General Question

CMaz's avatar

The big question. Where did we come from?

Asked by CMaz (26238points) July 8th, 2009

If we follow back the bread crumbs of evolution we end up with what?
Something coming from nothing? How does that work? What do you think and feel?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

71 Answers

kevbo's avatar

I came from my mommy’s buhgina.

cwilbur's avatar

If we follow the evidence, we find more complex lifeforms evolving from simpler lifeforms.

I think that if you’re trying to argue in favor of creationism by portraying evolution as pure nihilistic chance, I think you need to consider that any omnipotent and omniscient deity capable of creating the universe as it is is also capable of making it appear that it is all happening by random chance: in other words, there’s no inherent contradiction between evolution appearing to have dead ends and yet it all being foreseen and foreordained by a creator.

Qingu's avatar

Something didn’t come from nothing. The universe has always existed. Einstein showed that space and time are the same fabric. The universe, by definition, encompasses all of spacetime. So there is no time when the universe has not existed.

A lot of people think of the big bang as a sudden explosion where before there was “nothing,” like this:

1:00 a.m. Nothing.
2:00 a.m. Nothing.
3:00 a.m. Still nothing.
3:34 a.m. BOOM. The big bang happens.

That’s not how it works. Time does not exist outside our universe. There is no such thing as “before” the big bang.

Qingu's avatar

Also, if you’re talking about biological evolution, the first life forms were probably lipid bilayers that surrounded water with RNA-like molecules inside. (Edit: of course, the definition of “life” is a line in the sand. Viruses sit on the boundary. Life as we commonly understand it consists of cells. The first cells were probably what I described.)

SuperMouse's avatar

Nothing + Nothing = Nothing.

Something had to have caused the Big Bang – something. I believe in the Big Bang, I believe in evolution, I believe in science and scientific explanations. However, I am not so married to science that I am not willing to at least entertain the thought that the something that set things in motion is something we might never be able to understand here in our earthly existence. Personally, I believe that something is God.

Here is what the Bahá’í Faith has to say about the Unity of Religion and Science.

ragingloli's avatar

@SuperMouse
why God? why not any of the other deities? why not something that is not an intelligent entity, but just as impersonal as the universe itself?

nebule's avatar

I’d like to think; out of sparkle dust that falls from rainbows

syz's avatar

Primordial ooze, apparently.

Blondesjon's avatar

Once upon a time there was an omniscient/omnipotent force that had no beginning nor end.

What this force had was a capacity for boredom. It was everything and everywhere for Christ’s sake. It lacked surprise and wonder.

One day this force, its name was Kevin, decided to scatter and partition its infinite consciousness into the whole of its being. BANG! Suddenly Kevin was hurtling through his newly created reality in the form of uncountable subatomic particles.

Each particle, and the space in between them, was Kevin but he had removed from himself the part that remembered they were all part of a whole.

Every particle hurtling through space was Kevin. The space they hurtled through was Kevin. The planets they became were Kevin. The stars that held them in place were Kevin. The entire universe was now a particulated Kevin, experiencing every single aspect of reality, as a distinct and separate consciousness.

As Kevin expanded, evolved, and became ever more complex a funny thing happened. He began to remember himself. Not a full recollection, but a feeling that all of his little separate Kevins were actually part of a whole.

A majority of these Kevin pieces were content to feel this pull and know that they were part of a bigger picture.

A minority, that called themselves humans, felt the pull a little stronger. Some believed the pull they felt was the call of their Creator and they began to imagine ways they could be reunited with this Creator. They developed a mythology and a set of rituals that they believed would help them achieve this goal.

Some felt the pull as a challenge to understand and map what this pull was and why it affected everything around them. They sought to find, through methodology and experiment, why this pull drove them so.

Still others were happy to be in the dream and did not want to wake up. They whispered in the ears of any who would listen that we are all individuals. Who were any of these other groups to try and wake us from our wonderful dream? Who were any of these others that wanted to explain to us we were simply insignificant parts of a whole we couldn’t even truly comprehend?

And now here we are, confused, divided, and arrogant in our forgetting.

kevbo's avatar

Wow. That’s beautiful. I mean that sincerely.

Also, I keep the big bang in my sofa cushion.

loser's avatar

Mars & Venus.

