Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
iforgot

Where do athiests think we came from?

463 posts in this topic

I tend to agree with you, but on what evidentiary basis do you hold this opinion? How can you be definite about something as yet unknown, except via belief? I am an evolutionist who believes basically as etu stated that the univerese spntaneously self generated from nothing (it is only our belief tha t somrthing cannot come form nothing, scientifically it would appear that it can) From there on, basically the understood process of evolution occured up to the present time. BUT I could be wrong, because i do not KNOW. There are many scientific theories about how life beagn on earth itself from spontaneous generation on the planet to a form of natural seeding from other planets. It is even feasible that life was started deliberately on earth, and on other suitable planets, by a galactic- travelling alien race, who seed planets to spread life through the universe.

Mr walker sir, there is no proof at all that he exists, not now and not from the past. I put IMO, which means in my life, I can say he does not and definately does not exist, if someone has the proof to prove me wrong, great, post it on here.

But seeing that .men have been looking for this dude for centuries and still have come up with nothing, not even a sandal, not a shred of evidence to support their claim bar a novel, then I guess the proof will not appear here.

I too agree with etu, but we still have a lot to learn, as it stands exploring the universe is bringing us info on what we are apart of, planets, stars, galaxies, gases, black holes and many other things have so far been found out there, but no god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To what query? Do accept "it just is" as a tangible scientific answer?

Fools folly I'm afraid and just another Sheeple's domesticated delusional answer to something they cannot provide evidence for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something does not come from nothing mr walker, from nothing you get nothing. This is logical, rational, scientifically sound and experientially. In everyday life, history of mankind and the cosmos we have never observed something come from nothing.

The science you maybe referring to is sub atomic particles which seem to come into existence and disappear in a vacuum....seemingly coming from nothing, however a vacuum is not nothing, so there is no empirical data proving your point!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some big experiment, the universe as petri dish:) a reproduction center, Mother Earth is like one big egg and when the organisms hit the earth by a meteor mixing with elements, zapped life,and maybe we all wanted to experience life and create a intelligent design to survive.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some big experiment, the universe as petri dish:) a reproduction center, Mother Earth is like one big egg and when the organisms hit the earth by a meteor mixing with elements, zapped life,and maybe we all wanted to experience life and create a intelligent design to survive.

A quick look into the Hermetic Arts and al-Khemia will put your silly ideas into perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite regression is just one hurdle my friend, another is to show an export of the infinite in reality, ie our universe. There are other logical and philosophical flaws with it too.

To reject infinite regression us simply saying I reject logic and rational for an illogical position. That's your choice :)

I do believe in an infinite, the same infinite which brought into existence a finite existence and the sum of all matter, time and space. The infinite is metaphysical.

I would argue with you about the validity of infinite regression. I would invoke the quanta itself and give you stories about arrows, turtles, and halves..... As I said logic dosn't trump whitness.

But I agree with you... The infinite is metaphysical. And this is the problem that we encounter. The fundamentalists reject the metaphysical because empiricism holds them. But we have things called brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fools folly I'm afraid and just another Sheeple's domesticated delusional answer to something they cannot provide evidence for.

What ever mate my question was simple, what query you want me to answer? And I will!

Second question: is the answer "it just is" tangible and scientific to you?

Now a new question: what evidence is there for the statement "it just is" show me the science in that statement?

You see that statements is the same as a Christian theologist saying "god did it"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue with you about the validity of infinite regression. I would invoke the quanta itself and give you stories about arrows, turtles, and halves..... As I said logic dosn't trump whitness.

You argue the validity of infinite regression but that would not make it invalid in this case, unless you proved using logical and philosophical arguments. Quanta makes no different, you can have looped infinity or what ever we discussed before in the past about the fringe theories which are not based on established facts but would still struggling jumping the hurdle of infinite regress.

But I agree with you... The infinite is metaphysical. And this is the problem that we encounter. The fundamentalists reject the metaphysical because empiricism holds them. But we have things called brains.

