What religion/faith are you?

[rhubarbodendron]

There will absolutely no trace of anything, we'll just cease to exist. No matter what you do, none of it matters. It really is quite depressing.

Indeed. That's why being an atheist requires a lot of inner strength. Religious people always have a god to fall back to, as a sort of emotional safety-belt. We atheists can only rely upon ourselves.

You know if you consider either the possibility that the universe has always existed (Big Bang followed by Big Rip followed by Big Bang followed by Big Rip ...etc...) or the multiverse, or both. then everything that is probable has already happened an infinite number of times.

Under the given preconditions yes. But that's where your theory gets a bit wobbly: there is no proof yet that the universe has always existed. What with time being linear (as far as we know) it seems logical to assume that it has started at some point. And that leaves the possibility that there might simply not have been time enough for everything possible to have happened before. Some events might still be qeueing.

 

[PSGarak]

Indeed. That's why being an atheist requires a lot of inner strength. Religious people always have a god to fall back to, as a sort of emotional safety-belt. We atheists can only rely upon ourselves.

That's very dependent upon the religion. While it's true of the big three and Hinduism, there are plenty of the pagan and neo-pagan religions where deities are not safety-belts or even necessarily entities one would pray to or expect an answer from. And not all religions or spiritual practices center around gods at all. Animism comes to mind.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

good point! I had automatically thought only of my own cultural background. *blush*

 

[Discofan]

...


Under the given preconditions yes. But that's where your theory gets a bit wobbly: there is no proof yet that the universe has always existed. What with time being linear (as far as we know) it seems logical to assume that it has started at some point. And that leaves the possibility that there might simply not have been time enough for everything possible to have happened before. Some events might still be qeueing.

The problem with attributing a beginning to the universe (not just ours but the universe as in everything that exists and has existed) is that you get the question of what was happening before it started. If you say nothing then it's problematic, how could nothing suddenly become something. I think it's more likely or easier to conceive that there was always something in a form or another. Hence the idea that the universe has always existed.

In fact, if it has and say we've had this conversation an infinite number of times then we wouldn't know about it because we wouldn't retain any memory of it. Once the universe gets through the Big Rip stage, everything is destroyed and that includes every info of what happened. Also, we may get proof of the existence of other universes (some physicists are already thinking of ways to detect them*) but we will never be able to get there. We're linked to this universe like soap bubbles are linked to the soap they're made of.


*Dark Matter, for example, could be a manifestation of other universes.

 

[Butters]

There’s that saying, that nothing is impossible.

There has to be something because it’s impossible for there not to be.

I don’t have a religion, but i do think the weirdness of the universe goes way deeper than we can comprehend.

 

[Tosk]

There’s that saying, that nothing is impossible. There has to be something because it’s impossible for there not to be.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's a very odd claim. Something has to exist because it's impossible for it to not exist? I don't follow the logic.

 

[Butters]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's a very odd claim. Something has to exist because it's impossible for it to not exist? I don't follow the logic.

It arises from the question, why is there something and not nothing? Nowhere in the universe have we found an absence of something, even in an absolute vacuum, and in the spaces between subatomic particles, there is still the space time froth.

 

[Tosk]

I see. But what does that have to do with religion?

 

[rhubarbodendron]

^ it's about eternity and parallel developments/alternative universes/realities. Disco's point was: if anything that is possible does actually occur at some time or place, then the theoretical possibility of a deity would automatically lead to there being a god (or several ones).
I tried to point out that we don't actually know if there is an eternity and if anything that's possible has already happened yet.
That led to a discussion of the more astronomical aspects of the problem.

@Butters : Interesting observation. There is a parallel to my job as a biologist: not a single source for nourishment and not the tiniest spot on this planet goes unused. There's always something that settles there, feeds and thrives. There are even bacteria that live on smoldering coal.
Maybe it's a phenomenon not just limited to our terran ecosystem but a literally universal one? No space and no bit of energy is wasted, there's always some sort of particle or some interaction of particles? (particles in the widest possible sense, including quants etc.)

 

[Butters]

@Butters : Interesting observation. There is a parallel to my job as a biologist: not a single source for nourishment and not the tiniest spot on this planet goes unused. There's always something that settles there, feeds and thrives. There are even bacteria that live on smoldering coal.
Maybe it's a phenomenon not just limited to our terristric ecosystem but a literally universal one? No space and no bit of energy is wasted, there's always some sort of particle or some interaction of particles? (particles in the widest possible sense, including quants etc.)

