Wisdom behind creation.

[Fuzzwood]

What is the "big bang", to you, if only a percentage (probably) true?

Unproven but at the moment the best theory that fits observations.

[s1eep]

@s1eep -- After reading your posts I have to conclude that you are essentially a deist as the term is commonly used. The only difference is that you use the phrase 'purpose-driven consciousness' where everyone else uses the term 'god'.

Deists don't believe in supernatural events, worship, or prophets. They do however believe they can understand the origin of the universe through rationalism.

 

You can call yourself an 'atheist' all you want, but I don't think you'll convince many people as long as you claim there was 'wisdom' behind the genesis of the universe.

Whatever you're trying to imply, with what I think are weasel words, does not dispute the fact I do not believe in God and my beliefs aren't religious, I'm approaching the big bang scientifically, and having a guess at the correct answer to fit the bigger picture, or guess the missing piece of the 'puzzle' based on the observable universe. You call me deist, but that includes God, where in the original post did I imply God (something not real) exists? If my logic is wrong, then why do scientists believe in the big bang?

Unproven but at the moment the best theory that fits observations.

Then it is the same logic. Thanks, my hypothesis is more science than it is religion, although some aspects can be confused with religion, I certainly wasn't stupid enough to confuse them.

Edited August 9, 2014 by s1eep

[StringJunky]

I got this from that - uh-hum - "authoritative" resource Yahoo Answers ...because I like it!

 

Deism is the idea that some kind of intelligence ("God") created the universe, yet chooses not to interfere with it or its inhabitants. That means that there are no answered prayers, no miracles, no revelations, etc. Additionally, the deist generally believes that while God created the universe, things like the Big Bang, evolution, etc actually occurred, and God just got the ball rolling.

The theist on the other hand believes that God is an active participant in the world, answers prayers, talks to people, sends divinations, etc., and literally created the world in some way instead of just getting it started.

 

On the bright side, It's better you are a deist because you aren't arguing with post-Big Bang science.

[s1eep]

I got this from that - uh-hum - "authoritative" resource Yahoo Answers ...because I like it!

 

Deism is the idea that some kind of intelligence ("God") created the universe, yet chooses not to interfere with it or its inhabitants. That means that there are no answered prayers, no miracles, no revelations, etc. Additionally, the deist generally believes that while God created the universe, things like the Big Bang, evolution, etc actually occurred, and God just got the ball rolling.

 

The theist on the other hand believes that God is an active participant in the world, answers prayers, talks to people, sends divinations, etc., and literally created the world in some way instead of just getting it started.

 

On the bright side, It's better you are a deist because you aren't arguing with post-Big Bang science.

 

 

I don't think your source is authoritative enough...

 

To continue, what I'm trying to say is, this God that you associate me with, doesn't exist, but something exists which fits the missing piece of the puzzle; the puzzle doesn't change because of it, it's above it, especially to us.

 

I have had a rational guess that there was imagination prior to the big bang. To remind, the big bang is unproven, and when we think of it as the furthest back we can go, we may be wrong, and to any rational mind it is already wrong as everything comes from a source.

 

May we note that unlike God, this is not a Man, or an individual being, it's a natural force or forces associated with nothing, as is the big bang.

 

If the world was perfect for an Atheist, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and what I'm doing wouldn't be considered religious.

Edited August 9, 2014 by s1eep

[zapatos]

Whatever you're trying to imply...

I wasn't trying to 'imply' anything. I was trying to 'say' that you are a deist, and that the way you use the term 'god' is somewhat different than the way most people use the term 'god', hence leading to your inability to fully engage everyone in the direction you wish this discussion to proceed.

 

...with what I think are weasel words...

Can you please explain what that means?

 

...does not dispute the fact I do not believe in God...

Right. You believe in 'wisdom behind creation'. Which in case you haven't noticed is exactly what deists and theists believe in.

[Phi for All]

To continue, what I'm trying to say is, this God that you associate me with, doesn't exist, but something exists which fits the missing piece of the puzzle; the puzzle doesn't change because of it, it's above it, especially to us.

 

This is a deist position. You talk about "something" which exists, you choose not to call it a god, but it walks and quacks like a deity.

 

To an atheist, nothing "exists which fits the missing piece of the puzzle" except knowledge. There is no "it" for the puzzle to be above. To an atheist, there is no need for god(s) or cosmic wisdom or higher powers.