Hehe, I know you and agree on the above point. There are some we don't agree on although they are strong arguments that you make :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second question: is the answer "it just is" tangible and scientific to you?

Now a new question: what evidence is there for the statement "it just is" show me the science in that statement?

You see that statements is the same as a Christian theologist saying "god did it"!

:santa: I'm afraid I'm not getting it! The least logical explanation is there to be a Supreme Being (a.k.a. god) the most logical and rational explanation is the opposite. Science holds no answers to this.

We are all gods, so to speak, we all have the answers to our questions without some external force limiting our existence. The idea of a Supreme Being is a Man-made construct designed to deliver comfort, community, guilt, fear, and ethics.

Being a Luciferian I move to separate from this mess. Today's understanding of Yeshua's message is about love and trying to understand.

These old and Evil concepts need to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's understanding of Yeshua's message is about love and trying to understand.

These old and Evil concepts need to go.

Are you saying the idea of love and understanding is evil or just the religious connotations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an atheist, I really don't feel the need to think where I came from. I have a kind of liberty without being arrogant in my thinking. It's not ignorance, fear or otherwise....it's just acceptance of what I hear, feel, and believe - just the same as religious folk I guess.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me what non-duality is and then tell me why you think its flawed.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Nondualism

I believe it is flawed because the mind/consciousness is a product of a biological brain, at least this is what mainstream neuroscience has demonstrated.

As pointed out before decoherence implies reality is independent.

(I dont want random scientific topics thrown at me which have no bearing on whether non-duality is right or wrong. I want you to specifically address non-duality and present your logical argument).
For someone who likes to use science you definitely have an aversion to it.
As for the wavefunction collapsing or just appearing to collapse that doesnt disprove non-duality. This is because the logical argument for non-duality is not based on whether a wavefunction collapses or not. Non-duality is the wavefunction.

This is nothing more than a baseless assertion. The wave function has never made any assumptions of the mind, it is a completely different field of study. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think your dribble in them is evidence I'm wrong you've got problems.

The fact is natural sciences refutes your egocentric delusion. As you've said yourself, the big bang and evolution does not exist.

Can't get anymore clearer than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr walker sir, there is no proof at all that he exists, not now and not from the past. I put IMO, which means in my life, I can say he does not and definately does not exist, if someone has the proof to prove me wrong, great, post it on here.

But seeing that .men have been looking for this dude for centuries and still have come up with nothing, not even a sandal, not a shred of evidence to support their claim bar a novel, then I guess the proof will not appear here.

I too agree with etu, but we still have a lot to learn, as it stands exploring the universe is bringing us info on what we are apart of, planets, stars, galaxies, gases, black holes and many other things have so far been found out there, but no god.

Ah I see. You are saying that, "in your life" there is no evidence for, or experience of, god. That is fine, but it cannot be extended to the wider statement,"That god definitely does not exist."

For one reason your belief, based on the lack of evidence in your life, is contradicted by what i know from experience in my own life. I know god as well as i know my wife or dog, and in my life god is just as real and physical as they are. Because my life is a part of the wider universe, that means god is real and physical in the wider universe which you inhabit also. You have just not met god yet. :innocent:

I do not expect you to believe this as a fact, but I do expect you to be able to see that you cannot transfer a personal belief onto a reality, where it conflicts with that reality as experienced by another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something does not come from nothing mr walker, from nothing you get nothing. This is logical, rational, scientifically sound and experientially. In everyday life, history of mankind and the cosmos we have never observed something come from nothing.

The science you maybe referring to is sub atomic particles which seem to come into existence and disappear in a vacuum....seemingly coming from nothing, however a vacuum is not nothing, so there is no empirical data proving your point!

We were not around to observe this. But the scientific argument is that "nothing" is an unnatural and unsustainable state. And that nothing will always collapse into something, usually quite quickly.Scientifically there is absolutley no need for a designer or prime cause outside of nature, to explain the nature of the universe as it is today.