AstroChuck's avatar

Me? Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento, CA.

whitenoise's avatar

I came from upstairs and now I will be off to bed. Goodnight you all. ;-)

YARNLADY's avatar

At the beginning there was a great mound. It was called Nanih Wiya. It was from this mound that the Creator fashioned the first of the people. These people crawled through a long, dark cave into daylight. They became the first Choctaw.

maryleedy's avatar

@Blondesjon excellent way to put it! :-)

fireside's avatar

I’m satisfied with Kevin’s version…erm, I mean Jon’s version.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

Abiogenesis doesn’t explain the origin of matter. It only attempts to explain how life sprang up from inanimate matter. Even the bible said we were made of dust… did we have to wait for the term Abiogenesis to come around to know that life came from inanimate material? “Way to be current”.

Evolution shouldn’t even be in this discussion.. it says nothing of the origin of life. Period.

So in the end we’re still left with what? Creation or ? It seems sheer and utter madness (at least to me) to not see that some divine event outside of our “mind-box” occurred at some point. We (mankind) cannot fathom this infinity… this divinity… so.. what.. it doesn’t exist?

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

At some point, something came from nothing.
From a atomistic standpoint, we all can be broken down to single atoms of hydrogen, hence Moby’s “We Are All Made of Stars”.

ragingloli's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater
It seems like madness to jump from “it has to come from somewhere but we don’t know” to “some god did it”.

Harp's avatar

<=== Printing up Blondesjon’s answer and stickin’ it on the fridge

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@ragingloli What are you left with if not something that could be called “God”?

ragingloli's avatar

something that could not be called god?

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@ragingloli Such as __________________ ? You’re not offering any option.. you’re just playing with the words to make it sound as if there is a solution there…

ragingloli's avatar

Such as an eternal N-dimensional hyperverse that contains the universe.
Such a thing could not be called “God” because “God” always implies sentience. (at least for me). If your definition of “God” does not contain sentience or intelligence, then why bother calling it “God”?

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@ragingloli Your answer explains nothing. Zilch. It is nothing but a box outside of our box.. only slightly bigger.

But let me suppose for a second that I believe as you do.. that it’s just another thing outside this thing. Abiogenesis is the reason we exist. Evolution led to our current state of intellect. I would then be forced to surmise that:

We are nothing but an accident of biology, the ancestor of primordial ooze. As such our lives have no purpose. We are nothing but a bag of chemicals cursed so graciously by nature as sentient. We are just self aware enough to know that our lives are completely meaningless. In fact, we are so smart that we choose to attempt to scientifically prove that our lives are meaningless. We lean on our own understanding as if it is the golden beauty of all the multi-verse.

If you choose to subscribe to these dismal notions I can’t empathize in the least.

I beg of you not to ask why I am so certain there is a God.. instead please ask of yourself why you are so certain there is not.

ragingloli's avatar

Jumping to god did it isn’t thinking outside the box either. It is escapism.

“In fact, we are so smart that we choose to attempt to scientifically prove that our lives are meaningless.”

False. We attempt to find out as much about reality as we can. The conclusion that our existence has no greater purpose is a side effect.
The inability to accept this as reality is also an effect of our species inherent anthropocentric thinking.
If you can’t find a premade purpose for your existence, make one yourself. It is what most humans do.

“instead please ask of yourself why you are so certain there is not.”
this has been answered repeatedly ad nauseam, but here goes again:
– because there is no evidence for the existence of any god
– because the concept is illogical
– because gods are not necessary to explain reality.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@ragingloli

By believing that God did it, I’m not thinking outside of any box. I just believe that I know who built the box.

because there is no evidence for the existence of any god
Churches? The bible? Me, pleading with you to at least see reason in my faith? Historical evidence of a man named Jesus? Are you even actively seeking such “evidence”?

because the concept is illogical
Far too vague to even discuss.

because gods are not necessary to explain reality
You have not offered any other solution that satisfies the equation. How is it that a God or “gods” is/are not necessary if you cannot answer the question posed here? Reality includes the X variable which is the origin of our existence.