 

To be clear, the atheist position isn't "I believe there is no god"; rather we don't have any belief in god(s). None. If belief is hair, we're bald. If it's a hobby, we simply don't participate. It's a very important distinction, and the fact that you can talk about consciously driven creation means you aren't an atheist.

 

Sorry if this upsets your self-image, but it seems only fair to help you use the right terminology to explain your position regarding a very complex issue. It will aid in understanding if definitions are clear.

[s1eep]

 

This is a deist position. You talk about "something" which exists, you choose not to call it a god, but it walks and quacks like a deity.

 

What, acts as the cause for the big bang?

 

I'm sure deities are thought to control their population, or are individual entities themselves.

 

What I hypothesize is universe-related, I suggest it held a part in the creation of the big bang and nothing more; it doesn't control the universe, it isn't one thing, and as soon as the big bang happened, was the big bang---I'm not saying everything is this imagination, everything is everything, but the big bang cannot come from nothing. Your obvious inaccuracy with the big bang doesn't make this kind of scientific investigation religious. I'm simply suggesting that nothing could have had imagination by default, because some things have imagination, and it's often used as a tool for creativity. At the end of the day, it's just a theory, and it's not based on anything religious, I came to this conclusion without God, so no, I am not a diest, and I suppose it's just quick social conditioning that's making it seem that way.

 

I'm an Atheist, and I don't believe in God. In the same fashion as someone theorized something happened to start the universe, I have had a theory about it's manifestation. We took 'bangs' applied them to the universe, I took 'imagination' and applied it to the universe; the idea of something other than, or prior to the big bang isn't God belief.

Edited August 9, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Your obvious inaccuracy with the big bang doesn't make this kind of scientific investigation religious.

 

My "inaccuracy with the Big Bang" eludes me, so it's not obvious. Could you explain what you mean by this? What Big Bang inaccuracy are you talking about?

[ACG52]

So he doesn't believe in god, except in the one instance when he calls it something else.

[Moontanman]

What, acts as the cause for the big bang?

 

I'm sure deities are thought to control their population, or are individual entities themselves.

 

What I hypothesize is universe-related, I suggest it held a part in the creation of the big bang and nothing more; it doesn't control the universe, it isn't one thing, and as soon as the big bang happened, was the big bang---I'm not saying everything is this imagination, everything is everything, but the big bang cannot come from nothing. Your obvious inaccuracy with the big bang doesn't make this kind of scientific investigation religious. I'm simply suggesting that nothing could have had imagination by default, because some things have imagination, and it's often used as a tool for creativity. At the end of the day, it's just a theory, and it's not based on anything religious, I came to this conclusion without God, so no, I am not a diest, and I suppose it's just quick social conditioning that's making it seem that way.

 

I'm an Atheist, and I don't believe in God. In the same fashion as someone theorized something happened to start the universe, I have had a theory about it's manifestation. We took 'bangs' applied them to the universe, I took 'imagination' and applied it to the universe; the idea of something other than, or prior to the big bang isn't God belief.

 

 

Just because something lies outside the range of knowledge does not a god make...

 

Just as in the same sense a cause of the existence of the universe does not a god make either...

 

In some ways we are similar to organisms that live off whale carcasses in the deep ocean. Such a carcass (from the stand point of the organisms that feed off it) appears from out of nowhere, the organisms involved feed off it for many years many generations of the creatures that live there. If they were sentient enough to ask questions but limited to the bottom of the deep ocean in their knowledge of the world they could very well assume a God caused that huge mass of food to appear, any thoughts to the contrary would seem absurd, "what could possibly cause a giant hunk of food to appear out of nowhere"?

 

To many of them "a god did it" might well seem to be the most likely source of "everything" and they would believe despite no evidence to back them or in spite of no evidence to the contrary but really really believing something is not knowledge and the more limited your knowledge is the less likely your assumptions will be correct...

[s1eep]

 

 

Just because something lies outside the range of knowledge does not a god make...

 

Just as in the same sense a cause of the existence of the universe does not a god make either...

