Atheism?

[langleyparkjoe]

Get the fudge outta here, I'm actually learning stuff here!!

[Deadskins]

The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matter—hydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.

This story of origins is entirely fiction. But sadly, many people claim to believe the big-bang model. It is particularly distressing that many professing Christians have been taken in by the big bang, perhaps without realizing its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about origins.

There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed, it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible, so it makes no sense to try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences between the Bible and the secular big-bang view of origins.

The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). It is clear from the context in Genesis that these were days in the ordinary sense (i.e., 24-hour days) since they are bounded by evening and morning and occur in an ordered list (second day, third day, etc.). Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years.

The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun.1 However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular model teaches it was created as a molten blob. The big bang and the Bible certainly do not agree about the past.

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”2 But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching

So much of that is incorrect, both the scientific and the biblical, that I don't even know where to begin. But I will say this: You are taking the Biblical origin story far too literally. No human was around at the time of creation, be there a God or not. The big bang is one of many theories of the creation, just as there are many theories of how the universe will end. The forever expansion, energy depletion theory you talked about is not "heat death," but what is called the big freeze (you have to have energy to have heat). There is too much here to have an internet discussion about it. It takes years of schooling just to cover some of the scientific points you touched on. I gave you a very brief outline of how I believe the Biblical and most prevalent scientific theories do not necessarily contradict each other. You can believe whatever you choose; I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Peace.

[Mississippiskinsfan2]

Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins

The only way this is true is if you're assigning to God how he created the Universe has to be according to your rules. While you're free to make that assignment to God, I'm thinking he doesn't feel bound by it.

Personally, I think it's more valuable to ponder how God did what he did, rather than tell him if I'm not comfortable with the process, I'm going to declare it out of bounds and not consider it. I think God gave us minds and free will to open doors, not close them.

The big bang has holes and so does what the Bible teaches. You can't try to put them together when nether one of them work in the end.

[langleyparkjoe]

Soooo... how did us humans come about? or animals?

its all so confusing!

[Mississippiskinsfan2]

The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matter—hydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.

This story of origins is entirely fiction. But sadly, many people claim to believe the big-bang model. It is particularly distressing that many professing Christians have been taken in by the big bang, perhaps without realizing its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about origins.

There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed, it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible, so it makes no sense to try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences between the Bible and the secular big-bang view of origins.

The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). It is clear from the context in Genesis that these were days in the ordinary sense (i.e., 24-hour days) since they are bounded by evening and morning and occur in an ordered list (second day, third day, etc.). Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years.

The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun.1 However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular model teaches it was created as a molten blob. The big bang and the Bible certainly do not agree about the past.

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”2 But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching

So much of that is incorrect, both the scientific and the biblical, that I don't even know where to begin. But I will say this: You are taking the Biblical origin story far too literally. No human was around at the time of creation, be there a God or not. The big bang is one of many theories of the creation, just as there are many theories of how the universe will end. The forever expansion, energy depletion theory you talked about is not "heat death," but what is called the big freeze (you have to have energy to have heat). There is too much here to have an internet discussion about it. It takes years of schooling just to cover some of the scientific points you touched on. I gave you a very brief outline of how I believe the Biblical and most prevalent scientific theories do not necessarily contradict each other. You can believe whatever you choose; I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Peace.

What I believe Is I should do my best to do the right thing every day, to help anyone in need no matter if I like them or not, to not judge people for it is not mine to do so and to just be happy. What I know is not much at all so feel free to try and change that anytime. This was just my thoughts on it all.

Edit: just so we all know

heat death of the universe is a suggested ultimate fate of the universe, in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain motion or life. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other process may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches the maximum entropy. The hypothesis of heat death stems from the ideas of William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical energy loss in nature (as embodied in the first two laws of thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processes on a universal scale.

The idea of heat death stems from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. If the universe lasts for a sufficient time, it will asymptotically approach a state where all energy is evenly distributed. In other words, in nature there is a tendency to the dissipation (energy loss) of mechanical energy (motion); hence, by extrapolation, there exists the view that the mechanical movement of the universe will run down, as work is converted to heat, in time due to the second law. The idea of heat death was first proposed in loose terms beginning in 1851 by William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, who theorized further on the mechanical energy loss views of Sadi Carnot (1824), James Joule (1843), and Rudolf Clausius (1850). Thomson’s views were then elaborated on more definitively over the next decade by Hermann von Helmholtz and William Rankine.

