raj Khan]

Answer please.

Either The Q continuum or Microsoft Made Everything.

[ThreeFiddy]

Why does god need to be in an outside? Is there an outside for the outside? Is there a religious concept for this outside? What is this outside based on?

1. I can't explain this without going into God's motives. Well, assuming God follows the principle of "do everything the simple way", then I think it will be easiest for God to exist outside the universe. Because from what we know so far, a being that can do ANYTHING (omnioptent) is illogical from the frame of this universe. Thus if God exists, he has to be outside the frame of the universe - unless he breaks the laws of this universe to accomodate himself. Which of course raises a new question: where does God reside? Because if God exists within this universe there has to be a place where he physically resides.

God can be perfectly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent from outside the universe because the restrictions of our universe won't apply to him - thus he can do whatever, wherever, whenever he wishes.

2. I don't think it matters if there is an outside for the outside. Why would it?

3. As for the religious concepts, God says that us humans do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the logistics and workings behind God's existence.

4. My "outside" idea is based on the fact that I don't think God will want to exist within this universe while breaking its laws which he created. It'll be "easier" for him to exist outside and not break any laws.

One comes to mind that if god is outside beyond our laws of nature and time, ‘‘outside’’, then god is an absent god, not a god that is with us, not a god that is in our time of events, not a god that is helping us, god in this instance is simply an observer.

All these are mere wish-list of the people who want to believe in God, they want a God that is always there, always helping, etc. I ask: why do we need to have a God that is always there? Why can't his influence always be there instead of the God itself? An "absent" god, as you say it, does not contradict its existence.

God becomes limited with an outside, god requires an outside to exist for the universe to work, gods characteristics must change if he is outside then to the typical characterises most believe in. I think this outside concept is more of a belief, a faith, a idea.

I'm not saying God *has* to exist outside, I'm saying he simply chooses to because otherwise he'd have to bend/break the laws of the universe which he created. It just makes more sense that way. And of couse all this is a belief, I don't really have any empirical data to prove that God exists outside the universe.

I follow science, I believe in following logic, I believe many ideas from Buddhism and some other religions such as pain and suffering and denial, that we are in control and responsible for our future, no being controling and changing what happens in our lives.

I follow science and logic too. Why is it that all atheists think that all religious people don't believe in science and are illogical? There are assumptions and faith within each set of belief (or "non-belief", as the elite atheists like to define themselves as) - we just have one more than the atheists.

[ThreeFiddy]

Complexity does not prove a god exists. Complexity in biology did not happen over night, it may of taken billions of years, evolution maybe, from a singled celled organism to more complex ones, changing to meet the environment. We have not perfectly ended up this way, we are no where near perfection, we have simply evolved this way. People look at us and seem to believe there must be a intelligent designer, this designer then must continuously keep designing so the universe mets this gods plans, we are no where near complex, the universe does not stand still, it is changing every second, we can still become more complex, imagine how more complex things can become in a few more million years.

Coincidence vs. Intelligent design, that's what it boils down to. I believe in intelligent design, you believe in coincidence.

[ThreeFiddy]

Again: please move away from the religious discussions. This is a topic concerning atheists and I'd like to discuss things strictly from a scientific point of view.

As for abiogenesis, it's false. Life couldn't have started via the current theory of biogenesis.

thanks to the dude below for pointing out my mistake

[dr_sinister1001]

As for biogenesis, it's false. Life couldn't have started via the current theory of biogenesis.

What do you mean life couldn't have started via the current theory biogenesis? Do you even know what biogenesis means?

[ThreeFiddy]

What do you mean life couldn't have started via the current theory biogenesis? Do you even know what biogenesis means?

I have an idea as to what it is, however I am no biologists and have not done enough indepth readings to claim to know everything about it, but I do know the gist of it; and the fact that most scientists dont really accept this model and are working on another model as we speak. One that does not use the organic soup idea - which was recently found to be contradictory against the idea of life-coming-out-of-non-life.

