curse of having to think in temporal terms.why we need god, big bangs and beginings

[LucidSDreamr]

thinking about this topic like I always do I came across a pretty good and concise explanation in the comments section of some physics article on the topic (the article went over my head)

Time in absolute sense is non-existent. It is just an experiential reality that is assumed by an experiencer. If there is no experiencer, there is nothing like time. The brain tends to link up two points of actions (motions or processes) with its memory function. This associative experience is called time. The universe is perpetuity of motions or processes, chemical or otherwise.
Or else: imagine the beginning or end of so-called time billions and trillions of years before or after, but still the question remains: what was before or will be after that? Saying that time started with big bang and ends with the end of the universe, is partial explanation. Big bang was rather a beginning of a series of processes/motions that would stop one day.
Time is an illusion, but a persistent one for any life form as such.
Rajnish Roy

 

[-=SS=-]

The Big Bang is just a human conceptual structure used to fill the fact that we simply don't know. The theory itself is one of the most ridiculous theories ever proposed. God isn't allowed the miracle of creation, but apparently human thinking is a allowed one giant miracle from which all of reality then proceeds. Talk about arrogance.

 

[socko]

The Big Bang was an event, like a motion or a process. These events go from one state to another and have a beginning, a duration, and an end. We call this time, and it is the way we conceptualize their rate of change. And they do change. That change takes time and occur on a timeline. Physics tells us that time began with the big bang. Physics does not address the fact that the big bang couldn't have happened without time already existing.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

i still don't get it....thought i did when i was high the other day when i posted this though.

the only thing that makes sense to me in regards to why matter/energy exist is that time doesn't exist....either that or there is a god.

I don't understand how time doesn't exist....is everything happening all at one "instant" ?...but the beginning and end of any physical process we observe is just some sort of consequence of 3-dimensional space. but when that space becomes very large (like the universe) there isn't time?

I wish i understood physics better...but for some reason I doubt that physcicists can even comprehend it all that much better than i can

 

[LucidSDreamr]

The Big Bang is just a human conceptual structure used to fill the fact that we simply don't know. The theory itself is one of the most ridiculous theories ever proposed. God isn't allowed the miracle of creation, but apparently human thinking is a allowed one giant miracle from which all of reality then proceeds. Talk about arrogance.

i don't think its redic at all. It offers no commentary on what happened before the big bang or how it got there....just how it progressed once it started. I can't say the same for those that believe in god.

we simply don't know as you said is all there is to it. what a fucking shame we can't know.

 

[-=SS=-]

i don't think its redic at all. It offers no commentary on what happened before the big bang or how it got there....just how it progressed once it started. I can't say the same for those that believe in god.

Big Bang is good for the how, but not the why.. creation myths are good for the why, but not the how. Personally I think both sides are, whilst in good spirit and generally progressing our understanding of things, a bit lacking. I think the truth is somewhere in between.. that there is an impulse/intelligent agency, which is still here and not a blind watch maker, space is without end (spatially and time-wise) and there is no such thing as time at all either. When there is no such thing as time then that impulse/intelligent agency has nowhere to go.. it can only be here.. and I also believe at our deepest level we are that force/awareness too.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

the whole 1 god is everything and I am it also theory....definitely experienced that on psychedelic drugs before. But I also think that the universe may just be non sentient matter that built up in complexity to make consciousness which is nothing special really...just matter being conscious and it ends there

 

[swilow]

Big Bang is good for the how, but not the why..

The only way that a 'why' can be answered is if there is intent behind the process, something with a reason for generating or creating our universe. Otherwise, the process is simply the end in and of itself. Science does not really ask that question of nature.

To my mind, the entire system really fulls down for numerous reasons if a creative force or intent is added into it. The flaws are magnified away from being random background noise if you believe an entity with intent of whom you could extract a motivation for their actions is behind all of this. Assuming that nature has arisen randomly corresponds with much of the weirder and less questioned functionalities of the universe (such as the creation of heavy elements only through "destruction" of previous incarnations- given how dependant life is on these heavier elements, requiring it to intake later create elements suggests the universe didn't arise to support life, but simply had the capacity to do so, etc.) which make me think that most of existence is, indeed, an afterthought or chaotic arising, unexpected and unrequired. It seems a mighty round about way of for Omnipotence to create complexity. And yet, the only way life could have arisen on Earth is after at least 2 generations of stars, maybe 3, and been born and died.

