There`s enough papers and scientific evidence why its wrong and broken.
Link us some? I google scholar'd "evolution disproved", "evolution disproven" and "arguments against evolution" and I've only found two relevant articles (this being the most interesting one at first glance).
There`s enough papers and scientific evidence why its wrong and broken. No one is going to be collecting nobel prizes for that. Easy to prove. Science already nails that bs.
Oh, really? So, in your opinion, why is evolution still used in medicine?
Link us some? I google scholar'd "evolution disproved", "evolution disproven" and "arguments against evolution" and I've only found two relevant articles (this being the most interesting one at first glance).
The link you added. Glanced through it. Makes some good points. There`s some christian stuff in there, so I wont use it as a strong point of contention. I`ll post the stuff a bit later. I should start charging some of the people in this thread for taking my time and educating them, but oh well.
Evolution happened in some way or other, but this doesn't really stand to disprove God, only the idea that creation happened in 6 earth days. For all we know there could be quantum days or whatever time scale there is when we go back along with the universe's expansion in reverse.
Do you think that when the universe was 1 hour old, that time in that span is at the rate we have now? Do you think time is constant, or do you accept that it is possible that time is only a description of the interactions somewhere at a fundamental level?
In a religious argument, do you think that when someone seems to talk objectively about creation of everything by God from nothing that the person would be standing on the earth? Or would you rather think that it was like how Revelations is written, which is a recollection of the events or feelings when the person was in that 'dimension'?
To add: Do we really think our interpretation of Revelations is correct in all accounts?
... Ah, and falling on the bible, the truth, the real God. The God you can feel. The God that answers prayers. Cant express the sigh of relieve. Suffice to say, all other bs is no longer of any interest for me.
... God is not a hypothesis. Its a logical answer of which the definition fulfills the equation. You do not know the definition. Science will never solve the equation unless they understand the definition. You will be stuck in chain logic and come to a stumbling block unless you understand it. ...
... Bible, yea, you cant prove its wrong like some sort of science, ...
Look man. I really, really, REALLY REALLY REALLY wish all this was true. For example, my relationship with my parents is very strained right now because I despise the way they raised me and my siblings (sheltered, taught us almost nothing but their religion); but this relationship would be healed if I believed in god/etc. But I can't do the faith thing, lying to myself would be even worse than this.
I have sacrificed A LOT of my time trying to figure out what I can about god; and by all accounts I am no fool. But the more I learn the less I believe in god... and yet here you strut around acting like it's OBVIOUS. I have thick skin, but this attitude is particularly insulting fyi.
Regardless, I wasn't kidding when I said you were the only one who's made me question my lack of belief recently. You seem so incredibly sure about god, but I didn't think that was why you're the most convincing theist I've listened to... Being the searching soul that I am, I ask you how you know what you know about god (page 9). You make a huge post (page 23) containing unique definitions for already decently established terms, largely avoiding the question at hand; at best you establish that God is the name you give the force that "started" this universe... even Mozared comments,
I think you just explained in a really detailed way that something exists (or existed) that put everything into motion. ...
You do not really explain how you logically get from that to a god/deity/father that cares about me, does miracles, gives me the potential to inherit eternal life, wants me to believe him and worship him, gives me 10 commandments that I will be punished if I break without repenting, and does it all for his own glory. Nor do you come close to explaining satan's existence. So I ask again (page 24). Ignored. But this is really important to me, so I ask again (page 37). Ignored. Again.
This last time I asked you a very pointed question: "Do you rely on faith?". The first time you answered a question like this in this thread, you did not list faith as one of the reasons for your belief, only evidence. Indeed, you even gave faith a new definition: "... Faith is the realization of Knowledge which is ...". And here I am still wondering if you can actually explain your absolute belief in god... you see, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I shouldn't be able to list even half of those. For someone who's so sure about something, your arguments should be able to stand by themselves, don't you think? For someone who professes to be so educated, this should be second nature to you by now. Indeed, you are the most convincing theist I have talked to.. but apparently even you can't defend the position without resorting to so many logical fallacies.
Resorting to trolling shows the weakness of your arguments.
Evolution is a fact. There is nothing in the bible that couldn't be written by a bronze age priest. There is no evidence to support creationism.
Not trolling. It takes time to show people their beliefs are messed up, and while simultaneously defending your own. Not that Ive done either to the best of my ability, but still.
Evolution is not fact. There is a God. I know that makes you mad. Why cant you be a humble agnostic?. Either way, its no excuse for you in overlooking all the science facts against evolution. So you dont look foolish and embarrass yourself. There`s a reason its so heavily contested, simply because its not a science, and its the only acceptable way to try and shrug off intelligent design.
@EternalWraith: Go
Science will kill Christianity, as it is already doing because religion is for the unreasonable.
Science wont kill Christianity(The two share a mutual relationship). Politics and atheists will. They will twist science around to make it work for evolution(as they already have), and say things like "The universe could have brought itself into existence", and all things like that. You can suppress the truth, but the truth remains and doesn`t care what you believe. You`re just a hypocrite at the end of the day. But this is all ok, working as intended as predicted in the bible.
In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.
Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”11
Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13
In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists"
Craig is a philosopher that can take either side. He can say what I have to say. In the mean time, Zero Hour: Shockwave exists and must be worshiped.
Oh, yeah, I just met the great Spaghetti Monster. He said, 'If I am, and in me and through me I am, why I am that I am is only due to your limited plate.'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
I told you, I'm a biochemist. I use evolution in genetics like an electrician uses electricity. It works. Fact.
Having you deny evolution to me is as absurd as you telling an electrician that electricity doesn't work.
You can't make vaccines out of gods.
Biochemistry, sometimes called biological chemistry, is the study of chemical processes in living organisms, including, but not limited to, living matter. The laws of biochemistry govern all living organisms and living processes. Much of biochemistry deals with the structures, functions and interactions of cellular components such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and other biomolecules —although increasingly processes rather than individual molecules are the main focus.
We`re talking macro evolution here and specifically unguided. Not micro evolution and biochemistry. You are jumping the gun in connection between the two, or there is a misunderstanding between us.
You must understand, I dont use the word God as, = "Ok it cant be explained". On the contrary everything can and should be able to explain itself.
Macro evolution does not. The reason I strongly do not believe it, has nothing to do with the bible. Rather my skeptical nature draws its own conclusions from the scientific findings correlating with macro evolution and natural selection. It happens to be deeply flawed, to the point where people should earnestly look at the biblical narrative for a better alternative.
So how was Adam created?. Just from the dust like that in one day, or over a long process of time?. Either one could be explained. For the sake of simplicity and reasoning, I do not think it was the latter and that really shows with the hard evidence against it. Intelligence does not spontaneously come about from matter which would spontaneously come about from `nothing`. Absolutely absurd and impossible. Even if that did happen(though, again I will bring the evidence against it), There`s no way it could NOT have been predestined or guided in someway. Meaning the whole point of the universe was specifically designed for life and us.
Matthew 13. (I know that in churches this only is taken to mean about the church and the faith, but I have my own arguments about that notion).
v13-15 Somehow speaks of selective process or law on individuals.
v18-23 Somehow refers to mental and psyche stuff. Also selective or that each person has an in-born thing about them. The sower scatters seed everywhere. Pure random but on specific pre-defined basis upon which things occur.
v24-32 Speaks about two general active patterns of forces and agents. A period where it is necessary for two mutually incompatible things are allowed to endure by an overriding ruler of laws acted upon by the agents of selective process and order. Also speaks about selective process at a certain point that results to things being exterminated.
