# How Did We Come to Exist?



## Tim L (May 28, 2011)

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...

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....It's a big deep thought thats hard to wrap your mind around, but it simply is not possibe..


----------



## ambush80 (May 28, 2011)

Tim L said:


> 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...
> 
> 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....It's a big deep thought thats hard to wrap your mind around, but it simply is not possibe..



Why would you dismiss this as not important?

If God doesn't need a creator than why does all the "stuff" need one?


----------



## atlashunter (May 28, 2011)

Tim L said:


> Logic tells us that energy and mass cannot just suddenly come to exist from nothing...



How do you know that is what happened?


----------



## CAL (May 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know that is what happened?



Chemistry 101,"nothing is ever created or destroyed,it's molecular structure is changed"!


----------



## atlashunter (May 28, 2011)

CAL said:


> Chemistry 101,"nothing is ever created or destroyed,it's molecular structure is changed"!



Exactly


----------



## fishinbub (May 28, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Why would you dismiss this as not important?
> 
> If God doesn't need a creator than why does all the "stuff" need one?



From dictionary.com

Scientific Law
a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur

God
a supernatural being

Supernatural 
or being above or beyond what is natural


----------



## ted_BSR (May 29, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> From dictionary.com
> 
> Scientific Law
> a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur
> ...



Very good points. The questions in the OP cannot be answered with logic. The answers are supernatural in nature.


----------



## WTM45 (May 29, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Very good points. The questions in the OP cannot be answered with logic. The answers are supernatural in nature.



Um, wrong.
A person can use supernatural explanations if they so choose, but there is no way a definitive answer can be 100% accurate using such methods.

Best they can do is state they simply do not know.


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

Nothing more than argument from ignorance. Rainbows were also once thought to be supernatural.


----------



## Tim L (May 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Why would you dismiss this as not important?
> 
> If God doesn't need a creator than why does all the "stuff" need one?



Because thats anothor issue and this question gets lost when you make that part of the equation....Once you do that the answer becomes nothing exists at all...Again, for just a moment don't put a label on whatever was the spark that set things in motion....If it clouds the issue so much as to say God set things in motion; then think of it as some child of a group of beings with a higher level of existance playing in the equivalent of mud and the universe we now inhabit is the result of that childs playing in the mud....Silly comparison, I know; but some are so eager to put a label on that spark that things break down into the old Pee Wee Hermain line "I know you are but what am I"....

Don't go there...The issue is how did that initial matter that resulted in the big bang come into being a split second before the bang itself???


----------



## Tim L (May 29, 2011)

CAL said:


> Chemistry 101,"nothing is ever created or destroyed,it's molecular structure is changed"!



Thank you; whether you meant to or not you just proved my point...nothing is ever destroyed; it's molecular structure just changes....what was is and what is will be...nothing new.....However.....again.....that molecular structure could not have existed from the present to the past infinity without a point of beginning......Somehow, prior to the big bang that initial matter came into being seemingly from nothing....Logically speaking; nothing should exist....Stay with the question that was asked, don't take it into other directions or you won't be able to see the forest for the trees...


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

Tim L said:


> However.....again.....that molecular structure could not have existed from the present to the past infinity without a point of beginning......Somehow, prior to the big bang that initial matter came into being seemingly from nothing....



How do you know this? How do you know that "something" hasn't always existed?


----------



## Tim L (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nothing more than argument from ignorance. Rainbows were also once thought to be supernatural.



Alrighty then; you completely misunderstood the question and have no concept at all of what I asked....


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

Tim L said:


> Alrighty then; you completely misunderstood the question and have no concept at all of what I asked....



I understand the question. But resorting to a supernatural explanation really explains nothing and as with rainbows is an argument used to plug a gap in our knowledge until the real answer is found.

Your question is based on certain assumptions that we don't know to be true.