Everything we know observe etc can be explained by purely natural cause and effect, including the ultimate origin of the universe. And of course scientifically, and logically, this has to be so; because if a god (who could create the uiverse) could come into being without a prior creator, then so could something as relatively simple as our universe (Compared with the complexity of a god/being who could create our universe)

It is possible that a being created our universe (which may only be a small part of a multi- braned larger universe) but ultimately that being is the product of prior evolutionary growth. A physical sapient and self aware God cannot exist; logically, rationally and scientifically, unless that god is an evolved being who has learned, grown, and developed over time.

Humans tend to create creation and creators, because of the way our minds are evolved to think There has been a lot of work done on this in the last decade or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But do you frequent UFO threads much?

No, I couldn't care much for that end...

The moment you asked me loads of physics questions I'd just google it. lol

You could not keep up with that charade for long.. The second people put you to the test and throw you countless hard questions,you would have to sit and google all, and read through them.. If you copy and paste the answers from a site, you would be well be caught out, because people can tell what a copy and paste job is...

So what does that leave you with?.. For you to keep your silly charade going, in the hopes to fool others, you will have to do more than copy and paste

You will have to read all the answers, then see if you have any understanding

Then see if you can put it into your own words, to make it look as if the answer you give, comes of the top of your head........This will take a lot of time and effort

What if you google an answer, and other real scientists see it is wrong, and prove it is wrong... How do you defend it? ....How much work will you put in to defend it all?

To keep that up over and over, reading things you cannot comprehend, but you feel you need to make it look as if it comes from your own head rather than something copied from a site. That would drive your insane, and its most time consuming.. It is not something anyone would find worth while keeping up

Whereas a real scientist, would find it so easy, and post from his or her own mind, without googling ...

Everyone knows, that pretending can only last so long..

It's mroe common than you think hat people are lying on the internet. It's why I mostly keep occupation etc out of discussion.

It may be for many idiots out there.. But many times people will catch them out.. Only an idiot, who has got nothing going for them in real life will act that stupid... They can copy and paste whatever crap they find, but they are not fooling anyone intelligent ..

I know a good bit about science myself, but there is no way I will make a claim , because I know that the real scientists on here can make me look like a fool for trying...

As for imaginarynumber1.. you put him in a position, by talking down to him, telling him he needs to study physics and biology before attempting to post his opinions.. in post 127 - > http://www.unexplain...238406&st=120

After all that is said and done.. I believe he knows a lot more about this than you.. He has been on this forum for quite some time and I have yet to see him brag, he certainly doesn't crave attention ..If he was the kind that did crave attention, it would be a different story ..

Edited by Beckys_Mom
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People actually pass courses at UNI by rewriting wikipedia. I know this for a fact, so it's not hard to do on a forum.

Seen it happen loads. Most people have witnessed this.

The part I will admit to being wrong about was saying he should learn those things. That was rude. I apoligise to him for that. (Sorry imaginarynumber1, I shouldn't have been rude to you)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People actually pass courses at UNI by rewriting wikipedia. I know this for a fact, so it's not hard to do on a forum.

There are schools that don't require students to take tests in class? No wonder so many graduates we interview are dumb these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People actually pass courses at UNI by rewriting wikipedia. I know this for a fact, so it's not hard to do on a forum.

Seen it happen loads. Most people have witnessed this.

Really?? Which unis are you going to? Certainly at mine, if you reference wikipedia, half the lecturers will fail you out of hand and the other half will give zero credit for anything referenced as from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see. When a man and a women loves each other very much… :)

May seem like a smarty pants answer. But its really where I think we came from. The elements are all around the universe. Under the right conditions and with the right combination of those elements they can form life. Then continue to evolve and create more complexed life.

So simple yet so complexed. We haven't even scratched the surface to understanding it all. But I think it wiser to continue searching rather that claiming to have it all figured out.

