Atheism, part 3: Definitions

[Curious George]

...you can't.

If that is what you need to tell yourself.

 

[PureX]

Fwiw, I'm not ignoring the thorny issue of how time works. Your assumption appears to imply a certain assumption that time moves in one direction. Maybe it does, but we don't even know that for sure.

It has nothing to do with time. It has to do with the possibilities and limitations that were controlling the BB, and that have been controlling it's ongoing expression ever since. Existence is an expression of what is possible, and what is not, both physically and circumstantially. And those possibilities and limitations were and are in effect, throughout. Meaning that control element had to pre-exist. And that is a mystery that we cannot solve. But that certainly does imply some kind of 'supra-existential' state.

None of this makes any sense to us. Yet everything we see and think we know leads to this conundrum. We can call is a "singularity", we can call it "God", we can call it whatever we want. But it "pre-existed" existence as we know it. And that means existence as we know it not what we think it is. Or that there is some of state of being besides eistence as we know it. And it's not a time issue, it's a control issue. That even scientists have to acknowledge.

 

[icehorse]

It has nothing to do with time.

Understanding how time works is a necessary part of understanding things like the BB.

We can call is a "singularity", we can call it "God", we can call it whatever we want.

Here on RF there are many definitions of "god". In this discussion it would appear that the way you're defining "god" is a less common definition. Can you give us your definition of "god"?

 

[PureX]

Understanding how time works is a necessary part of understanding things like the BB.

We aren't talking about the BB. We're talking about the possibilities and limitations that were in place from before it happened.

Here on RF there are many definitions of "god". In this discussion it would appear that the way you're defining "god" is a less common definition. Can you give us your definition of "god"?

Sure; the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. That means the source/origin of those possibilities and impossibilities that governed the way all that energy got expressed (and didn't get expressed) in the BB. And that has governed everything that has happened (and not happened) since.

 

[icehorse]

We aren't talking about the BB. We're talking about the possibilities and limitations that were in place from before it happened.
Sure; the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. That means the source/origin of those possibilities and impossibilities that governed the way all that energy got expressed (and didn't get expressed) in the BB. And that has governed everything that has happened (and not happened) since.

So does "purpose" imply consciousness?

 

[PureX]

So does "purpose" imply consciousness?

Yes, it implies conscious intent because as humans, that's how we experience and cognate purpose. But we do not know that existence has any purpose beyond existing. And if it does, we have no idea what it is, or the nature of it's source.

So to say that the organization expressed by existence through the BB and to the present "implies" conscious intent isn't saying anything more then that. Lots of things imply lots of things, if you see what I mean. An "implication" isn't exactly something to be held up as fact.

Nevertheless, is does indicate that possibility. And we would be fools to ignore it.