Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[RWS]

Why? Because you say so?

Your argument doesn't hold water. So there is nothing to disprove. Straw man argument.

The fact that this universe exists, means that the physics and science in this universe exists.

Now that may be "god" or some universal intellect, but it certainly isn't a "God" from a religion that we made up some 13+ billion years later after the big bang, and where we should be killing each other over it to this day.

I agree that the way particles interact with each other in this universe, is perfect for our survival, otherwise we wouldn't be here arguing about it.

 

[Boss]

Why? Because you say so?

Your argument doesn't hold water. So there is nothing to disprove. Straw man argument.

The fact that this universe exists, means that the physics and science in this universe exists.

Now that may be "god" or some universal intellect, but it certainly isn't a "God" from a religion that we made up some 13+ billion years later after the big bang, and where we should be killing each other over it to this day.

I agree that the way particles interact with each other in this universe, is perfect for our survival, otherwise we wouldn't be here arguing about it.

I didn't claim physics in this universe didn't exist... how moronic.

Again, this is an unsolved physics problem. There are 6 dimensionless physical constants. There are another few dozen weights, ratios, variables and forces which must be as they are for a physical universe equipped for life to exist. There is no physics answer to why we have a finely tuned universe. You can certainly say... well, we just do! But, you see, that's not science or how science questions are ever resolved.

I'm not here to argue theology with you and I haven't claimed this proves God created the universe. I'm merely suggesting the possibility of a creative force. Obviously, that would explain a lot.

 

[Soupnazi630]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

Um no.

Many atheists do wish to have some sort of contact with extra Terrestrial life. Or to discover it in some fashion even if only microbes.

Most atheists know that such a significant discovery will tell us nothing one way or the other about the god myths.
Sagan never said there must be life on other worlds he addressed the probability of life on other worlds. He did so because he was a scientist and wanted to discover the unknown.

We are almost certainly not alone and science is in fact teaching us this an yes there is science backing up this claim.

 

[mamooth]

We do know that.

Because you say so? Not a very impressive argument, though we're used to seeing you use it as your only argument.

I would LOVE to see your evidence that universes MUST adhere to any given principle, law, variable, constant or parameter in physics.

Pi, for example, has to be what it is.

And I only needed one counterexample to destroy you absolutist claim.

You're in a much more difficul position than I. All I have to is point out "We don't know", and my position wins, because that only leaves you with "God of the gaps" nonsense. You have to absolutely prove that all physical constants can vary to make your case. You haven't even tried. You've just waved your arms and declared it must be so. Thus, it's clear you have nothing.

What your argument is reduced to is "it just so happens to be that way, therefore, it has to be that way!"

No, my argument is nothing like that. My argument is that your claims that any constant can vary to any degree is unproven and has no evidence to support it, and in some cases in clearly false. Hence, your claim is incorrect. My claim is "We don't know, so we can't draw any conclusions in this area".

 

[Boss]

We do know that.

Because you say so? Not a very impressive argument, though we're used to seeing you use it as your only argument.

I would LOVE to see your evidence that universes MUST adhere to any given principle, law, variable, constant or parameter in physics.

Pi, for example, has to be what it is.

And I only needed one counterexample to destroy you absolutist claim.

You're in a much more difficul position than I. All I have to is point out "We don't know", and my position wins, because that only leaves you with "God of the gaps" nonsense. You have to absolutely prove that all physical constants can vary to make your case. You haven't even tried. You've just waved your arms and declared it must be so. Thus, it's clear you have nothing.

What your argument is reduced to is "it just so happens to be that way, therefore, it has to be that way!"

No, my argument is nothing like that. My argument is that your claims that any constant can vary to any degree is unproven and has no evidence to support it, and in some cases in clearly false. Hence, your claim is incorrect. My claim is "We don't know, so we can't draw any conclusions in this area".

Physicists have been struggling with this paradox for literally centuries. It's not "god of the gaps nonsense" because it's physics. You can go to Youtube and find pages of videos on the subject, it's certainly not just because I say so.

I never said I could prove physical constants can vary in other universes... I can't even prove there are other universes!

In a chaotic random universe, there shouldn't be this precise set of fundamental dimensionless physical constants. (Like the ratio between strong nuclear force and electromagnetism.) Physics is usually able to calculate things and produce accurate solutions. However, it constantly confronts problems with the cosmos that can't be resolved unless you apply some dimensionless physical constant... then suddenly, the math works!