[Mississippiskinsfan2]

Soooo... how did us humans come about? or animals?

its all so confusing!

Aliens made us

Edit: here are some theories about the origin of life

1. Scientific Evolution
This theory relies strongly on the Big Bang theory of the Creation of the Universe, which was the beginning of the formation of matter. This eventually led to the creation of planets and life on earth as it evolved over millions of years in a natural environment conducive for chemical reactions. We have seen fairly complex biochemicals spontaneously form in simple simulations of earthly prebiotic conditions, such as in the Urey/Miller experiments yielding amino acids. Amino acids form in a wide variety of conditions. Many of the steps from inorganic matter to self replicating life forms remain a mystery to us, but much of the unfolding of the story after the development of multicellular organisms (metazoans) is found in earth's geologic fossil record and in DNA genetic sequences.

2. Special Creation
According to this theory, all the different forms of life that occur today on planet earth have been created by God, the almighty. This idea is found in the ancient scriptures of almost every religion. According to Hindu mythology, Lord Brahma, the God of Creation, created the living world in accordance to his wish. According to the Christian belief, God created this universe, plants, animals and human beings in about six natural days. The Sikh mythology says that all forms of life including human beings came into being with a single word of God. Special creation theory believes that the things have not undergone any significant change since their creation. Creationists generally believe the Bible's explanation that God created a number of basic groups of animals and plants as described in the first part of Genesis. They believe that while God created each group with the possibility of a good deal of variation, they brought forth according to their own kind. By definition, the faith-based Theory of Special Creation is purely a religious concept, acceptable only on the basis of faith. It has no scientific basis.

3. Biogenesis
The belief that living things come only from other living things (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). It may also refer to biochemical processes of production in living organisms. The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material. Pasteur's (and others') empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").

4. Abiogenesis
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis - also known as spontaneous generation - is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. This is also referred to as the "primordial soup" theory of evolution (life began in water as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species). It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. This of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis. Egyptians believed that mud of the Nile River could spontaneously give rise to many forms of life. The idea of spontaneous generation was popular almost till seventeenth century. Many scientists like Descartes, Galileo and Helmont supported this idea.

5. Theory of Chemical Evolution
This theory is also known as Materialistic Theory or Physico-chemical Theory. According this theory, the origin of life on earth is the result of a slow and gradual process of chemical evolution that probably occurred about 3.8 billion years ago. This theory was proposed independently by two scientists - A.I.Oparin, a Russian scientist in 1923 and J.B.S Haldane, an English scientist, in 1928.

6. Theory of Catastrophism
This theory on the origin of life is simply a modification of the theory of Special Creation. It states that there have been several creations of life by God, each preceded by a catastrophe resulting from some kind of geological disturbance. According to this theory, since each catastrophe completely destroyed the existing life, each new creation consisted of life form different from that of previous ones. French scientists Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and Orbigney (1802 to 1837) were the main supporters of this theory.

7. Inorganic Incubation
Proposed by Professor William Martin, of Düsseldorf University, and Professor Michael Russell, of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, this theory states that Instead of the building blocks of life forming first, and then forming a cell-like structure, the researchers say the cell came first and was later filled with living molecules. They say that the first cells were not living cells but inorganic ones made of iron sulfide and were formed not at the Earth's surface but in total darkness at the bottom of the oceans. The theory postulates that life is a chemical consequence of convection currents through the Earth's crust and, in principle, could happen on any wet, rocky planet.

8. Endosymbiotic Theory
This theory, espoused by Lynn Margulis, suggests that multiple forms of bacteria entered into symbiotic relationship to form the eukaryotic cell. The horizontal transfer of genetic material between bacteria promotes such symbiotic relationships, and thus many separate organisms may have contributed to building what has been recognized as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of modern organisms. James Lovelock's Gaia theory, proposes that such bacterial symbiosis establishes the environment as a system produced by and supportive of life. His arguments strongly weaken the case for life having evolved elsewhere in the solar system.

