jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (388 posts)

The Magical Universe Of Atheists

  1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    1] Universe is by self.2] Worlds are by self.3 Stars are by self. 4] Planets are by self.5] Sun and moon are by self. 6] Time and space are by self .7] Matter is by self. 8] Energy is by self. 9] Atom is by self. 10] Evolution is by self.11] Air is by self 12] Life is by self. 13] Cell is by self 14] Genetic code is by self.15] Plants are by self. 16] Animals are by self 17] Human beings are by self 18] Ego is by self 19] Reason is by self 20] Conscious is by self 21] Conscience is by self 22] Knowledge is by self 23] Art is by self 24] Justice is by self 25] Morality is by self 26] Every thing is by self but creator can never be allowed to be by self , it will be ''illogical'' 27] The whole universe may be magical but one ''magical'' God is impossible .                                                                                                                          Therefore, atheists have built a magical universe for avoiding a ''magical'' creator.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Self = Natural?

      No wonder your religion causes so many fights and arguments. sad

      Edit - Oh Wait! I get what you are saying at last!

      It is not possible for anything to exist without being created.
      Except one special thing. lol lol

      Why didn't you say so?

    2. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is there a point to this thread other than to do to atheists what you have accused atheists of doing to you.. mocking? I would think that your faith and Allah would have taught you to rise above that sort of thing.At least that's what I remember when I read the q'uran

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think you are going to get much sense out of this one. But he is a good example of why religion usually causes conflicts:

        1. Propose an unprovable, untestable, irrational premise.
        2. Any one who does not agree with it is ignorant/blind/illogical/rebelling against a superior/without morals/insert attack here.

        Trouble is - you don't need to learn anything at all to propose this premise. Nothing. All you have to do is attack anything that disagrees with it. No logic, rationality or reason involved.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          On this point I very much agree with you. Just as long as you are not tarring all those with a faith with the same brush.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Disappearinghead, This is not faith my dear, this is how such kind of magical universe may be proved by logic?.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Magical.  As in violating the natural laws of the universe?

              That would seem to be the province of a god, not the natural actions we see around us every day and are sloowly coming to understand.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, What is nature ?  A biological process or law of working  of things ,it has no conscious of working , how it existed by self and performed an impossible work of infinite universe ?, If nature having no conscious of even it self,has build this infinite universe by self,then ,this is magical world .

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It only seems magical to those who do not understand it, so they attribute what they don't understand to a God.

                  A tree do not make it self, it's a result of random causes as is everything in the universe including the universe itself.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Rad Man, problem is not when you say there is a process of law working in the universe, problem is there when you claim that only a blind and unconscious law emerging itself can do  all that great work of universe by self. Law it self logically requires a Law Giver.

                2. Paul Wingert profile image80
                  Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Get an education and quit asking stupid questions.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Paul Wingert, I will continue to raise'' stupid'' questions until  ''great logicians'' like you and others  do not reply for the same.

            2. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why call me 'my dear'? I don't know you and you are not an old lady.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Disappearinghead, if ''my dear'', has a problem with you,I am sorry ,I will not repeat it.

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No - you seem to be one of those who rejects everything in the bible. Well - except the few bits you want to be true. big_smile

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not exactly. I take a pragmatic approach to the bible and do not hold to the illogical idea that one either believes in all of it or none of it. The fact that it was collected together piecemeal by various committees over hundreds of years demonstrates that each book and chapter can be assessed as an individual item.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Illogical? Like the idea of a god non-thing? wink

                You simply lost the right to use words like "illogical," when you stated your belief in a God. Sorry.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                  Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well there's no pleasing you anyway Mark. roll

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Aw, c'mon. How can you even think of saying that other people's view of the bible is "illogical," when yours is "logical."?  Nothing to do with pleasing me.

        2. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thought I'd give it a try anyway.. I know I'm gonna hate myself for asking



          Well.. **Shrugs**. In this particular case, I can't disagree with you

    3. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Post is incomprehensible.

      1. ChristopherJRex profile image96
        ChristopherJRexposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Motion seconded...

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm afraid you are unable to understand.

      The universe was not made by itself, it occurred as a result of something. Following that logic, everything occurs as a result of something. No magic required. We are the result of evolution. A God would need to be the result of something as well.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Rad Man, What is evolution and some thing ? simply, a biological process of genetic variations having no conscious of it self even,how a simple law or process has been existed and how it automatically built an infinite universe ? How this universe may exist and be built with out a supreme conscious ? it is impossible to say that this great work has been designed by unconscious biological process ? You may drive your car with blind eyes ? How you expect that a blind law has designed and worked this universe ?

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What has evolution got to do with that quote from Rad Man?

          It would help if you could stay in the same topic for at least two consecutive posts.

          We get that you think God did it and can't even imagine any other possibility.  Could you please try and accept that we can?  News flash: some people are different from you and see the world differently.  possibly, in some cases, because we read research and are acquainted with the correct use of logical syllogism.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            psycheskinner,I am interested to know the'' logic'' behind your ideas , I will accept your ideas if these are logical and according to reason ,therefore, I am asking is it possible that an unconscious and blind law of nature and evolution has designed this great work of universe and maintaining the same from destruction ? A blind law can do it ? if it is possible ,I will handover my car to a blind driver for driving ? My point this time is not God has created universe, my point is that evolution and nature may do all that unconsciously ?such kind of a great work not of making a table only .

