Explain Creation without a Creator

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 84 discussions (381 posts)

59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
Please explain your idea of how creation without a creator/creators happens or is possible.
reply report
1. 0
  SirDentposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Impossible
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then how do atheist's have so much faith that there isn't a creator if it can't logically be explained or ruled out?
  reply report
  63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists are wrong. You cannot know for sure that there is no God. You can know for pretty damn certain that there was a Big Bang, and that evolution took place (and takes place), but that was not the question.
  
  An atheist cannot know that no Being created the original stuff of the universe. Nor can an atheist know that there is no God (though the description of that God has to be logically, internally consistent, and not contradict itself).
  
  I don't believe in the white-bearded God, so to speak. And I don't believe in Jesus' incarnation.
  
  I don't believe in a Michelangelo-style creator either.
  
  But to say you *know* that no being started off the universe is to profess to know something that is unknowable (especially if you define "a being" loosely enough).
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with most accept for when you say something is unknowable. I think this is limiting to say. If a person keeps an open mind, who is to say what is knowable and unknowable? I agree with you on not sharing any others ideas as absolute and having an individual belief.
  reply report
  63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't quite understand your last sentence, to be honest.
  
  Strictly speaking everything is unknowable except that *I* exist in some sense. But what I mean is that I don't even see how someone could present evidence that would be agreed upon for this issue.
  
  Like many debates, much hangs on the definition of a key word. If by "know" you include experiences of "knowledge" that no-one else can verify, then that is one thing.
  
  But if by "know" you mean "something most people would agree to the truth of based on sufficient evidence, or rational argument" (not sure this is a good definition, mind you), then some things are unknowable. And a Creator would be one of them. The Bible does not count as evidence based on this definition, because most of the world's people don't accept it in the first place, and many of those people have rational grounds for not doing so.
  
  But if you are defining knowledge as a "sense of certainty personally felt" then you could claim revelation by the Holy Spirit as a valid path, for example.
  
  In the end there is a reason that an entire branch of philosophy (epistemology) is devoted to the topic of defining the word "know."
  
  As to the mind being limitless, well this was touched on in another thread, as you know, but, again, if you allow imaginative impulses as valid ways of knowing something, then I guess it is limitless, in some way. But I am not sure these are in fact allowable.
  
  The question becomes circular -- because who is to say what counts as "a valid way of knowing something." This, too, is open-ended...
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol I don't remember the conclusion on the other thread. It sounds like you don't agree with anyones belief as absolute, this is what I was referring to in the last sentenc. What do you mean that imagination isn't allowable? Imagination helps keep an open mind, why wouldn't it be allowed. More limits, lol. Why could no one present a case on this question? What creations doesn't have creators?
  reply report
  78
  kirstenblogposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well if God exists then God is the creation or thing with no creators. This is actually a poorly worded sentence as it presumes anything that exists is a creation implying a creator above being a creation. This implication cannot be verified and proved through exacting and consistent universally understandable methods, if it was possible there would be no multiple religions and war caused because of them etc, and as such cannot be used to question and probe atheists who have and hold no acceptance for this creator God of religion.
  
  There are many theories about the possible origins of the big bang and what came before. The membrane theory is by far the weirdest and hardest to understand as it works outside of the dimension of time, existence without beginning or end. There is the bang/crunch theory which makes the most sense to me.
  
  The difficulty with this sort of subject is that people have a really hard time removing themselves from the time line. The idea of something with no beginning or end in the sense of time is beyond us and can only be understood in theory but never in literal terms.
  
  The point of this thread is a thinly disguised attempt to convince atheists to change their beliefs (something for which I have no respect for, if you cannot respect others beliefs you do not deserve that respect youself) and if you really wish to force your beliefs of a God on an atheists the only logical argument that is likely to work is this:
  If you believe in God and it turns out there is no God well heck its not like you are going to go to hell for believing in an imaginary God. If however you choose not to believe in God and it turns out that you are wrong, well, you may well go to hell, why take the risk?
  
  By the way I do believe in a God and believe that She has spoken to me to comfort me when full of self doubt. She told me everything was ok and that I was exactly where I was meant to be. I just do not care for those who make my beliefs or those of other people their business. As a believer in a God I have more respect for most atheists then proclaimed believers.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  well stated.
  reply report
  63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If I imagine a fairy in the corner, it doesn't mean there are fairies -- unless you include "knowing" something to include things like "knowing" via the imagination. So there are limits. I cannot know what is going on in China today. But I can imagine it. There is a limit to my imagination to know things that are true, in my view.
  reply report
  90
  Nell Roseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They are obviously not into quantum physics, or know how balanced the universe is. meaning something has to be behind it, it is too balanced and clever not to be. cheers.
  reply report
  59
  yolanda yvetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Because they cannot relate to Him by way of their senses. That's how they have so much "faith" that there isn't a creator. However, their "faith" is leading them down the wrong path.
  
  Atheists trust in what they can see and hear. What they can touch and be touched by. They are ruled by their senses. They do not believe God is because they cannot see Him, verbally hear Him or feel Him. If they could they would believe. But God asks that we believe, even though we cannot see Him. After all, that is faith.
  
  Faith is not believing that something isn't. Faith believes it is. I mean, anyone can disbelieve something or someone isn't there if they can't see it or them. How much faith does it take to disbelieve?
  
  I don't believe there's a stack of hundred dollar bills sitting on my coffee table right now, because there isn't. Now how much faith do you think that took?
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you have seen, heard and felt a god? Of course, answering in the affirmative opens a very large can of worms for you.
  
  Then, you must believe unicorns, leprechauns and flying pink dragons also exist because we can't see them, yes?
  
  According to your logic, the stack IS there if you believe it to be there. Are you now contradicting yourself?
  reply report
2. 60
  DogSiDaedposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's not, but have you ever considered the possibility that the Universe WASN'T created?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and I am open to any ideas on that, I haven't seen any rational ideas so far.
  reply report
3. 59
  double_frickposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  you are asking for human, finite terms for a concept that is beyond our understanding.
  all was created, all is creation, and that is all that matters.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thats not what the elitist said.
  reply report
4. 60
  Gale Forceposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please explain how the creator came into existence, without being created?
  
  Chicken or egg?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
5. 52
  nabsdabzposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The reality bubble that you all live is being pressured all the time. You only have to look at the double split experiment, bell's inequality theorum, entanglement theory, dark matter/dark energy to see that the stuff that really matters does not make into your daily media outlets.
  reply report
  79
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The BBC covers a good bit of the sciences though.
  reply report
6. 63
  itechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  We have defined the creator to those group of things which is responsible for it's birth.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol All of us haven't. Some refuse to say that anything is "made" or "created" even in the reality that every man made object is made or created.
  reply report
7. 60
  CrystalSingletonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's impossible. Everything comes from something or somewhere.
  reply report
8. 59
  illusion_realityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is a Creator. We have to respect the person's view why he/she believes in evoultion theory or Darwinism.
  
  Einstein did not believe in God but he believed that there is a Special Force working its way behind the creation.
  
