A hypothetical question, especially for the atheists and skeptics in the audience...

[Joccaren]

This discussion reminds me of an Albert Einstein quote:

?There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.?

It is a shame that the prevalence of atheism and scepticism seems to completely remove most peoples sense of anything miraculous in our existence.

I find love miraculous. Even with all our knowledge of the chemical process and the biological reactions I still find it miraculous that so different people as family friends and lovers can spark such a reaction in a person. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote (paraphrased) in voyage of the Dawn treader: That's just what it's made out of. It is not what it IS.

With that Einstein quote, I think you're missing his point.

His point isn't that you can either view things as facts and statistics, and science, and find it boring, or you can view it as divine and find it miraculous.
Its that you can view the science and facts behind it as boring and mundane, and allow that to cloud your wonder of the world, or you can wonder at the facts and science behind everything, and laugh at the odds of it all happening.

That's the view a lot of atheists take. We find it boring and un-miraculous to see something and just explain it as "God did it" or "Its divine influence" or "Supernatural". That's the easy way out. There's no wonder there. Its someone saying "This is how it is", and then that's how it is.
Science on the other hand, is amazing. Its miraculous. It gives the universe wonder. What are the odds that we're all made out of tiny cells, individual life forms in their own right, rather than just a whole being? Who would believe that we could make everything that exists in this universe with just 18 or so different particles? Who would believe that that bright light in the sky isn't some divine light, but a giant ball of blazing gas that has been alive for billions of years, and is the size of a million Earths. And then we can harness this power, control it, and replicate it on a smaller scale here on Earth to give electricity - a form of energy controlled by a few particles with miraculous properties - to millions around the globe [Or soon will be anyway. We use similar principles at the moment, though we aren't quite at fusion yet].
Understanding how the universe works is what makes it wonderful. The interactions of different Bosons, of light and dark matter, of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. The odds that 13.8 billion years ago a singularity of everything existing in the universe would explode, leading to the formation of stars, planets and people are just miraculous, as is the fact that everyone on the planet was made by the death throes of an ancient star.

Viewing things as an Atheist or Skeptic doesn't remove the marvel and wonder from the universe, it simply allows you to truly see it.

 

[Bruce]

Really unanswerable.

The problem is when you get right down to it, natural rounds out to meaning reality. There is a lot of stuff we don't know and maybe even some stuff we can never know, but that doesn't move it into the realms of the supernatural.

Even if it doesn't appear to obey natural laws - those laws are really just descriptions of how we observe the universe operating, they are not necessarily accurate.

And that is part of the wonder of life, which is kind of ruined by the supernatural.

When we credit things to the supernatural we don't enhance its wonder, because it is basically giving an answer whether it is right or wrong just to have an answer. How did life start? Is that that question really better answered with God, an answer which puts a stop to exploration, than to say "I don't know" - a statement that urges further examination?

Neil De Grasse Tyson at one point in a TED talk spoke about religion and science, and he pointed out how the great geniuses of the past would make huge strides in knowledge and then stop - for the rest of it was in God's hands. He asked how much further advanced we could be if we hadn't done that. If they hadn't decided they already had an answer to their queries in the supernatural.

And that is part of the whole issue of the supernatural as a concept - it is always a matter of giving answers to questions that seem unanswerable, yet one of the things we can never know is the limits to our own knowledge.

Thus I really honestly cannot say any event in history is the most likely to have a supernatural cause - there are events which may have an unknown cause and events for which current explanations are unsatisfactory, but to assign them to the supernatural? That just kills the mystery without providing real answers to anything.

 

[Vigormortis]

Umm well no that's just not how Thermodynamics work. Most of the heat would have gone into the house an not effected fridge anyway. For radiation just look down for why that's irreverent.

I think you mean "irrelevant". Because otherwise, this debate will take on a whole different meaning. Heh.

But anyway, I wasn't talking about the air itself being that hot. If you look at the scene, when Indy climbs out he's staring directly at the mushroom cloud. And, seemingly, in fairly close proximity. The material pulled up into the cloud would be superheated and, as a result, would be giving off a immense amount of thermal radiation.

If nothing else, he at least would have received second-degree burns.

Well 1 is just not true, Akiko Takakura survived the blast in a bank lobby and I think she just died in 2008.

I said most, not all. I am well aware that there were some survivors that lived for years afterward.

For 2, the tests going on at that time where all sub 50 kiloton. "Apple 2" was likely the nuke going off at the point and it was 29 kilotons, fat man was 21. So no they where not "far weaker."

Have you actually looked into this claim or are you taking it straight from the Reel Physics video? Because I actually have. I watched the video when it was first uploaded and was fascinated by it. So much so that I looked into the history of the tests.

Thing is, in the video they operate under data from the Operation Teapot tests in 1955. The film, however, takes place in 1957. During that year, the US military conducted Operation Plumbbob. During this series of test detonations, they detonated bombs with yields upwards of 74 kilo-tons. Far more than the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy.

For 3 Akiko Takakura was 300 meters away. Furthermore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Schiffer

But she was in what was likely a very strong, thick walled building. Given that it was a bank. Thus, it afforded her, and many others likely in the building, some protection from the blast and subsequent fallout.

As I've pointed out above, I said most. Not all.

Also, that wiki page isn't really something I'd recommend trusting. The page itself cites that it's been refuted, as well as having "citation needed" after almost every claim.

That's simple, that wouldn't have happened that way. The fridge would have gone with the shock wave, not be blown ahead. It likely would have tumbled not flew. That part is movie magic, but that would be irreverent to the point that it is possible to survive a nuke in a fridge.

Again, I've seen the video. And, as I said before, I don't agree with all of their findings. Some I do. Like there being a chance...slim mind you...but a chance that someone could survive in that type of fridge under those conditions.

Understand, I'm not saying they're "wrong". They certainly "did the math" correctly. And the conclusions drawn from their findings certainly make sense. In point of fact, I agree with their conclusions based on their collected data.

However, they made an incredible number of assumptions. Like one quarter inch of lead in the fridge lining. The drag coefficient of the fridge. The distance from the blast. The yield of the bomb. And even the assumption that a cheap, plywood house would provide similar protection from the blast waves as the bank did for Ms. Takakura.

All that said, my primary contention from the start was that the 'fridge-nuking' was far, far, less survivable and more improbable than the 'raft-drop' stunt. A claim I still stand by.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the interest of fairness to our fellow posters, I'm willing to continue this conversation via private messages, if you like. I think we've gone far enough off topic to warrant such a move.

 

[Guiltyone]

Whales.

Also Dyatlov Pass incident [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_incident]. Gives me creeps every time I remember it.

 

[Simple Bluff]

The supernatural is by definition outside of scientific investigation and therefore cannot be proven. Because if it could be proven, that is, if it was in the realm of science, it would automatically become part of nature and not be supernatural anymore.

What about things that are true but [a href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]can't be proven[/a]? What about things that CAN be proven, but [a href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox"]make no goddamn sense[/a]? It's hard to be skeptic in the face of these things, sometimes. Or it is for me, at least.

Your links don't work, though I can see them, when I quote you.

We are talking about existential claims in the physical world, not about mathematics. This an important distinction.
Anyway, I am of the opinion that withholding one's belief until sufficient evidence is provided always is the best course of action. What qualifies as "sufficient" depends on the strangeness of the claim.

Truths that "cannot be proven" are indistinguishable from falsehoods that cannot be proven.
Also, in your first link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems] it says right in the second sentence "[t]he theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, ..."

Keep in mind that people used to think that the Earth being round and rotating didn't make any sense. What you personally think makes sense or doesn't has no bearing on what's actually true.

Note that not believing something, does not mean that I claim that it is false or that I believe it is false. It just means that I am unconvinced.

What you said makes sense, but I should have been a bit more clear with the articles I linked, for I believe you might've misunderstood them a bit.

Spoiler: Godel's rantings

It's not the theorem itself that's unprovable, but what I was referring to was it's consequences. To be perfectly honest, I don't know very much about this so I may be mistaken, but it pretty much states that there are no sets of "axioms" that can be used to prove each other, without assuming others are true, without proof (an "axiom" is simply a fundamental law of Formal Logic - something so "obvious" it can be assumed. They're a necessary tool in Logic and Science to form a sort of "building blocks" to proving other theorems and laws. Many aren't actually proven. An example of an axiom would be x = x (ie, a number equals itself). That's an easy example, but some of them are quite [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_axioms"]complicated[/a]).
Although this only applies to incredibly abstract stuff that I won't even pretend I understand, so your point still stands.

