You seem to both be asking essentially the same question, so I’ll answer you together.

Humans don’t know everything. Therefore, the ability to say “I don’t know,” when faced with a tough question is, I think, quite healthy. Far from an admission of defeat, it acknowledges that there is exploration yet to do, discovery yet to be made. To ask “Why?” without prejudice to one’s own biases is the hallmark of science.

Less healthy, even dangerous, is to assert that one has come into the possession of “revealed” answers that are beyond question because of the supposed authority doing the revealing. For one thing, how does one decide among conflicting “authorities?” For another, what does one do when “revelation” clearly conflicts with the observable world or common-sense ethics?

Humans, in general, make no claims to being all-powerful, all-knowing, or even all-loving. Thus, we are clearly not subject to the logical paradoxes that beset Judeo-Christian views of God. Instead, we must acknowledge and deal with the fact that we can’t simply do anything we want to, we don’t (and may never) know everything, and we do need to live in the world as well as possible in each others’ company. So we engineer devices that amplify our brains and bodies. So we study the world, including our own minds, and develop tools such as the scientific method and modern education that, while not perfect, far exceed any prior methods of obtaining, using, and transmitting knowledge. So we develop philosophies such as Humanism that apply our best perspectives on history and wisdom, and give us tools that lead us into closer harmony.

So, Tara, your question “What is the origin of life?”

I don’t know.

Of course, Evolution is a very good explanation of how we get the plethora of diverse and well-adapted life forms we see on Earth. As scientific theories go, it is right up there with the Theory of Gravity. But you’re probably more interested in Abiogenesis, which is how matter makes the transition from “non-life” to “life”. Many theories are under development, and many experiments being conducted. But the simple answer right now is: we don’t know— yet.

There is a good deal of further explanation about Evolution and Abiogenesis in the Talk.Origins Archive.

RJ, your question centers around cosmology, and the origin of matter/energy/space/time. You assert that the universe cannot create itself, and I would agree with you if we also agree that “creation” can only happen with an intelligent agent as “the creator.” But if by “creation” we are simply referring to how things came to be as they are, then I do not see evidence that requires an intelligent “creator.”

Where did matter and energy— the stuff of the universe— come from originally?

I don’t know.

It’s not clear the question is even answerable. “What came before time?” is not a sensible question. “Where is outside of space?” doesn’t work either. While there are some tenuous theories, none of them are currently supported by scientific evidence. If and when such theories become supported, I may have a better answer for you.

But to say that everything came from God is not satisfactory either, because as I already stated in my article, this opens the question of “Who created God?”: a philosophical infinite regress. And this is why it is simpler to acknowledge mystery than to go replacing mysteries with deeper mysteries. Science only does this when the answers that lead to deeper mysteries have explanatory power. A good example of this is Germ Theory. But while scientific theories have power to explain, I argue in my article that Christianity (as one example of God-belief) adds complexity and confusion without, on balance, explaining anything.

If you want to believe that a God started the universe and now lets it run its course alone, then you are in good company. But this is a far cry from giving your heart and mind to the paradoxical, sexist, capricious, bloodthirsty, and ultimately mythological God of Christianity or the other Abrahamic religions.

So, I hope you can understand that I consider it no shame to admit that I don’t know something— that my eyes only see so far. But the True Believers, who claim they are initiates into deep mysteries even though their superstitions blind them to the most basic scientific and moral truths, are truly shameful.

And that, my friends, will have to be the last (public) word on this topic for now. I’ve been in debates of this kind numerous times before, and I don’t expect to change your minds. But others will hopefully read this and find some things worth considering more deeply— as once upon a time I myself read, and was swayed by other similar arguments. For now, however, I’ve gotten it out of my system, and am ready to invest this energy in other aspects of my life. If you feel something important has been left unsaid, you are welcome to write to me personally.

If you’re a Christian, think on this: you have nothing to lose from a careful consideration of the ideas of people who do not believe as you do, and you may have much to gain. Do not let True Believers presume to speak for us and tell you “What Humanism is,” or “How atheists think.” There are many good books and web sites where we speak for ourselves, and you’re perfectly capable of making up your own mind.

Robert McNally

“Where did you come from?” Hm, that’s sort of an ambiguous question, don’t you think? I don’t expect you mean, “Where do you live?” or “Where did you grow up?” or “Who are your parents?” or “What is your ancestry?” or “How are babies made?”

So what are you really asking?

And, I’ll assume, for the moment, that you are correct in believing that there is no God. If so, where did you come from?

You are taking it into your own hands to define what a “Christian” is. Therefore you are condemning those who take that label without conforming to your definition. Were the people who committed the 9/11 atrocities Muslims? Many practicing Muslims would claim they were not. Does that make it so? Whether or not Mormons are Christians is a matter for debate, but again, how shall the impartial observer choose among you when many Mormons wish to use that label? You say the Christian Mystics are “unbiblical.” You also level the same charge at the Westboro Baptists. These are condemnations of their faith.

You make my point very well for me, thank you.

You seem to think there could be a way of having free-will w/o the possibility of evil “I do not accept the Bible as priori.”. How?