  The evolution theory is a "theory", if it was true then why have we stopped evolving?
  
  Science helps us understand certain aspects of life but science is based on estimation and theories and man is behind the science and man is not perfect and will make errors.
  
  If you want to seek the truth, you need an open mind and an open heart. If you look around in the world, the mountains, the sea, the way the human organs work, the sun, the moon, the stars, and night interacting with day, the plants, and how each of them are designed with such detail and exact measurement, these are the signs of men of understanding..
  
  There is a Creator and Life has a purpose..
  reply report
9. 60
  RoamingInsomniacposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Possibly, this was answered with that whole "Big Bang" theory?
  reply report
10. 60
  Google Galposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That does not explain it.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Correct, she probably is referring to abiogenesis.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The occurrance of spontainious life from none living matter, has yet to be proved.
  
  Just another guess, supposition, assumption, that is all.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  By your religion or any other, that is most certainly true.
  
  Yup.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you.
  
  Man I have never had to have such a circulair marathon connversation, to get aruond to the simple truth.
  
  Thank you.
  
  They are guesses.
  
  So to rely on them, requires faith in the one Guessing.
  
  See how that works.
  
  This one will probrably take forever to get to.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sort of. But, the faith in which I'm confident in the consistency of the sun coming up tomorrow morning, for example, is the same faith used in science and not the faith used to purport the existence of that which is invisible and undetectable.
  
  That's how it works.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you believing as fervently as you do.
  
  That is as it should be.
  
  That is the definition of faith.
  
  Devotion to your belief, without factual evidence.
  
  Is it not?
  
  And there are no facts to support theories by definition. That is why they are theories.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is a word with more than one definition.
  
  The definitions of faith include the strong beliefs in the supernatural as well as the complete confidence in a plan or person. Factual evidence isn't really part of either definitions.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Because you choose to believe, even though it cannot be fully proved, to you, or in general.
  
  That is faith.
  
  But yes many definitions.
  reply report
  61
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Awesome.
  reply report
11. 61
  chukra Gposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  read it in the forum that i post with your name
  reply report
74
Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago
Majick
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol I thought magic wasn't logical.
  
  Is Majick the logical kind of magic?
  reply report
  74
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It makes as much sense as a bubbling brew spontaneously creating life. That would be majick.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol, I kinda have to agree with you. Can a brew be brewed without a brewer? I kinda agree that we could have been developed in chaos to result in our perfect balance considering the possible fact that everything works in positives and negatives to maintain a natural balance. I think it is pretty odd for anyone to rule out creation when it can't be logically ruled out. I haven't had many atheist responses so far. lol
  reply report
  74
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  With all our advanced science, knowledge of DNA and our vast evidence of evolution still we cannot produce one single cell organism.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, I think we are amazing. I think it is only limiting for someone to limit themselves to things that aren't and can't be logically ruled out. This is only done through faith I believe. I think many atheist have much in common with religious belief although most aren't honest enough to admit to having/using faith.
  reply report
  66
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey I'm impressed Marine.
  
  Is this a Christmas miracle?
  
  I'm going to have to start reading your threads again.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Merry Christmas!
  reply report
  66
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Sir. Merry Christmas to you too and to our whole Hubpages community.
  reply report
  68
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And there will be none about them having any knowledge concerning how reality came into being, so it is going to be a bit quiet.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am seeing this. And they call me illogical. I don't run from questions to protect my faith.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  I take a day off and this is the best you can come up with.
  
  "Creation"? LOLOLO
  
  So - you assume a creator by calling it a "creation"?
  
  LOLOLOLOLO
  
  Sure - every "creation" needs a "creator."
  
  You guys are funny.
  
  You all must be very angry to attack me the way you have been doing in the other threads. Did you lose a loved one and it upsets you when atheists point put how f******* ridiculous it is that you will see them in heaven? Sure - of course - They are living on a farm with jesus.
  
  No idea who is running the Jesus sock puppet. Not me - feel free to apologize - oh - that is right - you don't need to apologize when you attack some one without cause. Or "bear false witness."
  
  As long as it is for jesus.
  
  As for you Marine - Glad to see you dun finally git with the program and be ' attacking un-American atheism like wot you was trained fer. Semper Fi.
  
  Deary me - so - You believe " there was a "creator," therefore it is a "creation."
  
  LOLOLOLOLO Bye bye logic.........
  
  Merry Christ Mass......
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  
  This is your idea of a logical response or debate?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLO
  
  No - it is an appropriate response to your statements.
  
  Oh - you were looking for logical? I don't think so
  reply report
  68
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I wish I had a dollar for every time he mentions the word "angry" in his posts. I would be putting up the last of my 48 solar panels on my 7500 sq. foot house by now.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or when he uses his sarcastic multiple smilies when he has so much pride he has made a point.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You must be very angry. It shows. Sorry. Not my fault that you will not be meeting your lost loved one in heaven. I know - far fethced at best. Still - don't shoot the messenger.
  reply report
  68
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well another dollar. I keep forgetting how sensitive you are to criticism.
  
  Maybe you should write another hub about how bad you were treated.
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Mark, apologies if the 'sock puppet' was not you, it's just that you seemed the ONLY person with a sense of humor like that which displayed and the 'ganas' to raise such an outrageous topic... I thought it hilarious and posted the sock puppet without ANY attack in mind, but apologies for intimating that I thought it MUST be you.
  
  If not you, then who?
  reply report
68
Beth100posted 14 years ago
It's called SCIENCE.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What do you mean? Is that your explanation of creation without a creator?
  reply report
  68
  Beth100posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'd love to explain, but I'm sitting in a ski lift and don't have the time. Maybe later if I find my way back to this thread.
  
  It's a great question!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. I am open to your explanation when you get time. Why are you on hubpages while on a ski lift? Are you addicted to hubpages? lol
  reply report
  68
  Beth100posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Trying not to drop my phone in the snow...but then maybe I am trying! Who knows, seems like only Freud had the answers! lol
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't lose the phone over hubpages, not worth it! lol I really don't know who Freud is, I will google him. Have fun skiing!
  reply report
  68
  Beth100posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks! This has to be the longest lift ever! I'm heading off now!! Later Marine!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Later, Have fun.
  reply report
2. 61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I still haven't heard the explaination for, "Science", explaining or knowing the creation of life.
  
  Its called "assumptions"! Not "knowing".
  
  Where has science created anything near life. Never mind been able to eplain the spontainious creation of life in the midst of some great cosmological accident.
  
  So again.
  
  Where is the proof? I hear alot about science from alot of folks on here, but I don't see any scientific evidence that supports any of the hogwash science spouts as facts.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hello TM, how you doing?
  