HOWEVER! There was a very strong theorem proven by a German philosopher in the mid-nineties (or around that time). For the life of me, I can't remember the name of the theorem OR the guy who discovered it, so I can't find an article. What it said was that there are unprovable truths - similar to Godel's first incompleteness theorem, except it stretches beyond incredibly abstract limitations (don't get me wrong... it's still pretty abstract). I can't decipher the proof (it's like 30 pages long and pretty damn complicated) but I've been told that it basically boils down to a [a href="http://nrich.maths.org/4717"]Proof by Contradiction[/a].

Simply put, he showed that you can't know "all truths" without making assumptions about other truths. However, this applies to all of Formal Logic (including Maths and Science) unlike Godel's thing. I just wish I could remember the damn name.

Spoiler: Banach-Tarski mind explosion

This has no bearing on what you said, but it's a pretty cool thing to share. The Banach-Tarski Paradox states is that it can be shown that a "solid ball" can be broken up, reassembled, and put back together in such a way that you can create TWO solid balls, each of the same volume of the original ball. All without stretching or otherwise altering the broken up pieces.

Now, a "solid ball" in this case is, again, pretty damn abstract when put into mathematical context. However, the paradox states it's essentially possible to double a solid ball's volume, out of nowhere. That's as bizarre in maths as it is in real life, no matter how abstract you get. That's why it's known as a paradox, and not a theorem.

Please understand I'm not arguing your point - it's a very good one, and you addressed my questions perfectly, even if I did a crappy job of demonstrating them. I just wanted to clarify, that's all.

Personally though, I still find this abstract malarkey pretty weird to think about. If you can't trust even the most rudimentary basis of logic, what CAN you trust? Bizarre stuff.

 

[TWRule]

I don't identify as an atheiest, skeptic, or a theist for that matter...

But it would probably be, if not humanity's origins, then whatever force it is that allows us opportunities to meet one another.

You mean life? I've no idea why you've gone ahead and assumed there is a "force" that "creates opportunities" for us to bump into people. There are several billion people on this planet, most of whom live in large cities and communities, some numbering a handful, some a few million. The "force" that causes us to meet people is not a force, but occurs inevitably, as shown by the law of averages.

That you meet someone is as mundane as it gets. It's like two grains of rice touching in a bag of rice.

If you are referring to meeting people you like or have some grand connection with, again, law of averages; you don't talk to people you don't like or make company with people that don't attract you, so your entire pool of associations is a selection you've made. You can't use that as evidence for intervention. To use another example, that's like asking why your fridge is full of food you like.

Yes, I'm not talking about people 'meeting' like two bodies passing in vicinity of one another, but that fact that the cosmos is such that it is *possible* not only for us come into contact, but understand each other on a profound level, recognize each other as 'this particular unique person', and develop deep relationships. Considered against all the other ontological possibilities, a reality whereby you and that particular other person, as unique beings can come to stand in a specific unique relation to one another - to reach out to, understand, and otherwise actively relate to each other, to exist as distinct beings and yet be able to transcend ourselves so as to powerfully 'interconnect' if you will, well it's amazing. And that's before considering what lead you to meet the specific people you've encountered, and how your interactions with them have shaped the identities of all involved parties.

Of course one doesn't have to think of it as a 'force' that creates such opportunities or arranged things the way they are, but the question was that if there were something you'd be willing to chalk up to Grace/providence, what would it be - and that's my answer. I wasn't claiming I had 'evidence' for it, whatever that would be - it's a choice of perspective, evidence is irrelevant (it is not as if a starting point of assuming it's purely coincidence would be any less arbitrary).

 

[Mersadeon]

Ok. I'm an atheist, and I'm not going to behave like an over-sensitive internet-tough-guy here. (I mean, really, can no one just answer his question without immediately assuming he has an agenda? And if you cannot answer a hypothetical question because you cannot accept hypothetical circumstances, how about you just don't?


I guess pretty much everything that has to do with Quantum Mechanics. I mean, that stuff is already pretty crazy.

EDIT: And for that matter (no pun intended): How matter survived in great enough numbers to form the universe and antimatter didn't. If I had to choose a single thing, that would probably be it.