9. Panspermia - Cells From Outer Space
Some scientists believe that the simplest life-forms, whole cells (especially microbial cells), have been transported to the Earth from extraterrestrial sources. In this way, a process called panspermia (means seeds everywhere) might have initiated life on Earth. Most mainstream scientists have not supported panspermia, but early challenges have been thwarted in recent years due to discoveries such as terrestrial microbes that survive in extreme environments and incredibly aged yet viable microorganisms found in ancient rocks. In addition, water (essential for life) has been discovered on other planets and moons, and organic chemicals have been found on meteorites and in interstellar debris.

10. Cosmogony
Cosmogony is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or about how reality came to be. In the specialized context of space science and astronomy, the term refers to theories of creation of the Solar System. For example, Greek mythology and some religions of the Ancient Near East refer to chaos, the formless or void state of primordial matter preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in creation myths. Cosmogony can be distinguished from cosmology, which studies the universe at large and throughout its existence, yet does not inquire directly into the source of life or its origins.

11. Marine Theory
The Marine Theory suggests that life may have begun at the submarine hydrothermal vents; their rocky nooks could then have concentrated these molecules together and provided mineral catalysts for critical reactions. Even now, these vents are rich in chemical and thermal energy that sustains vibrant ecosystems.

12. Electric Spark Theory
Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, as was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiment reported in 1953, suggesting that lightning might have helped create the key building blocks of life on Earth in its early days. Over millions of years, larger and more complex molecules could form. Although research since then has revealed the early atmosphere of Earth was actually hydrogen-poor, scientists have suggested that volcanic clouds in the early atmosphere might have held methane, ammonia and hydrogen and been filled with lightning as well.

13. Tribal and Mythological
Though not strictly scientific from our modern definition, ancient lore was believed to be a scientific belief in their day, as it attempted to explain what was observed. From the tribes of ancient times to the mythologies of more modern cultures, there are countless stories of how life began. Some are based in pagan beliefs, while others are based on creation resulting from a holy deity. This collection of myths, legend and tribal knowledge handed down over generations is the collective expression of how man attempts to explain his world and his place in it.

[DarthMonk]

... as long as we all admit God might not exist ... and that God might ...

... and that evidence is not proof ... it's evidence ...

... and that some "evidence" can be "reproduced" and "shared" while some is so personal it cannot ...

[Countertrey]

... as long as we all admit God might not exist ... and that God might ...

... and that evidence is not proof ... it's evidence ...

... and that some "evidence" can be "reproduced" and "shared" while some is so personal it cannot ...

umm... belief is NOT evidence.

[crazyhorse1]

I am Atheist #truestory

How do you explain everything that is? #truequestion

I don't have to explain anything

Well, not if you have no intellectual curiosity.

Intellectual curiosity?

I think blindly following stories in the greatest fictional novel ever written is not exactly intelligent.

Note: The bible is the most shoplifted book of all time.

Who said anything about the Bible? I'm talking about the existence of God. The greatest scientists the world has ever known have almost all, uniformly, believed in the existence of God. I was just wondering how an atheist believes everything was created, if not by a supreme being.

Like most of us, if not all, actually all, atheists don't know how everything was created. Very few scientists are believers, not even Einstein, in spite of a few vague quotes (read a good bio). In fact, sixteen percent of Americans are now atheists and Unitarians make up a huge percentage of the American population. Use your head. If everything has to have a creator, who made the creator--a logical problem that usually occurs to children.

[crazyhorse1]

There is also a big difference in being an atheist, and rejecting religious dogma.

I agree. In fact I think that might be the most common error that atheists make in attacking theism. On the one hand, they talk about how there's no reason to think God exists. But on the other, if one brings up the classical arguments for the existence of God, they will shift to talking about the Bible or the way extremist Muslims act or some other thing that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether there is a God at all. (Hitchens and Sam Harris make their living off this move.)

I'm not convinced that all the scientists listed on the wiki page are atheists, so much as can't define God using the scientific method.

Well, perhaps that's the case. Let's say this is true: wouldn't you still have to adjust your original claim that almost all the greatest scientists uniformly believe in the existence of God?

The Classical arguments for the existence of God have been in the toilet for generations. It's hard to pick up a book featuring them that doesn't offer refutations. Hitchens' last book, his collection of essays from numerous sources, is chock full of refutations that are unassailable. As a matter of fact, the arguments no longer even merit discussion, except for kids.

[crazyhorse1]

Albert Einstein was an Atheist.

Um, no, he wasn't.

