Then what was the first of very firsts?
There could not of been absolute zero, nothingness, non existance then out of the blue popped out something.
Something always had to exist in whatever form to create what is now.
So what is your answer to this that takes less leap of faith than God always existing which has backing of historical proof of Jesus and a Bible that many historians use than an athiest hypothesis that has only a grabbed out of the air guess a suggestion rather.
2007-01-07 13:33:25 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Drew, and your reasoning? Do not ask a question for an answer please.
2007-01-07 13:36:04 · update #1
But drew God said he is the alpha and omega so you are correct in that aspect.
2007-01-07 13:37:13 · update #2
So there is so far 10 responses and no answer saying "hey we know it here it is.."
2007-01-07 13:38:29 · update #3
lynciel, nothingness in it's trueness has no human conception.
You try and conceive absolute nothingness your mind always puts something there.
2007-01-07 13:43:47 · update #4
Drew's edit: nice gobbledeegook so what is that in plain english?
2007-01-07 13:53:13 · update #5
you ask such a good question but unfortunately won't be answered honestly by any atheist on this forum. God has always been, the first of firsts.
I like your ID. I believe God is responsible for much Bungle in the world...He's got a great sense of humor, don't you think?
2007-01-07 13:43:28 · answer #1 · answered by 4 Shades of Blue 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First off who ever said athiest don't believe thier is something at the beginning. Most of them just do not believe in a God who would ask them to bow down to him and worship him by means of fear. Some of them actually believe something existed or does exist but it is not an all everloving God like everyone thinks. It could be a darn machine pumping us all out for that matter. I am not an atheist but I have read enough to understand thier point of view. And why does something have to have a beginning, this is a human concept but it doesn't mean its the only true one. Human intelligence only goes so far just like animal intelligence. We only have as much as we need or can handle. If we were say some other life form with much higher intelligence we might know the answer to this but we do not. Faith is the only logic in religion but for some people it just isn't enough and its not up to us to judge them for that.
2007-01-07 21:59:22 · answer #2 · answered by CelticFairy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Something always had to exist in whatever form to create what is now."
Really?
Prove it.
And prove that it's your invisible sky-daddy.
"So what is your answer to this that takes less leap of faith than God always existing which has backing of historical proof of Jesus and a Bible that many historians use than an athiest hypothesis that has only a grabbed out of the air guess a suggestion rather."
My answer to that?
I can't answer it. It's not a question so much as it is an incoherent run-on sentence.
2007-01-07 21:36:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
To call the accumulated efforts of science 'a suggestion' shows that you are just another biased and blinded sheep.
Why would it take less of a leap of faith to assume that God always existed and then created the Universe than to just assume that the Universe always existed? One requires an extra step... which one is it?
And, please, how do you think the books of the Bible were written, if not 'grabbed out of the air'?
You are aware that there were quite a few other books written, and other Gospels written, that didn't make it into the final edition as decided by the First Council of Nicaea, right?
2007-01-07 21:35:34 · answer #4 · answered by Michael 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
In Qabalism (Jewish mysticism) God or Light did indeed emerge as Primal Consciousness from Nothingness (Ain). In the scientific community that emergence is the equivalent of the Cosmos or Universe erupting from a Naked Singularity or Black Hole. If nothingness did not exist, there would be no concept of it! In Qabalism Ain is unknowable as is Primal Cause...
2007-01-07 21:41:11 · answer #5 · answered by Lynci 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why must there be a beginning?
Edit: It was a socratic argument, you made the assumption that there must be a beginning (begged the question), and I contested it.
Double Bonus Edit: If you still make that assumption, that everything must have a cause, then why doesn't god have to follow that rule? Its a logical fallacy, called special pleading, and thats why skeptics ask who made god.
2007-01-07 21:35:16 · answer #6 · answered by Drew 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Only a wise eternal God makes sense.
2007-01-07 21:36:51 · answer #7 · answered by robert p 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My answer to what formed the universe and what 'always was' is simply "I have no idea, I do not know".
Your answer (God did it), is actually the exact same answer as I gave. Someday you will realize that. Really.
2007-01-07 21:38:16 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well simply I will tell you this. If you cared so much about proving god, you would do your little prayer thing and have him come on down.
Because as I see it. God is a monster.
Tell me I have a good question.
Was the death of 6 million jews necessary?
2007-01-07 21:45:46 · answer #9 · answered by breakingpoint56 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
but god musta popped up out of no where then? who created god?
there's really no use asking this question because everyone has different opinions.....
bet ya u end up getting pissed off at people that disagree with you!!
2007-01-07 21:37:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