Hare Krishna

[Nine]

We are created for His enjoyment, and if we participate in that eternal enjoyment with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we can become happy.

Sounds fucked up.

[Tiberius]

So yet another celestial dictator? Sorry, not interested.

[downbeatplumb]

Nope. Perhaps that is the case for you. Me? Not at all. Santa is far more important.

Yay Santa.

[Whateverist]

Life happens and it ends... ok, yeah, but why? And what if I don't feel like getting old, getting sick, and dying?

Well you could always adopt a belief system that allows you to have it your way. But what is true and what you would like to believe to be true are only rarely the same thing.

Taking the premise that life is the evolution of chance combinations of chemicals, why would death be a given?

Better to ask, if life is the evolution of chance combinations of chemicals, why would there be an answer to the why question? "Why?" is a logical question only if life is the creation of a magical being. We might then seek to know her motivation or intentions. But if life is the product of chance combinations, then the answer could only be "cuz that's the way it happened". Of course, mortality is a by product of sex. Simple, asexual creatures are immortal clones .. except for the ones that get eaten by the others.

Your second paragraph makes very little sense to me. The point is: Is there consciousness and intelligence at the core of reality, or isn't there? We're not talking about magical beings. We're talking about the foundation of existence. Is it just physics and chemistry? If so, how do you get life out of physics and chemistry?

OR is life at the foundation of reality itself?

I would say it is physics all the way down. Consciousness and intelligence are attributes of beings who initially came about through abiogenesis. Turns out these attributes are highly desirable for survival. We're very fortunate to be creatures with a shitload of each.

You certainly can, using these very attributes, pose the question 'what if all physics and life are but an idea in a cosmic consciousness?' It might make a good idea for a Twilight Zone episode, and probably has been. It is sort of like the story of the person who dreamed he was a butterfly and then wondered if he might really be a butterfly dreaming he was a person who only dreams he is a butterfly. All these hypotheticals and inversions are available to us -I would say- by way of the rich accretion of cognitive abilities selected for through evolution over the eons. But you of course are free to imagine that I am but a dream of a magical being. Totally your call where your reality is concerned.

[Simon Moon]

Great comment. In the case of having dumb energy that just is, how do you get consciousness? Like how does dumb matter and energy become human consciousness?

Here's the problem. You are positing this -

? -> god -> magic god process -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

The evidence points to -

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

These 2 statements do not have equal merit.

We are fine with that initial unknown. You are just piling on more layers of unknowns where none are needed, and for which no evidence exists.

You have to explain how your god came to exist. What process he used to create the universe? Why a perfect being would even need to create anything in the first place? And plenty more.

What you are positing has no explanatory power. Your "God did it" does not explain a thing. In fact, it just sweeps the entire question under the rug.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Great comment. In the case of having dumb energy that just is, how do you get consciousness? Like how does dumb matter and energy become human consciousness?

Here's the problem. You are positing this -

? -> god -> magic god process -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

The evidence points to -

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

These 2 statements do not have equal merit.

We are fine with that initial unknown. You are just piling on more layers of unknowns where none are needed, and for which no evidence exists.

You have to explain how your god came to exist. What process he used to create the universe? Why a perfect being would even need to create anything in the first place? And plenty more.

What you are positing has no explanatory power. Your "God did it" does not explain a thing. In fact, it just sweeps the entire question under the rug.

This was a great comment too! You what I love about it? The question marks at the beginning of both timelines - both atheist and theist timelines! Those are so great because they indicate that there are huge huge things about reality that we just can't figure out or perceive on our own. I guess whatever it is that set up the universe just didn't give us the power to fully figure everything out.

I think it's really awesome that you're fine with those question marks. You're so fine with your question marks, in fact, that you have the amazing confidence to say "I don't know squat about major shit in the universe, but I'm still ready to tell you what a dope you are for also having question marks in your timeline."

I'd like to make a slight adjustment to your timeline, though...

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe -> ? -> life

Did you notice the other question mark in there? I'm guessing you're probably cool with that one too, and that's great for you. But lets be real: you being cool with that is based on a leap of faith. There's no reason to be cool with that. You just have to believe.

