origin of life...

[falcon9]

You're insights have been missed, QoN.

HOW DO YOU THINK EXISTENCE STARTED?

ZzzzzZz...really, this one again?

It does seem to be a cyclic, steady-state question however, this time a 'simple' fractal/multi-dimensional/chaos/superstring/emergence theory was introduced to counter dubious "intelligent-design" speculations.

i don't understand how something could come out of nothing ...

Something didn't come out of nothing if we're tracing back to the Big Bang.  Your confusion stems from the fact that you are clearly not educated on this matter.  There was a singularity that contained all of the matter of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.  That sure ain't "nothing"!

Presumably, the counter is that such begs the question of where the singularity came from; which brings us back to fractal/multi-dimensional/chaos/superstring/emergence theories and cyclic multi-verses.

...or how a god could just be there

Exactly.  Kudos to you for realizing the double standard religious people have when it comes to this issue.  It's okay for god to have always existed, but not some form of universe(s)?!  And all of the evidence lies with the latter as actually being plausible...

i've heard that ppl can come from the stars like the stars contain the elements of life ...

There's not much difference between you and the desk in front of you; it's just a different configuration of atoms!  And yes, you "share" atoms with the stars, dinosaur poop, Hitler...when you die, the atoms that made you up don't.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss

...in the nothingness how could the conditions become right for life...

1. We've established that the term "nothingness" is a fallacy.  2. Do you really think that out of BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of galaxies, none would be hospitable for life?  It may be a "small world", but it's NOT a "small universe", after all!

how he can send ppl to hell for eternity if the world is just made up by him seems too harsh for a pointless made up world...

Never forget this.  Anyone who gives a few moments of thought to the whole "hell" bit will ultimately come away repulsed by religion.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry

like culdnt god have made himself nonexistent if he was just there so nothing had to exist and possibly suffer?

You're forgetting that the Christian god is a  d i c k  who breaks all sorts of rules of logic, so no.  (But really, yes: http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm)

...like what if its really bad being trapped for eternity in your mind or consicousness or your existence never ending?

Uh, yeah, it would be.  NEVER getting to die?  Now that's "hell"...unless your lord offers lobotomies.

HOW CAN YOU BE CONFIDENT YOU JUST DIE AND DONT GO ANYWHERE? please help

Because as dear ol' Mark Twain once said: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."   

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain

[Falconer02]

That about says it all.

Perhaps you should learn more about something before posting uninformed nonsense.

[falcon9]

That about says it all.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/3188065543_593daf53dc.jpg

Perhaps you should learn more about something before posting nonsense, christian.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

[falcon9]

my big question QoN is that if we came from the singularity or what you are talking about... then where did that singularity come from? how could a singularity just be there?

That question was anticipated when I posted, 'Presumably, the counter is that such begs the question of where the singularity came from; which brings us back to fractal/multi-dimensional/chaos/superstring/emergence theories and cyclic multi-verses.'

"While speaking of origin of universe scientists believe that in the beginning there was nothing. Not even space existed. What existed was singularity with zero dimensions. What existed before that singularity is not at all known. Please note that no body knows what existed before singularity."

This is one of those "meta-questions"; 'how did the beginning begin?' However, positing a "super-singularity" is not equivalent to positing that
"g-ddidit", (unless one is redefining such a singularity as "g-d"), due to the fact that other singularities have been directly-observed and there's no similar tangible evidence that "g-d" has been observed.

[falcon9]

its like a never ending arguement it seems...

Until there's conclusive evidence, one way or the other, the debate will continue.

what could we do?
if its a singularity and before that something, maybe a god could of made that singularity but why would the god just be there...

There's no conclusive evidence to support speculations that "g-ddidit".  Conversely, there is conclusive evidence that singularities exist.

dang that sucks... i sure hope when i die nothing bad happens... i wish everything would just go away and then itd be okay but i would want everyone not to suffer ah
it seems its an open choice but either choice doesnt seem favorable... i just wish everyone had the choice not to exist!

