If God doesn't exist then how was everything/the earth created?

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Read Spinoza, also check out Vedantic Hinduism. Also read up on the curvature of spacetime.

Humans tend to think in very linear terms in regard to time and space, assuming there is a definite beginning and end.

I think that while there might be beginning and end points to phases of the universe, overall everything is very infinite and can't be pegged between neat end and start markers.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

If you define "whatever caused the universe to come into creation" as God, then you are setting up a tautological condition. Much depends on one's definition of God.

That's why I suggested he read Spinoza and Vedantic philosophy. While he's at it, might not hurt to read on the Tao.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It's a philosophical argument, whether God exists or not, not a scientific one. Science doesn't concern itself with that question. True, we don't have the exact details of how the universe was created or what existed before it but Science doesn't assume it was god.

As for why I personally am an atheist, I don't see a reason to believe in God so I don't.

Science and philosophy are necessary cousins. Philosophy very much should suggest questions science might attempt to answer.

We know that some ancient philosophers' assertions and speculations have been either confirmed or debunked by modern science (hence a dilemma many 20th century philosophers faced and why there was a gradual shift toward study of linguistics and away from that of nature and our origins leading up to the 20th century--basically philosophers began to concern themselves with increasingly abstract pursuits i.e. poststructuralism or other areas not yet within the range of empirical study via the scientific method, though I suppose things like the nature of morality will always have a place for debate in philosophy) and I see no reason not to continue that endeavour. I also think there is a small strain of philosophy DNA in theoretical schools i.e. theoretical physics.

 

[Red Ribbon]

If we become what we worship, rejecting religion opens up new possibilities for worship and for becoming.

Religion does offer us a ready made object to worship and so a ready made way to become. So giving up religions still leaves us as becoming, but what shall we become, what shall we worship. Will we worship money as you suggest, or will we worship ourselves, or will we worship an ideology, or will we worship our identity as in identity politics, or will we worship our ancestors, or will we worship our ideals, will we worship property, will we worship social status, will we worship a totem animal, or will we worship our nation?

What shall we become? And what shall become of us?

I understand what you're saying but is it right to force people to believe in something? I consider most of religion to be systematic brainwhashing. I understand if people individually believe in a god but why does it have to end in religion? Isn't one capable of believing in god and not being religious?

Also what is wrong with worhsiping other things? And how is being bound to something like the self or money or the country any better or worse than being bound to religion?

I think people ought to think for themselves and have a reason to believe in god. So long as they do, their actual position doesn't matter to me. So in that sense I must ask how one can pick up a holy book like the Bible for example, and believe everything in it to be unconditionally true? Is it that bad to not be religious?

 

[Red Ribbon]

Science and philosophy are necessary cousins. Philosophy very much should suggest questions science might attempt to answer.

We know that some ancient philosophers' assertions and speculations have been either confirmed or debunked by modern science and I see no reason not to continue that endeavour.

While that is correct, the nature of the questions that science deals with is different from that of philosophy. My point is, a scientist doesn't necessarily have to ask the question 'is god real?' whereas philosophy asks difficult questions like that all the time. How they form answers is different as well so I believe it's unfair to say, 'science can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it does' or something of that kind because science doesn't set out to prove god is real. Science may however, eventually end up providing or disproving god at some point as the outcome of trying to answer some other question. My point is, it tackles the unknown without bias while most of us are not unbiased regarding the existence of god (myself included)

 

[Red Ribbon]

Read Spinoza, also check out Vedantic Hinduism. Also read up on the curvature of spacetime.

Humans tend to think in very linear terms in regard to time and space, assuming there is a definite beginning and end.

I think that while there might be beginning and end points to phases of the universe, overall everything is very infinite and can't be pegged between neat end and start markers.

Are you well versed in Vedantic Hinduism? I am a Hindu, or rather someone brought up in a Hindu culture. I'd like to hear what you think of it.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Are you well versed in Vedantic Hinduism? I am a Hindu, or rather someone brought up in a Hindu culture. I'd like to hear what you think of it.

No, I'm actually somewhat a neophyte but I've found it interesting as a counter-view to the Abrahamic faiths' idea of the nature of God. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on Vedanta, I feel a bit intimidated as I am speaking to someone raised in it and do not want to make any false assumptions.

