What will we replace religion with?

[(Q)]

What about the ''origin of everything''?
Are there ''naturalistic'' and 'plausible' explanations?

There is no reason why there shouldn't be naturalistic and plausible explanations considering everything else we know is based on the very same thing. Why invoke gods when none are required?

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Something" can indeed come from nothing, so long as its total mass and energy = 0. Otherwise we violate the law of conservation of mass and energy. The universe has net mass and energy = 0 (exactly the same quantity of matter and antimatter, etc.), so it did not violate any natural laws by springing into existence.

What it boils down to is the emergence of organization where there was none a moment earlier, and this is specifically allowed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It says that entropy tends to increase over time (meaning that organization decreases), but spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are possible. Not only are they possible, but there is no limit on the magnitude of the reversal.

An entire universe suddenly popping into existence (i.e., the Big Bang) is nothing more or less than a local reversal of entropy. In the billions of years since our universe appeared, it has been getting colder and slowing down--in other words, its organization is decreasing.

From what I've read, apparently it's unlikely that it will actually collapse back on itself, with all the matter and antimatter canceling each other out, and revert to the "nothing" that existed before the Big Bang. But it will continue to become colder and slower, increasing entropy in abidance with the Second Law.

And there's no reason to assume that other universes have/are/will not pop into existence. The Second Law places no limit on the number of times a temporary reversal of entropy can occur.

I don't comprehend how something can come from nothing, the way you've explained it. Can you explain in it is very simple terms?

''Nothing'' means ''no-thing. Right?
No-thing means no space, no time. I can't imagine that situation, but that's what it means.
How can something just pop into existence when there is no space, no time, no energy?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If it can't demonstrated, then there is no way you could possibly know anything about it let alone agree with it, you live in the natural world like the rest of us.



But, that's exactly what your view is, that God created something from nothing (chortle! chortle!)

I'm not claiming to KNOW anything, it's just obvious that something cannot bring itself into existence, so whatever brought material nature into existence is by definition ''supernatural''.

Show where I stated that God brings something into existence, from nothing?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you explain why ''there is NO REASON why nature couldn't bring herself into existence from complete nothingness, because from where I'm sitting I can thing of at least one good reason.

Who said I'm invoking gods?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

What about the ''origin of everything''?
Are there ''naturalistic'' and 'plausible' explanations?

jan.

We can't observe everything, but it's probably just more of the same.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not claiming to KNOW anything, it's just obvious that something cannot bring itself into existence, so whatever brought material nature into existence is by definition ''supernatural''.

Show where I stated that God brings something into existence, from nothing?

jan.

Science shows that what seems obvious to us falls far short of reality.

 

[kx000]

Can you explain why ''there is NO REASON why nature couldn't bring herself into existence from complete nothingness, because from where I'm sitting I can thing of at least one good reason.

Who said I'm invoking gods?

jan.

It wouldn't nothing, as at the very least its my ultimate birth.

 

[scifes]

That is the essence of the religious problem. They have no method to support their claims. They would have to show there is something outside the physical. At this time we have no reason to believe there is anything other than physical. Science remains silent on any claims outside of the physical, it has no evidence. However, we should not assume that something more is necessarily impossible.

science isn't the only way to view the world, a lot of life as we know it exists outside of science, like history for example, politics, and art. all are "outside the physical", you can't measure them with any sensor, or conduct experiments on them, yet they exist and they compose part of the world as we know it.
Religion isn't any different.

to subject the test of god's existence to physical labs is abhorrent to a reasonable, balanced mind. it's akin to trying to measure the beauty of the mona lisa, or your wife's face, scientifically, good luck with that.

 

[spidergoat]

We aren't talking about how we view the world, but what can be shown to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[(Q)]

I'm not claiming to KNOW anything, it's just obvious that something cannot bring itself into existence, so whatever brought material nature into existence is by definition ''supernatural''.

That's an argument from ignorance and isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.

Show where I stated that God brings something into existence, from nothing?

jan.

You didn't have to state it, that's how God did it, he created the universe from nothing, or most likely the universe came into existence entirely on it's own from nothing.

 

[Sorcerer]

science isn't the only way to view the world, a lot of life as we know it exists outside of science, like history for example, politics, and art. all are "outside the physical", you can't measure them with any sensor, or conduct experiments on them, yet they exist and they compose part of the world as we know it.
Religion isn't any different.

to subject the test of god's existence to physical labs is abhorrent to a reasonable, balanced mind. it's akin to trying to measure the beauty of the mona lisa, or your wife's face, scientifically, good luck with that.

It is possible to view the world rationally though, if you'd prefer to use that word instead of scientifically. Politics: well, you can review what's being said and make an informed choice about whether you believe it. Art is subjective for sure, but it can be reviewed critically.

Religion is different because any rational view is not possible. It demands that you believe things which are factually and demonstrably untrue. If you apply the steps you used for politics and art you reject it immediately.

The only reason to disrupt the adoration of the god-worshippers by subjecting the existance of their deity to scientific examination is if they were attempting to influence public policy, or make money, or subjugate women or demonise minorities.... oh, wait....

 

[scifes]

We aren't talking about how we view the world, but what can be shown to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

elaborate, where exactly is the conflict?
you're saying it's ok to have a view of the world which includes things that don't "exist beyond a reasonable doubt"?
i'm confused here.

 

[scifes]

Religion is different because any rational view is not possible.

nuff said. go educate yourself.
and tone down your confidence. that's one hell of a claim you're making. i won't bother calling you out on it.

 

[Balerion]

nuff said. go educate yourself.
and tone down your confidence. that's one hell of a claim you're making. i won't bother calling you out on it.