Nihilism: it's not just for breakfast anymore?

"Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman

[queenofnines]

Our stereotypical atheist poster makes more sense than your ridiculous Christian one...

You're insights have been missed, QoN.

Why, thank you.  I have to refrain from having them eat up too much of my time. 

if its a singularity and before that something, maybe a god could of made that singularity but why would the god just be there...

I do think it's possible for the ingredients of universes to have always been around.  It's not that hard to wrap your brain around.  Whether they have always been around or not, it's not really important, in my opinion.  It doesn't change anything one way or another...you're still going to live a finite existence whether you know the answer to this question or not.  I think people who ask these questions are distracting from the real issue: that they're fearful regarding their own mortality.

i wish everything would just go away and then itd be okay but i would want everyone not to suffer ah

Well you're in luck, because all signs point to that being exactly what will happen (the "just going away" part).  Don't let religious loonies scare you with their hell crap.  It's downright shameful of them.

it seems its an open choice but either choice doesnt seem favorable... i just wish everyone had the choice not to exist!

There is no "choice" when you die.  We will all be gone forever.  I don't think it's scary ‐ just sad.

[falcon9]

Our stereotypical atheist poster makes more sense than your ridiculous Christian one...

Stereotypical - do you mean a falconeer or, a falcon? *chuckle*

You're insights have been missed, QoN.

Why, thank you.  I have to refrain from having them eat up too much of my time.  

That makes sense, (although I may have figured you two merely took a vacation).

if its a singularity and before that something, maybe a god could of made that singularity but why would the god just be there...

I do think it's possible for the ingredients of universes to have always been around.  It's not that hard to wrap your brain around.  Whether they have always been around or not, it's not really important, in my opinion.  It doesn't change anything one way or another...you're still going to live a finite existence whether you know the answer to this question or not.  I think people who ask these questions are distracting from the real issue: that they're fearful regarding their own mortality.

i wish everything would just go away and then itd be okay but i would want everyone not to suffer ah

Well you're in luck, because all signs point to that being exactly what will happen (the "just going away" part).  Don't let religious loonies scare you with their hell crap.  It's downright shameful of them.

The underLying concept of such religious proselytizations either doesn't make sense, (because it's basis is "belief/faith", which has no basis) or, is insidious, (because the purveyors of such proselytizations either intend to 'scare victims into believing' or, are attempting to 'feed a daemon they've misidentified as a benevolent g-d').

it seems its an open choice but either choice doesnt seem favorable... i just wish everyone had the choice not to exist!

There is no "choice" when you die.  We will all be gone forever.  I don't think it's scary ‐ just sad.

[queenofnines]

it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

Check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for lists of hundreds of different contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible.  Sure, you could still go on believing it, but it wouldn't be very wise to do so.  The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever boils down to critical thinking skills.

[Abrupt]

it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

Check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for lists of hundreds of different contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible.  Sure, you could still go on believing it, but it wouldn't be very wise to do so.  The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever boils down to critical thinking skills.

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.  It doesn't even seem that the most simple inclusions of any concordance or lexicon were even attempted.

Why wouldn't it be wise?

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

[falcon9]

it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

Check out the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for lists of hundreds of different contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible.  Sure, you could still go on believing it, but it wouldn't be very wise to do so.  The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever boils down to critical thinking skills.

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:

it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

As you are already aware that proving/disproving a negative assertions, (e.g., "prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist"), is a logical fallacy, no doubt that was quickly ignored in order to assert an ignorance/misunderstanding claim without evidence. Surely this wasn't done as a diversionary tactic of debate and that contextual aspect will soon be addressed by your arguments before tangential lexicons and such?

