How the Universe was created

[rufioag]

In my own belief, I believe that God created the Universe becuase God has the ability to create something out of nothing. But of course this my understanding that I have gained through the Bible. Now I have heard of the Big Bang Theory and i personally believe in it because I believe this was the method that God used to create the Universe. My question is, outside of Christianity, how does Science and other Religions explain how matter was created in the first place? And do people believe that the matter was never created but existed for all time? All in all this is one question and mainly points to my first.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

But of course this my understanding that I have gained through the Bible.

Lots of people use the Bible as an ammo depot for their own arguments. Which weapons did you pick?


My question is, outside of Christianity, how does Science and other Religions explain how matter was created in the first place?

My question to you is: Who created God, if he did exist? Because in my mind, saying that God created himself/ existed before time is just as absurd as saying that everything as always been here.

Now, if you want to use a truly religious argument, don't use any evidence and throw some "faith" crap against the wall. Then we can all watch how much of it sticks. OR: You can cite things and use evidence. Just remember that an argument without evidence is just an opinion.

[Pendragon]

My question to you is: Who created God, if he did exist? Because in my mind, saying that God created himself/ existed before time is just as absurd as saying that everything as always been here. Very interesting. And the Big Bang, that everything suddenly and for no particular apparent reason sprang into violent existence from—
Nowhere—
and nothing makes perfect sense? Hummmm. In my own opinion, if enough time is taken, some flaws will show up in almost any description of events that took place so long ago that no one was there to write things down, and we have to try to figure out just what did happen.


Now, if you want to use a truly religious argument, don't use any evidence and throw some "faith" crap against the wall. Then we can all watch how much of it sticks. OR: You can cite things and use evidence. Just remember that an argument without evidence is just an opinion.I will not say anything about whether you may be right or wrong. But is this really the way you wish to start an opposing view? To you the other's view may be worthless, as likewise yours may be to the other party. But it is worth something to someone. Call it wrong, mistaken, way off the wall, ludicrous—
but not crap. That really serves no purpose. And you seem rather intelligent, and a far better person than that. :nod:

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Ok, I see your point. I supposed I will ask questions and THEN shoot, not the other way around. I suppose it might be good to see other points of view. Honestly, I think a man named Jesus existed but I think he was no more than a glorified (no pun intended) rebel who was very popular. Anybody who had the balls to go up against the Roman Empire was cool back then, plus the whole "God" thing helped too. He made too many waves, pure and simple. That's why he was executed.

[ktd222]

My question is, outside of Christianity, how does Science and other Religions explain how matter was created in the first place? And do people believe that the matter was never created but existed for all time? All in all this is one question and mainly points to my first.

Boy, unless your a Cosmologist or Theoretical Physicist, I don't know if anyones opinion put on this thread will be correct relating to the origin of matter. You should watch one of those shows on The Science Channel about the cosmos; they can explain the origin of time, space, matter, better then I can ever do. Or you can try e-mailing Stephen Hawking for an explanation.

[trucks]

The ideas as to how the earth was made was changed last week by a man named
Neil Adams he is the artist that draws Bat Man Comics . Goggle his name look down
column on right see I think it says Expanding Earth Animation . He got me wondering
and figuring about what he has artistically explained .

[rufioag]

Umm...well darkclarity, I think you are missing the whole point of this thread. And you know what, I honestly dont know how God created the universe or how he has been around for all eternity. My whole point of this thread wasnt to have an arguement over how God was created but to have a discussion of inputs on how others see the Universe and how it was created.

[ktd222]

The ideas as to how the earth was made was changed last week by a man named
Neil Adams he is the artist that draws Bat Man Comics . Goggle his name look down
column on right see I think it says Expanding Earth Animation . He got me wondering
and figuring about what he has artistically explained .

does he have anything to support his ideas: facts, figures, anything?

[ShoutGrace]

My question to you is: Who created God, if he did exist? Because in my mind, saying that God created himself/ existed before time is just as absurd as saying that everything as always been here.

The key words here are "in my mind". Atheists have long since given up this train of thought. The very idea of the Christian God presupposes the concept that this God is all powerfull, all knowing, eternal. The God described in the Bible is the only real or imagined entity that could possibly be eternal and without cause. Philosophically speaking, your argument just doesn't hold up. God is so great because he puts an end to the seemingly endless line of "well what caused that?" "well what was there before that?". The road usually taken here is whether or not God takes up space, and how alternate dimensions (such as the one Heaven supposedly is in) work.


