Everyone has a religion

[ImmortalFlame]

The problem is that there was no space, nor time.

As far as we are currently aware. We're not yet certain there was necessarily nothing, and we aren't even sure that nothing is something that can actually exist. The Universe may have always existed in some form without the current physical laws governing it.

BEFORE the universe means just that - before everything, even mathematics and the laws of physics, let alone time or space or energy.

"Before" the Universe is something of an oxymoron, because time came into existence WITH the Universe. We can't really say what, if any, state the Universe was at that point.

Now that's a miracle on another plane altogether to God.

Why? Why can't it just be a natural result of physical laws?

 

[PruePhillip]

As far as we are currently aware. We're not yet certain there was necessarily nothing, and we aren't even sure that nothing is something that can actually exist. The Universe may have always existed in some form without the current physical laws governing it.


"Before" the Universe is something of an oxymoron, because time came into existence WITH the Universe. We can't really say what, if any, state the Universe was at that point.


Why? Why can't it just be a natural result of physical laws?

Because there were no physical laws, not even mathematics.
Interestingly, in the bible it speaks of a 'time' when there would be 'time no more.'

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because there were no physical laws, not even mathematics.

Thus, we cannot make assumptions about what the state was that the Universe existed in. Existing without physical laws does not necessarily mean not existing at all. In fact, it's practically impossible to say WHAT it means, other than "we don't know".

Interestingly, in the bible it speaks of a 'time' when there would be 'time no more.'

Poets, philosophers and common people have said similar things since long before the Bible ever did.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thus, we cannot make assumptions about what the state was that the Universe existed in. Existing without physical laws does not necessarily mean not existing at all. In fact, it's practically impossible to say WHAT it means, other than "we don't know".


Poets, philosophers and common people have said similar things since long before the Bible ever did.

So the questions should be: what was there before there was nothing at all - not even physics?
It's not a silly question - the physical laws arose from the Big Bang according to the cognoscenti.

 

[Quintessence]

If someone calls the sun "god", I don't have to say I don't believe in "the sun" in order to say I don't believe that the sun qualifies as a god.

You do if you wish to communicate accurately with a diverse range of cultures and peoples. There are so many god-concepts out there that the extra clarity can be important. Not just in of itself, but because it shows respectfulness for that diversity.

In my opinion, someone pointing to something like that and saying "everyone believes" is an even more disingenuous/dishonest method of trying to cast everyone as "believers" than the classic monotheistic statements along the lines of "everyone believes in my God, they're just in denial."

It's unfortunate you interpret it that way, because it's missing the point entirely. It's about recognizing that the labels "theist" and "atheist" are vacuous, and that god-concepts are very diverse. It's simply a fact that if we take all the god-concepts throughout human history and throughout various cultures, you end up with everything as god(s). It's not intended as a snide backhand, it's a testimony to diversity. And it's a prompt to ensure that we more precisely clarify what we believe and practice to others. When you say "theist," what god-concepts or attributes are you honoring in your life? When you say "atheist" what god-concepts or attributes are you rejecting from your life? Be specific.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So the questions should be: what was there before there was nothing at all - not even physics?

That's a very good question to ask (provided we ignore the contradiction of asking what happened "before" time came to be), but to respond to it with anything other than "I don't know" is currently untenable. Then again, I'm sure there are people who know more on this than I do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's unfortunate you interpret it that way, because it's missing the point entirely. It's about recognizing that the labels "theist" and "atheist" are vacuous, and that god-concepts are very diverse. It's simply a fact that if we take all the god-concepts throughout human history and throughout various cultures, you end up with everything as god(s).

You also end up with everything as not gods for various reasons, whether it's in the sense of the Shahadah from Islam or in the sense of the Pagan traditions that hold, for instance, that the spirit of a tree dies when the tree is chopped down. The range of beliefs of what's categorically not a god is pretty diverse, too.

It's not intended as a snide backhand, it's a testimony to diversity. And it's a prompt to ensure that we more precisely clarify what we believe and practice to others. When you say "theist," what god-concepts or attributes are you honoring in your life? When you say "atheist" what god-concepts or attributes are you rejecting from your life? Be specific.

