NextWorld
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
397
Posted : Apr 21, 2011 21:39:09
A concept that can work? I've been trying to make my mind up about the existence of a God lately and came to two conclusions:
1. The existence of God is highly improbable. The inclusion of a God of any kind doesn't answer anything. A Universe without a god is at least as beautiful as a Universe which was created by some God. For me its even more beautiful, because its simpler and doesn't need a hypothesis which can't neither be rejected nor proven.
2. The Universe eventually had to come into existence from nothing. That, what a human being normally considers as "nothing" can best be described as "the absence of everything". I came to the conclusion that this is also part of the self centred human point of view. Defining "nothing" as "infinite possibilities" makes far more sense to me right now. Its simple but has the potential of eternal creation, it doesn't lead to the endless recursion that every god eventually leads to and its beautiful.
My world view right now, it may be subject to minor or major change in the future
anyone with me there?
psyraal
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
77
Posts :
768
Posted : Apr 21, 2011 21:58
I don't believe in the existence of a god, simple.
Thousands and thousands of years and no sign.. of nothing.
"Spirit"(ualism) requires no belief or concept of gOd necessarily. It usually refers to a body of phenomena, and philosophy normally "embodying" a concept such as the soul (i.e. Ka in Ancient Egyptian), that is to say some "component" that inhabits matters and animates it, or exists co-equivalently in some parallel dimension, whose host is the mind/body.
Personally I prefer mysticism, which doesn't even conceive such "precepts", but merely extols the individual to intiation, and one's own experience.
Personally I suspect that if there is a gOd, it is all of us, collectively, though each of us can express it individually. But like mysticism I feel the important thing is for each of us to find out for ourselves, and hopefully develop a tolerance and love for each other's way and experience.
www.youtube.com/trancevisuals
2,000,000+ views and counting.
Pauldo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
155
Posted : Apr 24, 2011 06:35
Quote:
On 2011-04-21 21:39:09, NextWorld wrote:
A concept that can work? I've been trying to make my mind up about the existence of a God lately and came to two conclusions:
1. The existence of God is highly improbable. The inclusion of a God of any kind doesn't answer anything. A Universe without a god is at least as beautiful as a Universe which was created by some God. For me its even more beautiful, because its simpler and doesn't need a hypothesis which can't neither be rejected nor proven.
2. The Universe eventually had to come into existence from nothing. That, what a human being normally considers as "nothing" can best be described as "the absence of everything". I came to the conclusion that this is also part of the self centred human point of view. Defining "nothing" as "infinite possibilities" makes far more sense to me right now. Its simple but has the potential of eternal creation, it doesn't lead to the endless recursion that every god eventually leads to and its beautiful.
My world view right now, it may be subject to minor or major change in the future
anyone with me there?
I struggled with this same Q awhile back. The answer is NO.
I tried to think of every possible way the two could work together and came to the conclusion that the two are actually counter to each other. Every possible definition of spiritual in this context leads back to the suggestion that there is a non-material aspect to the universe(s). Atheism OTOH would suggest ONLY a material physical nature to the uni.
I like your thoughts on "infinite". The idea of an infinite nature to the universe(s) has been my new favorite pondering. Not much work has been done on this theory but it has been suggested that our universe is actually on the inside of a black hole that formed in our parent universe. ...and that every blackhole that has formed in our uni has a uni inside it and so...sorta like a fractal.
The big bang event that started our uni... was actually the same event of a black hole forming in our parent uni. So our uni didn't come from nothing. It came from our parent and whatever properties or materials that the black hole interjected into the creation of our uni. Our parent came from it's parent and so on and so on to infinity and BEYOND! ...sorta like a fractal.
What I like so much about this is that an infinite nature to the universe(s) has no need for an original creator. The universe(s) has just always been and always will be. Therefore there is no need for god in describing our natural world. Not like he was any good at it anyway.
NextWorld
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
397
Posted : Apr 24, 2011 11:11
[quote]
On 2011-04-24 06:35, Pauldo wrote:
Quote:
I struggled with this same Q awhile back. The answer is NO.
I tried to think of every possible way the two could work together and came to the conclusion that the two are actually counter to each other. Every possible definition of spiritual in this context leads back to the suggestion that there is a non-material aspect to the universe(s).
I don't see where the existence of a world beyond the physical/material needs the concept of god.
Quote:
Atheism OTOH would suggest ONLY a material physical nature to the uni.
Does it really?
Atheism doesn't say much about the nature of the universe for me, except that it rejects the existence of a god of any kind. No deliberate creation started by an intelligent entity and no Judo-Christian all mighty, infinitely benevolent god that watches all our steps. Therefore as an atheist there are two possibilities for me:
1) The Universe (everything...) is infinitely old. The view that makes most sense to me. If it weren't infinitely old, there had to be something before it came into existence. Calling this something "nothing" clashes with my understanding of "nothing", calling it something else grants it an existence. Case closed
2) There was the one effect without a cause.
An ugly concept, because that's where the theists hide, when they run out of arguments. If i had to believe in a god, it surely shouldn't b a "god of the gaps"
About the existence of a world beyond the material, i can be sure that one exists. It best described here
with all it's problems. But God as a solution to those problems doesn't feel right for me.
I consider this "spiritual" aspect of the world as an extremely complex excitation of the material aspect. Now one could argue that by defining it as an excitation of the material world, it has no existence of it own. I see the point. But by denying the existence through that argument is wrong. Its like saying biology and all its complex structures are also only excitations of fundamental physical principles and therefore do not exist. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
But other, more educated people see it the other way around:
I wasn't convinced, but she gave me more food for thought...
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Apr 25, 2011 00:08
