Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[Remté]

Well, since you ask atheists, I might turn the question around. How does invoking a God actually explain anything? It doesn't provide a process. It only pushes the question back one step (where did God come from?). And nobody seems to be able to agree what the characteristics are of this God. So it really seems like 'God' is just a placeholder for no explanation at all.

I have never come by a thesist who doesn't agree that God has always been since God is not limited to time and space.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since I don't know things that nobody else on the planet knows, I have to go with the same answer everyone else should give - "I don't know."

 

[stvdv]

Accepting something as true.

First you don't know fire is hot
Then you touch
Then you accept "fire is hot" as true

Knowing is also accepting something as true
So believing = knowing?

 

[ratiocinator]

I have never come by a thesist who doesn't agree that God has always been since God is not limited to time and space.

Which? Always been, implies an infinite past, whereas not limited to time and space seems to imply a timelessness.

Either could apply directly to the universe without bothering with a god-guess. The general relativity space-time is timeless as a whole, and we can't rule out an infinite past.

 

[Willamena]

First you don't know fire is hot
Then you touch
Then you accept "fire is hot" as true

Knowing is also accepting something as true
So believing = knowing?

Knowing is believing that just happens to be true.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have never come by a thesist who doesn't agree that God has always been since God is not limited to time and space.

Our universe needn't be so limited either.
No one really knows, but so many sure
do have certainty about their opinions.

 

[stvdv]

Knowing is believing that just happens to be true.

Believing is about fiction to me, so not knowing whether it is true or not (yet)

 

[Remté]

Our universe needn't be so limited either.
No one really knows, but so many sure
do have certainty about their opinions.

Like scientists?

 

[Revoltingest]

Like scientists?

Notice that they don't claim that theories about the early universe are "proven true".
But their speculations are based upon observations rather than the translated
untested loopy musings of ancient goatherds.

 

[Remté]

Believing is about fiction to me, so not knowing whether it is true or not (yet)

It's a trick with the words. If you touch a flame you feel it is hot and then you know, but at the same time from then on you believe it is hot. Knowing is the more logical word to use but belief comes around when the speaker can no longer come up with new arguments.

 

[Shadow Link]

The laws of various Spirits/Energies are not yet fully understood on how or why they construct themselves into forming physical properties that form and compound into larger physical properties, which create natural laws by their very own compounded existences. And since we are born into an ignorant state(sin), we learn and share our ideas, passing them on to the next generations until we arrive at yet another interesting mystery to solve. We believe we are compoundedly constructed to harness the most intelligence of all compounded property states, but to achieve this there must maintain a sense of curiosity within us and I believe this is why we first had God(greater truth). It opens the minds from childhood to seeing that there is something greater going on then our selfish developmental stages and perceptions. Gods help develop consciousness.


And now a quick sentence from random words quickly touched and selected from my word bars...

"Hell issues are on your mind and you know what the reason you think you know was how you would think"

Hilarious!

 

[Remté]

Notice that they don't claim that theories about the early universe are "proven true".
But their speculations are based upon observations rather than the translated
untested loopy musings of ancient goatherds.

Yet the goat herds and scientists fundamentally agree

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet the goat herds and scientists fundamentally agree

If one takes poetic license with goatherd
musings, they can be read to mean anything.
But if they were actually unambiguous, we
wouldn't need scientists to discover anything.

 

[Remté]

If one takes poetic license with goatherd
musings, they can be read to mean anything.
But if they were actually unambiguous, we
wouldn't need scientists to discover anything.

Why, being unambiguous has nothing to do with making you believe something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who said a person?

You implied it. "No one" is a way of saying "no person." The alternative to "no one" is "someone," i.e. a person.

 

[stvdv]

It's a trick with the words. If you touch a flame you feel it is hot and then you know, but at the same time from then on you believe it is hot. Knowing is the more logical word to use but belief comes around when the speaker can no longer come up with new arguments.

That is the crucial difference: belief is when you not experience it

When I have never eaten a Durian, I have no clue about its taste
But since I have eaten a Durian (and love it), whenever I see or think about it, I can recollect the taste (saliva starts seeing it)
If I forget about how it tasted though, then I better start eating one again

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yet the goat herds and scientists fundamentally agree

On what, exactly?

 

[Remté]

On what, exactly?

On that something doesn't come from nothing. The universe has a starting point.

 

[Remté]

You implied it. "No one" is a way of saying "no person." The alternative to "no one" is "someone," i.e. a person.

God is often referred to with the same grammar rules as a person. But I assume you know this.

 

[ratiocinator]

On that something doesn't come from nothing. The universe has a starting point.

What makes you think "scientists" agree with these things?