You don't need to reject any god-concepts to be an atheist.

Imagine a person's beliefs as a Venn diagram with two regions: "things that I believe exist" and "things I believe are gods." If there's no overlap, the person is an atheist. If there is an overlap, the person's some sort of theist. That's it. You don't need to overcomplicate it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You do if you wish to communicate accurately with a diverse range of cultures and peoples. There are so many god-concepts out there that the extra clarity can be important. Not just in of itself, but because it shows respectfulness for that diversity.



It's unfortunate you interpret it that way, because it's missing the point entirely. It's about recognizing that the labels "theist" and "atheist" are vacuous, and that god-concepts are very diverse. It's simply a fact that if we take all the god-concepts throughout human history and throughout various cultures, you end up with everything as god(s). It's not intended as a snide backhand, it's a testimony to diversity. And it's a prompt to ensure that we more precisely clarify what we believe and practice to others. When you say "theist," what god-concepts or attributes are you honoring in your life? When you say "atheist" what god-concepts or attributes are you rejecting from your life? Be specific.

I don't feel it is unfortunate in the least. What I do feel is that humanity doesn't need god concepts at all. They are unnecessary. Air to breathe is necessary. Food to eat - necessary. Water to drink - necessary. Sleep - necessary. God concepts? To label them "necessary" is, in my opinion "missing the point entirely" as you put it.

The benefit people receive from religion is entirely personal, and can only be shared anecdotally and certainly not with the same efficacy. Nor does "a religion" match to the "need" that all people feel for this "spiritual something". Air to breathe is effective regardless the person doing the breathing. Water? The same. Food? The same (barring allergens, etc. obviously). Sleep? The same. Religion is a divider. From what I (and many others) have seen and experienced, it takes a certain type of mind to simply accept another's religious views when shared without making judgments or comparing and coming to some notion of what the other is "doing wrong." Hell... those types of judgments happen (and are going to happen) anyway! Does anyone think it is a good idea to lump religion into that mix and give some people what they are bound to feel is divine support for their opinions?! Also - any given religion is not necessary to the survival of anyone else who doesn't have knowledge of it, or chooses not to believe it, or chooses to believe something else entirely. And there are plenty of people (myself included) who live without any religious practice or belief whatsoever. Saying religion is necessary for survival would be akin to saying that everyone having a favorite book is a necessity for survival.

As a last statement here, just think about your above statement in this light - when "everything is a god"... I feel it makes the idea of "god" less meaningful and renders it unimportant. Kind of like attributing everything the term "special." When everything is special, then "special" is the new "normal," "mediocre," and even "bad."

 

[blü 2]

So the questions should be: what was there before there was nothing at all - not even physics?

The Big Bang cut us off from information about any physical state or states that may have existed before the Big Bang, hence from the rules of physics that applied. That doesn't mean there was nothing, nor does it mean there were no rules. It simply means we presently have no way of finding out whether anything existed or not, and if it did, anything about what existed.

But to my mind the pre-existence of at least mass-energy seems overwhelming likely, since the contents of the Big Bang appear to have been mass-energy, giving rise to a universe that may well be made from forms of mass-energy and properties of mass-energy.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't feel it is unfortunate in the least. What I do feel is that humanity doesn't need god concepts at all. They are unnecessary. Air to breathe is necessary. Food to eat - necessary. Water to drink - necessary. Sleep - necessary. God concepts? To label them "necessary" is, in my opinion "missing the point entirely" as you put it.

I don't recall suggesting god-concepts are necessary. They certainly aren't necessary in the same way that food and water are. Recognition and veneration of some sort of "higher power" or "sacred force" does seem to be a pervasive cultural phenomena, though. From what I understand, there's been a fair amount of research done demonstrating that mystical thinking is part of human nature in the same way that heuristics are. None of that means that any particular individual has to accept or reject any particular god-concept. Some individuals, like you I presume, don't find any benefit to deification. Others very much do, and it is something of a necessity in their lives. People are different on this issue, yeah?

And so things keep coming back to diversity... haha.

