Where do athiests think we came from?

[Just Dave]

I think we were part of some cosmic process here on earth which accidently or not created a building blocks for first microbs to begin their epicly long evolution...

So accidently or not life was created out there on similar earths... basicaly we are not alone for sure. Second theory is that parts for life were already here when earth was first created all it needed was ignition from a meteor or asteroid. Hey im guessing as much as scientists do...

[Coffey]

The question isn't "answered properly" because its never asked properly. What do you mean by "how it started"? You mean time? The laws of physics we know today? Our observable universe? The four dimensions we live in? Each one is a different, highly complex area, that doesn't have a definitive answer and may never.

The idea that there was no universe, and then there was a universe is utterly out of date.

The whole universe, how it became into existence. The point is not the question being clear, it's the answer that is unclear when an Athiest or Scientist is discussing it. They never just say "I don't know".... Which they don't.

I do not believe in god, so I am unbiased in this. I also do not completely out rule a possibility. It is jsut as much ignorance to out rule the possibility of god as it is to believe there is one.

God is unfalsifiable by definition. You will never disprove it, which is what makes it a thoroughly unscientific concept.

And saying "there is a link between everything that is unexplainable is both unacceptably vague and verging on a God Of The Gaps argument.

The link is proven by physics and biology actually.

So an as of yet unexplained mechanism in quantum physics means god? Please. Talk about reaching.

I don't fully understand fluid dynamics. Must be god, right?

Those have absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about, please study physics and Biology better before attempting to post your opinion as facts.

We don't have observations, experiments or maths to disprove leprechauns, faeries, pixies, gnomes, elves, or dragons either.

We do actually, so thanks for proving my point. lol

Archaeology and Biology both disprove those so far. Where as both do not disprove God.

Again just to make a point I do not believe in god.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Coffey

[Emma_Acid]

The whole universe, how it became into existence. The point is not the question being clear, it's the answer that is unclear when an Athiest or Scientist is discussing it. They never just say "I don't know".... Which they don't.

It isn't valid a question, as anyone with a working knowledge of modern physics will tell you. We simply don't know what "the whole universe" even means.

The last 15 years of physics has shown us that even our concepts of "nothing" and "beginnings" probably don't mean anything.

I repeat: the question "where did it all start" is not a valid one.

You can ask: "when did our 4 dimensions come into being?" but this isn't the same thing. Neither is "when was the beginning of time?", as this isn't necessarily the same thing as the beginning of the universe.

I do not believe in god, so I am unbiased in this. I also do not completely out rule a possibility. It is jsut as much ignorance to out rule the possibility of god as it is to believe there is one.

I do not necessarily disagree with that.

The link is proven by physics and biology actually.

How is the link between physics and biology prove there is something "unexplainable" going on??

Edited November 30, 2012 by Emma_Acid

[Coffey]

It isn't valid a question, as anyone with a working knowledge of modern physics will tell you. We simply don't know what "the whole universe" even means.

The last 15 years of physics has shown us that even our concepts of "nothing" and "beginnings" probably don't mean anything.

I repeat: the question "where did it all start" is not a valid one.

You can ask: "when did our 4 dimensions come into being?" but this isn't the same thing. Neither is "when was the beginning of time?", as this isn't necessarily the same thing as the beginning of the universe.

My point was aimed more at the atheists on here and most scientists you see in interview son the subject. It's jsut a general observation. They tend to go off the subject with their answer. Surely you have seen this?

How is the link between physics and biology prove there is something "unexplainable" going on??

I'm not good at explaining things. So it's better i don't try. lol I'll probably end up saying something completely different to what I mean.

So here is a video to one example:

So us observing changed the outcome? It's unexplainable and makes no sense using what we know.

A very interesting read which includes the above:

http://urbantitan.com/top-3-weirdest-things-about-everyday-reality/

These do not prove god at all or even hint at it, it's more the point we don't know everything and therefore it means nobody can really say how the universe was created and if there is more to our "reality" than we know.

[Rlyeh]

So us observing changed the outcome? It's unexplainable and makes no sense using what we know.

Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it.

[freetoroam]

Where did I tell you god exists? Please, if you're going to act all offended, at least get your facts straight.

As an extra, you do not have proof god does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I honestly have no idea what that last sentence is meant to be about. On the off chance that it's the usual 'you can't ask someone to prove something doesn't exist' then that's outright wrong. The only way you can say something is definitely the case is to disprove all other possibilities.

