The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[action]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I see absolutely no reason to bring an intelligent designer into this. There is nothing that implies there is one.

And although I find the idea of an imperfect designer more attractive than the christian concept of an omnipotent, all-seeing, infallible deity, I still don't see any reason to think there is an intelligent designer when everything can be explained without it. Granted, we don't know how the Universe (or multiverse) really came to be, except having an idea of how it developed when first started), but this hole in our knowledge shouldn't impatiently by filled with supernatural explanations. 

Here's a thought for you:

Let's say that the multiverse isn't real. There is only one universe, our Universe. But that it has a start and an end; and before our Universe, and after, there will be other universes. Let's also say that each time one universe ends and another starts, the physical laws are randomly set. So in a sense this is similar to the multiverse we talked about before, only that it is a series of universes existing temporally, and not spatially. With adjustments to the various physical laws, like Planck's constant, each of these universes would be radically different to ours. Some would collapse unto itself immediately, others would just expand without mass aggregating until a uniform vacuum is obtained and things are reset. Before our Universe there could have been an endless amounts of such "failed" universes, before, by chance, ours was formed with properties suitable for stars and planets and organic chemistry and you and me. In one of these previous universes there could be only energy. But maybe life doesn't require molecules, maybe energy alone can create self-replicating forms that can eventually evolve into sentient beings, but in a universe where the physical laws and entirely different to here in our Universe. Maybe one of these entities could even somehow learn to survive outside of the temporarily limited lifetimes of the universes, surviving through an endless succession of collapsed and rebirthed universes. And maybe such a lifeform made from energy, existing outside of our physical laws, not having to abide by them, is just another word for "god"? Anyway, just brainstorming and no reason to believe any of this, but fun speculating.

the plank constant looks a bit like floating point error in computers...

This is further proof of an imperfect creator, and further points to "god" being a natural phenomenon himself. Nature is imperfect, therefore god is imperfect.

[Orsys]

19 minutes ago, action said:

yes, pretty much

Given the fact that there are multiverses, I think God had some system of "trial and error". I think, god himself is a natural phenomenon (everything is), and therefore limited in some capacity. That's why you see imperfection even on our earth in the form of violence and sorrow.

Maybe our universe is just another "error". 

[action]

1 hour ago, Orsys said:

Maybe our universe is just another "error". 

our universe is "good enough" (not perfect). See the plank constant and the wavefunction of elemental particles

Edited September 11, 2019 by action

[Orsys]

1 minute ago, action said:

our universe if "good enough" (not perfect). See the plank constant and the wavefunction of elemental particles

 

1 minute ago, action said:

our universe if "good enough" (not perfect). See the plank constant and the wavefunction of elemental particles

I just woke up.

[Dazey]

45 minutes ago, Orsys said:

I just woke up.

Fuck me, his comment wasn't that profound!  

[action]

57 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Fuck me, his comment wasn't that profound!  

even then, your wave function "collapsed" when you read my comment. you just destroyed their range of possibilities and their corresponding universes, killing all life within it

you monster!

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by action

[Ace Nova]

On 9/11/2019 at 4:48 AM, SoulMonster said:

But maybe life doesn't require molecules, maybe energy alone can create self-replicating forms that can eventually evolve into sentient beings, but in a universe where the physical laws and entirely different to here in our Universe. Maybe one of these entities could even somehow learn to survive outside of the temporarily limited lifetimes of the universes, surviving through an endless succession of collapsed and rebirthed universes. And maybe such a lifeform made from energy, existing outside of our physical laws, not having to abide by them, is just another word for "god"? Anyway, just brainstorming and no reason to believe any of this, but fun speculating.

 

spec·u·late

/ˈspekyəˌlāt/

Learn to pronounce

verb

gerund or present participle: speculating

1.

form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

"my colleagues speculate about my private life"

synonyms:conjecture, theorize, form theories, hypothesize, make suppositions, postulate, guess, make guesses, surmise; 

 

Theorizing about the existence of a higher power could be the first step towards faith.   Congrats.  

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Theorizing about the existence of a higher power could be the first step towards faith.   Congrats.  

You liked that?

As with any other theory about higher powers it was fundamentally flawed from being just speculation with no supporting evidence, but I do appreciate that it at least tried to explain the origin of a higher power, which is more than what most religions do. You are free to use it if you want. Go to your church and impress your fellow believers by telling them how "God" came to be. I have heard that "Catholicism" is always eager to innovate itself and adopt new doctrine.

[action]

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You liked that?

As with any other theory about higher powers it was fundamentally flawed from being just speculation with no supporting evidence, but I do appreciate that it at least tried to explain the origin of a higher power, which is more than what most religions do. You are free to use it if you want. Go to your church and impress your fellow believers by telling them how "God" came to be. I have heard that "Catholicism" is always eager to innovate itself and adopt new doctrine.

you can perfectly be a sceptic and "speculate" about the origins of god in the absence of evidence, yet at the same time enjoy the narrative provided by something like catholicism.

what I do is, to the best of my intellectual capacity (supported by watching countless of scientific documentaries and read various scientific articles), ponder about the nature of the creator of our universe. It's some kind of energy with an immense power (it created our universe) but it also must have some kind of "will". The nature of this "will", I derive from christianity. Be good to each other, don't steal etc, don't judge. Seems fine to me. It's relaxing to go through life with that mindset and find inspiration in cherry picking the best stuff in the bible, while at the same time continuing the never ending intellectual exercise about the nature of the creator.

what science can tell me, combined with what the bible says, offers me a pretty convincing narrative as to the nature of the universe. To me, the existence of a creator is as real as the existence of the very chair I sit on while I type this.