As a last statement here, just think about your above statement in this light - when "everything is a god"... I feel it makes the idea of "god" less meaningful and renders it unimportant. Kind of like attributing everything the term "special." When everything is special, then "special" is the new "normal," "mediocre," and even "bad."

This sort of thinking rather confuses me; deification is done precisely because it adds meaningfulness. It is definitely meaningful to me to view the universe and all of its aspects as gods, or objects of worship... or to anyone else who is pantheistic or polytheistic in orientation. But that's neither here nor there... creating narratives of meaningfulness is a personal thing, and not everybody finds inspiration in the same places.

 

[viole]

Science states that all events have a natural cause.
But kicking the can up the hill leads us to the first event which by definition cannot
have a cause - this is the Super Miracle.

Maybe there is no first event.

Caveat: “first” is meaningless in cosmology, but I assume it here just to have some fun.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Is there really such a thing as atheism?
Everyone has a religion of some sort.
We all come up with some idea of how it all started
and how it will all end.
We all seek a purpose and meaning for our lives.

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle is God's
or we think the universe created itself out of nothing and for no reason
whatsoever. The latter is the real miracle - a creation without space,
or time, or matter or energy, or physical laws or even mathematics,
bursting forth in the ultimate act of pointlessness.

Do you guys really need to call atheism a religion? That starts to become annoying. And not because you understandably need to share intellectual responsability, but because it is a category error.

I am aware that it is embarassing to kneel and whisper to not existing entities before going to sleep, together with all the other weird stuff, and that there is some need to accuse others with other forms of embarassment. But, really?

It is like saying that being single is a sort of marriage.

Ciao

-viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And so things keep coming back to diversity... haha.

A lot of what is labeled "diversity" results in "division." Even cultural differences perpetrate division. Now I'm not saying we just stock do away with the ideas of religion and culture. But what I do believe would be advantageous is if everyone could see how extremely unimportant these items are in the grander scheme... that being the ability for humans to live cohesively (or even at the basest level of cordially) with one another. Culture is leagues less important than empathy for your fellow man. Religion is leagues less important than empathy for your fellow man. Why don't we just stick to human-to-human interactions... instead of culture-to-culture, or religion-to-religion?

This sort of thinking rather confuses me; deification is done precisely because it adds meaningfulness. It is definitely meaningful to me to view the universe and all of its aspects as gods, or objects of worship... or to anyone else who is pantheistic or polytheistic in orientation. But that's neither here nor there... creating narratives of meaningfulness is a personal thing, and not everybody finds inspiration in the same places.

In my eyes it adds a layer of fiction... which is a form of entertainment... which is a form of escape from reality. And constant application of such ideas implies that the person in question has a hard time accepting reality. Problem being... we only get to live in our escapist landscapes for so long before the necessities of reality seeps back in. Too much escape means that when the thick of reality hits it's more likely to be a culture shock to the individual who isn't ready. For my own purposes... I like to stay ready.

 

[PruePhillip]

Maybe there is no first event.

Caveat: “first” is meaningless in cosmology, but I assume it here just to have some fun.

Ciao

- viole

It's interesting.
There's this thing called positive energy and negative energy.
Gravity is a form of negative energy. When it's all added up it equals a big fat
zero.
So one could say there's "nothing" out there at all. But even here the formation
of energy had to come from somewhere. Only in miracles do things pop out of
nothing.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Big Bang cut us off from information about any physical state or states that may have existed before the Big Bang, hence from the rules of physics that applied. That doesn't mean there was nothing, nor does it mean there were no rules. It simply means we presently have no way of finding out whether anything existed or not, and if it did, anything about what existed.

But to my mind the pre-existence of at least mass-energy seems overwhelming likely, since the contents of the Big Bang appear to have been mass-energy, giving rise to a universe that may well be made from forms of mass-energy and properties of mass-energy.

There's this "M-theory" to explain the creation of our universe. That is, higher plane
membranes collided and the resultant energy formed the Big Bang.
So our 'universe' is simply a part of another universe.
Doesn't answer the question - where did the first universe come from?
Saying there was energy and mass at some earlier point still begs the question -
from whence did it come?
In short, the creation of all-we-know is a miracle, at least by the definition of science.

