If there is no creator

[Spirit of Light]

Well, that makes sense. Believing things is what believers do.

True

 

[WalterTrull]

there is no indication that the supernatural realm is even possible.

True. There is no SUPERnatural. It's all natural. Lot's of misunderstanding though.

 

[Sunstone]

What is time?
In my experience we only live in the moment, not in the past and not in the future, what exist is only right now. So does time exist, or is it only human beings who create time in the head?
We as human beings are only observers, we observe one moment arise and fall, then a new moment of rising and faling. So seen like this, there is nothing called time. only moments.
In my experience (meditation) everything and nothing happens in the same moment.

I've seen a few physicists -- including Einstein -- describe time as an "illusion". I don't know what they mean by that. But that's the word they've used to describe it.

 

[blü 2]

What is time?
In my experience we only live in the moment, not in the past and not in the future, what exist is only right now. So does time exist, or is it only human beings who create time in the head?
We as human beings are only observers, we observe one moment arise and fall, then a new moment of rising and faling. So seen like this, there is nothing called time. only moments.
In my experience (meditation) everything and nothing happens in the same moment.

Time is the medium of change, so the old saying has it. We live (by memory) in the past, (by expectation and particularly hope) in the future, and (while actually doing) in the present. Experience and planning are built deeply into our instincts and our lives, so I don't agree we live merely in the present.

(The concept of space is at least as tricky to paraphrase.)

 

[blacklagoon]

I can not know100% because then it would not be a belief anymore, this is why i ask the question in the first place. If my own view is wrong and there is no creator, what was the staring force of the cosmos? or has it always been there?

What's wrong with "we don't know?"

 

[Spirit of Light]

What's wrong with "we don't know?"

Not knowing in it self is not wrong. But to find the answers to the deeper questions in religion or spirituallity is for me a huge part of my life. So to me saying i dont know means i have something to learn

 

[Audie]

I've seen a few physicists -- including Einstein -- describe time as an "illusion". I don't know what they mean by that. But that's the word they've used to describe it.

In general, I've more regard for the words of such named
deep thinkers-whose ideas can be shown by math,
logic, experiment to be valid-,than for opinions from
people who just believe things.

Be those opinions based on the ideas of people
who let information enter their mind via some
state they work themselves into, or be they not.
It aint enough to just believe something.

I sure would not ask (no stinking) guru to advise
on brain surgery or anything else that matters
if they get it right or not.

 

[WalterTrull]

I sure would not ask (no stinking) guru to advise
on brain surgery or anything else that matters
if they get it right or not.

We will take that under advisement.

 

[Audie]

True. There is no SUPERnatural. It's all natural. Lot's of misunderstanding though.

Such as?

 

[Audie]

We will take that under advisement.

I trust it wont take a whole lot of
time to figure that one out.

 

[Willamena]

There is sentience. While God is probably not a separate sentience. There is sentience. Cause somehow has to incorporate that.

Necessarily, yes. From cause to effect is a relation, and drawing a relation requires awareness.

 

[Skwim]

Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?

I donot have an answer to it my self if i try to see it from an atheists POW. But they can ofcourse be correct just like religion can be correct.

Your question seems to presume that we have to have an answer, and if we don't then the theist/deist answer wins by default. We don't, and it doesn't.

.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Your question seems to presume that we have to have an answer, and if we don't then the theist/deist answer wins by default. We don't, and it doesn't.

.

Not every person need answers to spiritual questions, Personally i always been seeking answers to why life is as it is. but i do understand not all think like this

 

[dfnj]

Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?
I donot have an answer to it my self if i try to see it from an atheists POW. But they can ofcourse be correct just like religion can be correct.

It's not an answerable question. It's like when does life begin. Some people say life begins at conception. But some people believe life begins before the parent's conceive. It's a matter of perspective. Many physicists have proposed black holes create white holes. In other words, our Big Bang is the result of star collapsing to black hole in previously existing space-time dimension. We live in a recursive Universe.

I think it is important to take into consideration we are made of the very stuff we are experiencing. We ARE the Universe's way of experiencing itself. To the mystic, every single moment or point is a complete reflection of the infinite. To the mystic, zero equals infinity. Both zero and infinity cannot be meaningfully measured. So the idea the Universe had a beginning is a delusion from a certain point of view. It's a limitation of human language or perception to be able to comprehend something that is incomprehensible.

Another way of thinking about the delusion of existence is the idea of nothingness. Before something can be created it must first be shown or proven to NOT exist. No one has ever show the existence of "nothingness" in reality. The idea of "nothingness" only exists in our minds and our imaginations. No one has ever seen or experienced nothingness. So since nothingness doesn't exist, and something DOES exist, therefore, somethingness has ALWAYS existed. It's a trick of human language to think something has a beginning. There are no beginnings or boundaries in reality. In reality, EVERYTHING is connected to EVERYTHING else in endless changes of swirling patterns of energy based wave forms.

How existence came into being is an unanswerable question in my opinion. It's an unanswerable question because we are made of the very stuff we are questioning about. Since most people are uncomfortable with unanswerable questions so in order to feel comfortable with not knowing people invent delusionary beliefs.

 

[Vaderecta]

Since most people are uncomfortable with unanswerable questions so in order to feel comfortable with not knowing people invent delusionary beliefs.

This summarizes your entire post quite well.

 

[sayak83]

Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?

I donot have an answer to it my self if i try to see it from an atheists POW. But they can ofcourse be correct just like religion can be correct.

In Buddhism too there is no creator.

 

[Vaderecta]

In Buddhism too there is no creator.

Correct, the idea that there must be a creator makes no sense. (Its turtles all the way down: Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia )

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Nope, sorry. Not familiar with it. Math did fascinate me though, at one time, number theory in particular. Real numbers, and all that.

Neat, I love number theory.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

What's your evidence that everything must have a cause? Is it merely that everything you know of has a cause?

I am not arguing for or against the notion that everything must have a cause. I have no conviction one way or the other. But you appear to have one. So -- how can you conclusively prove that everything has a cause?

I have a fairly strong conviction that not everything has a cause. If everything had a cause, then we would have an infinite regression of causes, which does not seem logically coherent to me. I am not entirely certain that an infinite regression of causes is impossible, but it does not make sense to me. In any case, neither atheists or theists actually believe that everything needs a cause. Atheists typically default to the universe as the only uncaused entity and theists default to God as the only uncaused entity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen a few physicists -- including Einstein -- describe time as an "illusion". I don't know what they mean by that. But that's the word they've used to describe it.

At least partially due to the idea of time being the same for everyone. On the Earth it seems that way since the differences in time that we observe are so small as to be almost immeasurable, and definitely not detectable by people. But when there are large velocity differences or gravitational differences between two observers they will each measure their time at different rates than the other does.