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution did not create the universe. I'm sorry you can't follow the process, but as psycheskinner says some of us can. It appears your indoctrination prevents you from understanding the process.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Rad Man, it is not indoctrination, it is reason preventing me to accept that unconscious and blind law of nature and evolution how may design this infinite universe and even maintaining this project from destruction ? It is more interesting that these biological process and laws even are unaware of their existence, how these laws can do all that as this is not a simple work of making a table, this is the the work of evolution of infinite universe . This evolution may work unconsciously and blindly with out support of a supreme conscious ?

    5. pennyofheaven profile image83
      pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps not a deliberate attempt to avoid but a subconsciously arising one that is largely dominated by left brain thinkers? Who it seems prefer to use logic and reason to describe our world and every thing in it.

      Every word you have used in your post are concepts conceived of and created to appease the logic. Otherwise we would still be communicating in various other different ways.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What other ways would we be communicating in?

        1. pennyofheaven profile image83
          pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Short of going back to ancestral ways of communicating, we might never know the other ways? Ever since the concepts of words were introduced and have been around for a long time we have never ever sought other ways to communicate except via the logic and it's language.  Like most habits they are very hard to break... sometimes useful...sometimes not.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So - you have no idea what other ways? You are probably not aware of body language? Music? Art? Sculpture? Mythology? Symbology? Physical touch?

            Or - do these not count as ways to communicate? wink

            1. pennyofheaven profile image83
              pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why not? They're as good as ways as any. Those are ancestral ways are they not?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                They are ways we communicate today. And "language" is also ancestral. You said we no longer use other ways to communicate. Turns out we do - yes?

                1. pennyofheaven profile image83
                  pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Indeed they are ways in which some choose to communicate today. They are creative ways of communicating for most who are largely dominated by the right brain, however, the flow of creativity can be impeded because the logic by default may decide out of habit to enter into the creative process.

                  Rarely, will you find someone who is dominated by the logic to communicate in such ways wholly and completely and without the use of language to describe the essence of the message.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So - yes - your original statement was false. Thank you. The reason we developed language is to avoid the sort of miscommunications that result from trying to communicate the way you just tried to do.

                    "the flow of creativity can be impeded because the logic by default may decide out of habit to enter into the creative process." is just word salad, because you are incapable of properly communicating when trying to use your left brain only. Thus we end up burning witches and eating the heart of our enemy. wink

      2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        pennyofheaven, Thanks for comments,I have tried to unveil the ''rationality'' behind the ''logic'' of atheists.

        1. JMcFarland profile image93
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          if you have neither, unveiling it in others becomes extremely difficult.

          All of the arguments you're using are common CHRISTIAN apologetics tactic, and they've all been thoroughly debunked, as I tried to demonstrate on another thread - which you ignored and continued to repeat the same nonsense regardless of what anyone else was saying.  Standing there repeating yourself regardless of what other people contribute is NOT a conversation.  You're a sidewalk preacher.  Nothing more.  You aren't interested in a discussion, and when faced with one, you retreat to your original position and mistakenly think that stubbornly repeating yourself constitutes a conversation.  Your loss.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            JMcFarland,no rational and reasonable replies have been submitted in response of my arguments,wilderness and riddle666,have tried their best efforts to response  my point of view,no doubt,their knowledge,their certain view and their rational and logical stance inspired me and surprised me and I have no hesitation in admiring their logic but it is my sincere opinion,you may disagree,that replies were not complete satisfactory and still my  firm opinion is that God may be logically proved and there is reasonable possibility of creator,Mr,Don W and pennyofheaven also have understood my logical point of view,I appreciate their  deep thinking.

            1. JMcFarland profile image93
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, the reposes have been submitted.  Instead of responding to their rebuttals in kind, you ignore them and repeat the same thing that you started with.  That is not the way a debate works.  All that you have are assertions, and no proof

        2. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You started out by saying that you could prove logically or explain rationally the presence of a creator. Now your only "reason" is that you don't understand, so it turns out that you were lying. Isn't there something against lying in your book?

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            riddle666, who is lying?, we are not here for personal allegations of lying,we are here for discovering truth by the possible efforts,I still have the opinion that we have undeniable evidences for presence of creator but I am in search of the argument that is the most convincing for you and all other atheists,you rightly stated that there is some thing against the lying in our book.

            1. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You are lying because you first said you can show god with reason but is now saying that god is beyond reason. As both are contradictory (I hope you understand what contradictory means) only one statement is true the other is false and uttering falsehood is called lying.
              You only have the opinion, you failed to show any evidence.  I am not going to repeat.

    6. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure, but I think the argument you are making is:

      If atheists accept that things (e.g. the universe) can exist in and of themselves, i.e. do not require a "creator" whatever that is, then they cannot argue that god cannot also exist in and of itself without need of a "creator". In other words, although allowing for such a phenomena removes the theist need for a creator, it also removes the atheist objection to the idea of something existing without cause in and of itself, which is exactly how some religions describe god.

      Is that your point? If it is I think it's a good one, and I don't think anyone has addressed it. If it's not, apologies for muddying the water.

      1. 0
        riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not exactly. God is supposed to be a thinking being like human while universe is a collection of things separated by space with no ability to think.

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If something can exist of itself then the nature of the thing is irrelevant. Whether it's an entire universe, the god of Abraham, Hindu Brahman, or a button, the point is that if you allow that things can exist without prior cause, then you can no longer sensibly argue that god cannot exist because god has no prior cause.