It's like, if you tried to calculate 1+1 and the result produced 1.998 instead of 2. That's obviously not correct, but you then apply this invisible and mysterious "constant" of .002 and viola... you get your correct answer. There shouldn't BE a constant... 1+1 should just logically equal 2... but it doesn't unless you factor in the constant. Obviously, this is a very simplistic analogy but we're not physics majors here. It's a lot more complex on the cosmological level but the point is the same.

For the record, I agree with you... We do not know! That IS my position here. I am countering the argument that we DO know and a Creator has been ruled out by physics. Or the argument that things are how they are "just because they are!" To me, that in particular, is an argument that is the antithesis of scientific discovery. It's not any different than the "god of the gaps" argument.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
large scale heavenly bodies all exist as spheres ... proves there is an Apex to knowledge, everything is accountable. and also proves the physiological is not by chance but destined same as planets when the elements are so arranged for that purpose. nothing extraordinary in the creation of life than the life itself.

 

[Boss]

As for your analogy with the cake I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence. But the same logic stands, I can't know if there is another cake anywhere, until I have found it. As for your talk of a creator; it's not simply that the planets spontaneously came into existence, there are forces in Space, Gravity, all matter has mass and attracts other mass to it, this causes matter to bind together, pressure to build up, temperature to shift. During the right circumstances, that cake could simply put itself together.

Reading this again, I realized you misinterpreted the analogy. The house represents the universe. The table represents the Earth. We don't know if other houses exist or if any cakes exist in the rest of the house. Unless we search every square inch of the house, we can't conclude there are no more cakes. And there are vast areas of the house that we are incapable of searching at this time.

What we know is, there is a cake on the table and there are ingredients to make a cake in the house. Yes, it is possible the cake spontaneously created itself, however, we cannot reproduce conditions by which this happens in any kind of experiment so far. Finding another cake in the house doesn't answer the creator question. We are still left with the same unanswerable question and it can never be answered. All we can do is use our reasoning and then have faith in what we reasoned.

 

[MarkDuffy]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

They rather to believe in an invisible made-up aliens, rather than to believe in God. But then they calls Christians crazy lunatics..

What we find funny, is you believe in an alien God, then deny aliens exist.

So which is it?

 

[MarkDuffy]

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a race that was 'Jewish'. Semitic is a language group, not a race. Science shows there is only one race of humans today.

While this is true in a biological sense, ie every human can interbreed and produce viable offspring (we are all one species), the concept of race is a population with semi-unique haplotypes. A good example is using your genetics to give you an idea of where your ancestors came from as Ancestry.com does.

The modern term for races is ethnicity if you want to get picky.

Jewish falls in this mix. You can call it a race or ethnicity.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Before we get to the question of life elsewhere, we have to objectively take a step back and try to figure out how life originated here. As much as we believe we know about the universe, we still cannot answer that basic fundamental question of origin. How did life begin? There have been many theories over the ages but none have ever been proven. Abiogenesis remains a theory. It contradicts biogenesis (life comes from life).

In the 21st century we know lots of things. We have very smart scientists working on this question. We know what the building blocks are for life to exist but we cannot determine how it started. No one has ever combined inorganic materials to create life. State of the art labs and technology at our fingertips. The ability to simulate endless condition variables. Testing relentlessly, every possibility we can imagine.... nothing has been produced.

We have to, at some point, realize that origination of life itself is clearly not easy, casual, random.. whatever word you want to use. It's not something that just happens. If it were, we would have surely stumbled upon HOW by now. This question of origin remains a mystery to us in spite of all our theories and speculations.

Of course, our universe is full of the materials which life is created from. Still, we don't see life in abundance everywhere, even though the materials are there. Some will say, well you have to maintain certain conditions for life to exist and this is true, however, we still don't know how living things originate. Even with the right conditions, indeed, even with state of the art laboratories and critically controlled environments to play with and years upon years of testing and experimenting. Still... nothing. For all intents and purposes, it appears that life comes from life... and that's it. So how does it start?

Until that question is answered, it's kind of pointless to speculate life exists elsewhere in the universe.

There is a lot wrong with this post. Whether or not we understand the origin of life has nothing to do with whether or not non-terrestrial life exists. Again, creating life in the lab is difficult when we cannot smash a million years of randomness into a week.

