If there is no creator

[Trailblazer]

Why must there be a beginning...the universe always was and always will be

That is similar to what we believe in my religion.
God has always existed and the Creation has always existed.
But humans evolved over time.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Indeed.

Personally, I have a history of being surrounded by people with far too many answers and too little wisdom (or even garden variety common sense) to show for it.

It scared me silly. And made it a top priority in my life not to emulate their example.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is similar to what we believe in my religion.
God has always existed and the Creation has always existed.

Similar to a point.

If you can overcome the arguably supreme hurdle of one side referring to an entity known to the exist (namely the universe) while the other side uses a supremely tentative entity (God) instead.

Maybe it is just me, but I have a real strong dislike for presuming the existence of deities just because.

As language tools, deities are great. As sources of inspiration, they are powerful, delicate ideas to be handled with due care.

As cosmological ideas, though, they are just a distraction.

But humans evolved over time.

That is an odd subject matter to address right after addressing the origin of existence with no transition and no context.

There is definitely no reason to presume cosmic significance to humanity. Human evolution is biological and cultural. Those are entirely separate fields from that of cosmology. Arguably, there can be no more distant fields, even.

 

[Salvador]

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.

With the discovered link between space and time, they can no longer be thought of as two seperate things. Instead, space and time are fused together into what now is known as space-time. This fusion of space-time means the difference between past, present and future is only an illusion. Rather than thinking of time as continuous ,it's useful to think of time as a series of snapshots from moment to moment. If we conceptualize each moment or snapshot in our universe lined up one after another, we would see every moment that has ever happened or will ever happen, every location in space as well as each and every moment in time. Events I think of as happening now in various regions of space can be thought of as a now slice. When taking motion into account, I and somebody else could disagree with what exists on the now slice of time. A far away extraterrestrial being and I who are stationary relative to one another will share the same now time slice. When this distant extraterrestrial turns and starts moving away from me, he now would be in a new time slice that would be in the past from my prospective. When this distant extraterrestrial is moving towards me, he would now be in a new time slice that would be in the future from my prospective. Just as how we think of all of space is out there, the past, present, and future is out there now all existing together.

 

[LuisDantas]

Buddha once said it had been 81 cosmos like this we live in now. meaning 80 big bangs. that is how far back in history he could see.

You know, I don't think it would ever occur to me that he might have meant it that way.

I always think of the Tathagata as a more practical-minded person with a strong ability to conjure moving illustrations.

For me it is an actual reflex. I hear that he spoke of a certain number of cosmos (or a comparably abstract idea) and I begin to think of what that may be standing for and how that might be useful in everyday life.

In this case, I immediately discard the literal interpretation, because I can't even conceive of any reason why it would be of interest to either the Tathagata or to me. A Big Bang or a similar idea is just not something that I find of religious interest.

Then I notice that 81 is a power of three and I assume that there is some descriptive model associated with that statement, presumably one with four variables that each have three possible values.

I guess that is my way of saying that I want some context and a specific reference.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe it is just me, but I have a real strong dislike for presuming the existence of deities just because.

No, we should not presume with no reason to presume.

As language tools, deities are great. As sources of inspiration, they are powerful, delicate ideas to be handled with due care.

As cosmological ideas, though, they are just a distraction.

I was not sure what you meant by that. Can you elaborate?

That is an odd subject matter to address right after addressing the origin of existence with no transition and no context.

There is definitely no reason to presume cosmic significance to humanity. Human evolution is biological and cultural. Those are entirely separate fields from that of cosmology. Arguably, there can be no more distant fields, even.

Again, I was mot sure exactly what you meant by:
"addressing the origin of existence with no transition and no context" and
"no reason to presume cosmic significance to humanity."

 

[LuisDantas]

No, we should not presume with no reason to presume.

I was not sure what you meant by that. Can you elaborate?

In a nutshell, I understand deity-ideas to be powerful and useful tools, but there are precautions that must come with their use.

At the same time, I do not think of the origin of existence as a true matter of religious significance.

Linking the two ideas just does not come naturally to me, and serves no useful purpose that I can think of.

Again, I was mot sure exactly what you meant by:
"addressing the origin of existence with no transition and no context" and
"no reason to presume cosmic significance to humanity."