----------



## Tim L (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I understand the question. But resorting to a supernatural explanation really explains nothing and as with rainbows is an argument used to plug a gap in our knowledge until the real answer is found.
> 
> Your question is based on certain assumptions that we don't know to be true.



There doesn't necessarily have to be a supernatural explantion; again thats a code word that is somestimes said when we want to dismiss a troublesome idea, but quite simply how did that initial matter that exploded into becoming the universe we know come into being?   Logic tells us that it should not have been there in the first place; but somehow it was....keep in mind, many, many scientific "truths" do not stand the test of time; much of what the scientific community accepted as fact (such as it was and it would not have been in the west; would have been Asia, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent) a thousand years ago, such as the practice of "bleeding" a person for a wide variety of physical and emotional problems are not accepted today and it is not too far fetched to expect that much of what is a "scientific truth" today will be a piece of trival in a history book (or program) a thousand years from now...Again do not get too caught up in the term supernatural or if you must consider it from a deist perspective...

If you (or anyone else, do not mean to sound condicending) can do that and start peeling away the layers of this onion and really think about it with an open mind, it is very hard to conceive how anything at all has come to exist without something being the initial spark..


----------



## ted_BSR (May 29, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Um, wrong.
> A person can use supernatural explanations if they so choose, but there is no way a definitive answer can be 100% accurate using such methods.
> 
> Best they can do is state they simply do not know.



Same with logic. Nothing is 100% accurate.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nothing more than argument from ignorance. Rainbows were also once thought to be supernatural.



Your jab is ridiculous Atlas. I have come to expect it from you.

I am well educated.


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

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.


----------



## fishinbub (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know this? How do you know that "something" hasn't always existed?



To quote yourself, "Do you believe Einstein's theory to be incorrect?"...


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> To quote yourself, "Do you believe Einstein's theory to be incorrect?"...



Nope. My question still stands.


----------



## fishinbub (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nope. My question still stands.



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


----------



## WTM45 (May 29, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> 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 (May 29, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> 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.
> ...



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


----------



## ted_BSR (May 29, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> 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.
> ...



Nothing can be proven. Study that.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (May 29, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> 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 (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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...


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

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 (May 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (May 29, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> 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.


----------



## WTM45 (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


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



Nailed.


----------



## Thanatos (May 30, 2011)

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 (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> 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


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> 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.


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


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



Why?


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

Because no energy was created.


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Because no energy was created.



Explain how this is possible...


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

What other possibility is there in light of the laws of physics that you have been putting forward? If all of the energy in the universe were present at the big bang then where are you seeing creation of energy from nothing?


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What other possibility is there in light of the laws of physics that you have been putting forward? If all of the energy in the universe were present at the big bang then where are you seeing creation of energy from nothing?



Energy and matter are interdependent. It is impossible to have energy without matter. How can you have energy prior to the big bang?


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

The big bang may have well been for THIS universe, created from matter from another universe and so on and so on and so on. It could be a reoccurring loop in that the universe might re-create itself over time.  Time is the culprit we cannot comprehend and time is the key to our answers. We want instant gratification and it is easiest to owe it all to some being just like ourselves, but better......I doubt it folks. Hundreds of billions on years or more seems supernatural and thats about it.


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The big bang may have well been for THIS universe, created from matter from another universe and so on and so on and so on. It could be a reoccurring loop in that the universe might re-create itself over time.  Time is the culprit we cannot comprehend and time is the key to our answers. We want instant gratification and it is easiest to owe it all to some being just like ourselves, but better......I doubt it folks. Hundreds of billions on years or more seems supernatural and thats about it.



Sorry, but that is the worst cop-out I've ever heard.


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

fishinbub you still haven't answered the question. Big Bang Theory doesn't assert any energy creation. All the "stuff" of the universe was there. What happened before that is a question mark. We don't know that energy was "created" at all much less what would have created it if it was. But to be able to ask the question "what created it?" you first have to establish that it was in fact created and that hasn't been established. Citing laws that state energy can't be created or destroyed hardly helps make your case.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Sorry, but that is the worst cop-out I've ever heard.