Yes, he was. That is to say he had no conviction that God, or any facsimile thereof that merits the name "God," exists. Why quibble with definitions of
"God." In the world of everyday speech, anyone who doesn't have the conviction that "God" is a spiritual or physical entity is an atheist. Many of us are atheists.

[crazyhorse1]

doubting is believing

I've just never had a 'good' explanation for how the world came to be, if not for 'something'

'believing' is easier than the alternative



it's really a shame that some have no faith

It's a shame that some of us have no reason or need for proof.

[crazyhorse1]

Not a knock towards any of you but God first, everything else in life is second.

But who is God? Is your God the same as other Gods? Why are Gods different? Who are people referencing when the word of God is spoken?

Those are just some of the questions I ask myself. I am not denying the existence of a higher being, but I do question the division among humanity about who or what God really is.

Anyone who doesn't believe in the true God, Zeus, is an atheist.

[crazyhorse1]

To Irn-Bru's earlier point, you're confusing religion with God

I do not believe in God or Religion. I do know the difference. Some feel as though God is a representation of theory, not a man in the clouds.

I have some free time today so if anyone would like to defend religion, by all means I would love to hear what you have to say.

You say you know the difference, but you are only arguing against religion, as per your last sentence. As an atheist, you're not saying you don't believe in them but making an assertive statement they don't exist, and you're not backing that up at all.

An atheist doesn't have to prove the non-existence of anything. He doesn't have to make assertions, nor does he have to prove the non-existence of tooth fairies. The burden of proof is on believers in tooth fairies.

[crazyhorse1]

I, personally, have factual evidence that there is a God. But I can not prove it to anyone else, because my experiences were mine alone, and there is no way to prove they happened.

PS ATX, I love how you used the word "parish," when you meant "perish." What a Freudian slip!

Maybe you're insane. It happened to me once. Because of sleep deprivation I went into a ten day fugue state in which I had hallucinations and talked to a demon. I was brought out of it by modern meds. Presto! No demon. You can't rely on personal experience. The human mind is frail and subject to all sorts of distortions. Live with it.

[Deadskins]

To Irn-Bru's earlier point, you're confusing religion with God

I do not believe in God or Religion. I do know the difference. Some feel as though God is a representation of theory, not a man in the clouds.

I have some free time today so if anyone would like to defend religion, by all means I would love to hear what you have to say.

You say you know the difference, but you are only arguing against religion, as per your last sentence. As an atheist, you're not saying you don't believe in them but making an assertive statement they don't exist, and you're not backing that up at all.

An atheist doesn't have to prove the non-existence of anything. He doesn't have to make assertions, nor does he have to prove the non-existence of tooth fairies. The burden of proof is on believers in tooth fairies.

Why? They believe, and you're trying to convince them they're wrong.

[crazyhorse1]

I have some free time today so if anyone would like to defend religion, by all means I would love to hear what you have to say.

What are people supposed to be defending religion against? I haven't seen any criticisms of it . . . just a guy looking up at the clouds and saying he lives by reality. Not exactly heavy-hitting material there.

I didn't make the thread, not sure why I should have to do the heavy hitting...

Well, I started it, but it was based on a comment you made in another thread. So, in a way, you did make the thread, or at least made it possible.

It's funny to me that when an Atheist walks in the room nobody is religious anymore. I am not talking about God anymore. I am talking about religion.

Interesting that some people I have a feeling are hiding their faith behind the term "God".

I cannot argue there is no God, I can argue that anyone's religion is utter crap though.

The origins of this thread were in regards to one of the members becoming a born again Christian and having Jesus Christ in his life. Lets stick to religion then shall we.

I consider myself religious. I am a Christian, not born again, but a Christian no less. I believe that Jesus was the messiah, and he died so that I, and the rest of the world might be saved. I don't proselytize or try to impose my beliefs on anyone else, but I would never deny my beliefs out of embarrassment or concern for some sort of negative retribution, especially on a message board. I often pray that God will reveal Himself to those that don't know His love the way I do. So if you want to try and belittle me for my beliefs, go for it. It won't affect me, because, as I said before, I have personal proof there is a God, and I have a very good relationship with Him. Nothing you can say will change that.

Hypo-mania. Look it up.

[KazooSkinsFan]

An atheist doesn't have to prove the non-existence of anything. He doesn't have to make assertions, nor does he have to prove the non-existence of tooth fairies. The burden of proof is on believers in tooth fairies.

