How can he not? Lets just say that all the necessary elements came together in the vast ,empty blackness of space, at the same exact place, at the same exact time, in just the right proportions and a" big bang" took place. The earth, our solar system and the entire universe was birthed by this explosion and the coincidental collisions, super novas and event horizons that took place afterwords. Where did these necessary elements come from? Everything comes from a source, which, in turn, also has a source. If you go back far enough, something had to come from nothing. How is this possible without some kind of eternal god?

Nothing. An eternal god needs not a source to exist. Unless you believe in the time paradox. What will eventually happen is that the human race (or some future race) will advance so much that they will essentially becomes gods in their own way (and Americans are pretty close to achieving that as it is). Then, they will create a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. That being will somehow find its way back in time to when nothing existed and create matter using its omnipotent powers.
But David does have a point. Nuclear reactions responsible for creating different atoms (such as a star heating up an atom to the point that its subatomic particles break down until they form some different type of atom) can only account for the creation of Hydrogen, Helium, and I believe Beryllium. It is currently unknown (to my current knowledge) how to naturally create the other naturally occurring elements.

I heard that elements heavier than lead are created by the cooling remnants of supoernovae explosions.
But that's just word on the street.

Harder to believe that the creation of a God was an accident?

Anything that can come from nothing must, by definition, be God. What definition? The one I just made.

And that is a definitely intelligent and well-put argument. But what is your religion specifically, and why?

I've always felt that an expanding/contracting universe made logical sense. It lasts forever and always has. Each cycle starts with a "big bang", it expands for 50 billion years or so, contracts for 50 billion years or so, eventually collapsing on itself and resulting in another "big bang". Each "bang" completely randomizes everything, perhaps including physical laws. And so, we just happen to be here because this is a random universe that was able to harbor life, perhaps only 1 in trillions of cycles that can, but with forever on your side, what do small probabilites matter?

Woah - does that make Udo God?

No, I feel that it's just always been there. It seems that everything must have a beginning, but for something like this, I don't think so.

petito principii

Posted By: Trance

It might be of interest to note that if Taed believes the laws of physics could change with each new universe, that implies that the laws of logic may do the same.

only in this creation. Next creation, the laws of logic could be immutable.

Unfortunately, the current theoretical paradigm is that "the Big Crunch" will not happen, thus ending the universe in heat death. Ergo, this must be the first Big Bang, which brings us back, in turn, to the "first cause" argument, whereupon those that believe in a god or God feel that they can define that entity as requiring no cause, and those opposed feel that that assertion is fallacious, and we're right back where we have been for centuries.

Who's been here for centuries? I just found this web site about 4 or 5 years ago.

Athene -- they are channeling you!

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/09/17/dust/

Let me state up front that I'm not anti-religion and don't have a problem with anyone's religious beliefs. I consider myself a true agnostic, in that any creator argument is inherently unknowable. I completely believe in evolution and the scientific model of the creation of life, Earth, and the universe. That said, I also realize that any theory such as God, seeding by aliens, or we're all in The Matrix, are truly unknowable (assuming no "mistakes" were made), so while I'm open-minded, I'm certainly not going to believe in anything without any evidence. And no, someone saying "God told me that He exists" is not evidence (although if God Himself told me that, I suspect I'd feel differently).

That said, whenever I hear a "creator" argument such as "I find it hard to believe that we exist by accident", my first thought is to take it to the next step, namely, "I find it hard to believe that our creator exists by accident" and then to "I find it hard to believe that the creator of our creator exists by accident", and so on. At what point does something get created without a plan?

So if you stumble upon a pocket watch in the woods, sure, that may be evidence of a creator, but it's also evidence of a creator of the creator, and a creator of the creator of the creator, and so on. At some point, the "start" has to be defined. For me, that's a cycling big bang / big crunch, but even that doesn't address the true "start".

Taed I am with you on that. However, I hear a religious friend arguing that evolution may explain how humans may have evolved from bacteria, but how do lifeless chemical elements become bacteria?

The way we define life is an entity that consumes oxygen, able to feel hunger and react by hunting for food, and have the instinct to sense danger and react by finding safe harbor, etc. Dead animals are merely a collection of chemicals. So are alive animals, except they have electrical forces that energize the brain, empowering them to sense and to feel, and empowering humans to think. I am not anti-evolution here( in fact I prefer it over creationism.) But to believe in it, don't we have to accept that evolution is simply some electrical force jostling within a physical system, and reshaping it over a long period of time? And how did the force and the system merge the first time? If this were true, does it mean upon the revelation of the secret, we can revive the dead by manually inducing electricity into a dead body?

It would be impossible to bring someone back to life if they had no heart, for example.

You have finally found a way to eternally kill Nimro Klim.

Where's Johnny Depp when you need him?
But back on topic: I believe that I have the right to speak since I am currently a Christian, but have spent over half my life as an agnostic. I'm not one of those snake-handling Baptists who speak in tongues, and I'll never fully be one of those kinds of Christians. However, I do believe in Jesus and I believe he gave me the gift to see from both sides of the table. So here it goes:
Both religion and science have the same fundamental flaw (at least from an agnostic's point of view) and that is origin. From the believer's point of view, God is an eternal being, not composed of any form of matter that we can conceive and therefore did not have to have a Creator Himself. He also believes that God created the Universe and everything in it, that we have free will, and will eventually be judged before God.
Conversely, the atheist's point of view is that the Universe has always been around and was created from either nothing or some sort of accident. The atheist believes that God does not exist and had no part in making of the Universe.

Now, besides some parts that were sketch in the previous statements, it seems to me that atheism and religion have the same basic idea in mind, except how they view it is different.

Welcome back sir. I wish you health and prosperity in 2010.

Posted By: Cody56

Conversely, the atheist's point of view is that the Universe has always been around and was created from either nothing or some sort of accident. The atheist believes that God does not exist and had no part in making of the Universe.

There is a difference between the two - the atheist can freely change his/her theories/beliefs as he/she pleases. A christian can't. Ultimately an atheist basis his/her ideas on hard facts whereas christians build on faith.

Since when is atheist spelled with a capital "A?"

My god...

Posted By: Haoest

p]I arrest my case.[/p]

Yes you do. I think you execute it too.

Mr. Klims, I wanna let u know that I am still unemployed.Call me, please, please.