And what is this post supoosed to accomplish? Besides serving as a cop-out, I mean.

 

[spidergoat]

elaborate, where exactly is the conflict?
you're saying it's ok to have a view of the world which includes things that don't "exist beyond a reasonable doubt"?
i'm confused here.

I'm saying life is more than science. But that isn't an excuse to believe stupid things.

 

[Reuben]

I'm saying life is more than science. But that isn't an excuse to believe stupid things.

You're stupid.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You're stupid.

spidergoat is certainly not stupid.

Be advised that name-calling can get you banned. Otherwise I would have just said welcome.

I'm saying life is more than science. But that isn't an excuse to believe stupid things.

For example, Reuben, treating myth and legend as historical narrative, in the presence of abundant evidence to advise against it, could correctly be labeled 'belief in stupid things'. Hence the observation spidergoat made stems from application of intelligence and insight, which is the opposite of stupidity.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Religion is different because any rational view is not possible.

nuff said. go educate yourself.
and tone down your confidence. that's one hell of a claim you're making. i won't bother calling you out on it. nuff said. go educate yourself.
and tone down your confidence. that's one hell of a claim you're making. i won't bother calling you out on it.

With just a little clarification, the proposition can be made watertight. If, for example, he had said that treating legend and myth as historical narrative precludes any rational conclusions, or something along those lines, you'd be hard pressed to attack it, right, Sci?

Science isn't the only way to view the world, a lot of life as we know it exists outside of science, like history for example, politics, and art. all are "outside the physical", you can't measure them with any sensor, or conduct experiments on them, yet they exist and they compose part of the world as we know it.
Religion isn't any different.

to subject the test of god's existence to physical labs is abhorrent to a reasonable, balanced mind. it's akin to trying to measure the beauty of the mona lisa, or your wife's face, scientifically, good luck with that.

Here the art in question are the relics of antiquity which explain the way ancient people had nothing but superstition to inform them about the world around them. The art of Mona Lisa is less relevant to this discussion than the art which renders the the mother-dragon Tiamat or Ra or any other deity.

We don't subject the test of god to any lab, but we do considerable analysis of the documents which create the gods of antiquity. There is quite a bit of science in that, but it's not the same science you seem to be alluding to. It's anthropology, and it's the science that helps historians reconstruct the past. That's all it takes to acquire all the requisite facts anyone needs to know about their gods.

The next step is even easier. We simply ask whether it is valid to interpret myth, legend and fable as historical narrative. And the answer is a resounding "no". That leaves every description of the gods ever written as an illustration of the practice of fabricating gods. Once it's admitted into evidence that all gods are fabrications, there is nothing left for science to address. At that point the existence of all gods has been disproved.

Case closed, right? At least until someone comes forward with new evidence.

 

[scifes]

I'm saying life is more than science. But that isn't an excuse to believe stupid things.

so,
science isn't good enough to filter out all stupid things, and capture all the smart things. otherwise all of life would be explained by science, which you negated by saying "life is more than science". so how do you identify the "stupid things" then, if not by the scientific method?

 

[scifes]

With just a little clarification, the proposition can be made watertight. If, for example, he had said that treating legend and myth as historical narrative precludes any rational conclusions, or something along those lines, you'd be hard pressed to attack it, right, Sci?

sure is "water-tight".
now project it on reality, what is legend and myth and what is historical narrative?
how will we separate between them? with science?
if not by science, then with what authority do you discern what's right and wrong?

and you still changed the original statement so completely it barley resembles the original in form, but thrusts the same result with no proof. he said religion can never be viewed from a rational view, you're saying viewing irrational things as rational is irrational, i agree, now show me that religion is irrational, show me that god(s) are myths and not history.
i believe i'm versed enough in the history of my god, care to open a thread and we can debate if it's myths or history?
come to think of it, one of the strongest reasons why i believe in my religion is because the history behind it is very implausible to be a big lie, it's just too big and recent and its effects too concrete to be a big lie. :shrug:
open the thread, should be interesting. "was Mohammad a hoax/schizophrenic/conman".

Here the art in question are the relics of antiquity which explain the way ancient people had nothing but superstition to inform them about the world around them. The art of Mona Lisa is less relevant to this discussion than the art which renders the the mother-dragon Tiamat or Ra or any other deity.

We don't subject the test of god to any lab, but we do considerable analysis of the documents which create the gods of antiquity. There is quite a bit of science in that, but it's not the same science you seem to be alluding to. It's anthropology, and it's the science that helps historians reconstruct the past. That's all it takes to acquire all the requisite facts anyone needs to know about their gods.

The next step is even easier. We simply ask whether it is valid to interpret myth, legend and fable as historical narrative. And the answer is a resounding "no".

big resounding no?
you simply asked and that was the answer? who did you ask again?
this is pathetic, you ask the question to your conclusion and you answer it, i'm speechless.

That leaves every description of the gods ever written as an illustration of the practice of fabricating gods.

speaking of water-tight, what a fire hose!
ring around the rosie argument.

Once it's admitted into evidence that all gods are fabrications, there is nothing left for science to address. At that point the existence of all gods has been disproved.

it's amazing and annoying how you structure your sentences so surly and confidently but the meaning is so feeble and gooey.
again let me iterate. who, what, how was it admitted into evidence that all gods are fabrications? are you writing a book here? you just go about making up facts and carry them around with the authority of someone who really presented a logical well structured article of thought.

Case closed, right? At least until someone comes forward with new evidence.

:facepalm:
ayayay, what evidence lead to its closure? for only evidence to reopen it?
what. the. hell. is the case to begin with? that history says gods are made up? whose history? what history are you on? what god history have you ever studied?