So how do you explain existence ?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Why is it so hard for some to respond in a perfect manner such as yours.

Koros
Get a clue ? Why even respond if your going to change the whole thread like some dictator.

edit on 16-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Why respond? The answer is simple. I am not going to sit by and watch as someone frames a discussion in a fallacious way which guarantees their personal success in the discussion. Your original post was just such an example. By attempting to frame the discussion as one of "show me better alternatives than Genesis," you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof doesn't lie in others to show you why Genesis is wrong. The burden lies in you to show that Genesis is right.

reply to post by randyvs


While I don't put a lot of stock into the many creation myths, it is one of the great unanswered questions. Why does life appear (at least here on the Earth) in the universe? What would be the purpose?? I have a feeling that if we ever do find an answer, it won't be anything close to the utopian ideals that some human beings have given it, and instead could be a brutal and horrific, and at the same time mundane (without some fantastical purpose we humans love to dream up), survival scenario without any real meaning (to humans, anyway). Galaxies die, and if there is life in those galaxies, why would the universe create them only to be destroyed?

Existence came about thru a natural series of events.

Where science fails is in the question of why animate life has singular consciousness.
In fact the question is never even addressed.

To put it more simply, it is the age old question; Why are we here?

But to even begin to answer that question we first need to answer the question; What am I?

What is this singularly conscious animal being that I am. why is my consciousness separate
from all other beings? Why did I arise on this particular planet, at this particular point in time?
Did my consciousness exist before the animal that I am was created? And will my consciousness
survive after my animal dies?

That is a lot of questions....

But what we do know, given the prima facia evidence, is that the earth and our solar system
was formed just like all the other stars, planets and galaxies that we can see around us.
Cataclysmic events of exploding matter creating dust clouds which coalesce into stars and
planets and asteroids, pulled together by electro-static charges, and by gravity until, at a certain
point they begin to collapse under the weight of the own mass and take natures most
efficient from under the known laws of gravity...a sphere.

These spheres are bound by the mass of the largest object near them, and they begin to spiral
and and orbit, and coalesce further until we are left with a stable solar system.

Our planet got lucky, or we got lucky, in that we have a large moon that stabilizes or rotational
axis and gives seasons, and we have liquid water from bombarding comets, and because
we are situated at a perfect distance from our sun. The Earth's conditions were perfect...had
to be perfect for life (as we know it) to gain a foot hold. And we have been lucky that no further
meteor or asteroid strikes have had enough energy to blast our planet to bits or set the
entire outer surface on fire and reset our evolution back to zero.

We are here and alive because the conditions were right for us.

Did God have a hand in it? We don't know, we haven't any evidence of a God or a creator
yet...we only have our conscious awareness and speculation.

And the answer to the question of God, is best answered by a child's simple question.
and the question exemplifies our ignorance to this point....

If God created everything....then who created God?

reply to post by rival


A great response up to the point you suggested an infinite number of retro-generations.

If God created everything....then who created God?

And that is impossible, so at some point there must be a causeless cause. And God would suffice. Also what some see as proof when they open their eyes ? Others refuse as proof. As I said in the OP we see the proof everyday that existence and consciousness only come from existence and consciousness. I marvel at some of the responses so determined not to see that. And can only believe their lifestyles must lead them to be willfully blind because they certainly aren't stupid.

So how do you explain existence ?

In many ways I suppose. I think ultimately it does not matter so much how you explain it, it matters much more how you experience it. But usually in as many ways as you can explain it, is in as many ways as you can experience it.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


I see your response, as a perfect example of how one only needs the title of the thread, to be perfectly on-topic.
Yet the trolls can't troll so they call me a troll for asking a simple question ? Ever notice that no matter how you try and explain existence, it is going to sound unbelievably fantastic ? The account in Genesis is no different and I admit that. But the ridicule is just as worthy no matter what account you prefer.


Koros

The burden of proof doesn't lie in others to show you why Genesis is wrong. The burden lies in you to show that Genesis is right.

There is no burden of proof when as I said in the OP, the proof can be seen everyday and is seen, by those with open eyes. The only burden would come about if I cared what you accepted as proof. Which I really don't.

