Why does atheism even exist ?

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Nilsi you are not making your point clear. your replies are "incomplete"in a sense. 

1) The Big Bang is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, under the materialist paradigm. If there was a more plausible explanation, given the constraints of that range of consciousness, it would have been selected for. It's a step up from dogmatic belief in God, hence the justification for atheism.

2) You habe to be conscious of Being to understand the origin of the universe.

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

1) The Big Bang is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, under the materialist paradigm. If there was a more plausible explanation, given the constraints of that range of consciousness, it would have been selected for. It's a step up from dogmatic belief in God, hence the justification for atheism.

2) You habe to be conscious of Being to understand the origin of the universe.

And I already addressed this point . The Big Bang itself demands explanation.  If you say the explanation for the existence of the universe is the big bang ..then what explains the big bang itself? And whatever that might be demands explanation and so on to infinity. 

Who or what created the big bang?

The Big Bang is a result of the Universe coming into existence. That Theory doesn't describe how the Universe came into existence. It describes the process of inflation (expansion) after the Universe came into being. The Big Bang starts a fraction of a second after Time 0. So the question again ...what caused the big bang ?and really what is the ultimate cause of all of reality? 

[Nilsi]

Just now, Someone here said:

And I already addressed this point . The Big Bang itself demands explanation.  If you say the explanation for the existence of the universe is the big bang ..then what explains the big bang itself? And whatever that might be demands explanation and so on to infinity. 

Who or what created the big bang?

The Big Bang is a result of the Universe coming into existence. That Theory doesn't describe how the Universe came into existence. It describes the process of inflation (expansion) after the Universe came into being. The Big Bang starts a fraction of a second after Time 0. So the question again ...what caused the big bang ?and really what is the ultimate cause of all of reality? 

Again - it can not be explained.

The Big Bang (and everything that has led to this conclusion) is just the best explanation that materialism could come up with. IM NOT ARGUING FOR THE BIG BANG!

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

Again - it can not be explained.

Not sure I follow..what exactly that can not be explained? 

2 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

 

The Big Bang (and everything that has led to this conclusion) is just the best explanation that materialism could come up with. IM NOT ARGUING FOR THE BIG BANG!

So it's the best explanation that materialists can come up with ...but you  disagree with it as it doesn't actually explain anything, right ?

[OnePointTwo]

Do you know what entropy is? If not, it's too hard to explain.

[Nilsi]

Just now, Someone here said:

So it's the best explanation that materialists can come up with ...but you  disagree with it as it doesn't actually explain anything, right ?

Yes. I know I'm repeating myself here, and I risk sounding neo-advaitan, but you really just can not explain the origin of the universe; it will disclose itself through Being.

[Thomas_VH]

It's actually a common misconception amongst laymen that the Big Bang model supposedly explains the origin of Existence. Cosmologists don't claim it caused the origin of Existence but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from a pre-existing state. Science has no clue about the "origin of Existence" because of the cultural blind spots and scientific dogma.

Stage orange worldviews like atheism are only possible if you are deeply entrenched into rational and cultural dogma. Any serious person who spends a few hours contemplating Existence would come to the conclusion that atheism is one of the most ignorant worldviews out there. Even logically and statistically it doesn't make sense. The irony.

Atheists don't believe in any sort of miracle except for Existence itself apparently, because the odds of Existence existing are stupidly low from a logical perspective.

Also, these rational/atheist types are some of the most ignorant, closed-minded and arrogant people I've ever met. This arrogance is just part of stage orange I guess.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Thomas_VH

[Someone here]

17 minutes ago, OnePointTwo said:

Do you know what entropy is? If not, it's too hard to explain.

I know what entropy is . Its the principle that in any closed system..the particles trend to move to the most chaotic state .

How is that connected to my question? 

[OnePointTwo]

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

So it's the best explanation that materialists can come up with ...but you  disagree with it as it doesn't actually explain anything, right ?

I won't forget the look on my Grandfather's face when I said I didn't believe in the big bang. He looked like he wanted to hit me, but my father was standing there. Even when I explained that I didn't believe it because I didn't know enough, he kept shouting at me about Einstein and science and telling me I'm foolish. This is the guy who's first name is my last name. Suffice to say it hurt me deeply.

