Quote Originally Posted by ADaisyChain
Would it also not be only logical to assume that something exists when there's evidence pointing to its creation. Something was the original uncreated. Though I doubt its some god who knows when we're naughty or nice.

If you think back far enough, the VERY first 'thing' to exist, could not have been created, but simply existed. Godlike, though not the omnipotent knows when your naughty and nice god religions speak of, but still something that can defy all possible observations.

this phrase seems to be one I hear constantly in god debates: "everybody knows something can't come out of nothing". but in fact, most people think something can't come out of nothing, when in fact recent breakthrough's in quantum physics have shown that atoms, which are comprised of subatomic particles, are comprised of their own condensed energy. that energy in itself is shown to have consequencial influence on physical mass, but posesses no real substance in itself. hence, the line between that which exists and does not exist is actually a very fine one when you really begin to understand the nature of existence. or more precisely, that which "is" and "isn't" isn't necessarily such a distinctively separate entity. the very nature of space itself, the core of existence, what we fooled ourselves into believing is "nothing" as opposed to our "something", is the true nature of existence.
mrdevious Reviewed by mrdevious on . My qualms with atheism. Here is what I've been thinking: We only know what we have observed. For example, we wouldn't know 2+2=4 unless at one point someone took two seperate piles of apples, 2 in each pile, and shoved them together to see there was now a pile of 4 apples. This is what originally turned me off to religion. It is unobserved and can easily be created by a good mind. Also, the fact that religion comforts so many people made it feel somewhat empty to me. Most people will believe anything that Rating: 5