"When you have conclusive proof that gods cannot exist, give me a shout" this is what you asked, now if you do not believe in him, you would not be asking this question to me in the first place, unless you are on a wind up, if you do belive in him, then i have given you my answer in my previous post.

You see, you are asking me to proof something which can not be because there is no evidence at all that it does.

You prove to me that he does exist.

[Emma_Acid]

My point was aimed more at the atheists on here and most scientists you see in interview son the subject. It's jsut a general observation. They tend to go off the subject with their answer. Surely you have seen this?

They "go off the subject", because the question is literally meaningless. Ask the right questions of the right people and you'll start learning.

I'm not good at explaining things. So it's better i don't try. lol I'll probably end up saying something completely different to what I mean.

That has nothing to do with biology.

Quantum physics points to a new sort of reality that is counter intuitive. It is not "unexplainable" as you stated. And I still can't see how this in any way shores up any of your points.

[Coffey]

Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it.

Explain what you mean? All they did was try to record it happening and it changed to what they expected to happen before they conducted the test.

Putting the recording device there made the particles act differently. How is that possible?! (an no the device was not interfering with it, that is made clear)

That has nothing to do with biology.

Quantum physics points to a new sort of reality that is counter intuitive. It is not "unexplainable" as you stated. And I still can't see how this in any way shores up any of your points.

I was using it as 1 example. It was not intended to be biology either.

If you really look into it you will see what I mean. I'm not good at explaining it and I'm not even going to try explaining something that took me years of research into this stuff to find. As I said I'm merely stating that there is unexplainable things that Scientists cannot explain and a lot of the leading scientists have stated how they believe it's more than what we know. Including Einstein:

Einstein grew increasingly troubled by the "Collapse of a Wave" and toward the end of his life at one point during a heart-to-heart talk with physicist Abraham Pais asked "Do you really believe the moon exists only when I look at it?"

So I'm pretty positive you can't claim to know better than him.

[Alienated Being]

If you really look into it you will see what I mean. I'm not good at explaining it and I'm not even going to try explaining something that took me years of research into this stuff to find. As I said I'm merely stating that there is unexplainable things that Scientists cannot explain and a lot of the leading scientists have stated how they believe it's more than what we know. Including Einstein:

You will find that many of Einstein's quotes are generally ambiguous, and taken out of context. From what I have gathered, what was really said is something along these lines...

"I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements.

That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured.

I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.".

He was not making reference to a lack of understanding pertaining to the nature of things when we are not observing them, rather that we can be confident that they are behaving in the same manner even when they are not being observed.

[Setton]

"When you have conclusive proof that gods cannot exist, give me a shout" this is what you asked, now if you do not believe in him, you would not be asking this question to me in the first place, unless you are on a wind up, if you do belive in him, then i have given you my answer in my previous post.

Not so. I don't believe tectonic plates move due to deep mantle processes yet if you disproved it, I'd want to know about it.

I think the key difference here is I require proof before making any assertion. You evidently do not.

You see, you are asking me to proof something which can not be because there is no evidence at all that it does.

You prove to me that he does exist.

I am not required to prove anything as I have only stated a belief. As you are the one making a 'factual' statement, the onus is on you to provide proof. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You were the one who said god definitely does not exist. Now prove it or that is simply a belief.

I say again (with a revision courtesy of Arbenol68): Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Setton

[Alienated Being]

I am not required to prove anything as I have only stated a belief. As you are the one making a 'factual' statement, the onus is on you to provide proof. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You were the one who said god definitely does not exist. Now prove it or that is simply a belief.

As much as we don't particularly get along, I have to agree with you - even the most highly respected scientists agree that it is nothing short of blatant ignorance to assert that god absolutely can not exist. However, I believe in god as much as I believe in faeries, unicorns and pixies.

[Setton]

As much as we don't particularly get along, I have to agree with you - even the most highly respected scientists agree that it is nothing short of blatant ignorance to assert that god absolutely can not exist. However, I believe in god as much as I believe in faeries, unicorns and pixies.

Wait... you and I agree on something? Isn't that a sign the world's going to end?

[Alienated Being]

Wait... you and I agree on something? Isn't that a sign the world's going to end?

The universe is imploding as we speak. God dammit.