 

[Eddie the head]

But anyway, I wasn't talking about the air itself being that hot. If you look at the scene, when Indy climbs out he's staring directly at the mushroom cloud. And, seemingly, in fairly close proximity. The material pulled up into the cloud would be superheated and, as a result, would be giving off a immense amount of thermal radiation.

If nothing else, he at least would have received second-degree burns.

Umm, most of the heat given off by a nuke is in the forum of infrared radiation. And almost all of it is within the first few seconds. I think you are trying to say the cloud afterwords would be hot? I don't know? All I can point out is that people who did get burns, where mostly by infrared not convection. Or are you saying the cloud would have given off inferred radiation? I haven't heard anything to suggest the cloud of a nuke gives off a significant amount of infrared radiation needed to burn someone. So it's unlikely he would have received any burns as long as he wasn't in the line of sight of the initial blast based on all the evidence I have seen.

I said most, not all. I am well aware that there were some survivors that lived for years afterward.

The most common injury was also thermal radiation burns and as I said the house would have absorbed most of that and any that it didn't would have absorbed by the fridge it's self. The next most likely is radiation burns of varying degrees. The fact that he was in an enclosed space makes it unlikely that Beta particles could hit him. Leaving Gamma radiation as the only think that "maybe" harm him.

Those are the 3 most likely to have adverse effect's after the shock wave, and I'm sorry but they are not doing it.

Have you actually looked into this claim or are you taking it straight from the Reel Physics video? Because I actually have. I watched the video when it was first uploaded and was fascinated by it. So much so that I looked into the history of the tests.

Thing is, in the video they operate under data from the Operation Teapot tests in 1955. The film, however, takes place in 1957. During that year, the US military conducted Operation Plumbbob. During this series of test detonations, they detonated bombs with yields upwards of 74 kilo-tons. Far more than the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy.

The thing is as far as I can tell that's just an historical inaccuracy, it might be Plumbbob, but they never dealt with nuking a fake town to knowledge. I say "apple 2" because it was the one that they used to test how buildings would hold up. I can't find any reference to Plumbbob having anything similar. Either they got the whole point of the test wrong, or the year. I guess that one can be up to interpretation.

But she was in what was likely a very strong, thick walled building. Given that it was a bank. Thus, it afforded her, and many others likely in the building, some protection from the blast and subsequent fallout.

As I've pointed out above, I said most. Not all.

Also, that wiki page isn't really something I'd recommend trusting. The page itself cites that it's been refuted, as well as having "citation needed" after almost every claim.

As I said the most likely ways, after the blast, you would die is infrared heat burns beta burns both of witch are unlikely to have effected him. Gamma you know maybe, but you know lead.

Again, I've seen the video. And, as I said before, I don't agree with all of their findings. Some I do. Like there being a chance...slim mind you...but a chance that someone could survive in that type of fridge under those conditions.

Understand, I'm not saying they're "wrong". They certainly "did the math" correctly. And the conclusions drawn from their findings certainly make sense. In point of fact, I agree with their conclusions based on their collected data.

However, they made an incredible number of assumptions. Like one quarter inch of lead in the fridge lining. The drag coefficient of the fridge. The distance from the blast. The yield of the bomb. And even the assumption that a cheap, plywood house would provide similar protection from the blast waves as the bank did for Ms. Takakura.

All that said, my primary contention from the start was that the 'fridge-nuking' was far, far, less survivable and more improbable than the 'raft-drop' stunt. A claim I still stand by.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the interest of fairness to our fellow posters, I'm willing to continue this conversation via private messages, if you like. I think we've gone far enough off topic to warrant such a move.

If we contend that it was possible, even likely as after effects are irrelevant and the size it debatable, grate. But that "claim you still stand by." Isn't much proven. I'v said this before but it rings more true the more I say it. No amount of me being wrong proves you right. On the other hand at this point I'm fine with saying, we both think it's possible you just think it's less possible and moving on. I'm not in the mood to debate that whole raft-drop thing.

(Quick side note no one is saying the house would have protected form the blast, we are are talking about the heat wave. Kind of a straw-man, but barely worth mentioning. Actually the more I think about it those are not assumptions that you listed as they are all based on evidence. Evidence that is inconclusive maybe but it is evidence. False conclusion might be what you're trying to say.)