Edited September 13, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

22 minutes ago, action said:

you can perfectly be a sceptic and "speculate" about the origins of god in the absence of evidence, yet at the same time enjoy the narrative provided by something like catholicism.

what I do is, to the best of my intellectual capacity (supported by watching countless of scientific documentaries and read various scientific articles), ponder about the nature of the creator of our universe. It's some kind of energy with an immense power (it created our universe) but it also must have some kind of "will". The nature of this "will", I derive from christianity. Be good to each other, don't steal etc, don't judge. Seems fine to me. It's relaxing to go through life with that mindset and find inspiration in cherry picking the best stuff in the bible, while at the same time continuing the never ending intellectual exercise about the nature of the creator.

what science can tell me, combined with what the bible says, offers me a pretty convincing narrative as to the nature of the universe. To me, the existence of a creator is as real as the existence of the very chair I sit on while I type this.

For me I never get beyond, "is there a Creator?" 

So why are you so sure there is? 

[action]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

For me I never get beyond, "is there a Creator?" 

So why are you so sure there is? 

It's just the way the world goes. There is a natural explanation for everything, so why would it be different for the universe?

God is a natural phenomenon. It IS the natural explanation.

what you are saying is, nature does not have a natural origin. It just "popped" into existence without a natural cause.

Either the universe has a natural origin (I call this creator) or it came into existence from nothing.

When I was a child, I watched a lot of scooby-doo. What I found was, the ghost always turned out to be a man in disguise. The unlikely explanation, that it was really a ghost, never was true.

Thunder is not a sign of ghosts, it's a natural phenomenon. Boll-lightning, while seemingly superficial, is a natural phenomenon. 

Those moving stone ball in the nevada desert that seemingly move by their own? All explained by natural forces: ice and wind.

Now we have another strange phenomenon: the universe. Did it "pop" into existence without a reason, without a cause, or does it have a logical explanation: it was created? From a logical view, the first choice is that it was created.

Popping into existence is so illogical, so counter-intuitive that it enters scooby-doo levels of unlikeliness. It's always possible of course that the universe doesn't have a moment of creation, but more likely it was created.

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, action said:

It's just the way the world goes. There is a natural explanation for everything, so why would it be different for the universe?

A god is not a natural explanation, it is a supernatural explanation. 

A natural explanation would be something that doesn't require a supernatural agent. 

17 minutes ago, action said:

God is a natural phenomenon. It IS the natural explanation.

Uhm, no. 

[action]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

A god is not a natural explanation, it is a supernatural explanation. 

A natural explanation would be something that doesn't require a supernatural agent. 

Uhm, no. 

why is "god" a supernatural explanation to you?

I think you're confused by the countless religious books written about god, all with variying degrees of inanity written in them.

so yes, the books are superficial, or some of the stories written in them. We can find them ridiculous, but when we're done laughing, I see no reason to call the concept of "god" equally as ridiculous.

As it stands, we know next to nothing about god's nature. But "if" god exists, he's as natural a phenomenon as you and me. to exist is the antithesis of being superficial.

God is some kind of natural phenomenon, we know nothing about yet. 

But we know almost nothing about dark energy either. we "think" dark energy exists. That superficial too?

What makes god any more superficial, than dark energy?

Perhaps, both are one and the same

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, action said:

what you are saying is, nature does not have a natural origin. It just "popped" into existence without a natural cause.

Either the universe has a natural origin (I call this creator) or it came into existence from nothing.

I have never said the Universe popped into existence out of nothing. Nor is that a scientific theory. It is a religious misinterpretation of science. The singularity wasn't nothing. 

It most likely had a natural origin, which by definition is NOT a supernatural creator. 

The fact that we don't know what happened, or was, before the Big Bang, does not imply there isn't a completely natural, not supernatural, explanation. Just that it is beyond us. Which in a way is okay. We were never evolved to understand absolutely everything. 

Just now, action said:

why is "god" a supernatural explanation to you?

Because I try to abide by normal linguistic definitions. 

[action]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have never said the Universe popped into existence out of nothing. Nor is that a scientific theory. It is a religious misinterpretation of science. The singularity wasn't nothing. 

It most likely had a natural origin, which by definition is NOT a supernatural creator. 

The fact that we don't know what happened, or was, before the Big Bang, does not imply there isn't a completely natural, not supernatural, explanation. Just that it is beyond us. Which in a way is okay. We were never evolved to understand absolutely everything. 