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you guys really need to call atheism a religion? That starts to become annoying. And not because you understandably need to share intellectual responsability, but because it is a category error.

I am aware that it is embarassing to kneel and whisper to not existing entities before going to sleep, together with all the other weird stuff, and that there is some need to accuse others with other forms of embarassment. But, really?

It is like saying that being single is a sort of marriage.

Ciao

-viole

It's a good point and I like it.
I see the behavior in non-religious people (atheist or otherwise) and akin to religious
behavior. Such people will often seek to live for certain things, hold to certain values,
have "explanations" for what-why-therefore of life, worship things, have their gods
and etc.. Marxism is an example of that, ie the sacred texts, the Trinity of Marx,
Engels and Lenin, its officiating class etc..

 

[blü 2]

Doesn't answer the question - where did the first universe come from?
Saying there was energy and mass at some earlier point still begs the question -
from whence did it come?

Not if mass-energy is eternal.

We can posit God as the eternal from which the universe sprang.

We can posit mass-energy as the eternal from which the universe sprang.

The benefit of the latter is that we know mass-energy is real.

And as for 'eternal', if time is a property of mass-energy then the existence of mass-energy accounts for the existence of time, and the problem of beginnings goes away.

In short, the creation of all-we-know is a miracle, at least by the definition of science.

But calling it a miracle tells us nothing about it ─ not what it was, not what it is, not how it came about, not even how it could possibly come about. To say something happened by magic explains absolutely nothing.

Unless, of course, you add a paragraph explaining how magic works, and how it worked to create the universe (or the prior-verse, or the metaverse, as the case requires).

That's to say, science seeks to account for origins in meaningful terms. Religion, if it's content with miracles, does nothing of the kind.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is there really such a thing as atheism?
Everyone has a religion of some sort.
We all come up with some idea of how it all started
and how it will all end.
We all seek a purpose and meaning for our lives.

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle is God's
or we think the universe created itself out of nothing and for no reason
whatsoever. The latter is the real miracle - a creation without space,
or time, or matter or energy, or physical laws or even mathematics,
bursting forth in the ultimate act of pointlessness.

I never understand the need to do this.
But, if you really want to pursue this, what is my religion, and what are it's tenets?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course. I was atheist for decades and I always felt a bit awkward when people said I had a religion, because it seemed dishonest of them. Still feel the same way. I'm theist and I don't have a religion.


If we redefine religion so that it doesn't have to be religion in any way, then yes.

Bah...your posts still make sense. Aren't you supposed to turn into an irrational loon as soon as you step away from atheism?

(J/k)

 

[PruePhillip]

Not if mass-energy is eternal.

We can posit God as the eternal from which the universe sprang.

We can posit mass-energy as the eternal from which the universe sprang.

The benefit of the latter is that we know mass-energy is real.

And as for 'eternal', if time is a property of mass-energy then the existence of mass-energy accounts for the existence of time, and the problem of beginnings goes away.
But calling it a miracle tells us nothing about it ─ not what it was, not what it is, not how it came about, not even how it could possibly come about. To say something happened by magic explains absolutely nothing.

Unless, of course, you add a paragraph explaining how magic works, and how it worked to create the universe (or the prior-verse, or the metaverse, as the case requires).

That's to say, science seeks to account for origins in meaningful terms. Religion, if it's content with miracles, does nothing of the kind.

Science speaks of cause and effect.
An effect comes from a cause.
There's no "miracle" because what you see was actually "caused" by something
else you might not have seen.
Rain is caused by condensation of water vapor. Condensation is caused by the sun's energy and water. The sun is caused by the fusion of hydrogen into helium. The fusion is caused by gravity which results in heat and pressure. The gravity is cause by bending of space time and so on, so on.
Always a cause, never the miracle.
But... we just kick the can uphill.
The first phenomena had no cause - by definition it's a miracle.
Saying it's all somehow "eternal" is disingenuous - it doesn't answer the question.