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

[Abrupt]

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:

it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

No.  I am saying that the link she referenced and it's conclusions are drawn out of an ignorance and lack of understanding.  When dealing with translations of texts it is minimal to at least use a concordance when studying the subject.  If one hasn't even taken that step then to draw conclusions about the subject is entirely ignorant.  The meanings of words often change over time (sometimes to even stray into nothing like they originally were:  e.g. "liberal" and "regulate").  Sometimes phrases and sayings of a time have particular relevance to something common, but when viewed from across the ages this meaning is lost and all you have left is an odd saying or phrase.

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

Well what I posed was my best version of a humorous conundrum and its construction was entirely deliberate.  Possibly I do not posses the sort of witty humor I wished to display, but my conceit does prevent me from dismissing such a possibility entirely as I gaze upon the classic lines of my pose.

[falcon9]

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:

it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

No.  I am saying that the link she referenced and it's conclusions are drawn out of an ignorance and lack of understanding.  When dealing with translations of texts it is minimal to at least use a concordance when studying the subject.  If one hasn't even taken that step then to draw conclusions about the subject is entirely ignorant.  The meanings of words often change over time (sometimes to even stray into nothing like they originally were:  e.g. "liberal" and "regulate").  Sometimes phrases and sayings of a time have particular relevance to something common, but when viewed from across the ages this meaning is lost and all you have left is an odd saying or phrase.

That's a tangential argument to which QoN may or may not elect to reply. My only comment on it for now is that your remarks contain the inherent assumption that some others are not aware that the meanings of words can change over time or, that even with many of those changes that QoN's point regarding underlying inconsistancies, absurdities and contractions remains valid, (even taking a concordance lexicon into account).

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

Well what I posed was my best version of a humorous conundrum and its construction was entirely deliberate.  Possibly I do not posses the sort of witty humor I wished to display, but my conceit does prevent me from dismissing such a possibility entirely as I gaze upon the classic lines of my pose.

So, it is but a side-stepping of the logical fallacy white elephant.  I see however, your statement that "I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills ..." contains another logical fallacy; internal inconsistency.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

[Abrupt]

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Are you implicitly suggesting that intelligent non-believers who read the same contradictory and absurd religious material that believers do are somehow more 'ignorant' and lack the ability to 'understand' than your average 'thumper?  That unwarranted assumption notwithstanding, QoN's response to the OP was in reply to this:

it seems like the bible hasn't been proven false and neither have the theories of the universe starting on its on... seems like its open to decide...

No.  I am saying that the link she referenced and it's conclusions are drawn out of an ignorance and lack of understanding.  When dealing with translations of texts it is minimal to at least use a concordance when studying the subject.  If one hasn't even taken that step then to draw conclusions about the subject is entirely ignorant.  The meanings of words often change over time (sometimes to even stray into nothing like they originally were:  e.g. "liberal" and "regulate").  Sometimes phrases and sayings of a time have particular relevance to something common, but when viewed from across the ages this meaning is lost and all you have left is an odd saying or phrase.

That's a tangential argument to which QoN may or may not elect to reply. My only comment on it for now is that your remarks contain the inherent assumption that some others are not aware that the meanings of words can change over time or, that even with many of those changes that QoN's point regarding underlying inconsistancies, absurdities and contractions remains valid, (even taking a concordance lexicon into account).

They are either aware and deliberately being dishonest or they are unaware and ignorant or they are lazy and deliberately being ignorant.  I don't care to speculate, but after viewing the effort that some put in to discredit so much I am often left wondering. 

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Any inherent self-conceits of yours aside, if you do possess "superior critical thinking skills (compared to most)", why were these not applied to the glaringly-obvious logical fallacy which sparked QoN's reply?  Surely such "critical thinking  skills" are not 'selectively-applied' to everything except your own religious beliefs?

Well what I posed was my best version of a humorous conundrum and its construction was entirely deliberate.  Possibly I do not posses the sort of witty humor I wished to display, but my conceit does prevent me from dismissing such a possibility entirely as I gaze upon the classic lines of my pose.