  I would even like to know if it would be called science without creation to name it science.
  reply report
3. 60
  Lydia Roseposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  WHAT?
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. God is a hell of a scientist, among other things.
  reply report
57
dingdongposted 14 years ago
Marine - what's your definition for creation?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is a good question. I guess origin of life.
  reply report
  57
  dingdongposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So you only guess?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol, I don't think we are making forward progress. I guess I guess. How is that? lol I don't know anything, so I have to only guess. What do you think began existence?
  reply report
  57
  dingdongposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you call it 'creation' it's just your problem, then say how do you define a creator?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol I didn't know I have a problem to referring to something as being made or created. Thanks for being my psychiatrist. I appreciate that. Are you going to answer my question or play Dr. Phil? I define a creator as a maker of something made or created, what else would I define it as? You looking for me to throw in some religious hooks that you can hop on?
  reply report
  57
  dingdongposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't mention anywhere about psychiatry in my post, good luck with your word twisting and all. You are not going to play fair, so good bye!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Me not playing fair? Word twisting?
  
  You refuse to answer a single question. Who's not playing fair?
  reply report
  57
  dingdongposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you did twist my words and you certainly are aware of it. I only said what you guess/think/assume is your problem, that should be taken as "it is all upto you". But what you did... you twisted my words to mean as though I accused you of having psychotic problems. Didn't you? While it's like this, why would you expect me to answer your silly questions?
  
  Keep twisting and playing around, I'm not for it. Good bye!
  reply report
  59
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Gee, here I was thinking that Marine really was the Messiah!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  At least you are starting to think, however, you are wrong as usual.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol You say it's my problem that I assume a creator. If you didn't want me to draw conclusions, you shouldn't have left it so open to interpretation. How is it an assumption or problem when it is logical? A maker is a creator, same thing. Do you deny that anything is made or created? Why don't you like to answer questions?
  reply report
70
Cagsilposted 14 years ago
Science explained Creation of Earth.

Science also explained Earth's evolution to sustain Life.

Therefore, a 'creator' is a myth. Only supported by those who personally believe in God or a Higher Power.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Did science explain science or did creation explain science? Why do you limit your mind?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Did science explain science? This is sad. If you don't know what science is, then go learn.
  
  Did creation explain science? No.
  
  My mind isn't limited. And, it isn't for you to say that my mind is limited, since you don't see things from or thru my eyes or know the knowledge for which I've learned. Your question insinuates an untruth, so you can justify your own position.
  
  Have a nice day. I don't plan letting you to continue to twist what I say. Enjoy.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol You are constantly throwing together faithful thoughts. Do you put any logic into your responses?
  
  Tell me what science is? How would there be science with no one alive to explain or learn science? What good would science be if there was no creation to study it?
  
  I'm stating the obvious. If you state something as absolute which logically can't be ruled out, you are making a faith based assumption. This is limiting to your mind whether you agree or disagree.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Look at who is making a faith based assumption about someone else's logic? You're sad.
  
  You want to know what science is? I told you to go learn about it.
  
  Like I said....you twist words to suit yourself. If Earth didn't evolve to support human life, then no science wouldn't be. DUH!
  
  You have a firm believe that there are not absolutes in life, therefore, you can only twist words, so you can justify your belief.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Are these your serious responses or do you want to try again?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lmao
  reply report
2. 0
  khmohsinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What do you know about science?, Science is nothing but a bunch of contradicting theories. Science is just an effort to explore the unknown?
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed. The contradiction though is squarely placed in the fact that science provides those with the convenience of computers, internet connections and forums in which they can write and share with others their denial of those conveniences.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
Why am I not getting many answers on this thread? Is this not an easy question for anyone that rules out the possibility of creation?
reply report
1. 0
  e-lylposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am afraid this is a classic 'Which came first the chicken or the egg?' or maybe that old favorite, 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.' Of course, the second one requires a belief in angels.
  
  Really, what does it matter, whether there is or isn't?
  
  Unanswerable questions do drive up page views, don't they?
  reply report
63
Daniel Carterposted 14 years ago
It seems to me we have a lot of evidence in the way of puzzle pieces that we can't quite fit together just yet. In other words, there are lots of theories and explanations without any truly undeniable, incontrovertible evidence. Believers base it on a scriptural description and faith. Science seems to use all physical evidence it can find, and it still isn't enough.

At least no one has given me enough evidence one way or the other to relieve my doubts.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you. I don't take anything as absolute. This includes ruling things out based on faith.
  reply report
2. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well said.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
Is not believing in creation logical? How?
reply report
56
C.J. Wrightposted 14 years ago
You can, but it requires a lot of blind faith and assumptions....ironic huh......
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol It really is.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
I think there are some nice hidden agendas at the base of atheism that no atheist leaders would like to own up to.
reply report
1. 61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  
  Nice to see you marine. Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Merry Christmas to you too! I think I should ups Mark a Christmas tree! It might cheer him up.
  reply report
2. 63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Atheist leaders? This is an extremely odd turn-of-phrase.
  
  If you mean people like Richard Dawkins, then I agree with you.
  But I would be willing to bet that most atheists barely know the first thing about him and his type. Could be wrong, though, I guess...
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol, maybe I worded that wrong. I meant the founders and current public speakers like Dawkins. I think most educated atheist know of Dawkins as a leading atheist.
  reply report
  63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Possibly. But I don't think most atheists think much about these things one way or the other, to be frank.
  
  If Jesus comes back tomorrow and asks most Westerners "Do you believe in me" the answer from most (outside the US, anyway, perhaps), is likely to be "Never really thought about it, to be honest".
  reply report
58
Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago
So - why is it a "creation" ?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why is it not?
  
  Why is anything anything?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey - if you think it is a "creation" it must have a "creator" - right?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok elitist atheist, what is it and how is it?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are the one with the assumptions.
  
  I have no need to give it a name. It is - does that need a creator? No........
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol You deny anything and everything being a creation? Ok, "it is", how and why is it?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - I do not. You are the one with the assumptions. You assume it is a creation - therefore it needs a a creator.
  
  I Prefer not to believe that until there is some evidence......
  
  If you have something other than faith based assumptions - I am all ears.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am asking if you define anything as creation? If so, what?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Creation" assumes a "creator" does it not? So - no - I do not need to make that assumption. Sorry.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How is life "made" without other life "making" it? Better?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh - It needs to be "made" and therefore needs a "maker"? I was not aware of that. What makes you make that assumption?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol I like how you pretend to have a logical conversation while making someone try to guess your belief so you can only run circles and post smilies telling them to stop assuming. What do you consider yourself, an illusion?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am here. I do not have a belief.
  
  Atheism. Look it up dude.
  
  You are the one with - there must be a creator otherwise we could not be here therefore there is a creator and that proves it.
  
  Douglas Adams put it best:
  
  "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
  
  This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.
  
  I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
  
  The man was a genius.
  report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How is a man a genius for equating his life to a mudd puddle? Doesn't sound very bright to me.
  
  You say you don't have a belief and you claim atheism or try to lead people to assumptions that you are atheist. Are you ever honest? I never said my beliefs were absolute, I have been asking for ideas and have gotten no rational answers.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But - there is a perfectly reasonable answer to your question:
  
  42
  
  My pleasure.
  report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is 42 the page number I should look up in the atheist bible? What kind of answer is that? Are you claiming all you know is your age?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is the answer to your question.
  report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You consider guessing games logical conversation?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What was your question again?
  