Also hints something like emergence, and probably permanent state of the universe at a certain point of expansion. Also looks like organism capable of travel in some way inhabiting the great many habitable planets that will eventually be there at this point. (Why use a tree and not a flower and bees eh?) Include 33 here.
v34-35 Where I felt this was not just about the church and faith.
v36-43 One dimension of what is hinted at. But this seems to point out some sort of evolution to a degree that certain laws will change over time. A state is reached where selection occurs of the governing elements. There is also some kind of ultimate point that is reached.
v44-50 Also strongly speaks about selective process. The balanced vs the imba. Selling of other treasures for a new one. And a fine tuning, or seeking of specific 'treasure'. Fire, being a chemical process could mean that there is only recycling that occurs and not damnation. A redistribution of said parts and thus annihilation of identity. A circular persistent state at a certain point where a stable state constitutes all higher forms (selected) and other non-essential forms by definition of the selective process are redistributed. (more clear view, or clarification, of the idea of reincarnation in some way)
v52 Also basis of my argument on this aspect. This also speaks about the nature of these words, the expression thereof, and possible interpretations or appreciation. This also keeps with the theme of what is stated above, and also reiterates selective process and recycling.
(Wtf! right?) Lol. But hey, who knows...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Macro evolution is to micro evolution what a long walk is to a short walk.
Macro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution added together.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
Macro evolution is more a group of bubbles/circles that form from and connect with each other. The branching of that, well, it can be anything and in any direction/format. Micro evolution is studying specific bubbles. Its reductionist yes, as you say macro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution added together. But the processes of Macro evolution and the study of that(As in, our current theory of human evolution), is where things go bad and things break because it doesn`t add up. Which means we simply have the macro part of it wrong. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg/300px-Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg.png
So using the very basic image above, Macro study would be of the lines
So how was Adam created?. Just from the dust like that in one day, or over a long process of time?. Either one could be explained. For the sake of simplicity and reasoning, I do not think it was the latter and that really shows with the hard evidence against it. Intelligence does not spontaneously come about from matter which would spontaneously come about from `nothing`. Absolutely absurd and impossible. Even if that did happen(though, again I will bring the evidence against it), There`s no way it could NOT have been predestined or guided in someway. Meaning the whole point of the universe was specifically designed for life and us.
Its more simple that "Adam" was created over a long time instead of a short time. (to do things on a faster pace you usually need more energy... or a more complex god...)
Most religion includes a intelligence which come spontaneously from the `nothing`, in its most common name its called God.
Its more simple that "Adam" was created over a long time instead of a short time. (to do things on a faster pace you usually need more energy... or a more complex god...)
Yes but we cant substitute "Millions and millions and millions of years" for every problem in human evolution. We dont have answers to lots of specific problems, which unaccounted for, leaves the theory broken. Not saying we can never know those answers and for that reason it should be invalidated. But, with all the contradictions and false claims of the theory, it does little than to serve as a belief system instead of fact.
@EternalWraith: Go
Most religion includes a intelligence which come spontaneously from the `nothing`, in its most common name its called God.
Bible God precedes time. Time was created at the big bang. It works a long the dimensions of the universe(again, its more like an illusion) By definition anything prior is some infinite and eternal energy and the common name is God.
@EternalWraith: Go
I know you will come again with that God is outside of time. You can say any fancy words. But at the end there is no origin for his existence aka he come from "nothing" "just like us".
@EternalWraith: Go I know you will come again with that God is outside of time. You can say any fancy words. But at the end there is no origin for his existence aka he come from "nothing" "just like us".
You`re still not imagining pre-big bang. What created the universe had to have been beyond the universe. We dont have to call it God, but whatever it was had to have just been "there" rather than something created. Otherwise we wouldn`t be here.
Using a loose example with numbers, we can say 10 comes from 9, which comes from 8, which comes from 7
All the way down to 1
Where does 1 come from?. From 0?. No. 0 is the perceived absence of 1.
1 comes from the very defining properties that make it 1. The very dimensions and physics that make 1 possible. Its abstraction.