Well, now I've done my research, thought deeply through it, and yes, I think the big bang is the origin of the universe and perfectly consistent with nonduality. I can explain why but it will take energy on my part.

Quote

I know what entropy is . Its the principle that in any closed system..the particles trend to move to the most chaotic state .

Cool, I'll give my explanation then. One second.

Edited September 4, 2022 by OnePointTwo

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Yes. I know I'm repeating myself here, and I risk sounding neo-advaitan, but you really just can not explain the origin of the universe; it will disclose itself through Being.

I say it cannot be explained because the Universe is infinite .so it had no beginning point. And of course no ending point. 

 

15 minutes ago, Thomas_VH said:

It's actually a common misconception amongst laymen that the Big Bang model supposedly explains the origin of Existence. Cosmologists don't claim it caused the origin of Existence but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from a pre-existing state. Science has no clue about the "origin of Existence" because of the cultural blind spots and scientific dogma.

Stage orange worldviews like atheism are only possible if you are deeply entrenched into rational and cultural dogma. Any serious person who spends a few hours contemplating Existence would come to the conclusion that atheism is one of the most ignorant worldviews out there. Even logically and statistically it doesn't make sense. The irony.

Atheists don't believe in any sort of miracle except for Existence itself apparently, because the odds of Existence existing are stupidly low from a logical perspective.

Also, these rational/atheist types are some of the most ignorant, closed-minded and arrogant people I've ever met. This arrogance is just part of stage orange I guess.

Agreed. 

They struggle with what is purely imaginary physics to claim the birth of the Universe via the physically impossible occurrence of the Big Bang.

The Universe did not..could not .. come from anywhere or anything. It is reality. It has always existed as it is and cannot be altered in any way whatever. So, no-one can explain its origin because it doesn’t have one.

 

[OnePointTwo]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

I know what entropy is . Its the principle that in any closed system..the particles trend to move to the most chaotic state .

How is that connected to my question? 

First, realise that the "whole" is something that exists and is not predicated on anything else. In science, the whole is the entirety of the universe or multiverse. In Christianity, the whole is the Earth and Heavens. In Nondualism, the whole is you! God, consciousness, or reality. You could call the whole 'one' and everything outside the whole 'zero'. In maths, the whole can be divided into parts called 'two', but this isn't a given in nondualism, since God is inseparable.

Second, consider quantifying the energy, mass, spirit or flux of the whole. It is infinity. But, it is in a state that changes over time. How does it change? Everything suggests that entropy increases. In other words things are expanding, order is decreasing, the universe is cooling, things are becoming more stable. Eventually, all energy will be evenly distributed. An infinite space will be filled with an energy level of 1/infinity. Nothing can possibly happen because there is no usable energy. This is the end of the universe, and there is no point recording time after this point, because without change, there is no time. Time wouldn't abruptly stop, but the lack of movement would make time slow down until eventually the smallest change takes an infinte amount of time.

Third, consider the opposite of infinite space with an energy level of 1/infinity. It's a 1/infinite wide point of space with an energy level of infinity. The Big Bang. Just like the end of the universe is very slow, the beginning of the universe is very fast. Things change quickly. That explains why there is nothing before the big bang, because time is infinitely fast at that point. In other words, as you approach the beginning of the universe, change happens in an infinitesimal amount of time. Therefore you can't go 1 second before the big bang.

That's not even the most interesting part. Consider what the laws of physics are. They are a set of rules that take a universe from an infinite point to infintely dispersed field of 1/infinte energy. They could be 10th dimensional. Most scientists believe our universe has these properties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physical_constants. If any of these constants were different, you would not exist as you do now. You should believe that your consciousness created these, because you'll find they are pretty fundamental if you go digging. If you can disprove one of these values, enjoy the Nobel prize.

This explanation of the universe is consistent with nonduality. It means the "whole" exists for infinite time, it does not have a beginning or end. Also, I'd like to state for the 10th time that I don't believe science can explain truth. The physics of a cup does not tell you anything about its design, usage, history or value. Physics is just the rules of a game with unknowable depth.

Edited September 4, 2022 by OnePointTwo

[r0ckyreed]

You are imagining a Big Bang in an external physical universe (whatever the hell that is lol).  

God is eternal, here and now.  If you try to locate the "origin" of God, you are left with an infinite regress not a first cause.  God is infinity.