I found need for transition and context in your decision to talk about human evolution immediately after discussing the idea of a creator God, because to me one does not follow from the other at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

From my pow yes, but in this tread i am only the neutral i do not let my view come onto this tread, i will only ask how but no judgment to the answer

You're suggesting God had a cause?

 

[Trailblazer]

In a nutshell, I understand deity-ideas to be powerful and useful tools, but there are precautions that must come with their use.

Why are deity-ideas powerful and what are they useful for? Why do we need to take precautions?

I found need for transition and context in your decision to talk about human evolution immediately after discussing the idea of a creator God, because to me one does not follow from the other at all.

No, they are not really linked.
The way I understand it, God has always had a Creation, so God did not create anything.
Humans evolved much later, just like other animals.
Baha'u'llah addresses that idea here:

“LXXVIII: As to thy question concerning the origin of creation......
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 150-151

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

No idea. That's one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

 

[Spirit of Light]

In Buddhism too there is no creator.

There is said it is no creator yes, lake a suprime god, but it does not say something did not create the cosmos, Buddha just did not see far enough back in time to see a creator.
But every moment we live is a new creation.

when we are born we have one body, when we die we have a totally different body. cellls arise ad die all the time.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

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.

Most what Atheists believe is just a theory that they blindly believe in and claim to be true. There is no difference between atheists and religious people. Both groups believe blindly.

Ask God to Reveal Himself to you. That's what i am praying for, hopefully one day He will Reveal Himself to me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Most what Atheists believe is just a theory that they blindly believe in and claim to be true. There is no difference between atheists and religious people. Both groups believe blindly.

Honestly i disagree with you on this
As a buddhist i do not believe blindly because what is written in the scriptures are to find in everyday life for me. So there is no need for blind faith. Buddhism is more philosophy then belief system, But ofcourse one need to follow the guidelines set like the 4 noble truths and the 8 folded path.

 

[exchemist]

So you don't think that being an atom of a radioisotope is not cause for decay of said atom?

No.

 

[Vinayaka]

Neat, I love number theory.

One of the ironies of number theory, as I recall, is that there are no numbers. 'It was all Greek to me' was appropriate.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why are deity-ideas powerful and what are they useful for? Why do we need to take precautions?

How powerful deity-ideas are seems to vary considerably according to culture and, to a lesser extent, individual. Apatheists probably have the least use for them.

But many people clearly connect to those ideas and tap a lot of passion, motivation and even serenity from them.

Being an apatheist myself, I don't entirely understand why that is so, but many people seem to believe that deities provide some form of necessary answer or explanation. That seems to be a part of it.

And that is also a main reason why we must take care with those ideas. There is a lot of serious harm that is done constantly because people let go of discernment and even basic morality to take refuge in their divine certaintly.

That is why I don't consider deity-concepts necessary or even particularly desirable for religious practice. There is a place for them, but never as a main pillar of doctrine, and only on behalf of those people who have a strong attachment for the idea. Those seem to be many, but cultural expectation seems to play a decisive role on shaping that number.

I once considered converting into the Bahai Faith, but then I realized that the doctrine does not have room to allow for that stance of mine. It is very much an Abrahamic Faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

Most what Atheists believe is just a theory that they blindly believe in and claim to be true. There is no difference between atheists and religious people. Both groups believe blindly.

Ask God to Reveal Himself to you. That's what i am praying for, hopefully one day He will Reveal Himself to me.

You have probably heard this often enough, but just in case: you are seriously mistaken about atheists and atheism.

We simply do not (usually?) connect to belief in quite that way. And I for one have a little more respect for religion than you seem to find deserved.

 

[WalterTrull]

Ask God to Reveal Himself to you. That's what i am praying for, hopefully one day He will Reveal Himself to me.

Like many others I’m sure, I’ve often prayed “Talk to me. Lemme know what’s up?” What would I do confronted by a burning, talking bush? If a voice came to me in the night? Probably soil my undergarments!

 

[viole]

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.

Actually, such questions can be defused by adopting an alternative ontology of time. For instance, the one we get from relativity.

If we take that at face value, we come to things like the block universe interpretation. In which nothing needs to be set in motion in order to be.

Ciao

- viole

 

[WalterTrull]

block universe interpretation.

OK, hadn't been aware of the block theory. Read a quick summary. Didn't get the "set in motion" thing. Probably didn't read enough. Very much a "Reader's Digest" type these days. No time? The universe just is? I can get in line with that. Just didn't get it from the "block" summary.