Same thing when we backtrack in time to the beginning of the universe and beyond. We can invent stupid theories like magical branes playing galactic pinball, and bumping each other and creating universes, and stuff like that. But its not logical and does not solve the equation of itself even.
People are thinking in terms of 0, which is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Link us some? I google scholar'd "evolution disproved", "evolution disproven" and "arguments against evolution" and I've only found two relevant articles (this being the most interesting one at first glance).
Oh, really? So, in your opinion, why is evolution still used in medicine?
The link you added. Glanced through it. Makes some good points. There`s some christian stuff in there, so I wont use it as a strong point of contention. I`ll post the stuff a bit later. I should start charging some of the people in this thread for taking my time and educating them, but oh well.
Evolution happened in some way or other, but this doesn't really stand to disprove God, only the idea that creation happened in 6 earth days. For all we know there could be quantum days or whatever time scale there is when we go back along with the universe's expansion in reverse.
Do you think that when the universe was 1 hour old, that time in that span is at the rate we have now? Do you think time is constant, or do you accept that it is possible that time is only a description of the interactions somewhere at a fundamental level?
In a religious argument, do you think that when someone seems to talk objectively about creation of everything by God from nothing that the person would be standing on the earth? Or would you rather think that it was like how Revelations is written, which is a recollection of the events or feelings when the person was in that 'dimension'?
To add: Do we really think our interpretation of Revelations is correct in all accounts?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Nah but it shows a god isn't needed. Like everything else we've discovered about reality thus far.
Resorting to trolling shows the weakness of your arguments.
Evolution is a fact. There is nothing in the bible that couldn't be written by a bronze age priest. There is no evidence to support creationism.
Science will kill Christianity, as it is already doing because religion is for the unreasonable.
EternalWraith. Buddy. I think it's time we had a little chat.
Look man. I really, really, REALLY REALLY REALLY wish all this was true. For example, my relationship with my parents is very strained right now because I despise the way they raised me and my siblings (sheltered, taught us almost nothing but their religion); but this relationship would be healed if I believed in god/etc. But I can't do the faith thing, lying to myself would be even worse than this.
I have sacrificed A LOT of my time trying to figure out what I can about god; and by all accounts I am no fool. But the more I learn the less I believe in god... and yet here you strut around acting like it's OBVIOUS. I have thick skin, but this attitude is particularly insulting fyi.
Regardless, I wasn't kidding when I said you were the only one who's made me question my lack of belief recently. You seem so incredibly sure about god, but I didn't think that was why you're the most convincing theist I've listened to... Being the searching soul that I am, I ask you how you know what you know about god (page 9). You make a huge post (page 23) containing unique definitions for already decently established terms, largely avoiding the question at hand; at best you establish that God is the name you give the force that "started" this universe... even Mozared comments,
You do not really explain how you logically get from that to a god/deity/father that cares about me, does miracles, gives me the potential to inherit eternal life, wants me to believe him and worship him, gives me 10 commandments that I will be punished if I break without repenting, and does it all for his own glory. Nor do you come close to explaining satan's existence. So I ask again (page 24). Ignored. But this is really important to me, so I ask again (page 37). Ignored. Again.
This last time I asked you a very pointed question: "Do you rely on faith?". The first time you answered a question like this in this thread, you did not list faith as one of the reasons for your belief, only evidence. Indeed, you even gave faith a new definition: "... Faith is the realization of Knowledge which is ...". And here I am still wondering if you can actually explain your absolute belief in god... you see, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Honestly, you had my hopes up at a point or two in this thread. But upon reflection and close examination, I find that you cannot defend your position without resorting to a slew of logical fallacies, such as: argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum verbosium, affirming the consequent, appeal to emotion, begging the question, cherry picking, equivocation, non-squitur, red herring, conjunction fallacy, historian's fallacy, homunculus fallacy, mind projection fallacy, nirvana fallacy, and at least a few cognitive biases.
