How Did We Come to Exist?

[Thanatos]

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

Is that your belief that you can believe in something because there is more evidence about one idea over another?

 

[Thanatos]

I've seen all the proof I need for my religion, but once again, we're in the wrong forum for that...

Fish thanks for putting up the good fight. These guys dont believe in faith in anything so why would they believe in a being they can not see nor have they ever "perceived" any evidence of that being.

 

[bullethead]

Fish thanks for putting up the good fight. These guys dont believe in faith in anything so why would they believe in a being they can not see nor have they ever "perceived" any evidence of that being.

Most of these guys believed EXACTLY as you two do and then when they really looked deeper into their religion found out what a sham it really was. At 18 I thought faith and everything in existence belonged to a supreme being......then I wised up.

 

[Thanatos]

Most of these guys believed EXACTLY as you two do and then when they really looked deeper into their religion found out what a sham it really was. At 18 I thought faith and everything in existence belonged to a supreme being......then I wised up.

From the many conversations we've had your shame religion was not Christianity for sure. You can hardly carry on an informed theological conversation without help from some of your brethren.

If I were you I would stick to the "i cant see it so it does not exist" shtick.

 

[Thanatos]

That's a fallacy of equivocation.
h

How is what I said ambiguous?

You must have faith in what you believe no matter if it is sitting in front of you, or it is in the next room over. One takes less convincing of ones mind. Yet, we all practice this to some degree or another.

 

[bullethead]

From the many conversations we've had your shame religion was not Christianity for sure. You can hardly carry on an informed theological conversation without help from some of your brethren.

If I were you I would stick to the "i cant see it so it does not exist" shtick.

LOLOL, the more you talk the more you show just how little you do know. Tell me what my religious background is if you KNOW what it isn't. I don't need any help to back up what I have learned in 20years of Christianity. That said, you were much more interesting to talk with when you stuck with the topic at hand rather than sling insults. Good job on showing your true colors. Another one bites the dust.

 

[Six million dollar ham]

But quite simply, knowing that logic teaches us that mass and energy cannot simply come to exist from nothing; someone explain how everything around us came to be without something being there before the very beginning to set things in motion....

Perhaps you're right...maybe there was a creator. But this is far short of proof of talking snakes, Noah's ark, 900 year old men, and other fairy tales. That's probably why your friend is agnostic.

 

[bullethead]

Perhaps you're right...maybe there was a creator. But this is far short of proof of talking snakes, Noah's ark, 900 year old men, and other fairy tales. That's probably why your friend is agnostic.

In 100 million more years man may never disprove that there is or was a creator, but mans perception of a creator is what is what I have a problem with.

 

[vowell462]

Perhaps you're right...maybe there was a creator. But this is far short of proof of talking snakes, Noah's ark, 900 year old men, and other fairy tales. That's probably why your friend is agnostic.

x 2

 

[Tim L]

Perhaps you're right...maybe there was a creator. But this is far short of proof of talking snakes, Noah's ark, 900 year old men, and other fairy tales. That's probably why your friend is agnostic.

Well it appears you didn't actually read what was said and asked or simply do not grasp what was asked....I have to admit I'm a little disappointed in you; I've read enough of your posts in the past to know you are capable of an intelligent; well thought out response to a question or idea. First the friend that I referred to says the question I posed has forced her to alter her beliefs from being an athiest to an agnostic...Big difference there, but you seemed to let that go right over your head and simply restated the "official party line" to a question that wasn't even asked about a subject that isn't part of this dicussion...

There seems to be an urgent need to make this a discussion about religon and/or whether or not there is a diety somewhere out there...never mind that this discussion does not have to include either; but there seems to be an automatic response; almost a primal need by some to take it there...One keeps trying to steer this thread in that direction, but after stating why his ideas are indisputable, offers "Wikipedia" as proof of his arguement.....Wikipedia.....Yes Wikipedia is certainly an indisputable source; it isn't like a person can go in and just put anything they want on wikipedia is it...But most of the responses are just posturing back and fourth between one trying to counter what someone else just said; people going Pee Wee Hermain and posting the equivalent of I know you are but what am I....No evidence of actual thought or consideration as to the question asked...

Some exceptions; such as Posts 22 and 43...Again a "supernatural" arguement or belief in a diety is not neccesary to consider the question that was asked, if some can't do that well your not credible.....One more example' back in the 60's there was a TV show that was a knock off of the Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone....In an episode two planets, one of them earth, battling each other for domination of the universe....when one is about to win there is suddenly a scene where the universe just disappears...Then, the last scene was of two lab techs (in typical TV alien attire for that time; big collars, bald heads) wiping a microscope slide and attaching a label saying experiment completed...Yes I know that was only a TV show but it does suggest other ideas for creation (for the life of me; some of you guys that insist on making this a religous issue; ideas such as I am an athiest and therefore I know that there is not a higher power, never mind that I have no way of knowing this; I just know it to be so....have more in common with a person that has a long list of qualifiers to be a member of this religon and if you do not believe each one exactly as I do you are going to hail.....some of guys are just the other side of the same coin; ignorance and intolerance personified...)...But for the last time; can someone give a thoughtful response to this idea........All matter has a beginning; all elements have a begining; energy has a beginning.....Yes none are destroyed; once each comes into existance their molecular structure just changes over time....however logic tells us that each had a beginning....Now in that nano second before the big bang; how could those elements that suddenly exploded into mass and energy come into existance in the first place if there had not been an external spark to set it all in motion...Otherwise nothing that was, is, and will be could exist? How? Please no more posturing; no more trying to take this in a different direction; just (if you wish) expain how this can be possible?

 

[atlashunter]

Tim you are making an argument by assertion.