Sidenote: Thanks for the discussion. xD It’s nice to converse with someone able to form coherent thoughts. There are so many… hmm.. other types of people on fluther who aren’t able to. xD

YARNLADY's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater Evolution does, indeed address the development of life from the chemicals in the primordial waters of earth. Some scientists have actually been able to come near the actual conditions that could have taken place, and are continuing to work on it in many laboratories.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@YARNLADY Evolution doesn’t start with step one. It starts with step 101.. or 100,000,001. As a theory, by definition, it doesn’t even attempt to explain how the original “thing” came to be. By origin, I’m speaking about the origin…

tinyfaery's avatar

Is there a difference between something and nothing? (Thinking in dichotomies is where you start, not conclude.) To say that I came from something or somewhere is to assume that I am something concrete and whole. I am in a perpetual state of becoming, which means as I am created I am destroyed. I have never been and I never will be. And I see the universe as the same.

fireside's avatar

@tinyfaery – from the looks of your avatar, you came from Dave Matthews armpit : )

YARNLADY's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater Yes, it does. there is a lot of information missing, but the goal is to fill in ‘all’ the blanks.

maryleedy's avatar

@ragingloli in response to the 3 things at the end of your post:

I get the impression that God to you means a specific thing like a person, place, or thing that cannot exist if it’s not seen or proven. Is it conceivable that God could simply be a higher or bigger force/energy field in space or our atmosphere? Something we obviously can’t see but we feel it on a subconscious level and it flows around us and through us. I forget the name of this “field” in quantum physics but it’s a field where infinite potential possibilities exist. Because we equate God as a power bigger than us individually, this “energy field” is what we call God, The Creator, The Source, The Divine, The Universe, etc..

The concept being illogical, I don’t get that so I won’t attempt to go there.

Gods? What are “Gods”? What the Egyptians spoke about? Ok, but I’m not history buff.

Reality is a funny thing, lol. Reality is subjective. There is a shared reality among a group of people but even then they all see it slightly different. But mostly, reality is what YOU see from YOUR perspective from where YOU are. This isn’t to say you’re wrong, it’s simply what you see from where you stand with all the combined knowledge, beliefs, programming, and experiences in your life. No one else lived exactly as you have, NO ONE.

I’m not offering any offense, I just wanted to see if this was an option you could consider to see something from a different angle. :-)

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@YARNLADY Since you insist on this tangent…. could you please provide some reference for how the theory of evolution could possibly explain or is even attempting to explain the origin of everything… the very first bit of matter? I’m not talking about an ancient mud puddle… I’m talking about that “aha” moment.. when (at least in our minds) there was nothing… and then there was something.

ragingloli's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater

“I just believe that I know who built the box.”

Knowing based on what? Who made the box that God resides in?
If you say that God always was, then why can this not be true for the universe/multiverse/hyperverse?

“Churches? The bible? Me, pleading with you to at least see reason in my faith? Historical evidence of a man named Jesus?”

Is the Church of scientology evidence for the existence of Xenu?
Is the book “Dianetics” evidence for Xenu and body thetans?
Would a shintoist trying to convince you of the reality of Amaterasu be evidence of Amaterasu?
Also, there is no contemporary mention of Jesus in the historical record, and even if there were, this would no more support his divinity than the existence of Joseph Smith would support Smith’s claim of being a prophet.

“because the concept is illogical
Far too vague to even discuss.”
God is supposedly omnipotent and the creator of everything, including logic itself. Therefore he should be able to violate the laws of logic, and thus he could be able to make a sphere that is simultaneously a cube.
Omnipotence violates logic. If you say that God can only do what is logically possible, then he is not truly omnipotent.

God is supposedly omniscient and naturally free willed.
If he is omniscient then he knows every decisions he will ever make, which means all his decisions are predetermined. If he can make decisions that are not predetermined, then he cannot know them in advance, and is thus not omniscient.
Omniscience and simultaneous free will is illogical.

“You have not offered any other solution that satisfies the equation.”
I have. I have offered an eternal hyperverse. The fact that such a hyperverse is possible makes God unnecessary.

“Reality includes the X variable which is the origin of our existence.”
And a possible value for this X variable is the aforementioned hyperverse (or an eternal and cyclical universe) and therefore God is not the only possible value for X.
In fact, the value for X may even be a still unconceived solution X2, or X3, X4, Xn, etc.
God is not necessary until you can show that God is the only possible value for X, e.g. you must show that no other possible value for X can exist.

tinyfaery's avatar

@fireside That’s my wife, not me.

ragingloli's avatar

@maryleedy
“Is it conceivable that God could simply be a higher or bigger force/energy field in space or our atmosphere?”