          I think that's what sibtain means when he says "Every thing is by self but creator can never be allowed to be by self , it will be ''illogical''". I think he means that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the universe can exist of itself, but god can't exist of itself.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Don W, Thanks for understanding  my point of view, you have described very well but I can only pray for others for having sincere thinking .

          2. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Except that god is an explanation put forward to explain the presence of the universe. Nobody has any doubt,  universe exists. To propose a creator one has to suppose that some time in the past(a video analogy) universe suddenly went missing but this god somehow escaped that fate.

        2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          riddle,what nonsense, space never allows God to think ? or thinking God can never create or manage space? He can create'' things'' and He can manage ''nothing'' between the things , Why are you confining Him by your limited reason? this is problem of our limited reason this is not the problem of creator,never mind pl.

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ?? Where did I say that?

              Space cannot be created for "space" is not a thing but our conceptualisation of nothing.
            To create he has to exist first, do you understand "exist"?
            No I am confining you by reason. Why did you reject mirza ahamad or sai baba? Just like them, you also cannot explain your claim about god rationally. Then how do you know? What made you believe Muhammed, a fellow whom you have never seen,  a fellow who didn't know about computer or viruses, other than that you were born to parents or born in a society that believed him?

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              riddle666, you mean a ''nothing'' can never be created and space is'' nothing''? if so, then'' nothing'' is not required to be created it is required to be manged between'' things'', God never created nothing ,God manged ''space'' or'' nothing''between ''things'' and it is possible for God ,[ here I am supposing that your definition of'' space'' is correct],you want to say that indoctrination is foundation of my belief,it is separate debate,but no doubt indoctrination is an obstacle in the way of truth and Quran has declared so,but it does not mean one can never study history,the message and his conscience,one can find truth using his all sources of knowledge,and practically, he has conscientious for making difference between right and wrong and justice and cruelty,and he can practice the same, Quran has presented this universal criteria for truth almost on its every page.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No Don, we are trying to eliminate all Magic and understand the universe without inventing magic to explain it.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Rad Man, and doing so you have created ''magical universe'',you have ''eliminated'' magic in very good way.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And just how is eliminating magic creating magic?

            All you are doing is creating a magical being that makes no sense and defies all logic magically create the universe to answer your question about how we go here when you have no evidence for said being. It's like finding water drops on leaves in the morning and claiming it's fairy pee.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Rad Man, No magical being, but absolute reason that maintains the working of the universe by His scientific laws,it is just finding water drops on leaves in the morning and discovering the reasons  for the same.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, it's just that you may understand why we see water drops on leaves in the mornings, but don't understand the working and math of the universe that you attribute magic to the universe and not to due.

    7. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The question is not if or how. The question is why. Why from a perspective outside causality.

  2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    Mark, Self= natural=by self, and Deepes, this is pointless because because this is by self .::::::::::::::::tongue

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What are you attempting to do here exactly? We know how all the things on your list came to exist. We can prove most of them and it wasn't "self." wink

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Mark, I am just trying to present the concept of universe proposed by atheism and its magical system, how in an attempt to exclude ''magical'' creator they did with universe ''logically'' ,Is it possible such kind of universe in your opinion ?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I already answered that question several times. As have several other people. And we have explained the logic, reasoning and scientific facts. You have ignored everything and repeated your ridiculous claims. We can explain the existence of just about everything on your list. The fact that you choose to remain ignorant of these explanations is your problem.

          This is why your religion causes so many arguments and fights. It thrives on ignorance. sad

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mark, you never answered how such kind of magical universe may be built by logic ?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is natural, therefore not majikal. And I have explained it several times. as have others. The fact that you ignore everything is your problem.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mark, What is nature, a simple biological law or process that has no even conscious of its own ,you say this unconscious law has designed this infinite universe and is still moving it ,even this nature never knows that how it has been existing?,  you can operate this computer with closed eyes ? if not, then how you expect that a blind law not knowing itself may design this universe and operate it ?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes. Sorry that is not good enough for you. My eyes are shut, yet still I Know where the keys are.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Mark,can  you  read what  I  am  writing  ? ,I f not, then your blind'' nature'' not knowing even it self,how can give you a capability of seeing,reading and writing ?

            2. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this
              1. ChristopherJRex profile image96
                ChristopherJRexposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you riddle666.  I LOL'd......hard.  big_smile

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  People speak different languages, get over it. I wish there were more people willing to cross the language barrier and engage those with different beliefs and ideas. Notwithstanding your rude and silly comment, I hope sibtain continues in his efforts to engage.

              2. Disappearinghead profile image89
                Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That wont help, the woman pictured on the British Council website is not wearing a veil, therefore she is a harlot. big_smile

    2. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this



      I was right, I hate myself..

      But I gotta ask, if there is no point, then why post it (other than to be mocking and insulting to others)?

  3. Disappearinghead profile image89
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    Is the point of the OP to get us step by step, little by little to a place where we cry out with ecstatic joy "Allah is great and Muhammad PBUH is his one true prophet"?

    It's one thing trying to prove a creator but a whole new ball game trying to prove the Quran is the divine revealed word of Allah with less than zero evidence to go on.

    1. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't Mirza Gulam Ahamd(pbuh) a true prophet and the last one?