The DNA molecule was only structured in 1953, 64 years ago. This is now the world of advanced science and big labs require big bucks. Test tube science no longer occurs. There are not as many doing origin research as you might think.

As far as your we don't see life elsewhere, we have not looked. Telescopes and space probes cannot see microbes, nor cities. We need soil samples from many locations on Mars & even then we have the problem of fossilization. Mars is not good for that.

Part of the problem apparently is the life = aliens. Science believes life is almost everywhere. Human-level "advanced" life should be rare.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I can think about it, but I'm not overly impressed with large numbers.

Yolu should, Because they are really large. Huge. Not comprehensible.

What does impress me is that in this very large universe, not one alien civilization, NOT ONE, has contacted our planet or left any evidence here that they ever came to visit.

What that tells me is that the most probable conclusion is that there are NO alien civilizations out there, because if there were only one in a trillion chance of there being an alien civilization around a star, we would have gobs of visitors by now.

Well, that's a consequence of the large numbers above, which don't impress you.
1. Distance. Laws of physics apply to them, too. So nobody out there will ever stop by for a short visit. Never. The next star, Alpha Centauri, is about 4,5 light years away from us. So even if it had a planet, which is not the case, and it would have a civilisation that is able to travel interstellar space, they would need possibly decades to come here,
Not considered that somebody traveling 1/10 the speed of light has to push the breaks in time.

2. Time. Civilizations are not created, they evolve. Like ours. The question is, when. Here it was 4,5 billion years after the earth had formed. In a universe that is around 13 billion years old. And we are able to send signals out there since around 100 years? So another civilisation further away than 100 lightyears would not know that here some stupid chimps do not believe they exist.
If it would exist now. Possibly it could already gone extinct, or just learning to make fire.

3. Be happy that nobody stops by.
Civilisations able to do that would be in an intelligence comparison to us like we are to ants.
The would be able to bend spacetime. Maybe that would not impress you. It would impress me, for sure.

In addition, what do they expect for evidence of alien visitation of earth in the past? Pyramids? Metal does not last long. I would expect evidence to go poof and that aliens only did come to visit for only a short time.

Our civilization goes back to what about 2-3000 BC with the invention of writing. That is only 5000 years of history and even then it was a tiny percentage of the planet with civilization.

Like the backpacker's law ~ Take only pictures and leave only footprints.

Yes, we left a mess every time we visited the moon, but we were rookies. I don't expect interstellar voyagers to be so rookish. They might even have a Star Trek Prime Directive.

 

[Boss]

Before we get to the question of life elsewhere, we have to objectively take a step back and try to figure out how life originated here. As much as we believe we know about the universe, we still cannot answer that basic fundamental question of origin. How did life begin? There have been many theories over the ages but none have ever been proven. Abiogenesis remains a theory. It contradicts biogenesis (life comes from life).

In the 21st century we know lots of things. We have very smart scientists working on this question. We know what the building blocks are for life to exist but we cannot determine how it started. No one has ever combined inorganic materials to create life. State of the art labs and technology at our fingertips. The ability to simulate endless condition variables. Testing relentlessly, every possibility we can imagine.... nothing has been produced.

We have to, at some point, realize that origination of life itself is clearly not easy, casual, random.. whatever word you want to use. It's not something that just happens. If it were, we would have surely stumbled upon HOW by now. This question of origin remains a mystery to us in spite of all our theories and speculations.

Of course, our universe is full of the materials which life is created from. Still, we don't see life in abundance everywhere, even though the materials are there. Some will say, well you have to maintain certain conditions for life to exist and this is true, however, we still don't know how living things originate. Even with the right conditions, indeed, even with state of the art laboratories and critically controlled environments to play with and years upon years of testing and experimenting. Still... nothing. For all intents and purposes, it appears that life comes from life... and that's it. So how does it start?

Until that question is answered, it's kind of pointless to speculate life exists elsewhere in the universe.

There is a lot wrong with this post. Whether or not we understand the origin of life has nothing to do with whether or not non-terrestrial life exists. Again, creating life in the lab is difficult when we cannot smash a million years of randomness into a week.

The DNA molecule was only structured in 1953, 64 years ago. This is now the world of advanced science and big labs require big bucks. Test tube science no longer occurs. There are not as many doing origin research as you might think.

As far as your we don't see life elsewhere, we have not looked. Telescopes and space probes cannot see microbes, nor cities. We need soil samples from many locations on Mars & even then we have the problem of fossilization. Mars is not good for that.