Then is it really appropriate to call this field “God”? I think not.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

Knowing based on what? Who made the box that God resides in? If you say that God always was, then why can this not be true for the universe/multiverse/hyperverse?
That is simply my belief. I choose to believe that our lives have a purpose. If it’s just some… force.. out there.. some collosal magnetron or something… it doesn’t satisfy my belief that we have a purpose. A life with no purpose is a sad thing indeed. That is decidedly not my reality.

Is the Church of scientology evidence for the existence of Xenu? Is the book “Dianetics” evidence for Xenu and body thetans? Would a shintoist trying to convince you of the reality of Amaterasu be evidence of Amaterasu? Also, there is no contemporary mention of Jesus in the historical record, and even if there were, this would no more support his divinity than the existence of Joseph Smith would support Smith’s claim of being a prophet.
These could all be misconstrued perceptions of something greater for all I know. That is beside the point. You seem to be unwilling to even allow the possibility that a God exists.. something that even my very atheist friends will admit is a possibility.. no matter how much they play down the odds.

God is supposedly omnipotent and the creator of everything, including logic itself. Therefore he should be able to violate the laws of logic, and thus he could be able to make a sphere that is simultaneously a cube. Omnipotence violates logic. If you say that God can only do what is logically possible, then he is not truly omnipotent.
Being a divinity, being omnipotent.. means he isn’t strapped down by the constraints of our logic. I already mentioned that earlier: “We (mankind) cannot fathom this infinity… this divinity… so.. what.. it doesn’t exist?”

I have. I have offered an eternal hyperverse. The fact that such a hyperverse is possible makes God unnecessary.
Where did this hyperverse come from ?!! That’s the question being addressed here! Are you suggesting there never was an origin to this hyperverse?

And a possible value for this X variable is the aforementioned hyperverse (or an eternal and cyclical universe) and therefore God is not the only possible value for X. In fact, the value for X may even be a still unconceived solution X2, or X3, X4, Xn, etc. God is not necessary until you can show that God is the only possible value for X, e.g. you must show that no other possible value for X can exist.
As I’ve said many times.. imvho you haven’t offered any other possibility to take the place of “X” which could possibly or logically solve the equation of an ultimate origin to our existence.

CMaz's avatar

It being unknown can possibly be anything.

“is it really appropriate to call this field “God”?” Or a God. Why not?

The question is to see how creative we can get, to determine what was that spark that started it all. And that spark is something that needed something to spark.

Even the existence of God has to have a logic. Something outside the realm of what we see science and physics as. Something apparently beyond our understanding. If our logic brings us the concept of something coming from nothing. Then there has to be another form of action and reaction that differs from the one that holds our universe together.

Even if there is no God. There still as to be laws that operate outside our mode of operation. That make sense but does not work in the same manor as the laws of science and nature as we know it.

YARNLADY's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater For a full understanding, read this and this and this
and study science and biology and evolution at the college level for six years or so, and then work in a laboratory for a few years.

With enough smart, educated people working on it, we can start filling in some of the gaps.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@YARNLADY Oh ok.. I’ll be right back then. I’ll see you in six years… gimme a break. Are you not capable of formulating any sort of simplified response that could save us all the horror and boredom of such a prison sentence?

ragingloli's avatar

“Where did this hyperverse come from ?!! That’s the question being addressed here! Are you suggesting there never was an origin to this hyperverse?”

I think that the word “eternal” in “eternal hyperverse” answers this.

“As I’ve said many times.. imvho you haven’t offered any other possibility to take the place of “X” which could possibly or logically solve the equation of an ultimate origin to our existence.”

God isn’t an option for the “ultimate origin of our existence” either. Or in other words, “where did God come from?”
Furthermore, there may not even be an answer to the “Ultimate origin of our existence”.
There is the possibility that the X variable does not exist.

“Being a divinity, being omnipotent.. means he isn’t strapped down by the constraints of our logic.”
But it is our logic I was talking about all the time. And God clearly violates “our” logic.

”“is it really appropriate to call this field “God”?” Or a God. Why not?”
Because then “God” would degenerate into a label that can be slapped on anything.