 

[Cecilo]

Anything that had to do with Dragons or Religion, is aliens. If I had to rationalize it somehow, it would be aliens or possibly new technology. Someone in a big city figured something revolutionary out, went to small time village, showed it off to the peasantry and they took it as an act of god. First person to discover how to draw water out of a water table must have been hailed as a hero or gifted by the gods, I can tell you that.

 

[Bakuryukun]

That hypothetical question doesn't go to one of my core believes.

And neither does this one as lack of belief is not a belief in and of itself. That's the rhetoric that the religious try to use to get atheism classified as a religion.

Edit: Thinking about it more, I guess people could honestly not come up with anything, but it blows my mind that on a site devoted to activities that stretch the bounds of our imagination that this is our Achilles' Heel.

That's the thing though, depending on supernatural or divine intervention to explain interesting things happening is like...the EXACT opposite of being imaginative, it's essentially throwing up your hands and giving up.

 

[LetalisK]

That hypothetical question doesn't go to one of my core believes.

And neither does this one as lack of belief is not a belief in and of itself. That's the rhetoric that the religious try to use to get atheism classified as a religion.

Edit: Thinking about it more, I guess people could honestly not come up with anything, but it blows my mind that on a site devoted to activities that stretch the bounds of our imagination that this is our Achilles' Heel.

That's the thing though, depending on supernatural or divine intervention to explain interesting things happening is like...the EXACT opposite of being imaginative, it's essentially throwing up your hands and giving up.

Yeah, if you actually believe it. Atheists obviously don't and putting up suspension of disbelief to answer a hypothetical doesn't suddenly become unimaginative because we're talking about real life myths and legends instead of Ferelden's.

 

[The Enquirer]

The Medici? Aren't those the fellows who initiated the night of st. Bartholomew? In which thousands of protestants were slaughtered by their catholic brothers?
Not what I would call humanitarians. Though definitely influential.

I believe they were but to be fair the Bible is one of the more violent books out there. But to be fair, the family did end hundreds of years of little to no education and very little in the way of culture. So I'd say that they had a huge influence. Even if they did use it for things that ended in death.

Can't argue with the Medici being one of the most influential families in Europe at that time period. But I doubt they single handedly ended the medieval period. Their contribution was mostly financial. I say most of the credit goes to the people they supported. Still they deserve the credit for at least supporting such people.

True, though they did support them when no one else did... I'm not saying they did it alone, that'd have been impossible, but they did set the whole thing in motion almost all by themselves.

 

[Blubberburg]

I initially read this question as "you may go back in time and see for yourself proof of divine power, where would you go?"
which seems like a much better question. I'd personally want to go back and meet Jesus, see if he actually had superpowers

 

[Nosirrah]

Morgan freeman's voice. If it isn't the creation of a god, then evolution has failed.

 

[Knife]

True, though they did support them when no one else did... I'm not saying they did it alone, that'd have been impossible, but they did set the whole thing in motion almost all by themselves.

Well, there were other noble families in Europe that "sponsored" the renaissance such as Sforza, Borgia, Strozzi, Montefeltro and Chigi. And if we dig just a little bit deeper we'll find more. Other "sponsors" include countless guilds, churches and city councils. The Medici family was but one player in a huge team.

 

[Seydaman]

Hmm.

I'm honestly drawing a blank here. I can't think of any historical events that were particularly unbelievable.

Maybe the Salem trials I guess?

 

[The Enquirer]

True, though they did support them when no one else did... I'm not saying they did it alone, that'd have been impossible, but they did set the whole thing in motion almost all by themselves.

Well, there were other noble families in Europe that "sponsored" the renaissance such as Sforza, Borgia, Strozzi, Montefeltro and Chigi. And if we dig just a little bit deeper we'll find more. Other "sponsors" include countless guilds, churches and city councils. The Medici family was but one player in a huge team.

Well in Italy I mean. Obviously there were a lot of other factors that were in play as well. The Fall of Constantinople being one of those as it spread all the scholars and artists out.

I know technically this isn't meant to be religious but churches were one of the few places that preserved writing/reading through the middle ages that allowed education to eventually spread again.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Orlando Bloom's face.

