How did the Universe get here?

[Peach]

Creation.

 

[sealybobo]

Creation.

Why there is no god

 

[emilynghiem]

It didn't "get here". That is a nonsense concept. To "get here" it would have come from "somewhere". And if that were othen the next question is where did that come from.

Really, that's a four year old's question. That or contemplations of smoking good bud. I mean really, how long are you going to remain at being like a stoned four year old before you move on?

You raise a very interesting point. Humans seem to suffer from this debilitating mental block known as "objective reality" where we can only imagine things in a physical or material sense, dictated by the laws, rules and principles of our physical universe and reality. Terms like "get here" and "somewhere" have meaning because we interpret them in relation to a physical reality. I will also add "come from" to the mix.

We observe electrons and subatomic particles simply disappearing from existence and re-appearing from nowhere, yet our minds tell us this must be explainable. We see black holes which defy physical principles and rationalize, there must be an explanation. Most importantly, we see a universe that is in motion, constantly expanding faster and faster, and our science and physics indicate some force must have set it into motion. Some theorize it is gravity, but why does gravity exist? What gave gravity the characteristics to start this motion? The bottom line is, we don't have the answers, and perhaps it is because of our debilitating mental block of not being able to comprehend beyond "objective reality?"

What the fuck are you yammering about?

"debilitating mental block of not being able to comprehend beyond "objective reality"" is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

Dear [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] and [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]
The "debilitating block" is not the view of "objective reality itself"
but FEAR and UNFORGIVENESS of other people imposing their views.

The emotional energy tied up in defending and judging other people for their views
causes not only a mutual bias, but blocks the interactions between people.

By focusing on common respect and trust in truth to naturally dispel fear,
and by forgiving people's fear, differences, and lack of understanding or knowledge,
this "disability" can be removed.

By forgiving the whole situation, all people and conflicts within it,
the process can be opened up to establish agreement on truth and resolve errors.

Most people keep their same viewpoints, and find out that what changes
is their perception of other people's views not conflicting with their own
AS THEY FEARED.

So the process leads to expanding each person's views to ADD the information of other people WITHOUT negating their own (once the blocks are removed, which I find are caused by projecting Fear and Unforgiven issues/emotions onto the discussion and onto each other.

A friend of mine who counsels people through life changes calls it
FEAR
STRESS
ANXIETY that impedes people's judgment and ability to CHANGE their perceptions

I call it
FEAR of the unknown
FEAR of change or loss of control to outside influences
FEAR of conflict or confrontation with others

When people NO LONGER FEAR changing their minds, they will find out that the change that happens is MUTUAL between people where BOTH people experience equal changes in their perception to understand other views outside their own. Their actual beliefs DO NOT CHANGE as they feared other people were trying to do.

Their Perception and Interpretation expands; their belief systems tend to remain, but their way of expressing these may be more accommodating of others

So Boss if someone uses their own objective reality to define everything,
that remains the same; but any unfair biases caused by fear or unforgiven
conflicts with others are removed from the picture so they are more fair and inclusive with their "objective reality"

just as with blaming "religion", which is not the problem in itself,
the objective reality is not the problem, but the fear of change and imposing/defending out of "unforgiveness"
that becomes so "emotionally attached" that it skews people's judgment to be biased.

 

[emilynghiem]

Creation.

Why there is no god

Depends what you mean by God [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

Do you believe these things exist:
Life
Nature
(or forces of life or nature, or laws that are IMMUTABLE)
Natural laws
Universal laws
Good will or greater good for all people
Truth
Love
Wisdom

If you believe in any of the above concepts
then I argue that what you believe in is the
same concepts as the "attributes or manifestations of what God means" to other people.
You don't have to believe in the same things
for them to exist for other people.

So it's really more a language and perception barrier.
A rose by any other name is the same. Plants still exist
even if you only deal with roses, and other look at all flowers, or others study all plants.

Just because hydrangeas don't "exist" on your side of the country
doesn't mean they aren't real in someone else's garden.
(and they talk to them every day!)

Believing in "ONE GOD" means having faith
that ALL these other concepts, attributes or reflections
are pointing to the SAME SOURCE.