I shouldn't be able to list even half of those. For someone who's so sure about something, your arguments should be able to stand by themselves, don't you think? For someone who professes to be so educated, this should be second nature to you by now. Indeed, you are the most convincing theist I have talked to.. but apparently even you can't defend the position without resorting to so many logical fallacies.
-So how do you come to find the truth?
Is it through (a) FAITH, (b) KNOWLEDGE, (c) DOUBTING, and/or (d) DISCUSSIONS that one finds the truth? Apparently you can't even agree with yourself.
-Here's something I can learn from. I don't think I have any more time for discourse with a person that insists on believing in miracles.
@Eiviyn: Go
A God is needed. A prime creator. Everything we have discovered only points to this.
Not trolling. It takes time to show people their beliefs are messed up, and while simultaneously defending your own. Not that Ive done either to the best of my ability, but still.
Evolution is not fact. There is a God. I know that makes you mad. Why cant you be a humble agnostic?. Either way, its no excuse for you in overlooking all the science facts against evolution. So you dont look foolish and embarrass yourself. There`s a reason its so heavily contested, simply because its not a science, and its the only acceptable way to try and shrug off intelligent design.
Science wont kill Christianity(The two share a mutual relationship). Politics and atheists will. They will twist science around to make it work for evolution(as they already have), and say things like "The universe could have brought itself into existence", and all things like that. You can suppress the truth, but the truth remains and doesn`t care what you believe. You`re just a hypocrite at the end of the day. But this is all ok, working as intended as predicted in the bible.
In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.
Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”11
Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13
In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists"
Lol.
I told you, I'm a biochemist. I use evolution in genetics like an electrician uses electricity. It works. Fact.
Having you deny evolution to me is as absurd as you telling an electrician that electricity doesn't work.
You can't make vaccines out of gods.
Fixed it for you little buddy. Be careful with it or else you'll learn that christianity is a fairy tale...oops I ruined the surprise for you. :(
Craig is a philosopher that can take either side. He can say what I have to say. In the mean time, Zero Hour: Shockwave exists and must be worshiped.
Oh, yeah, I just met the great Spaghetti Monster. He said, 'If I am, and in me and through me I am, why I am that I am is only due to your limited plate.'
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Biochemistry, sometimes called biological chemistry, is the study of chemical processes in living organisms, including, but not limited to, living matter. The laws of biochemistry govern all living organisms and living processes. Much of biochemistry deals with the structures, functions and interactions of cellular components such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and other biomolecules —although increasingly processes rather than individual molecules are the main focus.
We`re talking macro evolution here and specifically unguided. Not micro evolution and biochemistry. You are jumping the gun in connection between the two, or there is a misunderstanding between us.
You must understand, I dont use the word God as, = "Ok it cant be explained". On the contrary everything can and should be able to explain itself.
Macro evolution does not. The reason I strongly do not believe it, has nothing to do with the bible. Rather my skeptical nature draws its own conclusions from the scientific findings correlating with macro evolution and natural selection. It happens to be deeply flawed, to the point where people should earnestly look at the biblical narrative for a better alternative.
So how was Adam created?. Just from the dust like that in one day, or over a long process of time?. Either one could be explained. For the sake of simplicity and reasoning, I do not think it was the latter and that really shows with the hard evidence against it. Intelligence does not spontaneously come about from matter which would spontaneously come about from `nothing`. Absolutely absurd and impossible. Even if that did happen(though, again I will bring the evidence against it), There`s no way it could NOT have been predestined or guided in someway. Meaning the whole point of the universe was specifically designed for life and us.
Macro evolution is to micro evolution what a long walk is to a short walk.
Macro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution added together.
You can't believe in micro evolution and reject macro evolution. That doesn't even physically make sense.
You know why I believe in evolution?