YARNLADY's avatar

Sure – the Universe evoloved from little tiny things to bigger things and yet even bigger things. Where any of these ‘things’ came from is not yet discovered.

CMaz's avatar

”“Being a divinity, being omnipotent.. means he isn’t strapped down by the constraints of our logic.”

There comes a point where our logic stops working, and another logic has to be in place. Otherwise we are stonewalled at the something coming from nothing theory.
Omnipotent is just a glorified word for having a “reason” for what is not known.

“Because then “God” would degenerate into a label that can be slapped on anything.”

True. But still does not change the question. And, that “degeneration” is and becomes a personal problem. Still not changing the question.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@YARNLADY Good! Ok then. So evolution (at least thus far…) still offers us no help on this question.. so.. my original point remains valid. It need not be included in this discussion as it is of no help.

YARNLADY's avatar

From everything I have read here and everywhere else, no one really knows the actual origin of anything and everything. You might as well accept the answer is “42” and run with it. It makes as much sense as ‘it always was” or any of the other explanations here.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

Clearly we are willing to discuss further than “42”.... otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing this at all right?

YARNLADY's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater Discussion, there is, and will be – a more definitive answer that that, not so likely.
P.S. I was only responding to your comment that evolution “says nothing of the origin of life. Period.” The information is not yet discovered, but evolutionists are still looking.

CMaz's avatar

I like that. I also think 42 is the answer!

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@YARNLADY I understand. As of yet.. it says nothing. Do you want me to change the period into a comma perhaps? *wink.

dannyc's avatar

If you can answer this with certainty, you will automatically be the smartest person in the world. The answer is at this point in time,“we do not know”, but we are working on it. Most recent theories seem to point to multiverses colliding which may not necessitate the “from nothing” argument. It is quite untrue that in a single universe theory that there was no beginning, so in spite of some of the answers above being applauded as great, they may be lauded as such, but are actually inaccurate according to present mathematical models and superstring theory. Some believe we will never know as it is simply not 100% testable (though many are trying.)

Darwin's avatar

Me? Kaiser-Permanente, Oakland, CA.

Qingu's avatar

I haven’t seen anyone really address the idea that the universe/big bang was not “caused,” because there is no such thing as time before the big bang. In order for A to cause B, A must precede B in time. But time only exists after the big bang, in the universe.

As Stephen Hawking said, in A Brief History of Time, “One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”

If the universe can exist without needing to have been caused or created, you need to drop the tired old unmoved mover argument for God.

CMaz's avatar

As per Stephen Hawkings theory.

“If the universe can exist without needing to have been caused or created”
God is seen as “exist without needing to have been caused or created.”

Back to square one.

whitenoise's avatar

I feel that as soon as someone finds the single exclusive cause for the Universe, the next question will be: “so what caused that cause to cause the Universe?”

This question reminds me of my kids’ asking a good friend of ours who is a devoted believer the question: “So if God created all, then who created God?”
Her answer was that they shouldn’t want to know everything.

Qingu's avatar

@ChazMaz, I’m not sure what your point is.

Religious people claim that because God has always existed, you don’t need another, bigger SuperGod to explain where this God came from.

But if the universe has always existed, by the same logic, you don’t even need any God to explain where the universe came from.

Qingu's avatar

@whitenoise, why are you assuming the universe has a cause in the first place?

Cause implies there was a time before the universe existed. There wasn’t.

CMaz's avatar

“Religious people claim that because God has always existed, you don’t need another, bigger SuperGod to explain where this God came from.”

No, that is your assumption.

“Religious” people that think that way are misguided. There is an answer. As with any culture we tend to put a “God” in place of not knowing. But that does not mean one does not exis either..
We do not know. So, it is still a theory of possibility. Just because you wish to dismiss that argument does not make it so.

“But if the universe has always existed, by the same logic, you don’t even need any God to explain where the universe came from.”
You “don’t even need” plenty of things, but it does not mean that it is an answer.

Always existed is a broad term, and it can go in many directions. Narrowing it down is the tricky part. Your opinion is always welcome. The key word being opinion, no disrespect meant. It just is not what actually drives the machine.
Unless you let it, or others allow it to.

whitenoise's avatar

@Qingu
Sorry… I didn’t mean to imply a cause. I figure there actually may have been a time before our current universe existed, be it a different time from ours. But even all that to me seems irrelevant. What if we would be able to define a single mechanism that created the conditions of the timeless singularity and we would find an obscure way to prove that beyond speculation.