If you don't believe they all reflect the same source of laws or forces in the world,
then you believe people are worshipping multiple gods. Guess what, people
say the same about you and me, say we are worshipping some other idol or god
we've made out of something that they don't believe in either. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist for us!

If you believe they are each facets or aspects of the SAME body of truth or laws,
then they are all under the same God anyway, just called different things to different people.

sealybobo don't you believe there is truth or life in the world?
Why would you even be arguing if you didn't believe there was truth?
how is Truth not a part of the same God that others believe in?

If people don't believe in your Truth, it still exists for you.
Why can't God exist for other people even if you don't believe or perceive of that?

Note: If you believe in an absolute Truth that does not change, there is no proof
that the Truth as you know it will not change, so that requires FAITH.
If you believe that all Truth is relative/subjective and can always be wrong or change,
then why judge other people's perception of Truth, if each is subject to their own relative experiences?
What is WRONG with things being TRUE for them
and something else being TRUE for you. Anything wrong with that?

We don't all agree on the same music, or sense of humor.
One thing I think is funny, someone else does not.
Some people's taste in music sounds like noise to others.

Why can't we let each other's views in life be diverse
like our taste in music or art, what sports we like or don't care for.

I don't go around saying just because I don't believe in the political party system
or I don't like mosquitoes, then ALL of those should be eliminated and not exist.
Even political parties can be used for good, despite the more rampant abuses going on that should be stopped.
Some people argue that mosquitoes should not be wiped out
because they are part of the ecosystem. Why can't all people's views
be seen as necessary parts of a diverse system? Why can't all views be used for good?
What is wrong with that?

 

[itfitzme]

*sigh* Delta, what you are doing is imagining "God" as some kind of physical being with some sort of "magic" capabilities, including invisibility. Maybe there is no way to get this through to you... perhaps your mind is incapable of comprehending it? God is not a physical "being" of any kind.

What we know about is the physical universe. We do know a lot about it, but there is much we don't know or understand. For some reason, every era of humans that come along, think they have figured everything out and know all there is to know. Yet we keep discovering new things, we keep finding that we were totally wrong about what we thought we knew. Then, we go along a way thinking... NOW we've finally got it! NOW we really DO know everything... WRONG! We still don't know everything and we probably never will.

Regardless of whether you "believe in God" or not, regardless of what your mind concocts as "God" in your fertile little imagination... the physical universe is here and it is moving. The parameters of what it is and what it's doing cannot be explained simply with physics. How it began or what set it into motion, are equally unexplainable. It gets old reading the same old tired Atheist rants explaining this stuff away with physical nature. Nothing we know of in physical nature has ever created itself. You are a human being... you began as a fused sperm and egg cell inside another person. Now, you can look at your body and foolishly argue that this is impossible because you simply can't imagine such a ridiculous thing, but that's how you began... it's how you were created. Pointing to your size, your ability to walk and talk, and have intelligent thought... doesn't disprove how you originated. Just as it doesn't explain away how the universe originated to point to physical properties of the universe.

"Science doesn' know everything" isn't proof of "god". It is, though, the single most conisistent moronic lack of reasoning displayed by people that argue the existance of god.

I never said that science not knowing everything is proof of God. However... I am getting really quite tired of this fucking double standard and one-way street, where science can be paraded around as "evidence" there is no God, but be excused and dismissed when it doesn't adequately answer the tough questions. Science neither proves or disproves God, it can't... it's PHYSICAL science. If it was designed and intended to study SPIRITUAL things, perhaps it COULD prove or disprove God!

Physical reality began with time. Whenever time and space began, that is when our physical reality and laws of the physical universe began. We simply have no idea of what happened BEFORE that. I continue to read the ramblings of people who "supposedly" have educational backgrounds in science, telling us as matter of fact, how the universe began.

As I have stated, I have a degree in science. However, I will never forget the first applied science college exam I took, I flunked it. Why? Because I answered "true" to a series of questions which were framed as "Science has proven..." because I thought it sounded rational. Come to find out... Science had THEORIZED these things, not PROVEN them. So I learned this very valuable lesson in my first semester of college, and I find it fucking astonishing that we have so many supposedly educated science people here who simply don't seem to realize this. Science never PROVES things. Sometimes we can conclude there is a very high probability based on observation and testing through science, but there is always the possibility of a theory being wrong. Science doesn't "conclude" anything, it continues to test it's theories and doesn't assume they are empirical facts. Even if a theory has been tested a million times and found to be true, all it takes is for the theory to fail once and the theory is no longer valid.