For me, the Big Bang isn't entirely satisfactory but it does correspond with evidence that has been both observed and experimentally generated. Further speculation basically does away with God; multiverse theory would suggest that universes are being born constantly and that there are an infinite number of universe meaning at least one will be habitable by us. And, of course, we are in it as the only universe we possibly could be in. Again though, this is unsatisfying because it essentially means we've gone as far back as we are ever likely to and no new-old knowledge can be further attained.

I'm open to alternate suggestions regarding the universe's creation as long as a creative force isn't mentioned because it is as much a brickwall as the multiverse, despite explaining a far deal less.

One thing I think that lets us down or may confuse our conclusions is our timescale. We have no way to create a relationship between the life so far of our universe and any possible other universe. We don't know if we are still at the very instant of creation, but the big bang theory would say that, yes, we are. Our universe has trillions upon trillions of years before it is simply a frozen, homogenous soup of sameness in all directions with no potential for any further kinetic/chemical/thermodynamic motion ever again (if this is our fate indeed). Accordingly, this makes me think we are at the beginning of creation (of Time) and may be still basically witnessing creation unfold.

 

[-=SS=-]

I'm open to alternate suggestions regarding the universe's creation as long as a creative force isn't mentioned because it is as much a brickwall as the multiverse, despite explaining a far deal less.

The question every atheist needs to ask themselves is why they want there not to be a God or creative force, and answer it honestly.

 

[alasdairm]

^ i can only speak for myself but it has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting.

why do you want there to not be climate change?

i think it's an irrelevant question.

alasdair

 

[swilow]

The question every atheist needs to ask themselves is why they want there not to be a God or creative force, and answer it honestly.

No, that's really not an important question for atheists to answer, nor do I think there's any logic in it. Whether I want the moon to exist or not makes no difference. Whether I want Santa to exist makes no difference. The moon exists, Santa does not. What I want has no bearing on the reality i get.

Why do you believe in a creative force? Its the ultimate cop out when faced with unanswerable questions IMO.

The reason I don't believe in a creative force is the lack of evidence for it and the circumstantial evidence against it. Mainly the latter though.

I don't want to believe anything has 'intended' this sort of dog-eat-dog reality. It is brutal and violent, ever changing and unwelcoming. If god made this according to his will, that god is a God of Terror and does not deserve worship. A god that would create this immensity of suffering is evil and should be actively resisted.

Fortunately, Its not real. Phew!!

 

[LuiBliss]

Well, to expand on the topic of this convo, you can also begin to think about what is really real? What and who is this you that you hold on to so dearly.

You may remember yourself from when you were 10 years old, yet you are a completely different person, your whole body has changed, thoughts etc. So what is that person that remains. That is the real question. and is that person, since that person has stayed with you through out complete bodily changes and everything, could that "I" you call yourself, remain even after you die?

Would like to get the discussion going on your thoughts etc. on this. In the mean time, I will leave you with a video about the existence of Heaven and Hell, and a different concept of God towards the ending of the video, so stay tuned.

 

[alasdairm]

Big Bang is good for the how, but not the why.

why do you want/need there to be a 'why'?

alasdair

 

[-=SS=-]

Why do you believe in a creative force? Its the ultimate cop out when faced with unanswerable questions IMO.

I came to believe in a creative force because it was the logical conclusion to eventually arrive at. The idea that everything sprang from nothing for no reason makes the least sense of all, or the idea that matter would tend towards ever greater complexity without any kind of impetus is equally absurd, or that we as individuals should possess 'awareness'.. there is no reason why we should 'see', why we shouldn't just be a blank computer running a script. Everything considered I find it strange how anyone could not come to the conclusion there is something beyond mere material existence.

The reason I don't believe in a creative force is the lack of evidence for it and the circumstantial evidence against it. Mainly the latter though.

Given we all have access to the same information via the internet, in regards to biology, I would suggest that actually the evidence is right there but you just don't see it. The biological kingdom is rife with examples that strongly suggest against mere random mutation or haphazard chance. The DNA system itself being the prime example.. what is the impetus for that system to even begin? There is no real chance happening of going from zero organization of pure chemistry to even a rudimentary RNA structure.. I'm amazed at the zeal of diehard scientists who think that someday science will discover the step that takes us from chemistry to biology!

I don't want to believe anything has 'intended' this sort of dog-eat-dog reality. It is brutal and violent, ever changing and unwelcoming. If god made this according to his will, that god is a God of Terror and does not deserve worship. A god that would create this immensity of suffering is evil and should be actively resisted.