Yes, a cop-out. What I meant to say was my imaginary friend who ALWAYS existed, even though I argue that nothing else can always exist, made it, us and everything because he was bored and NEEDED some creatures to worship him. My friend sees everything, knows everything, is all powerful, infallible and inerrant except he is shown to be all of those things or none of those things then he is above everyone's comprehension. No one knows how or what my friend thinks, but if you believe in my friend you somehow have a better grasp on the way he works and can speak for him. Bottom line is that ONLY my friend has always existed, nothing else so he made everything else.

Better?


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

Here is another question. If what we know about the universe requires or even suggests some supernatural first cause why don't cosmologists come to that conclusion?


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> fishinbub you still haven't answered the question. Big Bang Theory doesn't assert any energy creation. All the "stuff" of the universe was there. What happened before that is a question mark. We don't know that energy was "created" at all much less what would have created it if it was. But to be able to ask the question "what created it?" you first have to establish that it was in fact created and that hasn't been established. Citing laws that state energy can't be created or destroyed hardly helps make your case.



So, exactly what laws state that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Either you have an extremely poor grasp on scientific laws, or you are flat out trying to deceive folks. Care to explain how energy can be infinite, with no beginning and no end?


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy



> The law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.
> 
> Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that mass is a form of energy (see rest mass energy) so they can transform one into another. So the distinction between "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) and energy particles (say photons of light) is not wide - they can turn one into other (see annihilation and matter creation). However, this conversion does not affect the total energy of closed systems.
> 
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

So let's try this one more time since you prefer to ask questions rather than answer them.

Can you cite a time that energy was ever created?


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> So let's try this one more time since you prefer to ask questions rather than answer them.
> 
> Can you cite a time that energy was ever created?



Yes, but you tend to get offended when folks quote scripture in this forum. 

If energy has been around forever, then the law of thermodynamics dictates that it would be evenly distributed throughout the universe, not in the small area require for a "big bang"...


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Here is another question. If what we know about the universe requires or even suggests some supernatural first cause why don't cosmologists come to that conclusion?



Care to take a stab at this one?


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Care to take a stab at this one?



You probably know more about what their recent "conclusions" are than I do. Last I heard it was something to the tune of "we don't know what the heck happened". Care to enlighten the rest of us?


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

Knowledge is infinite. The more we seek the more we learn. Things that were thought as supernatural 100 years ago are simple now. We gain knowledge in leaps and bounds and in none of these gains is the supernatural an accepted final answer. The longer mankind is on earth the more we learn. The more we learn the less it points to an invisible being.


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Knowledge is infinite. The more we seek the more we learn. Things that were thought as supernatural 100 years ago are simple now. We gain knowledge in leaps and bounds and in none of these gains is the supernatural an accepted final answer. The longer mankind is on earth the more we learn. The more we learn the less it points to an invisible being.



So am I correct in your assumption that you are still working on that perpetual motion device?


----------



## WTM45 (May 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Sorry, but that is the worst cop-out I've ever heard.



You are eighteen years old.
You have not heard much.
That's simply how it is.
Youth is no insult.  It is simply a reason for continued searching.


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> You are eighteen years old.
> You have not heard much.
> That's simply how it is.
> Youth is no insult.  It is simply a reason for continued searching.



Unless you are old enough to have witnessed the big bang, I fail to see how my age is relevant to the discussion.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> So am I correct in your assumption that you are still working on that perpetual motion device?



Working on it? I completed it 4 years ago and sold it to the Gov't in hopes that they use it to solve the oil problem. I am sure any day now it will surface.

A little over 100 years ago flight was unheard of and now we launch ships into space and return them home. Give it time. Everything is proven or dis-proven with time. I am leaning towards mankind will see a perpetual motion device long before some supernatural being is proven. I am curios in why you are asking for proof for all these scientific things but you require none for your religion?????