 

In some ways we are similar to organisms that live off whale carcasses in the deep ocean. Such a carcass (from the stand point of the organisms that feed off it) appears from out of nowhere, the organisms involved feed off it for many years many generations of the creatures that live there. If they were sentient enough to ask questions but limited to the bottom of the deep ocean in their knowledge of the world they could very well assume a God caused that huge mass of food to appear, any thoughts to the contrary would seem absurd, "what could possibly cause a giant hunk of food to appear out of nowhere"?

 

To many of them "a god did it" might well seem to be the most likely source of "everything" and they would believe despite no evidence to back them or in spite of no evidence to the contrary but really really believing something is not knowledge and the more limited your knowledge is the less likely your assumptions will be correct...

Except by no means is my hypothesis nearly as "explicitly stupid" as God, so again, the two don't concur.

 

You're categorizing me as religious, you're wrong, and I'm not religious myself, except for maybe the fact I follow Atheism with great devotion and am kind of religious by one of the definitions (adjective).

 

My answer does not control the universe, is not superhuman, and is composed of natural properties (things taken from observed nature); if you cannot tell me what caused the big bang, then it's a work of fiction (as stupid as God-belief), because all this resource cannot come about through nothing.

I wasn't trying to 'imply' anything. I was trying to 'say' that you are a deist, and that the way you use the term 'god' is somewhat different than the way most people use the term 'god', hence leading to your inability to fully engage everyone in the direction you wish this discussion to proceed.

 

Can you please explain what that means?

 

Right. You believe in 'wisdom behind creation'. Which in case you haven't noticed is exactly what deists and theists believe in.

No it's not.

 

Read my prior posts; God is a fallacy, even the categorization of such is irrational.

 

I am being rational, trying to find consistency in "the big bang coming from nothing", how exactly?

 

As I've said many times, my answer is purely a guess, not something I follow with great devotion; to think of answers to, fill the missing piece of the puzzle, or make the big bang rational, is not God belief.

 

I do not have a bible or laws, you make this notion of reverse-engineering on the big bang sound really stupid by categorizing it with God. It's your aim to do that, that's how passionately you are an Atheist.

 

So far, I've read everything, you still hasn't changed my mind, and this is accepted by other Atheists around me (my friends).

Edited August 9, 2014 by s1eep

[zapatos]

Right. You believe in 'wisdom behind creation'. Which in case you haven't noticed is exactly what deists and theists believe in.

No it's not.

 

Of course it is. In fact, 'wisdom behind creation' sounds suspiciously like 'intelligent design'.

 

We are not going to get anywhere if you insist on redefining commonly used terms.

[s1eep]

Of course it is. In fact, 'wisdom behind creation' sounds suspiciously like 'intelligent design'.

 

We are not going to get anywhere if you insist on redefining commonly used terms.

God is a commonly-used term?

I believe it's a fallacy.

Let's be honest, if God wasn't in our societies, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. It would be treated as a scientific guess; one that, to have any credibility, I would need evidence for.

At the end of the day it was a guess, the purpose of the thread was to question what happened before the big bang, in light of someone maybe coming up with a sensible answer.

It's not something I believe in, I'm not standing up for this 'primal imagination' (I'm elaborating on my theory as such, but it's not something I think I know 100%), I'm simply saying I'm not religious for trying to work this out---again, creation, or wisdom, is not God-exclusive; things create things have wisdom.

If I believe in a creator, or more specifically, the state of the universe before the big bang, this doesn't link me in with other Theists who believe in God, and have a bible, with laws, and all the common interpretations of God.

God took the idea of creation; creation came before God, we can use creation in a scientific sense; it's real, whereas God is not.

Atheism is lack of belief in God, but that doesn't mean it's lack of belief in anything, we still have beliefs---beliefs are valuable when in combination with the natural world, especially rational beliefs.

I believe in the big bang, it's supported (to a degree) by science, this is one of the reasons why I believe.

I believe that a big bang cannot come from nothing, especially one that turned into the complexity we see today as the universe.

Maybe my answer is incorrect, but that doesn't mean it is religious, it's just a bad attempt at science and rationality.

People trying to hazard a theory on what happened prior to the big bang shouldn't be condemned as religious, and anyone providing an answer that involves intelligent design should not be confused with God.

Edited August 9, 2014 by s1eep

[zapatos]

God is a commonly-used term?

You really don't know or are you trying to make a joke?

 

If I believe in a creator, or more specifically, the state of the universe before the big bang, this doesn't link me in with other Theists who believe in God, and have a bible, with laws, and all the common interpretations of God.