Edited by Magicjax
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say Evolution disproves god?

Cause it really doesn't.

It might upset bible purists. But it certainly doesn't disprove God. In fact it would just means he's the greatest biologist of them all. lol

Seriously though, if god was real, he would have created everything, including evolution and everything we know. So you can't disprove it.

You can only believe there is a god or believe there is not a god. You can't actually know. Therefor those who believe there is no god can be just as bad as those that believe there is one in extreme cases.

Really?? Which unis are you going to? Certainly at mine, if you reference wikipedia, half the lecturers will fail you out of hand and the other half will give zero credit for anything referenced as from there.

I never said "reference".

There are schools that don't require students to take tests in class? No wonder so many graduates we interview are dumb these days.

Of course there is. A lot of courses are report based, so you can do the report in class on the computer while on the internet, then take the report away on your memory stick and do it in the library or at home.

Only certain courses have proper tests/exams.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say Evolution disproves god?

Cause it really doesn't.

It might upset bible purists. But it certainly doesn't disprove God. In fact it would just means he's the greatest biologist of them all. lol

Seriously though, if god was real, he would have created everything, including evolution and everything we know. So you can't disprove it.

You can only believe there is a god or believe there is not a god. You can't actually know. Therefor those who believe there is no god can be just as bad as those that believe there is one in extreme cases.

I never said "reference".

Of course there is. A lot of courses are report based, so you can do the report in class on the computer while on the internet, then take the report away on your memory stick and do it in the library or at home.

Only certain courses have proper tests/exams.

It disproves the NEED for god.

Where did god come from?

There was no time for him to create the universe.

Why do we need a creator?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be disproved without evidence. So telling me I can't disprove it means nothing to me, as you can't prove it either.

Also, I might ask, what god are you referring to?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said "reference".

Of course there is. A lot of courses are report based, so you can do the report in class on the computer while on the internet, then take the report away on your memory stick and do it in the library or at home.

Only certain courses have proper tests/exams.

Wow. I never even imagined there were some that didn't ask for referencing. Certainly any uni I've seen, if it's not referenced, you can't use it anyway so how would rewriting wikipedia help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It disproves the NEED for god.

Where did god come from?

There was no time for him to create the universe.

Why do we need a creator?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be disproved without evidence. So telling me I can't disprove it means nothing to me, as you can't prove it either.

Also, I might ask, what god are you referring to?

How does it disapprove a God? Who created the beginning of the evolution? lol What created the first ever atom? Evolution does nothing to disprove a god or take away the "need" for one.

So the universe always existed did it? So where did the first planet, sun or atom come from? The first light or matter? the first frequency?

I never said I couldn't prove it, I made it clear in my first comments int his thread that you can't disprove the existence of god as much as you can prove it.

Any/all god(s), my point isn't about a certain religion or certain being. It's about the existence of something greater.

As I have pointed out throughout the thread, I do NOT believe in god. But I cannot disprove there isn't a god and neither can anyone else.

Wow. I never even imagined there were some that didn't ask for referencing. Certainly any uni I've seen, if it's not referenced, you can't use it anyway so how would rewriting wikipedia help?

Have you never done a course which has reports instead of exams?

With reports you have to write a report based on what they ask you.

Now if I was asked to write a report on say "tigers" (this is a stupid example but easier to explain) with the point being I had to prove I know about them. The reports notes would say which parts qualify me for what grade.

Now let's say I didn't pay attention in class when the lecturer was going on about tigers. I could google those things, that criteria needed and just rewrite someone elses work. If you do it properly they never know and plagiarism won't be noticed. Hell i did this on my course. Feck learning half of the utter rubbish my course taught me. 90% of what I had to do, i have never used once.

You only need to "reference" if you actually quoted someone else's work.

So simple yet so complexed. We haven't even scratched the surface to understanding it all. But I think it wiser to continue searching rather that claiming to have it all figured out.

Very wise words.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.