Now, if you want to use a truly religious argument, don't use any evidence and throw some "faith" crap against the wall. Then we can all watch how much of it sticks.

How erudite! And how very visual. I think your have presented your opinion quite persuasively.


OR: You can cite things and use evidence. Just remember that an argument without evidence is just an opinion.

I wonder how evidence works in your mind. The one bit of "material" evidence we have concerning the dating of the Universe comes from RedShift Dating (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_age.html).

I sometimes imagine what it takes to create something out of nothing. Creating space. Being alone in space and trying to create something as mundane as a rock; out of nothing. I think it must be very difficult. I then imagine what it is like to create an infinite number of galaxies, wherein are found white dwarves, wormholes, asteroid fields, and probably more amazing things we will never know about. I think maybe supernatural forces would be involved. It might take a Big Bang!

I also question why an all powerfull God couldn't be messing around with the Earth while the Universe is blasting around and doing whatever else it needs to do in the background. And whether or not God's creation methods couldn't account for RedShift / Carbon Dating (http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm) discrepencies. No scientist, archaeologist or astronomer can prove that the Earth is more than 7,000 years old. Nor should any Christian, Muslim, or Jew be afraid to defend that position.

Every argument concerning the origin of the Universe will be an opinion.


Ok, I see your point. I supposed I will ask questions and THEN shoot, not the other way around. I suppose it might be good to see other points of view. Honestly, I think a man named Jesus existed but I think he was no more than a glorified (no pun intended) rebel who was very popular. Anybody who had the balls to go up against the Roman Empire was cool back then, plus the whole "God" thing helped too. He made too many waves, pure and simple. That's why he was executed.

This is the same Roman empire that once crucified 2,000 Jews on a single day. Why? Because they were insurrectionists, trying to rebel and reestablish Israel. Jesus did the exact opposite. The Jews didn't see him as the Messiah specifically because he did not want to oppose the Romans. People often miss the significance of the statement "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." The Jewish people then and now expect the Messiah to come in all power and glory, and establish earthly reign, freeing the Israelite people. Christians contend that this will occur both for the Jews and Gentiles during the end times.

Jesus caused no direct problems for the Romans nor did he in any way "go up against them". Jesus did however, pose a true threat to the Jewish culture and way of life. Without the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, or Saducees help, Jesus never would have been crucified. Pontius Pilate knew well the repercussions of failing to uphold peace in his district. In an effort to avoid his own execution he agreed to end the controversy and get rid of this man who was bothering the religious authorities so much.


Boy, unless your a Cosmologist or Theoretical Physicist, I don't know if anyones opinion put on this thread will be correct relating to the origin of matter. You should watch one of those shows on The Science Channel about the cosmos; they can explain the origin of time, space, matter, better then I can ever do. Or you can try e-mailing Stephen Hawking for an explanation.

Thanks for correctly identifying the "opinion" issue. The problem is that the Science Channel must present it's material with a naturalistic worldview. To do otherwise would be "forcing their religious views on other people." So that is the tack you will get. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, and knows more about the Universe than we ever will. His opinion, however, is still no more valid than yours or mine.

No person can account for the origin of matter. It is incomprehensible. As was earlier mentioned, anything material that exists must have had cause. The Universe exists. What was it's cause? (BTW, no-one disputes the causation argument, either. The cause, for atheists, must be an incomprehensible accumulation of energy which for no logical reason exploded. And we must also take on faith that time+chance=life. Yeah right.)


My whole point of this thread wasnt to have an arguement over how God was created but to have a discussion of inputs on how others see the Universe and how it was created.

Maybe we can still do that!



More Carbon Dating (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html)

Debates between atheists and theist (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html)

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/)

[ktd222]

Thanks for correctly identifying the "opinion" issue. The problem is that the Science Channel must present it's material with a naturalistic worldview. To do otherwise would be "forcing their religious views on other people." So that is the tack you will get. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, and knows more about the Universe than we ever will. His opinion, however, is still no more valid than yours or mine.
I wasn't talking about the religious aspect of how all matter in this universe became; rather I was noting the scientific approach. And the scientific approach requires obsevervation, questions, predictions, mathmatics, etc, to understand where matter originated. I just thought you would need to be especially knowledgeable in physics, cosmology(among some disciplines), to even begin to logically regress back to the Big Bang-and maybe even before the Big Bang.