And that is why I didn't say you were a theist.

Edited August 9, 2014 by zapatos

[ACG52]

there's a reason this thread is in the religion section.

[s1eep]

You really don't know or are you trying to make a joke?

 

 

And that is why I didn't say you were a theist.

Or a deist who believes in God.

there's a reason this thread is in the religion section.

Your 'nutty' one-liners are the quintessence of this thread.

[Moontanman]

Except by no means is my hypothesis nearly as "explicitly stupid" as God, so again, the two don't concur.

 

You're categorizing me as religious, you're wrong, and I'm not religious myself, except for maybe the fact I follow Atheism with great devotion and am kind of religious by one of the definitions (adjective).

 

My answer does not control the universe, is not superhuman, and is composed of natural properties (things taken from observed nature); if you cannot tell me what caused the big bang, then it's a work of fiction (as stupid as God-belief), because all this resource cannot come about through nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

You missed my point completely, amazing to throw a rock and even miss the ground much less the target.

 

Just because we don't know what caused the universe does not mean it didn't have a cause and that cause is not by any necessity anything but a natural process we are simply unaware of.

 

You would seem to be doing your best to not only make this as difficult as possible. Your very assertion that if i can't tell you what caused the big bang makes the big bang fiction is because all these resources could not have come from nothing is stunningly ignorant. If you cannot tell me where the "thing" that made the big bang came from then your assertion is fiction... sound familiar?

[s1eep]

sound familiar?

No.

[Moontanman]

No.

 

 

Now that was funny...

[Tim the plumber]

However you cut it you are invoking a creator which is no different from a god ...you are just not attributing that entity to a prescribed religion. You have your personal 'religion'.

The correct scientific answer is "I don't know".

[Phi for All]

Maybe my answer is incorrect, but that doesn't mean it is religious, it's just a bad attempt at science and rationality.

And this is essentially why you're getting so much pushback in this thread. The good part is that you're attempting to communicate your position on this issue. The "bad" part of your attempt is that you're misusing terms that have certain meanings in science, and you're trying to mix philosophy (the why) with science (the how, if you will).

 

What you're positing isn't an "answer". Neither science nor religion has true answers (religions differ, and science is predicated on not assuming theories are facts). When you talk in terms of "answers", it can seem like you're claiming some kind of universal Truth, and that always stops a good discussion in its tracks. I don't think that's your intention here.

 

People trying to hazard a theory on what happened prior to the big bang shouldn't be condemned as religious, and anyone providing an answer that involves intelligent design should not be confused with God.

 

This is the root of the problem. We can't have a "theory" of what happened prior to the Big Bang. A scientific theory would have to be based on a model that could gather supportive evidence with which to make predictions. We can go back only to a certain point before the energies involved exceed our ability to investigate them. It's a point in our investigation where we stand on the last bit of certain ground. That there is a next step, we have no doubt, but we have nothing to help us go earlier than 10⁻³⁷ seconds into the event. Right now, everything before that would be a guess. A rational guess might be called philosophy, but it won't be science.

 

Intelligent Design, at least the movement, is rather deceptive, in that it attempts to take a deistic approach to education, emphasizing that there is controversy about the existence of gods, so we should teach both sides in public schools. The deceptive part is that the proponents of Intelligent Design are Christians pushing Christianity, not deists rationalizing gods.

 

If you're talking about an intelligently designed universe that doesn't feature the Abrahamic God, then this is a deist position, no way around it. You can't call yourself an atheist if you think a supernatural entity caused all this. Atheism, rejecting the belief in all deities. Any directed intelligence capable of using the energies available at the time of the Big Bang is, by standard definition, some sort of deity.

 

Personal opinion here, but I think you need to ask yourself which is more important, this position you're taking, or being able to call yourself an atheist. They seem to be at odds with each other, and only because you're insisting on a definition that isn't mainstream. Even people who reject the mainstream need to use mainstream definitions if they want increase comprehension in others.

[s1eep]

And this is essentially why you're getting so much pushback in this thread. The good part is that you're attempting to communicate your position on this issue. The "bad" part of your attempt is that you're misusing terms that have certain meanings in science, and you're trying to mix philosophy (the why) with science (the how, if you will).