Matthew 13. (I know that in churches this only is taken to mean about the church and the faith, but I have my own arguments about that notion).
v13-15 Somehow speaks of selective process or law on individuals.
v18-23 Somehow refers to mental and psyche stuff. Also selective or that each person has an in-born thing about them. The sower scatters seed everywhere. Pure random but on specific pre-defined basis upon which things occur.
v24-32 Speaks about two general active patterns of forces and agents. A period where it is necessary for two mutually incompatible things are allowed to endure by an overriding ruler of laws acted upon by the agents of selective process and order. Also speaks about selective process at a certain point that results to things being exterminated.
Also hints something like emergence, and probably permanent state of the universe at a certain point of expansion. Also looks like organism capable of travel in some way inhabiting the great many habitable planets that will eventually be there at this point. (Why use a tree and not a flower and bees eh?) Include 33 here.
v34-35 Where I felt this was not just about the church and faith.
v36-43 One dimension of what is hinted at. But this seems to point out some sort of evolution to a degree that certain laws will change over time. A state is reached where selection occurs of the governing elements. There is also some kind of ultimate point that is reached.
v44-50 Also strongly speaks about selective process. The balanced vs the imba. Selling of other treasures for a new one. And a fine tuning, or seeking of specific 'treasure'. Fire, being a chemical process could mean that there is only recycling that occurs and not damnation. A redistribution of said parts and thus annihilation of identity. A circular persistent state at a certain point where a stable state constitutes all higher forms (selected) and other non-essential forms by definition of the selective process are redistributed. (more clear view, or clarification, of the idea of reincarnation in some way)
v52 Also basis of my argument on this aspect. This also speaks about the nature of these words, the expression thereof, and possible interpretations or appreciation. This also keeps with the theme of what is stated above, and also reiterates selective process and recycling.
(Wtf! right?) Lol. But hey, who knows...
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
Macro evolution is more a group of bubbles/circles that form from and connect with each other. The branching of that, well, it can be anything and in any direction/format. Micro evolution is studying specific bubbles. Its reductionist yes, as you say macro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution added together. But the processes of Macro evolution and the study of that(As in, our current theory of human evolution), is where things go bad and things break because it doesn`t add up. Which means we simply have the macro part of it wrong.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg/300px-Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg.png
So using the very basic image above, Macro study would be of the lines
Its more simple that "Adam" was created over a long time instead of a short time. (to do things on a faster pace you usually need more energy... or a more complex god...)
Most religion includes a intelligence which come spontaneously from the `nothing`, in its most common name its called God.
Yes but we cant substitute "Millions and millions and millions of years" for every problem in human evolution. We dont have answers to lots of specific problems, which unaccounted for, leaves the theory broken. Not saying we can never know those answers and for that reason it should be invalidated. But, with all the contradictions and false claims of the theory, it does little than to serve as a belief system instead of fact.
Bible God precedes time. Time was created at the big bang. It works a long the dimensions of the universe(again, its more like an illusion) By definition anything prior is some infinite and eternal energy and the common name is God.
@EternalWraith: Go I know you will come again with that God is outside of time. You can say any fancy words. But at the end there is no origin for his existence aka he come from "nothing" "just like us".
You`re still not imagining pre-big bang. What created the universe had to have been beyond the universe. We dont have to call it God, but whatever it was had to have just been "there" rather than something created. Otherwise we wouldn`t be here.
Using a loose example with numbers, we can say 10 comes from 9, which comes from 8, which comes from 7
All the way down to 1
Where does 1 come from?. From 0?. No. 0 is the perceived absence of 1.
1 comes from the very defining properties that make it 1. The very dimensions and physics that make 1 possible. Its abstraction.
Same thing when we backtrack in time to the beginning of the universe and beyond. We can invent stupid theories like magical branes playing galactic pinball, and bumping each other and creating universes, and stuff like that. But its not logical and does not solve the equation of itself even.
People are thinking in terms of 0, which is wrong.