No person can account for the origin of matter. It is incomprehensible. As was earlier mentioned, anything material that exists must have had cause. The Universe exists. What was it's cause? (BTW, no-one disputes the causation argument, either. The cause, for atheists, must be an incomprehensible accumulation of energy which for no logical reason exploded. And we must also take on faith that time+chance=life. Yeah right.)


And this is more ridiculous than 'hey, the Big Guy in the Heavens' is my dad.

[ShoutGrace]

I wasn't talking about the religious aspect of how all matter in this universe became; rather I was noting the scientific approach. And the scientific approach requires obsevervation, questions, predictions, mathmatics, etc, to understand where matter originated. I just thought you would need to be especially knowledgeable in physics, cosmology(among some disciplines), to even begin to logically regress back to the Big Bang-and maybe even before the Big Bang.

There can be no scientific approach. We can't observe the origin of matter. Furthermore, our only "start of the Universe" observation methods consist of judging the speed of light and RedShift dating.

The Law of Relativity allows for a time of 6 literal days on the Earth while in the rest of the Universe, away from the Earth, time could have been stretched (ref. Isaiah 42:5 and 45:12, Jer. 10:12). For non-evolutionary views on this, see "Refuting Compromise" by Jonathan Sarfati, "Creation and Time" by Van Bebber and Taylor, and "Starlight and Time" by Russel Humphreys.

Certainly the Bible is not a science book, but where the Bible touches on geology, astronomy, biology, etc, can we trust it? Of course! The Bible does not contradict "working" science, i.e., the science that by experimentation gives us medicines, launches rockets, etc. The Bible contradicts speculative science, the type that deals with singular events in the past that had no human observers and that cannot be reproduced and is intrinsically based on assumptions. Well, guess what? Some scientists start out with the assumption that all origins (universe, life, order) can only come about by naturalistic ways, i.e., no supernatural intervention. So, in their preliminary assumptions, they start off eliminating God-Almighty, therefore they cannot get a model that includes God-Almighty. And the model that they end up with just doesn't cut it for me. That is how ridiculous their assertions become. It is much more practical and evidenciary for me to believe in God than any of the speculative and reason-stretching theories naturalists have come up with.


And this is more ridiculous than 'hey, the Big Guy in the Heavens' is my dad.

While I can appreciate your tone and simplification, I respectfully contend that there is more evidence for an Intelligent Designer of the Universe than there is for a random and illogical sequence of events which by no reasonable estimation should have ever accounted for the creation of Life on this planet.

[beer good]

Every argument concerning the origin of the Universe will be an opinion.
Every argument concerning how to build a highrise building, cure cancer, plug the deficit or play the sax solo in "Afro Blue" will also be an opinion. But if I want the job properly done, I'll ask an architect to build the skyscraper, a doctor to remove the tumour, an economist to look at the figures, John Coltrane to play the sax and a physicist to explain physics. Yes, he or she will probably have a "worldview", but as has been pointed out before - that doesn't necessarily mean he or she is a raving atheist out to disprove everything in the bible. You'll recall that Galileo was tried not so much for his findings, but for his supposedly heretic worldview.

I think a main problem with this debate is that science isn't easy. For a layperson (which, let's face it, is what most of us are) it will NEVER be as easy to explain the theories behind Big Bang or evolution as it will be to simply say "God wanted it to happen so it happened". Nothing wrong with easy answers, but sometimes complex questions need complex ones. (Then again, that's MY worldview.)

You make some good points and I wish I could refute them. But I'm not a physicist and I haven't had my coffee yet. I just wanted to remark on the above.

[ktd222]

There can be no scientific approach. We can't observe the origin of matter. Furthermore, our only "start of the Universe" observation methods consist of judging the speed of light and RedShift dating.
Science of this magnitude dealing with universal origins is progressive not instant.