In my understanding, the theory of abiogenesis is based on the experiment done in 1952 where scientists successfully managed to create 4 amino acids by "recreating" the early earth's atmosphere. However, this isn't enough evidence to show that biogensis as a life starter is possible as scientists have been unable to create the 20 crucial amino acids needed for life.

Edit: okay did some more reseach, what I meant is abiogenesis, not biogenesis.

threefiddy = owned

But still, my point stands :P

[dr_sinister1001]

What do you mean life couldn't have started via the current theory biogenesis? Do you even know what biogenesis means?

I have an idea as to what it is, however I am no biologists and have not done enough indepth readings to claim to know everything about it, but I do know the gist of it; and the fact that most scientists dont really accept this model and are working on another model as we speak. One that does not use the organic soup idea - which was recently found to be contradictory against the idea of life-coming-out-of-non-life.

In my understanding, the theory of abiogenesis is based on the experiment done in 1952 where scientists successfully managed to create 4 amino acids by "recreating" the early earth's atmosphere. However, this isn't enough evidence to show that biogensis as a life starter is possible as scientists have been unable to create the 20 crucial amino acids needed for life.

Edit: okay did some more reseach, what I meant is abiogenesis, not biogenesis.

threefiddy = owned

But still, my point stands :P

Indeed, and "owned" once more. The theory Abiogenesis is very much so a valid theory for the beginning life. The experiment done in '53 by Milner and Urey (which has been repeated in the lab countless times) produced some of the Amino acids responsible for life today as we know it. That alone is enough proof of abiogenesis, 20 amino acids is not a requirement. Just because life today has a palate of 20 Amino acids it does not mean that the proto-life 3 billion years ago required 20 amino acids. Abiogenesis didn't necessarily have to happen on the early earth. There is evidence that the chemical compound Adenine an ingredient of DNA could form in the Nebula of a newly born star. The early earth was a very unstable environment it is very likely that complex chemical processes could've taken place, also meteorites containing the chemicals necessary for life could've very likely crashed into the early earth.

Abiogenesis is a very logical theory and it is sad to see Theists trivialize it (because of lack of knowledge, or denial) by implying that the complexity of life today could not have arisen from a few bonded amino acids. The complexity of today is a product of evolution, and evolution is not a flawed theory.

I could elaborate but I'm just to lazy to type it all out.

And Three Fiddy, I suggest you research your opinions ahead of time before you post them, so as not to sound like an idiot.

[brij]

1. I can't explain this without going into God's motives. Well, assuming God follows the principle of "do everything the simple way", then I think it will be easiest for God to exist outside the universe. Because from what we know so far, a being that can do ANYTHING (omnioptent) is illogical from the frame of this universe. Thus if God exists, he has to be outside the frame of the universe - unless he breaks the laws of this universe to accomodate himself. Which of course raises a new question: where does God reside? Because if God exists within this universe there has to be a place where he physically resides.

God can be perfectly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent from outside the universe because the restrictions of our universe won't apply to him - thus he can do whatever, wherever, whenever he wishes.

2. I don't think it matters if there is an outside for the outside. Why would it?

3. As for the religious concepts, God says that us humans do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the logistics and workings behind God's existence.

4. My "outside" idea is based on the fact that I don't think God will want to exist within this universe while breaking its laws which he created. It'll be "easier" for him to exist outside and not break any laws.




You know gods motives? Does god show you or talk to you about this motives? This is the version of the ‘‘outside’’ that you have, you haven’t much answered any real questions other then giving your opinions and views on how you think your god works. You cannot use we don’t have the mental capacity to understand a god, therefore there could be a ‘‘outside’’ this is often used as an excuse to when one cant understand.




All these are mere wish-list of the people who want to believe in God, they want a God that is always there, always helping, etc. I ask: why do we need to have a God that is always there? Why can't his influence always be there instead of the God itself? An "absent" god, as you say it, does not contradict its existence.


That’s why I said there is a paradox of the majority of gods characteristics that people believe in, they must change to suit this outside concept. How does god then influence us if god is outside, for god to influence us, god must come into our time of events, into our laws of nature, therefore why have an outside concept, either god is here and can make his presence felt or he is outside.



