so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[JoeyKnothead]

When you say that I feel God is necessary to answer the question, That is not without my searching if there is a God or not. I can look at both sides of this world we live in, and question Chance, Evolution or God? I am not into blind faith. I have also gambled, I know about odds.

And yet you are unable to provide proof for God. Where is this proof? A two thousand year old book? With all its inconsistencies? You have faith in something you can't see, yet you refuse to admit that is blind faith.

The odds of our form of life on earth, coming into existence, and surviving?, They just do not exist. Death would come in too fast after the life and kill it. Too many complex systems needed to get past the first day.

Atoms and molecules bond according to their chemical properties. Carbon is especially conducive to forming bonds with other chemicals, and we see these bonds in all life. As these chemicals become more and more complex, they are able to create even more complex molecules. All it takes is one semi self replicating molecule to 'turn on' evolution, and the rest is history.

There were whole oceans 'working' to create these complex molecules, and as we see, they overcame the incredible odds you propose. When factoring in the immense range of material from which nature had to work with the odds almost reduce to life 'having' to form.

I have no problem with another life form evolving from non life, A Spirit form, More on an energy base, But not like our life on earth. One cell may seem very simple, Very complex is what they are.

So you have no problem with life forming in a manner in which we can't detect? You just can't accept life forming and evolving in a manner in which we can detect?

"Its all so complicated, so I will dismiss all the science throughout history, going with my undetectable, unprovable belief in a God"? Is this what you are saying?

Before they died, They would have to reproduce another life. Feed. Find something to eat? And if that means to manufacture food? Get rid of waste, have some form of body, etc. It is just not possible.

Replication. Then you're getting into ID, which has been soundly rebutted before, but I sense you're going to stick to it anyway.

If I need PROFOUND proof that God is necessary, I guess you need PROFOUND proof on you philosophical answer, But forget it, An answer that makes sense is sufficient

So God did it is sufficient for you? In light of all the evidence science has shown, you would rather disregard it as wrong? You would rather believe in what is unprovable, than to believe what is provable?

Philosophy uses some of the same methods as science, and answers only the more ethereal questions. But it does so with astounding accuracy when there is a question to which philosophical principles apply. Admittedly, it will give more than one answer to the question why, depending on the individual. It does, however, help the OP derive at a sufficient answer for their question. Specifically when they wonder how this question can be answered without invoking an unknown, invisible, spirit in the sky.

[Beastt]

Like a baby not being part of an abortion process.

A fetus is part of the abortion process. An appendix is part of the appendectomy process. The concept is one of perspective, the perspective of the fetus, which is still forming, or the conscious decision of the body in which it is taking form.

A dictionary? Does a dictionary bleed when it is aborted? Does a pregnancy bleed when it is aborted? Just what is doing that bleeding?

Arguments such as this would provide very good reason to suggest that Thought Criminal has provided the stronger standing. Let's look at another example. many called the official explanation of the 9/11 incidents a "terrorist attack". Others called it "an act of war". In many cases, these were the very same people, all of whom were hoping to drive Americans into a war-mongering rage. In actuality, a "terrorist attack" cannot be an "act of war". They are two distinctly different things. An act of war is a confrontational attack by one county against another. A terrorist attack is a confrontational attack by a small group, not defined by country, against any chosen target. And arguing that the books which contain such official definitions didn't burn or jump from the towers is an argument from absurdity.

God has no intention of Judging you.

Blind assertion, where you speak for God. Why is it so easy for theists to stand up and speak for God, and not realize that they're doing exactly what the Bible's authors were doing?

Jesus was judged in our place, Found Guilty, and condemned to death.

Judged by the Jews and found guilty, then judged by Pontius Pilate and found not guilty but put to death anyway to calm the demands of the masses. It's interesting that Christians can simultaneously assert that Jesus was without sin, and also that he was found guilty through divine judgment.

But I think you missed something. When someone has the power, They can do a lot of things. Adolf Hitler judged and condemned a lot of people, Saddam Hussein judged and condemned a lot of people.

You might find yourself being judged by someone who you do not think is in position to judge you. Might even be someone in your own family. And you might not like what that Judgment might effect in your life.

Any one of us has the ability to assess the actions, beliefs or points of arguments of another. I judge that Thought Criminal has presented a far more supported presentation of is points.

There is no grade level for heaven.

Another blind assertion. "Faithists" (those who follow the writings of Oahspe), assert that Heaven has many levels. If you can't demonstrate either to be true or even more likely, then making any assertion regarding Heaven and whether or not it has levels is pointless and fruitless.

Jesus took all our sins and rendered to mankind His righteousness,

There are certain phrases which are inherent in your statements, yet continually excluded. "According to Christian doctrine -- a doctrine which in it's 2,000+ years has failed to present itself with any credibility -- asserts that..."Jesus took all our sins and rendered to mankind His righteousness".

That's a very important over-sight yet one you continually present. You're preaching what cannot be demonstrated to be anything other than myth, and doing so as though it had been inarguably verified.

The locust might give you a hard time, Telling you of the Mercy and love of God whom you seem to like to insult. He has broad shoulders, No problem. And that little talk of their only takes five months, and what is that in the span of Eternal life?

