A question for Athiests/Evolutionists. (re: How can one not belive in something greater than himself? et all)

Hello again ClashFanI really know how you feel about the strange senses of things not being right. Have you checked out the discussions about ghosts and non-corporeal things on this other thread?
EvC Forum: Spirits and other incorporial things(I still can't figure out how to put those links in any better)During all the goings on that I have talked about there, I never felt the need to beleive in anything other than my own inner strength. If anything my gradual realization that there really wasn't anything out there to rely on, actually made me much stronger and taught me to stand on my own two feet.PY

No problem Physrho. I guess this discussion is reasonably on topic for this thread. I honestly don't see the difference. Anything that can have any effect (such as creating it) on "the physical" would have to be "physical" in nature itself. The creator would have had to work within the "laws of the physical" in order to create anything "physical". I don't find it at all surpising that everything works with an inherant order. If the universe were any other way it would be unstable and would have ceased to exist long ago. In a system where membranes collide to produce random new universes it is inevitable that eventually one of them will turn out to be stable and ordered. The fact that we live in one is no big deal. If it weren't stable and ordered then we wouldn't be here at all. Trouble is that if it isn't part of our physical world then we won't be able to see, hear, taste, touch or feel it anyway so we would have absolutely no way to know if it were there at all. It would have absolutely zero impact on our physical world and so would be, by definition, utterly irrelevent.Since I have personally experienced things which many would term superbatural (ie. by sight, feel etc.) I deduce that these things are in fact very much physical since they are able to directly affect my physical senses. I just don't yet understand how. Agreed but "meta" is only a human affectation added to something which they don't understand. The known physical is always expanding to encompass what used to be "meta" physical. Much of it isn't a mystery any more Sorry and all that but the bible means absolutely nothing to me. IMO it is just a bunch of badly written, self contradictory fiction so explaining something in terms of the bible is a bit like explaining Life, the universe and everything by reading Batman comics (No offence intended to Batman of course )
Your faith may well carry weight for you but it is entirely subjective. That is your choice but to me it means nothing unless you can give me objective evidence. I don't think anybody believes on faith that we "popped out of nowhere".
We are making every possible attempt to figure out exactly what happened but no credible, genuine scientist will catagorically assert that we "popped out of nowhere". As you say, there is no proof for the assumption.
However there is definite precidence for "popping out of nowhere" Fundamental particles do it all the time. Many observations have been made of this over the years.
Take the Pentaquark as an example.

quote:

---

So, bringing this all the way back around to answer the question that started this post off, the "pentaquark" is formed by creating particles out of thin air (improbable as that may seem). A deuterium nucleus is sitting there, mining its own business, when a hugely energetic photon slams into it. The photon energy (and some of the energy that was holding the deuterium nucleus and its components together) goes into creating four new quarks out of nothing: an "up" and an "anti-up", and a "strange" and an "anti-strange." The "strange" and the "anti-up" pair off, and leave as a kaon, while the "anti-strange" and the "up" join up with the three quarks that used to be the neutron, and form the "pentaquark" (which later decays into a neutron and another kaon).

---

How many times have we ever observed God create anything? None.
That means that we are faced with a choice between.
1) Something from nothing. Science has observed this so we know it is possible. Viable theories exist which could possibly give explanations.
2) Something from God. Nobody has ever shown objective evidence that God exists. Nobody has directly observed God make something. All we have are a nice old book and a lot of people claiming to "know" something unknowable.I will tentatively take option 1 thanks. I will however, allow for the tiniest sliver of possibility, however infinitesimally small it is, that 2 might be true so I refuse to utterly dismiss it.This puts me in the reasoned position of having zero faith in either option.No religion involved!