    2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Disappearinghead,riddle666, Can you operate your computer with closed eyes ?, if not , then, how do you expect that unconscious and blind biological process of law named as nature or evolution ,not knowing even its existence, may design and operate this infinite universe ? this is my point.

      1. 0
        riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Law" and "evolution" are not two people who "design" and "operate" universe. Laws are a description of how the nature behaves and evolution is the description of a process by which all the present living beings came into life. If you have ever bothered to study what evolution is, you wouldn't have asked such silly questions.

        1. amer786 profile image79
          amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly, evolutionary process and natural law are not the designer or operator of the universe, these are the resulting mechanisms or modus operandi. Since in your estimation it is beyond knowledge to ever know who or what originated the laws and processes, you say that the result (the laws and processes) is the origin. That is where you lose the logic; result is NOT origin. Logically, the only explanation is God. “Nothing” is not credible, and laws and processes cannot be deemed as originators. In our own example and experience in life, we ‘determine’ what laws and process that will generate and produce positively.

          Btw, evolution is never defined as “description of a process by which all present living beings came to life”. This is utterly wrong and mistaken. Evolution is “change in inherited characteristics of biological organisms from generation to generation”.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Care to share the logic with us? Because this is just nonsense unless you can show us the logic behind your claims.

            Your first claim seems to be that there is a who or what that originated these processes. Please prove it. If you are going to make outlandish claims - telling us it is logical without offering up the logic is intellectually dishonest.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No?

            2. amer786 profile image79
              amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Kindly lookup definitions of ‘Logic’ and ‘Knowledge’. I know we have a battle of psychologies here but that doesn’t mean we twist and turn on commonly understood language which renders even having an argument useless.

              By ‘knowledge’ you seem to be saying observable proof. We are speaking of ‘logic’ and I would extend to say ‘inference’ and ‘deduction’. For example, you see smoke coming from behind a mountain. It is logical to say there has to be a fire, and incendiary material, and probably wind to fan it—that is by inference, deduction and it is a logical conclusion but you have not seen the fire. To say that productive law and process exists, and yet without originator, is not logical and breaks down known principles of thought-validation and credibility.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No I simply asked you to share your logical deductions. Simply stating that something "logically," is the default without offering the logic behind it is intellectually dishonest. I would also appreciate it if you stopped lying about what I said. Thanks.

                Please do share your logic and not offer any more smokescreens. Thanks. Also - please don't cast any more aspersions on my understanding of the English language. Feel free to look that word up in a dictionary. I realize it is easier to do that than offer your logical reasoning, plus - as I understand it - being dishonest in order to convert people to your ridiculous belief system is acceptable given your lack of moral compass, but - still - it is somewhat offensive. sad

                1. amer786 profile image79
                  amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have repeatedly stated the logic and the inference. If we don’t agree on it, or on what is logic, then let’s leave it at that.

                  You don’t have to insult the people who convert to the belief system I prescribe to. They are entitled to their own intelligent choice. I respect your position in that I don’t compel you to anything. And if I ever gain power over you, I pray that I will remain faithful to the command of The Quran that you can never compel anyone in matters of faith and freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No insult was offered. I know that lying is acceptable to you. My moral code prevents me from lying.

                    Sorry if you find that offensive. I know you have no moral code to guide you. You will never gain power over me.

                    Also - stating - as you do - that something is "logically" true without offering the logic is - at best - dishonest.

                    No wonder your religion is so despised. sad

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's also not logical to think that everything needs a creator except the creator.

                In the case of smoke that you mentioned, it's also not logical to assume that someone created the fire when something could have started it. The same logic applies to the universe. It's not logical to assume someone created it when something could have.

                1. amer786 profile image79
                  amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  'Something' is totally fine. We are in agreement! A miracle? smile

                  The "creator must have a creator" argument has a fundamental problem. It is an infinite loop that has no end. You can never circle back. Hence, the considerable option is ... <Creation and Creator > that's it, we close the loop there. It works. My two cents.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You admit that there is a major flaw with your logic and are good with it rather than looking for something without the flaw that answers all the question?

                    The mind is a terrible thing to waste. You see, if you take the creator out of the picture we have no fundamental flaw.

                    1. Someone created the universe. Fundamentally flawed.
                    2. Something created the universe. No fundamental flaws.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Why is "Nothing" not credible?

            Acknowledging that the vast majority of people deal only with Newtonian physics in their daily lives (the rock fell because the wind blew it) that does not seem to be a reason to declare that under all conditions and environments there has to be a cause (origin). 

            So why is "nothing" not credible in the world of quantum mechanics or even the environment of a singularity?  Neither are Newtonian in nature, neither are familiar to most people and neither is the environment in which we always see a cause for every action.  Why then insist that our Newtonian experience is valid?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You still have to have an un-caused cause. wink

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Now you sound like sibtain.  Or is that uncalled for? big_smile

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Pretty sure it is uncalled for. big_smile

                  His premise still requires an uncaused cause to start the ball rolling.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Universe does not roll.  God still has lips over opening, blowing it up.  Only when He has finished that can he roll it down the alley.

            2. amer786 profile image79
              amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              People undergo Newtonian physical discourse daily and may be only sub-consciously aware of it. However, those same people may not offer the 1, 2 step Newtonian explanation and nothing beyond if they are asked to reflect on how they validate their existence.