I'm not saying God *has* to exist outside, I'm saying he simply chooses to because otherwise he'd have to bend/break the laws of the universe which he created. It just makes more sense that way. And of couse all this is a belief, I don't really have any empirical data to prove that God exists outside the universe.


It makes more sense that way? More like you are trying to convince yourself about the god you believe in by creating certain concepts such as an outside and freewill.



I follow science and logic too. Why is it that all atheists think that all religious people don't believe in science and are illogical? There are assumptions and faith within each set of belief (or "non-belief", as the elite atheists like to define themselves as) - we just have one more than the atheists.


Atheists do not think all religionist are illogical at all, it’s a individual thing, I guess its when someone makes an huge claim such as how the universe is created thats were the disagreements begin. You don’t have one more belief then atheists, you have many beliefs, how the universe was created, how god works, why things happen due to god, outside, freewill, heaven, hell, demons, angels, ect, depending on your religious beliefs.

[brij]

1. I can't explain this without going into God's motives. Well, assuming God follows the principle of "do everything the simple way", then I think it will be easiest for God to exist outside the universe. Because from what we know so far, a being that can do ANYTHING (omnioptent) is illogical from the frame of this universe. Thus if God exists, he has to be outside the frame of the universe - unless he breaks the laws of this universe to accomodate himself. Which of course raises a new question: where does God reside? Because if God exists within this universe there has to be a place where he physically resides.

God can be perfectly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent from outside the universe because the restrictions of our universe won't apply to him - thus he can do whatever, wherever, whenever he wishes.

2. I don't think it matters if there is an outside for the outside. Why would it?

3. As for the religious concepts, God says that us humans do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the logistics and workings behind God's existence.

4. My "outside" idea is based on the fact that I don't think God will want to exist within this universe while breaking its laws which he created. It'll be "easier" for him to exist outside and not break any laws.




You know gods motives? Does god show you or talk to you about this motives? This is the version of the ‘‘outside’’ that you have, you haven’t much answered any real questions other then giving your opinions and views on how you think your god works. You cannot use we don’t have the mental capacity to understand a god, therefore there could be a ‘‘outside’’ this is often used as an excuse to when one cant understand.




All these are mere wish-list of the people who want to believe in God, they want a God that is always there, always helping, etc. I ask: why do we need to have a God that is always there? Why can't his influence always be there instead of the God itself? An "absent" god, as you say it, does not contradict its existence.


That’s why I said there is a paradox of the majority of gods characteristics that people believe in, they must change to suit this outside concept. How does god then influence us if god is outside, for god to influence us, god must come into our time of events, into our laws of nature, therefore why have an outside concept, either god is here and can make his presence felt or he is outside.



I'm not saying God *has* to exist outside, I'm saying he simply chooses to because otherwise he'd have to bend/break the laws of the universe which he created. It just makes more sense that way. And of couse all this is a belief, I don't really have any empirical data to prove that God exists outside the universe.


It makes more sense that way? More like you are trying to convince yourself about the god you believe in by creating certain concepts such as an outside and freewill.



I follow science and logic too. Why is it that all atheists think that all religious people don't believe in science and are illogical? There are assumptions and faith within each set of belief (or "non-belief", as the elite atheists like to define themselves as) - we just have one more than the atheists.


Atheists do not think all religionist are illogical at all, it’s a individual thing, I guess its when someone makes an huge claim such as how the universe is created thats were the disagreements begin. You don’t have one more belief then atheists, you have many beliefs, how the universe was created, how god works, why things happen due to god, outside, freewill, heaven, hell, demons, angels, ect, depending on your religious beliefs.

[ThreeFiddy]

The theory Abiogenesis is very much so a valid theory for the beginning life. The experiment done in '53 by Milner and Urey (which has been repeated in the lab countless times) produced some of the Amino acids responsible for life today as we know it. That alone is enough proof of abiogenesis, 20 amino acids is not a requirement.

Not really. 4 amino acids life not make. Scientists have been trying to recreate the last 16 amino acids for a while now with NO success. Yes, NO success. Hell they can't create anything that remotely resembles a protein structure. You can believe that 4 amino acids makes life, but as it stands, there's not one single evidence to prove it, so I'll choose not to believe it.


