What Happens When You Die?

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm going to hold to science....nothing moves without 'something' to move it.

That's Newtonian mechanics. Cosmology is much weirder.

Sure, God is a possible explanation, but the bottom line is we simply have no idea, so it comes back to belief and faith.

 

[Thief]

That's Newtonian mechanics. Cosmology is much weirder.

Sure, God is a possible explanation, but the bottom line is we simply have no idea, so it comes back to belief and faith.

ok.....and according to Webster's faith requires no proving.

Still, there is the line of thought called regression.
Someone had to be First.

Likewise, all of the universe (one word).....had a beginning.

Put the two notions together.
God as Creator....the universe as the effect of His spoken Word.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Someone had to be First.

No, not necessarily, and you really need to move outside these simplistic notions of cause and effect. And even if there was a cause for the big bang we have no idea what it was - assuming "God did it" is a crude and simplistic answer to a profound and difficult question.
The only sensible answer here is "Don't know" - because we don't know!

If you want to believe "God did it" that's fine, but please recognise that this is just a belief.

 

[Thief]

No, not necessarily, and you really need to move outside these simplistic notions of cause and effect. And even if there was a cause for the big bang we have no idea what it was - assuming "God did it" is a crude and simplistic answer to a profound and difficult question.
The only sensible answer here is "Don't know" - because we don't know!

If you want to believe "God did it" that's fine, but please recognise that this is just a belief.

I have always said....there will be no proof.
It is a belief.

But in regression.....Someone had to be First.
and the substance had a beginning.

You can plead ignorance if you care to.

Later on the angelic will ask if I told anyone.
That's when this discussion will resurrect.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can plead ignorance if you care to

I am not pleading ignorance I am simply saying I don't know. And you don't either.

 

[Thief]

I am not pleading ignorance I am simply saying I don't know. And you don't either.

I cannot plead ignorance.
Heaven would not accept it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Heaven would not accept it.

It's what you can accept that really matters.

 

[Thief]

It's what you can accept that really matters.

Well...half and half.

In holding company with others...this world and the next....
I will be accepted by some and denied by others.

I will likely do the same.
I would be willing to accept some of kindred spirit and shun others who are not.

It's not just me that makes the judgment call.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am neither theist nor atheist, but I do take issue with a 'creation', which leaves us with the age old problem of the origin of original material. The theists would have it that God created the world out of nothing at all. But the philosophers tell us only nothing can come from nothing, ie 'ex nihilo fit'. Now, cutting edge science (Lawrence Krauss) explains a 'universe from nothing'. But all of this assumes the world to be something real; something having material substance. But what if the 'material' stuff of the world is actually an illusion on a higher plane than your ordinary garden variety kind of illusion? In that case, it would solve two major problems: the origin of the original material from which the universe came, because there is none, and that there is nothing actually being 'created'. It is only a projection, a manifestation. So what is the nature of the 'material' universe then?: consciousness. Pure Consciousness.

The Big Bang was an event in consciousness, and consciousness is non-material, outside of time and space. IOW, it itself is No-thing-ness. Everything came out of Nothing.

The world, as we experience it, is a series of events in consciousness.

I'd agree that the 'original origin' question is a problem, a paradox, .. apparently

but it applies to any 'explanation' does it not? God, natural event- or consciousness itself.. physical or metaphysical 'where did that come from' applies to all right?
Yet here we are, so obviously there is a solution one way or another- so doesn't this make the question moot?-

I'd say Krauss' philosophical speculation is more a play on the word 'nothing' than a scientific explanation- but it does follow the general atheist belief that the creation of the universe was ultimately accidental, just happened to fall together this way, so it suffers the same problem of staggering improbability. However we define 'real' or 'illusion'- the mathematics - the code running the whole thing has to be accounted for somehow- an accident is not impossible..

But if you see the word 'help' spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, do you assume the waves washed them up that way? it's not impossible, but is it the most likely answer? why not?