<p>Whenever people say “how could the universe come from nothing” I always wonder “How could God have come from nothing” and I never get an answer</p>
<p>Join the club…it’s been a problem for a long, long time. 
See: Which came first…the chicken or the egg?</p>
<p>Universe: by definition material.</p>
<p>God: by definition immaterial.</p>
<p>Based on the skeptical tone of your inquiry I doubt this will dent your curiosity.</p>
<p>If you do not believe in the reality of immaterial things, like universals and thoughts, this will mean nothing to you; if you do, you will find it to be a distinction that might make a difference.</p>
<p>Driver, </p>
<p>Hope for the Chicken!
Soon it will be too difficult to unscramble the egg.</p>
<p>Driver: there is an evolutionary answer to the chicken/egg question. The egg always comes first, because mutations occur to the germ cells of the parent; thus, the egg would be the first actual chicken, while the parent would be almost-a-chicken.</p>
<p>As for whomever it was who clarified my point about those living under communism, yes, I <em>was</em> indeed trying to point out that those living under communisim gave lip service to communistic atheism in the name of political expediency, just as those living in Catholic regimes (such as Copernicus and Galileo) may have given lip service to a belief in a god in the name of political expediency.</p>
<p>Thoughts are to some extent very material, though…your brain’s response to different stimuli, and how it fires neurons.</p>
<p>dmd- that’s the same thing I’ve always said about the chicken/egg thing. Finally, someone else…</p>
<p>“Whenever people say “how could the universe come from nothing” I always wonder “How could God have come from nothing” and I never get an answer”</p>
<p>if God came from something else, than that God is not God. That something is God. The true origin, that great ‘I am’ who simply exists is God.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html[/url]”>http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html[/url]”>http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/einstein_god.cfm[/url]”>http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/einstein_god.cfm</a></p>
<p><a href=“News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com”>News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com;
<p><a href=“http://atheistsunited.org/wordsofwisdom/Edwards/einstein.html[/url]”>http://atheistsunited.org/wordsofwisdom/Edwards/einstein.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einbucky.htm[/url]”>http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einbucky.htm</a></p>
<p>Som different perspectives on Einstein</p>
<p>
I think it always pays to read stuff before you post it, but whatever. Nothing inconsistent with ID here.</p>
<p>What do you think is more complex, the universe or God?</p>
<p>Why would you assume I didn’t read the sites? I read them all. Do you think I didn’t? </p>
<p>You are very rude. And I shared them all, unlike others, who pick and choose.</p>
<p>CGM,
Forgive my further rudeness and snottiness in citing yet another of the links you posted (the last one), but seem not to have read, or even at a minimum, understood:
I’m missing the part where Einstein comes out against the concept of intelligent design.</p>
<p>Einstein did not believe in a personal God. He did not believe in the afterlife. He did not believe God sat in judgment of humans. He did not think man was made in the image of God. His view of God was very different than any main religion’s view of God.</p>
<p>I understood them very well. And I read them. Do not think I didn’t. </p>
<p>Again, to make assumptions. </p>
<p>I will not forgive your rudeness.</p>
<p>The word spirit has many meanings.</p>
<p>As did his use of the word religion.</p>
<p>*“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”</p>
<p>Epicurius*</p>
<p>Science doesn’t fill in the blanks of what isn’t yet known and call it God</p>
<p>If Driver was a Jew, she would understand Einstein’s remarks better. :)</p>
<p>CGM:
As does the concept of intelligent design. But I will forgive you for your ubiquitous, manifold rudeness. You folks have been the ones who insisted that everyone entertaining the notion of intelligent design was ascribing it to a personal god. Many of us have said otherwise, and been called, in essence, fibbers with an hidden agenda. I’ll align myself with Alfie.</p>
<p>“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”</p>
<p>this is wonderful!!!</p>
<p>BUT, human beings, blessed with free will, can choose to do evil and introduce evil into the world. God has given free will, and He will respect it. </p>
<p>Secondly, why did God give Eve an opportunity to fall? IF Eve did NOT have an opportunity to do evil, than she would HAVE to not do evil, but her that does not make her GOOD. </p>
<p>Only when you can choose from good and evil, what you do will be TRULY good and evil. </p>
<p>Lastly, people are often prone to evil things because it shapes their soul. What our bodies endure might seem malevolent; yet it is our soul that lasts.</p>