Part of the problem apparently is the life = aliens. Science believes life is almost everywhere. Human-level "advanced" life should be rare.

I think discovery of origin is very fundamental in helping answer the question of whether life exists elsewhere. We know the elements of life exist elsewhere but that doesn't mean life exists.

If we can't recreate origin in a controlled lab environment, how are we to assume it happened randomly by chance? That makes no rational sense whatsoever.

DNA existed before we discovered it. I know that detail might blow your mind but even back when Aristotle was trying to figure shit out, DNA existed. It also might interest you to know that many of Darwin's speculations about origin have been proven invalid by the discovery of DNA. Not ALL, but many.

DNA is very intriguing because it's essentially high-end computer processing code. It's remarkable we find it naturally occurring in every living thing. Think of how much computer space it would require to document every single detail about each of the trillions of cells in your body. That information is contained in every strand of DNA. The question remains, from where did this originate?

Uhm... yes, we have looked for life elsewhere. It's basically all we do in exploration of space. Science doesn't "BELIEVE" things... that's not Science! That is called FAITH! Science examines probability of possibility through observation and falsification.

 

[RWS]

Very nice discussion folks.

I understand the incredibly small chances of a universe existing, where all the forces work in the way they do, to allow a universe like ours.

But it is a certainty that it will happen. And will happen more than once.

How universes are created is probably due to an energy field that we cannot detect yet. And just as particles are created out of this field, and pop in and out of existence constantly, so can universes pop in and out constantly.

Now the term "universe" is widely used, but it just means a sustainable system. How long it is sustainable to qualify for the term "universe" is up for grabs. Our universe is actually not sustainable, and expanding rapidly and will eventually fade away. Since the math required to keep us stable, says that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and our atoms and sub-particles will eventually separate, we're doomed. Our universe is not a sustainable system. It's just going to last a certain amount of time before it fades away. Some universes can last micro-seconds, some can last longer than ours. But our universe certainly doesn't have the correct ratios to sustain ourselves for eternity. Only for a length of time.

So our universe is not perfect. It's perfect enough to last for the amount of time it will last. But that time will end. So it cannot have been perfectly and intelligently created, since we wouldn't have an end-date if it was intelligently and perfectly created. The math for the perfectly sustainable universe does not apply to our universe.

Plus, the idea of an intelligent creator then brings up the obvious questions of where that creator came from.

This universe is the consequence of chance. There are probably almost-infinitely more that have lasted longer or shorter.

Where this grand "energy field" exists, and how it came about, is the closest thing I can think of to "god".

But that "god" is certainly not affecting our human day-to-day lives and decisions. That's stuff we created in our minds to try to explain stuff before modern science could.

There is a lot we need to learn yet. And we have to give ourselves enough time to learn it. Following fatalistic religions and philosophies is not helping in that regard. We need to chill out and learn more, and work together.

And aliens visiting us wouldn't hurt to increase our knowledge million-folds.

 

[K9Buck]

Very nice discussion folks.

I understand the incredibly finite chances of a universe existing, where all the forces work in the way they do, to allow a universe like ours.

But it is a certainty that it will happen. And will happen more than once.

How universes are created is probably due to an energy field that we cannot detect yet. And just as particles are created out of this field, and pop in and out of existence constantly, so can universes pop in and out constantly.

Now the term "universe" is widely used, but it just means a sustainable system. Our universe is expanding and will eventually fade away. Since the math required to keep us stable, says that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and our atoms and sub-particles will eventually separate. Our universe is not a sustainable system. It's just going to last a certain amount of time before it fades away.

So this universe is not perfect. It's perfect enough to last for the amount of time it will last. But that time will end. So it cannot have been perfectly and intelligently created, since we wouldn't have an end-date if it was intelligently and perfectly created. The math for the perfectly sustainable universe is wrong for our universe.

Plus, the idea of an intelligent creator then brings up the obvious questions of where that creator came from.

This universe is the consequence of chance. There are probably almost-infinitely more that have lasted longer or shorter.

Where this grand "energy field" exists, and how it came about, is the closest thing I can think of to "god".

But that "god" is certainly not affecting our human day-to-day lives and decisions. That's stuff we created in our minds to try to explain stuff before modern science could.

There is a lot we need to learn yet. And we have to give ourselves enough time to learn it. Following fatalistic religions and philosophies is not helping in that regard. We need to chill out and learn more, and work together.

