something cannot come from nothing on its own

[Nick]

Time could not have always existed due to the very nature of time. If I told you I will give you a million dollars as soon as my postcount reaches infinity, would I ever have to give you a million dollars? Of course not, you would never reach it. You would never get to a point where you can say "OK, you have a postcount of infinity", because there would always be one more post I could make. It doesn't make a difference if I post once every hour or once every nanosecond, time cannot go on forever. Take that in reverse: in order for you to be right, time must have been around forever before "now". But why does "now" count as "forever"? Why doesn't one minute from "now" count as forever? Or an hour? Or a year?

Time is relative to the frame of reference of the object you're observing. Each frame of reference has a different "time". Time is not an actual thing, just like space is not an actual thing. Space is nothing more than the distance between (and inbetween) objects. There cannot be space without something in the universe. The universe is only as large as there is stuff inside it. The same goes with time; if there are no objects, then there are no frame of references, and time does not exist. That is why theorists say that time began at the Big Bang, because that's when matter was first created.

Also, I don't understand most agnostics. If you ask them what they think about God, they will say "I don't know". This is a legitimate answer and all atheists will agree. But if you ask them what they believe, they will say "I don't know". That doesn't make sense to me; what you believe is different from what you know. Do you go Church/Temple/whatever, pray, or think the universe was created by an intelligent being? If not, then you don't believe in a God. If yes, then you do believe in a God. There is no "I don't know" to a question about belief (in my opinion).

In conclusion, there had to be a beginning to space and time, and I don't understand agnostics

[gerren]

I understand what youre saying about time Nick, but i dont think youre understanding mine. When i refer to time, I think of it as you do. You seem to think that time began at the big bang when matter was created-but before that, couldnt you say time existed? Is matter necessary for time? I dont think so.
But anyways, on to agnosticism.
I have done extensive research on the origin of life and its possibilities-evolution is obviously a given, so im going deeper to the chemistry of how life was created. I think that atheists judge much to quickly and say that life came about on its own through chemical reactions. This is definitely possible, but to simply say that (in my own opinion, because i always need enough proof) it happened is not enough. So on to my point. I did extensive research, and it seems to me that the origin of life just wasnt possible enough-the odds of it happening were very small. I still recognize that it could have happened and im not ignoring that. So, in the sense of science I am agnostic. After all of my research and putting everything together, I cant come to either side.
So, if someone asks me if God exists or not, i say "i dont know".
I think a lot of agnostics are stereotyped to be lazy or something. I know im not.

[houserichichi]

I did extensive research, and it seems to me that the origin of life just wasnt possible enough-the odds of it happening were very small. I still recognize that it could have happened and im not ignoring that. So, in the sense of science I am agnostic. After all of my research and putting everything together, I cant come to either side.

That is lazy though. You can't sit on the fence when it comes to the origin of life; it either happened naturally or it happened un-naturally. Clearly the latter would require the intervention of some "supreme" being whereas the former could be through natural processes or perhaps through direct intervention of other natural beings (or perhaps a collection of the two). Either way, in the natural case you can argue that people came from whatever alien species, but where did they come from? Ultimately it boils down to "where did the first species that was created come from" if you even believe that vein of through. So, there are actually only two choices again: naturally by beating the odds or unnaturally by a supernatural whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

To say "I don't know for sure" is fine, I suppose, but which one makes more sense? Which one requires faith and which one requires logic? Clearly the unnatural case requires faith...it has to. Faith is not logical by definition. The natural situation, however, requires logic. Yes, the odds are incredibly small but they still fall in favor of life being created. Thus, over a long enough time, it HAS to be the case that life will be created if the probabilities say so, you can't argue it. So if you want to sit on the fence, fine, but you're not taking the morally high ground by doing so, you're just covering your eyes from a simple mathematical truth, and I stress those last two words.

[monaroman II]

right, I used to be monaroman I but my acount stuffed up. Anyway, I have long lived by the rule that humans often think in lines when they should be thinking in circles. Why? Because a line is so easy to comprehend. It has a start and a finish. This is how Nick has been thinking. Now try to do the impossible. think of an object as never being created, nor destroyed, yet existing, and you have just understood the concept of god or a supreme entity.

[Nick]

I understand what youre saying about time Nick, but i dont think youre understanding mine. When i refer to time, I think of it as you do. You seem to think that time began at the big bang when matter was created-but before that, couldnt you say time existed?

Even if time did exist before then, time must have started at some point. Infinities cannot exist; if there was an infinite amount of time before this point, than how did we ever get to this point?

I have done extensive research on the origin of life and its possibilities-evolution is obviously a given, so im going deeper to the chemistry of how life was created. I think that atheists judge much to quickly and say that life came about on its own through chemical reactions. This is definitely possible, but to simply say that (in my own opinion, because i always need enough proof) it happened is not enough.

So far I agree.

So on to my point. I did extensive research, and it seems to me that the origin of life just wasnt possible enough-the odds of it happening were very small. I still recognize that it could have happened and im not ignoring that. So, in the sense of science I am agnostic. After all of my research and putting everything together, I cant come to either side.