Because I try to abide by normal linguistic definitions. 

according to your logic, all the scientific discoveries of the last 200 years are superficial to the people of the stone age

You try to abide by normal linguistic definitions you say. What does that mean? You're saying, god is a superficious explanation, because I say so.

come on, you're better than this.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, action said:

according to your logic, all the scientific discoveries of the last 200 years are superficial to the people of the stone age

What? 

[Dazey]

 

[action]

an interesting approach to the problem, is to go for a full natural explanation of "god". 

in the past I have pointed to the remarkable similarity of the universe and brain cells

also noting how geometry and numerology is constant throughout the universe, has further strenghtened my beliefs.

The newest theory is, that the universe "itself" is a living thing, has a consciousness through our brain.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1179412/the-universe-what-is-consciousness-part-of-bigger-universe-meaning-human

I find this very remarkable and it is backed by scientific findings.

the universe, being a living thing, has a birth, is growing (expanding), and will ultimately die.

The universe also has a consciousness, and this consciousness is channeled throughout the minds of all living things. Without observers, the universe can not exist. This is a scientific fact, based on quantum theory. Fundamental particles are only fixed in place when observed by a conscious being. Until then, there exists only a range of possibilities.

The universe "thinks" through our brains. When we enjoy life, the universe enjoys life. Beauty only has purpose when appreciated by us. Spectacular art is created through us. Great paintings, books, albums, movies... All of that seems to be a product of the universe, through our brains.

Likewise, we are all important pieces needed to fulfill the purpose of the universe. We are all equal and we should basically act like brothers and sisters from this very moment.

Is this, perhaps, the true purpose of life?

 

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, action said:

an interesting approach to the problem, is to go for a full natural explanation of "god". 

A god is per definition supernatural, which makes this an oxymoron. If you take away the super, you kind of remove the essence of why gods are being worshipped. You reduce them to being of the universe, compliant to the laws of the universe, just another aspect of everything which we haven't come around to investigating yet but will adhere to what we already know. 

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

A god is per definition supernatural, which makes this an oxymoron. If you take away the super, you kind of remove the essence of why gods are being worshipped. You reduce them to being of the universe, compliant to the laws of the universe, just another aspect of everything which we haven't come around to investigating yet but will adhere to what we already know. 

this is basically my stance from the beginning.

I think by this point we're merely disagreeing about terminology

however, why can't we worship god as a natural phenomenon? I disagree on this part. I can perfectly worship the universe, a natural thing, as a definition of "god"

Hell, people worship lesser things, like chinese democracy for one thing

Edited September 24, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, action said:

however, why can't we worship god as a natural phenomenon? I disagree on this part.

I suppose we can, but then it takes more the form of enjoying being outdoors, marveling at the Universe, or molecular biology, and so on, all of which I do, rather than the praying and devotion godditcs have for their deity.

[action]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose we can, but then it takes more the form of enjoying being outdoors, marveling at the Universe, or molecular biology, and so on, all of which I do, rather than the praying and devotion godditcs have for their deity.

I don't know. Some people just like to go far in their devotion, be it of god or anything else they fancy.

But the vast majority of people that go to church, or all of them even, "really" are worshipping a natural phenomenon. When faced with 100 % scientific evidence of this natural phenomenon, I'm sure a large part of them will stop going to church. Or not. Church is as good a place as any, to worship nature. The light that falls through the stained glass, it provides an effective environment to meditate and reach the "unreachable" if you know what I mean.

The theory makes so much sense though. it explains why beauty exists, why art exists, why love exists, friendship, meditation, hell why WE exist. "man was shaped to the image of god" suddenly takes on a whole new meaning too, and could very well be an underscript to the picture of the universe / brain cell I posted earlier

Edited September 24, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

I don't know. Some people just like to go far in their devotion, be it of god or anything else they fancy.

There is still a clear difference between worshipping a god and liking a music record. Or worshipping a god and enjoying a mountain hike. The former includes a reciprocal, sentient relationship. If we reduce the meaning of "god" to be anything you like, the term has been so eroded it loses a lot of meaning. The point now is to differentiate between a supernatural, sentient force you can worship in the hope of it affecting your life or afterlife, and just enjoying something. 

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

There is still a clear difference between worshipping a god and liking a music record. Or worshipping a god and enjoying a mountain hike. The former includes a reciprocal, sentient relationship. If we reduce the meaning of "god" to be anything you like, the term has been so eroded it loses a lot of meaning. The point now is to differentiate between a supernatural, sentient force you can worship in the hope of it affecting your life or afterlife, and just enjoying something. 

I think our debate is increasingly entering linguistic territory now.

in my viewpoint, "god" is defined as the universe, working through our brains and having a mutual relationship. Our brain is "linked" to this incredibly mysterious and still massively underexamined entity that is the universe, to the point that one can not exist without the other. That in itself, warrants a lot of what you call "worship".

Equally, I'm sure the universe worships "us" too, seeing all the brilliant art mankind has produced over the years. Surely that has to account for something?

Edited September 24, 2019 by action

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

200 millions years old ichthyosaurus fossil kept hidden for 170 years due to it countering ancestors' religious belief: 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/family-dig-up-jurassic-fossil-hidden-by-god-fearing-ancestors-for-170-years/ar-AAHVNCn?ocid=spartanntp