Originally posted by SinMaker
OP, you should ask the athiests. They seem to know everything about the cosmos. Even more so than scientists. How is it the athiests are an all knowing arrogant omnipotent bunch? Yea, they bother me just a little bit more than theists nowadays.

Athiests spend a vast quantity of time trying to understand religious people at times. Would be nice if others would return the favor.

Even your most vigorous anti-theists such as Dawkins and Hitchens (miss you!) have said they do not know for certain but they consider it very unlikely that various deitys exist. There are troll internet athiests that like to wind people up, but for the most part the general sentiment is 'we're pretty sure God doesn't exist' and there is no persuasive evidence for an intelligent designer.

Originally posted by randyvs
What is so deceptive about asking for a better explanation from those that ridicule,( or anyone else ) one that can't be proven untrue ?

Why does a person have to have a creation story to enter the debate? Is it a private party with only thiests and over confident physics under graduate students invited?

I'm not a troll. I'm not a bad person. I didn't bring a gift to the party though!

I'm not posting to say I don't know. I'm posting to say you can't know. Evolution is nothing to do with the creation account. It's a thing that happens, a theory built of things we've observed and tested. It does not argue with existing things such as genetics.

On the other hand, last time I tried to test Yahweh, the person wrote in his book that if I did that I might be smote or otherwise struck by lightening. I stood outside in the rain wearing a copper suit in a thunder storm and called him names. I've randomly prayed for unlikely things. I've meditated on it. Furiously thought about it. Tried to talk to people who have had experiences about it ... There is no way of knowing, and given the number of Gods man has evented ... what is the likelyhood that Genesis got it right?

No greater than the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime where rocks were made by an Emu or snake pooping from memory.

Originally posted by randyvs
And that is impossible, so at some point there must be a causeless cause. And God would suffice. [sic] ... we see the proof everyday that existence and consciousness only come from existence and consciousness.

I somewhat agree with you. I just have a different conclusion.

If there is no meaning. If conciousness briefly for perhaps 0.00001 to 120ish years is all we've got ... can we handle that without having these stories? I think every person struggles with it. There is a certain beauty about it, in that right at this very moment you exist and you will only exist for a tiny amount of time and you're very very special ... on the other hand it sucks.

Ultimately, God or not, I think it's pretty darn likely when we come face to face with our creator ... whether it is providence, serendpity, accident, or a cigar smoking turtle named Bob... Bob will likely turn to us, take a puff of his cuban and say, 'things just are the way they are because they are!'

Eventually there will be an answer someone doesn't have. If Bob doesn't exist then we're the butt of the joke. If Bob does exist I can't imagine someone gave it a user manual before it created everything.

Side note: Lot of smart persons have thought God existed due to things they didn't understand ... I don't think it's worthy of mockery unless the person is offensive or evil in most cases. If I have to have a creation story ... I have this idea that God doesn't exist yet, and when God eventually does ... the being fixes everything and we start again. >.>

reply to post by Pinke


An enjoyable response. Absolutely loved reading it.

reply to post by randyvs


well science has a whole entire portion of the population on earth thinking they're monkey's.

so you can discount anything that comes out of the mouth of someone who thinks they are a monkey.

our ancestors, who were closer to creation than us, say that God created us.

they should know, they were there.

Originally posted by randyvs
Koros

The burden of proof doesn't lie in others to show you why Genesis is wrong. The burden lies in you to show that Genesis is right.

There is no burden of proof when as I said in the OP, the proof can be seen everyday and is seen, by those with open eyes. The only burden would come about if I cared what you accepted as proof. Which I really don't.

edit on 16-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Your own actions betray you. By beginning a thread to discuss the legitimacy of Genesis versus other creation myths; by engaging people in conversation about said topic; by responding to criticisms of your stance; by claiming that Genesis is already proven in the OP, you are showing that you do, indeed, care what people accept and don't accept. In fact, you began a thread to discuss what people do and don't accept. So, either you don't understand the concepts at play here, or you are being purposefully disingenuous by claiming that you have no responsibility of proof while asking others to provide proof to you.

So, which is it? Are you obtuse or disingenuous?

Let's face facts here. You claimed in the OP that "proof is all around us" for the validity of Genesis, yet you fail to elucidate what that proof is. You do this under the smokescreen of "if you just open your eyes, you'll see it." This is a classic bait-and-switch debate tactic, which anyone with even a modicum of understanding of burden of proof can see right through. It is sophomoric and insulting to the intelligence of everyone on these boards, yourself included.