----------



## fishinbub (May 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am curios in why you are asking for proof for all these scientific things but you require none for your religion?????



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


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


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



Wrong forum indeed.


----------



## Thanatos (May 30, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

Tim L said:


> 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 (May 30, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> 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 (May 31, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> 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 (May 31, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> 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 (May 31, 2011)

Tim you are making an argument by assertion.


----------



## pnome (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> 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 (May 31, 2011)

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 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> ...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 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> ...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 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> ...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 (May 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> 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 (May 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> 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 (May 31, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> 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 (May 31, 2011)

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.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> 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....



Reconcile with what?
Nature?
In order for it to be difficult to reconcile, it would have to go against the majority of what we KNOW of the natural world.  If the majority of the natural world as we know it does "poof" into existence, then yes, it would be the exception to the rule, but that's not the case.  Every object that we know of consists of elements that existed before we did.  In order for the idea of elements always existing to be the exception to the rule and hard to reconcile, you would need to be able to identify more elements that had a specific beginning point, within our lifetime, than I could identify that existed prior to our lifetime.  Since you cannot do this, it should be the default position that elements always existed.


----------



## Tim L (May 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> 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.
> ...



But (and I know we are going round and round now) prior to the bang and the creation of those forces that caused the bang, nothing at all was there; take it back far enough and there has to be an empty void...take it back far enough and somehow matter, energy, and the building blocks of all that is around us didn't exist and the universe (well there was no universe at that point) was a total void....to take your arguement to the very beginning we are asked to believe that matter and energy somehow on their very own was the result of a total void.....


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> 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...



It is impossible to reconcile, but so is the idea that something came from nothing and I have personal experience that shows that this doesn't happen.

Where did the external stimuli come from?


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> But (and I know we are going round and round now) prior to the bang and the creation of those forces that caused the bang, nothing at all was there; take it back far enough and there has to be an empty void...take it back far enough and somehow matter, energy, and the building blocks of all that is around us didn't exist and the universe (well there was no universe at that point) was a total void....to take your arguement to the very beginning we are asked to believe that matter and energy somehow on their very own was the result of a total void.....



Another notion impossible to reconcile.....


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> prior to the bang and the creation of those forces that caused the bang, nothing at all was there; take it back far enough and there has to be an empty void..



This concept is based upon what?

Can you give me a single example of any object that exists today that consists of elements that did not exist prior to your lifetime?

Where does the concept come from that there HAD to be a beginning to elements?


----------



## Tim L (May 31, 2011)

Well I think we have come to the point where at best we will have to agree to disagree; nothing new is being said by any of us..


----------



## WTM45 (May 31, 2011)

Thom's Law 

"If there were ever a time when there was nothing,
There would still be nothing. 
Nothing cannot produce something."


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

Even the Bible recognizes the creation of objects utilizing pre-existing elements.

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And the man became a living person.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (May 31, 2011)

Yep. First time I saw your avatar Atlas.

I believe in a higher power. I'm not a Bible thumper. I don't pretend to understand any of it. But I choose to believe in God. He likes idiots, like me and........

You guys on both sides. This is the biggest "well my dad can beat up your dad" argument I have seen on here. Can't neither one of you prove or disprove the other. So is it not insane to argue this over and over and expect a different result?


----------



## Tim L (May 31, 2011)

Yes but if you use the biblical account as an example, the dust already existed...Matter just changed form; (i.e. the dust became Adam; nothing new was created)...No new matter was created; it just changed it's molecular form....I keep going back to the point in time before all matter existed......again there is no indisputable evidence to support that matter existed at a point in the past infinite; only theories...In the absence of that indisputable evidence based on what we know about the physical world there is always a point of beginning..


