You're not religious? That's fine. Still do you feel appreciative/grateful? To whom, for what and why?

All of that work to find out that there must be something else at work for the universe to happen but start off and hold to the premise that there is no God. 
(Romans 1:20-22) For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish

https://answermug.com/forums/topic/42167/do-some-scientist-really-think-that-the-universe-should-not-exis/view/post_id/379103

https://answermug.com/forums/topic/18166/how-did-life-begin/view/post_id/327093


Edited to change 'hod' to 'hold'. This post was edited by texasescimo at December 8, 2017 11:04 AM MST

Ancient man perceived there must be invisible superhuman forces as cause of phenomena they could not understand at the time. Then they got the idea to personify these forces being various gods as the mind and brain that controlled them. They imagined a separate god for each and every of the various element or forces -sun, wind, water,  earthquakes et al. Course someone eventually got the inspiration to eliminate the multiple gods and believe in one all powerful creator God that is in vogue at the present time. Man's belief in the God or gods gives them the inspiration to make up a lot of interesting material suitable for the scriptures. 

That was fine but science provides knowledge of the reality of existence.  That's what I think anyway. 

Just don't forget that your opinion doesn't make proven science like that life on earth only comes from preexisting life. Even in a laboratory where they can put certain existing materials together to make something like a single cell germ like creation requires and intelligent scientist to create that. Also don't forget that science has pretty much proven that the universe could not have just happened on its own.

I would make a deeper investigation and avoid the pitfall. Psalms 10:4

The infinite existence of the universe is proven by the law of the Conservation of Energy that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Natural forces exist that can enable life to begin from so-called non-living matter due to the existence of 'consciousness'  -as Buddha wisely said 'consciousness exists in the stone'. The consciousness that is the basis of life;  perhaps the basis of all existence. 
Consciousness being the term religious people consider as supernatural spirituality. 

It appears that some modern scientist like Stephen Hawking now believe that our universe had a beginning, if I understand correctly?
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&q=universe+has+a+beginning&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpmIjFv_vXAhVHQyYKHbqSD5UQBQgkKAA&biw=1920&bih=974

Thanks -lots of interesting material. 

 I agree with the concept of big bounce theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Which gives evidence that time is infinite and can have no beginning anyway because a beginning is an element of time so time would already have to exist in order to enable a beginning to occur. 
Events occurring within a 3D universe give us the illusion of elapsing time where time is actually static; everything revolves around time in a relative way. 

Definition of conservation of energy

a principle in physics: the total energy of an isolated system remains constant irrespective of whatever internal changes may take place with energy disappearing in one form reappearing in another.

This post was edited by tom jackson at December 8, 2017 6:40 PM MST

I personally have a preference for theology and dogma in a "religion," so I am not particularly inclined to investigate and or practice it enough to have a legitimate opinion of it. 

Buddhism is a system based on practice and individual experience rather than on theology or dogma, the different forms that have emerged differ less in what they believe the Buddha's teachings to be than in how they believe Buddhism should be practiced in daily life.

But I do not reject it "out of hand."  But if, as you suggest, "as Buddha wisely said 'consciousness exists in the stone'. The consciousness that is the basis of life; perhaps the basis of all existence.
Consciousness being the term religious people consider as supernatural spirituality."---I'm just not comfortable with the phraseology.

I'm just trying to emphasize that I am in no way in my answers, trying to disparage your beliefs. 

Science provides knowledge of the reality of what we call "natural" things.  It specifically excludes the supernatural since it has no tools to examine it.

I think it quite likely that man desires to understand all of reality (both the natural and the supernatural) because God chose to create that desire in him.

(Romans 1:20-22) For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish

Can't exactly take one verse, one comment, or even one thread by me and think that is where I am coming from. Not at all what I am saying. Kittigate and I have discussed this a little further in the past, hence the cited verse. I am guessing that you didn't go to the links. 

https://nypost.com/2017/10/25/the-universe-shouldnt-exist-according-to-science/

https://www.newsweek.com/universe-should-not-exist-cern-scientists-discover-692500

EDIT: Also, the verse quote doesn't say anything at all about rather or not 'the Bible is true'. The points we are discussing so far was basically scientific evidence of our existence. Everything points to a supernatural first cause.
I find it interesting that from your picture you posted with the verse that you apparently want to take the verse totally out of context as to what the point of the verse is as well as ignore everything else that has been discussed such as scientific evidence of things discussed.

Do you agree with proven and observable science that life only comes from preexisting life?
Do you agree with modern scientist that the universe could not have just happened on its own?
Do you agree with modern scientist like Stephen Hawking who believe that our universe had a beginning,


This post was edited by texasescimo at December 9, 2017 4:02 AM MST

'Everything points to a supernatural first cause,' a thing is only supernatural till it is shown to be natural! Simply because an answer is not known yet is no reason to slip in the supernatural, be it a god or any other damned thing.