 

What you're positing isn't an "answer". Neither science nor religion has true answers (religions differ, and science is predicated on not assuming theories are facts). When you talk in terms of "answers", it can seem like you're claiming some kind of universal Truth, and that always stops a good discussion in its tracks. I don't think that's your intention here.

 

 

This is the root of the problem. We can't have a "theory" of what happened prior to the Big Bang. A scientific theory would have to be based on a model that could gather supportive evidence with which to make predictions. We can go back only to a certain point before the energies involved exceed our ability to investigate them. It's a point in our investigation where we stand on the last bit of certain ground. That there is a next step, we have no doubt, but we have nothing to help us go earlier than 10⁻³⁷ seconds into the event. Right now, everything before that would be a guess. A rational guess might be called philosophy, but it won't be science.

 

Intelligent Design, at least the movement, is rather deceptive, in that it attempts to take a deistic approach to education, emphasizing that there is controversy about the existence of gods, so we should teach both sides in public schools. The deceptive part is that the proponents of Intelligent Design are Christians pushing Christianity, not deists rationalizing gods.

 

If you're talking about an intelligently designed universe that doesn't feature the Abrahamic God, then this is a deist position, no way around it. You can't call yourself an atheist if you think a supernatural entity caused all this. Atheism, rejecting the belief in all deities. Any directed intelligence capable of using the energies available at the time of the Big Bang is, by standard definition, some sort of deity.

 

Personal opinion here, but I think you need to ask yourself which is more important, this position you're taking, or being able to call yourself an atheist. They seem to be at odds with each other, and only because you're insisting on a definition that isn't mainstream. Even people who reject the mainstream need to use mainstream definitions if they want increase comprehension in others.

Okay, but I don't believe in my answer, so it's okay, right, I'm still Atheist?

[Phi for All]

Okay, but I don't believe in my answer, so it's okay, right, I'm still Atheist?

 

If you can ask this, I don't think you're using "believe" the way I use it.

 

If this is an "answer" to a query you have, how can you not believe it, especially as I go back and re-read your firm assertions about it? I personally separate belief even further into Faith, Hope & Trust.

 

I can see how you may not have faith in your answer, as you seem unwilling to live your life according to this belief, changing your behavior the way many people of faith do. Yet you defend it strongly with no evidence, which seems like faith.

 

I don't see any way to trust your "answer", because it involves a supernatural entity (your whatever non-God/non-deity with the wisdom behind creation), about which no evidence can be gathered. Science won't trust an answer that jumps over that small but critical gap between T=0 and where our math becomes reliable.

 

Is this something you hope may be true, but aren't willing to change anything about your life to accommodate? It's hard not to harbor some hope that there is universal meaning to everything. It might be harmless or it might stop us from learning something more important, it's hard to know the difference.

[s1eep]

 

If you can ask this, I don't think you're using "believe" the way I use it.

 

If this is an "answer" to a query you have, how can you not believe it, especially as I go back and re-read your firm assertions about it? I personally separate belief even further into Faith, Hope & Trust.

 

I can see how you may not have faith in your answer, as you seem unwilling to live your life according to this belief, changing your behavior the way many people of faith do. Yet you defend it strongly with no evidence, which seems like faith.

 

I don't see any way to trust your "answer", because it involves a supernatural entity (your whatever non-God/non-deity with the wisdom behind creation), about which no evidence can be gathered. Science won't trust an answer that jumps over that small but critical gap between T=0 and where our math becomes reliable.

 

Is this something you hope may be true, but aren't willing to change anything about your life to accommodate? It's hard not to harbor some hope that there is universal meaning to everything. It might be harmless or it might stop us from learning something more important, it's hard to know the difference.

It was a guess, what's more important in my belief is the question.

 

I could have had many other ideas.

 

Is the motion of guesswork 'religious'?

Edited August 10, 2014 by s1eep

[Dr. Funkenstein]

@ Phil for all, Science has took us to the Big bang, a new theory came out in the last day or two that states we are the product of a Black hole on some dimensional plane. The point is we can only go but so far, at that point creationist by whatever name they choose, say a deity made it all happen. I agree that this is a belief based view, however neither side has the ability to prove the other absolutely wrong, and neither side has gone to causality. So can we say that something happened, and thus that something is in fact the deity, on whatever side of the argument it reveals itself to be on.