What are the odds of rolling a '1' of a '1 million' sided die? Not very good. But what if you can roll 1000 dice at a time, and you could try as many times as you like? You will eventually roll a 1, regardless of how unlikely it is. You agree with me in that the creation of life is possible, but unlikely. Luckily for us, there were millions of years and entire surface of the earth for primordial ooze to "roll the dice".

So, if someone asks me if God exists or not, i say "i dont know".
I think a lot of agnostics are stereotyped to be lazy or something. I know im not.

No one knows. I don't know either. But knowing and believing are two different things.
What do you believe?

Anyway, I have long lived by the rule that humans often think in lines when they should be thinking in circles. Why? Because a line is so easy to comprehend. It has a start and a finish. This is how Nick has been thinking. Now try to do the impossible. think of an object as never being created, nor destroyed, yet existing, and you have just understood the concept of god or a supreme entity.

Thinking in circles is generally a bad thing.

[goy vey]

What are the odds of rolling a '1' of a '1 million' sided die? Not very good. But what if you can roll 1000 dice at a time, and you could try as many times as you like? You will eventually roll a 1, regardless of how unlikely it is. You agree with me in that the creation of life is possible, but unlikely. Luckily for us, there were millions of years and entire surface of the earth for primordial ooze to "roll the dice".

It baffles me that people are unable to recognize the artistry in the world. Like a marred, but still beautiful, painting. I am pretty sure we don't know what the actual odds are of life cropping up, anyway.

Thinking in circles is generally a bad thing.

Heh. Too easy.

Infinity is difficult to comprehend, but to say that rules out its existence is specious and narrow. The trouble with infinity is not with getting from Point A to Point B, it's getting from start to finish. If we are not at the end of time, there is no problem except the difficulty of comprehension.

[Chautauquan]

I imagine, Nick, by the same logic you are using for time you also deny the existence of motion. Because, before you can reach a point (say, Marathon, Greece) you must first go to the half-way point. Likewise, we can never pass anyone, because before we can pass them, we must go where they already were. By the same reasoning which you apply to time, it seems to apply to motion. Correct me if I've misunderstood, but all it seems to me, is that we've isolated another paradox, that is, the paradox of time.

And, like any other paradox, there is no answer to be gained from empirical data. Because frankly, last I checked, none of us have visited any beginning of time. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but without an empirical data, there is no empirical conclusion.

[zizigmondy]

Well..the question of creation is an ever pertinent doubt and i assume will continue to remain so..because of the simple fact that we see it based on ourself,our laws and our theories.It just fails to explain with clarity because we are simply not enlightened ( i cant get a more appropriate word) to understand it.We have understood a concept of time as we have, because we could see changes in life forms (both us and around) based on our memory.Say we have no memory of the past (i know how terrible it would be ..but just assume), then there exists no concept of time.Since we recognize ,changes we create a concept of time before and after and hence the confusion of creation its when, where, why, how ,what etc....i guess its simply beyond our understanding (or at least me) and uncertainty regarding this is what makes us define god or providence..for something unexplainable or not understandable.

[wendy]

(nothing) -> e + p , i suppose.

Much of the fuzz in QED comes from assuming that something comes from noþing on its very own.

[mghtymoop]

Hawking solved this one ages ago

Time and the universe were created in the same instant, therefore the universe has always been here with respect to the fact that if time didn't exist before it then the could be no time when the universe didn't exist. Thats the beauty of time as the 4th dimension, it is an actual thing, not just a progression...

[Mugsy Malone]

Here's a thought. We live in a polar existence. For example up has down; in has out; right has left and nothing has something! These polarities exist only in our minds; from our perspectives. There is no up in the universe. There is no in and there is no right or left. As Einstein said, it's all relative to us.

Now, I don't understand Quantum Physics; but I can grasp the results of one of its effects. One of the most profound thoughts I have ever heard was on Stephen Colbert. His guest wrote a book about how "nothing" can't exist forever. He claimed, more than once, that a Creator or God was not needed to explain everything in the universe because after a certain amount of time, something has to challenge nothing since universal polarity is a law predicted by Quantum Mechanics. Colbert's guest repeated that God was superfluous in the chain of all that is because nothing had to spew out everything.

Speaking in a meek tone, Colbert asked the Professor if since God was not necessary and in effect was nothing; couldn't He have come about from nothing?

Think about it.

[rr6]

..."Energy cannot be created nor destroyed"...

I have to agree with the base premis given here. When a something = physical/energy--- ergo time/motion/frequency ---aka occupied space, and nothing equals no physical/energy-- ergo non-occupied space ---then a physical energetic somethingness cannot come from a true nothingness of non-occupied space aka truly empty space.

Non-occupied space

Occupied space.

"U"niverse = God(es) = Great Momma( Xx ) = matriarchal base, composed of I-verse and U-verse ergo a We-verse(?)
...{ more lateral processing between two hemi-spheres for ex. }...

Universe = God = Great Spirit( Xy ) = patriarchal base, composed of either I-verse or U-verse.
..{ less inclusive ergo limited view from within or without not both }....

universe = me local sphere of influence and inherently accompanied by an I-verse viewpoint/point-of-view.

>>IN><

((AROUND))

<<OUT>>

Anticipation---and that was the beginning of me

Present---in womb making plans to conquer the Universe

Recall--good ole days when my nutrients were pumped in through my navel

R6