  Without assumptive terms like "creation"?
  report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You have selective memory huh? Why does existance exist? Are you now going to ask why i'm assuming existance?
  report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He is saying this world was not made for us,... we are a product of it, and there-fore the illusion of "perfect for this world", is just that, an illusion. Designed I imagine. By a base animal,(humans), whose conscience awareness cannot accept the worthless meaninglessness of his own existence.
  
  So he superimposses some greater value to his existence. which is nothing more that of another cell in the organism called the world.
  
  Simply said.
  
  We fit it, because we are from it,... no God needed.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well said, and I agree with everything you said except... no God needed I need God, because my belief in God makes me feel better.
  report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. I was stating what his point was.
  report
  66
  Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  One of the definitions of Atheism is,
  
  "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"
  
  Source
  report
  70
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
If the atheist belief system didn't tell it's faithful followers that there was no God or creator as an absolute, would there be an atheist belief system?

I don't think so. I think it runs on faith as religion. Mark, you are religious.
reply report
1. 68
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Make it very simple for them. You are going to see ludicrous posts over everything but what you wanted to know. Ask how reality came into being.
  
  It is a simple question though I would imagine one or two will ask "but why do we call it reality....?"
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Simple? Oh you mean like "god dun it"? OK
  
  If that works for you - be my guest. Sorry you are not going to meet your loved ones in heaven.
  
  You must be very, very angry. I don't blame you.
  
  In fact - I forgive you.
  reply report
  68
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hey I got anothe dollar! Another mention of "angry."
  
  You are one sensitive young man. Another hub in the making perhaps?
  
  I did notice you still have not answered marine's question. Lets make this real simple Mark:
  
  How did physical reality come into existence? Lets see if you can answer that (I will even let you mention the word "angry" again).
  
  Here is the question again: How did physical reality come into existence?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know and I am happy with that answer - because I do not know.
  
  Wait - you do know and "it was god"? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
  
  I don't blame you for being angry at not knowing - but making stuff up... That is disgusting. And sad. No wonder you are so angry.
  
  It must drive you insane when people laugh at your simplistic, meaningless answer. "God did it but I cannot define god."
  
  I bet you lost some one close and are now heart broken that they will not be waiting in heaven for you.
  
  How sad.
  reply report
  68
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There we go! Now that wasn't so hard now was it? It took awhile but you got it out!
  
  Hey I got two more "angrys!"
  
  Speaking of how angry you are I am reading your hub (er, anger- fueled tirade) here: http://hubpages.com/hub/christians-on-hubpages where you are bitterly complaining about how you have been treated. Just finished your sentence "One christian looks much the same as another from most people’s perspective and quite honestly – if I was in power, I would be feeding the noisy buggers to the lions right now..."
  
  Now that is what I call a sensitive young man! Advocating violence eh?
  
  Having read half of it so far you have already mentioned half a dozen individuals who really piss you off.
  
  Not at all but it is suddenly clear after finishing that temper tantrum hub you wrote why you are so furious. As I have told you before people disagree and while it may feel therapeutic for you to write a small novella bitterly crying over how people have treated you, you need to recognize the fact that you will always find people who do not agree with you. It is a fact of life.
  
  Grow up, get over it. Remember what your motto at the end of that hub is: "Can I prove it? No sir. Do I have any evidence? No I do not."
  
  Eleven thousand angry posts on these forums and you still claim not to know a damn thing. Just make sure no one else does eh Mark?
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Now - this is one of those most vile christians."
  
  Fame at last!
  
  I wrote a reply to Marks hub, which I guess he never read.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
I haven't attacked you at all Mark.

My question still stands and is valid.

Show me where science proves anything about any aspect of creation, or spontanious life?

I don't care about the semantics of it. How does science explain life?

It, science, propounds assumptions as fact. That doesn't make them fact, though.
reply report
56
C.J. Wrightposted 14 years ago
If you write it he will come
reply report
91
habeeposted 14 years ago
You put de lime in de coconut and shake 'em both up...
And presto! A human is formed!
reply report
1. 56
  C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dam...its really dat simple!!?? LOL
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lime is 'code' for penis...duh...
  reply report
2. 78
  kirstenblogposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is the most serious response I have seen so far! It is far less silly then most of what I am reading just now
  
  Off to find a more peaceful forums me thinks
  reply report
60
dfunzyposted 14 years ago
Could you explain the creator? A creator without being created?
reply report
60
dfunzyposted 14 years ago
Could you explain the creator? A creator without being created? Is this what is meant by creation without a creator?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How do you think life came to exist?
  reply report
63
AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years ago
But I agree that Dawkins has a hidden agenda. Hitchens too. Of course, that agenda could be hidden from themselves.

I agree with Dawkins on most things in regard to evolution, biology, the brain, etc. (not that I am qualified to have an opinion, to be honest), though think his views on cultural anthropology are a case of stepping outside his own bounds (ironically!). I also agree with a lot of what Hitchens says (though not his stance on Iraq, and he is often polemical when he claims he is being matter-of-fact).

But both Dawkins and Hitchens are wrong about one thing: that the world would be better off without religion.

Yes, in some ways, the world would indeed be better off without religion. But the question "Does religion do more harm than good?" has an unknowable answer

I mean, who's to say. If Mother Theresa went to Calcutta and helped people because of religion, clearly there is something in religion that is GOOD.

Their position, ironically, is both unscientific and irrational.
reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Still waiting to see that science that speaks to the inception of reality/creation, etc.

You might as well include life also. Show me how science explains in a more logical fashion the "beginning" of all things.

Science can't even explain the Cambrian Explosion. Never mind where and how, or what started life, or existence as we know it.

And Mark. Athiests and science has its faith basis also.

You cannot know. So you base what you do know, on what you think you know. Which means you don't really know. But, you think this or that must be, because of what you think you know.

That is the scientific faith many base their beliefs upon. Because,.... science doesn't know.
reply report
1. 63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just because science can't explain everything, does not mean there is a God. Who knows how the hell it all started? The most-adhered to explanation in the world is the Buddhist one. Let's go with that -- it's lasted 2,600 years, and has its antecedents in Hinduism, which has lasted thousands.
  
  And those Asians built fantastic, complex, civilizations while we were groping in the mud. So I'd be willing to go with this theory. Science, as you say, has no power to refute it.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have not stated their is a God. Not in my replies. I dont care to debate the existence or non existence of God. Just the science everyone claims proves this or that, and it does not.
  