'Do you agree with proven and observable science that life only comes from preexisting life?' No life as been shown to be formed from things other than preexisting life.

"Everything points to a supernatural first cause,' a thing is only supernatural till it is shown to be natural! Simply because an answer is not known yet is no reason to slip in the supernatural, be it a god or any other damned thing."
Yet many start out with the premise that there is no God and try to point to science as proof of their reason when observable science today seems to point out that that is not the case as scientifically, even the universe should not be here. 


"'Do you agree with proven and observable science that life only comes from preexisting life?' No life as been shown to be formed from things other than preexisting life."
Even the simplest supposed life form developed by a scientist in a controlled environment with preexisting molecules or whatever and added to the mix by a scientist, still needed preexisting life to put it all together, intelligent life in actuality, unless you don't consider the scientist to be intelligent or life.

Why do you keep regurgitating the same clutching at straws replies, If you do not know and cannot prove something, at least be honest with both yourself and everyone else and admit that you simply do not know the answer.

Have you been willing to look at anything posted? Even your entry into the thread was a bit odd as this thread has nothing to do with why I believe the Bible.

Just because I have been humble enough to read enough to know something and you are too proud to read even one link in a thread you entered is no reason to admit something that is not true.

You should really try reading the Bible before you comment on it as well as the links posted in a thread you enter. Funny that you ask for citations when they have been in your lap from the get go. 

Okay let's start at the beginning of this post (concerning our conversation), I gave my opinion on your biblical quote then you say that I cannot take your own quote and say that I know where you are coming from, if it is not where you are coming from then why post the quote in the first place?
You claim to have read enough to 'know something', sadly you are not well enough read to know that you simply cannot ignore facts that show your buybull to be wrong, no you grasp at any straw that will keep your delusions afloat even to the extent that you ignore reality. I notice in the other threads that you directed me to (then accuse me of ignoring) that you post a lot of links to the JW site, exactly how many scientists do the JW employ in order to find answers to the questions that you as a well read (well read means from more than one source) man claim to know the answers to?
I asked for citation regarding you comment 'Do you agree with modern scientist that the universe could not have just happened on its own?' The reason I asked this is your comment is either missing a word or missing a letter or has the wrong word, all 3 options change the statement.
Do you agree with a modern scientist that the universe could not have just happened on its own?
Do you agree with modern science that the universe could not have just happened on its own?
Do you agree with modern scientists that the universe could not have just happened on its own?
Take your pick, which do you want?

[Okay let's start at the beginning of this post (concerning our conversation), I gave my opinion on your biblical quote then you say that I cannot take your own quote and say that I know where you are coming from, if it is not where you are coming from then why post the quote in the first place?]

Where did I say that 'The Bible is true because that's what it says in the Bible'?

 

[You claim to have read enough to 'know something', sadly you are not well enough read to know that you simply cannot ignore facts that show your buybull to be wrong, no you grasp at any straw that will keep your delusions afloat even to the extent that you ignore reality.]

You must be thinking of someone else in another thread?  You haven't posted any verses and I haven't posted any that you have proved to be wrong.

 

[I notice in the other threads that you directed me to (then accuse me of ignoring) that you post a lot of links to the JW site, exactly how many scientists do the JW employ in order to find answers to the questions that you as a well read (well read means from more than one source) man claim to know the answers to?]

How many scientist do you employ? JW's do not employ anyone that I know of, if they do, what is the starting salary and what is top pay? I don't really consider myself as 'well read' but by your definition I guess I qualify as I've read more than one source as I gave you more than source. 

 

[I asked for citation regarding you comment 'Do you agree with modern scientist that the universe could not have just happened on its own?' The reason I asked this is your comment is either missing a word or missing a letter or has the wrong word, all 3 options change the statement.

Do you agree with a modern scientist that the universe could not have just happened on its own?
Do you agree with modern science that the universe could not have just happened on its own?
Do you agree with modern scientists that the universe could not have just happened on its own?
Take your pick, which do you want?]

Really? Is your grammar perfect to where you have never made an error? How many times do you proofread every comment you make on the internet?

Regardless how you take it 'a modern scientist', 'modern science', 'modern scientists', the answer should be the same. If you go to the link you will see that 'a modern scientist' supports what is said in the link, you will see that 'modern science' supports what is said in the link, and that 'modern scientists' support what is in the link.

Of course there is or SHOULD BE. Your parents? Did they not care for you? What about your mate? A schlump or someone for whom you are very grateful? If you actually are not grateful to or appreciative of any "whom" I don't understand you at all. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday to thee Kg. This post was edited by RosieG at December 9, 2017 3:57 AM MST

Course my parents cared for me and growing up on a farm I paid back well with all my share of regular chores and work I did. My gal friend is a disabled person and I do a lot to help her out.

Thank you for your reply Sharon and Happy Saturday! :)