The Law of Relativity allows for a time of 6 literal days on the Earth while in the rest of the Universe, away from the Earth, time could have been stretched (ref. Isaiah 42:5 and 45:12, Jer. 10:12). For non-evolutionary views on this, see "Refuting Compromise" by Jonathan Sarfati, "Creation and Time" by Van Bebber and Taylor, and "Starlight and Time" by Russel Humphreys.
As I said I'm not one to speak to about science dealing with the Universe, but I'm sure there are people here more knowledgeable in this area ready to defend their beliefs.


Certainly the Bible is not a science book, but where the Bible touches on geology, astronomy, biology, etc, can we trust it? Of course! The Bible does not contradict "working" science, i.e., the science that by experimentation gives us medicines, launches rockets, etc. The Bible contradicts speculative science, the type that deals with singular events in the past that had no human observers and that cannot be reproduced and is intrinsically based on assumptions. Well, guess what? Some scientists start out with the assumption that all origins (universe, life, order) can only come about by naturalistic ways, i.e., no supernatural intervention. So, in their preliminary assumptions, they start off eliminating God-Almighty, therefore they cannot get a model that includes God-Almighty. And the model that they end up with just doesn't cut it for me. That is how ridiculous their assertions become. It is much more practical and evidenciary for me to believe in God than any of the speculative and reason-stretching theories naturalists have come up with.
Your contridicting yourself when you throw in the word 'speculative.' Isn't the Bible just as speculative?

While I can appreciate your tone and simplification, I respectfully contend that there is more evidence for an Intelligent Designer of the Universe than there is for a random and illogical sequence of events which by no reasonable estimation should have ever accounted for the creation of Life on this planet.
Your more than welcome to jot down a list on the next reply.

[Pendragon]

If I may clear up a point here, before anyone takes me wrong, I believe in God. I also like science for the discoveries of the whys, hows, and so forth that help us understand how the world functions. We do not live in the Dark Ages, where an education is against Church policies. To borrow a phrase from the X-Files: The Truth is Out There. It may require you to come out of your comfort zone and learn a few things. The Atheist should learn about religious matters, if for no other reason that to be better prepared when faced with them. The Bible believer should not forsake his learning of science, physics, mathematics and so on. When it comes to education and belief in God, I do not see that one rules the other out.

I agree that Jesus was not rebelling against the Romans, but the Jewish Religious Hierarchy, who then accused Him of treason against Rome. Pilate wished to free him but the Jews themselves said no. But He did stand up to Pilate and tell Pilate that Rome had no power over Him, that if He died, it would be because He chose to die. So darkclarity is correct after all in stating that Jesus stood up to the Romans in His day. Why is it that people always pick and choose what to quote rather than take the time to read and learn? If all you choose to learn is that of which you are already convinced and hold steadfast, then you cannot refute an opposing view you know of which you know naught. :nod:

[ShoutGrace]

But He did stand up to Pilate and tell Pilate that Rome had no power over Him, that if He died, it would be because He chose to die. So darkclarity is correct after all in stating that Jesus stood up to the Romans in His day.

Jesus wasn't standing up to Pilate here. Pilate was obviously and understandably reluctant to crucify him. His wife had already told him that she had "suffered over" Jesus in a dream, because he was "innocent". She advised him not to have "anything to do with that man".

In fact, the very next verse shows that "from then on" (John 19:12) Pilate tried to free Jesus. Is this because Jesus just "stood up" to him? If he had, I imagine Pilate would have been vexed or angered, to say the least. He probably wouldn't have been used to poor Jews standing up to him and telling him he was powerless. But was that what Jesus did?

In John 19:11 Jesus is telling Pilate that both his betrayer and the people who want to crucify him have "the greater sin". By telling Pilate that what was going on was divinely ordained, and Pilate wasn't really the one totally responsible, Jesus was relieving Pilate's anxiety. Enough to where Pilate would be willing to crucify him, as Jesus knows he must. In the Bible, Pontius Pilate is represented as being the (very!) reluctant catalyst with which Jesus' passion must begin.


Why is it that people always pick and choose what to quote rather than take the time to read and learn? If all you choose to learn is that of which you are already convinced and hold steadfast, then you cannot refute an opposing view you know of which you know naught.

I have actually spent quite a bit of time both reading the Bible and studying Christian theology, and continue to do so daily. I love learning about Jesus! Hopefully I will continue to learn everything I can about him. I would never want to pick and choose when it comes to the Most High. Exegis is a wonderfull aspect of my Christian walk.