Just because life today has a palate of 20 Amino acids it does not mean that the proto-life 3 billion years ago required 20 amino acids.

Not "life", but your basic RNA/DNA protein structure requires it. Also, experiments done with abiogenesis has not produced anything that even resembles a protein structure.

Abiogenesis didn't necessarily have to happen on the early earth. There is evidence that the chemical compound Adenine an ingredient of DNA could form in the Nebula of a newly born star. The early earth was a very unstable environment it is very likely that complex chemical processes could've taken place, also meteorites containing the chemicals necessary for life could've very likely crashed into the early earth.

Using this sort of theory one could say ANYTHING they want. The scientific process does not work on speculation.


Abiogenesis is a very logical theory and it is sad to see Theists trivialize it (because of lack of knowledge, or denial) by implying that the complexity of life today could not have arisen from a few bonded amino acids. The complexity of today is a product of evolution, and evolution is not a flawed theory.

Wow, perfect regurgitation of your high school/college classes. Tell me, has macroevolution, speciation, to be exact, ever been observed? Even the famous moth experiment is a product of adaptation, NOT speciation. Please reply back when solid evidence of macroevolution, aka speciation, aka evolution to the mainstream, has been found. There are many, many holes with the evolution theory, and you know it. I'm not saying evolution is false, but I'm saying what we know now isn't enough.

Most people who believe in the abiogenesis theory cling to it because there's no other way for them to explain the possibility of life.

Also, please refrain from personal insults. I said I made a mistake, no need to call me an idiot for it. I'm sure you've made trivial mistakes in the past as well.

[ThreeFiddy]

brij, do I need to spell out everything? When I say "I cant answer this without going into God's motives" I thought it was clear that I'm answering entirely from my perspective because OF COURSE I DONT KNOW GODS MOTIVATIONS. Every answer I've given to you regarding my belief comes from my personal opinions which isn't really based on the view the majority hold about God, religion, etc.

[dr_sinister1001]

The theory Abiogenesis is very much so a valid theory for the beginning life. The experiment done in '53 by Milner and Urey (which has been repeated in the lab countless times) produced some of the Amino acids responsible for life today as we know it. That alone is enough proof of abiogenesis, 20 amino acids is not a requirement.

Not really. 4 amino acids life not make. Scientists have been trying to recreate the last 16 amino acids for a while now with NO success. Yes, NO success. Hell they can't create anything that remotely resembles a protein structure. You can believe that 4 amino acids makes life, but as it stands, there's not one single evidence to prove it, so I'll choose not to believe it.


Just because life today has a palate of 20 Amino acids it does not mean that the proto-life 3 billion years ago required 20 amino acids.

Not "life", but your basic RNA/DNA protein structure requires it. Also, experiments done with abiogenesis has not produced anything that even resembles a protein structure.

Abiogenesis didn't necessarily have to happen on the early earth. There is evidence that the chemical compound Adenine an ingredient of DNA could form in the Nebula of a newly born star. The early earth was a very unstable environment it is very likely that complex chemical processes could've taken place, also meteorites containing the chemicals necessary for life could've very likely crashed into the early earth.

Using this sort of theory one could say ANYTHING they want. The scientific process does not work on speculation.


Abiogenesis is a very logical theory and it is sad to see Theists trivialize it (because of lack of knowledge, or denial) by implying that the complexity of life today could not have arisen from a few bonded amino acids. The complexity of today is a product of evolution, and evolution is not a flawed theory.

Wow, perfect regurgitation of your high school/college classes. Tell me, has macroevolution, speciation, to be exact, ever been observed? Even the famous moth experiment is a product of adaptation, NOT speciation. Please reply back when solid evidence of macroevolution, aka speciation, aka evolution to the mainstream, has been found. There are many, many holes with the evolution theory, and you know it. I'm not saying evolution is false, but I'm saying what we know now isn't enough.

Most people who believe in the abiogenesis theory cling to it because there's no other way for them to explain the possibility of life.

Also, please refrain from personal insults. I said I made a mistake, no need to call me an idiot for it. I'm sure you've made trivial mistakes in the past as well.


It’s quite clear from what you write you have no real grasp of basic scientific concepts. Yet you start a thread in which you hope to debate the origins of life and the Universe itself, which is beyond even the brightest, most informed individuals in the scientific community.

But I shall point out your basic scientific errors, to 1stly demonstrate that you are the last person that anyone would have a scientific debate with and 2ndly how wrong your arguments are. 1stly let me start with your previous post where you were attempting to disprove the theory of biogenesis, all the while you were trying to actually disprove abiogenesis. This is not a trivial mistake, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you have no grasp of basic scientific terminology.

Moving on to your most recent post, you talk about 4 amino acids, and how they cannot possibly create life. I don’t understand where you got that number. Scientists have been able to produce many kinds of amino acids in experiments similar to the experiment that Miller and Urey conducted. You talk of the 20 amino acids that are required for life, do you even understand the role of amino acids in biological processes? From what you write it just seems like you’re typing up something that you’ve heard some creationist rant about. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. From what you write it doesn’t sound like you know what a protein is. Proteins are extremely diverse macromolecules, and even if there were only 4 amino acids available it would still be possible for proteins to arise. Proteins have difference structural phases, and depending on the combination and order of amino acid aggregates the type of protein that you end up with is unique.

You write about the RNA/DNA protein structure. This is how I know you’re talking out of your ass. 1stly what is an RNA/DNA protein structure? RNA and DNA are not proteins, nor do they have a protein structure... A protein is a polymer of amino acids. RNA and DNA are polymers of sugars, phosphates and nitrogenous BASES! They are called nucleic acids only because the molecules themselves are acidic not because they are made of acids. I could stop here and it would be enough to demonstrate that you know nothing about basic biology, but I think I’ll refute your entire post.

You wrote that that an unstable primordial earth is speculation. Although the state of the earth 3.5 billion years ago cannot be directly observed, geologist can make many inferences from the present state of the earth, fossil records and astronomical evidence to make fairly accurate models of what the earth was like in the past. As for your refutation for abiogenesis in outer space, experiments have been done to prove that adenine (one of the nitrogenous bases that make up DNA and RNA and as well an active ingredient of ATP which is an energy releasing molecule in cell metabolism) has been found to form from reaction with HCN (hydrogen cyanide) in an environment similar to a interstellar nebula. In 1969 a meteorite recovered that crashed over Australia was examined. Although only a small piece was recovered they found a large amount of different types of amino acids. Now 3.5 billion years ago the solar system was quite different, the earth was constantly being struck by meteors and asteroids. Many of those asteroids must have had the same make up as the meteor recovered in Australia, so we can conclude that they also carried amino acids to the primordial earth.

I won’t refute you on your disbelief of macroevolution... I neither have the time nor the will to debate with you. You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t posses the scientific knowledge to be a worthy opponent so I’ll leave you to start reading up until you can hold a proper scientific debate.

I’ve read your earlier posts on this thread as well and physics seems to be another subject that you might want to read up on.

[ThreeFiddy]

Yet you start a thread in which you hope to debate the origins of life and the Universe itself, which is beyond even the brightest, most informed individuals in the scientific community.

Who's debating? I don't expect any answers from anyone here, the first post was made that way so it *made* someone answer. I wanna know atheists perspectives and why they refute the concept of "faith" with such vulgar while they have faith too, but just of a different kind.

However I did learn a some things from your post since biology isn't my field, (mainly that abiogenesis in outer space thing), I already know the whole RNA/DNA/Protein deal; maybe I wasn't articulate enough but what I meant to say is that the three are very much related. DNA/RNA makes proteins, and protein carries out a lot of important functions, in short. However, this still doesn't prove your point as my original point still stands.

From what you write it just seems like you’re typing up something that you’ve heard some creationist rant about.

Not really, I dont believe in creationism.

...and even if there were only 4 amino acids available it would still be possible for proteins to arise.

Has science managed to make any type of protein that even perhaps resembles primitive/simple life (since you argue that life's complexities were brought about by evolution, thus implying early life was "simple")? Say a single celled organism?

You wrote that that an unstable primordial earth is speculation. Although the state of the earth 3.5 billion years ago cannot be directly observed, geologist can make many inferences from the present state of the earth, fossil records and astronomical evidence to make fairly accurate models of what the earth was like in the past.

This is what I mean by "speculation"; it can be inferenced, yes, to prove your theory. But other things can be inferenced to prove someone else's theory. Basically what you have a whole bunch of scientists grasping at anything they can find that remotely resembles what they want to believe in. I think while on your high horse of telling me that I don't know anything, you forgot to read my post or something because I didn't refute the "nebula has amino acids" thing - what I said is using the whole "earth was different and this could happen, which may lead to this, which then may lead to this, which then may lead to this" is a speculative approach.

And as for macroevolution - has it been observed or not? It's a simple question; if it has, can you show me where?

And my proposition still stands: abiogenesis cannot create life.

[dr_sinister1001]

Yet you start a thread in which you hope to debate the origins of life and the Universe itself, which is beyond even the brightest, most informed individuals in the scientific community.

Who's debating? I don't expect any answers from anyone here, the first post was made that way so it *made* someone answer. I wanna know atheists perspectives and why they refute the concept of "faith" with such vulgar while they have faith too, but just of a different kind.

However I did learn a some things from your post since biology isn't my field, (mainly that abiogenesis in outer space thing), I already know the whole RNA/DNA/Protein deal; maybe I wasn't articulate enough but what I meant to say is that the three are very much related. DNA/RNA makes proteins, and protein carries out a lot of important functions, in short. However, this still doesn't prove your point as my original point still stands.

From what you write it just seems like you’re typing up something that you’ve heard some creationist rant about.

Not really, I dont believe in creationism.

...and even if there were only 4 amino acids available it would still be possible for proteins to arise.

Has science managed to make any type of protein that even perhaps resembles primitive/simple life (since you argue that life's complexities were brought about by evolution, thus implying early life was "simple")? Say a single celled organism?

You wrote that that an unstable primordial earth is speculation. Although the state of the earth 3.5 billion years ago cannot be directly observed, geologist can make many inferences from the present state of the earth, fossil records and astronomical evidence to make fairly accurate models of what the earth was like in the past.

This is what I mean by "speculation"; it can be inferenced, yes, to prove your theory. But other things can be inferenced to prove someone else's theory. Basically what you have a whole bunch of scientists grasping at anything they can find that remotely resembles what they want to believe in. I think while on your high horse of telling me that I don't know anything, you forgot to read my post or something because I didn't refute the "nebula has amino acids" thing - what I said is using the whole "earth was different and this could happen, which may lead to this, which then may lead to this, which then may lead to this" is a speculative approach.

And as for macroevolution - has it been observed or not? It's a simple question; if it has, can you show me where?

And my proposition still stands: abiogenesis cannot create life.


Ok, I’m not trying to prove abiogenesis to you... I’m just trying to show you that you talk out of your ass and should stop posting things as fact, when you haven’t researched it.

And no you did not know about the “DNA/RNA/Protein deal” as you call it. You were talking about the DNA/RNA protein structure... I mean honestly what the hell is that? (I dropped to my floor in laughter from that) I don’t know if I should ridicule you or give you a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the “DNA/RNA protein structure”.

And no I’m not making speculations. I’m just too lazy to type out all the astronomical, geological, and fossil evidence. You can research that yourself while you take a course in general science.

And your proposition can stand as long as it wants, you just wont be taken seriously by anyone with a science background.

[brij]

brij, do I need to spell out everything? When I say "I cant answer this without going into God's motives" I thought it was clear that I'm answering entirely from my perspective because OF COURSE I DONT KNOW GODS MOTIVATIONS. Every answer I've given to you regarding my belief comes from my personal opinions which isn't really based on the view the majority hold about God, religion, etc.



Well you don’t put I think or I believe or anything like that, you talk as though what you are trying to say is fact.

[DesiStud1022]

God