  Thats all.
  reply report
  63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And you are right. Except that I am not sure how many professional scientists claim that -- though lots of (ill-informed) lay-people do, I suspect.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well? Someone mentioned Dawkins a while back, and his ilk claim to, "know". But I agree. Most scientists tend not to state anything so arrogant as to, "know".
  reply report
87
livelongerposted 14 years ago
I know that this thread has become another pissing match between the atheists and Christians, but the only honest answer is we don't know. We don't know how existence came into being, and it is probably well beyond our ability to understand at this point. Those who have a certain answer are just choosing to believe what they want to believe.
reply report
1. 61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for so bold an honesty. That is exactly what I have been saying. We don't know. Seems alot of these threads are about things we simply do not know.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My Compliments to you both, both of you, extremely well stated. The truth is WE DON"T KNOW. We may never KNOW.
  Knowing and believing are two seperate things. I Believe because I choose to believe, and believing makes me feel better. I have no proof nor does anyone else. We may never have any proof ever so believe what you want to believe, but don't try and tell someone else to believe what you do without proof , because proof to the contrary is what it takes to change a persons beliefs.
  reply report
2. 74
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now this is TRUTH.
  reply report
  79
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not so any more. See Lawrence Kraus's wonderfully clear explanations on the BBC. the first lecture lasts for 27 minutes and includes questions from a scientific audience, I have put the links up and had no replies. The religionists do not want to know.
  reply report
  79
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I just knew this would NOT start a frenzied Google hunt by religionists looking for Kraus.
  None so blind.....
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Can you put them up again ernest, and can they be viewed outside of the UK?.... the BBC have some rules about not being able to access BBC iPlayer from outside of the UK?
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  OK found a download at:
  
  http://www.savevid.com/video/a-universe … -2009.html
  
  Thanks, I'll catch it during the saturnalia break!
  reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago
For those who don't know. Douglas Adams was a novelist and a satirist...

42 is the meaning of life
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree, the meaning of life is seasoning ...
  reply report
  79
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No UW is right! UW is not often wrong about things, and this time she speaks with the authority of "Deep Thought" Which, after a very very long time discovered the answer was 42. It was not well received then either, but truth is, the answer is 42.
  reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago
Life that begins after the undergraduates blow up the chem lab.
reply report
59
double_frickposted 14 years ago
the elitist?
regardless, it seems you are insisting atheists offer up their explanation for how the universe came into existence without, as you say they believe, a creator to create it.
contemplating these things are not the path for all in this life. and being fixated on others spiritual view only hinders your own.

it does not matter, all that matters is your own explanation if you can come up with one. or you can rely on one of the default explanations littered throughout our societies. the choice is yours. as it is everyones personal choice whatever they choose to believe.

i simply stated my belief is that there is, of course, a creator if you wish to call it that, but that as far as i am concerned i understand with my limited human understanding there is no way to define or even comprehend that which has created, or thought up all of this wonderful creation. at best i can catch a glimpse through feelings; but to define it would be a lie. and that is a "sin"
reply report
66
mcbeanposted 14 years ago
Just because we can't understand how things came about doesn't mean there is a creator.

All Gods were devised by humans to give meaning to the seemingly inexplainable.

Good crop = Thanks God

Storm kills family = Vengeful God.

Humans struggle to understand that sometimes, s#@t happens.
Doesn't mean there is anyone driving our world.

The various creators help people cope emotionally in times of hardship and stress. This is the true power of religion.
This is where religion does the most good.
When we try and formalize religion,and impose it on others, bad things happen.

I firmly believe that we are moving forward with no one at the helm, and that the power of religion would be much greater if we all let each other get on with it.

Many take comfort from their god in hard times. I take the same comfort from the randomness of our world.I am at peace with dying and that being the end for me forever.
The religious among us have the right to believe as they will but should remember that just because they believe and cannot think of another explanation, doesn't mean there has to be a god.

Random acts of evolution over millions of years is at least as probable as a creator and at least has some physical evidence to back it.
reply report
1. 87
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it can explain our existence as far back as simpler life forms. And life can be explained by chemistry. And chemistry can be explained by physics. Beyond that, we're still very much in exploratory mode.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Science can in no way explain spontanious creation or life, or the "Beginning. You can hypothisize all you want. But that isn't knowing.
  
  If we knew the chemistry to create spontanious life we would have created it by now. And there is no evidence for evolution. the fossil record is so full of holes it isn't funny. That is not proof. or evidence.
  
  Get real.
  
  I agree that all the theories are just as probable as the creationist view. But NONE have been proven.
  reply report
65
Lady Guinevereposted 14 years ago
I agree.
reply report
91
habeeposted 14 years ago
The corpse of this poor old horse is rotting and shredded from the constant excoriation. Wait...it has a message pinned to its nose. It says "Merry Christmas or Happy Hannukuh or Cheery Festivus or Have a Great Friday on the 25th!"
reply report
1. 87
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haha! The same to you!
  reply report
59
blackjavaposted 14 years ago
I have a question.

If you believe there is a god and if you believe god created humans and if you believe god created humans in his own image and knowing that about a million years ago the first human life forms where very much like apes wouldn't that mean god looks like an ape ??
Or maybe he( or she) is an ape because some people believe humans evolved from apes.
reply report
1. 61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your kidding me right?
  
  Evolution doesn't say we came from apes.
  
  It states all mammals and in continuance all homonids, came into being along the same evolutionary branch.
  
  Each branch having sprigs sprouting from it, along it's course.
  
  Each sprig is representative of a homonid, each homonid being a further advanced type of ape/man.
  
  Being our closest mammalian relative, doesn't automatically make an ape our genetic ascendent.
  
  Your stretching it there.
  reply report
  59
  blackjavaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And what part would I be stretching? The study of anthropology pretty much shows that the original human life forms where very ape like. I didn't say we where descended from apes. I said some people believe that. After all, there are still people who hope to find the missing link.
  
  So my question stands. Knowing that the original humanoids certainly don't look like we do today, what would your god look like( assuming that you believe in a god)
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Haven't bothered with the God part. Have I?
  
  Just clearifying the evolution point.
  
  Your welcome to believe as you want.
  
  I mis-read. I thought you were pronouncing from the mount that we are apes. If you had been stating evolution proves we are from apes, then I would have an issue.
  
  But since your not. I don't.
  
  My answer would be, "Spirit".
  reply report
  59
  blackjavaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I like that answer.
  
  Can I presume that you believe the essence of man is his spirit or soul?
  If that was the case then would it be that god created man in the image of his spirit? Which would essentially make him face less. ( if you believe there is a god:)
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes the essence of man is his Spirit.
  
  God created man first in his image, that of Spirit.
  
  Then he created the form of man in the flesh and imparted to him that breath of life called the soul. Which in my opinion is nothing more than a flickering breeze, a shadow of our true spirits.
  
  If you read Genisis. God created man twice. First in Spirit, then in flesh.
  reply report
79
earnestshubposted 14 years ago
I am a long way from the UK aqua I downloaded it after I heard it on the science show.
I will try to find the link, thanks for the interest, I appreciate it.
reply report
1. 70
  aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I am always interested in knowledge and truth, I believe I have found it, but that does not stop me continually checking that my belief is correct.
  
  That's how I came to faith, by challenging my non belief against new information and being open to the concept that I can be wrong.
  
  Hopefully we are all open to correction and new realities.
  