----------



## Tim L (May 31, 2011)

CollinsCraft77 said:


> Yep. First time I saw your avatar Atlas.
> 
> I believe in a higher power. I'm not a Bible thumper. I don't pretend to understand any of it. But I choose to believe in God. He likes idiots, like me and........
> 
> You guys on both sides. This is the biggest "well my dad can beat up your dad" argument I have seen on here. Can't neither one of you prove or disprove the other. So is it not insane to argue this over and over and expect a different result?



It's called a discussion; an exchange of ideas...


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (May 31, 2011)

In an exchange, don't you keep something from the other person in return for something you gave?

I see no such exchange


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> based on what we know about the physical world there is always a point of beginning..



Can you elaborate on this particular statement please?
Maybe a few examples?


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> Yes but if you use the biblical account as an example, the dust already existed...Matter just changed form; (i.e. the dust became Adam; nothing new was created)...No new matter was created; it just changed it's molecular form....I keep going back to the point in time before all matter existed......again there is no indisputable evidence to support that matter existed at a point in the past infinite; only theories...In the absence of that indisputable evidence based on what we know about the physical world there is always a point of beginning..



So you want indisputable evidence that matter-energy has always existed in some form? Where is the evidence that it had a beginning?

It seems to me that what we do know is more supportive of the idea that it always existed rather than that it didn't at some time in the past.

I think what you are trying to do is get out of the infinite regress because you find it "illogical". But is it any more logical to assume an exception to the rule that everything comes from something before it? Doesn't seem more logical to me.

What it really boils down to is we don't know the answer to this question. Both possibilities are difficult to wrap the mind around. And how do we know there aren't yet other possibilities? We don't. I don't know if we will ever find the ultimate answer. Plenty have come and gone before us who knew far less so it would be arrogant to assume we are owed the knowledge.  But I do know I'm very glad to live at a time when we know as much about our universe and our origins as we do.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Can you elaborate on this particular statement please?
> Maybe a few examples?



Yes. Example please.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> Well I think we have come to the point where at best we will have to agree to disagree; nothing new is being said by any of us..



Ok. Then lets play a game. 

I will presuppose a Prime Mover.

Now what?  What's He/She/It like?


----------



## Tim L (May 31, 2011)

Nothing new being said at this point; no desire to take it in another direction or simply begin a game of one toping or reacting to what the other just said....This has run its course.....adios muchachos!


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2011)

No Tim the conversation never even got off the ground because you refuse to back up your assertions.


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Ok. Then lets play a game.
> 
> I will presuppose a Prime Mover.
> 
> Now what?  What's He/She/It like?



Its a He, I'll send you 66 books to find out what He is like.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> Nothing new being said at this point; no desire to take it in another direction or simply begin a game of one toping or reacting to what the other just said....This has run its course.....adios muchachos!



"Game" may have been the wrong word.  I was expanding the discussion by conceding your position (no evidence required).  Either way, I hope you come up with some other thoughts on the matter that you might share.


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Its a He, I'll send you 66 books to find out what He is like.



Ho hum....

How about something fresh?


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2011)




----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>



I am frightened and awed into submission.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Its a He, I'll send you 66 books to find out what He is like.



If God is the one and only God, then why would God have a particular sex?


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>





HawgJawl said:


> If God is the one and only God, then why would God have a particular sex?



Where'd the train tracks go?


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Where'd the train tracks go?



I figured we could have our own driveler thread in here since Tim L does not want to continue the conversation.


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>



You have pictures like these on deck dont you? Is this your screen saver?


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If God is the one and only God, then why would God have a particular sex?





BTW HawgJawl, you gotta loosin' up a little, I want to see a smilie in your next post.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> BTW HawgJawl, you gotta loosin' up a little, I want to see a smilie in your next post.



Oh...  Okay,


----------



## WTM45 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> Yes but if you use the biblical account as an example, the dust already existed...Matter just changed form; (i.e. the dust became Adam; nothing new was created)...No new matter was created; it just changed it's molecular form....I keep going back to the point in time before all matter existed......again there is no indisputable evidence to support that matter existed at a point in the past infinite; only theories...In the absence of that indisputable evidence based on what we know about the physical world there is always a point of beginning..