So you've kind of answered my original question of why you don't want there to be a god.. which is your own personal dissatisfaction with the way this drama is organized. I would posit that this bias comes before your logical reasoning on whether there is a creative force or not. You're also supposing properties of a creative force (human reasoning, seeing the suffering and agreeing with it) before even knowing of its existence directly.. it could be more of akin to an impulse as opposed to something that has human qualities of cognition.

 

[Mizora]

Lets face it...none of us know what the fucks going on. We cannot obtain an understanding of all from within...we all know this.

Its funny...all there is left to do, should you accept this, is enjoy yourself. Live in the moment of NOW, there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only...you guessed it TODAY! NOW!

Like all of us, id love to know what is going on, I am firm believer our universe has been born from a black hole from another universe and so on and so on....everything points to this IMO but still.....where does it actually start, where does it begin?? This 'theory' solves little when wanting to ...KNOW....but maybe that is it...you'll never know. Maybe thats the whole point. You never know. You just HAVE to live in the NOW.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

The DNA system itself being the prime example.. what is the impetus for that system to even begin? There is no real chance happening of going from zero organization of pure chemistry to even a rudimentary RNA structure.. I'm amazed at the zeal of diehard scientists who think that someday science will discover the step that takes us from chemistry to biology!

have you ever bothered to even research that question or just assumed that science had not looked into it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

 

[LucidSDreamr]

have you ever bothered to even research that question or just assumed that science had not looked into it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

you can easily push arrows and draw a chemical mechanism consistent with organic chemical theory showing the formation of the purine and pyrimidine bases from simple chemicals present in space such as cyanide and formaldehyde


another experiment on polypeptide (protein formation)

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-comet-impacts-life-earthand.html


plenty of solid evidence out there that molecules responsible for life can form without a maker

 

[LucidSDreamr]

The idea that everything sprang from nothing for no reason makes the least sense of all

you missed the entire point of why i started this thread. nothing had to spring from nothing because there is no time and a begining is impossible let alone needed, and the perception of time is just a result of 3 dimensional space

it makes no sense to us at all because our brains don't really like to think outside of temporal terms, infact they can't....doesn't mean that is the true nature of reality just because its how our animal brains work

 

[drug_mentor]

=
Time in absolute sense is non-existent. It is just an experiential reality that is assumed by an experiencer. If there is no experiencer, there is nothing like time. The brain tends to link up two points of actions (motions or processes) with its memory function. This associative experience is called time. The universe is perpetuity of motions or processes, chemical or otherwise.

Surely you would agree that motions and processes are events, and that if there are two events which don't occur simultaneously then it can meaningfully be said that one event occurred before the other. Moreover, there can be three events, one occurring (first) at t1, the second occurring at t2 and the last occurring at t3. We can meaningfully say that the distance between t1 and t2 is smaller or greater than the distance between t2 and t3, and it is necessary that the distance between either t1 and t2 or t2 and t3 is smaller than the distance between t1 and t3. I think we can make sense of time by saying that it is a relation between events which corresponds to a certain kind of way which the events are ordered, and so long as we don't suppose that all events occur simultaneously then I fail to see how time depends on "an experiencer", as you put it.

you missed the entire point of why i started this thread. nothing had to spring from nothing because there is no time and a begining is impossible let alone needed, and the perception of time is just a result of 3 dimensional space

Why do you think the perception of time is a result of three dimensional space?

it makes no sense to us at all because our brains don't really like to think outside of temporal terms, infact they can't....doesn't mean that is the true nature of reality just because its how our animal brains work

Have you been influenced by Kant?

 

[LucidSDreamr]

I don't claim to fully understand this type of theory because I'm not an expert in physics, but why is it that time "slows down" for the experiencer in a heavy gravitational field or when the observer is moving through a large amount of space during the event? Then extrapolate that space out to size infinity and have the "observer" be a "point" that covers size infinity, (or a very large size, lets say the size of the universe). Then what happens to time?

what happens to time when 3d space is the size of an electron or smaller, like at the big bang. trying to imagine this is as "crazy" as imagining that the universe has an edge or endpoint. its either that case or its infinite in some way. both are equally impossible to imagine for us

thats what causes the question for me of that the absolutist view of time that you illustrated is only a result of normal 3D space. since it starts to break down a bit according to physics


have i been influence by Kant? I Kant say.



I didn't write that opening quote I just posted it