So, it is but a side-stepping of the logical fallacy white elephant.  I see however, your statement that "I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills ..." contains another logical fallacy; internal inconsistency.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

There is no side stepping involved.  I presented exactly what I wanted to exactly how I wanted to.  The puzzle is left to the reader.  Prove this internal inconsistency you speak of as I am curious to see it, because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  Of course you could mean something else, but your post makes me think it is something that should be obvious and I don't see anything else (but I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time).

[falcon9]

There is no side stepping involved.  I presented exactly what I wanted to exactly how I wanted to.  The puzzle is left to the reader. Prove this internal inconsistency you speak of as I am curious to see it ...

There isn't much to a "puzzle" which involves an attempt to divert attention away from the facts.  Those facts consist of your assertion to be both "a believer", (xtian), and to "have superior critical thinking skills". That assertion isn't being contending, (much). What is being contended
is an inherent implication that any such critical thinking skills are being fully-applied to those religious beliefs.  That contention includes a somewhat 'selective' application of critical thinking when it comes to such challenges to the basis of belief/faith being that for which there is no evidence.  Critical thinking would require that accurately attributible evidence support a contention, otherwise the logical conclusion is that the questionable contention of belief-without-evidence, (the basis - not the declaration), is specious.

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.
 

...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

Of course you could mean something else, but your post makes me think it is something that should be obvious and I don't see anything else (but I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time).

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

[Abrupt]

There is no side stepping involved.  I presented exactly what I wanted to exactly how I wanted to.  The puzzle is left to the reader. Prove this internal inconsistency you speak of as I am curious to see it ...

There isn't much to a "puzzle" which involves an attempt to divert attention away from the facts.  Those facts consist of your assertion to be both "a believer", (xtian), and to "have superior critical thinking skills". That assertion isn't being contending, (much). What is being contended
is an inherent implication that any such critical thinking skills are being fully-applied to those religious beliefs.  That contention includes a somewhat 'selective' application of critical thinking when it comes to such challenges to the basis of belief/faith being that for which there is no evidence.  Critical thinking would require that accurately attributible evidence support a contention, otherwise the logical conclusion is that the questionable contention of belief-without-evidence, (the basis - not the declaration), is specious.

Well the puzzle was meant in reference to my other statement (my attempt at a humorous conundrum).  I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief.  I know it was implied earlier by QoN that they were somehow incongruous in the same person.  To a simple thinker, that might be a conclusion that would come to regarding belief, but it would also apply to a multitude of other things such as any emotion and especially declarations of love.  Would QoN or you be lying to someone if you stated your love for them?  After all such a thing is completely impossible to prove and the implications of its substance are entirely irrational.  You know very well that there are other ways to puzzle solutions when certain data is limited or unknown and deduction is one of these methods.  To this day I question certain aspects and I try to find answers and develop an understanding regarding my belief.  I would share the most puzzling parts I have, but I know that would be foolish to do here. 

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.
 

...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

I found it quite easily dismissed actually.  Realize, though, your supposition is flawed as the original contention it is derived from is that critical thinking skills are 'missing' or maybe 'flawed' in those who believe, and not any direct application to the belief in particular.  Regardless I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief and I also cited a critical thinking skill that can solve for the unknown indirectly.  Even if they were not applied to the belief, the statement wouldn't be contradictory.  The logical error here is that you are making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated. 

Of course you could mean something else, but your post makes me think it is something that should be obvious and I don't see anything else (but I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time).

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

No, it was just a squirrel and now it is a spot, although it was indeed a terrible day for the squirrel.  I haven't salvaged a peach off my trees in years because of these clever thieves.  Now my garden is also at risk it seems.  I have tried owl and snake decoys, water bowls strategically placed for them, fencing and netting.  The only thing I haven't used is fox urine (too many dogs around my parts and here animals are kept free to do that) or bagging each cluster (might try that next year as it is too late this year).  In addition it seems that every woodpecker and bluejay and martin within 20 miles of me knows of the 'free meal' (I will not go offensive on the birds though so I have to try moving the owl decoy about a couple times a day I suppose).