For those who wish to employ logic?

Gosh, perhaps you could actually do some research into what is known instead of bragging about what you don't know.

For thousands of years, people have said that their gods were behind what they didn't understand -- life, lightning, stars, earthquakes, the origin of life, the world or the universe, etc. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It just adds an unwarranted level of complexity and stops you from asking more questions.

A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Big Bang Theory explains the origin of the universe, and is supported by extensive empirical data. There is no reliable data supporting the some-god-did-it hypothesis, and especially not the Yahweh-did-it hypothesis.

It used to be that science couldn't answer the question about the origin of the universe or of the Big Bang, but that didn't mean we should make up an answer (such as a god) and say that it was the cause. Within the last few decades scientists have discovered some good answers. Of course, a scientific explanation is more complex than simply saying, "God did it."

Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations. Quantum mechanics also shows that events can occur with no cause.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.

I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd."

For more about the Big Bang and its implications, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, read an interview with him (at the 2nd link), or get his new book (at the 3rd link). And, see the 4th link for "The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps."

"The total energy of the universe is precisely zero, because gravity can have negative energy. The negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. Only such a universe can begin from nothing. The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe."

- Lawrence Krauss, physicist

"The cosmic microwave background radiation is one of the many reasons that we know that the Big Bang actually happened."

- Lawrence Krauss, physicist

The study of how life started is called abiogenesis, and it shows how life can start with normal chemical processes. See the 2nd group of links: 1st link for the video, "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis" by Dr. Jack Szostak, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. See also his website at the 2nd link, and the 3rd link: "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory."

-

How life originated is still being investigated. That doesn't mean that life's origins somehow defy all logic, it just means that we don't yet have the necessary information to draw a solid conclusion.

[edit]

As far as anyone can tell, the origin of life does not require anything to come from nothing. If you're referring to the Big Bang thoery, then that also doesn't require something to come from nothing. A common misconception about the big bang is that it claims that the universe exploded into existence out of nothing, but in reality it only claims that the universe once existed in a much more dense and compact state.

[edit]

Who said it came from anywhere? For all we know it could have always been there. To say otherwise would simply be a baseless assumption with nothing to back it up.

"First, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period." Not quite. The problem with logical reasoning isn't that it sometimes doesn't work. It's that people sometimes go into the reasoning with invalid premises or without all premises required to reach a good conclusion. Logic wasn't the problem, however.

Let's say you come across an immobile locked box bolted to the ground in an area you've never been to before. You have no instruments to examine with except eyes for now, but you imagine maybe with better tools you could examine it better. Now, what is in the box? Tell me. What is logically in the box? No cop out answers, tell me exactly what is in the box in my hypothetical situation. That is basically what you are doing, and it's illogical. "I don't know" is a logical answer.

Logically, we are here right now, meaning we got here somehow. Whether or not you think we "should" be here is irrelevant. But why would puny biological beings automatically know the answer to how this vast system arose? We don't know right now. How would you propose that birds should go about discovering the truth of their origins? They have wings to fly with, awesome eagle eyes to see with, etc. I guess that means they ought to conclude a bird deity made them, huh. Or at least avian-centric like how human gods are anthropocentric.

You are a fool. I have already answered your question multiple time via email and all you could do is throw temper tantrums. You can educate nobody because you do not have the first cklue as to what you are talking about. Go spend some time at NASA big boy and **** your diabetes claim.

I take the Bibles explanation of life.

(Genesis 2:7) And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

Notice Adam became a living soul. He wasn't given one.

I have no idea how life got started, nor is it likely that anyone does. I'm open to the possibility of intelligent design, but I'm not convinced of it.

I have a strong feeling you don't understand what logic is.

Find out and compare it to empirical evidence which is what I imagine you actually mean.

EDIT

There isn't a question, the inception of life was a physical process and as such is in no way connected with logic.

So you don't know what you mean.

:( poor tiny brained man doesn't understand what abiogenesis is. And that clearly indicates god did it.

Edit: Let's start with the basic here is a definition of logic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

Edit 2: You just buried yourself further.

"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]"

Thanks for letting us know miller's experiment worked out in our favor.

Interesting how the answers so far employ only logical fallacies - the ad hominem.

Perhaps you asking for logical atheists was too much?