  If you find the link, can you email me off my profile, I may miss the post of it, as my son arrives home tomorrow from NY and I expect to spend less time trawling (or should i say trolling? ) the forums!
  
  Could I find it just on Kraus? - I'll look now and come back to you if I do, if not, I must away to sleep (it's 2.10am here) so if I don't come back please let me know if you find it.
  
  John
  reply report
2. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Earnest, I watched the video. I really question his character and ideaology to believe anything he says. He has one video promoting Obama in support of funding for man made global warming. I think global warming is a scandal to get more money out of uneducated citizens. I also question his motives in the video. His bashing of religion took away from the scientific points he was attempting to make. Also, how much was Dawkins paying him and how much was he there to promote his book and atheist idealogy? I find it funny how he says to have humility in how much science doesn't know and has the hypocrisy to claim knowing the origins of the beginning in his absolute claim that something can come from nothing.
  reply report
  60
  ronjer1posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that's funny cuz Krauss is actually pushing a new science fiction religion.
  all those idiots grew up with star trek, so what do u expect.
  Genesis in the bible make more sense than Krauss.
  
  I'd like to ask this idiot Krauss "what is it that we dont know?"
  his message is that we know almost everything.
  reply report
  79
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Usual dishonest information! If anyone wants to discredit his science, do so scientifically, his character is not in question. For others who want to know, look him up, he is a smart highly respected scientist, and the BBC is no pusher of any one persons beliefs. they also offer panel discussions about subjects, always with the worlds best minds.
  Very dishonest reply, most disappointed in your capacity to reason.!
  reply report
  60
  ronjer1posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  but his science fiction has been refuted all the way to the moon and back one hundred fold.
  look it up, just like you looked him up.
  it doesnt matter if he belongs to the religion of atheism or christianity, his character is not the issue, its his dogma.
  i'm sure he is a nice person and smart.
  but he knows how to play the game to get government grants, conjure up science fiction to feed the sci-fi junkies out there. and line his pockets too.
  churches, governments, etc. are all guilty of falsely justifying their position for the mighty buck
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you, no one knows his true intentions and motives behind what he claims to know. I disagree that character and ideaology have nothing to do with his motives. It's his character and ideaology that lead to his motives.
  
  He talked about a hook in one video I saw of him. He knows he needs a hook to capture believers to his ideaology. I think this is his hook. "The universe is flat, so a creator isn't neccessary."
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I also found it disgusting at his arrogant elitist attitude especially at the end of the video when he talks about humility of how much science doesn't know. I think he is quite the hypocrite.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Here is the link of the video I am referring to on Lawrence Krauss. I am open to any disagreements on what I wrote.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
  
  Here is his video promoting Obama and money for man made global warming.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3KmUVsTSo
  reply report
  60
  ronjer1posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  just listen to his comments at the end.
  he confuses infinity with a number, and gives an example of an infinite hotel.
  any so-called scientist who uses infinity to describe objects, is by definition an idiot.
  sci-fi talk: quantum fluctuations will produce the people in this room an infinite amount of times.
  Krauss is a total quack, not in touch with reality
  reply report
61
kessposted 14 years ago
Hey Marine I can give you a pretty simple but most logical answer.

I hope you were not bored but this "Lots of nothing" post.
You see that is the reality of the "nothings", they have nothing to offer but still offers you all of it..

God hides things in the open light where the dark minds cannot see it.

Look how hard is is for grown adults to comprehend a simple question to give a logical answer.

Ask a sleepy Child the same question and I bet you that Child need not be fully awake to comprehend and give a logical answer.

If the answer is important to you ask me in private, for I won't cast pearls before swines.
reply report
61
bojanglesk8posted 14 years ago
It's something our minds cannot fathom.
Us trying to fathom the OP's concept is like ants trying to fathom Advanced Calculus.
reply report
1. 79
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It has been explained more than adequaitly in fact. I am sick of posting the link!!!
  
  Not one sensible comment on the information, just a couple of people took half a look to decide what they could disagree with, but wound up attacking the author who has more credibility than any other person in science on these matters and has won numerous awards for explaining the complexity of it all.
  Those blind by choice always pass over anything that will show them wrong, yet most atheists I know would believe in a god instantly if there were even one iota of proof!
  What a crock!! Religion= Stuck in an intellectual dark age by choice!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Come on Earnest. I watched and hour and 4 minute video and you think I am writing to protect religion? Do you think I am religious? How do lawyers pose their case to find out if a person is credible or not? They research the character and idealogy of the person. You didn't answer my question on him. How can he be so hypocritical to say how much science doesn't know then claim the absolute that the universe started without a starter. This is his theory he wants to push to sell himself and atheist belief. I think he is just in it for the money.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Have you seen some of the engineering feats that ants have acomplished. I would not discount what you think they know, or do not, Earnest. They are pretty smart lil buggers. They may have a better grasp on advanced mathematics than any of us.
  reply report
  61
  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They have a elaborate cooling system for their ant hill or ant mound which man is copying.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yup. We are trying to copy alot of different things creatures in nature use or create. That is the most excellent observational lab there is. Nature and those things and creatures within it can teach us a hell of a lot if we choose to learn from it.
  reply report
  79
  earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ants blow my mind!! I have been known to watch them all day!
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
In this video, Dawkins and Krauss both come to an agreement that evolution is a fact. Does a fact equal an absolute? I thought there were no absolute facts in science because it leaves no room for error? How can something be a fact that doesn't explain everything? Aren't claimed facts that leave no room for error limiting to new knowledge that can be learned? I think so.

I don't think the elitist scientist's are as bright as they believe they are. How much money are they making by promoting each others "facts"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25WPs7oJ … 51C8318996
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
In this one Dawkins and Krauss are analyzing how to get religion and the public to better accept evolution as a fact and absolute.

What hypocrites they are. They consistently mock religions and the public with their elitist attitudes, and then get mad because the public doesn't worship their ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snvD-8tJ … 51C8318996
reply report
1. 61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yup. It most certainly does take as much faith to believe in evolution, as it does any religion. Maybe more.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.
  
  Here, Dawkins say's clearly that his motives are to destroy religion. His agenda is to promote his "facts" and his atheist book sales, not to discover absolutes. He already knows the absolutes, or at least he thinks he does. An open minded scientist he is.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mop9GzJo … 51C8318996
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
In this one, the elitist ones Dawkins and Krauss talk about why it is idiotic and pointless to theorize about universal point of the universe. Ridiculous!

I thought these guy's are supposed to be some of the top minds in the world? How do top minds of the world limit their mind by thinking theory and unknown questions are stupid? I can't believe the hypocrisy of these 2. They claim to be logical and continually contradict themselves. Logic isn't based on contradictions. Krauss also talks about how many emotions he has in his work. Emotions isn't logic, it's faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5kPoaeg … 51C8318996
reply report
54
(Q)posted 14 years ago
My goodness, what a thread.

Firstly, I would like to comment on those dissing Dawkins and others. It has been my observation that those who criticize and make up ridiculous claims about Dawkins are the ones who know the least about him. Shameful, really.