[lightly]

I think Bob Dylan said it best ... " and you KNOW! something's happening... but you don't know what it IS

[Mr Right Wing]

I'll start by saying that I'm not religious at all, and that I (probably) never will be. I guess a good description would be spiritual!

However, I'm really curious where, or what force, non-believers think we (and physical reality itself) came from. If everything in physical reality needs a cause to have an effect (simple laws of physics), then what was the initial cause to create the physical reality we live in? If everything in our physical reality needs a cause to have an effect, the only way for initial creation was for some outside force to essentially create our physical reality, or our reality must have broken its own laws of physics at the beginning of time.

By saying there was no cause, and knowing that our universe has not been around for an infinite amount of time means that a mystical (paranormal) force caused creation. By saying there was a cause, then something had to have created our universe (such as what many people would describe as 'God'). It seems like a simple and self defeating argument.

It's clear that our universe wasn't always in existence, so I'm anxious to hear your opinions. This simple reason is why I do not understand the die hard atheists, or people who take a close-minded skeptical stance instead of open-minded and skeptical view of our reality.

The thing we experience as reality is a collection of perceptions created in the mind.

No god created it, no big bang created it, we have. We is comes to the question of something objective existing behind the perceptions thats a different ball game altogether which quite easily descends into what people would call crazy talk.

As Quantum Mechanics shows if theres no information on something it doesnt exist. I therefore go for the non-dualist stance that the universe is a feedback loop created by ourselves by us seeking information.

The version of it in the Bible is Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge (gaining information).

[+Liquid Gardens]

As much as we don't particularly get along, I have to agree with you - even the most highly respected scientists agree that it is nothing short of blatant ignorance to assert that god absolutely can not exist. However, I believe in god as much as I believe in faeries, unicorns and pixies.

Not even the most highly respected atheists say that god 'absolutely cannot' exist, just that there's no good reason to think he does.

[Rlyeh]

Explain what you mean? All they did was try to record it happening and it changed to what they expected to happen before they conducted the test.

How do you measure something so small you can't see?

How is that possible?! (an no the device was not interfering with it, that is made clear)

It most definitely was, otherwise the measuring device would have detected nothing.

In fact the video states the act of measurement affects the result.

As Quantum Mechanics shows if theres no information on something it doesnt exist. I therefore go for the non-dualist stance that the universe is a feedback loop created by ourselves by us seeking information.

You've been corrected numerous times that QM says no such thing. Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

I wouldn't call it that. Were you high?

That's because you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

[Rlyeh]

That's because you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Says the person who's information comes from hallucinations.

[White Crane Feather]

Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it.

Nope... You can interact with its entangled twin in a completely different room, on the other side of the universe or even in the future.

[Rlyeh]

Nope... You can interact with its entangled twin in a completely different room, on the other side of the universe or even in the future.

Nope? But then you support my statement? Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

Says the person who's information comes from hallucinations.

Oh you.... That would not be an ad hominim now would it?

[Rlyeh]

Oh you.... That would not be an ad hominim now would it?

Didn't you already commit that fallacy? You know when you said I didn't have a clue just because I used different terminology? Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Coffey]

How do you measure something so small you can't see?

I don't think you watched the video properly.

Nothing to do with that.

They done the experiment, the particles act 1 way. They record it to see what's happening and the particles completely change what they are doing.

It's like the researchers tried to spy on it to see what was happening and it knew. That is what is unexplainable and it even got to Einstein.

It most definitely was, otherwise the measuring device would have detected nothing.

In fact the video states the act of measurement affects the result.

The video does not, it states that observation affects the results. Trying to observe it changes what it does. Therefore nothing to do with interfering with it physically.

Even Einstien was stumped by this and never figured it out, even though he tried very hard. Are you saying you know more than him? Cause I'll take Einsteins word over yours. lol

Edited November 30, 2012 by Coffey

[Rlyeh]

I don't think you watched the video properly.

Nothing to do with that.

They done the experiment, the particles act 1 way. They record it to see what's happening and the particles completely change what they are doing.

It's like the researchers tried to spy on it to see what was happening and it knew. That is what is unexplainable and it even got to Einstein.

I've watched it before.

You seem to be under the impression observe or measurement is simply looking at it, which is false.

The video does not, it states that observation affects the results.

4:15

Trying to observe it changes what it does. Therefore nothing to do with interfering with it physically.

And in order to observe something so small you must interact with it.

This is even how electron microscopes work as the specimen is bombarded with electrons.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Rlyeh