And aliens visiting us wouldn't hurt to increase our knowledge thousand-folds.

Something or someone had to get it all started. Or perhaps you believe stuff comes from nothing.

 

[Hyddan92]

Sure, the universe might not be endless, but as far as we know it has no border, we cannot see the end, we can not notice it, so for us it might as well be endless. In the same manner as ancient men looked over the ocean and thought of it as endless we look out into Space. Now we know that the oceans were not endless, but the people back then didn't know that, they couldn't know that just as we now can't know that the Universe is not endless. And until we find out, for all intents and purposes of anything we can understand it is endless and everything in it is infinite. We simply can't consider anything else. Without information we are simply guessing.

As for your analogy with the cake I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence. But the same logic stands, I can't know if there is another cake anywhere, until I have found it. As for your talk of a creator; it's not simply that the planets spontaneously came into existence, there are forces in Space, Gravity, all matter has mass and attracts other mass to it, this causes matter to bind together, pressure to build up, temperature to shift. During the right circumstances, that cake could simply put itself together.

It's interesting that you cite principles of physics as if these are simply rules that exist because they exist. The problem is, when we objectively evaluate physics, none of the parameters of physics HAS to exist. There are at least 40 cosmological constants which have to be precise in order for even a physical universe to exist and there is nothing in physics to indicate universes must contain these constants. Since physics can't explain this, we entertain the theory of multiple universes. This is the notion that an endless number of universes exist and ours just happens to be one with the right cosmological constants. Problem is, that's not really valid science because we can never evaluate or test the hypothesis. Therefore, it becomes something we can basically categorize in the same realm as belief in God.

I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence.

Really? Based on what exactly? Let me help you... it's called FAITH.

The ONLY way you can know for certain another cake exists is to discover another cake. If not, you can only speculate one MIGHT exist. IF you could explain how a cake spontaneously created itself, that would certainly support the idea that another cake does likely exist somewhere. However, I am using the cake in the analogy because we already know that cakes cannot spontaneously create themselves. Is it possible? Yes, everything is possible. It's just not probable. In fact, the more we observe and examine it, the more improbable we find it to be that cakes can spontaneously create themselves. Much more likely is the probability the cake had some creative force. Much the same is true with life.

It has always fascinated me about science, that every time science believes it is about to uncover the hidden secrets to origin, it inevitably uncovers more evidence of a Creator. It has happened over and over again, much to the chagrin of atheist scientists.

they couldn't know that just as we now can't know that the Universe is not endless.

Except we DO know the universe is not endless... if we believe in physics.

Now... the universe is HUGE. Make no mistake. There are billions and billions of galaxies. Our solar system is just a minor blip in one small galaxy. The next closest galaxy to us is thousands of light years away. Just over 100 years ago, we believed our galaxy was ALL the universe. So we are still very naive in terms of what we know about our universe.

All that said, what we do know, because of physics, is that the universe is not infinite. This was settled by physicists in Copenhagen in the early 1900s. Early skeptics of the idea that our universe is not infinite or eternal are responsible for creating the term "Big Bang" which was actually a ridicule of the idea that the universe had a beginning.

Really? Based on what exactly? Let me help you... it's called FAITH.

No it's not it's called "I found evidence of a second cake so now I know there's at least two in existence.

The analogy of cakes is kinda stupid, however let's go with it a bit more. I believe that the one cake in the house is created by a creator, obviously, I have never seen a cake suddenly just being. The reason for this is ofc that I know how to make cakes, I have made them myself, I'm a creator, a mystical mighty force beyond the simple understanding of the mind of a mere cake. I also know that no one force in the world makes all of the cakes, it's kind of a popular thing cakes you see so I pretty much know that there are not just a single one in our existence.

However I have never seen gods float around making Planets, nor eating them, nor inviting other gods over for a birthday party serving lots of delicious planets to each other. Yet if we follow your analogy I'm a god that just found a planet I have not made, I guess if I were a god and are used to making planets myself I wouldn't be that surprised over the existence of just another planet.

However I wouldn't be the person watching the cake, not the god watching a planet. I would be some kind of microbe somewhere on the cake not being able to understand anything, I wouldn't know about the gods and creation, I would'nt be able to understand the mere concept of a cake nor a human so your little analogy makes absolutely no sense.

So even if there are gods out there creating planets for fun as you seem to believe I'ts completely unprovable to us, so I think I can discard the silly idea without much remorse.