I should add that (based on my own limited understanding of various religions), I don't think the vedantic and eastern schools of thought are entirely irreconciable with ideas believed in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

While that is correct, the nature of the questions that science deals with is different from that of philosophy. My point is, a scientist doesn't necessarily have to ask the question 'is god real?' whereas philosophy asks difficult questions like that all the time. How they form answers is different as well so I believe it's unfair to say, 'science can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it does' or something of that kind because science doesn't set out to prove god is real. Science may however, eventually end up providing or disproving god at some point as the outcome of trying to answer some other question. My point is, it tackles the unknown without bias while most of us are not unbiased regarding the existence of god (myself included)

Agreed, To an extent. I think in the distant future, as science has answered most other questions on the nature of the universe and its underlying mechanics, it is only natural that those distant future scientists will then seek to determine the existence or non-existence of god. But supposing they actually discover god, there may not be full agreement on whether they've actually discovered god, and that's where philosophy and religion might come into play in debating the nature of god and what exactly defines a god. Philosophy and religion have both argued the nature of god for millennia and come up with many different versions, as [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] sort of alluded to on page one, and even if science eventually finds "god," the god they find will certainly not line up with every person's idea or definition of god. So even then, I can agree that philosophy and science still might be concerned with different questions. I guess the point I wanted to make earlier was that even if they aren't the same, I think it is important that the philosophical tradition encourages science to go out and find the hard answers and data, but that philosophers also approach any question or debate with a scientists' skepticism.

Regarding the "science can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it does" type of argument, I've always felt that is a dishonest and lazy response usually utilized by religious fundamentalists in debate with non-believers. It's somewhat circular in its reasoning, and granted, atheists are often guilty of a similar line of reasoning. Personally it is why I prefer to consider myself an agnostic over an atheist.

 

[Mole]

I understand what you're saying but is it right to force people to believe in something? I consider most of religion to be systematic brainwhashing. I understand if people individually believe in a god but why does it have to end in religion? Isn't one capable of believing in god and not being religious?

Also what is wrong with worhsiping other things? And how is being bound to something like the self or money or the country any better or worse than being bound to religion?

I think people ought to think for themselves and have a reason to believe in god. So long as they do, their actual position doesn't matter to me. So in that sense I must ask how one can pick up a holy book like the Bible for example, and believe everything in it to be unconditionally true? Is it that bad to not be religious?

It depends on the premise that we have an innate tendency to worship, and the corollary is that we become what we worship.

So the conclusion it is in our nature to become.

And religion provides a ready way to become, however we have an alternative in Creative Mythology by Joseph Campbell, click on https://circulosemiotico.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/themasksofgodprimitivemythologycampbell.pdf

So we can create our own way to become.

 

[Mole]

Are you well versed in Vedantic Hinduism? I am a Hindu, or rather someone brought up in a Hindu culture. I'd like to hear what you think of it.

I am rather fond of the old Gods: the Hindu God, Ganesh, the God with the head of an elephant, and the Christian God, the Trinity, the God with three heads.

Perhaps it would be nice to see a statue of Ganesh and the Trinity shaking hands together.

 

[Coriolis]

Agreed, To an extent. I think in the distant future, as science has answered most other questions on the nature of the universe and its underlying mechanics, it is only natural that those distant future scientists will then seek to determine the existence or non-existence of god. But supposing they actually discover god, there may not be full agreement on whether they've actually discovered god, and that's where philosophy and religion might come into play in debating the nature of god and what exactly defines a god. Philosophy and religion have both argued the nature of god for millennia and come up with many different versions, as [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] sort of alluded to on page one, and even if science eventually finds "god," the god they find will certainly not line up with every person's idea or definition of god. So even then, I can agree that philosophy and science still might be concerned with different questions. I guess the point I wanted to make earlier was that even if they aren't the same, I think it is important that the philosophical tradition encourages science to go out and find the hard answers and data, but that philosophers also approach any question or debate with a scientists' skepticism.

Science operates in and on the physical (material) world. It attempts to ask "how" more than "why". It cannot address questions of purpose, intent, or morality. Inasmuch as religious traditions and spiritual beliefs view God as a being of spirit, transcending the material world, science will never be able to address God in any meaningful way.* Should science determine physical mechanisms responsible for phenomena believers attribute to God (e.g. miracles, or even the creation itself), those mechanisms would lack that essential transcendent property, and thus not rise to the standard of "God". We would then need to determine what, if anything, remained the purvey of a supernatural being.

* Of course scientists as individuals can also have spiritual faith, and can pursue these questions using its methods.

Regarding the "science can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it does" type of argument, I've always felt that is a dishonest and lazy response usually utilized by religious fundamentalists in debate with non-believers. It's somewhat circular in its reasoning, and granted, atheists are often guilty of a similar line of reasoning. Personally it is why I prefer to consider myself an agnostic over an atheist.

