@kellyjay said
Science and scripture both point to a beginning, if you want to create in your mind
an escape from that reality your welcome too. You can come up with a millions
reasons and justifications on why you can avoid our creator here. but they only
lasts in this life, when we leave this place as we all will, there will be no
justifications that will work you will be without any excuse.

"Escape"?

Surely your assertions are the "escape" you seek solace in as you live your life ~ "this life", as you put it?

Why would an atheist believe in the need to have an "excuse" for simply acknowledging that none of us knows what the origin of the universe is?

@fmf said
My point being, if you're religious like KellyJay, just choose a premise that suits the specific belief in supernatural causality that you want to promote and propagate, and then say "logically speaking", and then state whatever you want. So, if you want to assert that, "logically speaking", there must be a point A in time, just start with the premise that time measures from poin ...[text shortened]... hen tell yourself you have created a "fact" that you "know", even if you haven't. Like KellyJay did.

To understand reality, we need a point of reference.

We have not point of reference to conclude that there does not have to be a point A.

Naturally, this does not mean it can't be so, but it does mean that there is no proof for such a reality because we have never experienced it.

It would be akin to believing in Creationism as described in Genesis.

@whodey said
To understand reality, we need a point of reference.

You can assert anything you want and use it as a "premise". And then you can stack whatever you want on top of that. You can call them "points of reference" as well, if that's what you want to do. You can top it all off by asserting that you "know" that the things you are asserting are "true" ~ logically speaking" of course.

@whodey said
It would be akin to believing in Creationism as described in Genesis.

People can believe in Creationism as described in Genesis if they want to.

@wolfgang59 said
Nobody knows.
But Science has a few good ideas.

Abiogenesis- the origin of life from nonliving matter.

Makes no sense.

Neither does the OP.

@whodey said
To understand reality, we need a point of reference.

We have not point of reference to conclude that there does not have to be a point A.

Naturally, this does not mean it can't be so, but it does mean that there is no proof for such a reality because we have never experienced it.

It would be akin to believing in Creationism as described in Genesis.

That's just wrong. The point of reference is "God said".

@secondson said
Abiogenesis- the origin of life from nonliving matter.

Makes no sense.

Neither does the OP.

If this is indeed a problem, then theists have it, too.

If it truly "makes no sense" that non-living matter can give rise to living matter, then God could not have animated a pile of dirt and made "Adam".

@bigdoggproblem said
If this is indeed a problem, then theists have it, too.

If it truly "makes no sense" that non-living matter can give rise to living matter, then God could not have animated a pile of dirt and made "Adam".

It makes more sense for a creator to create life than for nothing to do it by chance.

@bigdoggproblem said
If this is indeed a problem, then theists have it, too.

If it truly "makes no sense" that non-living matter can give rise to living matter, then God could not have animated a pile of dirt and made "Adam".

God is life; moreover, if you read the reason for God making man it was to be in His imagine. When God created man He also did more than combine different chemicals He breathed into Him life.

@dj2becker said
It makes more sense for a creator to create life than for nothing to do it by chance.

Is the creator a living being, in your view?

If yes, then didn't life necessarily originate sooner than the time of earth-life's creation?

in other words, what brought the creator into existence, and when, and wouldn't that time be the real origin of life?

@kellyjay said
God is life; moreover, if you read the reason for God making man it was to be in His imagine. When God created man He also did more than combine different chemicals He breathed into Him life.

"He breathed into Him life."

What does this even mean?

isn't it fair to say that the creation account, as given in the book of Genesis, actually explains very little about the process of creation?

@whodey said
Time measures from point A to point B.

What do you mean by this???

@dj2becker said
It makes more sense for a creator to create life than for nothing to do it by chance.

Have we seen it happen since?
Has it been replicated?
Did anyone see it happen?
What evidence is there?

@bigdoggproblem said
"He breathed into Him life."

What does this even mean?

isn't it fair to say that the creation account, as given in the book of Genesis, actually explains very little about the process of creation?

No, it explains that the God who did it could speak and create, He isn't part of the
universe. This means that no matter what we do in our study of the universe we
can only find traces of what He did not, Himself.

@wolfgang59 said
What do you mean by this???

I believe he means, time is a progression from one period to the next.