 

[pnome]

A good friend of mine is now agnostic, former athiest; prior to that former Baptist; now she just doesn't know and this is why.......How did/could we and all around us come to exist without some sort of higher inteligence; some unexplainable higher power..for a moment don't think in terms of a God, a particular religon, or even a higher form of being and try to overgone the urge to simply come back with what created God, if you do your missing the point......

Logic tells us that everything has a beginning.....no matter how far we go back in any situation, scenrio, or context, there is a beginning....Now even if you go back to the big bang; that moment before the tremendous explosion of energy; what created the very elements that set the ball in motion? Something had to be present for the big bang to have ocurred in the first place....Logic tells us that energy and mass cannot just suddenly come to exist from nothing... It is simply impossible...You can't divide zerio by zero; it cannot be....Again, try to resist the urge to simply come back with "OK what created God or the higher power"...if you fall into that trap your missing the point...

Tell your friend I said hello! Sounds like she's hit on the same thing I have.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=616115

 

[vowell462]

There is no current explanation. It doesnt exist. the answer to your question is " we dont know". Thats why we have religion, and other ideas. Sorry, but thats about as good as I can do!

 

[WTM45]

...But for the last time; can someone give a thoughtful response to this idea........All matter has a beginning; all elements have a begining; energy has a beginning.....Yes none are destroyed; once each comes into existance their molecular structure just changes over time....however logic tells us that each had a beginning....

Where do you find a "logic" requirement for a mandatory "beginning" regarding matter and energy? Aquinas? Kalam?

And, what method of tracking time do you wish to use?

Link to some works on the subject...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html

 

[HawgJawl]

...But for the last time; can someone give a thoughtful response to this idea........All matter has a beginning; all elements have a begining; energy has a beginning.....Yes none are destroyed; once each comes into existance their molecular structure just changes over time....however logic tells us that each had a beginning....Now in that nano second before the big bang; how could those elements that suddenly exploded into mass and energy come into existance in the first place if there had not been an external spark to set it all in motion...

I believe that some of the resistance you have found stems from the above assertion. I do not agree that "logic" tells us that all elements have a beginning. Nothing we see in our lifetime in our natural world supports this assertion. Every object that we personally know of, consists of elements that existed prior to us. What do we "know" in life that would make this a "logical" assumption?

The energy created by the Big Bang inside the cylinder of your internal combustion engine does not have a specific beginning. You can trace the origins of this energy back to the time of dinosaurs. Just because we don't know much about what came before dinosaurs doesn't necessarily mean that it HAD to have a beginning.

 

[ambush80]

...But for the last time; can someone give a thoughtful response to this idea........All matter has a beginning; all elements have a begining; energy has a beginning.....

When in your entire life have you ever seen anything just "POOF" into existence?

Where have you ever heard of this happening except in a Creation story?

Why does that scenario sound so likely to you?

 

[Thanatos]

LOLOL, the more you talk the more you show just how little you do know. Tell me what my religious background is if you KNOW what it isn't. I don't need any help to back up what I have learned in 20years of Christianity. That said, you were much more interesting to talk with when you stuck with the topic at hand rather than sling insults. Good job on showing your true colors. Another one bites the dust.

What I said to you is not an insult. It is a fact. If facts insult you that is your problem.

From your previous post it is obvious that you know of God, but you never knew God. Therefore, you were never a Christian.

You are entitled to your own opinion about God, but what I wrote above is Christian doctorine. If you believe or not is up to you.

 

[Tim L]

I believe that some of the resistance you have found stems from the above assertion. I do not agree that "logic" tells us that all elements have a beginning. Nothing we see in our lifetime in our natural world supports this assertion. Every object that we personally know of, consists of elements that existed prior to us. What do we "know" in life that would make this a "logical" assumption?

The energy created by the Big Bang inside the cylinder of your internal combustion engine does not have a specific beginning. However all of the elements that ignite the combustion in the engine itself and the fuel were already in place. The resulting release and expansion of energy is caused by the interaction of elements already in place....

You can trace the origins of this energy back to the time of dinosaurs. Just because we don't know much about what came before dinosaurs doesn't necessarily mean that it HAD to have a beginning.

I don't follow, the dinosaurs (for example) were decendents of animials that already existed; their beginning followed an established line...

 

[Tim L]

When in your entire life have you ever seen anything just "POOF" into existence?

Where have you ever heard of this happening except in a Creation story?

Why does that scenario sound so likely to you?

Again, I'm not pulling any groups version of a creation story into this discussion; you may disagree but I consider that a seperate subject. Once that becomes part of what is being discussed the chain reaction begins; people will choose sides; start firing away pro and con, and the orginal idea will be lost.

Again, I haven't seen where anyone has suggested a means from which the building blocks of matter itself have always existed to an infinite time in the past and that they were not subject to the concept of time...Nothing has been shown that suggests they were always there and that they never had a beginning......lots of theories; that's all.
Again, I would suggest not giving too much thought to what the spark was (don't think supernatural or poof, your programing yourself to automatically reject an idea as a matter of policy if you do that); just try to wrap your mind around the fact that these building blocks were always there without a beginning; they were just always there....That thought; that concept is illogical and impossible to reconcile....Again, it is like dividing zero by zero; it cannot be......In the western world we are programed to dismiss an idea such as this as irrational, but the only remaining process that could explain such a process is that some external stimuli had to set it in motion...

 

[HawgJawl]

Tim L
"However all of the elements that ignite the combustion in the engine itself and the fuel were already in place. The resulting release and expansion of energy is caused by the interaction of elements already in place..."

Exactly.
Now just apply that same (internal combustion engine Big Bang) concept to the cosmic Big Bang concept.

Since we understand that the elements were already in existence prior to the (internal combustion engine) Big Bang, it makes it "illogical" to automatically assume that the elements could not have existed prior to the cosmic Big Bang.