Well, apparently you believe that God himself has free will and is not in the least bit evil. So based on your own beliefs there would seem to be a way. But if God has free will and therefore could choose to become evil at any moment, how do I know he will not? If he can become or do evil, then why should I worship him? And if you say he could not become or do evil, then why could he not create beings to keep him company who have free will and also could not become or do evil? Again, you seem to be limiting your God.

I know what the Bible says and there are plenty of resources out there on the net to read the Bible. A URL will do, so don’t clutter up the comments by quoting long passages of scripture; I will delete further comments that do.

My take on the common conception of “all-powerful” is, I believe, shared by most Christians, which is that Christians conceive of a God that can, at least, do anything that is not logically self-contradictory. In my article I do not address the Omnipotence Paradox, but the moral argument, including the Problem of Evil.

You seem to want to rely on the Argument from Authority, which I also already addressed in my article, so I won’t do so again here.

As for the christian mystics [I had not heard of them before this]- they seem to have meditation dealing more w/ relaxation techniques. They talk of “becoming the tree”, becoming the staff”, becoming the serpent” these are not Biblical.
The Westboro church states Jesus died only for the believers but the Bible repeatedly states He died for all (Is 53:11-12, Rom 5:6 & 8, I Tim 1:15). They also seems to be hung up on some seething hatered toward gays. The Bible says “Who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12). -I couldn’t get any farther into their site because my computer has some problems everytime I try to enter & I get logged off. But I have pointed out 2 things that Biblical teachings refute.

I realize others would condem me. I understand your observation [who does one choose among you] that it seems like a buffet line & there are so many choices. I was in a discussion once w/ someone who said ‘because the Bible can be misinterpreted means it has gray areas’ I don’t think so. I believe it can be black & white & still be misinterpreted. A person new to christianity has to choose which church [methodist, baptist, etc] they think the best. Not all are wrong; some differences are only minor. But since we are given the freedom to choose we must be sure we make a wise one.

Finally the problem of an Omnipotent/scient God allowing pain & suffering into the world. We all have freedom ( to choose A & not B). If we didn’t have freedom there would be no choices to make; we’d simply have A w/o the possiblity B- do you agree on those? I believe it better to have a choice, even if one of those choices is wrong. You said it’s impossible to have a God, as christians do, that allows evil. Again I state free-will (of any kind) opens the possiblity of rebellion. And someone who chooses freely to be w/ you & spend time w/ you is more lovable than one who has no choice but to be w/ you- do you agree? Because we are more lovable by having freedom, God made us that way, even though we could possibly turn away from Him. That is where evil was born. God knew it all before it happened. He could easily have stopped it. But because its better to have freedom than not, He went that route.
You seem to think there could be a way of having free-will w/o the possibility of evil “I do not accept the Bible as priori.”. How?

You’ll probably love bashing this one but, hey, I can’t resist:
(from Romans 9 — of course it’s even better with more context):

10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i] 26and,
“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ’sons of the living God.’ ”

And so on — basically, if God is all-powerful, etc. etc. (and our Creator), He has every right to do whatever He wishes (particularly when it brings glory to Himself) and we have no right to question. [Let me write the words 'cop-out' before you do -- and, incidentally, I don't think this is a mandate to stop thinking or trying to figure God out. *And*, I realize that I am operating from the premise that the Bible is true and that you are not but you're probably used to that.]

Why do you limit you own supposedly illimitable God by claiming that “allowing” Adam and Eve to sin was the only way to have a “sweet” relationship with them? If God is sinless and happy, why could he not have created humans, or angels for that matter, that remain sinless and happy? Obviously that’s not what the Bible describes, but your position seems to be that it could not have happened any other way. But I do not accept the Bible a priori as you do.

I don’t understand how you can claim that, “just because God knows a thing to be doesn’t mean He wanted it to be.” You seem to be saying your God is not all-powerful— capable of creating beings that are his moral equals. The basic problem, if you read the references I have pointed to, is that the idea an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving “God” is fundamentally incompatible with both free will and the pain and suffering we see in the world. This is the paradoxical God described in the Bible and accepted by unthinking Christians. But again, I do not accept the Bible a priori as you do.

Then you spend some time judging other people I have pointed to: Mormons and Muslims specifically. It doesn’t appear you followed the other two links I provided to the Christian Mystics and Westboro Baptist Church. You also condemn Greg Albrecht, who is not Mormon or Muslim, but Christian. I could line up high-profile representatives of a hundred Christian groups from around the world, and you could spend all afternoon walking that line and putting each one of them down for one reason or another. But, who condemns you in the name of Christ, my friend? If you laid your doctrines on the table for all of Christendom to see, who would step forward claiming to be a true Christian and call you a heretic? I don’t doubt a good percentage of that line of Christians you just condemed would. So how does one choose among you? You all accept the BIble a priori.

My answer is to judge the Bible on its own merits, and in the context of history and science. My conclusion is that the confusion we see in Christendom is not merely “unfortunate” as you would have it: it is a tragic disaster that warns any thoughtful person away from its pyre. Any God that would “allow” such confusion among those who are supposedly his followers, not to mention the bloodshed and suffering caused in his name, is not in fact any kind of divinity but a myth— the construction of men for psychological, cultural, and political purposes; taken up again and again and reshaped by other men for their own purposes, and eventually evolving into the morass of conflicting concepts and doctrines we see today.