Are you wishing to replace that which is currently unknown and unproven scientifically with the supernatural?  What is your leaning?

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=5945448&postcount=53


----------



## pnome (May 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Its a He, I'll send you 66 books to find out what He is like.



That's a big assumption there.   "He" would imply that Prime Mover's reproduce sexually.   Which just doesn't seem right to me.

TO answer ambush80 though, there is at least one thing we can tell about this Prime Mover's personality.  "He" prefers to remain hidden.


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Oh...  Okay,



Thats what I'm talkin' bout'


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

pnome said:


> TO answer ambush80 though, there is at least one thing we can tell about this Prime Mover's personality.  "He" prefers to remain hidden.



Or perhaps "He" is no longer here.  Maybe "He" had enough and moved on to try again, with some design improvements.

Oh, I almost forgot:


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2011)

pnome said:


> That's a big assumption there.   "He" would imply that Prime Mover's reproduce sexually.   Which just doesn't seem right to me.


Not when you believe in only one Prime Mover. I dont think of Him(God) in the sense that He has a hairy back and a beer gut, but the Bible shows God to be masculine.



> TO answer ambush80 though, there is at least one thing we can tell about this Prime Mover's personality.  "He" prefers to remain hidden.



I like to look at it in the sense that He only reveals Himself to the ones that look for Him, no need to be pushy


----------



## stringmusic (May 31, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Or perhaps "He" is no longer here.  Maybe "He" had enough and moved on to try again, with some design improvements.
> 
> *Oh, I almost forgot*:


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2011)

pnome said:


> That's a big assumption there.   "He" would imply that Prime Mover's reproduce sexually.   Which just doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> TO answer ambush80 though, there is at least one thing we can tell about this Prime Mover's personality.  "He" prefers to remain hidden.



Why not?  it's one of the most interesting things "He" came up with.



stringmusic said:


> Not when you believe in only one Prime Mover. I dont think of Him(God) in the sense that He has a hairy back and a beer gut, but the Bible shows God to be masculine.
> 
> 
> 
> I like to look at it in the sense that He only reveals Himself to the ones that look for Him, no need to be pushy



Would flooding the Earth be considered pushy?


----------



## HawgJawl (May 31, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I like to look at it in the sense that He only reveals Himself to the ones that look for Him, no need to be pushy



There are a few examples of God revealing Himself in a fairly authoritative manner in the OT to folks who weren't seeking Him.


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> 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.



Without knowing me or my religious upbringing your comment is opinion, not fact. What might be obvious to you in this case is not so outside of your mind in real life. I have been there and done that as far as being a christian and it just did not do it for me like it does for you. Try to understand that. I hate to burst your bubble but once a christian does not mean always a christian. If you want to talk facts, leave beliefs in imaginary beings out of conversations. Open your mind to accept that what works for you does not work for everyone and lastly if what you think you "know" about me is the same you "know" about religion, you need to do more research. My choice IS up to me, I cannot help it that you do not agree with it.


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2011)

Thanatos said:


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



What "how to be a christian" manual did you get that thought from? How well does one have to know god? Does someones get bonus points if they know god better than the next person? Please show me the guidelines.


----------



## Tim L (May 31, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Are you wishing to replace that which is currently unknown and unproven scientifically with the supernatural?  What is your leaning?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=5945448&postcount=53



It would be a mistake to try to read anything into what I said besides what I said....I said that if Adam was created from dust then the dust was there before Adam; not an empty void...It might be fun to try to read more into it, but that's it.


----------



## WTM45 (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> It would be a mistake to try to read anything into what I said besides what I said....I said that if Adam was created from dust then the dust was there before Adam; not an empty void...It might be fun to try to read more into it, but that's it.