Now, with this question of the universe and how it originated, the science problem is exacerbated because there is no way to test or observe any theory. We can't reproduce the conditions. To sit here day after day presenting all these theories that can't be tested or falsified, as if they are some kind of known facts, is laughable to me. It's NOT science! It's fanatical zealotry at it's best, trying to prop itself up with Science!

There is no such thing as "spiritual things" except in your own mind. Beyond the imagination in your own head, everything is physical.

 

[sealybobo]

Creation.

Why there is no god

Depends what you mean by God [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

Do you believe these things exist:
Life
Nature
(or forces of life or nature, or laws that are IMMUTABLE)
Natural laws
Universal laws
Good will or greater good for all people
Truth
Love
Wisdom

People say "God is the universe/love/laws of physics"

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

To say God is Life, Nature, Good will, Truth, Love or wisdom tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

To call god Life, Nature, Good will, love or truth explains nothing.

 

[emilynghiem]

1.. Phenomenon X has a non-physical component.

Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

[MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

1. spiritual healing and the transformative effects of FORGIVENESS on people's minds, body, and relationships with others CAN BE QUANTIFIED and documented statistically to prove the correlations scientifically. Some studies on Forgiveness have been done to show a higher correlation with good health; while studies on Unforgiveness show correlation with over 80% of all illness attributed to it (either interpreted as causal or correlated).

This is NOT an "supernatural" or "unnatural" process.
The process of forgiveness and spiritual healing of physical and mental disease
is PURELY natural and CONSISTENT with science and medicine.

So it is possible to prove a CORRELATION between
a. people praying in the name of Christ Jesus to remove demons and heal curses with
changes in schizophrenic or cancer patients from incureable to treatable or cured
b. people wishing sorcery or curses on people using voodoo or demonic spiritism with
causing afflictions in targets who did not know they were being cursed by spells
(one doctor studying the differences between spiritual healing and the occult type of practices, reported cases of the "Hawaiian death curse" causing paralysis in people
who were not aware they were the targets, so it was not a psychosomatic placebo)
c. unforgiveness reported in people (who cannot resolve their religious/political conflicts
with the groups they admit they cannot forgive) correlating with unresolved conflicts
d. forgiveness reported in people who can forgive conflicting beliefs and groups
correlating with ability to solve conflicts despite these differences that may not change

Nothing supernatural required, this is all based on understanding how the laws of energy work and the difference between positive and negative energy; this can be documented scientifically with statistics to show a pattern in the process and the results, and it STILL PROVES the meaning behind believing in God or Truth overcoming fear and falseness; and Jesus or Justice established by receiving the spirit of Forgiveness and correction to save relationships and humanity. how love casts out all fear, and good overcomes all evil; but in real life terms that can show the process works naturally, by replacing negative thoughts and energy, with positive life giving energy that restores natural balance and harmony in life.

Same things, but can be demonstrated scientifically and in real life with no hocus pocus supernatural anything. the faith in forgiveness is enough to make the miraculous changes.

2. I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

2. Dear Sealybobo and your same arguments apply to you also.

Just because you do not see, believe or understand other people talking to God
doesn't mean this doesn't exist.

The most rational NEUTRAL OBJECTIVE position is to be open
that ALL views could be true or false and/or ALL views could change including your own.

If your view ASSUMES that another view cannot be true, that is already NOT OBJECTIVE or NEUTRAL.

You can FAVOR your view, but cannot assume it is true and exclude someone's else or
that is not perfectly logical. If you are saying their view "could be wrong" so could yours be wrong.

The most all inclusive "universal view" would not leave out anything that is true for someone
but would be able to EXPLAIN and include them all without conflict.

If you have to assume someone's view is wrong to make yours right,
then that is already a conflict and not universally inclusive.

The right approach to truth would INCLUDE both people where both
acknowledge their truth/understanding is INCLUDED in that answer.
If anyone is left out, then by definition that isn't universal truth!

 

[Zmrzlina]

Natural processes.

 

[Peach]

Why there is no god

Depends what you mean by God [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

Do you believe these things exist:
Life
Nature
(or forces of life or nature, or laws that are IMMUTABLE)
Natural laws
Universal laws
Good will or greater good for all people
Truth
Love
Wisdom

People say "God is the universe/love/laws of physics"

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

To say God is Life, Nature, Good will, Truth, Love or wisdom tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

To call god Life, Nature, Good will, love or truth explains nothing.

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

 

[Zmrzlina]

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

If there is a higher power, how did they come into being?

 

[emilynghiem]

People say "God is the universe/love/laws of physics"

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

To say God is Life, Nature, Good will, Truth, Love or wisdom tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

To call god Life, Nature, Good will, love or truth explains nothing.

If you are okay with these names, then use them.
Why argue about the names when you can agree on the principles that matter?

Let's focus on the explanations that tell us something,
not the arguments that focus on how we don't agree on calling things God.

We already know Atheists don't agree to talk about life in terms of a personified God.
So let's agree to talk about all the same things in terms that do make sense to us.

And we can have meaningful conversations and productive relations on how to resolve problems in life and society that way. Agreed?

 

[emilynghiem]

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

If there is a higher power, how did they come into being?

A. either the highest power or level "always existed" ie is "self-existent"
B. if you start at any point and call that the beginning, then say something created that,
then you reset the starting point from there. And if something caused/created that,
you reset the starting point there. Ad infinitum.
So therefore God is infinite with no beginning and no end,
because you can always argue there is something before or after that,
so God becomes that greater set, etc.

Either way God is infinite and beyond what humans can imagine or prove.
The most we can agree on is what we mean by God and what principles
or concepts we focus and use in life as having practical benefit or purpose.

Even if we cannot prove any of these things, we can at least agree how to apply
what we do believe is right, true and good in the world and focus on where we agree.

 

[itfitzme]

1.. Phenomenon X has a non-physical component.

Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

[MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

1. spiritual healing and the transformative effects of FORGIVENESS on people's minds, body, and relationships with others CAN BE QUANTIFIED and documented statistically to prove the correlations scientifically. Some studies on Forgiveness have been done to show a higher correlation with good health; while studies on Unforgiveness show correlation with over 80% of all illness attributed to it (either interpreted as causal or correlated).

This is NOT an "supernatural" or "unnatural" process.
The process of forgiveness and spiritual healing of physical and mental disease
is PURELY natural and CONSISTENT with science and medicine.

So it is possible to prove a CORRELATION between
a. people praying in the name of Christ Jesus to remove demons and heal curses with
changes in schizophrenic or cancer patients from incureable to treatable or cured
b. people wishing sorcery or curses on people using voodoo or demonic spiritism with
causing afflictions in targets who did not know they were being cursed by spells
(one doctor studying the differences between spiritual healing and the occult type of practices, reported cases of the "Hawaiian death curse" causing paralysis in people
who were not aware they were the targets, so it was not a psychosomatic placebo)
c. unforgiveness reported in people (who cannot resolve their religious/political conflicts
with the groups they admit they cannot forgive) correlating with unresolved conflicts
d. forgiveness reported in people who can forgive conflicting beliefs and groups
correlating with ability to solve conflicts despite these differences that may not change

Nothing supernatural required, this is all based on understanding how the laws of energy work and the difference between positive and negative energy; this can be documented scientifically with statistics to show a pattern in the process and the results, and it STILL PROVES the meaning behind believing in God or Truth overcoming fear and falseness; and Jesus or Justice established by receiving the spirit of Forgiveness and correction to save relationships and humanity. how love casts out all fear, and good overcomes all evil; but in real life terms that can show the process works naturally, by replacing negative thoughts and energy, with positive life giving energy that restores natural balance and harmony in life.

Same things, but can be demonstrated scientifically and in real life with no hocus pocus supernatural anything. the faith in forgiveness is enough to make the miraculous changes.

2. I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

2. Dear Sealybobo and your same arguments apply to you also.

Just because you do not see, believe or understand other people talking to God
doesn't mean this doesn't exist.

The most rational NEUTRAL OBJECTIVE position is to be open
that ALL views could be true or false and/or ALL views could change including your own.

If your view ASSUMES that another view cannot be true, that is already NOT OBJECTIVE or NEUTRAL.

You can FAVOR your view, but cannot assume it is true and exclude someone's else or
that is not perfectly logical. If you are saying their view "could be wrong" so could yours be wrong.

The most all inclusive "universal view" would not leave out anything that is true for someone
but would be able to EXPLAIN and include them all without conflict.

If you have to assume someone's view is wrong to make yours right,
then that is already a conflict and not universally inclusive.

The right approach to truth would INCLUDE both people where both
acknowledge their truth/understanding is INCLUDED in that answer.
If anyone is left out, then by definition that isn't universal truth!

It isn't question on "not understanding". Eveyone understands just fine.

And, no, being summarily open to " all views" with complete disregard of everything else, as if it might be true, isn't the rational NEUTRAL OBJECTIVE position.

Being rational necessitates knowing the difference between reality and fantacy? It isn't a rational neutral objective position to give consideration to pure bullshit. The rational thing is to learn how to tell the difference and move on. There is no "spritual realm" where things exist beyond the physical world and independent of your psychotic mind. There are no unicorns, there are no ghosts, the is no entity that fits the usage of the word "god". And you can talk to it all you want but it doesn't make it true. What it does make you (or them) is, at best, gullible.

Sure, while an approach is to "INCLUDE both people where both acknowledge their truth/understanding is INCLUDED in that answer.", the truth and understanding is that they are 1) as I said, gullible, 2) simply stupid, 3) uneducated, or 4) suffering from a mental illness.

You may not have sufficient knowledge and experience to differentiate between reality and fantacy, between sanity and mental illness, between briliance and bullshit, but there are and have been tens of millions of people, hundeds of thousands of experiments, hundreds of professions over thousands of years dedicated to refining mankind's rational understanding of reality.

Wiley E. Coyote may hang in the air momentarily as runs off a cliff, and there are tens of thousands of people that believe it how gravity really works, but it doesn't make it worthy of a moments consideration unless your a psychology researcher studying how people often hold completely erroneous beliefs.

I have always that an other's perosnal beliefs were of little consequence. After all, if it works for them, who am I to say that it is a bad thing. I have always believed that what a person does, in the privacy of their own home, and thinks, in the privacy of their own thoughts is of little consequence. And as long as they keep it to themselves and don't involve other people, that remains true.

The problem arises when their psychosic beliefs are given equal footing with what has been so carefully examined by so many professionals for so many centuries. It gives credibility to a process of magical thinking and validates every other similarly derived belief that should have been dismissed outright.

 

[itfitzme]

When I was growing up, there was a girl who had cerebra palsy. She walked with crutches, and with much difficulty. She also was a member of a church group, the ones that go on retreats where they sit aroung the campfire at night, singing songs ane listening to stories about how Jesus made the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk.

You can imagine how that went. It was, for the greater part, simply cruel. She was, as anyone would be, desperate to feel normal. And at least once a year, she would throw her crutches to the side, convinced that God would make her walk if she just believed enough.

No shit. There is a reason that these situations become part of movie plots. Because they do happen.

And, it is one of dozens of examples of how people don't just keep it to themselves. And detracts from them gaining a refined sense of reality and coping with life within the limitations that they have.

Sure, people can raisenand lower blood pressure just by thinking about it. Yes, a good part of stress is as much a factor of perception as it is about the environmemt. There is even a well established phenomenon called psychoneuroimmunology. It has hgeen show that a person, having been scratched with an alergin, will later react to the sight of the alergin with swelling and redness.

But, as remarkable as this is, emergency room doctors don't tell gunshot victims to stop their bleeding by meditating.

 

[sealybobo]

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

If there is a higher power, how did they come into being?

A. either the highest power or level "always existed" ie is "self-existent"
B. if you start at any point and call that the beginning, then say something created that,
then you reset the starting point from there. And if something caused/created that,
you reset the starting point there. Ad infinitum.
So therefore God is infinite with no beginning and no end,
because you can always argue there is something before or after that,
so God becomes that greater set, etc.