And it reminds me of one of my favourite far side cartoons. Nature abhors a vacuum

 

[Tosk]

^ it's about eternity and parallel developments/alternative universes/realities. Disco's point was: if anything that is possible does actually occur at some time or place, then the theoretical possibility of a deity would automatically lead to there being a god (or several ones).

That's what I thought the gist was, but wanted to be sure. (I get lost with all the philosophical stuff easily, as none of it really proves anything one way or the other.)

It's such a IF statement that it holds no weight whatsoever.

IF everything that can happen must happen (which we don't know to be true)
IF a God is possible (which we also don't know to be true)

If Superman is possible, then he must exist. And if possible, my dear deceased old pooch Sam will come back to life and be elected POTUS.

 

[Stoo]

we're not about to stumble onto the ontological argument, are we? defining God into existence makes my head hurt.

 

[Discofan]

^ it's about eternity and parallel developments/alternative universes/realities. Disco's point was: if anything that is possible does actually occur at some time or place, then the theoretical possibility of a deity would automatically lead to there being a god (or several ones).
...
....

I never said anything about a god!!! In fact, I am completely averse to the idea. You have me confused with someone else!!!!

First time in my life that I am accused of being a deist.

The point that I was trying (painfully) to make is that an infinite occurrences of universes implies that anything POSSIBLE in the universe happened, an infinity of times.

This rules out the possibility of a god (or gods) as it makes them completely unnecessary.

 

[Delta Geminorum]

I often wonder why Epicurus and Aquinas sound equally true.

"God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"

"Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since, as Thomas believed, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God."

 

[Discofan]

I often wonder why Epicurus and Aquinas sound equally true.

"God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"

"Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since, as Thomas believed, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God."

First, there's no clear definition of evil that would satisfy everyone. A prisoner for example certainly thinks that it's evil to keep him in prison while the rest of society may disagree (or not, sometimes someone is kept in prison for years against the wishes of most people).

A lion sometimes kills his own offsprings in order to have sex... Is he evil? Lions have been doing that for millions of years though, long before anything resembling us even existed.

Aquinas is full of shit, he starts with the preconceived opinion that god exists and then tweaks everything around to make that true. What in hell is a first mover, not moved by anything else? This is just rhetorical bullshit that doesn't mean anything.

You can object that if there was a first move by an eternal god then that god has spent half of eternity, IE an infinite amount of time, doing NOTHING!!! Talk about lazy! Why would a so-called all-powerful entity do nothing for so long a time? That doesn't make any sense.

I think it's more reasonable to conclude that there always was something. No first move, no first mover. If you throw the dice an infinite number of times, no matter how many dice you throw, you're bound to get all the combinations there are an infinite number of times.

IOW, anything that's not outright impossible in our universe has already happened and will happen, again and again.

 

[Delta Geminorum]

So what is the purpose of time?

 

[USS Firefly]

I am an atheïst.
A couple of weeks ago I saw an interview between Stephen Colbert and ricky gervais.
And Gervais had a couple of good arguments, one i had never thought of was

'' If you took every holy book, every holy book there’s ever been, every religious book, every bit of spirituality, and hid them or destroyed them… then you took every science book and destroyed that, in a thousand years’ time, those science books would be back exactly the same, because the tests would always turn out the same.



Those religious books would either never exist or they’d be totally different, because there’s no test.''

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

The point that I was trying (painfully) to make is that an infinite occurrences of universes implies that anything POSSIBLE in the universe happened, an infinity of times.

This rules out the possibility of a god (or gods) as it makes them completely unnecessary.

In no way does that lead to such a conclusion. But I appreciate your passionate proselytizing on behalf of atheism. This thread is a nice way to see what beliefs are represented, but there's a noticeable push against a certain set of beliefs in God.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I'm a recovering Catholic. It's a 12-step program of non-belief... i.e. atheism.

 

[Discofan]

In no way does that lead to such a conclusion. But I appreciate your passionate proselytizing on behalf of atheism. This thread is a nice way to see what beliefs are represented, but there's a noticeable push against a certain set of beliefs in God.

There's nothing passionate about this. I couldn't care less if anyone "appreciates" my reasoning or not. However, you oppose arguments with arguments not with "appreciation". I thank you for your... condescension.