Seems so far you are pretty certain there was a time where nothing existed, or there was an "empty void."  You keep emphasizing that, stating it is "logical."  
What is your reasoning and evidence?  Are you following that premise simply from the works of Aristotle or Aquinas?

You have been somewhat quick to discount any belief to the contrary, that matter and energy has always existed.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 31, 2011)

Tim L said:


> 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...



I have a feeling you had this sort of answer ready for me regardless of what I said.  That's the only explanation I can come up with for it.


----------



## Thanatos (May 31, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Seems so far you are pretty certain there was a time where nothing existed, or there was an "empty void."  You keep emphasizing that, stating it is "logical."
> What is your reasoning and evidence?  Are you following that premise simply from the works of Aristotle or Aquinas?
> 
> You have been somewhat quick to discount any belief to the contrary, that matter and energy has always existed.



That matter and energy is called God.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 31, 2011)

Oh... now I understand


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> That matter and energy is called God.



Pantheist eh?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> That matter and energy is called God.



So, there was never a time when "nothing" existed, correct?


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>



But what made the meatballs and boiled the pasta then?  Who made the pots and pans?  Who made Crate and Barrel? Who made Gordon and Carole Segal? etc...

You can go on, providing evidence and proof of all your answers (or not).  But is there an end-point?  Or does it just go on and on and on.  

I don't think it goes on and on and on.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2011)

FSM gave us meatballs and pasta in his image.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 1, 2011)

pnome said:


> But what made the meatballs and boiled the pasta then?  Who made the pots and pans?  Who made Crate and Barrel? Who made Gordon and Carole Segal? etc...
> 
> You can go on, providing evidence and proof of all your answers (or not).  But is there an end-point?  Or does it just go on and on and on.
> 
> I don't think it goes on and on and on.



Do you feel as though you may have picked an arbitrary "starting" place?


----------



## Tim L (Jun 1, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I have a feeling you had this sort of answer ready for me regardless of what I said.  That's the only explanation I can come up with for it.



No, it appeared to me that you wanted to address a question that was not asked and make commits on matters that were not part of this discussion..If that was the case all I can add is I think it would have been better if you had stayed on point and taken the time to first identify the subject of the discussion.  If that was not the case and you did all of that then I was wrong.


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Do you feel as though you may have picked an arbitrary "starting" place?



Maybe if I had picked a particular place to start.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 1, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> That matter and energy is called God.



There it is.  The supernatural replacement move.

That's not what the OP is wishing to discuss.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

Tim L said:


> Logic tells us that energy and mass cannot just suddenly come to exist from nothing... It is simply impossible...
> 
> But quite simply, knowing that logic teaches us that mass and energy cannot simply come to exist from nothing; /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 1, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> There it is.  The supernatural replacement move.
> 
> That's not what the OP is wishing to discuss.




I know. I know. I saw it and had to hit it out of the park.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 1, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I know. I know. I saw it and had to hit it out of the park.



A clean whiff, and you threw your bat into the stands, and it hit a kid in a wheelchair behind third base.  

My goodness....


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> A clean whiff, and you threw your bat into the stands, and it hit a kid in a wheelchair behind third base.
> 
> My goodness....


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 1, 2011)

pnome said:


> Maybe if I had picked a particular place to start.



Are you looking for a starting point?


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Are you looking for a starting point?



Not really.  Just working under the assumption that there is one.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 1, 2011)

pnome said:


> Not really.  Just working under the assumption that there is one.



Changed your life any?


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Changed your life any?



Nope.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I know. I know. I saw it and had to hit it out of the park.



Looked like ol' sultan of swat himself if you ask me!

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oDxVbzhRh6M?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oDxVbzhRh6M?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> A clean whiff, and you threw your bat into the stands, and it hit a kid in a wheelchair behind third base.
> 
> My goodness....



What are you talking about? That was my plan the whole time. The kid was cheering for the other team...


----------