[Whateverist]

Here's the problem. You are positing this -

? -> god -> magic god process -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

The evidence points to -

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

These 2 statements do not have equal merit.

We are fine with that initial unknown. You are just piling on more layers of unknowns where none are needed, and for which no evidence exists.

Nice.

[Nine]

I'd like to make a slight adjustment to your timeline, though...

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe -> ? -> life

Nope. We have a pretty good understanding of your ? tis called chemistry.

But lets be real: you being cool with that is based on a leap of faith. There's no reason to be cool with that. You just have to believe.

Accepting that which we have evidence for and disregarding the things that have no evidence is not a leap of faith. We don't have to believe anything. We just accept the things that have been shown to be accurate.

Adding some kind of god to the mix has no evidence. Yes there are things we don't know but you don't jump in and fill the blanks with magic we instead learn and find out what we don't already know.

[Reforged]

Here's the problem. You are positing this -

? -> god -> magic god process -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

The evidence points to -

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe

These 2 statements do not have equal merit.

We are fine with that initial unknown. You are just piling on more layers of unknowns where none are needed, and for which no evidence exists.

You have to explain how your god came to exist. What process he used to create the universe? Why a perfect being would even need to create anything in the first place? And plenty more.

What you are positing has no explanatory power. Your "God did it" does not explain a thing. In fact, it just sweeps the entire question under the rug.

This was a great comment too! You what I love about it? The question marks at the beginning of both timelines - both atheist and theist timelines! Those are so great because they indicate that there are huge huge things about reality that we just can't figure out or perceive on our own. I guess whatever it is that set up the universe just didn't give us the power to fully figure everything out.

I think it's really awesome that you're fine with those question marks. You're so fine with your question marks, in fact, that you have the amazing confidence to say "I don't know squat about major shit in the universe, but I'm still ready to tell you what a dope you are for also having question marks in your timeline."

I'd like to make a slight adjustment to your timeline, though...

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe -> ? -> life

Did you notice the other question mark in there? I'm guessing you're probably cool with that one too, and that's great for you. But lets be real: you being cool with that is based on a leap of faith. There's no reason to be cool with that. You just have to believe.

Yes, because God is a question mark, so is heaven and so is the supernatural. Thats not idiotic at all. Well done.
Oh and admitting you don't know everything and only claiming what you do know based on evidence requires faith now does it?
Think you'll find the big bang and the singularity are simply the most backed scientific theories, maybe you should look up the definition of theory.
I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean the inexorable part of a belief system.
You've already disappointed me and lowered my opinion of you intellectually.
I think thats a new record. I saw "hare krishna" and thought;
"Hm, well I've never met someone of that religion... maybe they will be intelligent, philosophical and insightful."
All evidence to the contrary so far.

You stating Atheism is the belief that we all come from nothing was one of my personal favourites. Did you actually do one bit of research into what Atheism actually is before you joined an Atheist forum?
No, of course you didn't. People like you never do.
You just automatically think you know better.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I'd like to make a slight adjustment to your timeline, though...

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe -> ? -> life

Nope. We have a pretty good understanding of your ? tis called chemistry.

But lets be real: you being cool with that is based on a leap of faith. There's no reason to be cool with that. You just have to believe.

Accepting that which we have evidence for and disregarding the things that have no evidence is not a leap of faith. We don't have to believe anything. We just accept the things that have been shown to be accurate.

Adding some kind of god to the mix has no evidence. Yes there are things we don't know but you don't jump in and fill the blanks with magic we instead learn and find out what we don't already know.

Someone else on this forum today told me that maybe in a million years scientists could create life from chemicals. No scientist can create any living thing from raw chemicals. They've tried. Nor can scientists can bring any dead organism back to life.

I watched Richard Dawkins say we don't know how life started. Watch him, maybe 10-15 minutes in:

http://youtu.be/YUe0_4rdj0U

In my opinion, without evidence that life can be reduced to chemistry, you can't say the foundation of reality is only to be understood by physics and chemistry. Life comes from life - that's what I think makes sense.

I'm fine with the fact that you have no evidence for God. Just be real: you don't have evidence for lots and lots (and lots and lots) of things that you believe.