Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[sealybobo]

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

 

[BreezeWood]

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

.

In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.


the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.

.
we are star stuff


I agree, that was not the issue what is the guidance for life present in the genome ...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

 

[Czernobog]

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.

 

[Czernobog]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.

so what created the endless cycle you describe? what created the matter/whatever within the cycle?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

 

[sealybobo]

Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension, I'll let you take time to do a bit of study, and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question. How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.

How does this prove god exists?

It won't for you. Nothing will.

True. At this point I see no evidence. All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists. Fear of the afterlife won't convince me. Wishful thinking won't. Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe. Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite. If it makes you a better person doesn't matter. Because most people believe doesn't move me. In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

.

In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.

genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.


the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.

I don't know about all that but what amazes me is how small a micro animal is and yet they have all the animal parts we have even though they are tiny. And then we think we are so big or our planet is so big but compared to other planets our planet is tiny. And our sun is a tiny sun. In the grand scheme of things we are nothing in a sea of life. We are just too far away to see it and we aren't smart enough to detect it or go visit it.

 

[sealybobo]

He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy. Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end. As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God. Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

 

[sealybobo]

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

So you like it that religion gives you an answer that doesn't make sense and can't be proven? That makes you comfortable?

We can figure out what the original cause is but not why the original cause. Heck, we might even be able to answer that but not what the purpose is.

 

[pinqy]

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"

Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.

No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?

 

[Czernobog]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.

so what created the endless cycle you describe? what created the matter/whatever within the cycle?

It was converted from energy. And before you ask, the energy came fromt he conversion of matter, which was converted from energy, etcetera. You seem to think that there had to be an outside force that created one, or the other. Why? What is your evidence to support this claim?

 

[Czernobog]

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

You are preseming that there was an "original cause", or that one was necessary. And your support for this claim is...?

 

[sealybobo]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.

so what created the endless cycle you describe? what created the matter/whatever within the cycle?

We don't know. Maybe our universe was born because we are at the other end of a black hole? Maybe an old universe on the other side of that black hole is what created our current universe. And maybe a black hole in their universe created them. And maybe if you went into a black hole in our universe eventually you would end up in another universe.

Was there ever a universe before our universe? If our universe is 14 billion years old, what was happening 300 years before our big bang? What was god doing before our big bang?

 

[Czernobog]

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms. The universe is cyclical. Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.

so what created the endless cycle you describe? what created the matter/whatever within the cycle?

We don't know. Maybe our universe was born because we are at the other end of a black hole? Maybe an old universe on the other side of that black hole is what created our current universe. And maybe a black hole in their universe created them. And maybe if you went into a black hole in our universe eventually you would end up in another universe.

Was there ever a universe before our universe? If our universe is 14 billion years old, what was happening 300 years before our big bang? What was god doing before our big bang?

I will never understand why Theists need everything to be all wrapped up in a nice little bow, regardless of how irrational it is. They are absoutlely terrified by, "I don't know" as a response to anything. Personally, I find "I don't know" to be one of the most exciting phrases in existence. Because it invites us to explore, and try to find out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. I do not claim the universe must have an end. Just that it is finite.

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)

 

[sealybobo]

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3cm at a power of 700 W produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}

real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Ad your point? The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

You are preseming that there was an "original cause", or that one was necessary. And your support for this claim is...?

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. The zero-energy universe states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing, assuming such a zero-energy universe is, already, nothing. Such a universe would need to be flat, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error.

Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, define nothing as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles. This is different from the philosophical conception of nothing, which has no inherent properties, and is not governed by physical laws.

Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.

The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a First Cause exists, not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

 

[sealybobo]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)

No you stupid little fuck! For god sakes have you not been listening?

I DON'T KNOW according to Atheists.

MUST BE A GOD THAT DID IT according to stupid superstitious ignorant primitive theists.

Hold on everyone. Eagle is about to tell us why we exist!

 

[sealybobo]

Now you are just playing semantics. Okay. Let's play it your way. Finite, but without beginning, or end. Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?

No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.

So, lemme get this straight. You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning? Really? That is your contention? Care to explain how that works? You are suggesting that it is only finite in one direction, but, in the other direction it is infinite. So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, and infinite. Neat trick...

massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?

I don't know, what?

God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)

You believing you are a god who will live forever in a place called heaven after you die and never get sick or never be unhappy is pretty crazy. And thinking your grandparents are waiting for you there. Are you a child?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'

Ok. and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"

Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.

No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details. Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?

"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God? 'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....

also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world? scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...