Nonsense. If someone is saying they don't believe in God, then sure, I agree. But if someone makes an assertive statement there is no God, the burden of proof is as high for them to prove it as someone who believes there is a God. Any assertive statement of fact needs to be proven.

[Deadskins]

Use your head. If everything has to have a creator, who made the creator--a logical problem that usually occurs to children.

So, you're saying you think like a child? Let's assume for the sake of argument there is no God. Does everything still not have to have an origin? Do you exist? Or are you saying everything has always existed? Why can't it be the same for God? I'm sorry if you haven't experienced Him in your life (though you probably have and just don't realize it or want to admit it), but I certainly have. So, I don't need you to tell me to use my head, when I have never done anything but.

[crazyhorse1]

Use your head. If everything has to have a creator, who made the creator--a logical problem that usually occurs to children.

So, you're saying you think like a child? Let's assume for the sake of argument there is no God. Does everything still not have to have an origin? Do you exist? Or are you saying everything has always existed? Why can't it be the same for God? I'm sorry if you haven't experienced Him in your life (though you probably have and just don't realize it or want to admit it), but I certainly have. So, I don't need you to tell me to use my head, when I have never done anything but.

As I just told you, I have personally experienced a paranormal being that wasn't there; it might well have been an angel, or God, or a talking tree stump. Personal experience matters zip. Perception is a tricky thing. Two people subjected to the same thing can see two different things. As the law is beginning to learn, eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. I am unreliable. You are unreliable. Reality is tentative. In such an environment, to assert that reality is as one perceives it is naive. Considering thus, how can you (or I) say things of importance without humility. Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

[Deadskins]

Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.

[crazyhorse1]

Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.

No, things do not have to have an origin. See Stephen Hawking. The best evidence that science has now is that the universe could have derived from nothing, summed up in the phrase: "Nothingness is unstable." According to relevant math, there is no need to factor in a creator to account for "creation."
You should keep up with the science. Interesting stuff.
To answer your other questions. Yes, it's possible things have always existed.
Yes, God may have always existed, but in this case there is no reason, scientifically, to think that he has. As to my existence, yes, I may exist. In my case, there is some reason to think that I have, scientifically speaking.

[Deadskins]

Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.

No, things do not have to have an origin. See Stephen Hawking. The best evidence that science has now is that the universe could have derived from nothing, summed up in the phrase: "Nothingness is unstable." According to relevant math, there is no need to factor in a creator to account for "creation."
You should keep up with the science. Interesting stuff.

I could say the same. Hawking hasn't been relevant for about 15 years. "Nothingness is unstable" is as good an explanation for the creation as God is. There is no scientific proof for either. As to your points about eye-witness testimony and personal experience, I would say that would decimate all scientific proofs, for what are they without observations of conducted experiments? And just because all eye-witness accounts may not be factual, doesn't mean they all are false either.

[crazyhorse1]

Fact: you don't know whether there is a God or not, neither do I.

Fact: you don't understand the difference between a fact and a supposition, and you didn't answer my questions.

No, things do not have to have an origin. See Stephen Hawking. The best evidence that science has now is that the universe could have derived from nothing, summed up in the phrase: "Nothingness is unstable." According to relevant math, there is no need to factor in a creator to account for "creation."
You should keep up with the science. Interesting stuff.

I could say the same. Hawking hasn't been relevant for about 15 years. "Nothingness is unstable" is as good an explanation for the creation as God is. There is no scientific proof for either. As to your points about eye-witness testimony and personal experience, I would say that would decimate all scientific proofs, for what are they without observations of conducted experiments? And just because all eye-witness accounts may not be factual, doesn't mean they all are false either.

There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness. I agree, however, that all "scientific" or other proofs are decimated by the consideration that we are unreliable witnesses. Too bad. Your God is conjecture.

[KazooSkinsFan]

There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness

Sorry, you fundamentally don't understand the field of mathematics. No mathematician would say this. They would say it is a logical calculation only, they would never say math proved the real world. What they say is that math can lead us to a logical conclusion, but only empirical data can "prove" they were correct.

If you read any of the greats like Brian Greene's book on string theory and the number of dimensions, Einstein or any of the others, they say exactly that. Research and not their calculations will prove their models right or wrong. They viewed their models as guides for empirical testing.