How did life form without a higher power?

I think I’m turning Christian because of this. You can’t form life from dust, the big bang or gasses, as everyone seems to say in science class. If you think it can, show me. I’ve thought about it for awhile, and there is no way. The other thing is there is no way the big bang can even happen, where did the gasses and dust that made the big bang come from? It doesn’t make any sense so there has to be a higher power.

Posted: May 1st 2012


Well, very simply, the only honest answer to something that isn’t know is to say, “we don’t know”. And perhaps, “Here are some ways that we might try to figure out”.

You are making a huge logical jump from, “I don’t understand how could happen” to “god did it”.

Not only is that an unjustified jump, it doesn’t help you any. Instead of not knowing how the universe came into being, you now have no way of knowing how god came into being.

Posted: June 30th 2012

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

Dave Hitt www

If it is impossible for life to slowly, eventually, evolve, and therefore a deity is necessary, why would you become a Christian? Every religion has origin stories, and none are more or less plausible that the Christian one, so why pick that one? You could pick Hinduism, or the Norse gods, or the Greek/Roman gods, or the American Indian gods, or or or…the list is huge.

Or…you could learn from the people who have been studying these issues for decades. There are tens of thousands of them (maybe hundreds of thousands) and they’ve done far more than “thinking about it for a while.” They’ve done real experiments, real research, real math and real science, and we can all learn from their efforts.

Evolution is a fact, and well understood. Once you have any kind of life that reproduces itself imperfectly it’s not just likely, its inevitable. Abiogenesis is a bit more complicated, and there are more holes in our knowledge of it than there are of evolution, but we’re getting there. The Big Bang – that gets complicated, and yes, there are unanswered questions, but we’re learning more day by day and will probably get to an understanding of it within our lifetimes.

Beware of the “god of the gaps” trap. When we didn’t understand lightening people insisted god did it. Now that we understand it we don’t need a god to explain it. The same goes for disease, and creation, and seeds sprouting, and the movements of planets and stars, and genetics, and a million other subjects. As our knowledge expands the gaps in our understanding shrink, leaving God smaller and smaller gaps to inhabit. It’s much more reasonable to say “we don’t understand that yet“ than to insist god did it. Otherwise, you’ve got the daunting task of deciding which god did it, and that’s going to be an awful lot of work.

Posted: June 27th 2012

See all questions answered by Dave Hitt

Philip www

Because you do not have the evidence or understanding of what happened during the big bang event or about the origins of life – making the gigantic assumption that a version of “God” from the Christian religion from which there are over 38,000 denominations, managed to beat the other goodness knows how many other higher beings to get the intellectual properly rights to the universe seems an even bigger problem for you.

Why does there even have to be a higher power?

Your reasoning – you don’t know so therefore God -is not a very sound way of going about finding out more.

Why don’t you ask some experts in Cosmology – there is an excellent book called BANG by Sir Patrick Moore and Brian May from the band Queen which gives a very simple guide to the event. People like Stephen Hawking’s work is more in depth and explains the science a bit better should you need it. Concerning life and its origins – Evolutionary Biology can tell you about what we understand as to how simple forms over a long period of time can evolve into more complex ones, Richard Dawkins’ books are invaluable as he is a leading expert in that particular field of expertise.

Claiming a deity, in my humble opinion creates more problems than it solves – you need evidence of existence, you need an explanation as to what this deity was doing before this event (In order to even be around before the universe this deity would have to have been outside time and space – only a temporal being could affect that, anything non temperal could not tamper with the temperal!) This being is just too complex, too erroneous an explanation when there are far simpler ones should you be bothered to study it.

So by all means, ask a ton of questions, test them, see what makes sense – do everything you can apart from just assume a particular deity from a particular religion had everything to do with it.

The whole point of science is to discover and gather knowledge not because you WANT it to be so, but because the evidence supports the claims it makes.

Posted: May 28th 2012

See all questions answered by Philip

George Locke

I’ve thought about it for a while, and there is no way.

Get a hold of yourself. The fact that you personally don’t see how to solve a particular problem does not mean goddidit.

If it can be proven that natural causes cannot possibly have caused some real phenomenon X, that would show that supernatural causes are responsible. But how are you going to prove that natural causes can’t have created life from non-life? By thinking about it for a weekend and then throwing your hands up in the air? If the Wright Brothers thought the way you did, we’d still be praying for magic carpets instead of launching rockets into space.

It doesn’t make any sense so there has to be a higher power.

The bottom line is that the origin of life and the big bang are unsolved problems. Anyone who claims to know what came before the big bang had better have a great deal of evidence to back up their claims; experts have been banging their heads on that one for years. Progress has been made, but it’s a hard nut to crack. Although there are plenty of plausible theories, no one has enough information to be certain about how life began. The scientists actively researching the question have good guesses, but they can’t be certain. Certainly, no priest pulling ideas out of thin air has proper justification for his claims.

Before you can conclude that God is responsible, you need positive evidence to establish it. Lack of a natural explanation doesn’t imply supernatural activity; what you need is proof that no natural explanation is possible. Before you can conclude that nature cannot have been responsible, you need evidence. And no, your inability to produce a natural explanation is not evidence that no such explanation exists.

Posted: May 24th 2012

See all questions answered by George Locke

Blaise www

These are two very different questions.

As for abiogenesis, we have strong evidence that life can originate with non-living chemistry. Over sixty years ago, experiments showed that if you take a sample of the gasses and liquids found on the early Earth’s surface, and expose them to heat and electric discharges like those that would have been present in lightning storms, you get a soup of chemicals which are direct precursors to our kind of life. More recent experiments have demonstrated that that soup of chemicals will, in certain circumstances, produce chemicals very similar to RNA, which have the ability to reproduce themselves. Once you have a self-reproducing chemical, you have the beginnings of life, and evolution takes over. No magic man in the sky needed.

On the subject of the big bang, Cosmologists have already proven that you are most likely wrong when you say “there is no way the big bang can even happen”. Although we of course have no direct evidence of what actually happened, there are several different theories of how a universe can be created by random chance, all of which stand up to some level of mathematical analysis. Granted, we don’t know which of these theories, if any, are the true origin of our universe, but we do know that they are all possible, which completely invalidates your assumption that they are not.

More importantly, even if your statements were true, why would your decision that there must be an intelligence behind the universe “turn you Christian”? There have been tens of thousands of gods worshiped by humans. Why would you automatically assume the Christian god was the right one, just because you suspect one exists?

Posted: May 2nd 2012

See all questions answered by Blaise

Galen Rose www

You say you’ve “thought about it for awhile, and there is no way.” When David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear once, I thought, “No way!” The weakness of this argument, of course, is that I am not an expert magician, and you are not an expert physicist. Just because we can’t think of how something could be done, doesn’t mean something can’t be done.

Another problem with your argument is that you seem to think that a highly complex thing like the universe requires a designer, but that would mean your designer, a being even more complex, would also require a designer. So where does it end? Also, there are plenty of examples of complex things in nature forming from well understood natural processes, like snowflakes and sand dunes.

Posted: May 2nd 2012

See all questions answered by Galen Rose


Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum