Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

[shawn001]

This statement of yours blows all of science out of the water.

It is the essence of science to discover the cause.....with repeatable experiment.

If any 'thing' can happen without cause.....the event cannot be shown...
scientifically.

Perhaps you 'believe' in such things without proof?
Proof being that item of repeatable demonstration.

"Perhaps you 'believe' in such things without proof?"
Proof being that item of repeatable demonstration

You believe in a god without "proof."
Please show "repeatable demonstration of god?"

Cause and effect?

What caused god?

what came first "spirit or substance?"

Quantum fluctutations which can create a universe without invoking a god to create it and without breaking any laws of nature.

 

[Copernicus]

Still the choice remains..which came first?
Spirit or substance.

The answer is always "substance", because that is what clearly gives rise to "spirit". Minds do not exist independently of physical brain activity, at least as far as we can tell. People do not retain consciousness when their brains are traumatized or put under general anesthesia. So there is no reason to believe that they retain consciousness after brain death. I'm sorry if that is not the answer you want to hear, but the truth is not always what people want to hear.

 

[Thief]

The answer is always "substance", because that is what clearly gives rise to "spirit". Minds do not exist independently of physical brain activity, at least as far as we can tell. People do not retain consciousness when their brains are traumatized or put under general anesthesia. So there is no reason to believe that they retain consciousness after brain death. I'm sorry if that is not the answer you want to hear, but the truth is not always what people want to hear.

Then the singularity is a created item of form?
(not according to scripture).

But the formless existence makes sense to me.
The void was perfect.....no variance at all.

Light is an aberration....in the beginning...no shadow.
The declaration...'I AM'....an echoless pronouncement.

I don't have a problem with this.
I can 'see' it.
How about you?

If not now....you will.
Your spirit ...'as you say'...will not live without the body?
The perfection of eternal darkness awaits.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The answer is always "substance", because that is what clearly gives rise to "spirit". Minds do not exist independently of physical brain activity, at least as far as we can tell. People do not retain consciousness when their brains are traumatized or put under general anesthesia. So there is no reason to believe that they retain consciousness after brain death. I'm sorry if that is not the answer you want to hear, but the truth is not always what people want to hear.

Wasted words. Thief considers it a matter of opinion, not a matter of science.

 

[Thief]

Wasted words. Thief considers it a matter of opinion, not a matter of science.

Let me break that down for you.

My opinion' is formed of careful meditation.

I don't believe because I want to.
I don't believe because someone else told me to.
I don't believe because I fear death or hell.

I believe because it really does make sense to do so.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Let me break that down for you.

My opinion' is formed of careful meditation.

I don't believe because I want to.
I don't believe because someone else told me to.
I don't believe because I fear death or hell.

I believe because it really does make sense to do so.

Your comments on the subject say differently.

 

[Thief]

Your comments on the subject say differently.

Then go back....read them slowly....

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Then go back....read them slowly....

You argue based on consequences. An afterlife is better than no afterlife, but that does not make it reasonable to assume an afterlife. That shows faith, which shows hope.

 

[Copernicus]

Wasted words. Thief considers it a matter of opinion, not a matter of science.

But I think that Thief expresses a popular point of view that is worth speaking out against. He sees death as an experience of "endless darkness" instead of an end to mental activity. The paradox is that our reality is defined by a nebulous origin--the gradual development of more and more complex brain activity--and a certain end--the cessation of that activity. Reality transcends us, yet it is difficult to conceive of reality that goes on without us. Indeed, reality as we know it disappears when we die. While we still have a capacity for imagination, it continues. IMHO, Thief cannot conceive of the death I conceive of, but he can conceive of a more desirable outcome than the endless darkness that he sees as my fate.

 

[shawn001]

Let me break that down for you.

My opinion' is formed of careful meditation.

I don't believe because I want to.
I don't believe because someone else told me to.
I don't believe because I fear death or hell.

I believe because it really does make sense to do so.

"My opinion' is formed of careful meditation."

But not science. Opinion is not science.

all religions are taught. Your not born with a specific one.

 

[idav]

Then the singularity is a created item of form?
(not according to scripture).

But the formless existence makes sense to me.
The void was perfect.....no variance at all.

Light is an aberration....in the beginning...no shadow.
The declaration...'I AM'....an echoless pronouncement.

I don't have a problem with this.
I can 'see' it.
How about you?

If not now....you will.
Your spirit ...'as you say'...will not live without the body?
The perfection of eternal darkness awaits.

Scripture talks about heaven and earth being created before it talks about anything resembling a singularity. The beginning fails as a metaphor compatible with science. Further the scripture does believe spirit to be first but only when you believe god to be first and of spirit. It is a tough call though in the beginning because in the quantum level things act like waves and particles so to answer spirit or substance, it is both. They are products of each other.

 

[Corkscrew]

Our understanding of how the universe began is further complicated by the notion that it might have started from nothing, the problem is, we don’t know what nothing is.

 

[Skwim]

Our understanding of how the universe began is further complicated by the notion that it might have started from nothing, the problem is, we don’t know what nothing is.

Nothing: no thing; not anything.

 

[Corkscrew]

Nothing: no thing; not anything.

Yes, but can you even conceive of such a thing? I can’t. No time, no space; foreign to our universe.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, but can you even conceive of such a thing? I can’t. No time, no space; foreign to our universe.

The universe always has components of time and space. They just get severely warped, and occasionally swapped.

 

[Corkscrew]

The universe always has components of time and space. They just get severely warped, and occasionally swapped.

Actually, I was referring to a possible condition that existed prior to the beginning of the universe, if there is such a thing. I was referring to the concept of “nothing” and how it is often thought of as a reality the existed prior to the big bang. And I was considering our understanding of what “nothing” is. Personally, I can’t conceive of a condition void of everything.

 

[shawn001]

Actually, I was referring to a possible condition that existed prior to the beginning of the universe, if there is such a thing. I was referring to the concept of “nothing” and how it is often thought of as a reality the existed prior to the big bang. And I was considering our understanding of what “nothing” is. Personally, I can’t conceive of a condition void of everything.

This may help some at least. A brief description of Quantum fluctuation.

Quantum Fluctuation

 

[Skwim]

Yes, but can you even conceive of such a thing? I can’t. No time, no space; foreign to our universe.

Yes I can, although a conceptualization of it might be difficult---never gave it any effort.

 

[Corkscrew]

Yes I can, although a conceptualization of it might be difficult---never gave it any effort.

This brings us back to my original question “Do we know what nothing is?” You say that you probably would have difficulty conceptualizing it and I agree, but what is more important is how would you know if your conceptualization of “nothing” is accurate?

 

[The Wizard]

This brings us back to my original question “Do we know what nothing is?” You say that you probably would have difficulty conceptualizing it and I agree, but what is more important is how would you know if your conceptualization of “nothing” is accurate?

This will be interesting...