You began this thread with a patent claim that there is proof for the myth of Genesis. Then you asked others to provide evidence for any alternate theory, without first proving your own claim. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You claimed proof exists for Genesis. So, it's time to pony up here. Show me that proof.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Well come on Jigger ! You just made a post that pretty much says everything I said in the OP. And left me totally hang'in without describing your idea, that at least makes better sense to someone. That someone being you.
Let me try that jacket on damn it !

edit on 16-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

LOL I've posted it so many times that I'm surprised you don't already know my theory.

There has never been, nor can there ever be, a state of absolute nothing. So, by default, the realm of something in which we dwell has always existed.

What can we say about a true state of absolute nothing? Well, this state would have zero qualities: no height, no length, no width, and no depth. To have even just ONE of these qualities it would have to qualify as something. We can't move around in, or put anything into a space that HAS no space.

A state of absolute nothing cannot be hot or cold - you can't heat or freeze nothing.

Let's say you have a fish tank filled to the brim with water. In order for you to put your hand in the tank you will have to displace an amount of water that is equal to the size of your hand, and that amount of water will spill out of the fish tank. You can do this because water has qualities - it can yield to an outside force. If you fill the tank with air, smoke, marbles... the same thing will happen because everything has qualities. Even if the tank was filled with solid steel you could drill it out piece by piece.

Now, for the sake of this discussion, let's say we filled the fish tank with a big ol' chunk of nothing. Can you put your hand in the tank? Will the Nothing yield to your hand? Of course not. How can it? Nothing has no qualities. It can't spill over the side, or float away like air or smoke. You can't drill out Nothing piece by piece. And, it can't allow your hand to enter into it because Nothing cannot be displaced. If this type of nothingness could ever exist, it would be impenetrable, and that's all that would fill the entire universe.

Physicists tell us that there was nothing before the Big Bang. If they truly mean that there was a state of absolute nothing before the Big Bang, then no part of that singularity could've expanded out into that nothingness. There had to have been a space filled with something for the matter to take over and occupy.

For proof, let's set a small brick in the air-filled fish tank. When you raise the brick an inch from the bottom of the tank, the surrounding air fills that one inch space between the brick and the bottom of the tank. If the tank is full of water, then water will fill that one inch space. No matter what that tank is full of (gas, oil, sand, oatmeal...) that substance MUST fill in that one inch space or else that brick ain't moving!

And, we're back to a tank filled with that chunk of nothing, with the brick inside. When you try to lift the brick, how can Nothing fill in that one inch space? It can't! Nothing has no qualities. It can't flow into that one inch space. It can't swirl under the brick. You can't shake the tank to get the Nothingness to slide under the brick like particles of sand.

Nothingness has no space, so space cannot contain nothing.
The Big Bang couldn't expand into nothing.
The universe (the realm of something) has always existed because a state of absolute nothing cannot exist.

reply to post by Koros

In fact, you began a thread to discuss what people do and don't accept.

You talk about facing facts and you can't even get the facts straight ! The thread is about the ridicule people impose on one long held account when the ridicule is just as worthy for every other account. You need to have that clearly in mind and quit attempting to railroad the thread into something you can con-troll !

reply to post by jiggerj


You make nothingness sound almost as if it must be a dimension all it's own. Nice jacket jigger !
I'll try to copy and paste that to my brain so I remember it.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Koros

 

In fact, you began a thread to discuss what people do and don't accept.

You talk about facing facts and you can't even get the facts straight ! The thread is about the ridicule people impose on one long held account when the ridicule is just as worthy for every other account. You need to have that clearly in mind and quit attempting to railroad the thread into something you can con-troll !

Classic strategy of someone who can't defend his own position and claims. "When cornered, call the other person a troll." Yeah, good to know.

You said, quite clearly: "Is this a conspiracy or do people of science or anyone else have any explanations for existence, that don't sound just as loony, as most of the trolls make the account given in Genesis sound ? To date, I haven't heard one. Evolution conveniently just doesn't go there. To me it just makes sense that existence and consciousness come from something that exists and is conscious. It's that way in everything we see everyday. And I don't believe we humans are the highest form of existence or any of the aliens either. "

What you are doing, quite obviously, is making a claim that Genesis is correct and asking others to provide proof of alternate theories. Sorry, but you can't back peddle out of this one.