Admittedly, quotes can and may often be taken out of context. When I use quotes I only use them if the context validates the point I am trying to make.

Hopefully we can all get away from our prejudices and learn a little bit. However, some things in my life I am convinced of and wouldn't change my mind about.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

ShoutGrace,

Relativity does indeed say that time varies - but only when travelling at speeds close to the speed of light - other than that, the differences are negligible.

Like every one of these so-called 'scientific' refutations of evolution / big bang / common sense, this is based on the fact that those with a religious axe to grind and that have heard something that they themselves don't understand completely (and which they think might back up their arguments) are quite happy to spout it forth into the world, confident that the overwhelming majority have no more understanding than they do.

This is deliberate obfuscation. Do these people (supposedly deeply religious) actually believe that they are justified in distorting facts in support of God? If they are true believers, they ought to believe that (a) God doesn't need this kind of support - being all-powerful - and (b) that the commandment about bearing false witness should apply.

Stick to repeating that 'it says so in the book, so it's true' and I have no argument with you - but keep your dogmatic, blinkered, lying nose out of scientific arguments that you don't understand.

[ShoutGrace]

Relativity does indeed say that time varies - but only when travelling at speeds close to the speed of light - other than that, the differences are negligible.

I certainly didn't mean to misidentify relativity here. I didn't claim to have a mastery of either physics or theoretical physics, nor did I intend to misrepresent a scientific truth. You must know more about this than I do. Hopefully I can do more specific research and make sure that in any future posts I clarify exactly what I need to say.


Like every one of these so-called 'scientific' refutations of evolution / big bang / common sense, this is based on the fact that those with a religious axe to grind and that have heard something that they themselves don't understand completely (and which they think might back up their arguments) are quite happy to spout it forth into the world, confident that the overwhelming majority have no more understanding than they do.

I haven't heard of a scientific refutation of either evolution or the Big Bang theory. I use common sense myself, however. I'm sure that if God's existence could be either proven or disproven it would have been done already. I don't believe that I have spouted here, nor do I believe I have spouted with the confidence that I had a better understanding than others. Far from it! I think we can all admit, and I would be the first, that we don't have a thorough understanding of any number of things concerning this Earth and this planet. If I disparaged others thoughts or theories, I apologize.


This is deliberate obfuscation. Do these people (supposedly deeply religious) actually believe that they are justified in distorting facts in support of God? If they are true believers, they ought to believe that (a) God doesn't need this kind of support - being all-powerful - and (b) that the commandment about bearing false witness should apply.

I take offense at the idea that I deliberately obfuscated anything! I wouldn't and if it came across that way then I apologize. I think you are correct in implying that God wouldn't need any kind of distortion to make him more obvious. I certainly have not lied or bluffed!


Stick to repeating that 'it says so in the book, so it's true' and I have no argument with you - but keep your dogmatic, blinkered, lying nose out of scientific arguments that you don't understand.

I have no problem with saying that I trust the written words of the Bible entirely, or that my understanding of them fully produce my worldview. But I also believe that they don't contradict any true knowledge or aspect of the Universe, or human existence.

I don't believe that I have lied, XC, and I can't help but feel taken aback here. If anyone needs me to I will get more specific information relating to the point I am trying to make, then I will. I understood this thread to be about ideas and perhaps I myself took it to far. Maybe we can start a thread about ID/Naturalism. I haven't purposefuly or (I believe) in any other way lied! I will have to try to figure out what blinkered means. I certainly am dogmatic, though.

Others indentified and I agreed wholeheartedly with the notion that we don't fully understand these things. I am also sure of the fact that no-one else does, either. I hope that in this statement you didn't imply that you did understand this scientific argument!

I wish I hadn't offended you and hope this post will clear things up a little more . . .

[ShoutGrace]

"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity describes the motion of particles moving at close to the speed of light. In fact, it gives the correct laws of motion for any particle. This doesn't mean Newton was wrong, his equations are contained within the relativistic equations. Newton's "laws" provide a very good approximate form, valid when v is much less than c. For particles moving at slow speeds (very much less than the speed of light), the differences between Einstein's laws of motion and those derived by Newton are tiny. That's why relativity doesn't play a large role in everyday life. Einstein's theory supercedes Newton's, but Newton's theory provides a very good approximation for objects moving at everyday speeds."