All I wanted to say: even then, the answer of our existence would not have been found, since we would then have to start wondering on the cause of the cause.

It is incredibly hard to be part of a model and to explain the start of it from the inside out. But sorry if I implied that a cause could be found. My (limited) understanding of science so far leads me to think that since our time didn’t exist before our universe, we will have a self-excluding, impossible task on proofing any precursing event. In singularity all is all at once and the concept of time is gone.

whitenoise's avatar

@ChazMaz

I agree with my children that were disappointed and said to our religious friend: “So… you don’t know either?”

It touches on the oxymoron of omnipotency.

CMaz's avatar

Why is is so taboo to not know. I find it more admiral to say, “I do not know,” then to come off knowing but not really knowing. Not knowing puts us in the direction of finding out.

But it does not take away from your beliefs either. We all have to believe in something to get through our day. If we do not agree, I am cool with it. It is how I get through the day that counts. :-)

wundayatta's avatar

Lake Tanganyika or the great rift valley.

The truth is that we don’t know, and we’ll never be terribly sure. There’s not a lot of evidence to be found, so it’s all pretty theoretical. Can lightning and the right chemicals create amino acids? Can random amino acids organize into pseudo life? We can run experiments to see if these things can happen, but we can’t be absolutely sure that’s what happened.

It’s just like most other explanations about origins. We have theories. We have some evidence. We have models. How persuasive is the evidence? It’s, in my opinion, still fairly open. So, for this big question, I wouldn’t say we still have any persuasive answers.

CMaz's avatar

One thing I am sure of. We will die. And, then we will know. Just wont be able to share that information. And knowing takes on so much more allure when we can tell others what we know.

I for one am happy (ok sometimes frustrated) and comfortable knowing that what I know and feel is right, for today.
At the end of it all, it is just me and the universe. I really do not feel the need to prove anything to anyone but myself.
But being human and alive today. It sure is fun to talk about, always being open to learn something.

Qingu's avatar

@whitenoise, you said, “I figure there actually may have been a time before our current universe existed, be it a different time from ours.”
But if this is true—and I don’t even see how it’s logically possible, really—that would just push it back. Whatever this mega-time is, it would still be contained in a mega-universe. There would therefore be no boundary “before” and “after” this mega-universe. The mega-universe would have always existed and would need no creator to explain its existence.

“What if we would be able to define a single mechanism that created the conditions of the timeless singularity and we would find an obscure way to prove that beyond speculation.”

The problem with what you’re saying here is that you are using words like “create” that depend on a previous conception of time.

When you create something, there is a point in time when the something does not exist, followed by a point in time when it does. The entire concept of “creation” makes no sense without a prior concept of “time.”

But if time only exists inside the universe — if there is no such thing as “before” the universe, then it is logically impossible to even say the universe is “created.” It has always existed. How can something that’s always existed be “created”?

This took me a while to wrap my head around, but it makes a lot of sense once it seeps in. You should really read ABHoT!

whitenoise's avatar

@ChazMaz That makes me wonder… if we were to be sure about the existence of God. Let’s say that He is discovered to have an office in a small village in the Swiss Alps.

Would we than still care so much about Him? Wouldn’t he become like the Government? Someone meddling with our lives that we care not so much about? My feeling is that as soon as people find out he is proven to be real, the magic will be gone.

CMaz's avatar

I see your point from a human standpoint.

Knowing with out a doubt the existence of God, would free us all up to understanding it all.
Knowing how it all works together, there would be no other conclusions to understanding how it all works together and thereby making total sense.
Removing any form of conflict. Total enlightenment.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Qingu . . .I believe I addressed your question with my post above. The universe has always simply…been.

It just hasn’t always held a static form.

davidbetterman's avatar

Apparently we came from the Pleiades.
We moved throughout the solar system, destroying our home worlds as we grew.
First we destroyed a planet which is now the asteroid belt.
Then we moved to Venus and destroyed its ability to sustain life.
Next was Mars.Destroyed its capacity to support us.
We are now living on Earth and are in the latter stages of making this planet inhabitable for humans.

talljasperman's avatar

we came from grade school

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther