How Did We Come to Exist?

WTM45

Senior Member
Same with logic. Nothing is 100% accurate.

There are things that are 100% accurate. Takes time and effort to prove them as such.

Tim L, matter has always been, in various forms. So has energy. What we have to do as humans is realize the concept of time is something WE have created.
It is not universal and does not apply to the cosmos.

I recommend some deeper study and reading of the cosmological argument.
 

fishinbub

Senior Member
There are things that are 100% accurate. Takes time and effort to prove them as such.

Tim L, matter has always been, in various forms. So has energy. What we have to do as humans is realize the concept of time is something WE have created.
It is not universal and does not apply to the cosmos.

I recommend some deeper study and reading of the cosmological argument.

So, when will you release your perpetual motion machine to the public?
 

ted_BSR

Senior Member
There are things that are 100% accurate. Takes time and effort to prove them as such.

Tim L, matter has always been, in various forms. So has energy. What we have to do as humans is realize the concept of time is something WE have created.
It is not universal and does not apply to the cosmos.

I recommend some deeper study and reading of the cosmological argument.

Nothing can be proven. Study that.
 

ted_BSR

Senior Member
What's ridiculous is the God of the gaps argumentation. Doesn't matter if you call it supernatural, intelligence, God, whatever.

Tim you still haven't answered the question that I have asked twice now.

Whatever? You go Atlas! Nice job!
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
Then this is a poor attempt to change the subject...

No, it's entirely on subject. If you're going to ask how something came from nothing you first need to establish that something did come from nothing.
 

fishinbub

Senior Member
No, it's entirely on subject. If you're going to ask how something came from nothing you first need to establish that something did come from nothing.

And if you can't answer a tough question, you knit pick until somebody will argue with you over something completely irrelevant...:offtopic:
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
It's a tough question because we don't know the premise to even be true. Why have you yet to answer it instead of knit picking me for asking it?
 

fishinbub

Senior Member
It's a tough question because we don't know the premise to even be true. Why have you yet to answer it instead of knit picking me for asking it?

You can't be that ignorant. My reference thermodynamics and the theory of relativity (and how the pertain to this discussion) are as plain as the nose on your face. Don't play dumb...
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
You can't be that ignorant. My reference thermodynamics and the theory of relativity (and how the pertain to this discussion) are as plain as the nose on your face. Don't play dumb...

What makes you think those demonstrate that energy/matter came from nothing?
 

WTM45

Senior Member
Nothing can be proven. Study that.

Sure some things can, both in physical existance and in scientific experimentation result.
I am quite well read and I study daily. My recommendation for Tim L was simply to give him the actual name of the subject of discussion to make searches easier.
There are some excellent discussions pertaining to the prime mover and unmoved mover arguments available on line.
 
Last edited:

Thanatos

Senior Member
The greatest thing of all about this discussion is that whatever theory these atheist choose to believe they must have "faith" in that theory. It is truly ironic.
 

WTM45

Senior Member
The greatest thing of all about this discussion is that whatever theory these atheist choose to believe they must have "faith" in that theory. It is truly ironic.

That's a fallacy of equivocation.
Some Atheists and Agnostics may hold a belief using meager or inadequate evidence, but it is not based on "faith" in the sense of not having any evidence whatsoever.

"This is not to claim that the Big Bang is the last word; the first cause. That would be to misunderstand the logical force of the Razor - that if you believe in one entity more than other people, you are less likely to be right, so need a good reason for doing so. Putting God forward as the first cause, and then claiming he was always there, is just to treat Him as a "brute fact." This just shifts the problem to why He - rather than the universe - has no cause. It's never very satisfactory to call something a brute fact. But since we have no alternative for now, we had best make it the universe, which we at least know exists."
Thomas Ash
 
Last edited:

fishinbub

Senior Member
What makes you think those demonstrate that energy/matter came from nothing?

Don't play dumb. We've had this discussion before. You know as well as I do that energy is not infinite (second law of thermodynamics), that matter and energy are interdependent, and that the universe is expanding. Anyone with a middle school education knows that the universe must have a definite beginning. The debate is to how the "beginning" happened...
 

fishinbub

Senior Member
That's a fallacy of equivocation.
Some Atheists and Agnostics may hold a belief using meager or inadequate evidence, but it is not based on "faith" in the sense of not having any evidence whatsoever.

"This is not to claim that the Big Bang is the last word; the first cause. That would be to misunderstand the logical force of the Razor - that if you believe in one entity more than other people, you are less likely to be right, so need a good reason for doing so. Putting God forward as the first cause, and then claiming he was always there, is just to treat Him as a "brute fact." This just shifts the problem to why He - rather than the universe - has no cause. It's never very satisfactory to call something a brute fact. But since we have no alternative for now, we had best make it the universe, which we at least know exists."
Thomas Ash

From dictionary.com

Faith-belief that is not based on proof
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
Don't play dumb. We've had this discussion before. You know as well as I do that energy is not infinite (second law of thermodynamics), that matter and energy are interdependent, and that the universe is expanding. Anyone with a middle school education knows that the universe must have a definite beginning. The debate is to how the "beginning" happened...

If all of the energy was present at that "beginning" then the original question is pointless.
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
Because no energy was created.
 
Top