Either way God is infinite and beyond what humans can imagine or prove.
The most we can agree on is what we mean by God and what principles
or concepts we focus and use in life as having practical benefit or purpose.

Even if we cannot prove any of these things, we can at least agree how to apply
what we do believe is right, true and good in the world and focus on where we agree.

What is the highest power? We don't know where all this came from or what created it. But when science finds out, you can be sure it won't be god.

“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Why does that something that created the universe have to be a god? And what does that event have to do with love, truth or justice? Those things meant nothing for millions of years as the universe was forming. They only mean something to humans. Put it this way. Lets take the time from the big bang all the way until human's invented god and put that in a single calendar year. Human's would only be on the calendar on the last hour of the last day of the year. Whatever started the universe has nothing to do with anything you are talking about. Sounds good but really you aren't explaining anything.

And you say, "either way god is infinite". How did you conclude that based on all the nonsense you just wrote?

Then you say, "Even if we cannot prove any of these things, we can at least agree how to apply what we do believe is right, true and good in the world and focus on where we agree." No lady. If you can't prove these things then there is nothing to apply. We can all agree to do what is right and be true and be good without calling it god. Stop it.

 

[Boss]

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

If there is a higher power, how did they come into being?

This is on point as being the most often repeated question of atheists to the spiritual.

What do you mean by "being?" Spiritual things do not have physiology. There is no 'being' in a physical sense. Only physical things are physical and have to "exist" or "be created" in physical sense. This is why spiritual nature is so hard for humans to comprehend, it doesn't conform to physical nature. As humans, we often catch ourselves saying stuff like "God exists" and others can't grasp that, and perhaps, rightly so. It's a breakdown in terminology and our ability to conceptualize. "Exist" means nothing to something that is spiritual. It just IS. It didn't require creation or "come from" something. Immortality.. Everlasting.. There are people in this very thread who do not believe in an Immortal God, yet they will argue to the death that Energy is immortal. Go figure?

 

[sealybobo]

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

If there is a higher power, how did they come into being?

This is on point as being the most often repeated question of atheists to the spiritual.

What do you mean by "being?" Spiritual things do not have physiology. There is no 'being' in a physical sense. Only physical things are physical and have to "exist" or "be created" in physical sense. This is why spiritual nature is so hard for humans to comprehend, it doesn't conform to physical nature. As humans, we often catch ourselves saying stuff like "God exists" and others can't grasp that, and perhaps, rightly so. It's a breakdown in terminology and our ability to conceptualize. "Exist" means nothing to something that is spiritual. It just IS. It didn't require creation or "come from" something. Immortality.. Everlasting.. There are people in this very thread who do not believe in an Immortal God, yet they will argue to the death that Energy is immortal. Go figure?

So god is energy? Can you tell me anything else that is "spiritual" besides god?

 

[sealybobo]

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

If there is a higher power, how did they come into being?

And how come something (a god) had to create the universe but nothing had to create god?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

 

[edthecynic]

they will argue to the death that Energy is immortal. Go figure?

You don't suppost that's because there is a repeatable experiment that proved it. Go figure?

 

[sealybobo]

If there is no higher power, how did the universe begin, what lies at the end of the universe, and where does it end?

If there is a higher power, how did they come into being?

This is on point as being the most often repeated question of atheists to the spiritual.

What do you mean by "being?" Spiritual things do not have physiology. There is no 'being' in a physical sense. Only physical things are physical and have to "exist" or "be created" in physical sense. This is why spiritual nature is so hard for humans to comprehend, it doesn't conform to physical nature. As humans, we often catch ourselves saying stuff like "God exists" and others can't grasp that, and perhaps, rightly so. It's a breakdown in terminology and our ability to conceptualize. "Exist" means nothing to something that is spiritual. It just IS. It didn't require creation or "come from" something. Immortality.. Everlasting.. There are people in this very thread who do not believe in an Immortal God, yet they will argue to the death that Energy is immortal. Go figure?

Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

God is not physical boss? Special Pleading.