"Given these two statements, Einstein showed how definitions of momentum and energy must be refined and how quantities such as length and time must change from one observer to another in order to get consistent results for physical quantities, such as particle half-life."

I may have misinterpreted the above. The idea that I am talking about has to do with certain matter changing in differentiating proportion to other certain matter - in any situation, at the same time. I'm not saying that is how I believe God did it, but I think that things of this nature get me closer to what was going on.

[ktd222]

I have no problem with saying that I trust the written words of the Bible entirely, or that my understanding of them fully produce my worldview. But I also believe that they don't contradict any true knowledge or aspect of the Universe, or human existence.

And this is your opinion. But the Bible can't confirm in any way the purpose of human existence. I have a problem when you start taking quotes from the Bible, paste it into reality, and insert value to it as if its a part of reality.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Shout grace,

I'm sorry for getting too personal there. But I do get annoyed with half-baked, misunderstood, 'scientific' arguments being presented in an attempt to 'prove' religion. Religion cannot be proved scientifically; neither can it be disproved by that method. By all means, you are welcome to your beliefs provided they do not interfere with my right not to agree with them; but please admit that the only evidence that you have for your beliefs is your faith.

The web is full of spurious arguments very similar to the one you presented above; ranging from genuine misunderstandings, through deliberate misrepresentations of the facts, to downright lies. It is the people that spout this crap that I am really getting at - I believed you to be repeating it - sorry again if you were not.

I have studied relativity (albeit at pre-degree level, but enough to recognise the complete nonsense presented in your argument) and I suggest that before presenting any similar points of view, you at least try to understand the underlying principles sufficiently to be sure that they really do back up your arguments.

There are scores of subjects about which I know little or nothing, and I would not dream of trying to introduce them into any discussion as confirmation of my position without, at the very least, extensive research; and probably not even then.

[rufioag]

I believe that there is no scientific evidence that dissproves God but there is evidence that proves God. This is my opinion and I cannot give sources at this time but seeing as how sources arent needed unless you are trying to prove God ill have to find some.

And im sorry if im annoyed as well. But I get frustrated with the perseption that Christians are merely idiotic, easily swayed individuals that have no sense whatsoever because they believe in God. I mean athiests are like hey look at Isaiah 40:22...hmm it says the world is a circle and that proves that God doesnt exist becuase the world is a sphere! Well, lets hold on a second, there is no word in hebrew for sphere!!! So how can we explain something as a sphere if theres no word for it! And yet, Christians are the ones who are uneducated and grasp at the slightest evidence to prove something?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

rufioag,

You have just proven my point about spurious arguments quite wonderfully - thank you. You claim that there is evidence which proves the existence of god, yet you can't put your finger on it just now.

Are you sure that the evidence exists? Can you prove it exists? Or do you just believe in this evidence based on faith alone?

Nobody is saying that christians are stupid; or the followers of any religion for that matter. Einstein was religious, as was Newton, as was Pascal, the list is endless.

All I am saying is that attempting to use science or logic to prove god's existence is fruitless. It has been attempted many times over the years by minds far greater than any I have come across in this forum - Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Blaise Pascal, Emmanuel Kant and René Descartes all had a crack at it and all of their arguments were shown to be full of holes.

If you believe, then believe, but it will only ever be a belief and not a provable fact; not until you turn up outside of the pearly gates with your entry ticket and can wave at all of us poor sinners down in the pit below (or not), will you ever know for sure. Feel free to cling to your faith, that is your right, just don't claim that it is more than faith.

[Stanislaw]

One question:

How can God not have been the cause...therefore God.

Athiest Question:

How can god be the cause ...therefore no God.


Its pretty simple that a supreme entity had to have started it all, I mean, everything comes from something, and if the entity did create itself, then, ****, we all don't exist and like budhism lets find emptines.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Stan,

All I (and many other atheists - I make no claim to speak for all) am claiming is that no-one knows what started 'it all'. I find all of the claims made in so-called holy books to be ridiculously unbelievable. I can't bring myself to accept anything that any religion has ever offered in the way of explanation of the world's creation (or anything else for that matter). While I concede that the existence of God is unprovable in either direction, I feel confident in averring that any god that does, or did, exist has never bothered to make contact with humanity. All of the texts which the faithful have put so much store in are written by human beings.