              Whether the environment is Newtonian or not, ‘nothing’ is not credible because it discards the principles of discovery and validation rooted in deduction, inference, and logic.

              The reason that scientists termed the discovery of Higgs-Boson as ‘The God Particle’ is because it dispenses law to all other particles with their critical attribute and value of mass. This is pointing to a unified authority that is conducting over the universe. That is why they have termed it as such. And the person whose scientific work lead to the discovery said that he followed guidance in The Holy Quran. As was Newton known to be deeply religious.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Whether the environment is Newtonian or not, ‘nothing’ is not credible because it discards the principles of discovery and validation rooted in deduction, inference, and logic."

                The exact same concept would seem to apply to gods; they are not credible because it discards the principles of discovery (nothing to discover) and validation through logic (no logic can offer proof of a god).

                But it's not a reasonable statement.  Because there is nothing to discover, or because (using false premises) logic does not validate it does not make it wrong.  After all, logic itself cannot validate anything; only a correct premiss in conjunction with a correctly drawn conclusion can do that.

                Higgs-Boson does not "dispense law to all other particles", and the nickname "God Particle" has nothing to do with any god.  No more than mentioning that a person working on believes in the myth is evidence the myth is true. 

                Lots of people are and have been deeply religious - your point?  That a great many people voluntarily delude themselves in rationalizing whatever they want to be true?  We all recognize that!

                1. amer786 profile image79
                  amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  “The exact same concept would seem to apply to gods; they are not credible because it discards the principles of discovery (nothing to discover)” > there is a God to discover, with ‘nothingness’ there is nothing to discover.

                  “and validation through logic (no logic can offer proof of a god)” > subjective statement, the logic does not exist for you, it does for me.

                  “After all, logic itself cannot validate anything; only a correct premise in conjunction with a correctly drawn conclusion” > even premise is challenged and oft rejected, comes back to what you find acceptable

                  “Higgs-Boson does not "dispense law to all other particles", and the nickname "God Particle" has nothing to do with any god” > That is not what the terminology is suggesting. Can you tell us then why the term was coined as such?

                  “That a great many people voluntarily delude themselves in rationalizing whatever they want to be true?  We all recognize that!” > Subjective ridicule . . . best avoided. It is counterproductive, denotes insincerity. And emanates from a position of weakness.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Find the ball in the cup game; when you find nothing you have found the most important fact of all.

                    I understand that, but then subjective logic is useful ONLY to the "logician".

                    True.  Some are willing to accept subjective imagination as fact, some are not.

                    Because it was being promoted as being the key to understanding.  A key part of the holy grail of physicists; a unified field theory.  And, of course, (and probably more importantly) it made very good press in the media.

                    I did ask your point in mentioning the two people that were strong theists - that seemed the only possibility.  And yes, it also ridicules the idea that a respected man, believing in a god, is evidence a god exists. Unless you had some other reason?

          3. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            These are not 'mechanisms' but human description or explanation of how it all occurred or occurring.
            Nobody "originated", heard 'eternal'?
            By god you mean "I don't know"? Universe eternal, life has origin, know the difference?

            Try to understand what is written before copying.

        2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          riddle666, very good,this is my point, what status you are assigning nature and evolution, this is correct position but when you will treat these laws as originator and designers of universe and  as only principle cause for shaping the universe essentially  and logically excluding an  absolute conscious, you commit false premises and conclusions .

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol lol lol

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            About as false as trying to logically require an absolute conscious.  You should know that by now; you have repeatedly tried to prove that necessity but have only succeeded in making claims you cannot back up.

          3. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You mean without your "absolute conscious" there is no logic or you don't accept any logic without "absolute conscious" as a premise?
            What is this absolute conscious?  If your premise is "consciousness need creator", then how will you exempt your "absolute conscious" from your premise?
            Haven't you noticed that in spite of your repeated assertions you have not provided the true premises for your conclusion of a creator.
            Or do you think that by repeatedly saying the same nonsense again and again everyone is going to accept that the nonsense you purport as true?

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              riddle666, wilderness, My, question was very clear,the nature and evolution are only biological process and laws describing how universe works ? Or the same act as originator and operator of universe ? if answer is that these laws are not originator and operator of universe ,then who is originator and operator in your opinion?

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why do you need an originator and operator? Why do you assume there has to be one?

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

                  It is an assumption based on faith.  Why not just let it be that rather than dressing it up in borrowed robes of empiricism and logic.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In my (unproven) opinion there was no originator and there is no operator.

                I understand that your stance is that that is impossible, that there has to be an originator and that you can prove it through logic.  Unfortunately, your logic is faulty - mostly because you begin such proof with the premiss that what you are trying to prove is true. 

                I base that opinion, just as others have said, on the fact that for thousands of years mankind has tried to find a god.  They have designed various gods, all with differing attributes, but not a one has ever been show to be true.  All are only imaginary, and after those thousands of years of effort and thousands of claims, that there is no god to be found seems to indicate that indeed there is no god there.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness,'' 'In my (unproven) opinion there was no originator and there is no operator''. interesting,you have been preaching throughout discussion that logical statement is required to be made and now you yourself are making not only unproven statement but also false statement because logically and scientifically it is impossible, it means your all ideas are based over a false and nonsense statement? Game is over,your ideas being based over a nonsense have been proved illogical and irrational.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You asked for an opinion and got it - why are you surprised that it is unproven?  Had you asked for factual statements about the presence of a god I would have been unable to provide any.

                    I begin to think that you do not know the difference between fact and belief or opinion.  Certainly you have continually presented your personal opinions as fact - do you actually believe that anything is true simply because you say it is?  When you make sweeping statements and then declare that they are true until proven otherwise, it sure sounds like it...

              3. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nature is another term for universe and evolution is the term for a biological process. Where is the "originator" here? Universe do not need an operator(nor originator), it just is. You have no idea what logic and reason is and this prove that. If you want to believe any one who is out there to control you and get your money, feel free, but don't preach nonsense if you do not want to be ridiculed.
                Check dictionary for "description".

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  riddle666, ''universe do not need an operator[nor originator]'', pl. prove this nonsense logically.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Logically, a creator god is not needed. This is self evident.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The logic is very simple.

                    Before our universe existed time did not exist therefore a God would not have had the time to create the universe.

                2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  riddle666, like wilderness,you have also made a false and logically impossible statement ,the rationality and logic of you people have been disclosed,by this nonsense,your game of the logic has been over.

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Please try to study what logic is before making such ridiculous statements. There are only premises and conclusions in logic and the premise can only be either all things are created or not.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    User has only one hub, user is here to preach.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      psycheskinner, user is here for discovering reality and conveying you ,  Can you operate your computer with closed eyes ?, if not , then, how do you expect that unconscious and blind biological process of law named as nature or evolution ,not knowing even its existence, may design and operate this infinite universe ? this is my point.

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Logic does not prove things.  It takes proven things and generate corollaries.

    Logic cannot prove God did or did not do anything because that is frankly unknowable.

    Ergo the need for faith to believe God does anything, or exists at all.

    (That was an example of logic, for those playing at home).

  6. mollymeadows profile image87
    mollymeadowsposted 3 years ago

    I've always held that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer. What are the odds that absolutely everything required for human life came together in just the right way -- and by accident?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And what makes one think the entire universe is built for them? The earth is not technically in the perfect position for a planet to support life, but as it turned out the atmosphere made it possible for life and after a few billion years here we are. If Mars was a little larger it could have held onto it's atmosphere and may have been in a better position than Earth.

      Maintaining that the billions of stars in our own galaxy and the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars and billions of planets was made for us is nothing but arrogance.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, it seems a necessary corollary to a god that loves us.  He wants us and has designed the universe in order that we could be here.  So belief in a god requires the belief that everything was created in order that mankind exist.

        Egotistical and arrogant in the extreme but necessary to believe in a god. Or at least in one that cares about humanity.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          One would think one solar system would have done the job, perhaps even one galaxy, but billions of galaxies all moving away from each other seems unnecessary and a tad bit wasteful.

          Egotistical and arrogant in the extreme... indeed.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Of course a single solar system would have worked.  Or a single planet with the indirect lighting He created before the stars existed.

            But that isn't what is out there, so reality must be rationalized to conform to our egocentricity.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I must agree. A lot of rationalization must happen for one to believe in a God.

        2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilderness, if I close my eyes even then I can feel the evidences of of love of God for me, it is observations of these great blessings and self conscious that led the man towards God, and therefore, man always inclined towards God since more than 5000, years and even presently majority of world recognizes its creator except some atheists adamant for non believing , a blind man can feel the blessings of God and signs of his love in the shape of his perfect being,having the conscious of knowledge and justice,availability of water, air and food for his growth and existence, having dominance over other beings and nature,having ego for recognizing his creator,having the beauties of greenery, flowers, animals,birds etc,having the great canvas of universe for his research and knowledge,in the shape of stars,planets.,but surprisingly,you are deprived of all these great feelings.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Of course you feel something, and of course you will attribute those feelings to god.  Just as you will term everything around you as being a "blessing" and declare that man is led to God and that the majority of the world recognizes Him.

            Thus speaks the emotional side of the intellect as you allow it to override the senses and intuition.  Which is what I said, after all.  You sense the same things I do; the stars, birds and greenery - you just allow intellect to assign a god to it without need of actually sensing god.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              wilderness,I have reasons to believe God as I have great evidences in the shape of existence of universe, and even if I close my eyes I will find him in my self , ego ,conscious, and conscience , but I am interested to know the reasons that led you this misconception of imaginary God, as you have nothing to disbelief God and even you have admitted that you can never prove absence of God and simply believe or opine that universe has no originator as it does not need, and even you have no reason to say that why universe must only exist? and why it never needs God ? you have even no equal or better explanation for universe than a a creator like absolute conscious or absolute reason but you are insisting that your opinion is correct and God never exists but you know it is not proven and possibility of creator can never be over ruled in light of even your unproven opinion,then why you disbelief God strongly to the extent of hatred degree without logical proof for His absence ?

          2. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Two fallacies: the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity.

            You decide to attribute your "feelings" to god.  Someone else may decide to attribute similar feelings to Bigfoot.  Does that then (by your logic) mean that Bigfoot necessarily exists, or no because not ENOUGH people believe in it?

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              JMc Farland, these feelings are facts,if not in your opinion give reasons for the same,big foot has not made available all these things for me,further I never decided to attribute my feelings to God, I simply noticed these material and spiritual blessings that are not a dream and just recognized the same,but you can suppose that these blessings are from big foot for avoiding God for which you have decided .

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Your feelings do not automatically get to be facts while you simultaneously disregard the feelings of other people as mere opinions.  Feelings are feelings.  In order for you to claim that your feelings are somehow special and that your feelings alone get to be facts, you would have to demonstrate that they're actually factual.- which you have not done, nor can you.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No question that your feelings are factual.  In that they exist.

                But whatever makes you think they come from a god?  What makes you think your feelings, and the conclusions you draw from them, have a basis in reality? 

                Because your intellect (emotions) tell you so, without need for the senses to corroborate?  I do believe that that's what I already told you; that you are making decisions and conclusions without ever requiring the three sources to agree.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image60
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness,,No,I have come to the conclusion after long discussion with you and especially,finding your last ''opinion'' upon irrationally impossible premises that there is no originator or operator of the universe,that you have decided not to admit any logical and rational conclusion to God, I do not know reasons for the same,this will be the rational conclusion for creator after observing and experiencing these blessings/facts and not presupposed or emotional feeling foe the same, as emotions are not requiring some thing for belief but from these observations you are concluding that God is not required to admit because you have formed an opinion about excluding God and that allows you to overview these all observations and to find out other reasons for the same,your rejection may be acceptable and convincing if you become successful for giving  other reasonable justification for these blessing but you can never do and will take the deference of absence of knowledge is no proof.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't be ridiculous; you came to the conclusion that an imaginary god exists long before you ever hit these forums, let alone after ignoring everything I and everyone else has had to say to you.

                    Such an obvious lie is beneath you and does absolutely nothing for your credibility.  It is bad enough to pretend not to understand basic logical sequences, but this one is over the top. 

                    I wish you well in your future relationship with your myth.

                  2. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you aware of the sheer number of logical fallacies you've committed since starting this forum?

                    1. Argument from ignorance
                    2. Argument from incredulity
                    3. Special pleading
                    4. Moving the goalposts
                    5. Appeal to authority
                    6. Argument from popularity

                    And that's just a handful.  If you're going to begin debates claiming logic, you may want to familiarize yourself with logical fallacies and avoid them.  I mean, really - this is debate 101 stuff that I learned in high school, let alone college.

              3. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this



                It is fact that you have these feelings.. Your feelings do not make facts. If this is true, then by your own logic the Flying Spagetti Monster is real because Rad Man has felt one of his noodly appendages. JMcFarland has Felt the invisible purple dragon that lives in her Attic, etc.. Because atheists have claimed these feelings, does that make them facts or real? If your answer to this is no then you will have disproven your own logic as according to your point I quoted. If your answer is yes, then you will have made each of their "felt" entities as valid as Allah or any other deity that has been "felt"

                (Yes, atheists, I see the irony in me making this comment wink)

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think it's ironic at all. Common sense.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I appreciate it, Rad. The irony I was referring to was a believer telling another believer that their feelings don't equate to facts wink

            2. sibtain bukhari profile image60
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              JMcFarland, I have put a question for wilderness and I repeat the same for you and for all disbelievers '',I have reasons to believe God as I have great evidences in the shape of existence of universe, and even if I close my eyes I will find him in my self , ego ,conscious, and conscience , but I am interested to know the reasons that led you this misconception of imaginary God, as you have nothing to disbelief God and even you have admitted that you can never prove absence of God and simply believe or opine that universe has no originator as it does not need, and even you have no reason to say that why universe must only exist? and why it never needs God ? you have even no equal or better explanation for universe than a a creator like absolute conscious or absolute reason but you are insisting that your opinion is correct and God never exists but you know it is not proven and possibility of creator can never be over ruled in light of even your unproven opinion,then why you disbelief God strongly to the extent of hatred degree without logical proof for the same? ''

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What you're asking isn't rational.  It is not possible to disprove the existence of something - anything.  I would ask you if you could disprove the existence of unicorns or Bigfoot or aliens.  You can't.  You're shifting the burden of proof onto atheists and expecting them to do all of your work for you, when really all that you've accomplished are blind, baseless assertions with NO evidence except for your FEELING (which you mistakenly claim as fact) and instead of actually responding to the arguments that are presented to you, you repeat yourself over and over again and build up a straw man argument that you conveniently tear apart.  You aren't having a debate.  You're just typing for the sake of typing.

                I would recommend that you do several things:
                1) read a book or take a class in debate tactics/fallacies/standards
                2) read a book on basic apologetic principles.  You're not following them, and you're NOT making the points that you think you're making
                3) understand and differentiate between feelings, beliefs, opinions and actual fact and evidence.  You don't seem to have a clue about these definitions, and until you get a handle on what you're talking about, I'm sorry but we're not going to take you seriously, and you're not going to gain any respect or credibility.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So - faith is a bad thing then? I agree with you. The odds are 100% in your favor. You are here aren't you? After all - truth really is stranger than fiction. wink

    3. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree. It takes wayyy more faith to believe than not. The reason for this is that there is so much that has not been discovered yet and as such a lot of believers ascribe the unknown and not-yet known to God with confidence until there is more information provided. As more information becomes available, then some still hold God as the cause of the information and continue to question the origins until someone runs out of answers then claim victory.

      It takes far less faith to say "I don't know" and to also look at current information for the answers that are currently available

  7. EncephaloiDead profile image60
    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago

    God lives in my aquarium, that is His magical universe. The Angel fish told me so.

  8. oceansnsunsets profile image89
    oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago

    If I am understanding the OP correctly, you make an excellent point. 