"It has always fascinated me about science, that every time science believes it is about to uncover the hidden secrets to origin, it inevitably uncovers more evidence of a Creator. It has happened over and over again, much to the chagrin of atheist scientists."

Really? Like what? When has hard evidence of a creator ever been uncovered?

 

[Hyddan92]

Very nice discussion folks.

I understand the incredibly finite chances of a universe existing, where all the forces work in the way they do, to allow a universe like ours.

But it is a certainty that it will happen. And will happen more than once.

How universes are created is probably due to an energy field that we cannot detect yet. And just as particles are created out of this field, and pop in and out of existence constantly, so can universes pop in and out constantly.

Now the term "universe" is widely used, but it just means a sustainable system. Our universe is expanding and will eventually fade away. Since the math required to keep us stable, says that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and our atoms and sub-particles will eventually separate. Our universe is not a sustainable system. It's just going to last a certain amount of time before it fades away.

So this universe is not perfect. It's perfect enough to last for the amount of time it will last. But that time will end. So it cannot have been perfectly and intelligently created, since we wouldn't have an end-date if it was intelligently and perfectly created. The math for the perfectly sustainable universe is wrong for our universe.

Plus, the idea of an intelligent creator then brings up the obvious questions of where that creator came from.

This universe is the consequence of chance. There are probably almost-infinitely more that have lasted longer or shorter.

Where this grand "energy field" exists, and how it came about, is the closest thing I can think of to "god".

But that "god" is certainly not affecting our human day-to-day lives and decisions. That's stuff we created in our minds to try to explain stuff before modern science could.

There is a lot we need to learn yet. And we have to give ourselves enough time to learn it. Following fatalistic religions and philosophies is not helping in that regard. We need to chill out and learn more, and work together.

And aliens visiting us wouldn't hurt to increase our knowledge thousand-folds.

Something or someone had to get it all started. Or perhaps you believe stuff comes from nothing.

Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?

 

[Hyddan92]

As for your analogy with the cake I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence. But the same logic stands, I can't know if there is another cake anywhere, until I have found it. As for your talk of a creator; it's not simply that the planets spontaneously came into existence, there are forces in Space, Gravity, all matter has mass and attracts other mass to it, this causes matter to bind together, pressure to build up, temperature to shift. During the right circumstances, that cake could simply put itself together.

Reading this again, I realized you misinterpreted the analogy. The house represents the universe. The table represents the Earth. We don't know if other houses exist or if any cakes exist in the rest of the house. Unless we search every square inch of the house, we can't conclude there are no more cakes. And there are vast areas of the house that we are incapable of searching at this time.

What we know is, there is a cake on the table and there are ingredients to make a cake in the house. Yes, it is possible the cake spontaneously created itself, however, we cannot reproduce conditions by which this happens in any kind of experiment so far. Finding another cake in the house doesn't answer the creator question. We are still left with the same unanswerable question and it can never be answered. All we can do is use our reasoning and then have faith in what we reasoned.

Ah yeah, the cake is life, the table is a planet. I did missunderstaad that. Well we know that atoms binds together into molecules that binds together into larger macro-molecules which creates stuff like acids, protein DNA etc. which eventually builds up into Cells. Simplified greatly ofc. So the question here is how and why?

We know how, but we can't replicate it yet, so I guess we don't know exaclty how, we know in theory not in practice

Why? Well idk, nobody knows. I don't think that's really somewthing that can be answered.

 

[BreezeWood]

So our universe is not perfect. It's perfect enough to last for the amount of time it will last. But that time will end.

time will never end for the matter and energy that makeup the universe even through (the) cycles the basic components remain the same.

perfection is in the eye of the beholder, Sabbath is another word for perfection, deemed a perfect completion on the seventh day when life first began on Earth ... that mechanism for life requires two components the physiology and its narrative or Spirit the latter of which the same as the basic components may last forever for whomever may capture its presence and exist without the physiological component. would then be a god.

 

[K9Buck]

time will never end for the matter and energy that makeup the universe even through (the) cycles the basic components remain the same.

The universe and all the matter and energy in it WILL come to an end if and when the creator deletes the program, entiendes?

 

[K9Buck]

Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?[/QUOTE]

That's not how our universe works. Now, if you believe in magic, then I guess it does. In my experience, creations have a creator, whether it be a sand castle at the beach, the Statue of Liberty or the universe. I believe in science, not mythology.