More blind assertions. You cannot demonstrate that God exists. You cannot demonstrate that God loves. You cannot demonstrate that God has mercy. Reality demonstrates that the universe operates on cold indifferent logic, not on love or mercy. Your assertions remain completely bankrupt from an evidentiary or demonstrative point of view. Yet you continue to present them as though they held merit. They do not.

I try not to make negative statements, But when what you write get called, Deceptive, Dishonest, Misleading, Mistaken, and Ridiculous. I might slip a bit.

Then perhaps you should take measures to assure that what you write can be verified and fully supported through demonstration.

And that does not even begin to take into consideration the negative comments being made about God and Jesus that are being said.

There was a time when people commonly looked to mountains, clumps of trees, mighty rivers and many other natural subjects and asserted them to be gods. They even took to killing those who failed to show the respect they believed was appropriate. These were very primitive and ignorant people. Please note that there was no more evidence or verification for their ancient, primitive and ignorant assumptions than there is for similar assumptions today. If God or Jesus exist and take offense, then let them act. If they do not exist, then we should expect to see no retaliation from them. Note that they do not, nor have they ever, retaliated. You are the one who is offended, not God. I assert that your concept of God holds no more merit than the concepts of ancient volcano gods. When you can argue that from substantiative grounds, let me know.

If one does not believe in God, Calling Him as portrayed as a sexist, racist, homophobic, who endorses all of these bigotries? Serves what purpose? To insult anyone who believes in Him, Perhaps?

There is the supposed entity of God whom you believe is real, and the character of God as portrayed in the Bible. One can most certainly classify and dislike the character of God as portrayed in the Bible and yet not believe such an entity to be real, just as one can find the character of Captain Ahab to have been obsessive without believing that such a person ever existed.

There are direct insults, and indirect insults. They all come out insults.

Unless you believe that you are God or Jesus, then comments made about the characters portrayed in the Bible are not direct insults. They are assessments of personality of characters, whether real or not, based on assertions made about them.

[otseng]

Jester? Are you a moderator? I see nothing on the left.

Yes, Jester is a moderator. He is a member of the "Moderators" usergroup.

And that does not even begin to take into consideration the negative comments being made about God and Jesus that are being said. If one does not believe in God, Calling Him as portrayed as a sexist, racist, homophobic, who endorses all of these bigotries? Serves what purpose? To insult anyone who believes in Him, Perhaps?

This is a debating forum. People are free to say "negative" comments about God and Jesus. But as well, you are free to say "positive" comments about God and Jesus. However, any negative comment directed at another member of this forum is strictly prohibited.

[otseng]

Moderator comment:

Please stick to the OP and avoid chasing all the multiplying rabbits.

[Beastt]

Asking why asserts that there is a why -- a goal held by some absolute sentience. As none has been evidenced, supported or observed, the question of why is a question based on an assumption which without support, must be logically assumed to be false. A question based on a false assumption is not a good question.

Before asking "why", one must decide whether there is sufficient cause to believe there is a why. In this instance, it appears there is no such cause.

[ken1burton]

Joeyknuccione.

Got to stick to the OP, No comment.

Beastt.

DITTO:

Otseng

I did not know about the Moderator forum, and with a screen name like Jester? Who could tell?

And as far as sticking to the opening post, I guess I have to delete all I wrote in answer to the recent posts. As the OP was addressed. The Why can only relate to there being a God with a reason. All that was left were the rabbits.

Ken

[Beastt]

JBeastt.

DITTO:

"Ditto"?

Ditto what?

Others here aren't afraid to provide support for their assertions. It always seems to be the theists who argue from positions of blind assertion. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because you hold no evidence to support your position?

If so, it shouldn't surprise you to find that your arguments are found to be of far less merit.

What points do you wish to make for which you can provide substantiation?

[muhammad rasullah]

Asking why asserts that there is a why -- a goal held by some absolute sentience. As none has been evidenced, supported or observed, the question of why is a question based on an assumption which without support, must be logically assumed to be false. A question based on a false assumption is not a good question.

Before asking "why", one must decide whether there is sufficient cause to believe there is a why. In this instance, it appears there is no such cause.

If there is a why for everything else why wouldn't it be a why for this? Your presupposition that there isn't a why is just like someone else saying there is evidence for a why.

[ken1burton]

Beastt.

I did not call for a Moderator, But this Forum has Moderators. And I was told to STICK TO THE OPENING POST (OP). I had already written out my replies to both Thought Criminal and to you, So I deleted it, Even though it took a long time to address, and told Thought Criminal I had to stick to the Opening Post or topic. Which I am now doing here.

So you got a Ditto or your questions which are not about the WHY do not get answered.

Got a problem? See Otseng.

Ken

[Goat]

Asking why asserts that there is a why -- a goal held by some absolute sentience. As none has been evidenced, supported or observed, the question of why is a question based on an assumption which without support, must be logically assumed to be false. A question based on a false assumption is not a good question.

Before asking "why", one must decide whether there is sufficient cause to believe there is a why. In this instance, it appears there is no such cause.

If there is a why for everything else why wouldn't it be a why for this? Your presupposition that there isn't a why is just like someone else saying there is evidence for a why.

There might be a 'why', but science does not attempt to answer it. How/when/when/where are the questions it attempts to answer.