    I think it is always a good idea to go with what we actually observe and know to be true, as well as logic and reason, to help lead to the things that we don't know of completely.  The OP post points to what we all know is inherently true, that the amazing bodies we have and universe we live in are things that never just happen, nor could they. 

    Even with all of our cumulative knowledge over our history and applying the best minds to the task, we cannot begin to create a similar world, or cells, or information we observe.  Again, with the BEST INTELLIGENCE applied, AND with all the STUFF, or ingredients already at our fingertips.  We cannot begin to touch it all. 

    To personally believe it could be possible, then assert it as truth doesn't make much sense in light of the facts.  It is a very unscientific way to be and think.  Also, ruling out in advance what isn't even allowed to be an explanation isn't scientific, yet we see that lack of logic applied daily by supposedly brilliant minds everywhere.  Not much makes sense of it, except one thing does make sense of it all.   The very thing that the OP points out as being dodged.  My way of putting it would be, the the "uncaused Cause..." which ironically is the way a possible God that could get the job done, is revealed to humanity!   

    One other unintended but observable response that would be the case if this were true, would be exactly what we are observing in humanity over history and now.  We are not left with nothing to point us to the thing that COULD be responsible for all we see.  Do people care if or when they let their personally held beliefs get in the way of thinking such things through reasonably or logically? 

    It is a miracle, all of this is.  It is somewhat magical, or outright magical lol, for the best of the best intellects cannot begin to have a grasp on it or answer it.  This is meant to point them toward the thing that could get what we see, accomplished.  Sent with love and with my opinion on the matter, because I care about people and truth.  My apologies for the length.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Does that mean Allah dunnit? LAWL!

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It does have to be something that could get all we see and know of in our universe, accomplished. 

        The discussion about Allah or any other God is another discussion and this one seems to be plenty for now.  You may be on to something though!  A "uncaused" God would fit the bill for being an "uncaused Cause for all we see."

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes indeed. Sadly - if there is no need for a cause, um - we don't need a cause. Oh wait..........

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
            oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am going with the idea that an infinite regress of causes is logically impossible.  We are going for possible here...what is possible to explain our universe and intelligence?

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If a beginning is possible, wouldnt no beginning also be possible?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It would depend on what exactly you meant by "beginning" then.  I was going with the beginning of this universe, the beginning of all we can possibly know of and have experienced until now.  From the first cell and first event until now. 

                Based on what we know, a beginning seems necessary and not just possible.  In that light, a "no beginning" would not be possible.  My thoughts and opinion though, what do you think?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Um - based on what we know, a beginning seems unnecessary. As well as impossible. Where do you get the idea that a beginning is necessary?

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why would a beginning seem impossible?

                2. PhoenixV profile image80
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  explaining how "nothing happened" is difficult to convey.

                  explaining how "something happened" is a lot easier.

                  Would you agree?

                  Why is that?

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Is the beginning of existence the same as never existed?

                    If not, there is a reason.

                    What is that reason?



                    Is always existed the same as never existed?

                    If not, there is a reason.

                    What is that reason?

                  2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Whether an explanation is easy or hard to convey does not make the explanation true or false. If the explanation that "nothing happened" makes more sense than  the other, it should be considered.

                  3. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I would agree.  There is no reason to convey to someone how nothing happened, it sounds illogical.  Nothing I mean in the sense we are talking about it.

            2. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So - you reject the idea that it has always existed?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The universe?

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Do you believe the universe has always existed?  If so, what are your reasons for thinking so?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have no reason to think it didn't .

                  Do you?

                2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Lack of evidence that it didn't exist? Unless you have some compelling reason to think it didn't. Do you?

                3. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is good evidence that it hasn't always existed as there is a point (13.798 billion years) to which we can't see back farther in time than. It's the word always that's the problem with the question because always refers to time. Time has not always existed, but what the universe was before time we don't know. It may have just been there frozen without time.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok. How do know this? You don't. What you are saying is, without change, time is irrelevant. Yes? Because time doesn't exist.

                    That to the side. If everything simply was, without change, there would have to be an impetus. Something to cause change to begin. A body at rest. Law of motion.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree it would be an unscientific way to think. You're missing one important thing though, which happens to be the primary factor between our lack of ability to "create a similar world, or cells, or information we observe" and the fact that our bodies and the universe came about, is time. Scientists don't have the luxury of carrying on experiments over millions and millions of years., which explains how our bodies could have come about.



      I can't imagine scientists would not allow any explanations. That seems very odd?



      But, that wasn't revealed to humanity, it was supposedly revealed to a few men who wrote it down a very long time ago.



      Exactly, that is why we don't reject anything reasonable or logical, which includes things like how our bodies came about.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I wanted to remind that part of my point is that we are looking to a time when there was no intelligence applied.  That is part of the equation for the time frame we are speaking of. So its not just a problem of not enough time and chance falling into place possibly, but also of volitional will being applied, an intelligence.

        As for origins, there are very critical problems for some of the ideas out there.  Some may be persuaded that the addition of enough time could get the job done, but I am not so persuaded.  I do know it is an idea tossed about.  Origins, stuff, molecules.... that isn't accounted for in the "enough time and chance" idea, as far as I see it.  Taking out intelligence, it becomes even more unlikely to me.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not aware that evolution was driven by intelligence or chance? Where in the theory does it say that?



          Please let me know what critical problems you're talking about.

 
working