If there were a deity, all of its evidence would subside in him.
[small]It can't be legal to be that pretty.[/small]

 

[Knife]

Well in Italy I mean. Obviously there were a lot of other factors that were in play as well. The Fall of Constantinople being one of those as it spread all the scholars and artists out.

I know technically this isn't meant to be religious but churches were one of the few places that preserved writing/reading through the middle ages that allowed education to eventually spread again.

Well, since the invention of writing religion basically held the monopoly on writing/reading (as far as Europe is concerned). Sure some nobles knew how to read/write letters to one another, but just as often they would use a priest to read/write for them. And the peasants were more occupied with surviving and feeding themselves and every other member of society. I'll agree the churches (and their non christian counterparts) preserved the knowledge for a very long time, but that invites the question - why didn't they spread it all that time?

If you want my answer, it's because of political reasons - it's easier to control the masses when the masses are uneducated. When the commoner can't read the holy texts on his own, he needs the priest to read it for him. And the priest can say whatever he likes and mask it as holy text. If the priest wants the commoner to do A then he tells him the holy texts order him to do A, and the commoner has no way of checking if it's true or not.

 

[K12]

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

The scientific consensus seems (afaik) to be that there was a beginning of the universe(not that i understand the topic enough to really argue about it). Or do you mean "always been" in the sense of that there was another universe before ours, and another one before that one, and so on for all infinity?

Always been, as in, it has no beginning. But I also haven't researched the topic enough to argue it.

I have thought about the universe as a cycle though, in regards to the big bang. Like it starts with the bang, then after it expands for a long time, it is sucked back in to create another big bang. But nothing created this cycle, so yes to your last question as well.

People don't seem to truly grasp what this actually means. Can you truly conceive of the infinite? Because that is what is required for something to have no beginning and no ending, unless there is some completely alien concept which our minds have be made utterly blind to. And to be infinite and at the same time nothing, as nothing can arrive from nothing. This should reduce everyone to a quivering pool on the floor that could do no wrong to its fellow man, were that all men more than mere animals.

How can you speak of such things so casually? Ask yourself this.

I think the main thing about the universe is that it has either existed infinitely or finitely and both those options are mind boggling and counter intuitive.

Finite doesn't mean that it has a beginning and an end necessarily, just a finite length. The Equator has a finite length but no beginning or end and I think that the universe is kinda the same over a larger number of dimensions (beyond 3D space and 4D spacetime) but I'm not going to pretend I understand what that means.

You can do anything in a computer simulation, but at some point in the causal chain you arrive at a place where existence cannot possibly exist because the definition of to exist, to be, necessitates an origin. That's the problem. You have to take existence out of the equation, and in order to do that you must wave you hand and proclaim "infinity" (as infinity is boundless, consider Zeno's paradox) or you must be resigned to the conclusion that existence is an illusion.

Our brains don't seem equipped to imagine a paradigm where existence has no meaning, or at least no bearing, and how something like our reality, where existence is front and center, could arise from conditions where existence must be fundamentally impossible, merely an abstract concept that can be programmed into a simulation.

The only thing our brains do seem well equipped for is putting these quandaries aside to go about our loathsome business as if none of this is of any consequence. Try to do that in reverse. Make a simulation where existence is not a rule. Who can even conceive of that? Unless you think you can, you have no business casually brushing these problems away. That's only a kind of denial that is no different from that of the intellectually divested religious adherent.

I don't really know what you are talking about or what point you're making over all.

"To exist" does not require an origin. To have an origin implies that something existed at some point or another but existing doesn't imply an origin. There is no contradiction in saying that something exists without a beginning to its existence.

Infinity isn't completely boundless, something can be infinite and still have boundaries. An infinite line can have a starting point and then stretch to infinity, it has no boundary on only one end.

It makes no sense to claim that existence is an illusion (consider Descartes Cogito)and there's no reason to think that the only other option is claim everything is infinite. The universe's existence is finite or infinite, and it can be each in several different ways.

I think the idea that we shouldn't brush these problems aside in everyday life is silly. There's a quote from Buddha which I can't remember exactly but someone asks him when his teaching is going to explain the origin of the universe. He responds that you don't need to know something like that to live a good life (I'm sure the original quote was more poetic than that) and I agree. We may never get a satisfactory answer to those kind of questions and that's fine. We shouldn't stop asking the question but we can operate perfectly well without an answer to it.