Science cannot really even prove a positive. The most sound and established theories, then, are not those that have been proven, but those that have not (yet) been disproven and therefore continue to explain all available evidence.

 

[Tater]

OP reminds me of...

 

[geedoenfj]

OP reminds me of...

god iz angry at u

 

[Mole]

The problem is which God doesn't exist. There are ten thousand Gods, so which ones are existent and which are non existent?

Is the Trinity non existent, or is Allah non existent, is Jehovah non existent, or is Jesus non existent, are all the Greek Gods non existent, or are all the Roman Gods non existent, or perhaps it is the Egyptian Gods who are non existent, or perhaps it is the Babylonian Gods who are non existent, or is it the Norse Gods who are non existent, or perhaps it is just the Nature Gods, such as the God Pan, who are non existent.

If you are a non existent God, please stand up.

 

[Coriolis]

The problem is which God doesn't exist. There are ten thousand Gods, so which ones are existent and which are non existent?

Is the Trinity non existent, or is Allah non existent, is Jehovah non existent, or is Jesus non existent, are all the Greek Gods non existent, or are all the Roman Gods non existent, or perhaps it is the Egyptian Gods who are non existent, or perhaps it is the Babylonian Gods who are non existent, or is it the Norse Gods who are non existent, or perhaps it is just the Nature Gods, such as the God Pan, who are non existent.

If you are a non existent God, please stand up.

It's all or nothing.

 

[Mole]

It's all or nothing.

It's starting to look to me like the genocide of the Gods, not one is left alive. Do we hate them so much we want them all dead? Can your imagine the fear among the Gods, can you imagine that instead of being worshipped, you are treated with fear and loathing, and everyone wishes you dead. Can you imagine?

We hate them so much we even deny our innate desire to worship. In killing off the Gods, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Worship is a profound cultural and artistic experience, and as we move away from the manners and mores of the literate individual, our etribal desire to worship, our passionate desire to worship, will burst forth, and worship will become so popular, everyone will do it.

The Gods are dead, long live the Gods.

 

[Red Ribbon]

No, I'm actually somewhat a neophyte but I've found it interesting as a counter-view to the Abrahamic faiths' idea of the nature of God. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on Vedanta, I feel a bit intimidated as I am speaking to someone raised in it and do not want to make any false assumptions.

I should add that (based on my own limited understanding of various religions), I don't think the vedantic and eastern schools of thought are entirely irreconciable with ideas believed in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions.

Well, I am from India and I haven't really learnt the Vedas as such but I am familiar with the aspects of it that I find in popular culture and taught in schools. I find it a bit tedious and while certain aspects of it are very interesting, certain others I consider bs. Depending on how much you've learnt about it, you'd probably know more about it than I do so you don't have intimidated by me.

Yes I do agree that the religions are not irreconcilable, however, certain aspects of culture, I believe, are.

 

[1487610420]

Prometheus

 

[Mole]

Yes I do agree that the religions are not irreconcilable, however, certain aspects of culture, I believe, are.

Religions are entrancing, and each religion teaches its children how to enter the particular trance of their religion.

Across the globe, with the exception of Western countries, we are born into a religion and stay there for the rest of our lives.

This is because trances are mutually exclusive. One trance inhibits another trance. The Bible expresses this as My God is a jealous God.

This is why will never see a statue of Ganesh and the Trinity shaking hands.

Liberal democracy wakes us from our religious trances and makes prosperity and common decency possible.

This is why it is important to learn what liberal democracy is and how it operates, and it is important to defend liberal democracy when it is under attack by those under the influence of the Islamic trance, and those under the influence of the neo marxist trance. Neither wish to be woken by liberal democracy.

 

[Mal12345]

Religions are entrancing, and each religion teaches its children how to enter the particular trance of their religion.

Across the globe, with the exception of Western countries, we are born into a religion and stay there for the rest of our lives.

This is because trances are mutually exclusive. One trance inhibits another trance. The Bible expresses this as My God is a jealous God.

This is why will never see a statue of Ganesh and the Trinity shaking hands.

Liberal democracy wakes us from our religious trances and makes prosperity and common decency possible.

This is why it is important to learn what liberal democracy is and how it operates, and it is important to defend liberal democracy when it is under attack by those under the influence of the Islamic trance, and those under the influence of the neo marxist trance. Neither wish to be woken by liberal democracy.

lol