It's funny. I'm new here, and already I'm learning which posters should be taken seriously and which shouldn't.

reply to post by Koros

What you are doing, quite obviously, is making a claim that Genesis is correct and asking others to provide proof of alternate theories. Sorry, but you can't back peddle out of this one.

I'm not peddling anything nor did I ask for proof of anything. Why is this so hard for you when everyone else is giving some great responses. Yet you insist and persist on making yourself look ignorant. If that's your intent ? Knock yourself out by all means. I have no more responses for you friend.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by jiggerj

 

You make nothingness sound almost as if it must be a dimension all it's own. Nice jacket jigger !

I'll try to copy and paste that to my brain so I remember it.

edit on 16-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Please remember that I'm not saying my belief is right. I'm saying that it makes more sense to me than a mystical magical being whispering everything into existence, and that it makes more sense than physicists claiming everything came from nothing.

Originally posted by Koros
It's funny. I'm new here, and already I'm learning which posters should be taken seriously and which shouldn't.

The answer is probably all of them. Except for Bob the world creating turtle. When Bob posts on ATS you listen.

And blah ... yes the OP believes in a creation story etc ... and feels their creation story is singled out. I think we all do; sometimes people jump on my beliefs, too. The OP might be expecting their question for non-fantasticial sensible creation stories to justify Genesis, true, but what does it matter? Randy already posts in like a bazillion religion threads to have the 'Genesis is silly' conversation I guess.

It's nothing new I suppose, but I like reading about people's thoughts on creation when it's not a fight all the time. Edit note: and OP seems to be enjoying and learning other folks opinions which is kinda rare!

reply to post by jiggerj

Please remember that I'm not saying my belief is right.

I did gathered that and like wise neither did I.

Thanks for an excellent response jigger !

reply to post by randyvs

when they don't seem to have a better one of their own

Better by what STANDARD Randy? A subjective one? Or better as in it holds up under the light of logic and actual scientific facts? The reason the Genesis account is wrong is because it is factually wrong. It's wrongness (for lack of a better word) is apparent even in the absence of what you call a "better" account.

If I postulate the Universe was spawned by a magical Space Penguin named Marvin (the benevolent one, may he spare me the wrath of the ice-pits) and you point out that such a claim is STUPID and demonstrably wrong than by no means are you obligated to present a counter-theory.

Is this a conspiracy or do people of science or anyone else have any explanations for existence, that don't sound just as loony, as most of the trolls make the account given in Genesis sound

Sound loony? Again there's a very subjective word. Whether or not something "sounds loony" to you personally has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true. If something is vindicated by objectively verifiable evidence than whether it sounds good to you or not is irrelevant

Explanations for the existence of what Randy?

Life - the origin of the first cells remains somewhat shrouded in mystery, but the building blocks of life are all right here on Earth and can be "created" naturally. At it's base form life is self-replicating chemical machines.

Human beings - DNA evidence solidifies our relation to other apes such as the chimpanzee and fossil and genetic evidence further indicates that we evolved in Africa. Evolution itself is an observed scientific fact, and that fact of evolution forms the backbone of evolutionary theory.

To me it just makes sense that existence and consciousness come from something that exists and is conscious.

Infinite regression Randy. If a conscious mind MUST come from a conscious mind than God must have come from a Super God, and Super God from an Ultra God and Ultra God from an Uber God and Uber God from a Mega-Hyper God.... and so on FOREVER. This is what's known as the problem of infinite regress and it's why drooling morons like William Lane Craig like to pretend there is a loophole for God where WE humans NEED a creator, but for some reason God can simply EXIST without one, or any predecessors or peers of any kind.

Life is a natural phenomenon Randy, all life ever observed on Earth is made of the same elements commonly found here. It only makes sense that natural things have a natural explanation and that positing a God which defies logic and any attempt at fitting into nature is NOT a better explanation, because it isn't an explanation at all.

reply to post by Pinke

It's nothing new I suppose, but I like reading about people's thoughts on creation when it's not a fight all the time.

And with that, I've read the most pertinent sentence I could read here in.