Secondly, the author of the OP stated a creator but did not go into any details about said creator. And, considering not many theists actually agree on or can provide any details on what the creator is and what process creation underwent, the OP is rather pointless.

Of course, one does not really dismiss out of hand the claims of theists who do believe their particular "creator" created the universe. I'm sure we can make a grand list of their claims to their gods, what they look like and how they created the universe, then begin to entertain their points and put them to the test, if possible.

If not testable, we can simply place their claims in the standard categories of possibilities and probabilities, which in their cases, are infinitesimally small, hence irrelevant.

If we look to science for these answers, we find several theories on how the universe was created, some theories having more evidence than others, some none at all except perhaps purely mathematical evidence (Brane/String theory) that can't be tested based on our current level of technologies. Maybe, one day.

Its a question that can't be answered, one way or the other, at this time.

So, if one feels that their particular god created the universe in a particular way, they are free to believe in the magical and mysterious and are free to stand on their soap boxes and bleat baseless assertions.

Others who may approach the question who are actually looking for answers will find them by observing the universe itself, rather than pretending it was a rabbit pulled from a hat.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol, Now I would like you to back all of your faith based assumptions about me with logic. What are my beliefs on creation and where did I state my beliefs as absolute and content? How do I give details of my belief of creation when it is in theory just like science? You are pretty sharp aren't you.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't, that was my point. You said nothing about a "creator"
  
  Again, you didn't, that was my point.
  
  Well, sharp enough to understand the OP is pointless.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol You are clearly on board with Krauss and Dawkins. Say theorizing about design is pointless. Maybe you are pointless for not thinking you have a point.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Where did I say that I'm on board? I simply pointed out the many misinformed opinions about them here.
  
  If you say so.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And those points, or mis-informed opinions would be? Specifically, mind you. So as to have no confusion on the so called facts about them.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Dawkins and his ilk really do not need anyone to speak for them, and your observation that,... "that those who criticize and make up ridiculous claims about Dawkins are the ones who know the least about him. Shameful, really."

Is really absurd. Because he speaks for himself in alot the presentations I have seen. No idiocy need be applied to his words or logic, it is inherrant.

Just my observation.
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, he does speak for himself and I've read many misinformed opinions about what people "believe" he spoke about. This thread is full of them.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol I noticed you didn't debate anything on a specific video I mentioned, you just make faithful generalizations. I am commenting on the videos I watched, not what others said. I think you are confused.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I could really care less for the misinformed opinions of those who attack Dawkins and others. I'm sure many here could go on forever making up stuff. It's irrelevant and only demonstrates their intellectual dishonesty.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol, Please share what I am so misinformed on and what I am making up? I am only stating the obvious. What comments am I dishonest on?
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Okay. Thats the ole liberal what-for. He told you, Marine.
  
  Sounds like he talked to you on one of your bait'em up days. And Q learned very well eh?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol I love it. He defends atheist belief along with Krauss and Dawkins using faith without logic. He provides no logical explanations of why he believes what he writes. Then he gets mad when others make assumptions of saying he is a blind supporter of the 2.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
At the end of this video, Krauss's "Liberal Idealogy" and ties are exposed when he makes attacks on Bush for Bush stating that science and the possibility of intelligent design should be exposed in schools. Krauss thinks it is stupid because there is no debate of whether intelligent design exists or not. Krauss wants strictly science taught with no possibilies outside of science. Krauss is claiming to know absolute truth by ruling out possibility of intelligent design even though it can't be ruled out. I think Krauss has a warped ideaology trying to sell his agenda and beliefs rather than teach people to have an open mind. What a ignorant scientist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A78u4Nuq … 51C8318996
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
How much profit does science and atheism make each year based on blind faith?
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you tell us... er... make something up?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know, didn't you see the "?" mark?
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Come now, you were joking, right? Making up a funny? Good one.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Hey Marine you have a wonderful Christmas. You to Q. And everyone else.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. You have an excellent Christmas as well along with everyone else.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
Here is Dawkins website supporting Global Warming.

Atheism is a money scam tied into liberal idealogies and faith along with man made Global warming as it seems! Atheism is no doubt a religion.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1073

Here are some arguements to man made Global Warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeGY8zb … re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9Ia … re=related
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh boy, conspiracy theories mixed with fallacies! Can't wait to hear those fairy tales.
  
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They are backed with logic faithful one. Just like science theories are "supposed" to be. Not for political persuasion.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now, that's funny! Bwahahahaha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is it false?
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The conspiracy theories or the fallacies?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Any of them? Are they false? Prove them false and stupid.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But, you did such a fine job of that already.
  reply report
62
sooner than laterposted 14 years ago
Bovine, I just read your profile. Are you building a character?
reply report
1. 59
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Be more specific.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
You, Q, stated this post was full of factual errors and mis-information in regards to Dawkins. Point it out.
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
Here is a video of the founder of the weather channel describing how Gore and the media has shut down him along with 30,000 scientist including 9,000 PHD's that say global warming is a political scam. lol What does he know, he's only the founder of the weather channel. He wants to sue Al Gore!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR3 … re=related
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, it sure is a good thing you don't use conspiracy theories as evidence to support your agenda.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What is my agenda? Prove """1""" of them wrong.
  reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago
Merry Christmas!
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Merry Christmas!
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
After looking over the thread, I find it pretty disturbing how so many "claimed" scientific logical atheist minds rule out possibility of a maker/creator when it can only be logically ruled in. I thought scientist are supposed to only count things as evidence based on what can be ruled out.

Who is the irrational one?
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  When you set up a fallacious premise by not defining your terms; ie. 'creator', and then fallaciously, not logically, rule it in, you're in the best position to make up your own "logic".
  
  That's merely your own lack of understanding science.
  
  Mirror, mirror, on the wall...
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. More accusations with no explanations behind them.
  
  Creator = Maker No Comprende? Not logical to you?
  
  lol Explain how I am wrong on my idea of science? It is ludacris for a scientist to say something is impossible when it can't be logically ruled out. They are making a faith based assumption if they say so. What is the science of a contradiction? It logically rules out anything that contradicts to find logical truth.
  
  Prove that a creator or maker isn't logical.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In order for me to understand whether it is logical or not would require an explanation from you, not a one word qualifier.
  
  The flaw in your argument is glaringly obvious, you haven't defined 'creator', but instead used a thesaurus.
  
  And the fact that a 'creator' is defined in so many different ways by so many cultures, religions and what have you, your premise becomes meaningless.
  
  Comprende?
  
  What scientist said impossible about what? Your vague generalizations are rather exactly that; vague.
  
  Huh?
  
  I could try if you would just stop laughing long enough to provide a definition and explanation.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My only premise is that a creator can't logically be ruled out. How do I define a creator or creation by more that what I already see? I see many things made/created in life. Anything else would be misleading because I don't know. Are you just fishing for me to write something irrational you can hop on? Are you looking for a hook?
  
  The leading atheist scientist's constantly contradict themselves. I can't make you watch the videos. They rule out possibility of creation one minute, then they whisper how little they know and admit creation can't be ruled out.
  reply report
  59
  Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your only premise is that a creator can't logically be ruled out?
  