Cause and effect is a dream within the mind of God in the same way that the notion of a past is but a dream within your own mind.

Reality is so infinite and so ONE that it cannot have a cause.  

All causation models assume duality to be true.

God imagines atheism as one of many possible dreams. God has to include the possibility of rejecting itself in order to dream.

Think about it.

Edited September 4, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[OnePointTwo]

2 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

You are imagining a Big Bang.

Yes

 

3 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

God is eternal, here and now.  If you try to locate the "origin" of God, you are left with an infinite regress not a first cause.  God is infinity.

But there is clearly change, or at least the illusion of change. When I drop a rock in a pool of water, there is a splash, ripples and then eventually, everything is calm. I could give 1000 other examples. They all start with an impulse and end with stillness.

[r0ckyreed]

23 minutes ago, OnePointTwo said:

But there is clearly change, or at least the illusion of change.

You got the last part right.

Your mind is constructing the notion of "change" as well as "past" and "future."

Change is a dream within the Now.

23 minutes ago, OnePointTwo said:

When I drop a rock in a pool of water, there is a splash, ripples and then eventually, everything is calm. I could give 1000 other examples. They all start with an impulse and end with stillness.

Notice that the mind is constructing that story and many countless stories in order to construct "reality."

The illusions of change and time go together.

Without the construction of time (a past and future), change ceases to exist.

It goes so deep that you imagine change.  You imagine turning on the computer, going to website, and writing about throwing a stone in the water.

The notion of change is but a deeper illusion of time.  

It is easier to deconstruct time in your "internal world."  It is a much harder feat to deconstruct time in what you may call the "external world."  

Time in the "external world" is what you call change.  Time in the "internal world" is what you call past and future, memories and imagination.

It is difficult to deconstruct change or time in external world in part because we deem the "external world" to be more "real" than the internal world, but that is just another dream.  There is no internal/external world nor a hierarchy of more or less real.  So it goes full-circle.  There is only world, consciousness, dream.

Edited September 4, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[OnePointTwo]

6 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

The illusions of change and time go together.

Without the construction of time (a past and future), change ceases to exist.

That's interesting, I'll think about it over the next few days. I did mention that my explanation relies on thermodynamics, so change is necessary. This thread is titled "why does atheism even exist", implying that the big bang is less rational than a 'creator'. The creation myth also involves change, so if we deconstruct time, this thread becomes pretty incoherent.

[Someone here]

@OnePointTwo @r0ckyreed i will try to simplify the issue for you...

 We exist and we are contingent beings. We are part of a series of contingent beings. Then we come to the first being. Is that being contingent or necessary? If someone or something created the first being, then it is not the first being. By simple analysis, the first being must be a necessary and non-contingent being. And in order to have an answer to the infinite regress question, there has to be a bottom line, “the buck stops here” answer . that God exists necessarily and was never created.

[EternalForest]

Scientifically minded people need positive proof for whatever they believe.

There is no positive proof for God that they can perceive, thus: they are atheist.

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, EternalForest said:

Scientifically minded people need positive proof for whatever they believe.

There is no positive proof for God that they can perceive, thus: they are atheist.

 

I most theists insist that belief in God must be based on faith, defined as “ belief not requiring evidence”.

This is the direct opposite of science, which insists on evidence to test hypotheses.

But there are scientific proof of God ::

The Big Bang, the formation of stars, galaxies and planets, the origins of life, the evolution of species ..including humans. This whole miracle that we call existence..isn't enough proof of God?

In fact it is God appearing as existence. 

[Adamq8]

God is infinitely actual, Being as such, fullness of Being, we exists as particular beings with potentiality and actuality, but God as the fullness of Being has no potentiality, in all the great theistic traditions they speak of God as the source and origin and end of all reality.

God's essence and existence coincides which makes Him infinitely Actual without limitations, He is simplicity itself so to speak.

He is an infinite act of understanding, in him Being and Knowledge is ONE.

INFINITE BEING and Infinite Conciousness are one in God, thats why we have intelligibility at all.

Pure infinite Mind so to speak.

Atheism is irrational, and they need many miracles like existence and conciousness  and intelligibility and miracles they do deny..

 

[Adamq8]

@Someone here I want to dearly recommend an extremely impressive author in these topics, David Bentley Hart, he is one of the best philosophers alive today IMO.

His book, the experience of God is amazing!