  Great. So what is your conclusion?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Silly Elitist, Why would I have a conclusion when I learn something new everyday? There are many examples in life of things that are made/created.
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm looking for a definition and explanation of the term 'creator' by YOU, considering this term has many definitions according to a wide variety of beliefs. How many times do I have to explain this to you?
  
  So, it would appear that all you do is toss out the inane and ineffectual to bait others and make yourself look the fool.
  
  C'ya.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  lol, How do you ask me to define something when no defintions are absolute to me? The basic definition of a creator is someone that makes or creates something. I think you want more than a definition. I think you want me to list something that you can pick apart as irrational for being an assumption. How am I trying to bait someone for stating the logical and obvious? Are you sure you aren't the one baiting? Is it not logical to you that things are made and created?
  reply report
  54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Such a happy fellow you are, laughing inanely all the time.
  
  But, it would appear that we are actually getting somewhere now. Yes, that is exactly the point, there are no definitions that are absolute or even remotely close to being little more than vague and generalized.
  
  Someone? Who is that someone, exactly?
  
  Or, am I free to substitute a someone myself? I can therefore chose the someone in your definition to be an invisible, pink dragon that created the universe in a sneeze, or the someone is a Brhama who splits a lotus flower thus creating the universe, or any of a thousand versions of creationism one wishes to conjure or believe.
  
  You already did that and I pointed it out.
  
  Stating the vague and generalized is not the same as stating the logical and obvious. There is little of either in your premise.
  
  Perhaps, you don't know the meaning of baiting?
  
  Only if those things are asserted to be made or created by the vague and undefined.
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Insults are always the rotort of the intellectually ill equipped.

Most, who call themselves scientists and lefties, "Liberals". Don't have a clue as to how much the average American is on to them.

We know the lies, and more of your understandings and conclusions have been, and are being proven false everyday.

But instead of accepting this, and resolving the issue by use of honesty and integrity, and real science. They chose to call names and insult their opponents arguments, as though formulated and propagated by the village idiot.

As if only the left and "scientists" have the intellectual capacity to understand the "deep ligic" and "observational reasonings" and "conclusions", they have undertaken and formed, and claim their own devine knowledge from.

But you ask one to prove what he says and they all respond with attacks, personal and other-wise, and not evidence.

Speaks for itself. Doesn't it?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is hard for me to keep a logical mind when I see the hypocrisy and arrogance of some telling others of impossibilities as absolute when they can't rule them out. It is also ridiculous how many atheist and scientist claim logic over faith when it takes faith over logic to say the possibility of a maker or creation is irrational.
  reply report
59
Bovine Currencyposted 14 years ago
snore
reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Not all, but many of those who should be open minded above all else, are closed minded and blind to many of the realities they propose with their humanistic theories and equating of man to the animals and naturalism.

They would not like it much, I expect, if everyone acted as animals. They think there is a lot of war and barbarism now,... try the "we are animals and there is NO GOD route, and see how law and order, and life goes.

I bet they wouldn't like it.

And don't fall for the bait, Marine. They will never answer, because they cannot defend their falacious and idiotic assumptions and positions. It just a bunch of guesses and propaganda, and they know it. I feel bad for the people who have been so immersed in this lie that they cannot see the truth. No matter the facts you show them.

And I hope everyone is having a Merry Christmas.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is another aspect I do not understand is why many want to be on the same level as animals. We have the ability to use logic and reason while animals act on laws of nature not questioned by their "conscience". Our laws of nature are undefined and many scientist's try to define them as absolute, when absolutes are against most scientific thinking for not leaving any room for error. I agree, if we all acted as animals without conscious beliefs, I think chaos would be unlimited. You have an excellent Christmas as well TM!
  reply report
59
Bovine Currencyposted 14 years ago
But you only have one premise, right?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is actually a great question. If I did have only 1 premise, wouldn't it be more than those who believe creation is impossible since they can't rule creation out? I do have more than one premise, the separation of human mind and animal mind. Humans have the ability of rational thought and are dependent on belief while animals follow a course with possibly no need for belief. What is your belief and the premises of it?
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 14 years ago
Creator.-- The one who CREATED.

ie; As in the "origin" of space/time and the reality of this universe we exist within, and the origin of this life we live. Not just the physical aspects, but the "Soul" or "Spiritual" aspects of it also.

To answer the first, answers the second and third for many people. I would think that would be all they needed, or wanted. At least the Christians I know believe God created it, and that is good enough for them.

And I say if God created that, the universe and space time as an ephemeral concept, to stir us to awareness so we would then live, and not just exist, then he in effect created us.

I think that would work.
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who or what is the "one"?
  
  The origin of our universe is mere speculation at this point in time. The origin of life has evidence and is no longer just speculation.
  
  Sorry, but souls have never been shown to exist and cannot be used within the definition of the universe.
  
  But, that isn't an answer, it's just an unfounded belief, and unfounded beliefs aren't good enough for the inquiring mind. As well, you still haven't defined the "one"
  
  It doesn't work at all, it's simply accepting magic and ignorance in the face of the unknown. Superstitions would then rule your worldview.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "I think you want me to list something that you can pick apart as irrational for being an assumption. How am I trying to bait someone for stating the logical and obvious? Are you sure you aren't the one baiting?"
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 14 years ago
Q: The origin of our universe is mere speculation at this point in time. The origin of life has evidence and is no longer just speculation.

lol Everything is speculation depending on how much you believe it. The origin of life has no absolute for everyone, evidence or not. There are many things unexplained in the scientific theory or origin. To be facts, everything should be explained I believe.

Q: Sorry, but souls have never been shown to exist and cannot be used within the definition of the universe.

How are you not limiting thought if you keep ruling things out? Do you limit your mind to science book definitions? You think because something hasn't been shown to exist means it will never be shown to exist? Is this logical thinking to you?
reply report
1. 54
  (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Or, how much you understand it as opposed to belief.
  
  I think I just said that.
  
  There are a great deal of religious explanations to the origins of the universe.
  
  On behalf of the scientific community, I apologize in advance for not having all the answers readily available to the inquiring mind.
  
  Of course, one could simply hold tight to their local gospels if the need for affirmation is great.
  
  With a little forethought and a few sprinkles of logic, you could easily answer those questions yourself. Oh well...
  
  1. Logic would dictate that if you don't rule out any one particular invisible and undetectable entity, you must include any and all invisible and undetectable entities that can be conjured from the imagination.
  
  2. As opposed to made up definitions?
  
  3. When you or anyone else can demonstrate their existence claims of those invisible and undetectable entities, we can then have the conversation of including them in our definitions of the universe. If you don't understand why, see answer to question 1.
  
  4. Logical thinking does not include wishy-washy hand-waving, making up definitions or excluding them altogether, withdrawing to mongering the mysterious, the magical, the myth or the superstition. It is a system of reasoning.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Explain Creation without a Creator

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Explain Creation without a Creator

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies